The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About005_DrainageReport SIMKINS NORTH PARK TRACT 3B STORMWATER DESIGN REPORT Project No. 21363.01 Simkins-Hallin Inc. P.O Box 938 Bozeman, MT 59771 May 2024 SIMKINS NORTH PARK TRACT 3B FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT BOZEMAN, MONTANA CERTIFICATION I hereby state that this Final Drainage Report has been prepared by me or under my supervision and meets the standard of care and expertise which is usual and customary in this community of professional engineers. The analysis has been prepared utilizing procedures and practices specified by the City of Bozeman and within the standard accepted practices. 05/22/2024 Robert Egeberg, P.E. Date May 2024 Project No. 21363.01 DRAINAGE REPORT SIMKINS NORTH PARK TRACT 3B BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715 SITE NARRATIVE The purpose of this drainage report is to present a summary of calculations to quantify the stormwater runoff for the Simkins North Park Tract 3B project. All design criteria and calculations are in accordance with The City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy, dated March 2004. The site stormwater improvements have been designed with the intent to meet the current drainage regulations for the City of Bozeman. LOCATION The project will be located on Tract 3B C.O.S. 2153A. The legal description for the lot is: S36, T01 S, R05 E, C.O.S. 2153A, Parcel Tract 3-B, Acres 8.39. The development site is located on the south and west side of Wheat Drive and east of Mandeville Creek in Bozeman, Montana. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The project site is currently an undeveloped lot with public infrastructure located to the north and east. Wheat Drive borders the site to the north and east. Mandeville Creek borders the site to the west. In general, the site grades to the north and west. The seasonal high groundwater is roughly at an average elevation of 7.1’ from existing grade. Reference Appendix H for groundwater monitoring data. PROPOSED PROJECT The project will include construction of a Millwork and Mechanic Building, service connections to existing water and sewer infrastructure near the proposed development, new parking areas, and new landscaping. A series of underground chamber systems as well as a surface retention pond are proposed for infiltration/treatment of stormwater runoff. Calculations for each sub-basin are included in this report. P:21363_01_Simkins_Tract_3B_Drainage_Report 2 (05/14/24) CS/rpe I. Hydrology The modified rational method was used to determine peak runoff rates and volumes since all sub-basins are less than five (5) acres. The rational formula provided in The City of Bozeman Standard Specifications and Policy was used to calculate the peak runoff rates on site, time of concentration, rainfall intensities, etc. To be conservative, we treated most watersheds as if they were predominately impervious cover, therefore we assumed a time of concentration of 5-minutes. For impervious surfaces, a runoff coefficient of 0.95 was assumed, and for pervious surfaces, a runoff coefficient of 0.15 was assumed. We are proposing underground and above ground ponds/chamber retention systems to store and infiltrate the on-site drainage. The required retention volumes were sized for the 10-year, 2-hour storm with an intensity of 0.41 in/hr. Infiltration rates were not considered in the sizing of the retention ponds/chamber systems. A. Pre-Development Basins For the following sections, please refer to Appendix A - Exhibit A of this report, which graphically shows and labels the existing watersheds. Sub-Basin A Sub-Basin A includes 150,480 ft2 of pervious area. Runoff generated in Sub-Basin A runs off to the west into Mandeville Creek. Sub-Basin B Sub-Basin B includes 198,834 ft2 of pervious area. Runoff generated in Sub-Basin B runs off-site to the north before eventually discharging into Mandeville Creek. Sub-Basin C Sub-Basin C includes 11,100 ft2 of impervious area and 5,304 ft2 of pervious area. Runoff generated in Sub-Basin C runs off to an existing detention pond on the north side of Wheat Drive. B. Post-Development Basins For the following sections, please refer to Appendix B - Exhibit B of this report, which graphically shows and labels the onsite watersheds as well as the proposed drainage and conveyance facilities. No percolation rates have been included in the required retention storage volume calculations to be conservative. Storage volume calculations used the 10-year, 2-hour design storm frequency for rainfall data, see Appendix C. Most of the site drains to three (3) underground ADS chamber storage systems and one (1) surface pond which discharge to existing onsite gravels, with some P:21363_01_Simkins_Tract_3B_Drainage_Report 3 (05/14/24) CS/rpe small areas discharging offsite around the perimeter of the site, as they have historically. The pre-development overall site discharge peak flow was 4.71 ft3/s. The post-development overall site peak flow is 18.75 ft3/s, with most of the peak flow discharging to onsite underground ADS chamber storage systems. The post-development off-site discharge does not exceed the pre-development off-site discharge. The post-development overall site discharge peak flow is 2.75 ft3/s. Sub-Basin A Sub-Basin A includes a part of the landscape area on the west side of the project. Sub-Basin A includes 10,772 ft2 of pervious area and 31,376 ft2 of impervious gravel. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin A sheet flows to the west and into a proposed surface storm retention pond that is connected to the onsite gravel layer. Sub-Basin B Sub-Basin B includes the landscape area between the two buildings Sub-Basin B includes 5,481 ft2 of pervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin B is captured by an inlet where it is conveyed into stormwater chamber system 1. Sub-Basin C Sub-Basin C includes the landscape area on the southwest side of the project west of the shared use path. Sub-Basin C includes 7,933 ft2 of pervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin C will runoff into Mandeville Creek as it has historically. Sub-Basin D Sub-Basin D is the roof of the Mechanic Building and has been further divided into two sub-basins D1 and D2. Sub-Basin D includes 0 ft2 of pervious area and 9,600 ft2 of impervious area. Sub-Basin D1 (2,400 ft2) discharges roof drainage above ground and will sheet flow into stormwater chamber system 1. Sub-Basin D2 (7,200 ft2) discharges roof drainage below ground where it is conveyed through a storm pipe network into stormwater chamber system 2. Sub-Basin E Sub-Basin E is the roof of the Millwork Building and has been further divided into three sub-basins E1, E2, and E3. Sub-Basin E includes 0 ft2 of pervious area and 43,607 ft2 of impervious area. Sub-Basin E1 (10,902 ft2) discharges roof drainage above ground and will sheet flow into stormwater chamber system 1. Sub-Basin E2 (10,902 ft2) discharges roof drainage below ground where it is conveyed through a storm pipe network into stormwater chamber system 2. Sub-Basin E3 (21,803 ft2) discharges roof drainage below ground where it is conveyed through a storm pipe network into stormwater chamber system 3. P:21363_01_Simkins_Tract_3B_Drainage_Report 4 (05/14/24) CS/rpe Sub-Basin F Sub-Basin F includes a large part of the proposed shared use path and landscape area on the east side of the path as well as a portion of the asphalt parking lot on the west side of the Millwork Building. Sub-Basin F includes 5,875 ft2 of pervious area and 32,370 ft2 of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin F is captured by a hardscape inlet where it is conveyed through a storm pipe network into stormwater chamber system 3. Sub-Basin G Sub-Basin G includes a large part of the proposed shared use path and landscape area on the east side of the path as well as a portion of the asphalt parking lot on the west side of the Millwork Building. Sub-Basin G includes 7,301 ft2 of pervious area and 33,158 ft2 of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin G is captured by a hardscape inlet where it is conveyed through a storm pipe network into stormwater chamber system 3. Sub-Basin H Sub-Basin H includes a large part of the asphalt parking lot on the east side of the project site as well as a portion of the landscape area surrounding the parking lot. Sub-Basin H includes 8,836 ft2 of pervious area and 28,551 ft2 of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin H is captured by a hardscape inlet where it is conveyed through a storm pipe network into stormwater chamber system 2. Sub-Basin I Sub-Basin I includes part of the asphalt parking lot on the east side of the project as well as landscape areas north of the Mechanic Building. Sub-Basin I includes 635 ft2 of pervious area and 14,569 ft2 of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin I is captured by a hardscape inlet where it is conveyed through a storm pipe network into stormwater chamber system 2. Sub-Basin J Sub-Basin J includes part of the landscape are on the northeast side of the Millwork Building as well as a portion of the sidewalk. Sub-Basin J includes 1,311 ft2 of pervious area and 328 ft2 of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin J is captured by inlets where it is conveyed through a storm pipe network into stormwater chamber system 2. Sub-Basin K Sub-Basin K includes part of the parking lot on the northeast side of the Millwork Building as well as a portion of the landscape areas on the north side of the project site. P:21363_01_Simkins_Tract_3B_Drainage_Report 5 (05/14/24) CS/rpe Sub-Basin K includes 5,576 ft2 of pervious area and 14,499 ft2 of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin K is captured by hardscape inlets where it is conveyed through a storm pipe network into stormwater chamber system 3. Sub-Basin L Sub-Basin L includes the south half of Wheat Drive on the north and east side of the project site as well as a portion of the landscape areas on the north and east side of the project site. Sub-Basin L includes 49,280 ft2 of pervious area and 37,109 ft2 of impervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin L is captured by hardscape inlets where it is conveyed through a storm pipe network into an existing and future storm detention pond on Tract 2B and an existing detention pond between Tracts 2B and 4B. Sub-Basin M Sub-Basin M includes the landscape area on the northwest side of the project west of the shared use path. Sub-Basin M includes 16,670 ft2 of pervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin M will runoff into Mandeville Creek as it has historically. Sub-Basin N Sub-Basin N includes the landscape area on the south side of the Mechanic Building. Sub-Basin N includes 1,482 ft2 of pervious area. Run-off generated in Sub-Basin N will run off site to the south to an adjoining lot. II. Required Retention Storage Volume Calculations Chamber System 1 Sub-Basins B, D1, and E1, consisting of a total area of 18,783 ft2 (0.43 acres) and having a drainage coefficient of 0.72, are routed to chamber system 1. Sub-basins B, D1, and E1, require a total retention volume of 907 ft3. The storm system and gravel base have a total retention volume of 1,159 ft3, making the storm system adequate to meet the storage requirements. See calculations below and Appendix C for additional information. V=7200 x C x I x A Where: C=0.72; i=0.41 in/hr; A= 0.43 acres V=914 ft3 P:21363_01_Simkins_Tract_3B_Drainage_Report 6 (05/14/24) CS/rpe Chamber System 2 Sub-Basins D2, E2, H, I, and J, consisting of a total area of 72,332 ft2 (1.66 acres) and having a drainage coefficient of 0.83, are routed to chamber system 2. Sub-Basins D2, E2, H, I, and J, require a total retention volume of 4,052 ft3. The storm system and gravel base have a total retention volume of 4,080 ft3, making the storm system adequate to meet the storage requirements. See calculations below and Appendix C for additional information. V=7200 x C x I x A Where: C=0.83; i=0.41 in/hr; A= 1.66 acres V=4,067 ft3 Chamber System 3 Sub-Basins E3, F, G, and K, consisting of a total area of 120,581 ft2 (2.77 acres) and having a drainage coefficient of 0.82, are routed to chamber system 1. Sub-Basins E3, F, G, and K, require a total retention volume of 6,693 ft3. The storm system and gravel base have a total retention volume of 6,716 ft3, making the storm system adequate to meet the storage requirements. See calculations below and Appendix C for additional information. V=7200 x C x I x A Where: C=0.82; i=0.41 in/hr; A= 2.77 acres V=6,705 ft3 Surface Stormwater Retention Pond Sub-Basin A consisting of a total area of 42,148 ft2 (0.97 acres) and having a drainage coefficient of 0.56, are routed to the surface stormwater retention pond. Sub-basin A requires a total retention volume of 1,756 ft3 to accommodate the water quality volume. The surface stormwater pond has a total retention volume of 1,768 ft3 at 1.5 ft of pond depth. The pond is 2.5 ft deep so there is 1 ft of freeboard, making the storm system adequate to meet the storage requirements. See calculations below and Appendix C for additional information. V=7200 x C x I x A Where: C=0.56; i=0.41 in/hr; A= 0.97 acres V=1,604 ft3 P:21363_01_Simkins_Tract_3B_Drainage_Report 7 (05/14/24) CS/rpe III. Hydraulics A. Storm Inlets and Storm Drains All storm drainage pipes were sized to handle peak flow resulting from a 25-year storm event with a minimum slope of 0.50%. The Rational Method was used to calculate peak flow. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Hydraulic Toolbox Software Version 5.3.0 software was used to determine pipe sizing for the full flow capacity of the pipes. Inlets were sized to handle the peak flow resulting from a 25-year storm event. Flow intercepted by drainage inlets was determined using Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Hydraulic Toolbox Software Version 5.3.0. All proposed inlets located in sag conditions are sized assuming a 50% clogging factor. For further information on storm drain and inlet capacity calculations, see Appendix D. IV. Water Quality The City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy states the requirement to capture or reuse the runoff generated from the first 0.5 inches of rainfall from a 24-hour storm. We meet this requirement by retaining all runoff onsite in the proposed underground stormwater chamber systems and surface stormwater retention pond. The isolator row, in addition to the sumps in each inlet and manhole prior to the chamber system, provides treatment before water infiltrates into the ground. All the proposed gravel surface drains to the proposed surface stormwater retention pond instead of the proposed underground chamber systems. The surface stormwater retention pond will accumulate sediment and needs to be maintained, per the recommendations in the Operations and Maintenance Manual, see Appendix E. I. Calculations Chamber System 1 Water Quality Volume = 0.5in x (1ft/12in) x 18,782.85ft2 = 782.62 ft3 782.62 ft3 will draw down in 4.72 hours using the percolation rate of 3.36 in/hr from the bottom of the chamber system excavated to native gravels. Chamber System 2 Water Quality Volume = 0.5in x (1ft/12in) x 72,332.17ft2 = 3,013.84 ft3 3,013.84 ft3 will draw down in 2.76 hours using the percolation rate of 3.36 in/hr from the bottom of the chamber system excavated to native gravels. P:21363_01_Simkins_Tract_3B_Drainage_Report 8 (05/14/24) CS/rpe Chamber System 3 Water Quality Volume = 0.5in x (1ft/12in) x 120,581.48 ft2 = 5,024.23 ft3 5,024.23 ft3 will draw down in 2.78 hours using the percolation rate of 3.36 in/hr from the bottom of the chamber system excavated to native gravels. Retention Pond Water Quality Volume = 0.5in x (1ft/12in) x 42,148 ft2 = 1,756.17ft3 1,756.17 ft3 will draw down in 5.12 hours using the percolation rate of 3.36 in/hr from the bottom of the chamber system excavated to native gravels. CONCLUSION All runoff will be captured and retained on site. There are no outlet structures proposed for this project. Storms larger than the design storm will overflow the inlets and primarily flood the parking lot. In a massive flooding event, the parking lot would overtop, and drainage would flow into Mandeville Creek and Wheat Drive and not impact the buildings. APPENDICES Appendix A – Exhibit A – Stormwater Pre-Development Basins Appendix B – Exhibit B – Stormwater Post-Development Basins Appendix C – Hydrology Calculations Appendix D – Hydraulic Calculations Appendix E – O&M Plan Appendix F – Geotechnical Report Appendix G – ADS Chamber Details Appendix H – Groundwater Monitoring Simkins North Park Tract 3B Stormwater Design Report Project No. 21363.01 APPENDIX A Exhibit A - Stormwater Pre-Development Basins EXHIBIT ANORTH050SCALE:1" = 100'10050P:\21363_01_Simkins_North_Park_Site_Plan\STORMWATER\Tract 3B\BASIN EXHIBITS\21363_01_EXISTING_BASIN_EXHIBIT.dwg, 11x17 LANDSCAPE, 1/2/2024 9:31:49 AM, cschreiner, 1:1 APPENDIX B Exhibit B – Stormwater Post-Development Basins Simkins North Park Tract 3B Stormwater Design Report Project No. 21363.01 EXHIBIT BNORTH050SCALE:1" = 100'10050P:\21363_01_Simkins_North_Park_Site_Plan\STORMWATER\Tract 3B\BASIN EXHIBITS\21363_01_POST_BASIN_EXHIBIT.dwg, 11x17 LANDSCAPE, 1/25/2024 12:14:17 PM, cschreiner, 1:1 APPENDIX C Hydrology Calculations Simkins North Park Tract 3B Stormwater Design Report Project No. 21363.01 Project: Simkins Tract 3B Project #: 21363.01 Date: 01/31/2024 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation ValueA A/(43560 ft2 /acre)CCfC x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf ) < or = 1 (Acres) 11098.7526 0.255 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.24 354618.5743 8.141 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 1.221 0.00 0.00 01 0.00 0.00 01 0.00 0.00 0 365717.3269 8.3957 1.4632 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, C wdSCjAjSAjC wd x Cf x SAj =1.46 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type jRainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3 /s) 1 9.16 13.41 5 3.22 4.71 10 2.05 3.00 15 1.58 2.31 20 1.31 1.91 25 1.13 1.65 30 1.00 1.47 35 0.91 1.33 40 0.83 1.22 45 0.77 1.13 50 0.72 1.05 55 0.68 0.99 60 0.64 0.94 75 0.55 0.81 90 0.49 0.72 105 0.44 0.65 120 0.41 0.60 150 0.35 0.52 180 0.31 0.46 360 0.20 0.29 720 0.13 0.19 1440 0.08 0.12 4,296.79 ft3 4.71 (ft3 /s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS (OVERALL ON-SITE DISCHARGE) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.1743C wd x Cf =0.17 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention== C wd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3 ) (ft3 ) (ft3)804.32 0.00 804.32 1412.77 0.00 1412.77 1800.66 0.00 1800.66 2075.21 0.00 2075.21 2295.04 0.00 2295.04 2481.47 0.00 2481.47 2644.98 0.00 2644.98 2791.61 0.00 2791.61 2925.17 0.00 2925.17 3048.28 0.00 3048.28 3162.79 0.00 3162.79 3270.07 0.00 3270.07 3371.19 0.00 3371.19 3645.04 0.00 3645.04 3885.22 0.00 3885.22 4100.59 0.00 4100.59 4296.79 0.00 4296.79 4645.82 0.00 4645.82 4951.95 0.00 4951.95 6311.56 0.00 6311.56 8044.46 0.00 8044.46 10253.15 0.00 10253.15 Project: Simkins Tract 3B Project #: 21363.01 Date: 01/31/2024 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation ValueA A/(43560 ft2 /acre)CCfC x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf ) < or = 1 (Acres)00.000 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.00 150479.5242 3.455 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.521 0.00 0.00 01 0.00 0.00 01 0.00 0.00 0 150479.5242 3.4545 0.5182 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, C wdSCjAjSAjC wd x Cf x SAj =0.52 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type jRainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3 /s) 1 9.16 4.75 5 3.22 1.67 10 2.05 1.06 15 1.58 0.82 20 1.31 0.68 25 1.13 0.59 30 1.00 0.52 35 0.91 0.47 40 0.83 0.43 45 0.77 0.40 50 0.72 0.37 55 0.68 0.35 60 0.64 0.33 75 0.55 0.29 90 0.49 0.25 105 0.44 0.23 120 0.41 0.21 150 0.35 0.18 180 0.31 0.16 360 0.20 0.10 720 0.13 0.07 1440 0.08 0.04 1,521.68 ft3 1.67 (ft3 /s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS (BASIN A) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.1500C wd x Cf =0.15 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention== C wd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3 ) (ft3 ) (ft3)284.85 0.00 284.85 500.32 0.00 500.32 637.69 0.00 637.69 734.92 0.00 734.92 812.78 0.00 812.78 878.80 0.00 878.80 936.70 0.00 936.70 988.63 0.00 988.63 1035.93 0.00 1035.93 1079.53 0.00 1079.53 1120.08 0.00 1120.08 1158.08 0.00 1158.08 1193.89 0.00 1193.89 1290.87 0.00 1290.87 1375.93 0.00 1375.93 1452.20 0.00 1452.20 1521.68 0.00 1521.68 1645.29 0.00 1645.29 1753.70 0.00 1753.70 2235.20 0.00 2235.20 2848.90 0.00 2848.90 3631.09 0.00 3631.09 Project: Simkins Tract 3B Project #: 21363.01 Date: 01/31/2024 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation ValueA A/(43560 ft2 /acre)CCfC x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf ) < or = 1 (Acres)00.000 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.00 198833.9291 4.565 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.681 0.00 0.00 01 0.00 0.00 01 0.00 0.00 0 198833.9291 4.5646 0.6847 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, C wdSCjAjSAjC wd x Cf x SAj =0.68 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type jRainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3 /s) 1 9.16 6.27 5 3.22 2.20 10 2.05 1.40 15 1.58 1.08 20 1.31 0.89 25 1.13 0.77 30 1.00 0.69 35 0.91 0.62 40 0.83 0.57 45 0.77 0.53 50 0.72 0.49 55 0.68 0.46 60 0.64 0.44 75 0.55 0.38 90 0.49 0.34 105 0.44 0.30 120 0.41 0.28 150 0.35 0.24 180 0.31 0.21 360 0.20 0.14 720 0.13 0.09 1440 0.08 0.06 2,010.65 ft3 2.20 (ft3 /s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS (BASIN B) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.1500C wd x Cf =0.15 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention== C wd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3 ) (ft3 ) (ft3)376.38 0.00 376.38 661.09 0.00 661.09 842.60 0.00 842.60 971.08 0.00 971.08 1073.95 0.00 1073.95 1161.19 0.00 1161.19 1237.70 0.00 1237.70 1306.31 0.00 1306.31 1368.81 0.00 1368.81 1426.42 0.00 1426.42 1480.00 0.00 1480.00 1530.21 0.00 1530.21 1577.53 0.00 1577.53 1705.67 0.00 1705.67 1818.06 0.00 1818.06 1918.84 0.00 1918.84 2010.65 0.00 2010.65 2173.98 0.00 2173.98 2317.23 0.00 2317.23 2953.45 0.00 2953.45 3764.35 0.00 3764.35 4797.89 0.00 4797.89 Project: Simkins Tract 3B Project #: 21363.01 Date: 01/31/2024 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation ValueA A/(43560 ft2 /acre)CCfC x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf ) < or = 1 (Acres) 11098.7526 0.255 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.24 5305.121 0.122 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.021 0.00 0.00 01 0.00 0.00 01 0.00 0.00 0 16403.8736 0.3766 0.2603 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, C wdSCjAjSAjC wd x Cf x SAj =0.26 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type jRainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3 /s) 1 9.16 2.38 5 3.22 0.84 10 2.05 0.53 15 1.58 0.41 20 1.31 0.34 25 1.13 0.29 30 1.00 0.26 35 0.91 0.24 40 0.83 0.22 45 0.77 0.20 50 0.72 0.19 55 0.68 0.18 60 0.64 0.17 75 0.55 0.14 90 0.49 0.13 105 0.44 0.12 120 0.41 0.11 150 0.35 0.09 180 0.31 0.08 360 0.20 0.05 720 0.13 0.03 1440 0.08 0.02 764.46 ft3 0.84 (ft3 /s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS (BASIN C) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.6913C wd x Cf =0.69 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention== C wd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3 ) (ft3 ) (ft3)143.10 0.00 143.10 251.35 0.00 251.35 320.36 0.00 320.36 369.21 0.00 369.21 408.32 0.00 408.32 441.49 0.00 441.49 470.58 0.00 470.58 496.66 0.00 496.66 520.43 0.00 520.43 542.33 0.00 542.33 562.70 0.00 562.70 581.79 0.00 581.79 599.78 0.00 599.78 648.50 0.00 648.50 691.23 0.00 691.23 729.55 0.00 729.55 764.46 0.00 764.46 826.55 0.00 826.55 881.02 0.00 881.02 1122.91 0.00 1122.91 1431.22 0.00 1431.22 1824.17 0.00 1824.17 Project: Simkins Tract 3B Project #: 21363.01 Date: 01/31/2024 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation ValueA A/(43560 ft2 /acre)CCfC x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf ) < or = 1 (Acres) 13301.67 0.305 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.29 5481.19 0.126 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.021 0.00 0.00 01 0.00 0.00 01 0.00 0.00 0 18782.85 0.4312 0.3090 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, C wdSCjAjSAjC wd x Cf x SAj =0.31 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type jRainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3 /s) 1 9.16 2.83 5 3.22 0.99 10 2.05 0.63 15 1.58 0.49 20 1.31 0.40 25 1.13 0.35 30 1.00 0.31 35 0.91 0.28 40 0.83 0.26 45 0.77 0.24 50 0.72 0.22 55 0.68 0.21 60 0.64 0.20 75 0.55 0.17 90 0.49 0.15 105 0.44 0.14 120 0.41 0.13 150 0.35 0.11 180 0.31 0.10 360 0.20 0.06 720 0.13 0.04 1440 0.08 0.03 907.32 ft3 0.99 (ft3 /s) 1698.69 0.00 1698.69 2165.08 0.00 2165.08 1045.66 0.00 1045.66 1332.76 0.00 1332.76 907.32 0.00 907.32 981.02 0.00 981.02 820.41 0.00 820.41 865.89 0.00 865.89 711.87 0.00 711.87 769.69 0.00 769.69 667.86 0.00 667.86 690.52 0.00 690.52 617.69 0.00 617.69 643.68 0.00 643.68 558.52 0.00 558.52 589.48 0.00 589.48 484.63 0.00 484.63 523.99 0.00 523.99 380.23 0.00 380.23 438.21 0.00 438.21 169.84 0.00 169.84 298.32 0.00 298.32 = C wd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3 ) (ft3 ) (ft3)= 0.7165C wd x Cf =0.72 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention=Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (STORM CHAMBER SYSTEM 1: B, D1 , E1)Surface Type Project: Simkins Tract 3B Project #: 21363.01 Date: 01/31/2024 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation ValueA A/(43560 ft2 /acre)CCfC x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf ) < or = 1 (Acres) 61550.34 1.413 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 1.34 10781.83 0.248 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.041 0.00 0.00 01 0.00 0.00 01 0.00 0.00 0 72332.16798 1.6605 1.3795 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, C wdSCjAjSAjC wd x Cf x SAj =1.38 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type jRainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3 /s) 1 9.16 12.64 5 3.22 4.44 10 2.05 2.83 15 1.58 2.17 20 1.31 1.80 25 1.13 1.56 30 1.00 1.39 35 0.91 1.25 40 0.83 1.15 45 0.77 1.06 50 0.72 0.99 55 0.68 0.93 60 0.64 0.88 75 0.55 0.76 90 0.49 0.68 105 0.44 0.61 120 0.41 0.56 150 0.35 0.49 180 0.31 0.43 360 0.20 0.28 720 0.13 0.18 1440 0.08 0.11 4,050.96 ft3 4.44 (ft3 /s) 7584.22 0.00 7584.22 9666.55 0.00 9666.55 4668.64 0.00 4668.64 5950.46 0.00 5950.46 4050.96 0.00 4050.96 4380.02 0.00 4380.02 3662.94 0.00 3662.94 3865.99 0.00 3865.99 3178.32 0.00 3178.32 3436.50 0.00 3436.50 2981.84 0.00 2981.84 3082.99 0.00 3082.99 2757.82 0.00 2757.82 2873.88 0.00 2873.88 2493.66 0.00 2493.66 2631.89 0.00 2631.89 2163.74 0.00 2163.74 2339.50 0.00 2339.50 1697.64 0.00 1697.64 1956.48 0.00 1956.48 758.31 0.00 758.31 1331.94 0.00 1331.94 = C wd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3 ) (ft3 ) (ft3)= 0.8308C wd x Cf =0.83 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention=Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (STORM CHAMBER SYSTEM 2: D2 , E2 , H, I, J) Surface Type Project: Simkins Tract 3B Project #: 21363.01 Date: 01/31/2024 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation ValueA A/(43560 ft2 /acre)CCfC x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf ) < or = 1 (Acres) 101483.52 2.330 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 2.21 19097.97 0.438 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.071 0.00 0.00 01 0.00 0.00 01 0.00 0.00 0 120581.484 2.7682 2.2790 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, C wdSCjAjSAjC wd x Cf x SAj =2.28 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type jRainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3 /s) 1 9.16 20.88 5 3.22 7.33 10 2.05 4.67 15 1.58 3.59 20 1.31 2.98 25 1.13 2.58 30 1.00 2.29 35 0.91 2.07 40 0.83 1.90 45 0.77 1.76 50 0.72 1.64 55 0.68 1.54 60 0.64 1.46 75 0.55 1.26 90 0.49 1.12 105 0.44 1.01 120 0.41 0.93 150 0.35 0.80 180 0.31 0.71 360 0.20 0.46 720 0.13 0.29 1440 0.08 0.18 6,692.54 ft3 7.33 (ft3 /s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (STORM CHAMBER SYSTEM 3: E3 , F, G, K) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.8233C wd x Cf =0.82 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention== C wd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3 ) (ft3 ) (ft3)1252.79 0.00 1252.79 2200.48 0.00 2200.48 2804.64 0.00 2804.64 3232.28 0.00 3232.28 3574.69 0.00 3574.69 3865.06 0.00 3865.06 4119.74 0.00 4119.74 4348.12 0.00 4348.12 4556.15 0.00 4556.15 4747.90 0.00 4747.90 4926.25 0.00 4926.25 5093.36 0.00 5093.36 5250.86 0.00 5250.86 5677.39 0.00 5677.39 6051.49 0.00 6051.49 6386.95 0.00 6386.95 6692.54 0.00 6692.54 7236.18 0.00 7236.18 7712.99 0.00 7712.99 9830.67 0.00 9830.67 12529.79 0.00 12529.79 15969.97 0.00 15969.97 Project: Simkins Tract 3B Project #: 21363.01 Date: 01/31/2024 Design Storm Frequency =10 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation ValueA A/(43560 ft2 /acre)CCfC x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf ) < or = 1 (Acres) 31376.03 0.720 0.7 1 0.70 0.70 0.50 10771.96 0.247 0.15 1 0.15 0.15 0.041 0.00 0.00 01 0.00 0.00 01 0.00 0.00 0 42147.9909 0.9676 0.5413 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, C wdSCjAjSAjC wd x Cf x SAj =0.54 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type jRainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3 /s) 1 9.16 4.96 5 3.22 1.74 10 2.05 1.11 15 1.58 0.85 20 1.31 0.71 25 1.13 0.61 30 1.00 0.54 35 0.91 0.49 40 0.83 0.45 45 0.77 0.42 50 0.72 0.39 55 0.68 0.37 60 0.64 0.35 75 0.55 0.30 90 0.49 0.27 105 0.44 0.24 120 0.41 0.22 150 0.35 0.19 180 0.31 0.17 360 0.20 0.11 720 0.13 0.07 1440 0.08 0.04 1,589.57 ft3 1.74 (ft3 /s) Impervious (Gravel) RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (STORM RETENTION POND: A) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.5594C wd x Cf =0.56 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention== C wd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3 ) (ft3 ) (ft3)297.56 0.00 297.56 522.64 0.00 522.64 666.14 0.00 666.14 767.71 0.00 767.71 849.04 0.00 849.04 918.01 0.00 918.01 978.50 0.00 978.50 1032.74 0.00 1032.74 1082.15 0.00 1082.15 1127.70 0.00 1127.70 1170.06 0.00 1170.06 1209.75 0.00 1209.75 1247.15 0.00 1247.15 1348.46 0.00 1348.46 1437.32 0.00 1437.32 1516.99 0.00 1516.99 1589.57 0.00 1589.57 1718.70 0.00 1718.70 1831.95 0.00 1831.95 2334.93 0.00 2334.93 2976.01 0.00 2976.01 3793.10 0.00 3793.10 Project: Simkins Tract 3B Project #: 21363.01 Date: 01/31/2024 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation ValueA A/(43560 ft2 /acre)CCfC x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf ) < or = 1 (Acres) 31376.03 0.720 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.72 10771.96 0.247 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.04 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 42147.9909 0.9676 0.7611 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, C wdSCjAjSAjC wd x Cf x SAj =0.79 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type jRainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3 /s) 1 10.72 8.50 5 3.83 3.04 10 2.46 1.95 15 1.89 1.50 20 1.58 1.25 25 1.37 1.08 30 1.22 0.96 35 1.10 0.87 40 1.01 0.80 45 0.94 0.74 50 0.88 0.70 55 0.82 0.65 60 0.78 0.62 75 0.68 0.54 90 0.60 0.48 105 0.55 0.43 120 0.50 0.40 150 0.43 0.34 180 0.39 0.31 360 0.25 0.20 720 0.16 0.13 1440 0.10 0.08 2,859.70 ft3 3.04 (ft3 /s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN A) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.7455C wd x Cf =0.82 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention== C wd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3 ) (ft3 ) (ft3)510.29 0.00 510.29 910.85 0.00 910.85 1169.00 0.00 1169.00 1352.72 0.00 1352.72 1500.33 0.00 1500.33 1625.82 0.00 1625.82 1736.12 0.00 1736.12 1835.19 0.00 1835.19 1925.56 0.00 1925.56 2008.96 0.00 2008.96 2086.63 0.00 2086.63 2159.46 0.00 2159.46 2228.18 0.00 2228.18 2414.56 0.00 2414.56 2578.35 0.00 2578.35 2725.48 0.00 2725.48 2859.70 0.00 2859.70 3098.90 0.00 3098.90 3309.13 0.00 3309.13 4247.02 0.00 4247.02 5450.74 0.00 5450.74 6995.61 0.00 6995.61 Project: Simkins Tract 3B Project #: 21363.01 Date: 01/31/2024 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation ValueA A/(43560 ft2 /acre)CCfC x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf ) < or = 1 (Acres) 0.00 0.000 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.00 5481.19 0.126 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.02 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 5481.187 0.1258 0.0208 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, C wdSCjAjSAjC wd x Cf x SAj =0.02 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type jRainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3 /s) 1 10.72 0.22 5 3.83 0.08 10 2.46 0.05 15 1.89 0.04 20 1.58 0.03 25 1.37 0.03 30 1.22 0.03 35 1.10 0.02 40 1.01 0.02 45 0.94 0.02 50 0.88 0.02 55 0.82 0.02 60 0.78 0.02 75 0.68 0.01 90 0.60 0.01 105 0.55 0.01 120 0.50 0.01 150 0.43 0.01 180 0.39 0.01 360 0.25 0.01 720 0.16 0.00 1440 0.10 0.00 74.82 ft3 0.08 (ft3 /s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN B) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.1500C wd x Cf =0.17 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention== C wd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3 ) (ft3 ) (ft3)13.35 0.00 13.35 23.83 0.00 23.83 30.59 0.00 30.59 35.39 0.00 35.39 39.26 0.00 39.26 42.54 0.00 42.54 45.43 0.00 45.43 48.02 0.00 48.02 50.38 0.00 50.38 52.56 0.00 52.56 54.60 0.00 54.60 56.50 0.00 56.50 58.30 0.00 58.30 63.18 0.00 63.18 67.46 0.00 67.46 71.31 0.00 71.31 74.82 0.00 74.82 81.08 0.00 81.08 86.58 0.00 86.58 111.12 0.00 111.12 142.62 0.00 142.62 183.04 0.00 183.04 Project: Simkins Tract 3B Project #: 21363.01 Date: 01/31/2024 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation ValueA A/(43560 ft2 /acre)CCfC x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf ) < or = 1 (Acres) 0.00 0.000 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.00 7933.27 0.182 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.03 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 7933.2712 0.1821 0.0301 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, C wdSCjAjSAjC wd x Cf x SAj =0.03 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type jRainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3 /s) 1 10.72 0.32 5 3.83 0.11 10 2.46 0.07 15 1.89 0.06 20 1.58 0.05 25 1.37 0.04 30 1.22 0.04 35 1.10 0.03 40 1.01 0.03 45 0.94 0.03 50 0.88 0.03 55 0.82 0.02 60 0.78 0.02 75 0.68 0.02 90 0.60 0.02 105 0.55 0.02 120 0.50 0.02 150 0.43 0.01 180 0.39 0.01 360 0.25 0.01 720 0.16 0.00 1440 0.10 0.00 108.30 ft3 0.11 (ft3 /s) 206.42 0.00 206.42 264.92 0.00 264.92 125.32 0.00 125.32 160.83 0.00 160.83 108.30 0.00 108.30 117.36 0.00 117.36 97.64 0.00 97.64 103.21 0.00 103.21 84.38 0.00 84.38 91.44 0.00 91.44 79.02 0.00 79.02 81.78 0.00 81.78 72.92 0.00 72.92 76.08 0.00 76.08 65.75 0.00 65.75 69.50 0.00 69.50 56.82 0.00 56.82 61.57 0.00 61.57 44.27 0.00 44.27 51.23 0.00 51.23 19.32 0.00 19.32 34.49 0.00 34.49 = C wd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3 ) (ft3 ) (ft3)= 0.1500C wd x Cf =0.17 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention=Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN C) Surface Type Project: Simkins Tract 3B Project #: 21363.01 Date: 01/31/2024 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation ValueA A/(43560 ft2 /acre)CCfC x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf ) < or = 1 (Acres) 2400.00 0.055 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.06 0.00 0.000 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.00 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 2400 0.0551 0.0551 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, C wdSCjAjSAjC wd x Cf x SAj =0.06 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type jRainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3 /s) 1 10.72 0.59 5 3.83 0.21 10 2.46 0.14 15 1.89 0.10 20 1.58 0.09 25 1.37 0.08 30 1.22 0.07 35 1.10 0.06 40 1.01 0.06 45 0.94 0.05 50 0.88 0.05 55 0.82 0.05 60 0.78 0.04 75 0.68 0.04 90 0.60 0.03 105 0.55 0.03 120 0.50 0.03 150 0.43 0.02 180 0.39 0.02 360 0.25 0.01 720 0.16 0.01 1440 0.10 0.01 198.56 ft3 0.21 (ft3 /s) 378.47 0.00 378.47 485.73 0.00 485.73 229.77 0.00 229.77 294.89 0.00 294.89 198.56 0.00 198.56 215.17 0.00 215.17 179.02 0.00 179.02 189.24 0.00 189.24 154.71 0.00 154.71 167.65 0.00 167.65 144.88 0.00 144.88 149.94 0.00 149.94 133.70 0.00 133.70 139.49 0.00 139.49 120.55 0.00 120.55 127.42 0.00 127.42 104.17 0.00 104.17 112.89 0.00 112.89 81.17 0.00 81.17 93.92 0.00 93.92 35.43 0.00 35.43 63.24 0.00 63.24 = C wd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3 ) (ft3 ) (ft3)= 0.9500C wd x Cf =1.00 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention=Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN D1)Surface Type Project: Simkins Tract 3B Project #: 21363.01 Date: 01/31/2024 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation ValueA A/(43560 ft2 /acre)CCfC x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf ) < or = 1 (Acres) 7200.00 0.165 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.17 0.00 0.000 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.00 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 7200 0.1653 0.1653 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, C wdSCjAjSAjC wd x Cf x SAj =0.17 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type jRainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3 /s) 1 10.72 1.77 5 3.83 0.63 10 2.46 0.41 15 1.89 0.31 20 1.58 0.26 25 1.37 0.23 30 1.22 0.20 35 1.10 0.18 40 1.01 0.17 45 0.94 0.15 50 0.88 0.14 55 0.82 0.14 60 0.78 0.13 75 0.68 0.11 90 0.60 0.10 105 0.55 0.09 120 0.50 0.08 150 0.43 0.07 180 0.39 0.06 360 0.25 0.04 720 0.16 0.03 1440 0.10 0.02 595.68 ft3 0.63 (ft3 /s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN D2)Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.9500C wd x Cf =1.00 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention== C wd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3 ) (ft3 ) (ft3)106.29 0.00 106.29 189.73 0.00 189.73 243.50 0.00 243.50 281.77 0.00 281.77 312.52 0.00 312.52 338.66 0.00 338.66 361.64 0.00 361.64 382.27 0.00 382.27 401.10 0.00 401.10 418.47 0.00 418.47 434.65 0.00 434.65 449.82 0.00 449.82 464.13 0.00 464.13 502.96 0.00 502.96 537.07 0.00 537.07 567.72 0.00 567.72 595.68 0.00 595.68 645.51 0.00 645.51 689.30 0.00 689.30 884.66 0.00 884.66 1135.40 0.00 1135.40 1457.20 0.00 1457.20 Project: Simkins Tract 3B Project #: 21363.01 Date: 01/31/2024 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation ValueA A/(43560 ft2 /acre)CCfC x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf ) < or = 1 (Acres) 10901.67 0.250 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.25 0.00 0.000 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.00 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 10901.66668 0.2503 0.2503 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, C wdSCjAjSAjC wd x Cf x SAj =0.25 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type jRainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3 /s) 1 10.72 2.68 5 3.83 0.96 10 2.46 0.61 15 1.89 0.47 20 1.58 0.39 25 1.37 0.34 30 1.22 0.30 35 1.10 0.28 40 1.01 0.25 45 0.94 0.23 50 0.88 0.22 55 0.82 0.21 60 0.78 0.20 75 0.68 0.17 90 0.60 0.15 105 0.55 0.14 120 0.50 0.13 150 0.43 0.11 180 0.39 0.10 360 0.25 0.06 720 0.16 0.04 1440 0.10 0.03 901.93 ft3 0.96 (ft3 /s) 1719.12 0.00 1719.12 2206.37 0.00 2206.37 1043.68 0.00 1043.68 1339.48 0.00 1339.48 901.93 0.00 901.93 977.37 0.00 977.37 813.20 0.00 813.20 859.60 0.00 859.60 702.75 0.00 702.75 761.53 0.00 761.53 658.11 0.00 658.11 681.08 0.00 681.08 607.31 0.00 607.31 633.61 0.00 633.61 547.56 0.00 547.56 578.80 0.00 578.80 473.19 0.00 473.19 512.77 0.00 512.77 368.70 0.00 368.70 426.64 0.00 426.64 160.94 0.00 160.94 287.27 0.00 287.27 = C wd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3 ) (ft3 ) (ft3)= 0.9500C wd x Cf =1.00 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention=Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN E1)Surface Type Project: Simkins Tract 3B Project #: 21363.01 Date: 01/31/2024 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation ValueA A/(43560 ft2 /acre)CCfC x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf ) < or = 1 (Acres) 10901.67 0.250 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.25 0.00 0.000 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.00 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 10901.66668 0.2503 0.2503 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, C wdSCjAjSAjC wd x Cf x SAj =0.25 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type jRainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3 /s) 1 10.72 2.68 5 3.83 0.96 10 2.46 0.61 15 1.89 0.47 20 1.58 0.39 25 1.37 0.34 30 1.22 0.30 35 1.10 0.28 40 1.01 0.25 45 0.94 0.23 50 0.88 0.22 55 0.82 0.21 60 0.78 0.20 75 0.68 0.17 90 0.60 0.15 105 0.55 0.14 120 0.50 0.13 150 0.43 0.11 180 0.39 0.10 360 0.25 0.06 720 0.16 0.04 1440 0.10 0.03 901.93 ft3 0.96 (ft3 /s) 1719.12 0.00 1719.12 2206.37 0.00 2206.37 1043.68 0.00 1043.68 1339.48 0.00 1339.48 901.93 0.00 901.93 977.37 0.00 977.37 813.20 0.00 813.20 859.60 0.00 859.60 702.75 0.00 702.75 761.53 0.00 761.53 658.11 0.00 658.11 681.08 0.00 681.08 607.31 0.00 607.31 633.61 0.00 633.61 547.56 0.00 547.56 578.80 0.00 578.80 473.19 0.00 473.19 512.77 0.00 512.77 368.70 0.00 368.70 426.64 0.00 426.64 160.94 0.00 160.94 287.27 0.00 287.27 = C wd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3 ) (ft3 ) (ft3)= 0.9500C wd x Cf =1.00 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention=Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN E2)Surface Type Project: Simkins Tract 3B Project #: 21363.01 Date: 01/31/2024 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation ValueA A/(43560 ft2 /acre)CCfC x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf ) < or = 1 (Acres) 21803.33 0.501 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.000 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.00 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 21803.33335 0.5005 0.5005 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, C wdSCjAjSAjC wd x Cf x SAj =0.50 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type jRainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3 /s) 1 10.72 5.36 5 3.83 1.92 10 2.46 1.23 15 1.89 0.95 20 1.58 0.79 25 1.37 0.68 30 1.22 0.61 35 1.10 0.55 40 1.01 0.51 45 0.94 0.47 50 0.88 0.44 55 0.82 0.41 60 0.78 0.39 75 0.68 0.34 90 0.60 0.30 105 0.55 0.27 120 0.50 0.25 150 0.43 0.22 180 0.39 0.19 360 0.25 0.12 720 0.16 0.08 1440 0.10 0.05 1,803.86 ft3 1.92 (ft3 /s) 3438.25 0.00 3438.25 4412.74 0.00 4412.74 2087.35 0.00 2087.35 2678.96 0.00 2678.96 1803.86 0.00 1803.86 1954.75 0.00 1954.75 1626.39 0.00 1626.39 1719.20 0.00 1719.20 1405.50 0.00 1405.50 1523.07 0.00 1523.07 1316.22 0.00 1316.22 1362.16 0.00 1362.16 1214.62 0.00 1214.62 1267.23 0.00 1267.23 1095.12 0.00 1095.12 1157.61 0.00 1157.61 946.39 0.00 946.39 1025.55 0.00 1025.55 737.39 0.00 737.39 853.28 0.00 853.28 321.88 0.00 321.88 574.55 0.00 574.55 = C wd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3 ) (ft3 ) (ft3)= 0.9500C wd x Cf =1.00 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention=Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN E3)Surface Type Project: Simkins Tract 3B Project #: 21363.01 Date: 01/31/2024 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation ValueA A/(43560 ft2 /acre)CCfC x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf ) < or = 1 (Acres) 32369.49 0.743 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.74 5874.76 0.135 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.02 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 38244.2433 0.8780 0.7654 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, C wdSCjAjSAjC wd x Cf x SAj =0.80 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type jRainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3 /s) 1 10.72 8.56 5 3.83 3.06 10 2.46 1.96 15 1.89 1.51 20 1.58 1.26 25 1.37 1.09 30 1.22 0.97 35 1.10 0.88 40 1.01 0.81 45 0.94 0.75 50 0.88 0.70 55 0.82 0.66 60 0.78 0.62 75 0.68 0.54 90 0.60 0.48 105 0.55 0.44 120 0.50 0.40 150 0.43 0.35 180 0.39 0.31 360 0.25 0.20 720 0.16 0.13 1440 0.10 0.08 2,878.74 ft3 3.06 (ft3 /s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN F) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.8271C wd x Cf =0.91 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention== C wd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3 ) (ft3 ) (ft3)513.69 0.00 513.69 916.91 0.00 916.91 1176.79 0.00 1176.79 1361.73 0.00 1361.73 1510.32 0.00 1510.32 1636.65 0.00 1636.65 1747.68 0.00 1747.68 1847.40 0.00 1847.40 1938.38 0.00 1938.38 2022.34 0.00 2022.34 2100.52 0.00 2100.52 2173.84 0.00 2173.84 2243.01 0.00 2243.01 2430.63 0.00 2430.63 2595.52 0.00 2595.52 2743.63 0.00 2743.63 2878.74 0.00 2878.74 3119.54 0.00 3119.54 3331.16 0.00 3331.16 4275.30 0.00 4275.30 5487.02 0.00 5487.02 7042.19 0.00 7042.19 Project: Simkins Tract 3B Project #: 21363.01 Date: 01/31/2024 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation ValueA A/(43560 ft2 /acre)CCfC x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf ) < or = 1 (Acres) 32811.32 0.753 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.75 7647.70 0.176 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.03 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 40459.0216 0.9288 0.7822 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, C wdSCjAjSAjC wd x Cf x SAj =0.82 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type jRainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3 /s) 1 10.72 8.75 5 3.83 3.12 10 2.46 2.00 15 1.89 1.55 20 1.58 1.29 25 1.37 1.11 30 1.22 0.99 35 1.10 0.90 40 1.01 0.83 45 0.94 0.77 50 0.88 0.72 55 0.82 0.67 60 0.78 0.64 75 0.68 0.55 90 0.60 0.49 105 0.55 0.44 120 0.50 0.41 150 0.43 0.35 180 0.39 0.32 360 0.25 0.20 720 0.16 0.13 1440 0.10 0.08 2,941.14 ft3 3.12 (ft3 /s) Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN G) Surface Type Pervious Totals = 0.7988C wd x Cf =0.88 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention== C wd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3 ) (ft3 ) (ft3)524.82 0.00 524.82 936.78 0.00 936.78 1202.29 0.00 1202.29 1391.24 0.00 1391.24 1543.06 0.00 1543.06 1672.13 0.00 1672.13 1785.56 0.00 1785.56 1887.45 0.00 1887.45 1980.40 0.00 1980.40 2066.18 0.00 2066.18 2146.05 0.00 2146.05 2220.96 0.00 2220.96 2291.63 0.00 2291.63 2483.32 0.00 2483.32 2651.78 0.00 2651.78 2803.10 0.00 2803.10 2941.14 0.00 2941.14 3187.16 0.00 3187.16 3403.37 0.00 3403.37 4367.97 0.00 4367.97 5605.97 0.00 5605.97 7194.84 0.00 7194.84 Project: Simkins Tract 3B Project #: 21363.01 Date: 01/31/2024 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation ValueA A/(43560 ft2 /acre)CCfC x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf ) < or = 1 (Acres) 28551.13 0.655 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.66 8835.84 0.203 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.03 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 37386.9754 0.8583 0.6889 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, C wdSCjAjSAjC wd x Cf x SAj =0.72 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type jRainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3 /s) 1 10.72 7.70 5 3.83 2.75 10 2.46 1.76 15 1.89 1.36 20 1.58 1.13 25 1.37 0.98 30 1.22 0.87 35 1.10 0.79 40 1.01 0.73 45 0.94 0.67 50 0.88 0.63 55 0.82 0.59 60 0.78 0.56 75 0.68 0.49 90 0.60 0.43 105 0.55 0.39 120 0.50 0.36 150 0.43 0.31 180 0.39 0.28 360 0.25 0.18 720 0.16 0.11 1440 0.10 0.07 2,589.04 ft3 2.75 (ft3 /s) 4934.84 0.00 4934.84 6333.51 0.00 6333.51 2995.93 0.00 2995.93 3845.06 0.00 3845.06 2589.04 0.00 2589.04 2805.61 0.00 2805.61 2334.32 0.00 2334.32 2467.53 0.00 2467.53 2017.29 0.00 2017.29 2186.03 0.00 2186.03 1889.13 0.00 1889.13 1955.08 0.00 1955.08 1743.31 0.00 1743.31 1818.82 0.00 1818.82 1571.80 0.00 1571.80 1661.49 0.00 1661.49 1358.33 0.00 1358.33 1471.95 0.00 1471.95 1058.36 0.00 1058.36 1224.69 0.00 1224.69 461.99 0.00 461.99 824.64 0.00 824.64 = C wd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3 ) (ft3 ) (ft3)= 0.7609C wd x Cf =0.84 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention=Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN H) Surface Type Project: Simkins Tract 3B Project #: 21363.01 Date: 01/31/2024 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation ValueA A/(43560 ft2 /acre)CCfC x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf ) < or = 1 (Acres) 14569.22 0.334 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.33 635.03 0.015 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.00 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 15204.2528 0.3490 0.3369 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, C wdSCjAjSAjC wd x Cf x SAj =0.35 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type jRainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3 /s) 1 10.72 3.74 5 3.83 1.34 10 2.46 0.86 15 1.89 0.66 20 1.58 0.55 25 1.37 0.48 30 1.22 0.42 35 1.10 0.38 40 1.01 0.35 45 0.94 0.33 50 0.88 0.31 55 0.82 0.29 60 0.78 0.27 75 0.68 0.24 90 0.60 0.21 105 0.55 0.19 120 0.50 0.17 150 0.43 0.15 180 0.39 0.13 360 0.25 0.09 720 0.16 0.06 1440 0.10 0.04 1,257.90 ft3 1.34 (ft3 /s) 2397.62 0.00 2397.62 3077.16 0.00 3077.16 1455.59 0.00 1455.59 1868.14 0.00 1868.14 1257.90 0.00 1257.90 1363.12 0.00 1363.12 1134.14 0.00 1134.14 1198.86 0.00 1198.86 980.11 0.00 980.11 1062.09 0.00 1062.09 917.84 0.00 917.84 949.88 0.00 949.88 847.00 0.00 847.00 883.68 0.00 883.68 763.67 0.00 763.67 807.24 0.00 807.24 659.95 0.00 659.95 715.15 0.00 715.15 514.21 0.00 514.21 595.02 0.00 595.02 224.46 0.00 224.46 400.65 0.00 400.65 = C wd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3 ) (ft3 ) (ft3)= 0.9166C wd x Cf =1.00 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention=Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN I) Surface Type Project: Simkins Tract 3B Project #: 21363.01 Date: 01/31/2024 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation ValueA A/(43560 ft2 /acre)CCfC x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf ) < or = 1 (Acres) 328.32 0.008 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.01 1310.95 0.030 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.00 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1639.2731 0.0376 0.0125 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, C wdSCjAjSAjC wd x Cf x SAj =0.01 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type jRainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3 /s) 1 10.72 0.14 5 3.83 0.05 10 2.46 0.03 15 1.89 0.02 20 1.58 0.02 25 1.37 0.02 30 1.22 0.02 35 1.10 0.01 40 1.01 0.01 45 0.94 0.01 50 0.88 0.01 55 0.82 0.01 60 0.78 0.01 75 0.68 0.01 90 0.60 0.01 105 0.55 0.01 120 0.50 0.01 150 0.43 0.01 180 0.39 0.00 360 0.25 0.00 720 0.16 0.00 1440 0.10 0.00 46.28 ft3 0.05 (ft3 /s) 88.21 0.00 88.21 113.22 0.00 113.22 53.55 0.00 53.55 68.73 0.00 68.73 46.28 0.00 46.28 50.15 0.00 50.15 41.73 0.00 41.73 44.11 0.00 44.11 36.06 0.00 36.06 39.08 0.00 39.08 33.77 0.00 33.77 34.95 0.00 34.95 31.16 0.00 31.16 32.51 0.00 32.51 28.10 0.00 28.10 29.70 0.00 29.70 24.28 0.00 24.28 26.31 0.00 26.31 18.92 0.00 18.92 21.89 0.00 21.89 8.26 0.00 8.26 14.74 0.00 14.74 = C wd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3 ) (ft3 ) (ft3)= 0.3102C wd x Cf =0.34 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention=Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN J) Surface Type Project: Simkins Tract 3B Project #: 21363.01 Date: 01/31/2024 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation ValueA A/(43560 ft2 /acre)CCfC x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf ) < or = 1 (Acres) 16988.21 0.390 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.39 9395.57 0.216 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.04 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 26383.7813 0.6057 0.4256 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, C wdSCjAjSAjC wd x Cf x SAj =0.44 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type jRainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3 /s) 1 10.72 4.75 5 3.83 1.70 10 2.46 1.09 15 1.89 0.84 20 1.58 0.70 25 1.37 0.61 30 1.22 0.54 35 1.10 0.49 40 1.01 0.45 45 0.94 0.42 50 0.88 0.39 55 0.82 0.37 60 0.78 0.35 75 0.68 0.30 90 0.60 0.27 105 0.55 0.24 120 0.50 0.22 150 0.43 0.19 180 0.39 0.17 360 0.25 0.11 720 0.16 0.07 1440 0.10 0.05 1,597.00 ft3 1.70 (ft3 /s) 3043.95 0.00 3043.95 3906.69 0.00 3906.69 1847.98 0.00 1847.98 2371.74 0.00 2371.74 1597.00 0.00 1597.00 1730.58 0.00 1730.58 1439.88 0.00 1439.88 1522.04 0.00 1522.04 1244.32 0.00 1244.32 1348.41 0.00 1348.41 1165.27 0.00 1165.27 1205.95 0.00 1205.95 1075.33 0.00 1075.33 1121.90 0.00 1121.90 969.53 0.00 969.53 1024.86 0.00 1024.86 837.86 0.00 837.86 907.94 0.00 907.94 652.83 0.00 652.83 755.42 0.00 755.42 284.97 0.00 284.97 508.66 0.00 508.66 = C wd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3 ) (ft3 ) (ft3)= 0.6651C wd x Cf =0.73 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention=Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN K) Surface Type Project: Simkins Tract 3B Project #: 21363.01 Date: 01/31/2024 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation ValueA A/(43560 ft2 /acre)CCfC x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf ) < or = 1 (Acres) 37109.37 0.852 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.85 49279.61 1.131 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.19 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 86388.9805 1.9832 1.0386 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, C wdSCjAjSAjC wd x Cf x SAj =1.08 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type jRainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3 /s) 1 10.72 11.54 5 3.83 4.12 10 2.46 2.64 15 1.89 2.04 20 1.58 1.70 25 1.37 1.47 30 1.22 1.31 35 1.10 1.19 40 1.01 1.09 45 0.94 1.01 50 0.88 0.94 55 0.82 0.89 60 0.78 0.84 75 0.68 0.73 90 0.60 0.65 105 0.55 0.59 120 0.50 0.54 150 0.43 0.47 180 0.39 0.42 360 0.25 0.27 720 0.16 0.17 1440 0.10 0.11 3,881.05 ft3 4.12 (ft3 /s) 7397.48 0.00 7397.48 9494.12 0.00 9494.12 4490.99 0.00 4490.99 5763.86 0.00 5763.86 3881.05 0.00 3881.05 4205.69 0.00 4205.69 3499.22 0.00 3499.22 3698.90 0.00 3698.90 3023.98 0.00 3023.98 3276.92 0.00 3276.92 2831.87 0.00 2831.87 2930.72 0.00 2930.72 2613.28 0.00 2613.28 2726.47 0.00 2726.47 2356.18 0.00 2356.18 2490.63 0.00 2490.63 2036.17 0.00 2036.17 2206.49 0.00 2206.49 1586.52 0.00 1586.52 1835.85 0.00 1835.85 692.54 0.00 692.54 1236.16 0.00 1236.16 = C wd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3 ) (ft3 ) (ft3)= 0.4936C wd x Cf =0.54 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention=Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN L) Surface Type Project: Simkins Tract 3B Project #: 21363.01 Date: 01/31/2024 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation ValueA A/(43560 ft2 /acre)CCfC x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf ) < or = 1 (Acres) 0.00 0.000 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.00 16670.48 0.383 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.06 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 16670.4786 0.3827 0.0631 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, C wdSCjAjSAjC wd x Cf x SAj =0.06 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type jRainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3 /s) 1 10.72 0.68 5 3.83 0.24 10 2.46 0.16 15 1.89 0.12 20 1.58 0.10 25 1.37 0.09 30 1.22 0.08 35 1.10 0.07 40 1.01 0.06 45 0.94 0.06 50 0.88 0.06 55 0.82 0.05 60 0.78 0.05 75 0.68 0.04 90 0.60 0.04 105 0.55 0.03 120 0.50 0.03 150 0.43 0.03 180 0.39 0.02 360 0.25 0.02 720 0.16 0.01 1440 0.10 0.01 227.57 ft3 0.24 (ft3 /s) 433.76 0.00 433.76 556.69 0.00 556.69 263.33 0.00 263.33 337.97 0.00 337.97 227.57 0.00 227.57 246.60 0.00 246.60 205.18 0.00 205.18 216.89 0.00 216.89 177.31 0.00 177.31 192.14 0.00 192.14 166.05 0.00 166.05 171.85 0.00 171.85 153.23 0.00 153.23 159.87 0.00 159.87 138.16 0.00 138.16 146.04 0.00 146.04 119.39 0.00 119.39 129.38 0.00 129.38 93.03 0.00 93.03 107.65 0.00 107.65 40.61 0.00 40.61 72.48 0.00 72.48 = C wd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3 ) (ft3 ) (ft3)= 0.1500C wd x Cf =0.17 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention=Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN M) Surface Type Project: Simkins Tract 3B Project #: 21363.01 Date: 01/31/2024 Design Storm Frequency =25 years Discharge Rate, d =0.00 cfs Input values for runoff coefficients from appropriate tables. Area Area Runoff Coefficient Frequency Factor Calculation ValueA A/(43560 ft2 /acre)CCfC x Cf C' C' x A (ft2)(Acres)=(C x Cf ) < or = 1 (Acres) 0.00 0.000 0.95 1.1 1.05 1.00 0.00 1482.23 0.034 0.15 1.1 0.17 0.17 0.01 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1.1 0.00 0.00 0 1482.2326 0.0340 0.0056 Weighted Runoff Coefficient, C wdSCjAjSAjC wd x Cf x SAj =0.01 Where Cj is the adjusted runoff coefficient for surface type j and Aj is the area of surface type jRainfall Rainfall Peak Flow Duration, t Intensity, i = Cwd x SAj x i (min) (in/hr)(ft3 /s) 1 10.72 0.06 5 3.83 0.02 10 2.46 0.01 15 1.89 0.01 20 1.58 0.01 25 1.37 0.01 30 1.22 0.01 35 1.10 0.01 40 1.01 0.01 45 0.94 0.01 50 0.88 0.00 55 0.82 0.00 60 0.78 0.00 75 0.68 0.00 90 0.60 0.00 105 0.55 0.00 120 0.50 0.00 150 0.43 0.00 180 0.39 0.00 360 0.25 0.00 720 0.16 0.00 1440 0.10 0.00 20.23 ft3 0.02 (ft3 /s) 38.57 0.00 38.57 49.50 0.00 49.50 23.41 0.00 23.41 30.05 0.00 30.05 20.23 0.00 20.23 21.93 0.00 21.93 18.24 0.00 18.24 19.28 0.00 19.28 15.77 0.00 15.77 17.08 0.00 17.08 14.76 0.00 14.76 15.28 0.00 15.28 13.62 0.00 13.62 14.21 0.00 14.21 12.28 0.00 12.28 12.98 0.00 12.98 10.62 0.00 10.62 11.50 0.00 11.50 8.27 0.00 8.27 9.57 0.00 9.57 3.61 0.00 3.61 6.44 0.00 6.44 = C wd x SAj x i x t = d x t = Runoff Volume - Discharge Volume (ft3 ) (ft3 ) (ft3)= 0.1500C wd x Cf =0.17 Runoff Volume Discharge Volume Site Detention=Pervious Totals Impervious RATIONAL METHOD FOR RUNOFF CALCULATIONS POST-IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (BASIN N) Surface Type APPENDIX D Hydraulic Calculations Simkins North Park Tract 3B Stormwater Design Report Project No. 21363.01 Hydraulic Analysis Report Project Data Project Title: Simkins North Park Tract 3B Project Date: Thursday, January 25, 2024 Project Units: U.S. Customary Units Notes: Channel Analysis: 12in at 0.5% max capacity Notes: Input Parameters Channel Type: Circular Pipe Diameter 1.00 ft Longitudinal Slope: 0.0050 ft/ft Manning's n: 0.0130 Depth 1.0000 ft Result Parameters Flow 2.5193 cfs Area of Flow 0.7854 ft^2 Wetted Perimeter 3.1416 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.2500 ft Average Velocity 3.2077 ft/s Top Width 0.0000 ft Froude Number: 0.0000 Critical Depth 0.6797 ft Critical Velocity 4.4319 ft/s Critical Slope: 0.0077 ft/ft Critical Top Width 0.93 ft Calculated Max Shear Stress 0.3120 lb/ft^2 Calculated Avg Shear Stress 0.0780 lb/ft^2 Hydraulic Analysis Report Project Data Project Title: Simkins North Park Tract 3B Project Date: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 Project Units: U.S. Customary Units Notes: Channel Analysis: 12in at 1% max capacity Notes: Input Parameters Channel Type: Circular Pipe Diameter 1.00 ft Longitudinal Slope: 0.0100 ft/ft Manning's n: 0.0130 Depth 1.0000 ft Result Parameters Flow 3.5628 cfs Area of Flow 0.7854 ft^2 Wetted Perimeter 3.1416 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.2500 ft Average Velocity 4.5363 ft/s Top Width 0.0000 ft Froude Number: 0.0000 Critical Depth 0.8057 ft Critical Velocity 5.2542 ft/s Critical Slope: 0.0103 ft/ft Critical Top Width 0.79 ft Calculated Max Shear Stress 0.6240 lb/ft^2 Calculated Avg Shear Stress 0.1560 lb/ft^2 Hydraulic Analysis Report Project Data Project Title: Simkins North Park Tract 3B Project Date: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 Project Units: U.S. Customary Units Channel Analysis: 12in at 3% max capacity Notes: Input Parameters Channel Type: Circular Pipe Diameter 1.00 ft Longitudinal Slope: 0.0300 ft/ft Manning's n: 0.0130 Depth 1.0000 ft Result Parameters Flow 6.1710 cfs Area of Flow 0.7854 ft^2 Wetted Perimeter 3.1416 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.2500 ft Average Velocity 7.8571 ft/s Top Width 0.0000 ft Froude Number: 0.0000 Critical Depth 0.9597 ft Critical Velocity 7.9651 ft/s Critical Slope: 0.0261 ft/ft Critical Top Width 0.39 ft Calculated Max Shear Stress 1.8720 lb/ft^2 Calculated Avg Shear Stress 0.4680 lb/ft^2 Hydraulic Analysis Report Project Data Project Title: Simkins North Park Tract 3B Project Date: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 Project Units: U.S. Customary Units Curb and Gutter Analysis: Sag Curb and Gutter Analysis Notes: Gutter Input Parameters Longitudinal Slope of Road: 0.0000 ft/ft Cross-Slope of Pavement: 0.0200 ft/ft Depressed Gutter Geometry Cross-Slope of Gutter: 0.0466 ft/ft Manning's n: 0.0150 Gutter Width: 2.0000 ft Gutter Result Parameters Width of Spread: 23.6179 ft Gutter Result Parameters Design Flow: 2.5800 cfs Gutter Depression: 0.6384 in Area of Flow: 5.6313 ft^2 Eo (Gutter Flow to Total Flow): 0.2270 Gutter Depth at Curb: 6.3067 in Inlet Input Parameters Inlet Location: Inlet in Sag Percent Clogging: 50.0000 % Inlet Type: Grate Grate Type: P - 1-7/8 Grate Width: 1.4800 ft Grate Length: 2.7500 ft Local Depression: 0.0000 in Inlet Result Parameters Perimeter: 5.7100 ft Effective Perimeter: 2.8550 ft Area: 3.6630 ft^2 Effective Area: 1.8315 ft^2 Depth at center of grate: 0.4494 ft Computed Width of Spread at Sag: 21.5322 ft Flow type: Weir Flow Efficiency: 1.0000 Hydraulic Analysis Report Project Data Project Title: Simkins North Park Tract 3B Project Date: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 Project Units: U.S. Customary Units Curb and Gutter Analysis: Circular Inlet Max Capacity Notes: Gutter Input Parameters Longitudinal Slope of Road: 0.0000 ft/ft Cross-Slope of Pavement: 0.0200 ft/ft Uniform Gutter Geometry Manning's n: 0.0150 Gutter Width: 2.0000 ft Gutter Result Parameters Width of Spread: 25.5024 ft Gutter Result Parameters Design Flow: 3.1000 cfs Gutter Depression: 0.0000 in Area of Flow: 6.5037 ft^2 Eo (Gutter Flow to Total Flow): 0.1959 Gutter Depth at Curb: 6.1206 in Inlet Input Parameters Inlet Location: Inlet in Sag Percent Clogging: 0.0000 % Inlet Type: Grate Grate Type: P - 1-7/8 Grate Width: 1.9300 ft Grate Length: 1.9300 ft Local Depression: 0.0000 in Inlet Result Parameters Perimeter: 5.7900 ft Effective Perimeter: 5.7900 ft Area: 3.3524 ft^2 Effective Area: 3.3524 ft^2 Depth at center of grate: 0.3170 ft Computed Width of Spread at Sag: 16.8143 ft Flow type: Weir Flow Efficiency: 1.0000 APPENDIX E Operation and Maintenance Plan Simkins North Park Tract 3B Stormwater Design Report Project No. 21363.01 January 2024 Project No. 21363.01 STORM DRAINAGE FACILITY MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR SIMKINS-HALLIN BOZEMAN, MONTANA OVERVIEW NARRATIVE The purpose of this maintenance plan is to outline the necessary details related to ownership, responsibility, and cleaning schedule for the storm drainage facilities for Simkins-Hallin. This plan has been completed in accordance with The City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy, dated March 2004. The site stormwater improvements have been designed with the intent to meet the current City of Bozeman drainage regulations for the entire site to the extent feasible. Specific site information and criteria are described below: I. Ownership of Facilities Simkins-Hallin Simkins-Hallin will own all stormwater facilities which includes the chamber systems, surface pond, catch basins, manholes, and piping within the site boundary. II. Inspection Thresholds for Cleaning Infiltration Chamber If sediment in isolator row exceeds three (3) inches or grate is more than 25% clogged with debris, clean grate and/or structure and vacuum isolator row. Catch Basins If sediment fills 60% of the sump or comes within 6-inches of a pipe, clean sump with vacuum. P:21363_01_Simkins_Tract3B_O&M 2 (01/31/24) CS/rpe Surface Pond If sediment reduces pond volume by 25%, clean pond banks and bottom manually or mechanically. III. Cleaning Infiltration Chamber To clean grate of structure, remove and dispose of debris clogging the grate. To clean the structure, use catch basin vacuum to remove sediment and debris. To clean isolator row, use a JetVac. Catch Basins To clean grate of structure, remove and disposed of debris clogging the grate. To clean the structure, use catch basin vacuum to remove sediment and debris. Surface Pond To clean the pond manually or mechanically and remove sediment and debris from the pond banks and bottom. IV. Inspection, Maintenance, and Replacement Schedule Infiltration Chamber Inspection: Every six (6) months and after storm events larger than 0.5 inches of precipitation Maintenance: Vacuum isolator row every five(5) years or as needed based on inspection Design Life/Replacement Schedule: 50 years Catch Basins Inspection: Every six (6) months and after storm events larger than 0.5 inches of precipitation Maintenance: Clean grate of structure and vacuum sediment and debris out of the sump every five (5) years or as needed based on inspection Design Life/Replacement Schedule: 50 years Surface Pond Inspection: Every six (6) months and after storm events larger than 0.5 inches of precipitation Maintenance: Remove sediment accumulation from the pond bottom, remove trash, undesirable vegetation, and noxious weeds. Repair pond area such as sidewalls due to erosion, settlement, or rodent damage. Design Life/Replacement Schedule: 100 years Simkins North Park Tract 3B Stormwater Design Report Project No. 21363.01 APPENDIX F Geotechnical Report July 26, 2023 Project 23-4278G Mr. Sean Potkay Project Manager Simkins – Hallin, Inc 326 N. Broadway Avenue Bozeman, Montana 59771 Via Email: spotkay@simkins-hallin.com Dear Mr. Potkay: Re: Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed North Park Simkins-Hallin Development, Bozeman, Montana We have completed the geotechnical evaluation you authorized on March 17, 2023. This work was performed in general accordance with our proposal to you, dated March 3, 2023. This report presents the findings of the subsurface exploration, and laboratory testing as well as provides geotechnical recommendations to assist in design of site grading, utilities, foundations, floor slabs and pavements for the proposed project. Please refer to the attached report for more detailed results of our fieldwork, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis and recommendations. Thank you for using SK Geotechnical. If you have any questions regarding this report, or require our services during the construction phase of this project, please call Cory Rice at (406) 652-3930. Sincerely, Cory G. Rice, PE Senior Geotechnical Engineer Gregory T. Staffileno, PE Reviewing Engineer Attachment: Geotechnical Evaluation Report 2511 Holman Avenue P. O. Box 80190 Billings, Montana 59108-0190 p: 406.652.3930; f: 406.652.3944 www.skgeotechnical.com Table of Contents Description Page A. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 A.1. Project ............................................................................................................................................ 1 A.2. Purpose of this Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 1 A.3. Scope ............................................................................................................................................. 1 A.4. Documents Provided ...................................................................................................................... 2 A.5. Locations and Elevations ............................................................................................................... 2 B. Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 B.1. Logs ............................................................................................................................................... 3 B.2. Site Conditions ............................................................................................................................... 3 B.3. Soils ............................................................................................................................................... 3 B.4. Groundwater Observations ............................................................................................................ 5 B.5. Laboratory Tests ............................................................................................................................ 7 C. Analyses and Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 8 C.1. Proposed Construction ................................................................................................................... 8 C.2. Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 9 C.3. Site Preparation ............................................................................................................................ 10 C.4. Foundations .................................................................................................................................. 14 C.5. Cast In-Place Retaining Walls and Loading Dock Walls ............................................................ 16 C.6. Earth-Supported Floors ................................................................................................................ 16 C.7. Variable Height Retaining Walls ................................................................................................. 17 C.8. Exterior Slabs ............................................................................................................................... 18 C.9. Site Grading and Drainage ........................................................................................................... 19 C.10. Building Utilities ........................................................................................................................ 19 C.11. Pavement .................................................................................................................................... 19 C.12. Concrete ..................................................................................................................................... 21 D. Construction .......................................................................................................................................... 22 D.1. Excavation and Dewatering ......................................................................................................... 22 D.2. Observations ................................................................................................................................ 22 D.3. Moisture Conditioning ................................................................................................................. 22 D.4. Subgrade Disturbance .................................................................................................................. 23 D.5. Testing ......................................................................................................................................... 23 D.6. Cold Weather Construction ......................................................................................................... 23 E. Procedures ............................................................................................................................................. 24 E.1. Drilling and Sampling .................................................................................................................. 24 E.2. Soil Classification ........................................................................................................................ 24 E.3. Groundwater Observations........................................................................................................... 24 F. General Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 25 F.1. Basis of Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 25 F.2. Review of Design ......................................................................................................................... 25 F.3. Groundwater Fluctuations ............................................................................................................ 25 F.4. Use of Report ............................................................................................................................... 25 F.5. Level of Care ................................................................................................................................ 25 Table of Contents (continued) Professional Certification Appendix Site Location Sketch Partial Geologic Map Geotechnical Boring Layout Preliminary Overall Grading and Drainage Plan Preliminary Overall Schematic Landscape Plan Descriptive Terminology 2023 Log of Borings and Lab Tests 2022 Log of Borings and Lab Tests A. Introduction A.1. Project Simkins-Hallin, Inc. is planning on developing a thirty-two-acre parcel on the north side of Bozeman, Montana for their building product operations. The approximate location of the site is shown on the Site Location Sketch included in the appendix of this report. The overall extent of the site development is shown on the Geotechnical Boring Layout drawing in the appendix. A.2. Purpose of this Evaluation The purpose of the geotechnical evaluation was to assist Simkins-Hallin, Inc., Stahly Engineering (structural engineer), Sanderson Stewart (civil designer), and Sunbelt Rack (racking and pre-engineered metal building designer), in designing site grading, utilities, foundations, slabs, and pavements and in preparing plans and specifications for the proposed development. Our firm completed a preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the site in 2022 for Sanderson Stewart and this work was summarized in our report dated July 25, 2023, and this information has also been incorporated into this report. A.3. Scope The desired scope of services was developed between conversations and emails with Sanderson Stewart and Simkins-Hallin. Our proposed scope of services was outlined in our proposal dated March 3, 2023. Mr. Sean Potkay, the project manager with Simkins-Hallin, authorized us to proceed in accordance with the proposal on March 17, 2023. Our scope of services was limited to: • Developing a proposed boring plan and providing this to Sanderson Stewart for staking. • Coordinating the locating of underground utilities near the boring locations. • Conducting 32 penetration test borings to depths ranging from 10 to 25 feet, or auger refusal, whichever was encountered first. • Taking thin-walled tube samples of clayey soils to provide relatively undisturbed samples for consolidation tests. • Collecting larger bag samples of the potential pavement subgrade soils to provide samples for moisture-density relationship (Proctor) and California bearing ratio (CBR) tests. • Returning the samples to our laboratory for visual classification and logging by a geotechnical engineer or geologist. Simkins-Hallin, Inc. July 26, 2023 Project 23-4278G Page 2 • Conducting laboratory tests consisting of moisture content, classification, Proctor, CBR and corrosion tests. • Analyzing the results and formulating recommendations for utilities, earthwork, spread footing foundations, slabs, and pavements. • Discussing the project with the project designers and Mr. Potkay. • Submitting a geotechnical evaluation report containing logs of the borings, our analysis of the field and laboratory tests, and recommendations for earthwork, spread footing foundations, slabs, and pavements. Although not anticipated at the time of our proposal, two retaining walls are also being considered for the project. Therefore, preliminary recommendations for foundations support and design parameters are being provided. However, a global stability analysis will likely be required for the larger variable height retaining wall planned near the southeast corner of the site once design is more complete. A.4. Documents Provided The following most recent documents were provided for our use: • Geotechnical Boring Layout drawing prepared by Sanderson Stewart, dated June 2023 • Preliminary IMF Submittal Plans prepared by Sanderson Stewart, dated June 28, 2023 • Plan mark-ups showing areas of larger forklift traffic. • Equipment Data Sheets for the C-14,000 and C-26,000 combilift forklifts A.5. Locations and Elevations The preliminary boring locations were shown on a Preliminary Boring Plan prepared by our personnel. This information was provided to Sanderson Stewart. Their personnel staked the boring locations in the field, and then provided the surveyed locations and surface elevations to us. The locations of the borings are shown on the Geotechnical Boring Layout drawing included in the Appendix. The borings performed for our preliminary evaluation in 2022 are designated by the prefix "ST-," and the borings completed in 2023 are designated by the prefix # symbol. These recent boring will be referred to by the prefix “B-,” in this report. Borings B-6, B-7, B-11 and B-14 could not be completed since they were located on railroad property, and access was not authorized at the time of our fieldwork. Simkins-Hallin, Inc. July 26, 2023 Project 23-4278G Page 3 B. Results B.1. Logs Log of Boring sheets indicating the depth and identification of the various soil strata, the penetration resistances, laboratory test data, and water level information are attached. It should be noted the depths shown as boundaries between the strata are only approximate. The actual changes may be transitions and the depths of the changes vary between borings. Geologic origins presented for each stratum on the Log of Boring sheets are based on the soil types, blows per foot, and available common knowledge of the depositional history of the site. Because of the complex glacial and post-glacial depositional environments, geologic origins are frequently difficult to ascertain. A detailed evaluation of the geologic history of the site was not performed. B.2. Site Conditions The site is located on the north side of Bozeman, Montana. At the time of our fieldwork, the majority of the site was an agricultural field. However, the hillside on the southeast corner of the site had been partially cut down and several feet of material had been removed from this area. A cell tower exists near the south center portion of the property. The utilities and street construction for Wheat Drive, which bisects the site, was also currently being constructed. A City of Bozeman utility easement also travels through the center portion of the site consisting of buried watermain, sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems. These items are shown on the attached Overall Grading and Drainage Plan drawing. As indicated by the boring surface elevations, the site generally slopes down to the northwest, with a high elevation of about 4707 at the southeast corner of the site, and a low elevation of about 4672 at the extreme northwest corner of the site. The western side of the site is also bounded by Mandeville Creek, which drains to the north. As indicated on the attached Partial Geologic Map, the general geology in the area consists of alluvial braid plain deposits-boulder (Qab). Our borings generally encountered these soils and consisted of more recent alluvial deposits overlying older tertiary age deposits. B.3. Soils The soil borings generally encountered a fairy similar profile consisting of about 2 to 5 feet of surficial clayey soils overlying primarily coarser sand and gravel deposits. The exception was four borings performed on the eastern side of the site in the future truss building and pavement area where the clay extended to depths ranging from about 6 1/2 to 21 feet below the current ground surface. Boring ST-7 which had the deepest clay thickness was located at a much higher elevation on the east end of the site. After the area has been cut to proposed finished grade, it is anticipated that the depth of the clay soils in this area will generally be less than about 3 feet below finished grade. Two borings performed in the millwork building area, B-30 and B-31 encountered clays to a depth of about 5 to 6 feet below existing grade. Simkins-Hallin, Inc. July 26, 2023 Project 23-4278G Page 4 Also, the site was previously an agricultural field, and the approximate 1 to 2 feet of the clay surface was tilled soil and contained organics, and should generally be considered topsoil. The clayey soils consisted primarily of sandy lean clays, lean clays with sand and sandy silty clay with some silt. The gravels ranged from poorly graded gravels to silty gravels to clayey gravels and often contained cobbles. Some layers of clayey sand and lean clay with sand were encountered within the gravels at depth, which is typical of the alluvial braid plain deposits. The penetration resistances recorded in the upper clayey soils generally indicated the soils ranged from a soft to medium stiff consistency. Penetration resistances recorded in the sands and gravels generally indicated they were medium dense to very dense and often contained cobbles. Penetration resistances recorded in the clayey layers buried within the gravels indicated they were generally rather stiff to very stiff. Table 1 below summarizes the boring surface elevations as well as the depth and corresponding elevation to the top of the coarser sand or gravel and the sand or gravel. Table 1. Summary of Depth to Sand or Gravel Boring Surface Elevation Depth to Sand or Gravel Sand or Gravel Elevation Preliminary Borings - 2022 ST-1 4671.0 2 1/2 4668 1/2 ST-1A 4671.0 2 1/2 4668 1/2 ST-2 4681.5 4 4677 1/2 ST-3 4679.2 3 4676 ST-4 4683.9 3 4681 ST-5 4692.0 4 1/2 4687 1/2 ST-6 4689.5 2 1/2 4687 ST-7 4709.5 21 4688 1/2 Final Borings - 2023 B-1 4691.9 3 1/2 4688 1/2 B-2 4702.2 10 4692 B-3 4691.2 2 1/2 4688 1/2 B-4 4692.8 8 1/2 4684 1/2 B-5 4689.5 4 4685 1/2 B-8 4696.4 8 1/2 4688 B-9 4686.8 2 4685 B-10 4687.3 6 1/2 4681 B-12 4678.7 3 1/2 4675 Simkins-Hallin, Inc. July 26, 2023 Project 23-4278G Page 5 Table 1. Summary of Depth to Sand or Gravel Continued. Boring Surface Elevation Depth to Gravel Gravel Elevation B-13 4677.7 3 1/2 4674 B-15 4677.7 3 1/2 4674 B-16 4677.8 3 4675 B-17 4679.2 2 1/2 4676 1/2 B-18 4678.5 1 1/2 4677 B-19 4682.4 4 4678 1/2 B-20 4681.7 3 1/2 4678 B-21 4681.4 2 1/2 4679 B-22 4680.8 2 4679 B-23 4682.5 3 4679 1/2 B-24 4683.0 3 4680 B-25 4683.3 4 4679 1/2 B-26 4684.5 3 1/2 4681 B-27 4685.4 4 4681 1/2 B-28 4685.9 4 1/2 4681 1/2 B-29 4685.8 2 4684 B-30 4688.2 5 4683 B-31 4690.6 6 4684 1/2 B-32 4684.5 3 4681 1/2 B-33 4687.3 3 4684 1/2 B-34 4687.9 2 1/2 4685 1/2 B-35 4690.0 3 4687 B-36 4689.4 4 4685 1/2 B.4. Groundwater Observations Groundwater was encountered in the majority of the borings, and was generally observed at depths ranging from about 6 to 15 feet with some as deep as 24 feet. The depths to groundwater and groundwater surface elevations at the borings are summarized in Table 2 following this page. Simkins-Hallin, Inc. July 26, 2023 Project 23-4278G Page 6 Table 2. Summary of Groundwater Level Measurements Boring Surface Elevation Depth to Groundwater Groundwater Elevation Preliminary Borings - 2022 ST-1 4671.0 N/E N/E ST-1A 4671.0 N/E N/E ST-2 4681.5 7 4674 1/2 ST-3 4679.2 9 4670 ST-4 4683.9 8 4676 ST-5 4692.0 17 1/2 4674 1/2 ST-6 4689.5 7 4682 1/2 ST-7 4709.5 24 4685 1/2 Final Borings - 2023 B-1 4691.9 N/E N/E B-2 4702.2 24.0 4678 B-3 4691.2 14.0 4677 B-4 4692.8 13.0 4680 B-5 4689.5 13.5 4676 B-8 4696.4 18 4678 1/2 B-9 4686.8 N/E N/E B-10 4687.3 10 1/2 4677 B-12 4678.7 7 4671 1/2 B-13 4677.7 8 1/2 4669 B-15 4677.7 N/E N/E B-16 4677.8 9 4669 B-17 4679.2 8 4671 B-18 4678.5 7 4671 1/2 B-19 4682.4 9 1/2 4673 B-20 4681.7 9 4673 B-21 4681.4 7 1/2 4674 B-22 4680.8 6 1/2 4674 1/2 B-23 4682.5 9 4673 1/2 B-24 4683.0 7 4676 B-25 4683.3 7 1/2 4675 1/2 B-26 4684.5 7 1/2 4677 B-27 4685.4 9 4676 1/2 B-28 4685.9 8 1/2 4677 1/2 B-29 4685.8 8 4678 B-30 4688.2 8 1/2 4680 B-31 4690.6 N/E N/E B-32 4684.5 6 4678 1/2 B-33 4687.3 6 1/2 4681 B-34 4687.9 7 4681 B-35 4690.0 6 4684 B-36 4689.4 6 4683 1/2 Simkins-Hallin, Inc. July 26, 2023 Project 23-4278G Page 7 It should be noted, the period of observation was relatively short, and seasonal and annual fluctuations in the groundwater levels should be anticipated. It was indicated that monitoring wells were installed by others across the development to monitor groundwater levels, and this information should be reviewed to better determine seasonal and annual fluctuations. B.5. Laboratory Tests The results of the laboratory tests are presented on the boring logs, tables and graphs in the Appendix. The laboratory tests consisted of classification, consolidation, Proctor, CBR and corrosion tests. The results of these tests are summarized in Table 3 and Table 4 below. The corrosion test results are attached. Table 3. Summary of Soil Classification and Consolidation Tests Boring Depth (ft) ASTM Symbol Moisture Content LL PL PI Percent Passing 200 Sieve Dry Density (pcf) Moist Density (pcf) Percent Swell (+) or Collapse (-) Percent Consolidation at 2,000 psf* ST-2 3-4 CL-ML 18.2 25 20 5 52.8 90 106.4 -3.1 10.2 ST-2 11 1/2-13 CL 27.7 34 22 12 52.9 -- -- -- -- ST-4 14-15 1/2 CL 33.5 29 18 11 74.7 -- -- -- -- ST-5 3-4 CL 24.1 30 21 9 71.7 83.6 103.8 -3.2 6.3 ST-6 6 1/2-8 SM 6.8 21 19 2 12.7 -- -- -- -- B-1 2-3 CL 20.1 30 19 11 90.2 100.1 120.2 -1.9 4.7 B-4 18 1/2-19 1/2 SC 15.5 30 20 10 38.1 110.0 127.0 -0.2 3.8 B-5 0-3 CL-ML 19.3 26 19 7 83.1 -- -- -- -- B-5 3-5 GP-GM 5.7 NP NP NP 5.7 -- -- -- -- B-5 16-17 CL 30.2 35 21 4 74.0 -- -- -- -- B-21 23-24 CL 30.9 43 23 20 61.9 89.5 117.2 0.2 4.2 B-22 25 1/2-26 1/2 CH 38.9 53 22 31 70.2 -- -- -- -- B-24 0-3 CL 21.8 26 19 7 86.2 -- -- -- -- B-24 3-5 GP-GM 5.7 NP NP NP 5.9 -- -- -- -- B-25 3-4 CL 16.1 30 17 13 55.1 106.9 124.1 0.1 4.5 *Excluding the collapse Table 4. Summary of Proctor and CBR Tests Boring Depth (ft) ASTM Symbol Moisture Content LL PL PI Percent Passing 200 Sieve Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Optimum Moisture Content (percent) CBR Value B-5 0-3 CL-ML 19.3 26 19 7 83.1 108.9 18.9 4.0 B-5 3-5 GP-GM 5.7 NP NP NP 5.7 140.0 9.1 9.1 B-24 0-3 CL 21.8 26 19 7 86.2 102.3 22.0 3.5 B-24 3-5 GP-GM 5.7 NP NP NP 5.9 131.8 8.3 15 Simkins-Hallin, Inc. July 26, 2023 Project 23-4278G Page 8 The laboratory tests generally indicate that the clayey soils are low plasticity, weak and potentially collapsible when inundated with water. Therefore, these soils are generally considered poor for foundation and slab support. Once excavated and recompacted, they are not anticipated to undergo significant volume changes with changes in moisture content, so could be used for lightly loaded structures, if desired. The clayey soils are also considered to be highly corrosive to buried steel conduits and corrosion protection or non-corrosive materials are recommended. The CBR tests performed on the gravel soils were somewhat low, and it is our opinion that this may be a reflection of the rounded and silty/clayey gravel material which can sometimes perform poorly in a CBR test. It is our opinion that the gravels will likely have a field CBR value of at least 10. C. Analyses and Recommendations C.1. Proposed Construction A general layout of the proposed construction is shown on the attached Overall Grading and Drainage Plan and Overall Schematic Landscape plans. In summary, the development will consist of regrading the property to a gently sloping surface ranging from about elevation 4668 near the southeast corner to about 4677 at the northwest corner. To facilitate these grade changes, it is planned to construct a variable height retaining wall along the south and southeast corner of the site with an unbalanced earth height of about 10 feet with a sloping hillside above the retaining wall. A small retaining wall with a maximum height of about 5 feet is planned between Wheat Drive and the retail parking area. Across the remainder of the site, cut and fill depths will generally be less than about 5 feet and will generally follow existing grade. The development will then consist of primarily five larger buildings and multiple exterior sheds, material storage racks and product storage areas. A summary of the proposed construction is summarized in Table 5 following this page. Simkins-Hallin, Inc. July 26, 2023 Project 23-4278G Page 9 Table 5. Summary of Proposed Building Construction Structure Construction Type Proposed Finished Grade Maximum Anticipated Column Loads (kips) Maximum Anticipated Wall Loads (kips/lineal foot) Comments Retail/Office Building Pre-Cast Tilt Up Panels 4680.25 100 6 Truss Manufacturing PEMB 4689.00 200 5 Sheetrock Warehouse PEMB 4677.50 100 5 Drive – Thru Building PEMB 4678.75 100 5 Millwork Building PEMB 4690.25 100 5 Loading dock walls on west side of building Mechanic Shop PEMB 4692.00 100 5 Material Racks, Sheds, Material Storage Steel Frame Varies 200 5 The majority of the site will then be covered with an asphalt pavement surface. The pavement use will vary across the site ranging from light car and truck parking around the retail/office building to heavy forklift traffic near the truss manufacturing building. The limits of the heavier forklift traffic areas are outlined on the attached Geotechnical Boring Layout drawing. These areas were provided by Simkins- Hallin. If the proposed loads exceed the values indicated in Table 5, or if the proposed grades differ by more than 1 foot by the values indicated, or if there are changes to the design, we should be informed. Additional analysis and recommendations may be necessary. C.2. Discussion The site is covered by a relatively thick topsoil zone overlying weaker clays that are potentially collapsible. The thicker topsoil will need to be stripped from the site prior to development. A portion of the topsoil has already been removed from the partial cut area. The underlying clays are generally considered weak and are unsuitable for direct foundation or slab support, in our opinion. After the topsoil has been stripped and the site has been graded to future subgrade elevation beneath pavement areas, little clay would remain over the underlying sands and gravels, which are considered a much better subgrade for foundation, slab and pavement support. Therefore, we recommended in our preliminary report that consideration should be given to removing all of the clays down to the underlying Simkins-Hallin, Inc. July 26, 2023 Project 23-4278G Page 10 sands and gravels and replacing them with imported sandy gravel. We understand this approach has been selected for the northern portion of the site, Tract 2-B and Tract 4-B. For the southwestern Tract 3-B, the clays are thicker and about 2 to 5 feet of fill is needed to establish proposed finished floor elevation for the millwork and mechanic shop buildings. While we still recommend subexcavating the clayey soils from beneath the building areas in Tract 3-B, the clays can be left in place beneath the future pavement areas in Tract 3-B. However, thicker pavement sections and some soft, wet subgrades should be anticipated. After the clayey soils have been subexcavated and replaced with imported sandy gravels, it is our opinion the structures can be supported on conventional spread footings. The future retaining walls can also be supported directly on the compacted sandy gravels or underlying native gravels. As indicated previously, a global stability analysis will need to be conducted for the larger variable height retaining wall planned near the southeast corner of the site. Temporary shoring may also be needed in this area. We anticipate the majority of the utilities can be supported on the native sands or gravels, as well as compacted sandy gravel. However, dewatering should be anticipated for the majority of the deeper site utilities. Recommended alternatives for flexible asphalt pavement surfaces are included later in this report. The combilift forklifts will be very abrasive to flexible asphalt pavements, and consideration should be given to using Portland cement concrete pavement in areas of more severe forklift traffic and turning loads. C.3. Site Preparation C.3.a. Mass Grading. We recommend all vegetation, topsoil, and root zone be removed from beneath the proposed development area. The topsoil was relatively thick, ranging in thickness from about 1 to 2 feet. With the exception of the areas that had recently been cut down, and the topsoil had been removed. We recommend assuming an average thickness of about 18 inches across the site, however, actual depth of removal should be determined by observations during stripping. To provide a more stable subgrade, we also recommend removing the clay and silt soils down to the underlying sands and gravels. This should be completed across the entire areas of Tracts 2-B and 4-B and building slabs and foundation areas in Tract 3-B. The anticipated depth of subexcavation are summarized in Table 6 following this page. Simkins-Hallin, Inc. July 26, 2023 Project 23-4278G Page 11 Table 6. Anticipated Subexcavation Depths Boring Surface Elevation Anticipated Depth to Sand or Gravel below Existing Grade Sand or Gravel Elevation Preliminary Borings - 2022 ST-1 4671.0 2 1/2 4668 1/2 ST-1A 4671.0 2 1/2 4668 1/2 ST-2 4681.5 4 4677 1/2 ST-3 4679.2 3 4676 ST-4 4683.9 3 4681 ST-5 4692.0 4 1/2 4687 1/2 ST-6 4689.5 2 1/2 4687 ST-7 4709.5 21 4688 1/2 Final Borings - 2023 B-1 4691.9 3 1/2 4688 1/2 B-2 4702.2 10 4692 B-3 4691.2 2 1/2 4688 1/2 B-4 4692.8 8 1/2 4684 1/2 B-5 4689.5 4 4685 1/2 B-8 4696.4 8 1/2 4688 B-9 4686.8 2 4685 B-10 4687.3 6 1/2 4681 B-12 4678.7 3 1/2 4675 B-13 4677.7 3 1/2 4674 B-15 4677.7 3 1/2 4674 B-16 4677.8 3 4675 B-17 4679.2 2 1/2 4676 1/2 B-18 4678.5 1 1/2 4677 B-19 4682.4 4 4678 1/2 B-20 4681.7 3 1/2 4678 B-21 4681.4 2 1/2 4679 B-22 4680.8 2 4679 B-23 4682.5 3 4679 1/2 B-24 4683.0 3 4680 B-25 4683.3 4 4679 1/2 B-26 4684.5 3 1/2 4681 B-27 4685.4 4 4681 1/2 B-28 4685.9 4 1/2 4681 1/2 B-29 4685.8 2 4684 B-30 4688.2 5 4683 B-31 4690.6 6 4684 1/2 B-32 4684.5 3 4681 1/2 B-33 4687.3 3 4684 1/2 B-34 4687.9 2 1/2 4685 1/2 B-35 4690.0 3 4687 B-36 4689.4 4 4685 1/2 Simkins-Hallin, Inc. July 26, 2023 Project 23-4278G Page 12 As indicated in Table 6, the depth of subexcavation will generally range from about 2 to 5 feet below existing grade with some areas as deep as about 10 feet. However, actual depth of subexcavation below finished grade will generally range from about 2 to 4 feet on Tracts 2-B and 4-B. Even so, it is an alluvial environment and clay and silt overburden depths will vary and could be deeper in ancient channel and pond areas. On Tract 3-B, the depth of subexcavation below finished floor grade will be greater. Borings in the millwork building and mechanic shop indicate clay and silt overburden was encountered to depths ranging from about 3 to 6 feet. Then, additional fill will be necessary to raise grades even higher to achieve floor elevation. Based on the water levels at the time of our evaluation, it appears that groundwater will generally be at least 2 to 3 feet below the anticipated subexcavation bottom. However, groundwater levels do fluctuate, and if the earthwork is conducted during a period of seasonally high groundwater, some groundwater could be encountered. If groundwater is encountered, we recommend it be drawn down a minimum of 2 feet below the anticipated subexcavation bottom prior to excavation. The method of dewatering will need to be determined by the contractor based on their past experience and available equipment. After the clayey soils have been subexcavated and removed, we recommend they be replaced with imported structural backfill consisting of 3-inch minus sandy gravel with the following recommended gradation requirements. Table 7. Standard Backfill Requirements. Sieve Size % passing 3-inch 100 No. 4 25-60 No 200 < 12 Plasticity Index <6 Prior to placing the structural backfill, we recommend scarifying, moisture conditioning and recompacting the exposed native sand and gravel subgrade and compacting it to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density determined in accordance with American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) Method of Test D698 (Standard Proctor). We recommend structural backfill be placed in maximum 8-inch loose lifts thicknesses, moisture conditioned to a moisture content within 2 percent of optimum and compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of its standard Proctor density. C.3.b. Site Utilities. C.3.b.1. Dewatering. Groundwater was commonly encountered at depths ranging from about 6 to 10 feet below existing grade. Therefore, dewatering should be anticipated for site utilities. We recommend groundwater be drawn down a minimum of 2 feet below the trench bottom prior to excavation. The method of dewatering will need to be determined by the contractor based on their past experience and available equipment. Simkins-Hallin, Inc. July 26, 2023 Project 23-4278G Page 13 C.3.b.2. Trench Subgrade. We anticipate the trench subgrade will be primarily medium dense to dense sandy gravels with cobbles. We anticipate these soils will generally be suitable for direct bedding support. Even so, the site does have clayey soils, and soft, wet clayey soils could be encountered in areas. Therefore, we recommend providing a small quantity of Type 2 bedding material for support of pipes when soft, wet, clayey areas are encountered. C.3.b.3. Materials. We recommend the utilities be installed in general accordance with Montana Public Works Standard Specifications (MPWSS). MPWSS indicates Type 1 bedding is to be 1 1/2-inch minus gravel with no requirement on the percent passing the No. 200 sieve (fines). Type 2 bedding is to be 3-inch minus aggregate material with no more than 25 percent passing the No. 4 sieve and no more than 10 percent passing the No. 8 sieve. These gravels are considered open-graded materials and are susceptible to piping of fines. To reduce the risk of piping fines within an open-graded bedding, we recommend completely wrapping the open-graded Type 1 and Type 2 bedding with a 6-ounce nonwoven geotextile fabric. Another alternative is to provide well-graded Type 1 and Type 2 bedding as described in Montana Public Works Drawing Number 02221-2. Placing well-graded bedding which contains fine- to coarse-grained sands will reduce the risk of fines piping due to groundwater fluctuations or infiltrated water flowing within pipe bedding. It is our opinion this is the preferred approach if the trench is free of water, and the bedding can be compacted. However, if water will saturate the bedding prior to compaction, then the open-graded bedding completely wrapped in non-woven fabric is more constructible, in our opinion. C.3.b.4. Backfilling and Compaction. It is our opinion the on-site sand and gravel soils excavated from the trenches can generally be reused as compacted backfill. We recommend the clayey soils only be used in areas where the clayey soils have been left in-place for the development area, such as Tract 3-B. In all areas, the excavated soils should be replaced in kind, i.e., gravels with gravels and clays with clays. We anticipate soils excavated from below groundwater will be wet, and will need to be spread out and dried or mixed with drier soils to obtain a moisture content near optimum. On-site clayey soils will also likely be wet, and will also need to be spread out and dried, if reused. Imported materials will likely be below optimum moisture content and will require additional moisture prior to placement. Gravels from the excavation to be reused as trench backfill will likely need to be screened to remove oversized materials greater than 6-inches prior to placement. Oversized materials larger than 6 inches can hinder compaction efforts and create voids, which causes segregation and eventually settlement. All backfill should be placed in accordance with MPWSS requirements. We recommend backfill be placed and compacted in accordance with MPWSS Section 02201 for Type A backfill. To reduce settlement, it is critical that backfill be moisture conditioned to a moisture content near optimum, placed in uncompacted (loose) lifts of 8 inches of less, and compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of its standard Proctor density. Simkins-Hallin, Inc. July 26, 2023 Project 23-4278G Page 14 If smaller remote-controlled walk behind compaction equipment is used, lifts should then be reduced to 4 inches (loose) to aid in achieving compaction. It is also critical that backfill adjacent to manholes, vaults, and valves be adequately compacted or the risk of surface water infiltration is much higher. Hand operated equipment with thinner 4-inch lifts is recommended for compaction in tight spaces. Surface water can saturate backfill and cause excessive settlement if backfill is inadequately compacted. Qualified personnel should closely observe backfill placement, lift sizes and compaction effort around manholes, vaults and valves as well as trench backfill above utilities. We recommend full time observations be performed to confirm lift thickness and consistent compaction effort being applied to each lift. Compaction testing must be performed during placement of backfill in accordance with project specifications and City of Bozeman requirements. C.3.b.5. Trench Settlement. Trench settlement of utility excavations is a common problem and it is often difficult to avoid. Even well compacted backfill (98 percent) will settle some, in our opinion, we anticipate trench settlement will be approximately 1/2 to 1 percent of the total trench depth, if well compacted. For backfill compacted to only 90 percent, we anticipate trench settlement in the range of 3 percent of the trench depth. If the backfill is poorly compacted, excessively thick lifts are placed, large oversized materials are left in place, contains frozen materials, or surface water infiltrates into the trench, several inches of settlement could occur. C.4. Foundations C.4.a. Depth. We recommend footings for heated structures bear a minimum of 4 feet below exterior grades for frost protection. Interior footings for heated structures may be placed immediately beneath the slabs. Footings for exterior, unheated structures should bear a minimum of 5 feet below exterior grade. Sunbelt Rack indicates that many of the exterior rack systems are designed to accommodate movement associated with frost and can generally bear at relatively shallow depths below the finished ground surface. If movement from frost can be tolerated, it is our opinion that this is acceptable, but movement from frost should be anticipated. Since the structures will bear on a relatively uniform subgrade of compacted sandy gravel overlying the native sands and gravels, we anticipate the movement between surrounding pavements and shallow foundations will be relatively uniform. However, it should be noted that the underlying sands and gravels are frost susceptible and up to about 1 to 2 inches of seasonal frost movement should be anticipated. The thickened edge slab foundations may also be used for different structures. We recommend thickened edge slab foundations have a minimum turn down edge thickness of 2 feet and bear a minimum of 18 inches below grade. Extruded polystyrene foam insultation should be provided around the foundations in accordance with American Society for Civil Engineers (ASCE) 32-01 Design and Construction of Frost-Protected Shallow Foundations. Simkins-Hallin, Inc. July 26, 2023 Project 23-4278G Page 15 C.4.b. Subgrade. After the recommended clay and silt overburden subexcavation and replacement has been completed, we anticipate that footing subgrades will consist of native sands and gravels or recompacted structural backfill placed over native sands and gravels. The soils loosened during excavation should be recompacted prior to placement of foundations. C.4.c. Bearing Pressure. It is our opinion footings may be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure up to 4,000 psf (4,000 pounds per square foot). (Net allowable bearing pressure is defined as that bearing pressure in excess of the final minimum overburden pressure.) This bearing pressure includes a factor of safety of at least 3.0 against bearing capacity failure. C.4.d. Anticipated Settlement and Heave. Based on the indicated building loads, we anticipate total and differential settlement and heave of foundations designed and placed as recommended above will generally be less than 1 inch for heated structures under the assumed loads. We estimate differential movement will be less than 3/4 inch. Building of this type can generally tolerate movements of this magnitude. As indicated above, shallow foundations that are not placed below frost depth will experience more movement, and we estimate total movement up to 2 inches could occur. C.4.e. Reinforcement. Sufficient reinforcing steel should be placed in the foundation walls to span isolated zones where foundation support could be lost due to localized settlement or heave of the soils or installation of subsurface utilities. This will also reduce the widths of cracks created by shrinkage of the concrete, and local settlement and heave of the soils. The amount of reinforcing should be determined by the project structural engineer. C.4.f. Foundation Wall Backfill. We recommend all backfill placed on the interior and exterior sides of the foundation walls be compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of its standard Proctor maximum dry density beneath slabs and pavements and to a minimum of 90 percent in landscaped areas. Soils from the footing excavations can generally be used, except where frost protection beneath exterior slabs is desired as discussed later in this report. The levels of the exterior and interior backfills should not differ by more than 8 inches during placement or the walls should be braced, otherwise the foundation walls may be displaced. C.4.g. Seismic Design Considerations. Based on the results of our soil borings and review of available geologic information, we recommend using a "Stiff soil profile, Site Class D," as defined by the 2021 International Building Code (IBC) for design. Loose, waterbearing soils were not encountered. Therefore, it is our opinion that the soils are not potentially liquifiable under the anticipated seismic forces. Simkins-Hallin, Inc. July 26, 2023 Project 23-4278G Page 16 C.5. Cast In-Place Retaining Walls and Loading Dock Walls C.5.a. Backfill. We recommend placing 5 feet (horizontal) of nonfrost-susceptible sand or sandy gravel backfill behind the retaining walls for three reasons: (1) to provide a relatively free-draining backfill, which will not impede downward percolation of water to seep holes, (2) to reduce the lateral earth pressures on the wall, and (3) to reduce the risk of frost penetrating the backfill behind the wall, causing it to move outward. Imported sand or sandy gravel with less than 5 percent of its particles by weight passing a 200 sieve is generally considered nonfrost-susceptible. Backfill behind the retaining walls should be placed in lifts and at a moisture content at or slightly above optimum moisture content. The backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of its standard Proctor maximum dry density. C.5.b. Lateral Earth Pressures. Assuming nonfrost-susceptible sand or sandy gravel backfill compacted to 98 percent will be placed behind retaining walls, we recommend using the following parameters for estimating lateral forces. • Active earth pressure (wall free to move away from backfill): 35 pounds per square foot per foot of depth (psf/ft) plus 0.31 times surcharge load. • At-rest earth pressure (wall restrained): 55 psf/ft plus 0.5 times surcharge load. • Passive earth pressure: 650 psf/ft plus 5.8 times surcharge load. • Coefficient of sliding friction: 0.55. The values indicated above do not include factors of safety. Appropriate factors of safety should be included when designing retaining walls to resist lateral earth forces. C.6. Earth-Supported Floors C.6.a. Subgrade. After the recommended clay and silt overburden subexcavation and replacement, we anticipate floor subgrades will consist of compacted structural backfill placed over the native sands and gravels. It is our opinion that these soils will be suitable for floor slab support. However, a leveling course of 3/4-inch minus crushed gravel base is recommended beneath floors for finished grading. C.6.b. Backfill. We recommend backfill in footing and mechanical trenches also be moistened to a moisture content near or slightly above the optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 98 percent. C.6.c. Vapor Retarder. If floor coverings or coatings less permeable than the concrete slab will be used, or if moisture is a concern, we recommend a vapor retarder/barrier be placed directly beneath the slab. (Some coverings, coatings or situations may require a vapor barrier, i.e., a membrane with a permeance less than 0.01 perm.) We recommend placement of the vapor retarder/barrier be located in accordance with American Concrete Institute (ACI) 302.1R-15. Some contractors and designers prefer to place a sand or gravel cushion course between the slab and vapor retarder in an effort to reduce curling. Simkins-Hallin, Inc. July 26, 2023 Project 23-4278G Page 17 However, this practice increases the risk of trapping water between the slab vapor retarder, which can significantly delay placement of some floor coverings. If the cushion course does become wet prior to concrete placement, it is critical the excess moisture be removed prior to slab placement. It should be noted that placement of a gravel cushion course for the structural backfill, even though it is granular, should not be considered adequate as a vapor retarder/barrier. Due to the relatively high groundwater, it is critical that vapor barriers/retarders be installed beneath floors, where floor covers and coatings are planned. C.6.d. Subgrade Modulus. Assuming the slabs will be placed on a minimum of 6 inches of compacted crushed gravel road base placed over the compacted structural backfill or native sands and gravels, it is our opinion a modulus of 300 pounds per square inch per inch of deflection (pci) may be used to design the floors. C.7. Variable Height Retaining Walls C.7.a. General. The wall type for the variable height retaining walls has not yet been determined, but will likely consist of a modular block or gravity block wall system. Design of these systems is generally provided by the wall manufacturer and only recommendations for bearing capacity, settlement and global stability are generally provided by the geotechnical engineer. Since the wall type has not yet been selected, a global stability analysis will need to be conducted at a later date after the wall system has been better defined. General recommendations to assist the wall manufacturer and design of their wall system are provided below. C.7.b. Embedment Depth. We recommend all walls bear a minimum of 2 feet below finished grade. To provide frost protection, we recommend providing a minimum of 2 feet of non-frost susceptible sandy gravel beneath the wall. Sandy gravel with a maximum of 5 percent of its particles by weight passing a No. 200 sieve is generally considered non-frost susceptible. C.7.c. Subgrade Preparation. Similar to the majority of the development area, we recommend the on- site clay and silt soils be subexcavated from beneath the proposed walls down to the underlying sands and gravels. Subexcavated soils should be replaced with imported non-frost susceptible sandy gravel compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of its standard Proctor density. C.7.d. Wall Design Parameters. Recommended design parameters to be used by the wall manufacturer for design are summarized in Table 8 below. Simkins-Hallin, Inc. July 26, 2023 Project 23-4278G Page 18 Table 8. Summary of Retaining Wall Design Parameters Total Unit Weight, pcf Drained Angle of Internal Friction, degrees Undrained Cohesion, psf Allowable Bearing Capacity, psf Reinforced Soil 130 34 ------ ------ Retained Soil 125 30 ------ Foundation Soil* 115 30 4,000 It should be noted that the above-values are ultimate values, except where noted, and appropriate factors of safety should be provided to limit movement. The allowable bearing capacity includes a minimum factor of safety of 3.0 against bearing capacity failure. C.7.e. Seepage Control. We recommend a perforated drain pipe be provided behind the retaining wall to collect seepage and route it down and away from the proposed wall. The drainage system should consist of a minimum 6-inch diameter perforated pipe surrounded by drainage aggregate and burrito wrapped with a geotextile filter fabric. The pipe should be placed within 4 inches of the bottom of the retaining wall and then routed down and away from the proposed wall. C.8. Exterior Slabs C.8.a. Subgrade. Non-critical exterior slabs may be supported on undisturbed natural soils and compacted structural backfill after the vegetation, topsoil, and root zone have been removed. Critical exterior slabs, such as those at entrances, will likely require some additional subgrade preparation as described below. C.8.b. Backfill and Fill. Backfill and fill beneath proposed exterior slabs and their oversize zones should be placed in lifts and at a moisture content near or slightly above optimum moisture content. We recommend all fill and backfill beneath exterior slabs be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its standard Proctor maximum dry density. C.8.c. Frost Protection. The on-site soils, including the sands and gravels are frost-susceptible soils. The imported structural backfill will also likely be frost-susceptible, if it contains more than 5 percent of its particles passing a 200 sieve. If these soils become wet and freeze, up to about 2 inches of frost heave should be anticipated. Heaving of slabs during the winter can be a nuisance or hazard where doors open outward and at other critical grade areas. To reduce this heave, we recommend removing the frost susceptible soils down to the bottom of frost- depth footing level (4 feet) and replacing them with clean (nonfrost-susceptible) sand or sandy gravel. Sand or sandy gravel with less than 5 percent of their particles by weight passing a 200 sieve are generally considered nonfrost-susceptible. Simkins-Hallin, Inc. July 26, 2023 Project 23-4278G Page 19 Another method of reducing frost heave is to place a minimum of 2 inches of extruded polystyrene foam insulation beneath the slabs and extending about 4 feet beyond the slabs. Insulation will reduce frost penetration into the underlying subgrade and thereby reduce heave. A leveling course of sand is generally required to seat the insulation panels. Eight to twelve inches of crushed road base material should be placed over the panels to protect them during construction. C.9. Site Grading and Drainage We recommend the site be graded to provide positive run-off away from the proposed buildings. We recommend landscaped areas have a slope of at least 5 percent for the first 10 feet away from the buildings, then 2 percent to carry run-off away. To maintain this slope, it is essential that backfill against the foundation walls be adequately compacted. If it is not adequately compacted, exterior foundation wall backfill will likely consolidate and water may pond and soak into the soil, causing settlement. In addition, we recommend gutters and downspouts with long splash blocks or extensions. Good site drainage is of paramount importance for the proposed buildings and site improvements. Underground sprinkler systems near the building should be avoided, if possible. C.10. Building Utilities C.10.a. Materials. Silty and clayey soils were commonly encountered by the borings. These soils are generally corrosive to metallic conduits. We recommend specifying non-corrosive materials or providing corrosion protection unless additional tests are performed to demonstrate the soils are not corrosive. We recommend using crushed gravel road base with a maximum particle size of 3/4 inch as bedding material. Site soils screened to less than 6 inches in diameter from the trench excavations may be used as backfill above the bedding. C.10.b. Backfilling and Compaction. We recommend bedding material be thoroughly compacted around the pipes. We recommend trench backfill above the bedding be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent in landscaped areas and 98 percent beneath proposed footings, slabs, and pavements. Backfilling around and above utilities should meet the requirements of Montana Public Works Standard Specifications. C.11. Pavement C.11.a. Subgrade Preparation. After the mass grading has been completed, we anticipate that the subgrade will generally be compacted structural backfill, the exception being the pavement areas in Tract 3-B. In areas where the structural backfill has been placed, we anticipate subgrade should consist of scarifying, moisture conditioning and recompacting the exposed subgrade. The subgrade should be compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of its standard Proctor maximum dry density. Simkins-Hallin, Inc. July 26, 2023 Project 23-4278G Page 20 In Tract 3-B, where clayey subgrade is anticipated, we recommend the subgrade be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moistening to a moisture content near optimum and compacting the clayey subgrade to a minimum of 95 percent of its standard Proctor maximum dry density prior to placement of additional fill. Due to the weak clays, some unstable areas should be anticipated where they are excessively soft and wet. Where unstable clayey soils are encountered, we recommend that they need to be subexcavated down to the underlying sands and gravels or to a maximum depth of 2 feet below subgrade elevation and replacing them with compacted structural backfill. In Tract 3-B, we also recommend placing a 6-ounce non-woven geotextile filter fabric across the clayey subgrade directly beneath the planned subbase or base course. This fabric provides separation to help prevent contamination of clayey fines into the subbase and base course. C.11.b. Pavement Sections. Alternative pavement sections for clay and gravel subgrades were developed for light duty, heavy duty and extra heavy-duty pavement areas. It is our opinion light car and pickup parking areas can be considered light duty. The areas where heavy forklift traffic is anticipated, should be considered extra heavy-duty pavement areas. All other areas should be considered heavy-duty pavement areas. These sections are summarized in Table 9 below. Table 9. Alternative Flexible Pavement Sections Pavement Layer Light Duty Pavement (ESAL’s <10 Daily) Heavy Duty Pavement (ESAL’s <200 Daily) Extra Heavy-Duty Pavement (ESAL’s <500 Daily) Clay Subgrade Asphalt Pavement 3” 3” 4” 4” --- --- Crushed Base Course 13” 6” 16” 9” --- --- 3-Inch Minus Subbase --- 14” --- 14” --- --- Total 16” 23” 20” 27” --- --- Gravel Subgrade Asphalt Pavement 3” 3” 4” 4” 5” 5” Crushed Base Course 6” 4” 9” 4” 12” 6” 3-Inch Minus Subbase --- 6” --- 9” --- 12” Total 9” 13” 13” 17” 17” 23” C.11.b.1. Methodology. The pavement sections were determined utilizing an Excel spreadsheet developed by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT), which is based on the American Association for State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 1993 Pavement Design Methodology. The pavement sections for the forklift traffic areas was also further evaluated with the PCASE Program developed for the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for unusual traffic loading such as forklifts. C.11.b.2. Traffic. The estimated traffic values are summarized in Table 9 above. Simkins-Hallin, Inc. July 26, 2023 Project 23-4278G Page 21 C.11.b.3. Subgrade. We anticipate the majority of the subgrades will consist of the native sands and gravels or compacted structural backfill placed over the native sands and gravels. The clay subgrade may be encountered in areas of Tract 3-B, where less than about 2 feet of fill is required to establish grades. Please note, we have assumed extra heavy-duty pavement areas will all have a gravel subgrade and the weak clays will have been removed. C.11.b.4. Portland Cement Concrete. We recommend consideration be given to utilizing Portland cement concrete pavement (PCCP) where heavier forklift traffic and turning movements are anticipated. The concentrated turning action from the forklift will be very abrasive to asphalt pavement. we recommend providing a PCCP thickness with a minimum of 9 inches of PCCP placed over a minimum of 12 inches of crushed gravel base. C.11.b.5. Gravel Surface Areas. We recommend providing a minimum of 9 inches of crushed gravel base for light duty areas and a minimum of 18 inches in heavy duty areas. Periodic regrading will be required to maintain good drainage and repair soft areas which will inevitably develop. Use of a geogrid or high-performance geotextile beneath the gravel surfacing is recommended to reduce rutting and extend the service life. They also bind the aggregate together (aggregate interlock) improving strength in all types of weather. Crushed top surfacing, Type 2, Grade 3 in accordance with the Montana Department of Transportation Standard Specifications (MSDTSS) Table 701-11 should be used for the top 6 inches. Since it has more fines, this will reduce wash boarding and promote better drainage. C.11.c. Materials and Compaction. We recommend specifying crushed gravel base and sandy gravel subbase courses meeting the requirements of Montana Public Works Standard Specification (MPWSS), Sixth Edition, April 2010, Sections 02235 and 02234. We recommend the gravel base and subbase be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its standard Proctor maximum dry density. We recommend the asphaltic concrete meet the requirements of Section 02503. We recommend the asphaltic concrete pavement be compacted to an average density of 93 percent or greater of the maximum density as determined by ASTM D 2041 (Rice's) and no individual sample shall be less than 92 percent. As indicated above, we recommend the gravel surfacing and gravel surfaced areas meet the requirements of MDTSS Type 2, Grade 3. Portland cement concrete pavement should meet the requirements of Section 02515. All materials should meet the requirements of MPWSS or the most recent City of Bozeman modifications, whichever is more stringent. C.12. Concrete We recommend using cement meeting the requirements of ASTM C 150 Type II to provide moderate resistance to sulfate attack. We recommend specifying 5 to 7 percent entrained air for exposed concrete to provide resistance to freeze-thaw deterioration. We recommend using a water-cement ratio of 0.50 or less for exposed concrete and a water-cement ratio of 0.45 or less for concrete exposed to deicers. Simkins-Hallin, Inc. July 26, 2023 Project 23-4278G Page 22 D. Construction D.1. Excavation and Dewatering It is anticipated that groundwater will likely be encountered in the deeper utility excavations. There is also some risk, that groundwater could be encountered in areas of deeper subexcavation, depending on the time of construction. Where groundwater is anticipated, we recommend it be drawn down a minimum of 2 feet below future excavation bottoms, prior to excavation. The method of dewatering should be determined by the contractor based on their past experience and available equipment. It is our opinion the soils encountered by the borings can be excavated with a backhoe, front-end loader or scraper. The use of heavy rubber-tired equipment, such as scrapers or front-end loaders is discouraged in the areas where clay soils are to be left in place, as this equipment will quickly destabilize the clay soils, particularly if they are wet. A better choice, in our opinion, is to utilize low ground pressure track equipment with smooth bladed buckets to remove the initial fill lifts over the clay soils without causing excessive disturbance. The borings indicate the clay soils in the sidewalls of the excavations will likely be Type B soils under Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines and the sands and gravels will be Type C. All earthwork and construction should be performed in accordance with OSHA guidelines. Excavation for the future variable height retaining wall planned at the southeast corner of the site will be completed fairly close to existing utilities, such as fiber optic, power and communication lines. Depending on the final wall location, temporary shoring may be required to complete the excavation. Temporary shoring will need to be designed by the contractor and their engineer Shoring designs should be submitted for review and comment. D.2. Observations We recommend the mass grading and removal of the clay soils be observed by a geotechnical engineer or an engineering assistant working under the direction of a geotechnical engineer to see if the subgrade soils are similar to those encountered by the borings. Observations at footing, slab and pavement subgrade should also be performed to confirm overburden removal to the proper depth. During excavation for footings, we recommend tests be conducted on the subgrades to evaluate if the bearing capacity is at least 4,000 psf. Typical instruments used for these tests include hand augers, penetrometers, and sample tubes. D.3. Moisture Conditioning Site soils that will be excavated and reused as backfills and fills appeared to be near or above of optimum. We anticipate it will be necessary to spread these soils out to dry them to achieve a moisture content near or slightly above optimum. Simkins-Hallin, Inc. July 26, 2023 Project 23-4278G Page 23 It should also be anticipated that imported fill and backfill materials will be below optimum moisture content and additional moisture will be necessary to achieve a moisture content near or slightly above optimum. D.4. Subgrade Disturbance Weak, clayey soils will be present in areas where clay soils will be left in place, such as Tract 3-B. These fine-grained soils are considered to be moisture sensitive and are easily disturbed when wet. We therefore recommend good drainage of surface water in all areas be provided during construction to help avoid ponding areas. Ponding water will result in saturation of the subgrade soils, creating soft spots. Construction traffic driving across these soft spots can create large ruts and excessively disturb the areas. It is then very difficult to recompact these areas to specification, and they can result in construction delays. D.5. Testing We recommend density tests of fills and backfills placed beneath footings, slabs, and pavements. Density tests should also be performed utility trench on foundation wall backfill. We also recommend density testing of the compacted pavement subgrade and gravel base course. We recommend slump, temperature, air content, and strength tests on Portland cement concrete. Samples of proposed backfill and fill materials should be submitted to our testing laboratory at least three days prior to placement on the site for evaluation and determination of their optimum moisture contents and maximum dry densities. The project will be relatively large with multiple construction activities occurring simultaneously. A high level of observations, testing and inspection are recommended to better ensure the success of the project. We recommend full-time testing and inspection during the site utility, mass grading and building pad construction. Testing and inspection should be completed in strict accordance with project specifications. We recommend density testing of the asphaltic concrete pavement (cores and nuclear density gauge). The maximum density of the asphaltic concrete mix should be determined by ASTM D 2041 (Rice). We also recommend Marshall tests of the asphalt mix to evaluate strength and air voids. D.6. Cold Weather Construction If site grading and construction is anticipated during cold weather, we recommend good winter construction practices be observed. All snow and ice should be removed from cut and fill areas prior to additional grading. No fill should be placed on soils that have frozen or contain frozen material. No frozen soils should be used as fill. Concrete delivered to the site should meet the temperature requirements of ASTM C 94. Concrete should not be placed on frozen soils or soils that contain frozen material. Concrete should be protected from freezing until the necessary strength is attained. Frost should not be permitted to penetrate below footings bearing on frost-susceptible soil since such freezing could heave and crack the footings and/or foundation walls. Simkins-Hallin, Inc. July 26, 2023 Project 23-4278G Page 24 If the earthwork and site preparation is planned during the winter and early spring, additional work will be required due to the inherent wetter ground conditions, increased rain or snow fall, frozen ground, lack of drying weather and shorter work days. This additional work often includes, but is not limited to, subexcavation of unsuitable material, imported suitable fill, geosynthetics, ground heaters, waste of frozen or wet material and higher testing and observation costs. The additional work can delay the contractor’s schedule and result in substantial additional costs that are often passed onto the owner. E. Procedures E.1. Drilling and Sampling The penetration test borings were performed between May 15 and May 26, 2023 with a truck-mounted core and auger drill. Sampling for the borings was conducted in accordance with ASTM D 1586, "Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils." Using this method, we advanced the borehole with hollow-stem auger to the desired test depth. Then a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches drove a standard, 2-inch OD, split-barrel sampler a total penetration of 1 1/2 feet below the tip of the hollow-stem auger. The blows for the last foot of penetration were recorded and are an index of soil strength characteristics. Eleven 3-inch diameter thin-walled tube samples were taken in clayey soils in general accordance with ASTM D 1587, "Thin-walled Tube Sampling of Soils." The tubes were slowly pushed into undisturbed soils below the hollow-stem auger. After they were withdrawn from the boreholes, the ends of the tubes were sealed and the tubes were carefully transported to our laboratory. Very dense sands and gravels were encountered in the borings. When the sampler could not be driven 6 inches with 50 blows of the hammer, the distance the sampler was advanced with 50 blows was recorded. When this situation occurred during the first 6 inches of the drive, it was noted as occurring within the "set." E.2. Soil Classification The drill crew chief visually and manually classified the soils encountered in the borings in accordance with ASTM D 2488, "Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedures)." A summary of the ASTM classification system is attached. All samples were then returned to our laboratory for review of the field classifications by a geotechnical geologist or geotechnical engineer. Representative samples will remain in our office for a period of 60 days to be available for your examination. E.3. Groundwater Observations About 10 minutes after taking the final sample in the bottom of a boring, the driller probed through the hollow-stem auger to check for the presence of groundwater. Immediately after withdrawal of the auger, the driller again probed the depth to water or cave-in. The boring was then backfilled. Simkins-Hallin, Inc. July 26, 2023 Project 23-4278G Page 25 F. General Recommendations F.1. Basis of Recommendations The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil borings performed at the locations indicated on the attached sketch. Often, variations occur between these borings, the nature and extent of which do not become evident until additional exploration or construction is conducted. A reevaluation of the recommendations in this report should be made after performing on-site observations during construction to note the characteristics of any variations. The variations may result in additional foundation costs, and it is suggested a contingency be provided for this purpose. It is recommended we be retained to perform the observation and testing program for the site preparation phase of this project. This will allow correlation of the soil conditions encountered during construction to the soil borings, and will provide continuity of professional responsibility. F.2. Review of Design This report is based on the design of the proposed structure as related to us for preparation of this report. It is recommended we be retained to review the geotechnical aspects of the designs and specifications. With the review, we will evaluate whether any changes in design have affected the validity of the recommendations, and whether our recommendations have been correctly interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications. F.3. Groundwater Fluctuations We made water level observations in the borings at the times and under the conditions stated on the boring logs. These data were interpreted in the text of this report. The period of observation was relatively short, and fluctuation in the groundwater level may occur due to rainfall, flooding, irrigation, spring thaw, drainage, and other seasonal and annual factors not evident at the time the observations were made. Design drawings and specifications and construction planning should recognize the possibility of fluctuations. F.4. Use of Report This report is for the exclusive use of Simkins-Hallin, Stahly Engineering, Sanderson Stewart and Sunbelt Rack to use to design the proposed structure and prepare construction documents. In the absence of our written approval, we make no representation and assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. The data, analyses, and recommendations may not be appropriate for other structures or purposes. We recommend parties contemplating other structures or purposes contact us. F.5. Level of Care Services performed by SK Geotechnical Corporation personnel for this project have been conducted with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in this area under similar budget and time restraints. No warranty, express or implied, is made. Simkins-Hallin, Inc. July 26, 2023 Project 23-4278G Page 26 Professional Certification I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Montana. Cory G. Rice, PE Senior Engineer License Number 9914PE July 26, 2023 Appendix SITE LOCATION SKETCH Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed North Park Simkins-Hallins Development Bozeman, Montana Drawn by: USGS/SK Date 7/18/22 Project: 23-4278G Scale: None FIGURE Sheet 1 of 1 1 Site Location Geologic Map of The Bozeman 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, Southwestern, Montana, Vuke, Lonn, Berg and Schmidt, 2014 PARTIAL GEOLOGIC MAP Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed North Park Simkins-Hallins Development Bozeman, Montana Drawn by: MBMG/SK Date 7/18/22 Project: 23-4278G Scale: None FIGURE Sheet 1 of 1 2 SITE Site Geology - Qabo – Braid Plain Deposits - Older Descriptive Terminology Standard D 2487 Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System) Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A Soil Classification Group Symbol Group Name B Coarse- Grained Soils More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve Gravels More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve Clean Gravels Less than 5% fines C CU ≥ 4 and 1 ≤ CC ≤ 3 E GW Well graded gravel F CU < 4 and/or 1 > CC > 3 E GP Poorly graded gravel F Gravels with Fines More than 12% fines C Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F, G, H Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F, G, H Sands 50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve Clean Sands Less than 5% fines D CU ≥ 6 and 1 ≤ CC ≤ 3 E SW Well graded sand I CU < 6 and/or 1 > CC > 3 E SP Poorly graded sand I Sands with Fines More than 12% fines D Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G, H, I Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G, H, I Fine- Grained Soils 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve Silts and Clays Liquid Limit less than 50 Inorganic PI > 7 and plots on or above "A" line J CL Lean clay K, L, M PI < 4 or plots below "A" line J ML Silt K, L, M Organic Liquid limit – oven dried < 0.75 Liquid limit – not dried OL Organic clay K, L, M, N Organic silt K, L, M, O Silts and Clays Liquid limit 50 or more Inorganic PI plots on or above "A" line CH Fat clay K, L, M PI plots below "A" line MH Elastic siltK, L, M Organic Liquid limit – oven dried < 0.75 Liquid limit – not dried OH Organic clayK, L, M, P Organic siltK, L, M, Q Highly Organic Soils Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat A B C D E F G Based on the material passing the 3" (75 mm) sieve. If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or boulders, or both" to group name. Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols. SW-SC well-graded sand with clay SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay CU = D60 / D10 CC = (D30)2 / (D10 x D60) If soil contains ≥ 15% sand, add "with sand" to group name. If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM or SC-SM. H I J K L M N O P Q If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name. If soil contains ≥ 15% gravel, add "with gravel" to group name. If Atterberg limits plot in hatched area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay. If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add "with sand" or "with gravel", whichever is predominant. If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add "sandy" to group name. If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200 predominantly gravel, add "gravelly" to group name. PI ≥ 4 and plots on or above "A" line. PI < 4 or plots below "A" line. PI plots on or above "A" line. PI plots below "A" line. Particle Size Identification Boulders .......................................... over 12" Cobbles .......................................... 3" to 12" Gravel coarse ......................................... 3/4" to 3" fine ........................................ No. 4 to 3/4" Sand coarse ................................ No. 4 to No. 10 medium ........................... No. 10 to No. 40 fine ................................ No. 40 to No. 200 Silt ................................. No. 200 to .005 mm Clay ................................ less than .005 mm Relative Density of Cohesionless Soils very loose ..................................... 0 to 4 BPF loose ........................................... 5 to 10 BPF medium dense .......................... 11 to 30 BPF dense ........................................ 31 to 50 BPF very dense ................................. over 50 BPF Consistency of Cohesive Soils very soft ....................................... 0 to 1 BPF soft ............................................... 2 to 3 BPF rather soft ..................................... 4 to 5 BPF medium ........................................ 6 to 8 BPF rather stiff ................................... 9 to 12 BPF stiff ........................................... 13 to 16 BPF very stiff ................................... 17 to 30 BPF hard ........................................... over 30 BPF Moisture Content (MC) Description rather dry MC less than 5%, absence of moisture, dusty moist MC below optimum, but no visible water wet Soil is over optimum MC waterbearing Granular, cohesionless or low plasticity soil with free water, typically near or below groundwater table very wet Cohesive soil well over OMC, typically near or below groundwater table Drilling Notes Standard penetration test borings were advanced by 3¼" or 4¼" ID hollow-stem augers, unless noted otherwise. Standard penetration test borings are designated by the prefix "ST" (split tube). Hand auger borings were advanced manually with a 2 to 3" diameter auger to the depths indicated. Hand auger borings are indicated by the prefix "HA." Sampling. All samples were taken with the standard 2" OD split-tube sampler, except where noted. TW indicates thin-walled tube sample. CS indicates California tube sample. BS indicates bulk sample. BPF. Numbers indicate blows per foot recorded in standard penetration test, also known as "N" value. The sampler was set 6" into undisturbed soil below the hollow-stem auger. Driving resistances were then counted for second and third 6" increments and added to get BPF. Where they differed significantly, they were separated by backslash (/). In very dense/hard strata, the depth driven in 50 blows is indicated. WH. WH indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of hammer and rods alone; driving not required. Note. All tests were run in general accordance with applicable ASTM standards. Laboratory Tests DD Dry density, pcf WD Wet density, pcf OC Organic content, % LL Liquid limit PL Plastic limit PI Plasticity index P200 % passing 200 sieve MC Natural moisture content, % MDD Maximum dry density (Proctor), pcf OMC Optimum moisture content (Proctor), % qu Unconfined compressive strength, psf UCS Unconfined compressive strength, psi qp Pocket penetrometer strength, tsf October 30, 2018 2023 Log of Borings and Lab Tests 4690.4 4688.4 4678.9 SILT, non-plastic, brown, moist, loose. LEAN CLAY, trace salts, low plasticity, brown,moist, medium. POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,subrounded to subangular, grayish brown, moist, verydense. (Alluvium) -trace lean clay at 7' END OF BORING Water not observed to dry cave-in depth of 6.5'immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 1.5 3.5 13.0 11 59 44 64 5 19.6 20.1 1.9 6.0 3.0 5.8 FF Truss Building =4689.0Surface elevationsprovided by SandersonStewartLL=30, PL=19, PI=11P200= 90.2% ML CL GPGM 4691.9 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson SCALE:5/16/23 LOCATION: B-1 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Truss Building, See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: Diedrich D120, Automatic B-1 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/20/23 4692.2 4687.9 4676.2 4671.7 LEAN CLAY with SAND, low plasticity, feworganics, trace salts, yellow brown, moist, soft torather soft. POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with CLAY,non-plastic, trace FeOx and salts, light brown toblack, moist, medium dense. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT,fine-grained, non-plastic, trace lean clay, light brown, moist, very dense. (Alluvium) SILTY GRAVEL with SAND, fine- tocoarse-grained, non-plastic, yellow brown,waterbearing, very dense. (Alluvium) END OF BORING 10.0 14.3 26.0 30.5 2/4 5 2/4 4 20 42/50-5" 50-4",set 60 50-5½",set 53 22.6 24.3 21.0 25.3 10.4 5.3 4.7 10.3 FF Truss Building =4689.0 Water observed at a depthof 24' with 24' ofhollow-stem auger in theground.Water observed at a depthof 23' with 29' ofhollow-stem auger in theground.Water not observed to drycave-in depth of 19'immediately afterwithdrawal of auger.Boring then backfilled. CL GPGC GPGM GM 4702.2 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson SCALE:5/9/23 LOCATION: B-2 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Truss Building, See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: Diedrich D120, Automatic B-2 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/20/23 4690.2 4687.7 4684.2 4678.2 4675.7 TOPSOIL SILT, non-plastic, brown, moist, loose. POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, GRAVEL,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,brownish gray, rather dry, very dense. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,grayish brown, moist, dense to very dense. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with CLAY, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,yellow staining, brown, moist, very dense. (Alluvium) END OF BORING Water observed at a depth of 14' with 14' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water not observed to dry cave-in depth of 6.8'immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 1.0 3.5 7.0 13.0 15.5 5 10 76 50-3" 43 50-3",set 50-4",set 21.4 24.5 1.4 2.6 5.0 7.0 FF Truss Building =4689.0 ML SPSM GPGM GPGC 4691.2 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson SCALE:5/16/23 LOCATION: B-3 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Truss Building, See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: Diedrich D120, Automatic B-3 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/20/23 2¼ ¼ 4690.8 4689.8 4686.8 4684.3 4674.8 4673.3 4667.3 LEAN CLAY, low to medium plasticity, trace roots,dark brown, moist, medium. SILTY CLAY, low plasticity, brown, moist, loose. SILT, non-plastic, brown, moist, loose. (Alluvium) LEAN CLAY, low plasticity, brown, moist, medium.(Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with CLAY, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, subangular tosubrounded, layers of silty gravel, daark grayishbrown, moist, very dense. (Alluvium) CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, fine- tocoarse-grained, low plasticity, brown, wet, medium.(Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with CLAY, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, trace silt,grayish brown, waterbearing, very dense. (Alluvium) END OF BORING Water observed at a depth of 14' with 15' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water down 13' immediately after withdrawal ofauger. Water not observed to wet cave-in depth of 14.5'immediately after withdrawal of auger. 2.0 3.0 6.0 8.5 18.0 19.5 25.5 6 5 5 6 80 54 88 85 21.0 19.3 16.9 16.5 24.2 9.7 4.9 10.1 15.5 9.8 FF Truss Building =4689.0 LL=30, PL=20, PI=10P200= 38.1% Boring then backfilled. CL CLML ML CL GPGC SC GPGC 4692.8 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson SCALE:5/17/23 LOCATION: B-4 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Truss Building, See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: Diedrich D120, Automatic B-4 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/20/23 3½ ½ 4685.8 4674.5 4672.8 4669.0 SILTY CLAY, low plasticity, trae gravel, FeOxstaining, brown, moist, soft to stiff. POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,salts, trace lean clay, angular to subrounded, brownishgray, moist, dense to very dense. (Alluvium) LEAN CLAY with SAND, low plasticity, FeOxstaining, brown, wet, medium. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT andSAND, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic, trace leanclay, brown, waterbearing, dense. (Alluvium) END OF BORING Water observed at a depth of 13.75' with 14' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water observed at a depth of 13.5' with 19' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water not observed to dry cave-in depth of 9.75'immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 3.8 15.0 16.8 20.5 2/4 14 37 17/50-5" 32 30/50-4" 30/7 47 20.4 20.9 16.0 2.0 2.8 4.1 4.3 17.5 30.2 12.7 FF Truss Building =4689.0 LL=35, PL=21, PI=14P200= 74.0% CLML GPGM CL GPGM 4689.5 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson SCALE:5/16/23 LOCATION: B-5 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Truss Building, See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: Diedrich D120, Automatic B-5 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/26/23 4687.9 4682.9 4679.4 4673.9 4670.9 SILT, non-plastic, trace salts and lean clay, brown,moist, very loose to loose. POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,trace lean clay, subangular to subrounded, brown,moist, dense to very dense. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT andSAND, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,tuffaceous, grayish brown, moist, dense. (TertiarySediment) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,angular, olive brown, waterbearing, very dense.(Tertiary Sediment) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with CLAY, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,some silt, olive brown, waterbearing, very dense.(Tertiary Sediment) END OF BORING Water observed at a depth of 18.1' with 19' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water observed at a depth of 18.5' with 24' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. 8.5 13.5 17.0 22.5 25.5 2/1 5 1/2 6 50-5" 63 44 75 35/50-5" 17.0 18.4 19.9 22.7 14.5 8.9 7.0 15.1 9.3 Parking FG = 4688.0 Water not observed to drycave-in depth of 14'immediately afterwithdrawal of auger.Boring then backfilled. ML GPGM GPGM GPGM GPGC 4696.4 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson SCALE:5/16/23 LOCATION: B-8 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Storage Yard Pavement, See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: Diedrich D120, Automatic B-8 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/20/23 4684.8 4676.3 TOPSOIL, Lean Clay, low plasticity, with roots, darkbrown, moist, very soft to soft. POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,subangular to subrounded, trace lean clay, grayishbrown, moist, medium dense to very dense.(Alluvium) END OF BORING Water not observed to dry cave-in depth of 4'immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 2.0 10.5 1/2 28 32/50-5" 83 5/20 23.0 11.4 4.5 6.1 7.5 Pavement FG = 4688.0 GPGM 4686.8 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson SCALE:5/16/23 LOCATION: B-9 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Storage Yard Pavement, See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: Diedrich D120, Automatic B-9 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/20/23 1¾ ¼ 4685.3 4680.8 4671.8 FILL: Sandy Lean Clay with Gravel, brown, moist,loose. LEAN CLAY with SILT, low plasticity, trace sand,brown, moist to wet, medium to stiff. POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with CLAY, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,trace silt, subangular, grayish brown, moist towaterbearing, very dense. (Alluvium) END OF BORING Water observed at a depth of 11' with 11.5' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water down 10.4' immediately after withdrawal ofauger. Water not observed to wet cave-in depth of 10.9'immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 2.0 6.5 15.5 6 4/9 7 37/50-5" 37/50-2" 50-4" 83 14.1 15.2 23.5 3.1 4.3 10.8 9.0 Pavement FG = 4682.0 CL GPGC 4687.3 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson SCALE:5/17/23 LOCATION: B-10 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Product Storage, See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: Diedrich D120, Automatic B-10 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/20/23 2 4677.4 4675.2 4663.2 TOPSOIL LEAN CLAY, low plasticity, silty, roots, fibers,brown, moist, medium. POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with CLAY, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,lenses of sandy clay, grayish brown, moist towaterbearing, dense to very dense. (Alluvium) END OF BORING Water observed at a depth of 7' with 6.5' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water observed at a depth of 10.7' with 14' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water not observed to dry cave-in depth of 6.5'immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 1.3 3.5 15.5 6 7 85 67 39 45 34 17.4 19.1 3.9 6.6 7.6 9.1 9.2 Pavement FG = 4679.0 CL GPGC 4678.7 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson SCALE:5/17/23 LOCATION: B-12 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Storage Yard, See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: Diedrich D120, Automatic B-12 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/20/23 4676.2 4674.2 4671.7 4662.2 TOPSOIL SILTY CLAY, low plasticity, trace gravel and roots,brown, moist, medium. POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,trace clays, brown, moist, very dense. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with CLAY, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,grayish brown, moist to waterbearing, dense to verydense. (Alluvium) END OF BORING Water observed at a depth of 8.5' with 9' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water not observed to dry cave-in depth of 4'immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 1.5 3.5 6.0 15.5 6 7 50 80 33 36 33 16.8 18.2 5.0 7.1 15.4 9.4 13.8 Umbrella Shed FG =4677.5 CLML GPGM GPGC 4677.7 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson SCALE:5/17/23 LOCATION: B-13 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Umbrella Shed, See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: Diedrich D120, Automatic B-13 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/20/23 4676.4 4674.2 4667.2 TOPSOIL SILTY CLAY, low plasticity, trace salts, brown,moist, medium. POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT, SAND,and COBBLES, non-plastic, trace clays, grayishbrown, moist, very dense. (Alluvium) END OF BORING Water not observed to dry cave-in depth of 3.5'immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 1.3 3.5 10.5 7 7 93 46/50-4" 50-4" 20.6 15.9 4.8 2.5 6.6 FF Sheetrock Warehouse =4677.5 CLML GPGM 4677.7 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson SCALE:5/17/23 LOCATION: B-15 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Sheetrock Warehouse, See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: Diedrich D120, Automatic B-15 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/20/23 4676.6 4674.8 4664.8 4662.3 TOPSOIL SILTY CLAY, low plasticity, brown, moist, ratherstiff. POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, grayishbrown, moist to waterbearing, very dense. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with CLAY, SANDand COBBLES, grayish brown, waterbearing, verydense. (Alluvium) END OF BORING Water observed at a depth of 8.8' with 9' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water observed at a depth of 13' with 13' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water not observed to dry cave-in depth of 6'immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 1.3 3.0 13.0 15.5 5 3/8 41/50-5" 50-3",set 48 39/50-2" 50-1",set 20.1 18.2 2.3 3.0 17.1 7.3 13.1 FG Sheetrock Warehouse= 4677.5 CL ML GPGM GPGC 4677.8 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson SCALE:5/17/23 LOCATION: B-16 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Sheetrock Warehouse, See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: Diedrich D120, Automatic B-16 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/20/23 4677.4 4676.7 4670.7 4663.7 TOPSOIL LEAN CLAY with SILT and SAND, low plasticity,brown, moist, soft. POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,grayish brown, moist, dense to very dense. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with CLAY, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,sandy, olive brown, waterbearing, dense to very dense.(Alluvium) END OF BORING Water observed at a depth of 8.1' with 9' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water observed at a depth of 9.75' with 14' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water not observed to dry cave-in depth of 4'immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 1.8 2.5 8.5 15.5 5 3/18 50/50-3" 45 36 44 55 15.0 23.0 3.1 5.7 8.7 10.3 12.2 FG Drive-Thru Building =4678.75 CL GPGM GPGC 4679.2 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson SCALE:5/19/23 LOCATION: B-17 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Drive-Thru Building, See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: Diedrich D120, Automatic B-17 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/20/23 4677.0 4666.8 TOPSOIL POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,trace clays, grayish brown, moist to waterbearing,dense to very dense. (Alluvium) END OF BORING - Auger refusal Water observed at a depth of 6.75' with 6.5' of hollow-stem auger in the ground. Water observed at a depth of 11.7' with 11.5' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water not observed to dry cave-in depth of 3.5'immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 1.5 11.7 3/10 50-5" 50-5" 38 90 50-2" 19.8 3.3 1.5 7.4 7.3 Pavement FG = 4678.5 GPGM 4678.5 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson SCALE:5/17/23 LOCATION: B-18 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Product Storage, See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: Diedrich D120, Automatic B-18 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/20/23 4680.4 4678.4 4671.4 4666.9 TOPSOIL LEAN CLAY, low plasticity, trace fibers, roots andsand, brown, moist, medium. POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,trace clays and plastic, grayish brown, moist towaterbearing, medium dense to very dense. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,sandy, olive brown, waterbearing, dense to very dense.(Alluvium) END OF BORING Water observed at a depth of 9.5' with 9' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water observed at a depth of 11.8' with 14' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water not observed to dry cave-in depth of 5'immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 2.0 4.0 11.0 15.5 5 7 86 43 19 55 40 19.9 21.6 3.7 4.4 9.0 9.9 14.0 Drive-Thru Building FG =4678.75 CL GPGM GPGM 4682.4 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson SCALE:5/18/23 LOCATION: B-19 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Drive-Thru Building, See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: Diedrich D120, Automatic B-19 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/20/23 1½ 4680.7 4678.2 4670.7 4665.2 4656.2 TOPSOIL LEAN CLAY with SILT, low plasticity, trace rootsand fibers, brown, moist, rather soft. POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,some clays, grayish brown, moist to waterbearing,very dense. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with CLAY andSAND, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic, brown,waterbearing, dense. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with CLAY, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,very altered, olive brown, waterbearing, very dense.(Tertiary Deposits) END OF BORING Water observed at a depth of 8.75' with 9' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water observed at a depth of 9.3' with 24' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water down 8.75' immediately after withdrawal ofauger. 1.0 3.5 11.0 16.5 25.5 4 5 82 67 87 35 31 96 50-4" 22.4 21.3 3.3 5.5 7.7 9.4 15.3 11.9 13.0 Retail/Office Building FF =4680.25 Water not observed to wetcave-in depth of 9'immediately afterwithdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. CL GPGM GPGC GPGC 4681.7 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson SCALE:5/18/23 LOCATION: B-20 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Retail/Office Building, See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: Diedrich D120, Automatic B-20 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/20/23 4680.4 4678.9 4670.4 4664.4 4659.4 4650.9 TOPSOIL LEAN CLAY with SILT, low plasticity, trace rootsand fibers, brown, moist, rather soft. POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,olive brown, moist to waterbearing, very dense.(Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with CLAY andSAND, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic, lenses ofclayey sand, brown, waterbearing, medium dense todense. (Alluvium) CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, fine- tocoarse-grained, non-plastic, grayish olive brown,waterbearing, very dense. (Alluvium) SANDY LEAN CLAY with GRAVEL, low tomedium plasticity, olive brown, wet, very stiff to hard.(Alluvium) END OF BORING 1.0 2.5 11.0 17.0 22.0 30.5 6 4/25 50 63 43 26/12 44 20/50-6" 19 41 22.7 22.0 6.3 5.9 12.9 16.0 12.0 11.9 30.9 33.0 24.5 Retail/Office Building FF =4680.25 LL=43, PL=19, PI=11P200= 61.9% Water observed at a depthof 7.3' with 9' ofhollow-stem auger in theground.Water observed at a depthof 23.5' with 29' ofhollow-stem auger in theground.Water down 7.7'immediately afterwithdrawal of auger.Water not observed to wetcave-in depth of 18'immediately afterwithdrawal of auger.Boring then backfilled. CL GPGM GPGC SC CL 4681.4 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson SCALE:5/19/23 LOCATION: B-21 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Retail/Office Building, See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: Diedrich D120, Automatic B-21 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/20/23 4680.3 4678.8 4667.3 4663.3 4657.8 4654.8 4650.3 TOPSOIL LEAN CLAY, brown, moist, medium. POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with CLAY, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,lenses of silty sand, brown, moist to waterbearing,very dense to medium dense. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED SAND with CLAY, GRAVELand COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,reddish brown, waterbearing, very dense. (Alluvium) CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND and COBBLES,fine- to coarse-grained, very altered, black and whitespeckled brown, waterbearing, very dense. (TertiarySediment) FAT CLAY with SAND, fine- to medium-grained,high plasticity, trace gravel, brown, waterbearing,dense. (Tertiary Sediment) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with CLAY, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,sandy, olive brown to gray, waterbearing, very dense.(Tertiary Sediment) END OF BORING 0.5 2.0 13.5 17.5 23.0 26.0 30.5 2/8 50-4" 50-2" 57 23 18/50-5" 66 34 50-5",set 20.0 19.2 4.4 6.9 9.8 16.6 15.4 14.4 21.1 38.9 11.9 Retail/Office Building FF =4680.25 Water down 3.5'immediately afterwithdrawal of auger.Water not observed to wetcave-in depth of 3.1'immediately afterwithdrawal of auger. Water observed at a depthof 6.5' with 6.5' ofhollow-stem auger in theground.Water observed at a depthof 7.75' with 29' ofhollow-stem auger in theground.LL=53, PL=22, PI=31P200= 70.2%Boring then backfilled. CL GPGC SPSC GC CH GPGC 4680.8 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson SCALE:5/18/23 LOCATION: B-22 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Retail/Office Building, See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: Diedrich D120, Automatic B-22 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/20/23 4681.7 4679.5 4669.5 TOPSOIL LEAN CLAY, low plasticity, silty, brown, moist,rather soft. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with CLAY, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,lenses of sandy clay, some silt, olive brown, moist towaterbearing, medium dense to dense. (Alluvium) END OF BORING Water observed at a depth of 8.8' with 9' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water not observed to dry cave-in depth of 3.4'immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 0.8 3.0 13.0 5 5 50 40/50-3" 26 65 22.9 20.5 3.3 2.6 7.8 Retail/Office Building FF =4680.25 CL GPGC 4682.5 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson SCALE:5/18/23 LOCATION: B-23 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Retail/Office Building, See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: Diedrich D120, Automatic B-23 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/20/23 4681.5 4680.0 4677.0 4676.0 TOPSOIL LEAN CLAY, low plasticity, fibers, brown, moist,loose. POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT andSAND, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic, with salts,gray to brown, moist, very dense. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT andSAND, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic, organic,dark brown to black, moist, very dense. (Alluvium) END OF BORING - Auger Refusal Water observed at a depth of 7' with 7' of hollow-stemauger in the ground. Water not observed to dry cave-in depth of 3.2'immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 1.5 3.0 6.0 7.0 5 7 44/50-5" 60 20.4 22.9 2.7 3.8 PAvement FG = 4680.6 CL GPGM GPGM 4683.0 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson SCALE:5/10/23 LOCATION: B-24 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Parking Area, See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: Diedrich D120, Automatic B-24 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/26/23 4682.34681.8 4680.3 4679.3 4674.8 4665.8 4659.8 4658.8 TOPSOIL LEAN CLAY, low to medium plasticity, fibers, darkbrow, moist, medium. LEAN CLAY, low plasticity, with silts and fibers,light brown, moist, rather soft. (Alluvium) GRAVELLY LEAN CLAY with SAND, low plasticity, grayish brown, moist. (Alluvium) CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, fine- to coarse-grained, grayish brown, moist, very dense.(Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with CLAY andSAND, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic, traceFeOx, plastic and fibers, dark brown, waterbearing,very dense. (Alluvium) CLAYEY GRAVEL, fine- to coarse-grained, lowplasticity, with sand and cobbles, brown,waterbearing, very dense. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT andSAND, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic, yellowbrown, waterbearing, very dense. (Alluvium) END OF BORING Water observed at a depth of 8.1' with 9' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water observed at a depth of 7.7' with 24' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water not observed to wet cave-in depth of 6.5' immediately after withdrawal of auger. 1.01.5 3.0 4.0 8.5 17.5 23.5 24.5 7 5 44/50-5" 35/50-4" 62 51 30 50-4" 50-5½",set 20.5 18.0 16.1 3.4 6.2 8.1 12.5 11.5 13.5 12.7 Retail/Office Building FF =4680.25 LL=30, PL=17, PI=13P200= 55.1% Boring then backfilled. CL CL CL SC GPGC GC GPGM 4683.3 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson SCALE:5/10/23 LOCATION: B-25 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Retail/Office Building, See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: Diedrich D120, Automatic B-25 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/20/23 4683.5 4681.0 4676.0 4672.0 4669.0 TOPSOIL LEAN CLAY, low plasticity, trace roots, fiber andgravel, dark to light brown, moist, medium. POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT andSAND, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic, gray tobrown, moist, dense to very dense. (Alluvium) CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND and COBBLES,fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic, dark brown toblack with yellow, waterbearing, dense. (Alluvium) CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND and COBBLES,fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic, seams of leanclay, yellow brown, waterbearing, very dense.(Alluvium) END OF BORING Water observed at a depth of 7.7' with 9' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water observed at a depth of 8.1' with 14' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water not observed to dry cave-in depth of 6.5'immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 1.0 3.5 8.5 12.5 15.5 7 7 34/50-4" 50-6" 46 26/12 56 15.5 20.0 3.4 4.1 12.3 19.0 17.8 Retail/Office Building FF =4680.25 CL GPGM GC GC 4684.5 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson SCALE:5/10/23 LOCATION: B-26 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Retail/Office Building Storage Rack, SeeAttached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: Diedrich D120, Automatic B-26 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/20/23 4683.9 4681.4 4677.4 4674.9 TOPSOIL LEAN CLAY, low plasticity, trace roots, brown,moist, soft to rather soft. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT andSAND, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic, graybrown, moist, very dense. (Alluvium) SILTY GRAVEL, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,yellow brown, waterbearing, dense. (Alluvium) END OF BORING Water observed at a depth of 9' with 9' of hollow-stemauger in the ground. Water not observed to dry cave-in depth of 5.3'immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 1.5 4.0 8.0 10.5 7 2/4 68 50 44 22.0 22.5 3.8 5.3 11.0 Pavement FG = 4686.0 CL GPGM GM 4685.4 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson SCALE:5/10/23 LOCATION: B-27 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Parking Area, See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: Diedrich D120, Automatic B-27 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/20/23 1¼ 4684.4 4683.4 4681.4 4675.4 TOPSOIL LEAN CLAY with SAND, fine- to coarse-grained,low plasticity, light brown, moist, rather soft tomedium dense. (Alluvium) CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, fine- tocoarse-grained, non-plastic, brown, moist, very looseto medium dense. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,clay filled voids, coarse grained gravel, grayish brown, rather dry to waterbearing, very dense. (TeritarySediment) END OF BORING Water observed at a depth of 8.5' with 9' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water not observed to dry cave-in depth of 2.75'immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 1.5 2.5 4.5 10.5 4 4/15 50-3" 50-5",set 79 21.2 20.3 2.0 1.5 4.9 Driveway FG = 4686.0 CL SC GPGM 4685.9 DRILLED BY: E. Hollibaugh SCALE:5/15/23 LOCATION: B-28 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Driveway, See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: CME 75HT B-28 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/20/23 4684.8 4683.8 4668.8 4660.3 TOPSOIL LEAN CLAY, low plasticity, trace gravel, lenses ofsilty clay, brown, moist, medium. POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with CLAY, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,lenses of poorly graded gravel with sand, grayishbrown, moist to waterbearing, very dense. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with CLAY, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,lenses of sandy clay, olive brown, waterbearing, verydense. (Alluvium) END OF BORING Water observed at a depth of 8.1' with 9' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water observed at a depth of 16' with 24' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water down 8' immediately after withdrawal of auger. 1.0 2.0 17.0 25.5 5 46 50-5" 60 50-2",set 52 61 50-5" 50-5" 16.0 2.9 4.9 7.2 14.4 16.7 6.7 8.5 16.7 Millwork Building FF =4690.25 Water not observed to wetcave-in depth of 12.5'immediately afterwithdrawal of auger.Boring then backfilled. CL GPGC GPGC 4685.8 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson SCALE:5/18/23 LOCATION: B-29 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Millwork Building, See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: Diedrich D120, Automatic B-29 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/20/23 4686.7 4683.2 4678.2 4674.7 4672.7 TOPSOIL SILT with SAND and GRAVEL, fine- tocoarse-grained, non-plastic, trace roots and salts,brown, moist, very loose. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, SAND, andCOBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,grayish brown, moist, dense to very dense. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with CLAY, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,olive brown, waterbearing, very dense. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED SAND with CLAY, GRAVEL,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,olive brown, waterbearing, very dense. (Alluvium) END OF BORING Water observed at a depth of 8.4' with 9' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water observed at a depth of 8.5' with 14' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water not observed to dry cave-in depth of 6.4'immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 1.5 5.0 10.0 13.5 15.5 2/4 2/1 14/37 34/50-4" 94 67 49 23.0 22.1 10.1 4.1 9.3 14.9 10.5 Millwork Building FF =4690.25 ML SPSM GPGC SPSM 4688.2 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson SCALE:5/15/23 LOCATION: B-30 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Millwork Building, See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: Diedrich D120, Automatic B-30 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/20/23 4688.6 4684.6 4680.1 TOPSOIL SILT, non-plastic, trace gravel and sand, brown,moist, loose. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, GRAVEL,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,grayish brown, dry, very dense. (Alluvium) END OF BORING Water not observed to dry cave-in depth of 4'immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 2.0 6.0 10.5 7 6 8 80 50-5",set 22.3 19.8 24.8 3.0 3.9 Pavement FG = 4691.0 ML SPSM 4690.6 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson SCALE:5/15/23 LOCATION: B-31 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Pavement Area, See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: Diedrich D120, Automatic B-31 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/20/23 4683.2 4681.5 4676.0 4674.0 TOPSOIL SILT, non-plastic, lenses of lean clay and roots, lightbrown, moist, very loose. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT, SAND,and COBBLES, non-plastic, trace lean clay, grayishbrown, moist to waterbearing, medium dense to verydense. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with CLAY andSAND, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic, brown,waterbearing, dense. (Alluvium) END OF BORING Water observed at a depth of 6' with 6.5' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water observed at a depth of 6.5' with 9' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water not observed to wet cave-in depth of 4.2' with10' immediately after withdrawal of auger. Water not observed to wet cave-in depth of 4.5'immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 1.3 3.0 8.5 10.5 5 4 51 28 36 23.1 23.8 6.4 8.8 10.2 Pavement FG = 4691.0 ML GPGM GPGC 4684.5 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson SCALE:5/15/23 LOCATION: B-32 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Pavement Area, See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: Diedrich D120, Automatic B-32 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/20/23 4686.1 4684.5 4678.8 4671.8 TOPSOIL SILT, non-plastic, trace clay, brown, moist, veryloose. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, GRAVEL,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,trace clay, reddish gray brown, moist to waterbearing,medium dense to very dense. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT, andSAND, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic, trace clay,brown, waterbearing, dense to very dense. (Alluvium) END OF BORING Water observed at a depth of 6.6' with 6.5' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water observed at a depth of 6.5' with 14' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water not observed to dry cave-in depth of 4.5'immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 1.2 2.8 8.5 15.5 3 2/16 64 26 49 66 90 21.7 21.3 5.0 7.1 6.1 10.1 11.3 Millwork Building FF =4690.25 ML SPSM GPGM 4687.3 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson SCALE:5/15/23 LOCATION: B-33 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Millwork Building, See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: Diedrich D120, Automatic B-33 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/20/23 1¼ 4686.7 4685.4 4672.4 TOPSOIL LEAN CLAY with GRAVEL, low plasticity, with siltand roots, brown, moist, loose. POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, GRAVEL,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic, seams of lean clay and clayey sand, brown, moist towaterbearing, medium dense to very dense. (Alluvium) END OF BORING Water observed at a depth of 6.9' with 6.5' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water observed at a depth of 7.5' with 14' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water not observed to dry cave-in depth of 3'immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 1.3 2.5 15.5 6 5/26 50-5" 27 52 44 37 23.6 21.4 4.0 11.2 10.1 14.5 12.0 Millwork Building FF =4690.25 CL SPSM 4687.9 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson SCALE:5/15/23 LOCATION: B-34 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Millwork Building, See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: Diedrich D120, Automatic B-34 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/20/23 4688.4 4687.1 4678.9 4676.4 4673.4 4664.4 TOPSOIL SILT, non-plastic, trace roots and clay, grayish brown,moist, loose. POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, GRAVEL,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,grayish brown, moist to waterbearing, dense to verydense. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,trace clays, olive brown, waterbearing, very dense.(Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with CLAY, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,olive brown, waterbearing, very dense. (Alluvium) CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL and COBBLES,fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic, brown,waterbearing, very dense. (Alluvium) END OF BORING Water observed at a depth of 5.75' with 6.5' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water observed at a depth of 20.5' with 24' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water not observed to wet cave-in depth of 4.25'immediately after withdrawal of auger. 1.5 2.8 11.0 13.5 16.5 25.5 5 6 65 43 39 14/50-5" 60 34/50-4" 42/50-4" 24.6 24.1 3.3 8.1 10.5 12.6 12.5 18.0 10.5 18.8 Millwork Building FF =4690.25 Boring then backfilled. ML SPSM GPGM GPGC SC 4689.9 DRILLED BY: E. Hollibaugh SCALE:5/15/23 LOCATION: B-35 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Millwork Building, See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: CME 75HT B-35 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/20/23 1¼ 4688.4 4685.4 4675.9 4673.9 TOPSOIL LEAN CLAY, medium plasticity, trace roots, brown,moist, soft. (Alluvium) CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL and COBBLES,fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic, trace silt, grayishbrown, moist to waterbearing, medium dense to verydense. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT, SAND,and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, non-plastic,olive brown, waterbearing, very dense. (Alluvium) END OF BORING Water observed at a depth of 5.75' with 6.5' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water observed at a depth of 9' with 14' ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water not observed to dry cave-in depth of 5.2'immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 1.0 4.0 13.5 15.5 5 2 65 38 50-4",set 29 62 24.1 26.0 7.6 9.0 11.4 8.3 Mechanic Shop FF =4692.0 CL SC GPGM 4689.4 DRILLED BY: E. Hollibaugh SCALE:5/15/23 LOCATION: B-36 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G 23-4278G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Simkins - Hallin Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) Mechanic Shop, See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 WLMCDescription of Materials 23-4278G METHOD: CME 75HT B-36 1" = 4'DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev.BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4278.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/20/23 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Depth B-1 B-21 B-22 B-24 B-24 B-25 B-4 B-5 B-5 B-5 Legend Sample No. 2'-3' 23'-24' 25½'-26½' 0'-3' 3'-5' 3'-4' 18½'-19½' 0'-3' 3'-5' 16'-17' Boring TW TW TW Bulk Bulk TW TW Bulk Bulk TW Liquid Limit (LL) 7/26/23 30 43 53 35 NP 30 30 26 NP 35 19 23 22 18 NP 17 20 19 NP 21 20.1% 30.9% 38.9% 21.8% 7.9% 16.1% 15.5% 19.3% 5.7% 30.2% ML-CL Project Number: 23-4278G LL MC Classification CL ML or OL PL PI MH or OH CH 11 20 31 17 NP 13 10 7 NP 14Plasticity Index (PI)North Park Simkins - Hallin Development P 200, % 90.2 61.9 70.2 86.2 10.4 55.1 38.1 83.1 5.9 74.0 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 CL CL CH CL GP-GM CL SC CL-ML GP-GM CL Atterberg Limits Tests Bozeman, Montana 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.1110 #200 fine #80 Liquid Limit: Plastic Limit: Classification: Moisture Content: Project Number: 23-4278G 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #40 #100#20#10 Bozeman, Montana Sample No.: 1 1/2"3/8"#100 Sand 3/4" Percent Gravel: Percent Silt + Clay: 99 Gravel ASTM Group Name: Percent Sand:CL #20 99 #40 7/26/23 coarse 99Percent PassingParticle Size in Millimeters 3" 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 96 LEAN CLAY Sieve Size 11Plasticity Index: 19 Percent Passing U.S. Standard Sieve Size Depth: 2'-3' TW 90.2 fine 20.1% #200 coarse Sample: 97 North Park Simkins - Hallin Development 30 Sieve Analysis B-1 #4 100 #10 medium 90.29.8 0.0 Date Received:5/30/23 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.1110 #200 fine #80 Liquid Limit: Plastic Limit: Classification: Moisture Content: Project Number: 23-4278G 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #40 #100#20#10 Bozeman, Montana Sample No.: 1 1/2" 100 85 3/8" 77 #100 Sand 3/4" Percent Gravel: Percent Silt + Clay: 64 Gravel ASTM Group Name: Percent Sand:SC #20 57 #40 7/26/23 coarse 50Percent PassingParticle Size in Millimeters 3" 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 43 CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL Sieve Size 10Plasticity Index: 20 Percent Passing U.S. Standard Sieve Size Depth: 18½'-19½' TW 38.1 fine 15.5% #200 coarse Sample: 45 North Park Simkins - Hallin Development 30 Sieve Analysis B-4 #4 72 #10 medium 38.133.9 28.0 Date Received:5/30/23 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.1110 #200 fine #80 Liquid Limit: Plastic Limit: Classification: Moisture Content: Project Number: 23-4278G 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #40 #100#20#10 Bozeman, Montana Sample No.: 1 1/2" 100 99 3/8" 99 #100 Sand 3/4" Percent Gravel: Percent Silt + Clay: 98 Gravel ASTM Group Name: Percent Sand:CL-ML #20 98 #40 7/26/23 coarse 96Percent PassingParticle Size in Millimeters 3" 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 91 SILTY CLAY with SAND Sieve Size 7Plasticity Index: 19 Percent Passing U.S. Standard Sieve Size Depth: 0'-3' Bulk 83.1 fine 19.3% #200 coarse Sample: 92 North Park Simkins - Hallin Development 26 Sieve Analysis B-5 #4 99 #10 medium 83.115.8 1.1 Date Received:6/7/2023 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.1110 #200 fine #80 Liquid Limit: Plastic Limit: Classification: Moisture Content: Project Number: 23-4278G 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #40 #100#20#10 Bozeman, Montana Sample No.: 1 1/2" 84 68 3/8" 59 #100 Sand 3/4" Percent Gravel: Percent Silt + Clay: 38 Gravel ASTM Group Name: Percent Sand:GP-GM #20 28 #40 7/26/23 coarse 18Percent Passing96 Particle Size in Millimeters 3" 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 9 POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT and SAND Sieve Size NPPlasticity Index: NP Percent Passing U.S. Standard Sieve Size Depth: 3'-5' Bulk 5.9 fine 5.7% #200 coarse Sample: 10 North Park Simkins - Hallin Development NP Sieve Analysis B-5 #4 47 #10 medium 5.941.2 48.6 Date Received:6/7/2023 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.1110 #200 fine #80 Liquid Limit: Plastic Limit: Classification: Moisture Content: Project Number: 23-4278G 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #40 #100#20#10 Bozeman, Montana Sample No.: 1 1/2"3/8" 100 #100 Sand 3/4" Percent Gravel: Percent Silt + Clay: 94 Gravel ASTM Group Name: Percent Sand:CL #20 92 #40 7/26/23 coarse 89Percent PassingParticle Size in Millimeters 3" 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 82 LEAN CLAY with SAND Sieve Size 14Plasticity Index: 21 Percent Passing U.S. Standard Sieve Size Depth: 16'-17' TW 74.0 fine 30.2% #200 coarse Sample: 83 North Park Simkins - Hallin Development 35 Sieve Analysis B-5 #4 95 #10 medium 74.021.0 5.0 Date Received:5/30/23 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.1110 #200 fine #80 Liquid Limit: Plastic Limit: Classification: Moisture Content: Project Number: 23-4278G 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #40 #100#20#10 Bozeman, Montana Sample No.: 1 1/2" 100 3/8" 94 #100 Sand 3/4" Percent Gravel: Percent Silt + Clay: 93 Gravel ASTM Group Name: Percent Sand:CL #20 92 #40 7/26/23 coarse 90Percent PassingParticle Size in Millimeters 3" 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 77 SANDY LEAN CLAY Sieve Size 20Plasticity Index: 23 Percent Passing U.S. Standard Sieve Size Depth: 23'-24' TW 61.9 fine 30.9% #200 coarse Sample: 80 North Park Simkins - Hallin Development 43 Sieve Analysis B-21 #4 94 #10 medium 61.932.1 6.0 Date Received:5/30/23 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.1110 #200 fine #80 Liquid Limit: Plastic Limit: Classification: Moisture Content: Project Number: 23-4278G 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #40 #100#20#10 Bozeman, Montana Sample No.: 1 1/2"3/8" 98 #100 Sand 3/4" Percent Gravel: Percent Silt + Clay: 95 Gravel ASTM Group Name: Percent Sand:CH #20 94 #40 7/26/23 coarse 92Percent PassingParticle Size in Millimeters 3" 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 81 FAT CLAY with SAND Sieve Size 31Plasticity Index: 22 Percent Passing U.S. Standard Sieve Size Depth: 25½'-26½' TW 70.2 fine 38.9% #200 coarse Sample: 84 North Park Simkins - Hallin Development 53 Sieve Analysis B-22 #4 96 #10 medium 70.225.8 4.0 Date Received:5/30/23 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.1110 #200 fine #80 Liquid Limit: Plastic Limit: Classification: Moisture Content: Project Number: 23-4278G 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #40 #100#20#10 Bozeman, Montana Sample No.: 1 1/2" 100 3/8" 96 #100 Sand 3/4" Percent Gravel: Percent Silt + Clay: 96 Gravel ASTM Group Name: Percent Sand:CL #20 96 #40 7/26/23 coarse 94Percent PassingParticle Size in Millimeters 3" 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 91 LEAN CLAY Sieve Size 17Plasticity Index: 18 Percent Passing U.S. Standard Sieve Size Depth: 0'-3' Bulk 86.2 fine 21.8% #200 coarse Sample: 92 North Park Simkins - Hallin Development 35 Sieve Analysis B-24 #4 96 #10 medium 86.210.1 3.7 Date Received:6/7/2023 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.1110 #200 fine #80 Liquid Limit: Plastic Limit: Classification: Moisture Content: Project Number: 23-4278G 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #40 #100#20#10 Bozeman, Montana Sample No.: 1 1/2" 80 60 3/8" 45 #100 Sand 3/4" Percent Gravel: Percent Silt + Clay: 29 Gravel ASTM Group Name: Percent Sand:GP-GM #20 23 #40 7/26/23 coarse 21Percent Passing100 Particle Size in Millimeters 3" 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 15 POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT and SAND Sieve Size NPPlasticity Index: NP Percent Passing U.S. Standard Sieve Size Depth: 3'-5' Bulk 10.4 fine 7.9% #200 coarse Sample: 16 North Park Simkins - Hallin Development NP Sieve Analysis B-24 #4 37 #10 medium 10.426.1 63.5 Date Received:6/7/2023 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.1110 #200 fine #80 Liquid Limit: Plastic Limit: Classification: Moisture Content: Project Number: 23-4278G 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #40 #100#20#10 Bozeman, Montana Sample No.: 1 1/2" 100 76 3/8" 73 #100 Sand 3/4" Percent Gravel: Percent Silt + Clay: 68 Gravel ASTM Group Name: Percent Sand:CL #20 67 #40 7/26/23 coarse 66Percent PassingParticle Size in Millimeters 3" 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 61 GRAVELLY LEAN CLAY Sieve Size 13Plasticity Index: 17 Percent Passing U.S. Standard Sieve Size Depth: 3'-4' TW 55.1 fine 16.1% #200 coarse Sample: 62 North Park Simkins - Hallin Development 30 Sieve Analysis B-25 #4 70 #10 medium 55.114.9 30.0 Date Received:5/30/23 90 92 94 96 98 100 102 104 106 108 110 112 114 116 118 120 10 15 20 25 Density, pcf Content % 108.9 3/8" #4 1 0 of Soil (Proctor)PROCTOR 6/16/23 6/7/2023 Zero Air Voids Curves Curves of 100% Saturationfor Specific Gravity Equal to:2.80 2.702.60 Simkins - Hallin North Park Development Project No.: 23-4278G % Retained 3/4" Laboratory Compaction Characteristics Bozeman, Montana P-1 Moisture Content % Sample No: Drill Crew Date Sampled: Date Received: Performed by: Sampled By: Maximum Dry B-5Dry Density, pcfOptimum Moisture Sieve Size Soil Description (Visual-Manual) Preparation Method: Moist Lab Sample No: Date Performed: 0'-3' 6/6/2023 Sampled From: SKG Lab Depth: 6/12/2023 ASTM D 698 Method A 18.9 Rammer Type: Mechanical P-1 B-5 Bulk 1 1 1 1/2" Silty Clay With Sand [CL-ML] Comments 2611 Gabel RoadP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 120 122 124 126 128 130 132 134 136 138 140 142 144 146 148 150 0 4 8 12 16 20 16 % Retained B-5 Bulk 6/12/2023Date Performed: Comments Additional Remarks SKG Lab P-2 Optimum MoistureMaximum Dry 6.6 ASTM C 127 Density, pcf Content % Lab Sample No: 3/8"#4 53 3'-5' 6/6/2023 Sampled From: Maximum Dry Absorption = 0.61% 131.6 9.1 Depth: Fine Portion ASTM D 698 Method C with Correction 1 1/2" Coarse Specific Gravity = 2.64 Dry Density, pcf3241 Rammer Type: Mechanical Laboratory Compaction Characteristics Bozeman, Montana P-2 Moisture Content % Sample No: Date Sampled: Date Received: Optimum Moisture Sieve Size 140.0 Soil Description (Visual-Manual) Preparation Method: Moist of Soil (Proctor)PROCTOR 6/16/23 6/7/2023 Zero Air Voids Curves Curves of 100% Saturationfor Specific Gravity Equal to:2.80 2.702.60 Simkins - Hallin North Park Development Content % Project No.: 23-4278G B-5 ASTM D 4718 Oversize Correction Density, pcf Performed by: Drill CrewSampled By: 3/4" Poorly Graded Gravel With Silt And Sand[GP-GM] 2511 Holman AvenueP.O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 86 90 94 98 102 106 110 114 118 15 20 25 30 Density, pcf Content % 102.3 3/8" #4 0 0 of Soil (Proctor)PROCTOR 6/16/23 6/7/2023 Zero Air Voids Curves Curves of 100% Saturationfor Specific Gravity Equal to:2.80 2.702.60 Simkins - Hallin North Park Development Project No.: 23-4278G % Retained 3/4" Laboratory Compaction Characteristics Bozeman, Montana P-3 Moisture Content % Sample No: Drill Crew Date Sampled: Date Received: Performed by: Sampled By: Maximum Dry B-24Dry Density, pcfOptimum Moisture Sieve Size Soil Description (Visual-Manual) Preparation Method: Moist Lab Sample No: Date Performed: 0'-3' 6/6/2023 Sampled From: SKG Lab Depth: 6/12/2023 ASTM D 698 Method A 22.0 Rammer Type: Mechanical P-3 B-24 Bulk 4 4 1 1/2" Lean Clay [CL] Comments 2611 Gabel RoadP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 120 122 124 126 128 130 132 134 136 138 140 142 144 146 148 150 0 4 8 12 16 20 20 % Retained B-24 Bulk 6/12/2023Date Performed: Comments Additional Remarks SKG Lab P-4 Optimum MoistureMaximum Dry 6.0 ASTM C 127 Density, pcf Content % Lab Sample No: 3/8"#4 63 3'-5' 6/6/2023 Sampled From: Maximum Dry Absorption = 0.59% 131.8 8.3 Depth: Fine Portion ASTM D 698 Method C with Correction 1 1/2" Coarse Specific Gravity = 2.63 Dry Density, pcf4054 Rammer Type: Mechanical Laboratory Compaction Characteristics Bozeman, Montana P-4 Moisture Content % Sample No: Date Sampled: Date Received: Optimum Moisture Sieve Size 140.1 Soil Description (Visual-Manual) Preparation Method: Moist of Soil (Proctor)PROCTOR 6/16/23 6/7/2023 Zero Air Voids Curves Curves of 100% Saturationfor Specific Gravity Equal to:2.80 2.702.60 Simkins - Hallin North Park Development Content % Project No.: 23-4278G B-24 ASTM D 4718 Oversize Correction Density, pcf Performed by: Drill CrewSampled By: 3/4" Poorly Graded Gravel With Silt And Sand[GP-GM] 2511 Holman AvenueP.O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 California Bearing Ratio ASTM D1883 /AASHTO T 193 Project:Date:07/26/23 Simkins-Hallin North Park Development, Bozeman, Montana Boring:Sample:Depth: Sample Description: MDD:108.9 pcf OMC:18.9 %Procedure: CompactionMoisturePointgrams MC%Dry pcf Comp%grams MC%Dry pcf Comp% Optimum 4187.0 18.9%103.6 95.1%4340.1 23.2%103.3 94.9% Swell CBRMoistureInitialFinalSwellSurcharge CBR @ CBR @ Equiv. Point lbs psf Dial "Dial "%psf 0.1 in.0.2 in.R-valueOptimum24.2 127.4 0.4842 0.4965 0.3%128.7 4.6 4.0 8.9 Design CBR @ 0.1 in.4.6 Design CBR @ 0.2 in.4.0 2511 Holman Avenue, P. O. Box 80190, Billings, Montana 59108-0190 ASTM D698 Initial Final Surcharge Phone (406) 652-3930; Fax (406) 652-3944 23-4278G Geotechnical Evaluation B-5 Bulk 0 - 3 ' Silty clay with sand (CL-ML) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600Stress, psiPenetration, inch 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 0%5%10%15%20%CBR @ 0.2 in.Moisture Content, % California Bearing Ratio ASTM D1883 /AASHTO T 193 Project:Date:07/26/23 Simkins-Hallin North Park Development, Bozeman, Montana Boring:Sample:Depth: Sample Description: MDD:131.6 pcf OMC:9.1 %Procedure: CompactionMoisturePointgrams MC%Dry pcf Comp%grams MC%Dry pcf Comp% Optimum 4634.0 9.1%124.9 94.9%4665.4 9.9%125.0 95.0% Swell CBRMoistureInitialFinalSwellSurcharge CBR @ CBR @ Equiv. Point lbs psf Dial "Dial "%psf 0.1 in.0.2 in.R-valueOptimum22.3 117.5 0.4680 0.4635 -0.1%117.5 9.1 15.1 39.0 Design CBR @ 0.1 in.9.1 Design CBR @ 0.2 in.15.1 2511 Holman Avenue, P. O. Box 80190, Billings, Montana 59108-0190 23-4278G Geotechnical Evaluation B-5 Bulk 3 - 5 ' Poorly graded gravel with silt and sand (GP-GM) ASTM D698 Initial Final Surcharge Phone (406) 652-3930; Fax (406) 652-3944 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600Stress, psiPenetration, inch 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 0%5%10%15%20%CBR @ 0.2 in.Moisture Content, % California Bearing Ratio ASTM D1883 /AASHTO T 193 Project:Date:07/26/23 Simkins-Hallin North Park Development, Bozeman, Montana Boring:Sample:Depth: Sample Description: MDD:102.3 pcf OMC:22.0 %Procedure: CompactionMoisturePointgrams MC%Dry pcf Comp%grams MC%Dry pcf Comp% Optimum 4034.0 22.0%97.3 95.1%4153.9 25.6%96.9 94.7% Swell CBRMoistureInitialFinalSwellSurcharge CBR @ CBR @ Equiv. Point lbs psf Dial "Dial "%psf 0.1 in.0.2 in.R-valueOptimum22.7 119.7 0.5285 0.5461 0.4%120.0 3.7 3.5 7.7 Design CBR @ 0.1 in.3.7 Design CBR @ 0.2 in.3.5 2511 Holman Avenue, P. O. Box 80190, Billings, Montana 59108-0190 23-4278G Geotechnical Evaluation B-24 Bulk 0 - 3 ' Lean clay (CL) ASTM D698 Initial Final Surcharge Phone (406) 652-3930; Fax (406) 652-3944 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600Stress, psiPenetration, inch 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 0%5%10%15%20%25%CBR @ 0.2 in.Moisture Content, % California Bearing Ratio ASTM D1883 /AASHTO T 193 Project:Date:07/26/23 Simkins-Hallin North Park Development, Bozeman, Montana Boring:Sample:Depth: Sample Description: MDD:131.8 pcf OMC:8.3 %Procedure: CompactionMoisturePointgrams MC%Dry pcf Comp%grams MC%Dry pcf Comp% Optimum 4613.0 8.2%125.4 95.1%4622.1 8.4%125.4 95.2% Swell CBRMoistureInitialFinalSwellSurcharge CBR @ CBR @ Equiv. Point lbs psf Dial "Dial "%psf 0.1 in.0.2 in.R-valueOptimum22.3 117.5 0.3000 0.2992 0.0%117.5 15.2 15.5 40.1 Design CBR @ 0.1 in.15.2 Design CBR @ 0.2 in.15.5 2511 Holman Avenue, P. O. Box 80190, Billings, Montana 59108-0190 ASTM D698 Initial Final Surcharge Phone (406) 652-3930; Fax (406) 652-3944 23-4278G Geotechnical Evaluation B-24 Bulk 3 - 5 ' Poorly graded gravel with silt and sand (GP-GM), trace clay, trace plasticity 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600Stress, psiPenetration, inch 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 0%5%10%15%20%CBR @ 0.2 in.Moisture Content, % Initial Dry Initial Moisture Density (pcf)Content (%) Boring No.B-1 Depth:2 - 3 '100.1 20.1 Sampled By:Drill Crew Date Received:5/30/23 Soil Description: 7/26/23 P. O. Box 80190 Billings, MT 59108-0190 Phone: 406.652.3930 Fax: 406.652.3944 Lean clay (CL), low plasticity, trace sand, mottled light to dark brown, moist, medium. Bozeman, Montana Consolidation/Swell Test Project Number: 23-4278GSimkins-Hallin North Park Development 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 10 100 1000 10000Strain, %Stress, psf Inundated @ 1000 psfcollapse = 1.88% Initial Dry Initial Moisture Density (pcf)Content (%) Boring No.B-4 Depth:18½ - 19½ '110.0 15.5 Sampled By:Drill Crew Date Received:5/30/23 Soil Description: 7/26/23 P. O. Box 80190 Billings, MT 59108-0190 Phone: 406.652.3930 Fax: 406.652.3944 Clayey sand (SC) with gravel, low plasticity, brown, moist, medium Bozeman, Montana Consolidation/Swell Test Project Number: 23-4278GSimkins-Hallin North Park Development 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10 100 1000 10000Strain, %Stress, psf Inundated @ 1000 psfcollapse = 0.24% Initial Dry Initial Moisture Density (pcf)Content (%) Boring No.B-21 Depth:23 -24 '89.5 30.9 Sampled By:Drill Crew Date Received:5/30/23 Soil Description: 7/26/23 P. O. Box 80190 Billings, MT 59108-0190 Phone: 406.652.3930 Fax: 406.652.3944 Sandy lean clay (CL), medium plasticity, trace gravel, brown, wet, medium Bozeman, Montana Consolidation/Swell Test Project Number: 23-4278GSimkins-Hallin North Park Development 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 10 100 1000 10000Strain, %Stress, psf Inundated @ 1000 psfswell = 0.15% Initial Dry Initial Moisture Density (pcf)Content (%) Boring No.B-25 Depth:3 - 4 '106.9 16.1 Sampled By:Drill Crew Date Received:5/30/23 Soil Description: 7/26/23 P. O. Box 80190 Billings, MT 59108-0190 Phone: 406.652.3930 Fax: 406.652.3944 Gravelly lean clay (CL), low plasticity, light brown, moist, medium Bozeman, Montana Consolidation/Swell Test Project Number: 23-4278GSimkins-Hallin North Park Development 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 10 100 1000 10000Strain, %Stress, psf Inundated @ 1000 psfcollapse = 0.12% 2511 Holman Avenue P. O. Box 80190 Billings, Montana 59108-0190 p: 406.652.3930; f: 406.652.3944 www.skgeotechnical.com Corrosivity of Soil ASTM G162/G187, AASHTO T 88 Date:Project:23-4278G Geotechnical Evaluation Simkins-Hallin North Park Development Bozeman, Montana Mr. Sean Potkay Client:Simkins-Hallin 326 N. Broadway Bozeman, Montana 59715 spotkay@simkins-hallin.com Date sampled:5/9-5/16/23 Date tested:6/1/23 Sampled by:Drill Crew Tested by:MW B-2 6½-8 1018 0.982 8.63 8.65 0.0065 NT NT B-24 4-5½4000 0.250 8.95 8.91 0.0009 NT NT B-5 6½-8 8990 0.111 8.62 8.57 0.0035 NT NT Remarks:ND = non-detect NT = not tested Sulfate result is E300.0 water soluble method from Energy Labs. Sulfide (mg/kg) Oxid- Reduc (mV) July 26, 2023 Boring Depth (feet) Resistivity (Ω•cm) Soil Box Conductivity (m.mhos/cm) Calculated pH Marble pH Sulfate (wt %) 2022 Log of Borings and Lab Tests Boring offset 10' andredrilled. See BoringST-1A for soil informationbelow 6½'. 1.0 2.5 6.4 6 18 50-2" 50-5", Set CL CL GP LEAN CLAY with SAND, low plasticity, trace roots,brown to dark brown, moist, medium stiff. (TilledSoil) LEAN CLAY with SAND, low plasticity, brown,moist, medium stiff. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SAND andCOBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, gray, moist,medium dense to very dense. (Alluvium) END OF BORING - AUGER REFUSAL Water not observed with 6' of hollow-stem auger inthe ground. Boring then backfilled. 21.3 14.3 4.9 4670.0 4668.5 4664.6 SCALE:6/9/22 1" = 4' LOCATION: ST-1 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G Description of Materials 4671.0 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson 22-4187G METHOD: Diedrich D-120, Automatic ST-1 Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev. See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: 22-4187G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Industrial Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) WLMC BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4187.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/25/22 See Boring ST-1 for SoilData above 6½'. 6.5 7.5 11.0 15.9 32 55 54 50-3" 50-5", set SC GP GC See Boring ST-1 for soil information above 6½'. CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, low plasticity, fine-to coarse-grained, brown, waterbearing, dense.(Tertiary Deposit) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SAND andCOBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, brown,waterbearing, very dense. (Tertiary Deposit) CLAYEY GRAVEL with SILT, SAND andCOBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, brown,waterbearing, very dense. (Tertiary Deposit) END OF BORING Water down 6½' with 6½' of hollow-stem auger in theground. Water not observed to dry cave-in depth of 3' immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 19.6 10.1 17.0 19.5 4664.5 4663.5 4660.0 4655.1 SCALE:6/9/22 1" = 4' LOCATION: ST-1A page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G Description of Materials 4671.0 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson 22-4187G METHOD: Diedrich D-120, Automatic ST-1A Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev. See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: 22-4187G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Industrial Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) WLMC BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4187.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/25/22 2½ 2½ 1¼ ½ LL=25, PL=20, PI=5P200= 52.8% LL=34, PL=22, PI=12P200= 52.9% 0.5 4.0 6.0 10.0 11.0 12.5 15.0 20.3 5 4 67 56 54 25 17/41 47/50-3" CL CLML GP GC GC CL SC GC LEAN CLAY with SAND, low plasticity, trace roots,dark brown to brown, moist, rather soft. (Tilled Soil) SANDY SILTY CLAY, low plasticity, trace roots,brown, moist to wet, rather soft. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SAND andCOBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, gray, rather dry tomoist, very dense. (Alluvium) CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND and COBBLES,low plasticity, fine- to coarse-grained, brown, wet towaterbearing, very dense. (Alluvium) CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND and COBBLES,low plasticity, fine- to coarse-grained, brown,waterbearing, very dense. (Tertiary Deposit) SANDY LEAN CLAY, low plasticity, trace gravel,light brown to brown, very wet, very stiff. (TertiaryDeposit) CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, low plasticity,brown, waterbearing, medium dense to dense.(Tertiary Deposit) CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND and COBBLES,low plasticity, fine- to coarse-grained, brown,waterbearing, very dense. (Tertiary Deposit) END OF BORING Water down 7' with 9' of hollow-stem auger in theground. Boring then backfilled. 20.0 22.2 18.2 2.5 8.5 10.1 27.7 11.0 15.8 4681.0 4677.5 4675.5 4671.5 4670.5 4669.0 4666.5 4661.2 SCALE:6/9/22 1" = 4' LOCATION: ST-2 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G Description of Materials 4681.5 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson 22-4187G METHOD: Diedrich D-120, Automatic ST-2 Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev. See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: 22-4187G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Industrial Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) WLMC BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4187.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/25/22 2½ 2 0.5 3.0 8.5 11.2 6 6 43 68 50-2" 50-2" CL GP GC Topsoil: (6") LEAN CLAY with SAND, low plasticity, trace rootsand salts, light brown to brown, moist, medium stiff.(Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SAND andCOBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, gray, rather dry tomoist, dense to very dense. (Alluvium) CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND and COBBLES,low plasticity, fine- to coarse-grained, brown,waterbearing, very dense. (Alluvium) END OF BORING - AUGER REFUSAL Water down 9' with 9' of hollow-stem auger in theground. Water not observed to dry cave-in depth of 4'immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 21.9 19.5 4.1 4.3 15.1 4678.7 4676.2 4670.7 4668.0 SCALE:6/9/22 1" = 4' LOCATION: ST-3 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G Description of Materials 4679.2 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson 22-4187G METHOD: Diedrich D-120, Automatic ST-3 Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev. See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: 22-4187G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Industrial Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) WLMC BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4187.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/25/22 2¾ LL=29, PL=18, PI=11P200= 74.7% 1.0 3.0 8.5 11.0 13.5 17.5 20.5 6 8 40 43 64 23-50-4" 9 62 CL CL GP GPGM GC CL GM LEAN CLAY with SAND, some organics, darkbrown, moist to wet, medium stiff. (Tilled Soil) LEAN CLAY with SAND, low plasticity, trace roots,brown, moist, medium stiff. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SAND andCOBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, brown to gray,rather dry to moist, dense. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SAND, SILTand COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, brown,waterbearing, very dense. (Alluvium) CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND and COBBLES,low plasticity, fine- to coarse-grained, brown,waterbearing, very dense. (Tertiary Deposit) LEAN CLAY with SAND, low plasticity, brown, verywet, rather stiff. (Tertiary Deposit) SILTY GRAVEL with SAND and COBBLES, fine-to coarse-grained, brown, waterbearing, very dense.(Tertiary Deposit) END OF BORING Water down 8' with 9' of hollow-stem auger in theground. Water not observed to dry cave-in depth of 2½'immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 22.6 19.8 2.9 3.8 7.7 10.3 33.5 9.5 4682.9 4680.9 4675.4 4672.9 4670.4 4666.4 4663.4 SCALE:6/8/22 1" = 4' LOCATION: ST-4 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G Description of Materials 4683.9 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson 22-4187G METHOD: Diedrich D-120, Automatic ST-4 Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev. See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: 22-4187G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Industrial Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) WLMC BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4187.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/25/22 3 1¾ LL=30, PL=21, PI=9P200= 71.7% Proposed Grade / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 1.0 4.5 13.5 17.0 17.9 5 3 42 50-5½" 50-5" 50 13 50-5", set CL CL GP SC GP LEAN CLAY with SAND, low plasticity, trace roots,dark brown, moist, rather soft. (Tilled Soil) LEAN CLAY with SAND, low plasticity, trace roots,brown, moist, rather soft to soft. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SAND andCOBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, brownish gray,moist, dense. (Alluvium) - Trace clays at 7½'. CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, low plasticity, fine-to coarse-grained, moist, medium dense. (TertiaryDeposit) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SAND andCOBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, gray, wet towaterbearing, very dense. (Tertiary Deposit) END OF BORING - AUGER REFUSAL Water down 17½' with 17½' of hollow-stem auger inthe ground. Water not observed to dry cave-in depth of 10'immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 22.5 22.5 24.1 5.4 8.8 4.1 2.9 8.1 4691.0 4687.5 4678.5 4675.0 4674.1 SCALE:6/8/22 1" = 4' LOCATION: ST-5 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G Description of Materials 4692.0 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson 22-4187G METHOD: Diedrich D-120, Automatic ST-5 Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev. See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: 22-4187G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Industrial Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) WLMC BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4187.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/25/22 1 Proposed Grade / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / LL=21, PL=19, PI=2P200= 12.7% 1.0 2.5 6.5 13.5 20.5 7 8/18 44/50-5" 50/50-4" 58 35/50-4½" 47 44/50-5½" CL CL GPGM GM GC LEAN CLAY with SAND, low plasticity, trace roots,dark brown, moist, medium stiff. (Tilled Soil) LEAN CLAY with SAND, low plasticity, dark brownto brown, moist, medium stiff. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT, SAND and COBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, brown, moist,dense to very dense. (Alluvium) SILTY GRAVEL with SAND and COBBLES, lowplasticity, fine- to coarse-grained, brown, moist towaterbearing, very dense. (Alluvium) CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND and COBBLES,low plasticity, slightly cemented, olive brown,waterbearing, dense to very dense. (Tertiary Deposit) END OF BORING Water down 7' with 9' of hollow-stem auger in theground. Water not observed to dry cave-in depth of 3½'immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 25.4 18.9 4.8 6.8 11.1 16.5 15.2 14.7 4688.5 4687.0 4683.0 4676.0 4669.0 SCALE:6/8/22 1" = 4' LOCATION: ST-6 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G Description of Materials 4689.5 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson 22-4187G METHOD: Diedrich D-120, Automatic ST-6 Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev. See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: 22-4187G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Industrial Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) WLMC BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4187.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/25/22 2¼ 4+ 4+ 4+ 4+ 4+ 4+ 2½ Proposed Grade / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 2.0 13.5 21.0 25.2 6 8 5 5 4 4 8 9 30/50-2" CL CL GP FILL: Lean Clay with Sand, low plasticity, brown todark brown, moist, medium stiff. LEAN CLAY with SAND, low plasticity, light brownto brown, moist, medium stiff to rather soft.(Alluvium) SANDY LEAN CLAY, low plasticity, trace salts,moist, medium stiff to rather stiff. (Alluvium) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SAND andCOBBLES, fine- to coarse-grained, brown to gray,moist, very dense. (Alluvium) END OF BORING Water not observed with 24' of hollow-stem auger inthe ground. Water not observed to dry cave-in depth of 13'immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 22.3 15.4 19.2 20.9 20.3 21.0 19.9 24.6 2.9 4707.5 4696.0 4688.5 4684.3 SCALE:6/8/22 1" = 4' LOCATION: ST-7 page 1 of 1 L O G O F B O R I N G Description of Materials 4709.5 DRILLED BY: S. Robertson 22-4187G METHOD: Diedrich D-120, Automatic ST-7 Symbol BORING: Depth 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 DATE: Remarks 0.0 Elev. See Attached Sketch BPF PROJECT: 22-4187G GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION North Park Industrial Development Bozeman, Montana qp (tsf) WLMC BORING BPF WL-MC QP ELEV ~ 4187.GPJ LAGNNN06.GDT 7/25/22 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 120Liquid Limit (LL) 7/13/22 25 34 29 30 21 20 22 18 21 19 18.2% 27.7% 33.5% 24.1% 6.8% ML-CL Project Number: 22-4187G LL MC Classification CL ML or OL PL PI MH or OH CH 5 12 11 9 2Plasticity Index (PI)North Park Industrial Development P 200, % 52.8 52.9 74.7 71.7 12.7 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 CL-ML CL CL CL SM Atterberg Limits Tests Bozeman, Montana Depth ST-2 ST-2 ST-4 ST-5 ST-6 Legend Sample No. 3'-4' 11½'-13' 14'-15½' 3'-4' 6½'-8' Boring TW Jar #45 Jar #32 TW Jar #13 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.1110 Bozeman, Montana Sample No.: 1 1/2"3/8"#100 Sand 3/4" Percent Gravel: Percent Silt + Clay: Gravel ASTM Group Name: Percent Sand:CL-ML #20 #40 7/13/22 coarsePercent PassingParticle Size in Millimeters 3" 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 SANDY SILTY CLAY #200 fine #80 Liquid Limit: Plastic Limit: Classification: Moisture Content: Project Number: 22-4187G 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #40 #100#20#10 18.2% #200 coarse Sample: North Park Industrial Development 25 Sieve Analysis ST-2 #4 #10 medium 52.80.0 0.0 6/23/2022Date Received: Sieve Size 5Plasticity Index: 20 Percent Passing U.S. Standard Sieve Size Depth: 3'-4' TW 52.8 fine 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.1110 Bozeman, Montana Sample No.: 1 1/2"3/8"#100 Sand 3/4" Percent Gravel: Percent Silt + Clay: Gravel ASTM Group Name: Percent Sand:CL #20 #40 7/13/22 coarsePercent PassingParticle Size in Millimeters 3" 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 SANDY LEAN CLAY #200 fine #80 Liquid Limit: Plastic Limit: Classification: Moisture Content: Project Number: 22-4187G 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #40 #100#20#10 27.7% #200 coarse Sample: North Park Industrial Development 34 Sieve Analysis ST-2 #4 #10 medium 52.90.0 0.0 6/23/2022Date Received: Sieve Size 12Plasticity Index: 22 Percent Passing U.S. Standard Sieve Size Depth: 11½'-13' Jar #45 52.9 fine 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.1110 Bozeman, Montana Sample No.: 1 1/2"3/8"#100 Sand 3/4" Percent Gravel: Percent Silt + Clay: Gravel ASTM Group Name: Percent Sand:CL #20 #40 7/13/22 coarsePercent PassingParticle Size in Millimeters 3" 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 LEAN CLAY with SAND #200 fine #80 Liquid Limit: Plastic Limit: Classification: Moisture Content: Project Number: 22-4187G 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #40 #100#20#10 33.5% #200 coarse Sample: North Park Industrial Development 29 Sieve Analysis ST-4 #4 #10 medium 74.70.0 0.0 6/23/2022Date Received: Sieve Size 11Plasticity Index: 18 Percent Passing U.S. Standard Sieve Size Depth: 14'-15½' Jar #32 74.7 fine 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.1110 Bozeman, Montana Sample No.: 1 1/2"3/8"#100 Sand 3/4" Percent Gravel: Percent Silt + Clay: Gravel ASTM Group Name: Percent Sand:CL #20 #40 7/13/22 coarsePercent PassingParticle Size in Millimeters 3" 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 LEAN CLAY with SAND #200 fine #80 Liquid Limit: Plastic Limit: Classification: Moisture Content: Project Number: 22-4187G 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #40 #100#20#10 24.1% #200 coarse Sample: North Park Industrial Development 30 Sieve Analysis ST-5 #4 #10 medium 71.70.0 0.0 6/23/2022Date Received: Sieve Size 9Plasticity Index: 21 Percent Passing U.S. Standard Sieve Size Depth: 3'-4' TW 71.7 fine 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.1110 Bozeman, Montana Sample No.: 1 1/2"3/8"#100 Sand 3/4" Percent Gravel: Percent Silt + Clay: Gravel ASTM Group Name: Percent Sand:SM #20 #40 7/13/22 coarsePercent PassingParticle Size in Millimeters 3" 2511 Holman AvenueP. O. Box 80190Billings, MT 59108-0190Phone: 406.652.3930Fax: 406.652.3944 SILTY SAND #200 fine #80 Liquid Limit: Plastic Limit: Classification: Moisture Content: Project Number: 22-4187G 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #40 #100#20#10 6.8% #200 coarse Sample: North Park Industrial Development 21 Sieve Analysis ST-6 #4 #10 medium 12.70.0 0.0 6/23/2022Date Received: Sieve Size 2Plasticity Index: 19 Percent Passing U.S. Standard Sieve Size Depth: 6½'-8' Jar #13 12.7 fine Initial Dry Initial Moisture Density (pcf)Content (%) Boring No.ST-2 Depth:3 - 4 '90.0 18.2 Sampled By:Drill Crew Date Received:6/23/22 Soil Description: 7/26/23 P. O. Box 80190 Billings, MT 59108-0190 Phone: 406.652.3930 Fax: 406.652.3944 Sandy silty clay (CL-ML), slightly plastic, tracel gravel and roots, brown, moist, rather soft Bozeman, Montana Consolidation/Swell Test Project Number: 22-4187GNorth Park Industrial Development 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 10 100 1000 10000Strain, %Stress, psf Inundated @ 500 psfcollapse = 3.12% Initial Dry Initial Moisture Density (pcf)Content (%) Boring No.ST-5 Depth:3 - 4 '83.6 24.1 Sampled By:Drill Crew Date Received:6/23/22 Soil Description: 7/26/23 P. O. Box 80190 Billings, MT 59108-0190 Phone: 406.652.3930 Fax: 406.652.3944 Lean clay (CL) with sand, low plasticity, trace gravel and roots, brown, moist, raher soft Bozeman, Montana Consolidation/Swell Test Project Number: 22-4187GNorth Park Industrial Development 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 10 100 1000 10000Strain, %Stress, psf Inundated @ 500 psfcollapse =3.17% 2511 Holman Avenue P. O. Box 80190 Billings, Montana 59108-0190 p: 406.652.3930; f: 406.652.3944 www.skgeotechnical.com Corrosivity of Soil ASTM G162/G187, AASHTO T 88 Date:Project:22-4187G Geotechnical Evaluation North Park Industrial Development Bozeman, Montana Client:Mr. Bobby Eggeberg, PE Sanderson Stewart beggeber@sandersonstewart.com Date sampled:6/8-6/9/22 Date tested:7/11/22 Sampled by:Drill Crew Tested by:AB ST-2 3-4 1000 1.000 8.28 8.36 0.0023 NT NT ST-5 3-4 1000 1.000 8.28 8.37 0.0024 NT NT Remarks:ND = non-detect NT = not tested Sulfate result is E300.0 water soluble method from Energy Labs. Sulfide (mg/kg) Oxid- Reduc (mV) July 26, 2023 Boring Depth (feet) Resistivity (Ω•cm) Soil Box Conductivity (m.mhos/cm) Calculated pH Marble pH Sulfate (wt %) Simkins North Park Tract 3B Stormwater Design Report Project No. 21363.01 APPENDIX G Advanced Drainage Systems Chamber Details FILE:PROJECT NO:CAD:QUALITY ASSURANCE:DRAWING HISTORYDATE DESCRIPTIONa sanderson bellecci companyWHEAT DRIVEADS DETAILSSIMKINS NORTH PARK TRACT 3-BNORTH PARK SIMKINS-HALLIN SITE DEVELOPMENTBOZEMAN, MTC6.5 TP21363_01_DETAILS_PROD.DWGCS/KA01/31/24SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL--------------21363.01P:\21363_01_Simkins_North_Park_Site_Plan\CADD_C3D\PRODUCTION_DWG\TRACT 3-B\21363_01_DETAILS_PROD.dwg, C6.5, 1/12/2024 11:14:28 AM, cschreiner, 1:1 FILE:PROJECT NO:CAD:QUALITY ASSURANCE:DRAWING HISTORYDATE DESCRIPTIONa sanderson bellecci companyWHEAT DRIVEADS DETAILSSIMKINS NORTH PARK TRACT 3-BNORTH PARK SIMKINS-HALLIN SITE DEVELOPMENTBOZEMAN, MTC6.6 TP21363_01_DETAILS_PROD.DWGCS/KA01/31/24SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL--------------21363.01P:\21363_01_Simkins_North_Park_Site_Plan\CADD_C3D\PRODUCTION_DWG\TRACT 3-B\21363_01_DETAILS_PROD.dwg, C6.6, 1/12/2024 12:59:50 PM, cschreiner, 1:1 FILE:PROJECT NO:CAD:QUALITY ASSURANCE:DRAWING HISTORYDATE DESCRIPTIONa sanderson bellecci companyWHEAT DRIVEADS DETAILSSIMKINS NORTH PARK TRACT 3-BNORTH PARK SIMKINS-HALLIN SITE DEVELOPMENTBOZEMAN, MTC6.7 TP21363_01_DETAILS_PROD.DWGCS/KA01/31/24SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL--------------21363.01P:\21363_01_Simkins_North_Park_Site_Plan\CADD_C3D\PRODUCTION_DWG\TRACT 3-B\21363_01_DETAILS_PROD.dwg, C6.7, 1/12/2024 1:01:02 PM, cschreiner, 1:1 FILE:PROJECT NO:CAD:QUALITY ASSURANCE:DRAWING HISTORYDATE DESCRIPTIONa sanderson bellecci companyWHEAT DRIVEADS DETAILSSIMKINS NORTH PARK TRACT 3-BNORTH PARK SIMKINS-HALLIN SITE DEVELOPMENTBOZEMAN, MTC6.8 TP21363_01_DETAILS_PROD.DWGCS/KA01/31/24SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL--------------21363.01P:\21363_01_Simkins_North_Park_Site_Plan\CADD_C3D\PRODUCTION_DWG\TRACT 3-B\21363_01_DETAILS_PROD.dwg, C6.8, 1/12/2024 1:02:32 PM, cschreiner, 1:1 FILE:PROJECT NO:CAD:QUALITY ASSURANCE:DRAWING HISTORYDATE DESCRIPTIONa sanderson bellecci companyWHEAT DRIVEADS DETAILSSIMKINS NORTH PARK TRACT 3-BNORTH PARK SIMKINS-HALLIN SITE DEVELOPMENTBOZEMAN, MTC6.9 TP21363_01_DETAILS_PROD.DWGCS/KA01/31/24SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL--------------21363.01P:\21363_01_Simkins_North_Park_Site_Plan\CADD_C3D\PRODUCTION_DWG\TRACT 3-B\21363_01_DETAILS_PROD.dwg, C6.9, 1/12/2024 1:03:59 PM, cschreiner, 1:1 FILE:PROJECT NO:CAD:QUALITY ASSURANCE:DRAWING HISTORYDATE DESCRIPTIONa sanderson bellecci companyWHEAT DRIVEADS DETAILSSIMKINS NORTH PARK TRACT 3-BNORTH PARK SIMKINS-HALLIN SITE DEVELOPMENTBOZEMAN, MTC6.10 TP21363_01_DETAILS_PROD.DWGCS/KA01/31/24SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL--------------21363.01P:\21363_01_Simkins_North_Park_Site_Plan\CADD_C3D\PRODUCTION_DWG\TRACT 3-B\21363_01_DETAILS_PROD.dwg, C6.10, 1/12/2024 1:05:23 PM, cschreiner, 1:1 APPENDIX H Groundwater Monitoring Data Simkins North Park Tract 3B Stormwater Design Report Project No. 21363.01 January 2024 Project No. 21363.01 GROUNDWATER MONITORING MEMORANDUM FOR SIMKINS NORTH PARK BOZEMAN, MONTANA During the period of April 12, 2023, to August 16, 2023, Sanderson Stewart performed weekly manual groundwater measurements at Simkin’s proposed sites, Tracts 2-B, 3-B, and 4-B, within North Park. Ten wells were monitored to determine the peak groundwater depth at various locations, see Monitoring Well Layout Exhibit. The groundwater elevations were measured using a Dipper-T water level meter within ten semi-permeable PVC pipes inserted into the ground. Shown below is a table and graph of the manual measurements recorded relative to the ground surface during the study. GROUNDWATER DEPTH BELOW GROUND SURFACE DATE WELL #1 WELL #2 WELL #3 WELL #4 WELL #5 WELL #7 WELL #8 WELL #9 WELL #10 WELL #11 4/12/2023 #N/A 6.57 7.01 7.56 6.05 N/A N/A 9.62 8.77 5.68 4/21/2023 7.63 6.22 7.00 7.69 7.04 7.98 8.63 8.63 7.73 5.18 4/28/2023 7.63 6.89 7.64 7.60 7.63 6.84 8.75 8.42 7.77 5.16 5/5/2023 7.63 7.2 7.63 7.59 7.63 6.96 8.75 8.61 8.15 5.58 5/10/2023 7.63 7.46 7.63 7.59 7.63 7.07 8.75 8.78 8.42 5.83 5/17/2023 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.59 7.63 7.54 8.75 9.33 8.90 6.25 5/26/2023 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.59 7.63 7.62 8.75 9.33 8.86 6.23 6/1/2023 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.59 7.63 7.44 8.75 9.33 8.95 6.26 6/9/2023 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.59 7.63 7.25 8.75 9.25 8.59 5.89 6/16/2023 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.59 7.63 7.28 8.75 9.33 8.70 6.04 6/23/2023 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.59 7.63 7.12 8.75 9.15 8.47 5.83 6/30/2023 7.63 7.48 7.63 7.59 7.63 7.03 8.75 8.97 8.32 5.75 7/5/2023 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.59 7.63 7.23 8.75 9.19 8.61 6.03 7/17/2023 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.59 7.63 7.47 8.75 9.33 9.06 6.51 7/24/2023 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.59 7.63 7.59 8.75 9.33 9.28 6.72 8/16/2023 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.59 7.63 7.98 8.75 9.33 9.33 7.07 =NO GROUNDWATER PRESENT =GROUNDWATER PRESENT CONCLUSION Throughout the study three of the ten wells never contained groundwater, monitoring Wells 2 and 9 had groundwater present for a portion of the monitoring period, and monitoring Wells 7, 10, and 11 had groundwater present throughout the study. The data collected from the groundwater monitoring wells, both shown in the table and the graph, fail to provide a clear peak groundwater elevation. Wells 7, 10, and 11 did see a short peak but that is likely due to the high rainfall events which occurred in June 2023. 024681012Depth (ft)DateGroundwater DepthWELL #1WELL #2WELL #3WELL #4WELL #5WELL #7WELL #8WELL #9WELL #10WELL #11 MONITORING WELL LAYOUTNORTH0100SCALE:1" = 200'200100P:\21363_01_Simkins_North_Park_Site_Plan\CADD_C3D\PRODUCTION_DWG\EXHIBITS\21363.01_GROUNDWATER MONITORING EXHIBIT.dwg, 11x17 LANDSCAPE, 1/3/2024 9:59:00 AM, cschreiner, 1:1