Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout005_DrainageReport ALTOS PHOTONICS Project # 24141.01 Bozeman, Montana Community Planning Surveying+ Mapping+GIS+Drone DECEMBER 2024 Civil Infrastructure Engineering Multimodal Transportation Engineering Water and Wastewater Utility Design and Operations Landscape Architecture+ Placemaking Construction Management and Inspection Communications+Public Engagement+visualizations sanbel I (; sanbel DRAINAGE REPORT FOR ALTOS PHOTONICS 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. 00 N C H A D Z-u SCHREINER '� ,sS 62391 12/20/2024 Chad Schreiner, P.E. Date Intelligent Infrastructure. Enduring Communities. sanbel December 2024 Project No. 24141.01 DRAINAGE REPORT ALTOS PHOTONICS 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 Altos Photonics 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 development site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of North Rouse Avenue and East Tamarack Street in Bozeman, Montana. The legal description for the lot is: Northern Pacific Addition, Tract 24A, Block 116, S06, T02 S, R06 E, Acres 0.456. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The project site is currently a developed lot with public infrastructure located to the west and south. North Rouse Avenue borders the site to the west. East Tamarack Street borders the site to the south. In general, the site grades to the north and west. The seasonal high groundwater is roughly at an average elevation of 10.0 feet from existing grade. Reference Appendix H for groundwater monitoring data. PROPOSED PROJECT The projectwill include demolition of the existing structures and construction of a new building, service connections to existing water and sewer infrastructure near the proposed development, new parking areas, and new landscaping. A series of Intelligent Infrastructure. Enduring Communities underground chamber systems are proposed for infiltration/treatment of stormwater runoff. Calculations for each sub-basin are included in this report. HYDROLOGY The modified rational method was used to determine peak runoff rates and volumes since all the sub-basins are less than 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 the watersheds as if they were predominantly impervious, 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 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/hour at a minimum. Infiltration rates were not considered in the sizing of the retention 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 8,638 ft2 of impervious area and 918 ft2 of pervious area. Runoff generated in Sub-basin A runs off to North Rouse Avenue and the neighboring property to the north. Sub-basin B Sub-basin B includes 4,976 ft2 of impervious area and 7,793 ft2 of pervious area. Runoff generated in Sub-basin B runs off to the neighboring property to the north and east. B. Post-Development Basins For the following sections, please refer to Appendix B - Exhibit B of this report, which graphically shows and labels the on-site 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 3 underground ADS chamber storage systems, with some small areas Drainage Report Page 2 of 7 December 2024 discharging off-site around the perimeter of the site, as they have historically. The pre-development overall site discharge peak flow was 0.25 ft3/s. The post development overall site peak flow is 1.32 ft3/s, with most of the peak flow discharging to on-site 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 0.02 ft3/s. Sub-basin 1 Sub-basin 1 includes the landscape area west of the building between the sidewalk and the patio. Sub-basin 1 includes 988 ft2 of pervious area and 44 ft2 of impervious area. Runoff generated in Sub-basin 1 is captured by an inlet where it is conveyed into stormwater chamber system 1 located on the west side of the building. Sub-basin 2 Sub-basin 2 includes the north side of the project north of the building. Sub- basin 2 includes 5,230 ft2 of impervious area and 535 ft2 of pervious area. Runoff generated from Sub-basin 2 is captured by an inlet where it is conveyed into stormwater chamber system 2 located on the east side of the building in the parking lot. Sub-basin 3 Sub-basin 3 includes the parking lot on the east side of the building south of the alley entrance. Sub-basin 3 includes 6,733 ft2 of impervious area and 441 ft2 of pervious area. Runoff generated in Sub-basin 3 is captured by an inlet where it is conveyed into stormwater chamber system 2 located on the east side of the building in the parking lot. Sub-basin 4 Sub-basin 4 includes the roof of the building. Sub-basin 4 includes 0 ft2 of pervious area and 4,524 ft2 of impervious area. Runoff generated in Sub-basin 4 is captured by roof drains where it is conveyed into stormwater chamber system 2 located on the east side of the building in the parking lot. Sub-basin 5 Sub-basin 5 includes the ADA ramp and walkways west of the building. Sub- basin 5 includes 752 ft2 of impervious area and 253 ft2 of pervious area. Runoff Drainage Report Page 3 of 7 December 2024 generated in Sub-basin 5 is captured by an inlet where it is conveyed into stormwater chamber system 3 located on the north side of the building. Sub-basin 6 Sub-basin 6 includes the patio area on the southwest corner of the building. Sub-basin 6 includes 351 ft2 of impervious area and 161 ft2 of pervious area. Runoff generated in Sub-basin 6 will be conveyed into washed rock below the permeable pavers. REQUIRED RETENTION STORAGE VOLUME CALCULATIONS Chamber System 1 Sub-basin 1 consisting of a total area of 1,042 ft2 (0.024 acres) and having a runoff coefficient of 0.18 is routed to chamber system 1. Sub-basin 1 requires a total retention volume of 13 ft3.The storm system and gravel base have a total retention volume of 73 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=0.18; i=0.41 in/hr; A=0.024 acres V=13ft3 Chamber System 2 Sub-basins 2, 3, and 4, consisting of a total area of 17,463 ft2(0.401 acres) and having a runoff coefficient of 0.91, are routed to chamber system 2. Sub- basins 2, 3, and 4 require a total retention volume of 1,066 ft3.The elevator shafts are equipped with sump pumps, and in an emergency would activate and provide a maximum of 35-gpm requiring an additional retention volume of 280 ft3 per hour. The storm system and gravel base have a total retention volume of 1,373 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=0.91; i=0.41 in/hr; A=0.401 acres V=1,066ft3 Drainage Report Page 4 of 7 December 2024 Chamber System 3 Sub-basin 5 consisting of a total area of 1,005 ft2 (0.023 acres) and having a runoff coefficient of 0.75 is routed to chamber system 3. Sub-basin 5 requires a total retention volume of 51 ft3.The storm system and gravel base have a total retention volume of 63 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=0.75; i=0.41 in/hr; A=0.023 acres V=51ft3 Patio Permeable Pavers Sub-basin 6 consisting of a total area of 512 ft2 (0.012 acres) and having a drainage coefficient of 0.87 is routed to the gravel base below the pavers. Sub-basin 6 requires a total retention volume of 47 ft3.The gravel base has a total retention volume of 48 ft3, making the storm system adequate to meet the storage requirements. Sub-basin 6 was sized for the 100-year, 2-hour hour storm since the patio area is below grade. V=7200 x C x I x A Where: C=0.87; i=0.63 in/hr; A=0.012 acres V=47ft3 HYDRAULICS 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 1.0%. 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. Drainage Report Page 5 of 7 December 2024 For further information on storm drain and inlet capacity calculations, see Appendix D. 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 on-site in the proposed underground stormwater chamber systems and gravel below the permeable pavers.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. Stormwater retention systems need to be maintained, per the recommendations in the Operations and Maintenance Manual, see Appendix E. A. Calculations Chamber System 1 Water Quality Volume = O.Sin x (1ft/12in) x 1,042ft2 = 43 ft3 43 ft3 will draw down in 6.5 hours using the percolation rate of 3.09 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 17,463ft2 = 728 ft3 728 ft3 will draw down in 13 hours using the percolation rate of 3.09 in/hr from the bottom of the chamber system excavated to native gravels. Chamber System 3 Water Quality Volume = O.Sin x (1ft/12in) x 1,OO5ft2 = 42 ft3 43 ft3 will draw down in 2.4 hours using the percolation rate of 3.09 in/hr from the bottom of the chamber system excavated to native gravels. Patio Permeable Pavers Water Quality Volume = O.Sin x (1ft/12in) x 512ft2 = 21 ft3 21 ft3 will draw down in 3 hours using the percolation rate of 3.09 in/hr from the bottom of the chamber system excavated to native gravels. Drainage Report Page 6 of 7 December 2024 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 North Rouse Avenue and not impactthe building. 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 - 0&M Plan Appendix F - Geotechnical Report Appendix G - ADS Chamber Details Appendix H - Groundwater Monitoring Drainage Report Page 7 of 7 December 2024 ALTOS PHOTONICS Project # 24141.01 M m m = m 0° < D m D r IV O m y z � o v_ z M -I X D 00 � D D z m M Intelligent Infrastructure. Enduring Communities. sanbel I EXHIBIT A PRE—DEVELOPMENT BASINS WITHIN NORTHERN PACIFIC ADDITION, TRACT 24A, BLOCK 116 NORTH PREPARED FOR ALTOS PHOTONICS, INC. OCTOBER, 2024 o PREPARED BY Sanbell BOZEMAN, MONTANA s s so i. SCALE:1"=30' I \ I \ I / 3 w I \ W N \1 \ \ W -- --oHP — oHP --- it'll — I 0 0 / I 1 Z �\ BASIN A o A I 0 BASIN B SD o III 0- o V) _ a I = fn n � s I I I I I s I / G G - o T � o 0 � ® T T T T T I I to T oT i c T c T T \ c —o T w w a I I I I wl LJ w w w 3 w w w w _ J SD SO SDI SD SD SD SD ~ SD SD S I O S� SS SS SS L_j SSN SS SS EAST TAMARACK STREET (CITY /W) SS SS o _ -- 24141-01-PRE-DEVELOPMENT-BASINS.DWG 24141.01 07/12/24 CS ALTOS PHOTONICS Project # 24141.01 T O m y X v o0 m < n m �0 r i m U Z xO 12 m M x z x W Co � D N � _ m Z ;a Intelligent Infrastructure. sanbell Enduring Communities. EXHIBIT B POST—DEVELOPMENT BASINS WITHIN NORTHERN PACIFIC ADDITION, TRACT 24A, BLOCK 116 NORTH PREPARED FOR ALTOS PHOTONICS, INC. OCTOBER, 2024 is o is 30 PREPARED BY Sanbell BOZEMAN, MONTANA i. SCALE:1"=30' I \ I \ I / 3 w I \ W N \1 \ I 0 0 — \ v - --- / BASIN 2 ———— — — ---- — -- \.:° O P ' SD CHAMBER SYSTEM 3 / I I Ijl 01 BASIN 5 j o o — BASIN 4 \' 1 CHAMBER SYSTEM 2 I I a .- SD _ — I v CHAMBER SYSTEM 1 BASIN 3 BASI 1 BASIN 6 v� I I I I I � T T T O T T O T T T T T N a cn W cn W W W W W W W W c� W 3 SD S SD SD SD SD SD ~ SD SD S 0 S� SS SS ss SS 1- SS SS EAST TAMARACK STREET (CITY /W) SS SS o _ -- 24141_01_POST-DEVELOP M ENT_BASI NS.DWG 24141.01 09/27/2024 CS ALTOS PHOTONICS Project # 24141.01 v M O r O D n z > v_ x D O z Intelligent Infrastructure. sanbell Enduring Communities. Rational Method for Runoff Calculations Water Design Storm s Area Impermeable Impermeable Runoff Permeable Permeable Runoff Weighted Runoff Frequency Rainfall Intensity Runoff Volume V Included Basins Area(ft) z z a 3 Quality Frequency(years) (AC) Area(ft) Area(AC) Coefficient C Area(ft) Area(AC) Coefficient C Coefficient C Factor Cf (in/hr) Q(ft/s) (ft) Volume(ft) 10 Pre-developed 22325 0.513 0 0.000 0.95 22325 0.513 0.15 0.15 1 0.41 0.25 226 930 10 Post-developed 22325 0.513 18119 0.416 0.95 4206 0.097 0.15 0.80 1 0.41 1.32 1,203 930 10 A 9556 0.219 8638 0.198 0.95 918 0.021 0.15 0.87 1 0.41 0.62 562 398 10 B 12769 0.293 4976 0.114 0.95 7793 0.179 0.15 0.46 1 0.41 0.44 397 532 10 1 1042 0.024 44 0.001 0.95 998 0.023 0.15 0.18 1 0.41 0.01 13 43 10 2-4 17463 0.401 16487 0.378 0.95 976 0.022 0.15 0.91 1 0.41 1.17 1,066 728 10 2 5765 0.132 5230 0.120 0.95 535 0.012 0.15 0.88 1 0.41 0.37 340 240 101 31 71741 0.1651 67331 0.1551 0.951 4411 0.010 0.151 0.901 1 0.411 0.481 4361 299 10 4 4524 0.104 4524 0.104 0.95 0 0.000 0.15 0.95 1 0.41 0.32 290 189 10 5 1005 0.023 752 0.017 0.95 253 0.006 0.15 0.75 1 0.41 0.06 51 42 100 6 512 0.012 351 0.008 0.95 161 0.004 0.15 0.87 1.25 0.63 0.03 47 21 ALTOS PHOTONICS Project # 24141.01 v M a a M n m Z v_ c X r v a 0 z Intelligent Infrastructure. sanbell Enduring Communities. Hydraulic Analysis Report Project Data Project Title: Altos Photonics Designer: Project Date: Monday, September 30, 2024 Project Units: U.S. Customary Units Notes: Channel Analysis: Channel Analysis 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: Altos Photonics Designer: Project Date: Monday, September 30, 2024 Project Units: U.S. Customary Units Notes: Curb and Gutter Analysis: 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 Design Flow: 0.0600 cfs Gutter Result Parameters Width of Spread: 13.4497 ft Gutter Depression: 0.6384 in Area of Flow: 1.8622 ft^2 Eo (Gutter Flow to Total Flow): 0.3898 Gutter Depth at Curb: 3.8663 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: 0.0366 ft Computed Width of Spread at Sag: 1.5257 ft Flow type: Weir Flow Efficiency: 1.0000 Hydraulic Analysis Report Project Data Project Title: Altos Photonics Designer: Project Date: Monday, September 30, 2024 Project Units: U.S. Customary Units Notes: Curb and Gutter Analysis: Circular Inlet Max Capacity 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 Design Flow: 0.0600 cfs Gutter Result Parameters Width of Spread: 13.4497 ft Gutter Depression: 0.6384 in Area of Flow: 1.8622 ft^2 Eo (Gutter Flow to Total Flow): 0.3898 Gutter Depth at Curb: 3.8663 in Inlet Input Parameters Inlet Location: Inlet in Sag Percent Clogging: 50.0000 % Inlet Type: Grate Grate Type: P- 1-7/8 Grate Width: 1.9300 ft Grate Length: 1.9300 ft Local Depression: 0.0000 in Inlet Result Parameters Perimeter: 5.7900 ft Effective Perimeter: 2.8950 ft Area: 3.3524 ft^2 Effective Area: 1.6762 ft^2 Depth at center of grate: 0.0363 ft Computed Width of Spread at Sag: 1.7434 ft Flow type: Weir Flow Efficiency: 1.0000 ALTOS PHOTONICS Project # 24141.01 O M m r- v_ r D x Z m Intelligent Infrastructure. sanbell Enduring Communities. sanbell October 2024 Project No. 24141.01 STORM DRAINAGE FACILITY MAINTENANCE PLAN ALTOS PHOTONICS BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715 OVERVIEW NARRATIVE The purpose of this maintenance plan is to outline the necessary details related to ownership, responsibility, and cleaning schedule forthe storm drainage facilities for Altos Photonics.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: OWNERSHIP OF FACILITIES Altos Photonics Altos Photonics will own all stormwater facilities which includes the chamber system, catch basins, manholes, and piping within the site boundary. INSPECTION THRESHOLDS FOR CLEANING Infiltration Chamber If sediment in the isolator row exceeds 3 inches or grate is more than 25 percent clogged with debris, clean grate and/or structure and vacuum isolator row. Catch Basins If sediment fills 60 percent of the sump or comes within 6 inches of a pipe, clean sump with vacuum. Intelligent Infrastructure. Enduring Communities. PaveDrain Blocks If 50% of the joints between the PaveDrain blocks are filled with debris, it's time to schedule a cleaning. CLEANING Infiltration Chamber To clean isolator row, use a JetVac. Catch Basins 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. PaveDrain Blocks To clean the joints between the PaveDrain Blocks, use a JetVac. INSPECTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE Infiltration Chamber • Inspection: Every 6 months and after storm events larger than 0.5 inches of precipitation • Maintenance: Vacuum isolator row every 5 years or as needed based on inspection • Design Life/Replacement Schedule: 50 years Catch Basins • Inspection: Every 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 5 years or as needed based on inspection • Design Life/Replacement Schedule: 50 years PaveDrain Blocks • Inspection: Every 12 months and after storm events larger than 0.5 inches of precipitation • Design Life/Replacement Schedule: 50 years RESPONSIBLE PARTY Altos Photonics Altos Photonics will be responsible forthe inspection, maintenance, and replacement of all stormwater facilities located within the project limits. I agree to the above inspection, maintenance, and replacement schedule detailed a bove. 1 Signature: ----------------- ----------------------- Altos Photonics Representative ALTOS PHOTONICS Project # 24141.01 G) m O 1 m n n � Z m n Z D a r x mIn IV O Intelligent Infrastructure. sanbell Enduring Communities. ROUSE & TAMARACK DEVELOPMENT ALTOS PHOTONICS, INC. — BOZEMAN, MT September 2024 y i 1. ,t 0 N TA DAVID J *�= BARRICK . No. 17401 PE :,� O• � . . '�%,;S�ONAL�,,•�• Prepared For: sQ��M64, Z��2vz i T k76 Prepared By: ALTOS 4111k DOWL Altos Photonics, Inc. 1283 North 14t" Avenue, Suite 101 201 South Wallace Avenue Bozeman, Montana 59715 Bozeman, Montana 59715 4691.12631.01 PEOPLE WHO MAKE IT HAPPEN ROUSE & TAMARACK DEVELOPMENT Pavement Section Report Prepared for: Altos Photonics, Inc. mmm ALTOS 201 South Wallace Avenue Bozeman, MT 59715 Prepared by: AA BOWL 1283 North 14th Avenue, Suite 101 Bozeman, MT 59715 September 2024 4691.12631.01 j:\91\12631-01\91geoscience\report\rouse and tamarack development final report.docx TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... III 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Understanding............................................................................................1 1.1.1 Existing Site Conditions..............................................................................1 1.1.2 Proposed Construction...............................................................................2 2.0 INVESTIGATION.................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Field Investigation ..................................................................................................4 2.2 Laboratory Testing .................................................................................................6 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................. 6 3.1 Site Geology ..........................................................................................................6 3.2 Observed Soil Conditions.......................................................................................8 3.2.1 Topsoil........................................................................................................8 3.2.2 Undocumented Fill......................................................................................8 3.2.3 Native Lean Clay Alluvium..........................................................................8 3.2.4 Bozeman Alluvial Fan Sand and Gravel......................................................8 3.3 Groundwater..........................................................................................................9 3.3.1 Groundwater Information Center Research.................................................9 3.4 Seismicity...............................................................................................................9 3.4.1 Faulting.......................................................................................................9 3.4.2 Design Accelerations................................................................................10 3.4.3 Liquefaction..............................................................................................10 4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ 11 4.1 Foundations .........................................................................................................11 4.1.1 Conventional Spread Footings..................................................................11 4.2 Lateral Earth Pressures........................................................................................12 4.2.1 Seismic Earth Pressure............................................................................13 4.2.2 Coefficient of Friction................................................................................13 4.3 Slabs-on-Grade....................................................................................................13 4.3.1 Interior Slabs............................................................................................13 4.3.2 Exterior Slabs...........................................................................................14 4.4 Parking Lot— Pavement Section ..........................................................................15 4.4.1 Traffic.......................................................................................................15 4.4.2 Design Parameters...................................................................................15 4.4.3 Flexible Pavement....................................................................................16 4.4.4 Rigid Pavement........................................................................................16 4.4.5 Pavement Construction Considerations....................................................16 4.5 Drainage ..............................................................................................................17 4.5.1 Surface Drainage......................................................................................17 4.5.2 Subsurface Drainage................................................................................17 4.6 Earthwork.............................................................................................................18 4.6.1 Subgrade Preparation...............................................................................18 4.6.2 Excavation................................................................................................18 4.6.3 Dewatering...............................................................................................19 4.6.4 Temporary Slopes....................................................................................19 4.6.5 Structural Fill.............................................................................................19 4.6.6 Compaction Requirements .......................................................................20 Pagel E:)0WI 4.6.7 Testing and Observations.........................................................................21 4.6.8 Earthwork Volume Criteria........................................................................21 4.6.9 Cold Weather Construction.......................................................................22 4.6.10 Wet Weather/Soil Construction.................................................................22 4.6.11 Geosynthetics...........................................................................................22 4.7 Soil Chemistry and Corrosion...............................................................................22 4.8 Percolation Testing ..............................................................................................23 5.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN CONTINUITY ......................................................... 23 6.0 LIMITATIONS..................................................................................................... 24 7.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................... 25 PHOTOGRAPHS Photograph 1: Drilling Borehole B-1 at the 906 North Rouse Avenue Address............................2 FIGURES Figure 1: Vicinity and Project Location .......................................................................................3 Figure 2: Boring, Perc, and Bulk Location Map ..........................................................................5 Figure 3: Surficial Geology Map.................................................................................................7 TABLES Table 1: Exploration Summary...................................................................................................4 Table 2: Laboratory Tests ..........................................................................................................6 Table 3: Approximate Depths of Sand and Gravel Substrate .....................................................8 Table 4: Groundwater Depths ....................................................................................................9 Table 5: Documented Faults ......................................................................................................9 Table 6: Seismic Design Parameters .......................................................................................10 Table 7: Foundation Design Parameters..................................................................................12 Table 8: Lateral Earth Pressures..............................................................................................12 Table 9: Floor Slab Recommendations ....................................................................................14 Table 10: Traffic Loading — Light Duty Section.........................................................................15 Table 11: Pavement Design Parameters..................................................................................15 Table 12: Fill Specifications......................................................................................................20 Table 13: Compaction Specifications .......................................................................................21 Table 14: Soil Chemistry Test Results .....................................................................................23 APPENDICES Appendix A Exploration Logs Appendix B Photograph Log Appendix C Laboratory Test Results Appendix D Pavement Calculations Appendix E Percolation Test Results Appendix F Settlement Calculations Page II E:)0WI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DOWL prepared this geotechnical report for Altos Photonics, Inc. and Sanderson Stewart. This report specifically provides recommendations for the proposed development at the northeast corner of North Rouse Avenue and East Tamarack Street. Based on the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, the site can be developed for the proposed project. We identified the following geotechnical considerations: • The soil lithology of the 906 North Rouse Avenue address consists of 4.5 to 6.4 feet of undocumented fill overlying a thin layer of alluvial lean clay or clayey sand. Medium-dense to very dense alluvial fan gravels and sands underly the alluvium and extend beyond the deepest depths drilled 26 feet below the existing ground surface. • The backyard of the 411 East Tamarack Street address consists of sandy lean clay subgrade and will control the pavement section thicknesses. • The proposed structure will have a basement and elevator pit. The footings of the basement will bear on the sand and gravel of the Bozeman Fan. A groundwater table will be observed within the sand and gravel substrate. • Close monitoring of the construction operations discussed herein will be critical in achieving the design subgrade support. We therefore recommend that DOWL be retained to monitor this portion of the work. This section is only a summary. Recognize that we do not provide details in this section; read the report in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. A Page III BOWL Rouse & Tamarack Development Pavement Section Report September 2024 1.0 INTRODUCTION DOWL completed a geotechnical investigation for the proposed development at the northeast corner of North Rouse Avenue and East Tamarack Street (see Figure 1). The scope of geotechnical services consisted of reviewing existing geotechnical and geological information, field observations, subsurface exploration, percolation testing, laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and preparing this Geotechnical Report. The purpose of these services is to provide geotechnical-related recommendations for project planning and design. We conducted this referencing our proposal to Altos Photonics, Inc., dated April 3, 2024. Our geotechnical engineering scope of work for this project included the initial site visit, drilling three geotechnical borings to depths ranging from approximately 16.5 to 26.0 feet below existing site grades, lab testing for soil engineering properties, one percolation test, and engineering analyses to provide foundation, slab-on-grade, and construction recommendations. 1.1 Project Understanding 1.1.1 Existing Site Conditions Currently, three existing structures are present at the location of the proposed development. The western 906 North Rouse Avenue address has a single structure that acts as an antique store and apartment. The Rouse address has an asphalt-surfaced parking lot. The eastern 411 East Tamarack Street has a home with a basement and detached garage. A grass-surfaced backyard is continuously north of the Tamarack Street home. A north-south retaining wall separates the two lots, and the retaining wall is approximately 3 feet high and terminates at the southern portion of the site. Existing underground utilities consist of natural gas, electrical, water, sewer, and communications. Page 1 BOWL Rouse & Tamarack Development Pavement Section Report September 2024 _ Photograph 1: Drilling Borehole B-1 at the 906 North Rouse Avenue Address 1.1.2 Proposed Construction The proposed construction is unknown at this time. The proposed structure will have a basement. The parking lot will be asphalt-surfaced with concrete sidewalks and concrete-surfaced trash enclosure pads. The approximate foundation loads are as follows: • Exterior strip footing: 3.2 kips per linear foot, • Interior strip footing: 2.6 kips per linear foot, and • Maximum interior spread footing: 80 kips. The proposed structure will have a basement and elevator. The surface elevation of the geotechnical boreholes is approximately 4,769.0 feet, and the proposed main floor elevation will be 4,772.0 feet. The bottom of the footings will be approximately 12 feet below the main floor elevation (i.e., 4,760.0 feet), and the elevator pit will be approximately four feet below the bottom of the basement footings (i.e., 4,756.0 feet). The elevator pit will be within the groundwater table fluctuations in the gravel substrates. A sump pump is recommended for the elevator pit. Page 2 BOWL SHELBY HAVRE ! ` + A i f A KALISPELL GLASGOW SIDNEY GREAT FALLS GLENDIVE LEWISTOWN MISSOULA HELENA MILES CITY In,N V BUTTE BILLINGS BOZEMAN HARDIN DILLON VICINITY MAP / NOT TO SCALE ROUSE AND TAMARACK DEVELOPMENT - BOZEMAN, MT ink f 2 j eP�N ravel ra - d 5/ VPic II r t 11 �� raso a � aear �'" - oD '� I 4� e RJR PROJECT LOC� F ATION 00— 1( i r ,ae� rL96 '' \ I9I CB,n x ollT bfS Sege CA ALA 190 � 'A � � h� rase ➢5 f w Butte f t r— J qqq Q LOCATION MAP 2 0 2 v SCALE IN MILES N a , PROJECT 4691.12631.01 ROUSE AND TAMARACK DEVELOPMENT DATE 05 09 2024 Q W L GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 3 VICINITY AND LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1 Rouse & Tamarack Development Pavement Section Report September 2024 2.0 INVESTIGATION 2.1 Field Investigation DOWL performed fieldwork from May 7, 2024, consisting of site observations and drilling three geotechnical borings. We present the boring locations in Figure 2. O'Keefe Drilling advanced the geotechnical borings to depths ranging from 16.5 feet to 26.0 feet below the existing ground surface. A percolation test and hand-dug bulk sample were excavated to depths of 2.0 feet below the ground surface. The percolation test hole and bulk sample coordinates were collected with a handheld GPS and are considered approximate. The surface elevations and northing and easting coordinates were surveyed by Sanderson Stewart and are considered accurate. Table 1: Exploration Summary Hole Hole Surface Number Depth Elevation Northing Easting Location feet feet B-1 21.0 4,768.8 123,544.9 383,984.6 North Center of Rouse Lot B-2 26.0 4,768.6 123,471.0 383,965.6 Southwest Corner of Rouse Lot B-3 16.5 4,768.7 123,561.4 384,009.7 North Center of Rouse Lot P-1 2.0 Not Surveyed Not Surveyed Not Surveyed Backyard of Tamarack Lot Bulk-1 2.0 Not Surveyed Not Surveyed Not Surveyed Backyard of Tamarack Lot O'Keefe Drilling drilled the borings under the direction of a DOWL geotechnical engineer using a B-60X truck-mounted drill rig. The drill rig was equipped with 4.5-inch I.D. hollow stem augers. We conducted our field exploration referencing the following ASTM standards: • ASTM D6151 Standard Practice for Using Hollow-Stem Augers for Geotechnical Exploration and Soil Sampling and • ASTM D1586 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils. We performed Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampling using an automatic hammer and recorded the results on the boring logs. We have not corrected the SPT values on the logs for hammer efficiency, sampler type, overburden stress, etc. The resistance, or N-value, can be used to estimate the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. We provide the field N-value or resistance data on the exploration logs. We provide exploration logs in Appendix A, which include soil and groundwater conditions as well as SPT information. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil types; in situ, the transition between materials may be gradual and may vary. In Appendix B, we present photographs of the site conditions and the following samples obtained during drilling. We based the soil descriptions shown on the boring logs on field and laboratory testing referencing ASTM Standards D2487 or D2488. The stratigraphic contacts on the individual borehole logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The actual transitions may be more gradual or abrupt. The soil and groundwater conditions depicted are only for the specific dates and locations reported and may not necessarily represent other locations and times. Page 4 BOWL i As Z W Q ■ Lu Ai O t Z � lo l I o _B-2■ i o N a 0 0 3 EAST TAMARACK STREET Y LEGEND N Q B-1 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOCATION Q P-1 PERCOLATION TEST LOCATION 30 0 30 ■ BULK-1 BULK TEST LOCATION SCALE IN FEET PROJECT 4691.12631.01 ROUSE AND TAMARACK DEVELOPMENT DATE 05 09 2024 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION L� W L BORING, PERC, & BULK LOCATION MAP FIGURE 2 Rouse & Tamarack Development Pavement Section Report September 2024 2.2 Laboratory Testing We transported samples to DOWL's laboratory for testing. We selected representative field samples for laboratory testing after visually examining the soil and considering the design criteria. DOWL performed tests for index and engineering soil properties in Billings, Montana. Energy Labs of Billings, Montana, completed corrosion testing of select soil samples. Laboratory testing included: Table 2: Lab ratory Tests Test Purpose Natural Moisture Content Provides a measure of natural (in-situ) ASTM D 2216 water content. Atterberg Limits Provides an indicator of the plasticity and ASTM D 4318 mineralogy composition of fine-grained soils. Particle-Size Distribution Provides a measure of grain sizes of the ASTM D 421 soils for classification and identification of physical characteristics. Moisture-Density Relationship Provides a measure of the relationship of (Standard Proctor) water content to soil density during ASTM D 698 compaction. Corrosion Tests To determine the potential for corrosive H, Resistivity, and Soluble Sulfates interaction of soils with concrete and metal. We present laboratory test results in the summary table and figures in Appendix C. 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.1 Site Geology The Gallatin Valley is an intermountain basin in the Rocky Mountains bounded by the Bridger Mountains to the east, and the Gallatin Ranges to the south. The Gallatin Mountain Range has provided material for vast coalescing alluvial fan deposits upon the valley floor from the south and east valley limits, sloping rather steeply to the north. These alluvial/fluviatile deposits range from Tertiary to Quaternary in age. The project site is in northeast Bozeman, in the southeast extremity of the Gallatin Valley on Quaternary alluvial fan deposits known as the Bozeman Fan. These alluvial fan deposits contain varying thicknesses of depositional clay, sand, and gravel. Tertiary age fluviatile and soft bedrock strata underlay the alluvial fan deposits at varying depths and locations. Figure 3 illustrates the alluvial fan geological contacts. Page 6 BOWL Qafo MAP UNITS sue` ♦ qal Alluvium Andesite Quadrant Formation Qafo r� F- ♦ TSCm Colluvium Rhyolite,vitric Snowcrest Range Group Tscmv 00, qk Landslide deposit Absaroka Vobanics Madison Group,undivided a I Oaf I // qpa Paludal deposit Basalt 7 M;71 Mission Canyon Limestone I6 _ Tscmv ♦ / Debris flow deposit - Andesite MI Lodgepole Limestone •7C\N of _ qe Eolian deposit TKI Lathe MDc Three Forks Formation 'w t4 h `' Alluvium and colluvium,undivided Dacite Jefferson,Maywood,and Snowy Range Fms.,undivided ! ISO qgr Gravel deposit Felsic intrusive rocks Jefferson Formation Tscmv yam. Oaf Alluvial fan depositTKjb Jasperoid breccia DCmr Maywood and Red Lion Fms.,undivided Rom\ Qab /"� _ Braid-plain alluvium ® Intrusive rock,undivided Maywood and Snowy Range Fms.,undivided US Oat Alluvial terrace deposit Kam Elkhorn Mountains Volcanic. Ecurl Snowy Range Formation -. \ O O qmh Hyalite alluvial fan Andesite Pilgrim Limestone Tscmv ` 1 1 Q w Alluvial fan deposit,older Diabase Cpm Park and Meagher Formations,undivided I I S my Qabo Braid plain alluvium,older Kg Granite ep Park Shale 1 �t qab Alluvium,rider Granodiorite F-7 Meagher Limestone ` 1V. Oaf qko Landslide deposit,older Hornblende diorite E�:] Wdsey Shale O PROJECT LOCATION afo Q Dap Eolian and pediment deposits Hornblende tonolite __ 1 Flathead Formation ,� I 1 Qafo LQMI Mantle Tonalile Vg Grayson Formation QIS I / qp Pediment deposit Kqm Quartz monzonite Vn Newland Fortnetion ryAW Ir\/ qg Glacial deposit,undivided KSK; Skarn Vla LaHood Formation,undivided I Oaf qgk Glacial frame deposit LA Monzoni[e and diorite Ylaf LaHood Formation,alluvial-fan and fan-delta facie. QISO qgt Glacial till E�el Sedan Formation LaHood Formation,shelf facies Tscmv I qgo Glacial outwash deposit Ket' Eagle and Telegraph Creek Fms.,undivided ® LaHood Formation,slope facies Sc use C �`� C�( 12 QIS { / qrg Rack glacier deposit Kcot Cody through Thermopolis Fms.,undivided Vlsc LaHood Formation,submarine-canyon facies,undivided OafSc QaI 1 — Alluvial fan deposit A Cody and Frontier Fms.,undivided Vlia LaHood Formation,inner submarine-fan facies N Qafo QTay Alluvial fan deposit,younger - Blackleaf Formation Vlms LaHood Formation,middle submarine-fan facies rnc� Tscmv o Qabo p ' Qafo gTalo Alluvial fan deposit,older Kmdl Muddy and Thermopolis Fms.,undivided Formation, Ylos LaHood Foation,outer submarine-fan facies \ ; t / Tscmp gTat Alluvial-terrace deposit Thermopolis Formation Vlbp LaHood Formation,basin-plain facies I v o 1 I I g7ep Eolian,paleosol,and pediment deposits Kootenai Formation Xsp Spuhler Peak metamorphic suite uI 'I -I S 9 Coarse gravel and eolian deposits Jm�e Morrison Formation and Ellis Group,undivided Xg Granite 0 o ♦ I r , Qab 5TM71 Debris-flow,deposit E- I Morrison Formation Amphibollfe and hornblende gneiss j • I �I .�,� N Qac J 12 g7gr Gravel CI Ellis Group,undivided XAB Banded iron formation I Ll a Qafo ♦ / Qafo © Sediment or sedimentary rocks,undivided Swift Formation XAq Quartzite n ♦ f ® Rhyolite sediment Dinwoody Formation xAga Quartzite and amphibolite al Qaf I / Tm Red Bluff Formation PPMpa Phosphoria and Quadrant Fms.and Snowcrest Range Group XAglg Quartzofeldspathic gneiss N • f _ Reese Creek member PPpq Phosphoria and Quadrant Formations,undivided KA�um Ukramafic rock Oaf w 4, / a - 7sxb Clarkston Basin member Phosphoric Formation Water 0 o ♦ Qafo Tec Madison Plateau member I Ts m ♦ F ?+a rl (j� -- ' \.-\ _f' �7s�ccc Cottonwood Canyon member ♦ .•, �.r Tson Harrison member Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology TCnm� Open-File Report 648 r 1 Madison Valley member Geologic Map of the • { T. Parrot Bench member L I • r;. 38 TScm Tmh Negro Hollow member I Bozeman 30' x 60' Quadrangle R dice a Qafo N ° • r Trdc Dunbar Creek Member T wars f� Southwestern Montana j 'r • —_ Climbing Arrow Member U TTs 0 Milligan Creek Member 5000 0 5000 Compiled and mapped by Susan M.Vuke,Jeffrey D.Lorin, Qafh I Tscmv Trrh Red Hill member iiia Richard B.Berg,and Christopher J.Schmidt SCALE IN FEET 2014 Tscmv a PROJECT 4691.12631.01 15 �,• r ROUSE AND TAMARACK DEVELOPMENT DATE 06 13 2024 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION " 01 BOWL ��' -Q h SURFICIAL GEOLOGY MAP FIGURE 3 Rouse & Tamarack Development Pavement Section Report September 2024 3.2 Observed Soil Conditions The generalized soil profile encountered at the proposed construction site consists of 3.5 to 4.0 inches of asphalt surfacing or 6 inches of topsoil overlying approximately four to six feet of undocumented fill or native clay alluvium. Alluvial fan sands and gravels underlie the undocumented fill or clay alluvium and extend beyond the deepest depth explored of 26 feet. In Appendix A we present the exploration logs with Iithology descriptions as well as other engineering properties. In the following paragraphs, we provide a general description of the soil strata. 3.2.1 Topsoil DOWL observed topsoil at one of the three geotechnical borehole locations. The topsoil's thickness ranged from 6 inches to 8 inches. Topsoil is considered unsuitable for supporting structural elements or pavements. 3.2.2 Undocumented Fill Undocumented fill exists at all three geotechnical borehole locations. The Rouse lot is elevated above the Tamarack lot with undocumented fill. Road base ranging from nine to 26 inches underlie the asphalt surfacing. The road base visually classifies as poorly to well-graded gravel with silt and sand. Visual classifications of other fill ranged from sandy lean clay to clayey gravel to lean clay with gravel. 3.2.3 Native Lean Clay Alluvium Native lean clay alluvium underlies the topsoil in the backyard of the 411 East Tamarack Street lot. A bulk sample was collected in the back yard, and the lean clay alluvium was classified as sandy lean clay with a maximum dry density of 106.6 pounds per cubic foot and an optimum moisture content of 18.3 percent. 3.2.4 Bozeman Alluvial Fan Sand and Gravel Alluvial fan sand and gravel were encountered at three boreholes at depths ranging from 6.0 to 7.7 feet below the existing ground surface. The thickness of the sands and gravel layer extends beyond the deepest depth drilled at 26.0 feet. Unified soil classifications range from well-graded gravel with silt and sand to silty sand with gravel. Relative densities from uncorrected blow counts range from medium dense to very dense. A groundwater table was observed within the sand and gravel layer. The Table 3 lists the sand and gravel substrate elevations compared to the proposed bottom of the basement footing elevation. Table 3: Approximate Depths of Sand and Gravel Substrate Boring Elevation of Bottom of Difference from Top of Boring Surface Sand and Basement Sand and Gravel Substrate Elevation Gravel Footing and Bottom of Footing feet Substrate feet Elevation (feet)* Elevation feet B-1 4,768.8 4,761.1 1.1 B-2 4,768.6 4,762.6 4,760.0 2.6 B-3 4,768.7 4,761.1 1.1 *12 feet below the main floor elevation of 4,772.0 feet Page 8 BOWL Rouse & Tamarack Development Pavement Section Report September 2024 3.3 Groundwater Groundwater was encountered at depths of 11.9 to 12.4 feet below ground surface in the borings at the time of field exploration. These observations represent groundwater conditions only at the time of the observations and may not be indicative of other times or locations. Groundwater conditions can change with varying seasonal and weather conditions and other factors. Consider the possibility of groundwater fluctuations when developing design and construction plans for the project. Table 4 lists the groundwater depths and the static groundwater elevations observed during the geotechnical investigation on May 7, 2024. Table 4: Groundwater Depths Boring Groundwater Borehole Surface Static Groundwater Depth feet Elevation feet Elevation feet B-1 12.4 4,768.8 4,756.4 B-2 11.7 4,768.6 4,756.9 B-3 11.9 4,768.7 4,756.8 On May 22, 2024, DOWL measured the groundwater table via the perforated pipe piezometer installed in the boring void of boring B-2. The depth of the groundwater was 10.5 feet, or an elevation of 4,758.1 feet. 3.3.1 Groundwater Information Center Research We researched the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology's Groundwater Information Center (GWIC, 2023) website to estimate static water levels from Section 6 of Township 2 South and Range 6 East. GWIC data is for informational purposes only and contains historical well logs, some of which may not be accurate. Based on the GWIC research, static groundwater levels range from 1 to 45 feet below the existing ground surface with an average depth of 8.5 feet. This data was calculated from 188 wells located within Section 6. 3.4 Seismicity 3.4.1 Faultinq The proposed development is located in an area of Quaternary faulting. Based on the USGS Quaternary Fault Fold Database (USGS, 2018), four Quaternary faults exist in the project vicinity: Table 5: Documented Faults Distance Recent Published Fault Average Fault Name from Project Earthquake Slip Rate Length Strike Site (miles) (mm/yr) (km) Brid er 4.0 Unknown <0.2 30 N90W Central Park 12.9 Unknown <0.2 19 N770E Gallatin Range 4.5 Unknown <0.2 26 N630E Elk Creek 14.1 Unknown <0.2 28 N620W Available publications do not include documentation that these faults have been offset during the Holocene (last 15,000 years). However, the proposed structure is in an area of high seismic activity. Page 9 BOWL Rouse & Tamarack Development Pavement Section Report September 2024 3.4.2 Design Accelerations DOWL utilized site soil and geologic data, our knowledge of local geology, the project location, the 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers 7 (ASCE 7), and the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP)to estimate Seismic Site Classification of"D" at the project site. We recommend seismic design reference the seismic parameters provided in Table 6, which are based on the soil conditions and project location: Table 6: Seismic Design Parameters Period Modified Acceleration (seconds) Coefficient for Site Class D 0.0 (peak) PGA = 0.21 PGAM = 0.34 0.2 short Sos = 0.58 1.0 Ion Sol = 0.32 3.4.3 Liquefaction Liquefaction is the partial or total loss of strength of soils that can occur during strong earthquake shaking of significant duration. Liquefaction is a process where high shear deformations result in the progressive build-up of pore water pressure. Because the seismic load occurs rapidly, the soil does not have time to drain, and the effective stress may be reduced to near zero, resulting in a temporary loss of shear strength. Earthquake-induced liquefaction generally occurs only under particular conditions, including saturation, strong earthquake ground shaking of long duration, and loose granular soil. Liquefaction can also occur in silts and fine-grained soils. Typically, liquefaction occurs where the groundwater table is shallow (5 to 10 feet deep) and generally only at depths less than approximately 50 feet. Based on the existence of high SPT blow counts in the sands and gravel below the groundwater table, it is our opinion the risk of liquefaction is low. Page 10 BOWL Rouse & Tamarack Development Pavement Section Report September 2024 4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Foundations Based on information from the subsurface exploration, laboratory testing results, and our analysis, it is our opinion the proposed structure can be supported on a spread footing foundation system bearing on native soils or engineered fill. Since the bottom of the footings for the basement will be approximately 12 feet below the main floor elevation, the footings will bear on native sand and gravel. As previously mentioned, this site has three to seven feet of undocumented fill. If undocumented fill is observed during construction, remove and replace the fill with structural fill prior to constructing the footings. We provide specific recommendations in the following sections. 4.1.1 Conventional Spread Footings Building foundations may be founded on conventional spread footings according to the parameters listed below. • Remove existing undocumented fill, if encountered. • If undocumented fill is observed below the footings, remove the undocumented fill and replace it with structural fill. Proof roll subgrades to identify soft spots. • A DOWL geotechnical engineer shall inspect footing subgrades to verify foundation conditions are similar to those encountered in the borings. Remove and replace soft or loose zones or zones of unsuitable material, if encountered, with structural fill. • Based on the stratigraphy observed in the three drilled geotechnical boreholes and the proposed bottom of footing elevation of the basement (elevation 4,760.0 feet), the basement footings will rest on sand and gravel substrates of the Bozeman Fan. • See Section 4.2 for lateral resistance design parameters. • Groundwater was observed at depths ranging from 11.7 to 12.4 feet during drilling. A piezometer was placed in borehole B-2, and the groundwater was observed at a depth of 10.5 feet at a later date. Sanderson Stewart collected additional groundwater information that is similar to the groundwater data shown in this report. A sump pump and perimeter drain is recommended for the elevator pit, (see Section 4.5.2 for additional subsurface drainage recommendations). • Settlement calculations are presented in Appendix F. Page 11 BOWL Rouse & Tamarack Development Pavement Section Report September 2024 Table 7: Foundation Design Parameters Footing Design Criteria Recommendations Notes Interior and Exterior Strip Maximum Allowable Footings Bearing Pressure Static Loads 18 inches minimum width, 48 Dead &Sustained Live): 4,000 psf inches minimum below grade Transient Loads is not basement footings Wind & Seismic): 5,000 psf Interior Column Footings Maximum Allowable Minimum width 48 inches Bearing Pressure square, 24 inches minimum Static Loads 4,000 psf below grade unless Dead & Normal Live): constrained by slab Transient Loads 5,000 psf The resultant load is assumed (Wind & Seismic): to be in the middle 1/3 of the footing Total (in) Differential (in) Based on a 4-foot square Maximum Settlement footing with a maximum load Estimate 0.40 inch 0.20 inch over 10 feet of 80 kips for the basement. Compact structural fill to 98% Remove existing Subgrade Preparation and standard Proctor. Comopact undocumented fill and replace Structural Fill native gravel to 95/o it with structural fill. standard Proctor 4.2 Lateral Earth Pressures Design below-grade walls for building, landscape, and retaining walls and any structure retaining soil to resist both lateral earth pressures from the retained soil adjacent to the structure, as well as hydrostatic pressures from retaining water (if undrained, not recommended). Also, account for lateral surcharge loads from equipment, slopes, or vehicles adjacent to the walls in the structural wall design. We provide recommended lateral earth pressures for below-grade wall design, which are provided below. Table 8: Lateral Earth Pressures Lateral Earth Pressure Case Equivalent Fluid Pressure (pcf) Structural Fill and Native Gravel At-rest no wall movement 60 Active wall moves away from soil mass 36 Passive (wall moves into soil mass) 420 Clay Soil At-rest (no wall movement) 66 Active (wall moves away from soil mass) 40 Passive (wall moves into soil mass) 300 • The above equivalent fluid pressures assume fully drained conditions and no hydrostatic forces acting on the wall. Page 12 BOWL Rouse & Tamarack Development Pavement Section Report September 2024 • Construct below grade walls, retaining walls, or other retaining structures with adequate drainage and water proofing systems as specified by the Architect and Structural Engineer to reduce the potential for instability, leakage or seepage. • The retaining walls move away from or toward the soil to develop active and passive resistance, respectively. For walls that cannot tolerate movement, structurally design walls utilizing at-rest equivalent earth pressures. • We based the above equivalent fluid pressures on the assumption that the surface of backfill adjacent to walls slopes down and away from the wall a minimum of 5 percent for 10 feet to provide drainage. • Lateral surcharge pressures due to equipment, slopes, storage loads, etc. are not included in the above lateral earth pressure recommendations. Use the lateral earth pressures coefficient of 0.5, acting over the below-grade wall height to estimate the lateral surcharge loads from equipment, adjacent foundations, and slopes behind and above walls. 4.2.1 Seismic Earth Pressure We recommend using the Mononobe-Okabe approach to determine the additional earth pressures due to earthquakes. For the assumed existing clay fil unit weight of the retained earth at this project, 105 pcf, and the design peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.21 g, the estimated equivalent additional fluid (active) earth pressure acting on the wall is 10 pcf. For the sand and gravel unit weight of the retained earth at this project, 125 pcf, and the design peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.21 g, the estimated equivalent additional fluid (active) earth pressure acting on the wall is 8.7 pcf. We calculated this value using '/2 the peak ground acceleration in the horizonal direction. 4.2.2 Coefficient of Friction We recommend using a coefficient of friction of 0.45 between cast-in-place concrete and the structural fill, sand, and gravel of the Bozeman Fan and 0.25 between cast-in-place concrete and the clay soil. The friction value may be combined with the passive pressure to resist horizontal loads. 4.3 Slabs-on-Grade 4.3.1 Interior Slabs The native, clay, and silt soils can support the floor slabs; however, we recommend an eight-inch- thick granular layer below the slab. Compacted structural fill can also be used to support the floor slabs. Design the floor slabs using the recommendations in Table 9. Page 13 BOWL Rouse & Tamarack Development Pavement Section Report September 2024 Table 9: Floor Slab Recommendations Description Value Interior floors stem Slab on-grade concrete. Scarify, moisture condition, and recompact at least six Floor slab subgrade inches of on-site soil, then place and compact eight inches of structural fill in accordance with Section 4.6.6 of this report. Base la er Ei ht inches of granular material is acceptable. Basement Floor Slab Minimum of 6 inches of free-draining ravel. Modulus of subgrade reaction 140 pounds per cubic inch (pci) For slabs that will carry significant traffic, we also recommend that doweled joints be considered for the slab connections. Subgrade areas that become soft, loose, wet, or disturbed or that cannot be recompacted to structural fill requirements discussed above must be over-excavated as described in Section 4.6. Some differential movement of a slab-on-grade floor system is possible if the moisture content of the subgrade soils is increased. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, separate floor slabs from bearing walls and columns with expansion joints, which allow vertical movement. Use floor slab control joints to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. If the floor coverings are sensitive to moisture, place a vapor retarder below the slab, underlain by four inches of clean drain gravel. A choker layer such as fine-concrete aggregate (ASTM C 33 sand) may be used to reduce the potential for drain gravel puncturing the vapor barrier. 4.3.2 Exterior Slabs Exterior slabs on grade, exterior architectural features, and utilities founded on or in backfill or the site soils will likely experience some movement due to the volume change of the material. Damage from potential movement may be reduced by: • Minimizing moisture increases in the backfill, • Controlling moisture and density during placement of the backfill, • Designing for vertical movement between the exterior features and adjoining structural elements, and • Designing control joints. Exterior slabs are susceptible to frost action, which can generate substantial frost heave at certain times of the year. The potential for frost heave may not be acceptable at entries, bays, or other critical areas adjacent to the building that will be exposed to weather. One approach to reducing frost heave would be to place and compact a minimum of 24 inches of aggregate base course beneath the slab. Alternatively, if complete frost protection is needed, over-excavate and replace the native soil with aggregate base course to the anticipated frost depth (42 inches). DOWL recommends #4 rebar on 12-inch centers for the trash pad and wire mesh for the sidewalks. Page 14 BOWL Rouse & Tamarack Development Pavement Section Report September 2024 4.4 Parking Lot — Pavement Section An engineering evaluation has been conducted to assess the subgrade conditions and determine a recommended pavement section for the parking areas and access lanes. Subgrade soil conditions have been described under the Observed Soil Conditions. The subgrade is comprised predominately of lean clay with silt, but there are also areas with gravel, cobble, and boulder subgrade. 4.4.1 Traffic Based on the traffic breakdown from email discussions with Sanderson Stewart and the proposed parking lot having 22 parking spaces, we calculated equivalent single axle loads (ESALs) as shown in the table below, assuming an annual one percent growth rate. We assumed a passenger car or truck would drive in a travel lane four times daily. If future projects that impact general traffic routes are planned, contact DOWL to revise our recommendations as necessary. Table 10: Traffic Loading — Light Duty Section Vehicle Description ADT (Design Lane Axle Load (kips)* Passenger Car 66 2S 2S Pickup Truck/Van 22 2S 4S Delivery Trucks 2 4S 14S Calculated 18-kip ESALs 4,690 (flexible) *S-Single 4.4.2 Design Parameters We used the pavement design parameters shown in the table below. Table 11: Pavement Design Parameters Pavement Design Design Value Source Parameter Initial serviceability 4.2 AASHTO 1993 Terminal serviceability 2.0 AASHTO 1993 Reliability 85% AASHTO 1993 Drainage coefficient 0.9 AASHTO 1993 Flexible Pavement Design life 20 years AASHTO 1993 Standard Deviation 0.45 AASHTO 1993 Asphalt layer coefficient 0.40 AASHTO 1993 Base layer coefficient 0.14 AASHTO 1993 Subbase layer coefficient 0.08 AASHTO 1993 Subgrade resilient 4,500 psi CBR value modulus Page 15 E:)0WI Rouse & Tamarack Development Pavement Section Report September 2024 4.4.3 Flexible Pavement Based on our design calculations, anticipated traffic, and field conditions, we recommend the pavement sections shown below for the proposed new pavement areas for the parking lot. The separation fabric will help prevent the migration of fines into the overlying crushed aggregate course. Parking Lot Section — Car and Delivery Truck Traffic • 3-inches of asphalt • 6-inches of crushed aggregate course • Separation Fabric • Subgrade prepared in accordance with Section 4.4.5 4.4.4 Rigid Pavement For areas subject to concentrated and repetitive loading conditions such as dumpster pads and ingress/egress aprons, we recommend using a reinforced concrete pad at least 6.5 inches thick underlain by at least six inches of granular base. The granular base must overlie a geotextile recommended in Section 4.6.11. In addition, we recommend signage and/or curbing be used to restrict truck traffic in car parking and drive lane areas. Provide sawed or hand-formed joints at spacings not greater than 15 feet on center. Construct the joints to be at least one-fourth of the slab thickness. Provide expansion joints at the end of each construction sequence and between the concrete slab and adjacent structures. For pedestrian sidewalks, DOWL recommends 4.0 inches of reinforced concrete underlain by at least four inches of granular base. 4.4.5 Pavement Construction Considerations Compact fill in 8-inch loose lifts to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density at plus or minus three percentage points of optimum moisture content according to ASTM D 698 (Standard Proctor). DOWL must observe subgrade soil prior to fill placement for fill or suspect soils. Prior to fill placement, scarify the existing subgrade to a depth of at least eight inches and compact to not less than 95 percent of maximum dry density near optimum moisture content according to ASTM D 698 (Standard Proctor). If undocumented fill is observed, proof roll and obtain 95 percent of Standard Proctor. If compressible, replace with general fill or structural fill. Drying or moisture conditioning of the subgrade soils may be required to achieve the specified compaction. All subgrades should be proof rolled with a loaded dump truck or water truck prior to placing base gravel. Areas where compaction criteria cannot be met or soft areas revealed by proof rolling must be sub-excavated to a minimum depth of twelve inches and replaced with compacted approved fill. Areas of loose or organic fill, if encountered, should be sub-excavated to remove all unsuitable material and replaced with compacted granular fill. All paving materials should meet and be installed in accordance with Montana Public Works Standard Specifications. Compact base materials to not less than 98 percent of maximum dry density at plus or minus two percent of optimum moisture according to ASTM D 698. Page 16 BOWL Rouse & Tamarack Development Pavement Section Report September 2024 4.5 Drainage Drainage is critical to the long-term performance of the structure. In the following sections, we provide recommendations for surface and subsurface drainage. 4.5.1 Surface Drainage To reduce the potential for movement due to an increase in the moisture content of subgrade soil, we strongly encourage the implementation of the following recommendations. • Per the 2020 IBC, slope the ground surface within 10 feet of the structure downward a minimum of 5 percent away from the structure. Slope the ground surface beyond 10 feet of structures downward at least two percent away from the structure. • Apron slabs and pavement may be used to further reduce infiltration adjacent to structures. Aprons should consist of asphalt or Portland cement concrete pavement placed directly adjacent to the foundation stem walls. An elastomeric sealant should also be considered between aprons and foundation stem walls to further reduce the potential for moisture to infiltrate the area directly adjacent to the foundations. Slope apron slabs and pavement a minimum of 2 percent, downward, away from the building. • Install eve gutters, downspouts, and extensions to dispose of water a minimum of 10 feet away from the structure. • Do not irrigate within five feet of the building. Periodically inspect and flush irrigation systems to detect potential leaks and avoid saturation of foundation backfill. • Install and maintain basement window well covers. • Replace sidewalk or driveway pavement sections that slope toward the foundation. • Seal cracks in sidewalks, driveway and apron slabs, floor slabs, and foundation and basement walls. Maintain sealant between adjacent slabs and between slabs and adjacent walls. • Remove or repair landscaping, curbs, or other barriers that impair drainage. • Do not construct infiltration basins adjacent to or up gradient of the structures. If detention is required by statute, infiltration basins should be located down gradient and at least 30 feet from the foundations. 4.5.2 Subsurface Drainage The 2020 International Building Code requires perimeter drains in moderate to low permeability soils for habitable space below grade. If installed correctly, drains may significantly reduce seepage and damage to foundation elements and will likely be significantly costlier to install following construction. Construct foundation drains of a prefabricated composite drain or perforated PVC pipe encased in a drain gravel envelope encompassed in a non-woven filtration geotextile around the perimeter of the basement. The drain gravel must meet the specifications from Montana Public Works. The filtration fabric must meet the specifications from Montana Public Works. In addition, we recommend foundation damp-proofing. Drains should be located below the area to be protected, and the gravel envelope should be placed at the bottom limits of the compacted structural fill. Slope the drain to either a sump or daylight point down gradient from the structure. We Page 17 BOWL Rouse & Tamarack Development Pavement Section Report September 2024 recommend constructing cleanouts for the drain at building corners or every 150 linear feet, whichever is less. A critical element of foundation drain construction includes proper drainpipe grading. Uneven pipe grades or "bellies" are typical defects that may cause water redistribution to unwanted locations. Construct pipes low enough to collect water that may accumulate at the contact between the native subgrade and the structural fill. 4.6 Earthwork 4.6.1 Subqrade Preparation • Soil containing vegetation and organics (topsoil) extended approximately 3.5 to 8 inches below the existing ground surface in the locations explored. Remove soil containing vegetation and organics below planned improvements or structures. • Remove uncontrolled fill below planned improvements or structures.Prepare final native subgrades with smooth blade equipment. To maintain an undisturbed, native soil subgrade condition, the contractor must carefully plan and implement excavation to avoid disturbance. Scarify, moisture condition, and compact subgrade soil as specified in the table in Section 4.6.6. • Backfill demolition excavations with structural fill compacted in accordance with Table 13. • Grade the exposed subgrade surfaces to remove mounds and depressions, which could prevent uniform compaction. If unexpected fills or obstructions are encountered during site clearing or excavation, remove such features and clean the excavation prior to placing backfill and construction. • The site soil is moisture sensitive, susceptible to disturbance when moist or wet, and may be expected to pump or rut under construction traffic. Soil disturbance negatively impacts the soil's performance. Disturbed soil is prohibited below any structure or pavement, especially at footing or slab subgrades. • Moisture condition and compact disturbed soil or fill placed to achieve site grades to the requirements in Table 13: Compaction Specifications. This may require considerable moisture conditioning and soil processing due to the clayey nature of the on-site soil. • Remove pumping or rutting subgrade areas to depths between 12 and 18 inches or as directed by DOWL. • Replace over excavations with granular structural fill. Contact DOWL's geotechnical engineer to review and approve the exposed subgrade. • Once prepared and approved by the DOWL, it is the contractor's sole responsibility to protect subgrades from degradation. 4.6.2 Excavation Based on the materials encountered in the soil borings, conventional earthmoving equipment should be capable of excavating the site soils. Page 18 BOWL Rouse & Tamarack Development Pavement Section Report September 2024 4.6.3 Dewaterinq Groundwater will be encountered if construction extends deep into the sand and gravel layer. DOWL does not expect dewatering to be needed. However, where and when necessary, dewater prior to making final excavations to reduce the potential for groundwater flow through excavations. Water flow through open excavations will soften and weaken subgrades and increase settlements. Dewater to lower groundwater a minimum of 1.5 feet below the planned excavation depth. Dewatering of clay soil has the potential to take long periods. 4.6.4 Temporary Slopes Excavations must conform to OSHA Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR Part 1926.652 Appendix B to Subpart P. Based on field observations and laboratory tests, the soil at the site classifies as OSHA Type C. OSHA requires that Type C soil excavation slope angles not to exceed 1.5H:1 V (horizontal to vertical). The nature and extent of subsurface variations and groundwater conditions between the boring locations may not become evident until construction. Evaluate soil conditions during construction by the contractor's responsible person to comply with OSHA requirements. Temporary excavation slopes may be required for soil improvement excavations and utility trenches. Conduct excavations and shoring in accordance with OSHA standards. Do not allow surcharges within a horizontal distance equal to half the excavation depth. Construction vibrations can cause excavations to slough or cave. Ultimately, the contractor is solely responsible for site safety and excavation configurations. Groundwater will not be expected during excavations. Plan excavations to allow for water collection points and using conventional sumps and pumps to remove nuisance water seeps, springs, or precipitation. If site soil excavations are not backfilled quickly, they may degrade when exposed to runoff and require over-excavation and replacement with structural fill. We recommend that construction activities, particularly earthwork, be performed as rapidly as possible and during drier conditions to reduce the potential for remedial earthwork. 4.6.5 Structural Fill Consider fill placed within the planned building footprint as structural fill. The on-site lean clay and silt are not suitable for use below the foundation, floor slabs, or exterior concrete flatwork; however, the on-site clay and silt are suitable for use as fill below pavements, exterior foundation wall backfill, utility trenches, and landscaped areas. Page 19 BOWL Rouse & Tamarack Development Pavement Section Report September 2024 Table 12: Fill Specifications Soil/Fill Product Allowable Use Material Specifications • Soil classified as GM, GW, SM, SW, SC, CL, CH, or Any area that will not ML according to the USCS. Non-Structural Fill have structures • Soil may not contain particles larger than 8 inches in (Landscape Fill) (typically landscape median diameter. areas) • Soil must have less than three percent of deleterious substances such as wood, metal, plastic, and waste. • Approved by Landscape Architect. • Soil classified as GP, GM, GW, GC, SP, SM, SW, • Site grading outside SC, CL, or ML according to the USCS. the building footprint. • Site soil must have less than three percent • Utility backfill areas vegetation, organics, and debris. General Fill . Non-structural fill • Soil may not contain particles larger than 6 inches in • Foundation wall diameter. • The soil must contain less than 3% (by weight)of backfill organics, vegetation, wood, metal, plastic, or other deleterious substances. • Soil classified as GP, GM, GW, SP, SM, or SP with • General fill at least 30 percent retained on a number 4 sieve and • Over-excavations less than 15 percent passing a number 200 sieve. Structural Fill • Soil improvements • Soil may not contain particles larger than 2 inches in diameter. • Retaining Wall • The soil must contain less than 3% (by weight)of backfill organics, vegetation, wood, metal, plastic, or other deleterious substances. • Soil classified as MH, OH, CH, OL, or PT may not be used at the project site. • Any soil type not maintaining moisture contents within 5% of optimum during compaction is Unsatisfactory Soil NONE unsatisfactory soil that must be moisture-conditioned prior to disposal and replacement. • Any soil containing more than 3% (by weight) of organics, vegetation, wood, metal, plastic, or other deleterious substances. 4.6.6 Compaction Requirements Place fill material in lifts not exceeding eight inches in uncompacted thickness. Moisture condition and compact fill according Table 13. Page 20 BOWL Rouse & Tamarack Development Pavement Section Report September 2024 Table 13. Compaction Specifications Moisture Content Application o/o Minimum Compaction of optimum Subgrade ±4 95% ASTM D698 Below Foundations ±4 98% ASTM D698 Below Slabs-On-Grade ±4 97% ASTM D698 Base and Subbase Courses ±4 95% ASTM D698 Utility Trenches ±4 95% ASTM D698 Site Grading Fill ±4 95% ASTM D698 Foundation Backfill ±4 95% ASTM D698 4.6.7 Testing and Observations We recommend the following compaction testing frequencies: • Structural Fill below Footing and Subgrade - One compaction test every 50 linear feet of footing trench or two tests per wall line, whichever results in the greater number of tests, per each one-foot lift of fill. • Foundation/Retaining Wall Backfill - One compaction test every 100 linear feet of wall or two tests per wall line (interior and exterior sides), whichever results in the greater number of tests, per each one-foot lift of backfill. • Interior and Exterior Slab Subgrade - One compaction test every 1,000 square feet of slab area or two tests per slab area, whichever results in the greater number of tests, per one-foot lift of fill. • Trenches- One compaction test every 150 linear feet or two per trench, whichever results in the greater number of tests, per each one-foot lift of backfill To verify that construction conforms to the intent of the specifications, we recommend that DOWL be retained to observe and record the following: • Site preparation, including grubbing, stripping, excavating, and proof-rolling, • Removal of topsoil and root zone beneath slabs and pavements, • Interior and exterior slab subgrades, • Excavations and sub-excavations prior to placing backfill/fill materials or prior to construction of footings and slabs, and • Approve additional excavation, replacement, or stabilization if the geotechnical engineer identifies unsuitable soil during excavation or proof-rolling operations. 4.6.8 Earthwork Volume Criteria Bulking and shrinkage factors are estimates based on assumptions for field compaction results as well as potential variations in Proctor values across the entire site. We estimate site soil will shrink 15 percent when excavated and placed as general fill. When excavated and transported off-site as waste, site soil may experience bulking between 20 to 25 percent depending on moisture content and a variety of other factors. Page 21 D 0 W I Rouse & Tamarack Development Pavement Section Report September 2024 4.6.9 Cold Weather Construction Do not place concrete, pavement, or fill on frozen soil. Do not use frozen soil as fill or backfill. Remove frozen soil, snow, and ice from the subgrade or fill soil prior to continuing with construction. Limit winter excavations to areas small enough to be refilled to finished floor grade or higher on the same day. Contact DOWL to monitor fill placed during freezing conditions to reduce the potential for placing frozen material. 4.6.10 Wet Weather/Soil Construction • Ideally, perform earthwork construction when the soil moisture content is less than two percent above optimum. • The site clay is susceptible to pumping or rutting from heavy loads such as rubber-tired equipment or vehicles at any time of the year. • If possible, do not perform earthwork after rainfall when the soil is wet. Allow the soil to dry sufficiently to allow construction traffic without disturbing the subgrade. • If the subgrade soil becomes wet, it may be necessary to perform earthwork with track- mounted equipment that reduces vehicular pressure applied to the soil if construction commences in wet areas or before the soil can dry enough to support wheeled vehicles. • Even though the clay subgrade is firm, it may be easily disturbed when wet. If necessary, the contractor may place an initial 12-inch lift of granular structural fill to help reduce the compaction energy on the unstable subgrade. Thicker structural fill lifts can only be installed over sensitive subgrades at DOWL's recommendation during construction. Initial thicker fill lifts and over-excavations to remove soft, wet soil can only be placed after the contractor has attempted to moisture condition and recompact the native soil and was unsuccessful. • Depending on precipitation, runoff, and perched groundwater conditions, the site soil will be near optimum moisture content. The contractor should expect these conditions and be prepared to install runoff management facilities and replace wet or disturbed soil with structural fill. 4.6.11 Geosynthetics Geosynthetic fabrics are applicable when constructing on soft or wet soil, for foundations soil improvement applications, and as separation fabrics between drainage aggregate, below the construction access road, and at the base of slab over-excavations. Where required, apply geosynthetics directly on approved subgrades, taut, without wrinkles, and over-lapped at least 12 inches. Consult DOWL to review geosynthetic applications or other subgrade improvement alternatives. Geogrid is required to help support any area that exhibits unusually high groundwater, soft pumping, or rutting conditions. Geotextile fabric placed at the bottom of the footing excavation must meet the requirements for separation/stabilization geotextile in Section 716, Geotextiles, of the Montana Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. 4.7 Soil Chemistry and Corrosion Based on the results in the table below, concrete in contact with the on-site soil classifies as exposure class SO to S2 according to ACI 318 table 19.3.1.1 (ACI, 2014). The S2 exposure class Page 22 BOWL Rouse & Tamarack Development Pavement Section Report September 2024 recommends a minimum compressive strength of 4,500 psi at 28 days and Type V concrete per ASTM C150. There are no exposure class restrictions for SO. Details can be found in the above ACI reference and in the Portland Cement Association publication "Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures." According to Corrosion/Degradation of Soil Reinforcement for Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (FWHA, 2009), the soil at the site is "very corrosive" to "corrosive" to steel. Based on that publication and the test results below, we estimate a corrosion rate of 1.05 to 1.25 ounces per square foot per year for carbon steel and 0.27 to 0.34 ounces per square foot per year for galvanized steel. Table 14: Soil Chemistry Test Results Sample Location Soluble Sulfate Resistivity pH m /k ohm-cm —Boring B-2 at 10.0 to 11.5 feet 36 1,090 8.1 Boring B-3 at 5.0 to 6.5 feet 7,560 332 7.2 4.8 Percolation Testing On May 6, 2024, DOWL performed a single percolation test in the backyard of 411 East Tamarack Street. The percolation test was performed per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, December 2023 Edition — Circular DEQ 4 — Montana Standards for Subsurface Wastewater Treatment Systems. The results of the percolation test may be founding Appendix E. 5.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN CONTINUITY Geotechnical design continuity will be an important aspect of the successful completion of this project. In our opinion, geotechnical continuity can occur in three stages: planning, design, and construction project aspects. Specifically, we recommend that DOWL maintain the geotechnical design continuity in the following aspects: • Plan and Specification Review: We recommend you retain DOWL to review final design and construction plans and specifications to verify that our geotechnical recommendations are incorporated into construction documents and provide additional recommendations based on the final design concepts. These efforts can help provide document continuity and reduce the potential for errors as the project concepts evolve. • Geotechnical Design Confirmation: The potential soil variation may have a significant impact on foundation construction. As such, we recommend you retain DOWL to provide geotechnical engineering oversight during site grading and foundation excavation to observe the potential variability in the soil conditions and provide consultation regarding potential impacts on foundation construction. • Construction Observation and Testing: We recommend that you retain DOWL to provide foundation-related observation during site preparation, grading, structural fill placement, and backfilling to verify compliance with the recommendations presented in this report. We recommend hiring an accredited laboratory to perform construction testing. Having DOWL provide oversight during this process will reduce the potential for an unforeseen construction error, which may ultimately impact the project. If we are not retained to perform the recommended services, we cannot be responsible for related construction errors or omissions. Page 23 BOWL Rouse & Tamarack Development Pavement Section Report September 2024 6.0 LIMITATIONS DOWL based the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report on the assumption that site conditions are not substantially different than those exposed by the explorations. If subsurface conditions are different during construction from those encountered in the explorations, advise DOWL at once to review those conditions and reconsider recommendations if necessary. The geotechnical recommendations provided herein are based on the premise that an adequate program of tests and observations will be conducted during construction to document compliance with DOWL's recommendations and confirm conditions exposed during subgrade preparations. DOWL geotechnical personnel must review final designs to verify that recommendations provided herein have been properly implemented. If there is a substantial lapse of time between the submission of this report and the start of work at the site, and especially if conditions have changed due to natural causes or construction operations at or near the site, contact DOWL to review this report and to evaluate the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations presented herein. DOWL prepared this report for Altos Photonics, Inc. and their Consultants to use on this project. DOWL recommends making this report available to prospective contractors only for information and factual data but not as a warranty of subsurface conditions. DOWL prepared this report, including engineering analyses, recommendations, figures, and design details for the above- referenced site. These recommendations do not apply to other construction sites. Do not separate the figures from the text for independent use. DOWL performed these services consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in this area under similar time and budgetary constraints. No warranty is made or implied. Any conclusions made by a construction contractor or bidder relating to construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or costs based upon the information provided in this report are not the responsibility of Altos Photonics, Inc. or DOWL. Page 24 BOWL Rouse & Tamarack Development Pavement Section Report September 2024 7.0 REFERENCES ACI. (2014). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. American Concrete Institute. ASCE. (2021). Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. American Socienty of Civil Engineers. FWHA. (2009). Corrosion/Degradation of Soil Reinforcement for Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls. Publication No. FHWA-NHI-09-087. Federal Highways Administration. GWIC. (2023). Ground Water Information Center. Retrieved from Montana Tech of the University of Montana: http://mbmggwic.mtech.edu ICC. (2020). 2021 International Building Code. Country Club Hills: International Code Council. Lacroix, Y., & Horn, H. (1973). Direct Determination and Indirect Evaluation of Relative Density and Its Use on Earthwork Construction Projects: in Evaluation of Relative Density and Its Role in Geotechnical Projects nvolving Cohesionless Soils. ASTM Special Technical Publication 523, 251-280. Lopez, D. A. (2000). Geologic Map of the Bozeman 30'x 60'Quadrangle. Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Geologic Map Series No. 59, Scale 1:100,000. Butte: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology. USGS. (2018). Earthquake Hazards - Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States. Retrieved a b, 2021, from https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquake- hazards/fau Its?qt-science_su pport_page_related_con=4#gt- science_support_page_related_con USGS. (2020). Earthquake Hazards: Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States. (United States Geotechnical Survey) Retrieved July 29, 2020, from https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquake-hazards/faults?qt- science_support_page_related_con=4#qt-science_support_page_related_con Page 25 BOWL IMPOPIOnt InfOPM81100 Rhout GeolechnicalmEngineeping SubWhile . . . following . . . . . _ . .cost overruns, claims, and help. The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a has prepared this advisory to help you—assumedly different civil engineer.Because each geotechnical-engineering study a client representative—interpret and apply this is unique,each geotechnical-engineering report is unique,prepared geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as solely for the client. possible. In that way, you can benefit from a lowered Likewise,geotechnical-engineering services are performed for a specific exposure to problems associated with subsurface project and purpose.For example,it is unlikely that a geotechnical- conditions at project sites and development of engineering study for a refrigerated warehouse will be the same as them that,for decades, have been a principal cause one prepared for a parking garage;and a few borings drilled during of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, a preliminary study to evaluate site feasibility will not be adequate to and disputes. If you have questions or want more develop geotechnical design recommendations for the project. information about any of the issues discussed herein, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer. Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it: Active engagement in GBA exposes geotechnical • for a different client; engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation • for a different project or purpose; techniques that can be of genuine benefit for • for a different site(that may or may not include all or a portion of everyone involved with a construction project. the original site);or before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it; e.g.,man-made events like construction or environmental Understand the Geotechnical-Engineering Services remediation,or natural events like floods,droughts,earthquakes, Provided for this Report or groundwater fluctuations. Geotechnical-engineering services typically include the planning, collection,interpretation,and analysis of exploratory data from Note,too,the reliability of a geotechnical-engineering report can widely spaced borings and/or test pits.Field data are combined be affected by the passage of time,because of factors like changed with results from laboratory tests of soil and rock samples obtained subsurface conditions;new or modified codes,standards,or from field exploration(if applicable),observations made during site regulations;or new techniques or tools.If you are the least bit uncertain reconnaissance,and historical information to form one or more models about the continued reliability of this report,contact your geotechnical of the expected subsurface conditions beneath the site.Local geology engineer before applying the recommendations in it.A minor amount and alterations of the site surface and subsurface by previous and of additional testing or analysis after the passage of time-if any is proposed construction are also important considerations.Geotechnical required at all-could prevent major problems. engineers apply their engineering training,experience,and judgment to adapt the requirements of the prospective project to the subsurface Read this Report in Full model(s). Estimates are made of the subsurface conditions that Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical- will likely be exposed during construction as well as the expected engineering report did not read the report in its entirety.Do not rely on performance of foundations and other structures being planned and/or an executive summary.Do not read selective elements only.Read and affected by construction activities. refer to the report in full. The culmination of these geotechnical-engineering services is typically a You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer geotechnical-engineering report providing the data obtained,a discussion About Change of the subsurface model(s),the engineering and geologic engineering Your geotechnical engineer considered unique,project-specific factors assessments and analyses made,and the recommendations developed when developing the scope of study behind this report and developing to satisfy the given requirements of the project.These reports may be the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys. titled investigations,explorations,studies,assessments,or evaluations. Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include Regardless of the title used,the geotechnical-engineering report is an those that affect: engineering interpretation of the subsurface conditions within the context - the site's size or shape; of the project and does not represent a close examination,systematic inquiry,or thorough investigation of all site and subsurface conditions. the elevation,configuration,location,orientation, function or weight of the proposed structure and Geotechnical-Engineering Services are Performed the desired performance criteria; the composition of the design team;or for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects, . project ownership. and At Specific Times Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific As a general rule,always inform your geotechnical engineer of project needs,goals,and risk management preferences of their clients.A or site changes-even minor ones-and request an assessment of their geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer impact.The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical conspicuously that you've included the material for information purposes engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise only.To avoid misunderstanding,you may also want to note that would have considered. "informational purposes"means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations,opinions,conclusions,or recommendations in the Most of the "Findings" Related in This Report report.Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific Are Professional Opinions project requirements,including options selected from the report,only Before construction begins,geotechnical engineers explore a site's from the design drawings and specifications.Remind constructors subsurface using various sampling and testing procedures.Geotechnical that they may perform their own studies if they want to,and be sure to engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific allow enough time to permit them to do so.Only then might you be in locations where sampling and testing is performed.The data derived from a position to give constructors the information available to you,while that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities who then applied professional judgement to form opinions about stemming from unanticipated conditions.Conducting prebid and subsurface conditions throughout the site.Actual sitewide-subsurface preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect. conditions may differ-maybe significantly-from those indicated in this report.Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer Read Responsibility Provisions Closely to serve on the design team through project completion to obtain Some client representatives,design professionals,and constructors do informed guidance quickly,whenever needed. not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines.This happens in part because soil and rock on This Report's Recommendations Are project sites are typically heterogeneous and not manufactured materials Confirmation-Dependent with well-defined engineering properties like steel and concrete.That The recommendations included in this report-including any options or lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have alternatives-are confirmation-dependent.In other words,they are not resulted in disappointments,delays,cost overruns,claims,and disputes. final,because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily To confront that risk,geotechnical engineers commonly include on judgement and opinion to do so.Your geotechnical engineer can finalize explanatory provisions in their reports.Sometimes labeled"limitations,' the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' exposed during construction.If through observation your geotechnical responsibilities begin and end,to help others recognize their own engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, responsibilities and risks.Read these provisions closely.Ask questions. the recommendations can be relied upon,assuming no other changes have Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. occurred.The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liabilityfor confirmation-dependent recommendations fyou Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation. The personnel,equipment,and techniques used to perform an environmental study-e.g.,a"phase-one"or"phase-two"environmental This Report Could Be Misinterpreted site assessment-differ significantly from those used to perform a Other design professionals'misinterpretation of geotechnical- geotechnical-engineering study.For that reason,a geotechnical-engineering engineering reports has resulted in costly problems.Confront that risk report does not usually provide environmental findings,conclusions,or by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a continuing member of recommendations;e.g.,about the likelihood of encountering underground the design team,to: storage tanks or regulated contaminants.Unanticipated subsurface • confer with other design-team members; environmental problems have led to project failures.If you have not • help develop specifications; obtained your own environmental information about the project site, review pertinent elements of other design professionals'plans and ask your geotechnical consultant for a recommendation on how to find specifications;and environmental risk-management guidance. • be available whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed. Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this Moisture Infiltration and Mold report.Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction- water infiltration,or similar issues in this report,the engineer's phase observations. services were not designed,conducted,or intended to prevent migration of moisture-including water vapor-from the soil Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance through building slabs and walls and into the building interior,where Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies. unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting Accordingly,proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer's the information they provide for bid preparation.To help prevent recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent the costly,contentious problems this practice has caused,include the moisture infiltration.Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by complete geotechnical-engineering report,along with any attachments including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team. or appendices,with your contract documents,but be certain to note Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists. GEOPROFESSIONAL BUSINESS SEA ASSOCIATION Telephone:301/565-2733 e-mail:info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org Copyright 2019 by Geoprofessional Business Association(GBA).Duplication,reproduction,or copying of this document,in whole or in part,by any means whatsoever,is strictly prohibited,except with GBAS specific written permission.Excerpting,quoting,or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA,and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review.Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element Of a report of any kind.Any other firm,individual,or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent i Appendix A Exploration Logs fl. cc ,F = v � II y CD 1 x � cm �a Af- .�. 1 .f Y I■ PEOPLE WHO MAKE IT HAPPEN dowl.com BOWL SOIL CLASSIFICATION/LEGEND Unified Soil Classification S stem Soil Classification Component Definitions By Gradation Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Names Generalized Group Descriptions Component Size Range COARSE-GRAINED SOILS GRAVELS CLEAN GRAVELS GW Well-graded gravels Boulders Greater than 12-in. More than 50% More than 50%of Less than 5%fines GP Poorly-graded gravels retained on coarse fraction GRAVELS w/FINES GM Gravel and silt Cobbles 3-in.to 12-in. No.200 sieve retained on No.4 More than 12%fines mixtures Gravel 3-in.to No.4(4.75 mm) sieve GC Gravel&clay mixtures SANDS CLEAN SANDS SW Well-graded sands Coarse gravel 3-in.to%-in. 50%or more of Less than 5%fines SP Poorl - raded sands Fine gravel 3/.-in.to No.4(4.75 mm) coarse faction SANDS with FINES SM Sand and silt mixtures asses No.4 sieve More than 12%fines SC Sand and clay mixtures Sand No.4(4.75 mm)to No.200(.075 mm) FINE-GRAINED SOILS SILTS&CLAYS CL Low-plasticity clays Coarse sand No.4(4.75 mm)to No.10(2.0 mm) 50%or more passes Liquid limit INORGANIC ML Non-plastic and low- the No.200 sieve less than 50 plasticity silts Medium sand No.10(2.0 mm)to No.40(0.425 mm) Non-plastic and low Fine sand No.40(0.425 mm)to No.200(0.074 mm) plasticity organic clays ORGANIC OL Silt and Clay Smaller than No.200(0.075 mm) Non-plastic and low- I I plasticity organic silts SILTS&CLAYS CH Hich-plasticity clays Silt and Clay Descriptions Liquid limit INORGANIC MH High-plasticity silts Description Typical Unified Designation greater than 50 Silt ML(non-plastic) High-plasticity Clayey Silt CL-ML(low plasticity) organic clays Silty Clay,Lean Clay CL ORGANIC OH Clay,Fat Clay CH High-plasticity Plastic Silt MH organic soils Or anic Soils OL,OH,Pt HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Primarily organic matter,dark in color and PT peat has an organic odor Descriptive Terminology Denoting Relative Density or Consistency Components Proportions Utilizing Standard Penetration Test Values Descriptive Terms Range of Proportion Cohesionless Soils(a) Cohesive Soils(') Trace or Scattered 0-5% Relative Undrained Few 5-10% Density(° N blows/fN°) Density Consistency N blows/fN°) Shear Some or AdjectiveW 15-30% (%) Strength(d) And 30-50% (psf) (a)Use gravelly,sandy or silty as appropriate. Very loose 0 to 4 0-15 Very soft 0 to 2 <250 Loose 5 to 10 15-35 Soft 3 to 4 250-500 Samples Med.Dense 11 to 29 35-65 Medium Stiff 5 to 8 500—1,000 Dense 30 to 49 65-85 Stiff 9 to 15 1,000—2,000 Split Spoon Sampler(2.0"OD) Very Dense Over 50 >85 Very Stiff 16 to 30 2,000—4,000 Hard I Over 30 >4,000 Ring Sampler(3.0"OD)* (a) Soils consisting of gravel,sand and silt,either separately or in combination,possessing no ' *Indicates increased blow counts characteristics of plasticity and exhibiting drained behavior. due to sampler size. (b) Soils possessing the characteristics of plasticity,and exhibiting undrained behavior. (c) Undrained shear strength='%unconfined compressive strength. (d) Qp-Denotes pocket penetrometer field measurement(tons per square foot)approximation to Shelby Tube Sampler(3.0"OD) unconfined compressive strength. Soil Moisture Bulk Sample(auger cuttings) Groundwater Elevation Absence of moisture, Dry dusty,dry to the touch iWater Elevation Noted During Drilling Minor existence of Slightly Moist moisture,not dusty,but Core Barrel still dry to the touch SZWater Elevation Recorded After Drilling Complete Damp but no visible Moist water Zones of visible moisture Unless otherwise noted,drive samples advanced Very Moist and usually above the with 140-lb.hammer and 30-in.drop. water table Wet Visible free water,usually soil is below water table Project No.: 4691.12631.01 LOG OF BOREHOLE B-1 Sheet 1 of 1 CLIENT PROJECT Altos Photonics Inc. Rouse and Tamarack Development BORING LOCATION SITE See Figure 2 Bozeman Montana SAMPLES TESTS LL M.C. w u5 U) • MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ° W ~ W w~ ADDITIONAL U O a a m 8 w a Lu PL �� LL DATA/ = a ¢ W O Lu w w w REMARKS Y a Surface Elevation:4,768.8 � Lu o m ° p N VALUE ❑ BLOWS/FT C� w m ° m z z ?? a 10 20 30 40 0 4-inches Asphalt Pavement, black 10 35 0.3 4768. 10 12/18 9-inches Road Base,Well Graded GRAVEL 25 1 67% ❑ with Silt and Sand; moist, brown with multicolored clasts,subrounded to 50/ 11 subangular,fine to coarse grained sand 4765.5 6" 2 8/18 1.1 4767.7 5 ° 4.5 Undocumented Fill, Gravelly Lean CLAY; 6 moist, brown with multicolored clasts, 3 4 Lab#37841 rounded, 3-inch minus gravel,wood fragment 2 3 12/118 ❑ USCS=CL 4.5 4764. 2 67/° Fines=51.2% Sandy Lean CLAY, CL;soft, moist, brown with Sand=41.1% white mottling,fine grained sand 4761 Gravel=7.7% 7.7 4761.1 4 15 Liquid Limit=32 Well Graded GRAVEL with Silt and Sand 6 4 14/118 ❑ Plasticity Index=13 9 GW-GM; medium dense, moist, light brown to 9 78/0 Natural Moisture=15.5% burnt orange to pale brown matrix with multicolored clasts, subrounded to 14 24 7/18 Tip of split-spoon very moist subangular,fine to coarse grained sand �3 5 39% El 4756.5 Groundwater observed at 12.4 feet during 13.5 drilling Grades very dense at 15.0 feet 19 2s 62 Lab#37842 6 16/°18 USCS=GW-GM 37 89/° Fines=7.7% 4752 Sand=42.5% Gravel=49.8% 18 Liquid Limit=NV Plasticity Index=NP Natural Moisture=10.2% 7 50 6/12 50/ 7 50% 21.0 4747.8 5.5" Boring terminated at 21.0 feet 22.5 Groundwater observed at 12.4 feet during drilling 27 31.5 DOWL STARTED 5/7/2024 FINISHED 5/7/2024 1300 Cedar Street DRILL CO. O'Keefe DRILL RIG B-60X Helena, Montana 59601 D Q W L Telephone: (406) 442-0370 DRILLER B.O'Keefe HAMMER Auto www.dowl.com LOGGED BY D.Barrick APPROVED BY D.Russell Project No.: 4691.12631.01 LOG OF BOREHOLE B-2 Sheet 1 of 1 CLIENT PROJECT Altos Photonics Inc. Rouse and Tamarack Development BORING LOCATION SITE See Figure 2 Bozeman Montana SAMPLES TESTS LL M.C. w u5 • F- MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ° W ~ W w~ I ADDITIONAL U O a Lu in 8 w a Lu PL �� LL DATA/ = a ¢ W O Lu w w w REMARKS Y a Surface Elevation:4,768.6 Lu o m ° p N VALUE ElBLOWS/FT C� w co ° m z z ?? a 10 20 30 40 0 6-inches Topsoil, Lean CLAY;very moist, 2 7 8/18 black, organics 3 1 44% El 0.5 4768.1 Undocumented Fill, Lean CLAY with Gravel; medium stiff, moist, black to dark brown with 4765.5 3 2 5/1s multicolored clasts,subangular 1 2 5/18 El 4.5- -5.0 4763.E . . Clayey SAND;very loose, moist, brown to 2 10 3 18/18 dark brown,fine grained sand 8 100% 6.0 4762. Silty SAND with Gravel, SM; medium dense, 4761 moist, brown to light gray matrix with 13 26 13/18 Lab#37844 multicolored clasts, subrounded to rounded, 13 4 72% ElF nes=13 6% 9 fine to coarse grained sand Sand=52.7% Gravel=33.7% 13 22 Liquid Limit=NV 14 5 10/18 ° Plasticity Index=NP 8 56/° Natural Moisture=5.5% Groundwater observed at 11.7 feet during 4756.5 Lab#B24051660-001 drilling Sulfate=36 mg/kg 1 pH=8.1 3.5 Resistivity=1,090 ohm-cm Grades dense at 15.0 feet 16 33 17 15/18 16 6 83% ° 4752 18 Grades medium dense at 20.0 feet 8 24 6/18 ".4747.5 1 p 7 33% El 22.5 Grades very dense at 25.0 feet 4743 0/ 50 10/12 26. 742. 6" 8 83% Boring terminated at 26.0 feet 27 Groundwater observed at 11.7 feet during drilling and 11.0 feet 6 hours after drilling 31.5 DOWL STARTED 5/7/2024 FINISHED 5/7/2024 1300 Cedar Street DRILL CO. O'Keefe DRILL RIG B-60X Helena, Montana 59601 D Q W L Telephone: (406) 442-0370 DRILLER B.O'Keefe HAMMER Auto www.dowl.com LOGGED BY D.Barrick APPROVED BY D.Russell Project No.:4691.12631.01 LOG OF BOREHOLE B-3 Sheet 1 of 1 CLIENT PROJECT Altos Photonics Inc. Rouse and Tamarack Development BORING LOCATION SITE See Figure 2 Bozeman Montana SAMPLES TESTS LL M.C. o w N O V Z~ ADDITIONAL MATERIAL DESCRIPTION o a wa >W a w PL I� LL DATA/ a Q iz o m U E Y LU REMARKS a Surface Elevation:4,768.7 L j it 0 m LU❑ N VALUE ❑ BLOWS/FT o t7 w m ❑ m z z ?? a 10 20 30 40 0 3.5-inches Asphalt Pavement, black 10 29 0.3 ^768.4 13 10/18 Undocumented Fill, Poorly Graded GRAVEL 16 1 56% with Silt and Sand; medium dense, moist, light brown to pale brown to light gray matrix with 47655 15 30 multicolored clasts, subangular to . 14 2 111% subrounded,fine to coarse grained sand 4.5 2.5 ^766.2 Undocumented Fill, Clayey GRAVEL; medium 3 7 Lab#B24051660-002 dense, moist, dark brown to black matrix with 3 3 11/1811 Sulfate=7,560 mg/kg gray clasts, rounded 4 61% pH=72 4.5 4764.2 Resistivity=332 ohm-cm Undocumented Fill, Sandy Lean CLAY; 4761 medium stiff, moist, black to burnt orange to 16 34 12/18 brown,fine grained sand 18 4 67% El 9 6.4 ^762.3 Lean CLAY with Sand; slightly moist,dark gray to brown with white mottling,fine grained 8 18 11/18 sand s 5 ° 7.6 4761.1 : 9 61% Poorly Graded GRAVEL with Silt and Sand; 4756.5 dense, moist to slightly moist, light brown to pale brown to light gray matrix with 13.5 multicolored clasts, rounded to subrounded, fine to coarse grained sand Grades medium dense and multicolored 14 43 matrix at 10.0 feet,tip of split-spoon wet 22 6 18/18 ° Groundwater table observed at 11.9 feet 21 100% during drilling Grades dense at 15.0 feet 18— 16.5 4752.2 Boring termianted at 16.5 feet Groundwater observed at 11.9 feet 22.5 27 31.5 DOWL STARTED 5/7/2024 FINISHED 5/7/2024 1300 Cedar Street DRILL CO. O'Keefe DRILL RIG B-60X Helena, Montana 59601 E) Q W L Telephone: (406)442-0370 DRILLER B.O'Keefe HAMMER Auto www.dowl.com LOGGED BY D. Barrick APPROVED BY D.Russell i Appendix B Photograph Log fl. cc ,F = v � II y CD 1 x � cm Memo— lk. 1 .f Y D13WL PEOPLE WHO MAKE IT HAPPEN dowl.com Alk all- MR- - E Awl AL of I i'� �� �. Fein-¢y tsv�:�,e�'GTl4i• .�5��"",a; '� Jr . f .Fu9NITUREON _~ _-EMT IGul3_ AMP .,CX• f .. I 1 1:i 1 li I- I , I y ',II .i ^'I '.1 .r. _ 5! b R 1 1 12 13 i_. 15 �t 5 Geotechnical Boring B-1—Standard Penetration Test Sample—0.3 to 1.8 feet Ia 18 19 ?11 �! �,•� ,.{ pl �I; �R •,'r 30 1 3 6 7 R J i U 11 12 13 15 Geotechnical Boring B-1—Standard Penetration Test Sample—2.5 to 4.0 feet 211 I 3 I - fi 7 R 9 i0 11 12 1 Geotechnical Boring B-1—Standard Penetration Test Sample—5.0 to 6.5 feet Geotechnical Boring B-1— Hollow-stem Auger Cuttings—Approximately 5 to 8 feet Rouse and Tamarack Development Photo Log.docx IDOwl_ 2 'I 1 i Ii i 8 ., , !?. li I1 1., 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 L627 28 29 30 :31 :12 ,,, 31 35 ;{6 37 1 2 } 1 g ; 8. y lU 11 12 Geotechnical Boring B-1—Standard Penetration Test Sample—7.5 to 9.0 feet ' 2 3 1 i fi 7 8 9' , !2. �3 14 15 16 1- 19 11120 21 22 23 "1 7f 28 " :ill ;1 32 ,3 '1 '35 'if :17 1 2 :t 1 G i K i I 12 13 i' Geotechnical Boring B-1—Standard Penetration Test Sample— 10.0 to 11.5 feet 8 2; ZJ -I' 27 28 29 30 :i1 y 9 a2 a! i3 aG 37 10 .1.1..... 12 13 • AF Geotechnical Boring B-1—Standard Penetration Test Sample— 15.0 to 16.5 feet I 19 211 21 " '_, 21 'CAOc�t I 6 ; g 10 1 1 12 13 - �1�55..- 3 y -. 1 2 , Geotechnical Boring B-1—Standard Penetration Test Sample—20.0 to 21.0 feet Rouse and Tamarack Development Photo Log.docx oowL 3 I�N�RaIK sz � ►— I I • C • • ip- • I i 1 2 :I / .7 fi i 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I 211 21 .2 23 2,4 25 26 27 2K 29 :30 :11 :1 33 :I1 35 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 .. 7. 8 9 1-0 11 12 13 Y 15 Geotechnical Boring B-2—Standard Penetration Test Sample—0.0 to 1.5 feet „1, • Y 3 4 ., s 8 9 10 II 12 I3 I1 IS I,fi 17 Is I9 20 zi 22 23�2 2�b- 6 27 2 �29 30 _-.i ,,, eboot 9 10 t 1 12 13� _. 41'a" Geotechnical Boring B-2—Standard Penetration Test Sample—2.5 to 4.0 feet 10 II 12 1.{ II I'� If. 17 1\ 1'1 21) 21 '2.23 '1 :•; 2f. 2; '_R :!9 :30 :31 :12 3:1 34 3:. 36 37,039 c0ct I _ 3 4 5 6 T A 9 Ill 11 12 13 'l;i - 15 rr_rr- Geotechnical Boring B-2—Standard Penetration Test Sample—5.0 to 6.5 feet 1 Y a 4 T8 9 10 11 I'L Li 11 IS Ifi 17 18 19 20 I�•, 21 12 t3 21 25 26 27 2H 29 30 31 32 13 it 35_..ifi 5 g 7 8 9 scot 10 1I 12 I3 T 15 Geotechnical Boring B-2—Standard Penetration Test Sample—7.5 to 9.0 feet Rouse and Tamarack Development Photo Log.docx oowL 5 vf Geotechnical Boring B-2— Hollow-stem Auger Cuttings—Approximately 5 to 8 feet 6 7. 8 9 10. 11 12 13 % ,i Geotechnical Boring B-2—Standard Penetration Test Sample— 10.0 to 11.5 feet Geotechnical Boring B-2—Standard Penetration Test Sample— 15.0 to 16.5 feet I 2 N H I11 II 1� 1.f l4 li lti l: l8 19 20 21 •_ .a 2G :9 .30 :n _ 3J JI .sawn 1 2 3 4 5 s.:.._.., 7 -_. . 8 9. 10 112 113 Geotechnical Boring B-2—Standard Penetration Test Sample—20.0 to 21.5 feet Rouse and Tamarack Development Photo Log.docx oowl- 6 mg „Y a �.14 !_• 1` Ar IL M�'!�S'•b `.� �...,�ar'.-,e;,���}� .�li Amy .��;d; � w a r •� � ,; t�/t�Yl'I'vr, y � •e � L� �� I ------------------------------ --------- 7 i Drilling Geotechnical Borehole B-3—View West ` - i ,1 7 E I; 1-0 „c Ot ... 11 — 5 16M M Geotechnical Boring B-3—Standard Penetration Test Sample—0.3 to 1.8 feet 11 12 13 Geotechnical Boring B-3—Standard Penetration Test Sample—2.5 to 4.0 feet 1 12 13 y Geotechnical Boring B-3—Standard Penetration Test Sample—5.0 to 6.5 feet Rouse and Tamarack Development Photo Log.docx oowL 8 w- i.f Geotechnical Boring B-3—Standard Penetration Test Sample—7.5 to 9.0 feet ,f Geotechnical Boring B-3—Standard Penetration Test Sample— 10.0 to 11.5 feet Geotechnical Boring B-3— Hollow-stem Auger Cuttings—Approximately 5 to 9 feet - �_ 44lo ' _ +�► Geotechnical Boring B-3—Standard Penetration Test Sample— 15.0 to 16.5 feet Rouse and Tamarack Development Photo Log.docx oowL 9 Appendix C Laboratory Test Results s r rr r • BOWL PEOPLE , MAKE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Materials Testing Laboratory SUMMARY of PHYSICAL PROPERTIES TEST RESULTS Billings, Montana 0OWL Rouse Avenue and Tamarack Street Development-4691.12631.01 J 0O = Z Y o W 8-1W caa # o z It W Z E E Of W LL Q 3k co 8 W U O' 7 w z } E o F a w L O m Of E O W Z c0 7 N Z j W Q J Z O JLu � iiJkk } p F o O F M m O 2 � o G � > � U_ � � p Q H � O Q < m Z o v O F- m U) LI U) N EL y O 0 J J a H W U Z a Q Z Q LL F- a- 0 37841 B-1 SPT 5.0 to 6.5 CL 51.2 41.1 7.7 32 1 13 15.5 37842 B-1 SPT 15.0 to 16.5 GW-GM 7.7 42.5 49.8 NV NP 10.2 37843 B-2 SPT 5.0 to 6.5 19.1 37844 B-2 SPT 7.5 to 9.0 SM 13.6 52.7 33.7 NV NP 5.5 B24051660-001 B-2 SPT 10.0 to 11.5 1,090 8.1 36 B24051660-002 B-3 SPT 5.0 to 6.5 332 7.2 7,560 37847 B-3 SPT 7.5 to 9.0 4.6 37848 B-3 SPT 10.0 to 11.5 7.6 37850 Backyard Bulk 1.0 to 2.0 CL 61.8 36.7 1.5 38 19 101.6 18.3 Cade Cunningham 222 N.32nd Street,Suite 700 Billings Materials Lab Manager Billings, MT 59101 Particle Size Distribution Report _ o00 c0 M N \ M 7k Xk it Xk Xk Xk 100 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 90 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 80 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 70 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I W Z 60 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Z 50 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I W U I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 40 W I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 30 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm. %+3„ %Gravel %Sand %Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 0.0 3.8 3.9 3.2 7.4 30.5 51.2 TEST RESULTS Material Description Opening Percent Spec." Pass? Sandy Lean CLAY Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail) 1.0 100.0 .75 96.2 Atterberg Limits(ASTM D 4318) .50 96.2 PL= 19 LL= 32 PI= 13 .375 96.2 #4 92.3 Classification #10 89.1 USCS(D 2487)= CL AASHTO(M 145)= A-6(4) #20 85.4 Coefficients 940 81.7 D90= 2.7085 D85= 0.7801 D60= 0.1080 #80 72.7 D50= D30= D15= #100 68.2 D10= Cu= Cc= #200 51.2 Remarks Sampled by DOWL Date Received: 5/10/24 Date Tested: 6/10/24 Tested By: JS Checked By: CC Title: Laboratory Supervisor (no specification provided) Location:B-1 Date Sampled: 5/7/24 Sample Number: 37841 Depth: 5.0-6.5 ft Client: Altos Photonics,Inc 4to Project: Rouse and Tamarack Development a W L Project No: 4691.12631.01 Figure Particle Size Distribution Report _ o00 C C C C C C 20 V N M V f0 N 100 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 90 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 80 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 70 ry- Z 60 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Z 50 I I I I I I I I I I I I I W U I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0-1 40 W I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 30 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm. %+3„ %Gravel %Sand %Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 0.0 22.4 27.4 13.3 16.5 12.7 7.7 TEST RESULTS Material Description Opening Percent Spec." Pass? Well-Graded GRAVEL with silt and sand Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail) 1.5 100.0 1.0 84.3 Atterberg Limits(ASTM D 4318) .75 77.6 PL= NP LL= NV PI= NP .50 68.3 .375 61.5 Classification #4 50.2 USCS(D 2487)= GW-GM AASHTO(M 145)= A-1-a #10 36.9 Coefficients #20 27.2 D90= 29.9974 D85= 26.0143 D60= 8.8693 #40 20.4 D50= 4.6962 D30= 1.1171 D15= 0.2026 #80 14.0 D10= 0.1090 Cu= 81.35 Cc= 1.29 #100 12.4 #200 7.7 Remarks Sampled by DOWL Date Received: 5/10/24 Date Tested: 6/10/24 Tested By: JS Checked By: CC Title: Laboratory Supervisor (no specification provided) Location:B-1 Date Sampled: 5/7/24 Sample Number: 37842 Depth: 15.0-16.5 ft Client: Altos Photonics,Inc 4to Project: Rouse and Tamarack Development a W L Project No: 4691.12631.01 Figure Particle Size Distribution Report _ o00 C C C C C C V N M V f0 N 100 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 90 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 80 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 70 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I W Z 60 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Z 50 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I W I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0-1 U I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 40 W I I I I I I I I I I I I I 30 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm. %+3„ %Gravel %Sand %Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 0.0 8.0 25.7 13.9 21.2 17.6 13.6 TEST RESULTS Material Description Opening Percent Spec." Pass? Silty SAND with gravel Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail) 1.5 100.0 1.0 94.4 Atterberg Limits(ASTM D 4318) .75 92.0 PL= NP LL= NV PI= NP .50 86.9 .375 79.1 Classification #4 66.3 USCS(D 2487)= SM AASHTO(M 145)= A-1-b #10 52.4 Coefficients #20 40.3 D90= 15.3215 D85= 11.7645 D60= 3.2014 #40 31.2 D50= 1.7045 D30= 0.3837 D15= 0.0906 #80 21.7 D10= Cu= Cc= #100 19.6 #200 13.6 Remarks Sampled by DOWL Date Received: 5/10/24 Date Tested: 6/5/24 Tested By: JS Checked By: CC Title: Laboratory Supervisor (no specification provided) Location:B-2 Date Sampled: 5/7/24 Sample Number: 37844 Depth:7.5-9.0 ft Client: Altos Photonics,Inc 4to Project: Rouse and Tamarack Development a W L Project No: 4691.12631.01 Figure Particle Size Distribution Report _ o00 100 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 90 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 80 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 70 ry- Z 60 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Z 50 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I W U I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0-1 40 W I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 30 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm. %+3„ %Gravel %Sand %Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 0.0 0.0 1.5 2.4 7.9 26.4 61.8 TEST RESULTS Material Description Opening Percent Spec." Pass? Sandy Lean CLAY Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail) .375 100.0 #4 98.5 Atterberg Limits(ASTM D 4318) #10 96.1 PL= 19 LL= 38 PI= 19 #20 93.0 #40 88.2 Classification #80 79.1 USCS(D 2487)= CL AASHTO(M 145)= A-6(9) #100 75.7 Coefficients #200 61.8 D90= 0.5396 D85= 0.2864 D60= D50= 1330= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Remarks Sampled by DOWL Date Received: 5/10/24 Date Tested: 5/29/24 Tested By: CC Checked By: DB Title: Geotechnical Engineer (no specification provided) Location:Backyard Bulk Date Sampled: 5/7/24 Sample Number: 37850 Depth: 1.0-2.0 ft Client: Altos Photonics,Inc 4to Project: Rouse and Tamarack Development a W L Project No: 4691.12631.01 Figure COMPACTION TEST REPORT 103 102 1 ° 11. 101 U Q T C N a T 0 100 99 98 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 Water content, % Test specification: ASTM D 698-12 Method A Standard Elev/ Classification Nat. %> %< Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. Sp.G. LL PI #4 No.200 1.0-2.0 ft CL A-6(9) 15.7 38 19 1.5 61.8 TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Maximum dry density= 101.6 pcf Sandy Lean CLAY Optimum moisture= 18.3 % Project No. 4691.12631.01 Client: Altos Photonics,Inc Remarks: Project: Rouse and Tamarack Development Sampled by DOWL 0Location:Backyard Bulk Sample Number: 37850 #o 0 W L Figure Tested By: CC Checked By: DB � Trust our People.Trust our Data. Billings,MT 406.252.6325•Casper,WY 307.235.0515 www.energylab.com J Gillette,WY 307.686.7175•Helena,MT 406.442.0711 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORT Prepared by Billings, MT Branch Client: DOWL Project: 4691.12631.01 Rouse and Tamarack Report Date: 05/22/24 Lab ID: B24051660-001 Collection Date: 05/07/24 12:00 Client Sample ID: B-2 SPT 10.0-11.5 Date Received: 05/17/24 Matrix: Soil MCL/ Analyses Result Units Qualifiers RL QCL Method Analysis Date/By SULFATE BY MT DOT METHOD 532 Sulfate 36 mg/kg 2 E300.0 05/22/24 01:54/spb WATER EXTRACTABLE CONSTITUENTS Conductivity, 1:2 0.9 mmhos/cm 0.1 ASA10-3 05/22/24 08:43/srm MT DOT 232-16 pH 8.1 s.u. 0.1 MTDOT 232-1 05/22/24 08:44/srm RESISTIVITY OF SOIL Resistivity 1090 ohm-cm 1 A2510 B 05/22/24 08:44/srm Lab ID: B24051660-002 Collection Date: 05/07/24 12:00 Client Sample ID: B-3 SPT 5.0-6.5 Date Received: 05/17/24 Matrix: Soil MCL/ Analyses Result Units Qualifiers RL QCL Method Analysis Date/By SULFATE BY MT DOT METHOD 532 Sulfate 7560 mg/kg 2 E300.0 05/22/24 02:43/spb WATER EXTRACTABLE CONSTITUENTS Conductivity, 1:2 3.0 mmhos/cm 0.1 ASA10-3 05/22/24 08:43/srm MT DOT 232-16 pH 7.2 s.u. 0.1 MTDOT 232-1 05/22/24 08:44/srm RESISTIVITY OF SOIL Resistivity 332 ohm-cm 1 A2510 B 05/22/24 08:44/srm Report RL-Analyte Reporting Limit MCL-Maximum Contaminant Level Definitions: QCL-Quality Control Limit ND-Not detected at the Reporting Limit(RL) Page 2 of 8 Appendix D Pavement Calculations - s r rr r • BOWL Pavement Design - Light Duty Section (AASHTO 1993 Method) Design Inputs Asphalt Sugrade Support CBR = 3 Mr= 5610 psi Reliability 85 % Standard Deviation So = 0.45 Initial Serviceability Po = 4.2 Terminal Serviceability Pt = 2.0 Design Serviceability Loss, APSI = 2.2 Layer Coefficients: AC Surface and Binder a, = 0.40 Aggregate Base a2 = 0.14 Parking Lot Asphalt Section Traffic (18 kip ESAL) = 4,690 Asphalt Pavement Section Drainage, m AC Surface + Binder 3.0 in. in. Aggregate Base 0.9 6.0 in. Structural Number: 1.96 Structural Number-Required 1.63 PSI log,o(W,R)=ZRxS.+9.36xlog,o(SN+1)-0.20+ logo(-4'50 +2.32xlog,a(M,e)-8.07 0.40+ (SN+1)`14 Project: Rouse and Tamarack Develops Location: Bozeman, Montana Project No. 4691.12631.01 Date: 06/13/24 o o w L— Appendix E Percolation Test Results r ............ 1 ' Memo --- w i --yP BOWL PERCOLATION TEST FORM Owner Name: Altos Photonics, Inc. Project Name: Rouse and Tamarack Development Lot of Tract Number: N/A Test Number: P-1 Diameter of Test Hole:7-inches Depth of Test Hole: 24-inches Date and Time Soak Period Began: May 6, 2024, 11:23 AM Ended: May 6, 2024, 5:53 PM Date Test Began: May 6, 2024 Distance of the reference point above the bottom of the hole: 3.45 feet Test Results Start End Time Initial Distance Final Distance Drop in Percolation Time Time of Interval Below Below Water Rate (mpi) of Day Day (minutes) Reference Reference Level Point Point (inches) 11:23 12:23 60 2.45 2.15 3.6 16.7 12:23 1 4:23 240 2.45 Varies-4 hr soak 13.5 17.8 4:23 4:38 15 2.53 2.60 0.84 17.9 4:38 4:53 15 2.60 2.66 0.72 20.8 4:53 5:08 15 2.66 2.74 0.96 15.6 5:08 5:23 15 2.74 2.80 0.72 20.8 5:23 5:38 15 2.80 2.85 0.60 25.0 5:38 5:53 15 2.80 2.90 0.60 25.0 I attest that this percolation test was done by a qualified site evaluator in accordance with DEQ-4 Section 1.2.68 and Appendix A. David J. Barrick June 14, 2024 Name (printed) Signature Date DOWL Appendix F Settlement Calculations - s r rr �,:ts • 1 f r • BOWL _ Total Settlement _ (in) 0.000 0.015 0.030 0 0.045 c+� 0.060 0.075 0.090 _ 0.105 0.120 0.135 0.150 i max (stage) : 0.14 ii / max (all) : 0.14 ii i i Interior and Exterior Strip Footings 0 o- I o � i -10 0 110 20 30 Project Rouse and Tamarack Interior and Exterior Strip Footings Analysis Description Settlement ro c s c i e n c e Drawn By D. Barrick Company DOWL SETTLE3 5.024 Date 9/23/2024, 2:06:52 PM File Name Exterior and Interior Strip Footings Settlement.s3z Total Settlement - (in) 0.00 - 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 _ 0.20 0.24 0.28 0.32 o_ 0.36 0.40 max (stage) : 0.40 ii max (all) : 0.40 ii Spread Footing N o- 6 8 10 12 14 16 Project Rouse and Tamarack - Spread Footings Ana/ysis Description Settlement r o c s c i e n c e Drawn By David Barrick Company DOWL SETfLE3 5.024 p Date 9/23/2024, 1:36:49 PM File Name Spread FootingSettlement.s3z Alaska Anchorage 907.562.2000 5015 Business Park Blvd. Street, Anchorage, AK 99503 Fairbanks 907.374.0275 3535 College Road, Suite 100, Fairbanks, AK 99709 Juneau 907.780.3533 9085 Glacier Highway, Suite 102, Juneau, AK 99801 - Arizona Tempe 480.753.0800 430 W. Warner Road, Suite B101, Tempe, AZ 85284 Montana Billings 406.656.6399 222 N. 32nd Street, Suite 700, Billings, MT 59101 Bozeman 406.586.8834 1283 North 14th Avenue, Suite 101, MT 59715 Helena 406.442.0370 1300 Cedar Street, Helena, MT 59601 Nevada Elko 775.738.2121 421 Court Street, Elko, NV 89801 Reno 775.8514.788 5510 Longley Lane, Reno, NV 59511 Oregon Bend 541 .385.4772 963 SW Simpson Avenue, Suite 200, Bend, OR 97702 Eugene 541 .683.6090 920 Country Club Road, Suite 100B, Eugene, OR 97401 Lake Oswego 503.620.6103 5 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 350, Lake Oswego, OR 97035 - Medford 541 .774.5590 831 O'Hare Parkway, Medford, OR 97504 Portland 971 .280.8641 309 SW 611 Avenue, Suite 700, Portland, OR 97204 Salem 503.589.4100 4275 Commercial St SE, Ste 100, Salem, OR 97302 Washington Redmond 425.869.2670 8420 154th Avenue NE, Redmond, WA 98052 Vancouver 360.314.2391 7200 NE 41st Street, Suite 204 Vancouver, WA 98660 Wyoming Sheridan 307.672.9006 1833 South Sheridan Avenue, Sheridan, WY 82801 DOWL 1300 Cedar Street I Helena,MT 59601 (406)442-037 Lab 222 N.32nd Street I Billings, MT 59101 (406)656-6399 ALTOS PHOTONICS Project # 24141.01 D v = D D M m z M v_ v x m O D Intelligent Infrastructure. sanbell Enduring Communities. PROJECT INFORMATION ENGINEERED PRODUCT /)5f/A //" �• E MANAGER E SiteAssisP a o ADS SALES REP FOR VISIT TE APPc INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS I. Advanced Drainage Systems,Inc. OUR APP PROJECT NO. 9 Y ALTOS PHOTONICS C BOZEMAN, MT, USA SC-740 STORMTECH CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONS IMPORTANT-NOTES FOR THE BIDDING AND INSTALLATION OF THE SC-740 SYSTEM 1. CHAMBERS SHALL BE STORMTECH SC-740. 1. STORMTECH SC-740 CHAMBERS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED UNTIL THE MANUFACTURER'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS COMPLETED A N c PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH THE INSTALLERS. Z. CHAMBERS SHALL BE ARCHSHAPD AND SHALL BE MANUFACTURED FROM VIRGIN,IMPACT-MODIFIED POLYPROPYLENE COPOLYMERS. 2. STORMTECH SC-740 CHAMBERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE'STORMTECH SC-310ISC-7401DC-780 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE'. 3. CHAMBERS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2418,'STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR POLYPROPYLENE(PP)CORRUGATED 3. CHAMBERS ARE NOT TO BE SACKFILLED WITH A DOZER ORAN EXCAVATOR SITUATED OVER THE CHAMBERS. WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". STORMTECH RECOMMENDS 3 BACKFILL METHODS: • $TONESHOOTER LOCATED OFF THE CHAMBER BED. 4. CHAMBER ROWS SHALL PROVIDE CONTINUOUS,UNOBSTRUCTED INTERNAL SPACE WITH NO INTERNAL SUPPORTS THAT WOULD BACKFILL AS ROWS ARE BUILT USING AN EXCAVATOR ON THE FOUNDATION STONE OR SUBGRADE. IMPEDE FLOW OR LIMIT ACCESS FOR INSPECTION. BACKFILL FROM OUTSIDE THE EXCAVATION USING A LONG BOOM HOE OR EXCAVATOR. . T E STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE CHAMBERS,THE BACKFILL,AND THE INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS$HALL 4L THE FOUNDATION STONE SHALL LEVELED AND ED OR TO NG 5 THAT THE LOADFACTODEAD LOADSANDSPECIFIED IN THE AASIATO URFDVE RIDGE DESIGN DONTHESPECIFICATIONS, AASHTO DESIGN RIO TRUCK ARE WIT MET FOR: 1) ONE 5. JOINTS BETWEEN CHAMBERS SHALL EPRO PROPERLY ATEDT PRIOR ITTO PLACING STONE. ED MBERS. FOR IMPACT AND MULTIPLE VEHICLE PRESENCES. K'�' ,��'•�� 6. MAINTAIN MINIMUM-6-(150 mm)$PACING BETWEEN THE CHAMBER ROWS. CHAD �. •,*� 6. CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED,TESTED AND ALLOWABLE LOAD CONFIGURATIONS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787, 7 EMBEDMENT STONE SURROUNDING CHAMBERS MUST BE A CLEAN,CRUSHED,ANGUAR STONE 314-2"(20.50 mm). j JCHi2E'`IER 'STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS'. LOAD CONFIGURATIONS SHALL INCLUDE:1)INSTANTANEOUS(<1 MIN)AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK LIVE LOAD ON MINIMUM COVER 2) 6239,PE:✓lV� MAXIMUM PERMANENT(]5-VR)COVER LOAD AND 3)ALLOWABLE COVER WITH PARKED(1-WEEK)AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK. 8. THE CONTRACTOR MUST REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES WITH CHAMBER FOUNDATION MATERIALS BEARING CAPACITIES TO THE SITE DESIGNENGIN ER. ]. REQUIRETO MAINTAIN THE WIDTH OF CHAMBERS DURING SHIPPING AND HANDLING,CHAMBERS SHALL HAVE INTEGRAL,INTERLOCKING 9 SOORMWAT RECOMMENDS THE USE OF'FLEXSTORM CATCH IT'INSERTS SYSTEM FROM CONSTRUCTION DURING FOR ALL INLETS TO PROTECT THE SUBSURFACE i'���0 AL STACKING LUGS. • TO ENSURE A SECURE JOINT DURING INSTALLATION AND BACKFILL,THE HEIGHT OF THE CHAMBER JOINT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 2". NOTES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT • TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY OF THE ARCH SHAPE DURING INSTALLATION,a)THE ARCH STIFFNESS CONSTANT SHALL BE GRATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 550 LBSIFTM.THE ASO IS DEFINED IN SECTION 6.2.8 OF ASTM F2418.AND b)TO RESIST CHAMBER 1. STORMTECH SC140 CHAMBERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE'STORNMCH SC-310I8C-74IVDC-780 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE'. DEFORMATION DURING INSTALLATION AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES(ABOVE 73°F 123"C),CHAMBERS SHALL BE PRODUCED FROM REFLECTIVE GOLD OR YELLOW COLORS. 2. THE USE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT OVER SC-74D CHAMBERS IS LIMITED: • NO EQUIPMENT IS ALLOWED ON BARE CHAMBERS. 8. ONLY CH AMBERS THAT ARE APPROVED By THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER WILL BE ALLOWED.UPON REQUEST BY THE SITE DESIGN NORUBBERTIRED LOADERS,DUMP TRUCKS,OR EXCAVATORS ARE ALLOWED UNTIL PROPER FILL DEPTHS ARE REACHED IN ACCORDANCE Z ENGINEER OR OWNER,THE CHAMBER MANUFACTURER SHALL SUBMIT A STRUCTURAL EVALUATION FOR APPROVAL BEFORE WITH THE"STORMTECH SG310ISC-740/13C-780 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE'. O DELIVERING CHAMBERS TO THE PROJECT SITE AS FOLLOWS: WEIGHT LIMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT CAN BE FOUND IN THE'STORMTECH SC-310ISG740IDC-780 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE-. • THE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SHALL BE SEALED BVA REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. r d f f • THE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SHALL DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SAFETY FACTORS ARE GRATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 1S5 FOR 3. FULL 36"(900 mm)OF STABILIZED COVER MATERIALS OVER THE CHAMBERS I$REQUIRED FOR DUMP TRUCK TRAVEL OR DUMPING. DEAD LOAD AND 1.75 FOR LIVE LOAD,THE MINIMUM REQUIRED BY ASTM F2787 AND BY SECTIONS 3 AND 12.120E THE AASHTO O LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS FOR THERMOPLASTIC PIPE. USE OF DOZER TO PUSH EMBEDMENT STONE BETWEEN THE ROWS OF CHAMBERS MAY CAUSE DAMAGE TO THE CHAMBERS AND IS NOT AN y • THETEST DERIVED CREEP MODULUS AS SPECIFIED IN ASTM F2418 SHALL BE USED FOR PERMANENT DAD LOAD DESIGN ACCEPTABLE BACKFILL METHOD.ANY CHAMBERS DAMAGED BY THE"DUMP AND PUSH"METHOD ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE STORMTECH W EXCEPT THAT IT SHALL BE THE 75-VAR MODULUS USED FOR DESIGN. STANDARD WARRANTY. 0 vWti 9. CHAMBERS AND END CAPS SHALL BE PRODUCED AT AN ISO 9001 CERTIFIED MANUFACTURING FACILITY. CONTACT STORMTECH AT I-888-892-2694 WITH ANY QUESTIONS ON INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS OR WEIGHT LIMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT. Z_ 3 � 0 d c ui z �I O Un z VQQI i a U a PROJECT INFORMATION ENGINEERED PRODUCT // MANAGER SiteAssisP ADS SALES REP FOR STORM CH FOR INSTRUCTIONS M, Advanced Drainage Systems,Inc. SIT OUR APP PROJECT NO. 9 Y ALTOS PHOTONICS BOZEMAN, MT, USA SC-160LP STORMTECH CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONS IMPORTANT-NOTES FOR THE BIDDING AND INSTALLATION OF THE SC-160LP SYSTEM 1. CHAMBERS SHALL BE STORMTECH SC-160LP. 1. STORMTECH SC-160LP CHAMBERS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED UNTIL THE MANUFACTURER'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS COMPLETED A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH THE INSTALLERS. Z. CHAMBERS SHALL SEARCH-SHAPED AND SHALL BE MANUFACTURED FROM VIRGIN,IMPACT-MODIFIED POLYPROPYLENE COPOLYMERS. 2. STORMTECH SC-160LP CHAMBERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE'STORMTECH SC-160LP CONSTRUCTION GUIDE'. 3. CHAMBERS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2418,"STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR POLYPROPYLENE(PP)CORRUGATED 3. FOUNDATION STONE AND EMBEDMENT STONE SURROUNDING CHAMBERS MUST BE A CLEAN,CRUSHED,ANGULAR STONE;AASHTO M43#3,357,4, WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". 467,5,56,OR 57. 4. CHAMBER ROWS SHALL PROVIDE CONTINUOUS,UNOBSTRUCTED INTERNAL SPACE WITH NO INTERNAL SUPPORTS THAT WOULD 4. THE FOUNDATION STONE SHALL BE LEVELED AND COMPACTED PRIOR TO PLACING CHAMBERS. IMPEDE FLOW OR LIMIT ACCESS FOR INSPECTION. 5. THE DEPTH OF FOUNDATION STONE SHALL BE DETERMINED BASED ON THE SUBGRADE BARING CAPACITY PROVIDED BY THE SITE DESIGN 5. THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE CHAMBERS,THE STRUCTURAL BACKFILL,AND THE INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS SHALL ENSURE ENGINEER. THAT THE LOAD FACTORS SPECIFIED IN THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS,SECTION 12.12,ARE MET FOR:1) Q THE CONTRACTOR MUST REPORT LONG-DURATION DEAD LOADS AND 2)SHORT-DURATION LIVE LOADS,BASED ON THE AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK WITH CONSIDERATION 6. MY DISCREPANCIES CONCERNING CHAMBER FOUNDATION DESIGN AND SUBGRADE BARING CAPACITIES TO N FOR IMPACT AND MULTIPLE VEHICLE PRESENCES. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER. 6. CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED,TESTED AND ALLOWABLE LOAD CONFIGURATIONS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787, 7. JOINTS BETWEEN CHAMBERS SHALL BE PROPERLY SATED PRIOR TO PLACING STONE. /� Q 'STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS'. g, CHAMBERS SHALL BE INSTALLED'TOE TO TOE".NO ADDITIONAL SPACING BETWEEN ROWS IS REQUIRED. r H LOAD CONFIGURATIONS SHALL INCLUDE:1)INSTANTANEOUS(<1 MIN)AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK LIVE LOAD ON MINIMUM COVER 2) MAXIMUM PERMANENT(75-YR)COVER LOAD AND 3)ALLOWABLE COVER WITH PARKED(1-WEEK)AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK. 9. STORMTECH RECOMMENDS 3 BACKFILL METHODS: ]. REQUIREMENTS FOR HANDLING AND INSTALLATION: • $TONESHOOTER LOCATED OFF THE CHAMBER BED. • TO MAINTAIN THE WIDTH OF CHAMBERS DURING SHIPPING AND HANDLING,CHAMBERS SHALL HAVE INTEGRAL,INTERLOCKING • BACKFILL AS ROWS ARE BUILT USING AN EXCAVATOR ON THE FOUNDATION STONE OR SUBGRADE. U O STACKING LUGS. BACKFILL FROM OUTSIDE THE EXCAVATION USING A LONG BOOM HOE OR EXCAVATOR. O • TO ENSURE A SECURE JOINT DURING INSTALLATION AND BACKFILL,THE HEIGHT OF THE CHAMBER JOINT SHALL NOT BE LESS T N 1.5°. 10. ADS RECOMMENDS THE USE OF"FLEXSTORM CATCH IT'INSERTS DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR ALL INLETS TO PROTECT THE SUBSURFACE m HA • TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY OF THE ARCH SHAPE DURING INSTALLATION,a)THE ARCH STIFFNESS CONSTANT SHALL BE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FROM CONSTRUCTION SITE RUNOFF. O • GRATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 400 LBSIFTM.THE ASO IS DEFINED IN SECTION 6.2.8 OF ASTM F2418.AND b)TO RESIST CHAMBER DEFORMATION DURING INSTALLATION AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES(ABOVE 73°F 123"C),CHAMBERS SHALL BE PRODUCED NOTES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT T a FROM REFLECTIVE GOLD OR YELLOW COLORS. i V 1. THE USE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT OVER SC-16DLP CHAMBERS IS LIMITED: A 111 8. ONLY CH AMBERS THAT ARE APPROVED BY THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER WILL BE ALLOWED.UPON REQUEST BY THE SITE DESIGN NO EQUIPMENT ISALLOWED ON BARE CHAMBERS. li Li_ F ENGINEER OR OWNER,THE CHAMBER MANUFACTURER SHALL SUBMIT A STRUCTURAL EVALUATION FOR APPROVAL BEFORE NORUBBERTIRED LOADERS,DUMP TRUCKS,OR EXCAVATORS ARE ALLOWED UNTIL PROPER FILL DEPTHS ARE REACHED IN ACCORDANCE (j Q DELIVERING CHAMBERS TO THE PROJECT SITE AS FOLLOWS: WITH THE"STORMTECH SG160LP CONSTRUCTION GUIDE'. d W • THE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SHALL BE SEALED BVA REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. WEIGHT LIMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT CAN BE FOUND IN THE'STORMTECH SC-106LP CONSTRUCTION GUIDE'. • THE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SHALL DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SAFETY FACTORS ARE GRATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 1S5 FOR G z Q Q DEADLOADAND1.75FORUVELOAD,THE MINIMUM REQUIRED BY ASTM F2787 AND BY SECTIONS 3 AND 12.120E THE AASHTO 2. FULL 36"(900 mm)OF STABILIZED COVER MATERIALS OVER THE CHAMBERS I$REQUIRED FOR DUMP TRUCK TRAVEL OR DUMPING. LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS FOR THERMOPLASTIC PIPE. _ W • THETEST DERIVED CREEP MODULUS AS SPECIFIED IN ASTM F2418 SHALL BE USED FOR PERMANENT DAD LOAD DESIGN CONTACT STORMTECH AT I-888-892-2694 WITH ANY QUESTIONS ON INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS OR WEIGHT LIMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT. I- Z N EXCEPT THAT IT SHALL BE THE 75-VAR MODULUS USED FOR DESIGN. Q Ln O O O Q 9. CHAMBERS AND END CAPS SHALL BE PRODUCED AT AN ISO 9001 CERTIFIED MANUFACTURING FACILITY. Z C, m Q C5.5 PROPOSED LAYOUT:BED 2 CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS "INVERT ABOVE BASE OF CHAMBER 15 STORMTECH SG]40 CHAMBERS MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE TOPOFPAVEMENT/UNPAVED: 11.00 PART TYPE YE OU DESCRIPTION NVE MAX FLOW 6 STORMTECH SG]40 END CAPS 5.00 24"BOTTOM PREFABRICATED EZ END CAP,PART#.SC740ECU TVP OF ALL 2A'BOTTOM - 6 STONE ABOVE in MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE UNPAVED NO TRAFFIC: 4.50 PREFABRICATED EZ END CAP A 0.10" < CONNECTIONS AND ISOLATOR PLUS ROWS PAV O) MUM 40 STONE VOID n MINIL LOWABLE GRADE q.50 FLAMP B INSTALL FLAMP ON 24"ACCESS PIPE IPARTp:SC]402dRAMP U ¢ ur o = E MANIFOLD C 12"x 12"TOP MANIFOLD,ADS N-12 12.50' Z OP OF STONE: 3.00 E (PERIMETER STONE INCLUDED) OP OF SC-]40 CHAMBER: 3.00 PIPE CONNECTION D 12"BOTTOM CONNECTION 1.20" O W E V 13]4 (COVER BTONE INCLUDED) 12"x 12"TOP MANIFOLD INVERT: 156 NVLOPLAST(INLET W/ISO F E 30"DIAMETER(DESI SUMP MI I 3.5 CFS IN I BASE STONE INCLUDED 12"BOTTOM CONNECTION INVERT: 0.60 PLUS ROW U o 6]8 SYSTEM AREA SF 24"BOTTOM ISOLATOR ROW PLUS INVERT: 0.51 NVLOPLAST OUTLET) F 30"DIAMETER DESIGN BY ENGINEER 2.0 CFS OUT d 111.] BOTTOM OF SG740 CHAMBER: 0.50 N g BOTTOM OF STONE: 0.00 y O C � cn Q E � 3 O O o� 43.11' 37.18' Y� In x�g U G� o g CHA C ER ;Q� U s 6 D 3SS s E.••�`gp B '" iifill /E u e � €� o F� �' K/ p! > ° aw SS oe �� boa a� Z m a w U, ISOLATOR ROW PLUS S t€ MP CE MINIMTAIL) DUE TO THEAD TO DETERMINED BY SITE SYSTEM TO NGINER.SEEITE AND HNDE .32 FOR MANIFOL IT D ANG GUIDANCE. NECESSARY TO CUT AND COUPLE ADDITIONAL PIPE TO STANDARD MANIFOLD S t9 NOTES 1 �NI FOLD SIZE TO BE DETERMINED BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER.SEE TECH NOTE DESIGN FOR MANIFOLD SIZING GUIDANCE.PLACE MINIMUM 2.50'OF ADSPLU5625 WOVEN GEOTEXTILE OVER BEDDING -m 3 STONE AND UNDERNEATH CHAMBER FEET FOR SCOUR PROTECTION AT ALL Z o� p COMPONENTS IN THE FIELD. 11 CHAMBER INLET ROWS THE SITE DEER S ENGINEERMUSTDDESIGNED WITHOUT AND IF NECESSARY INFORMATION ON SOILGRADINGCCONDITIONS NS OR BEARING MBAR TY.THE REQUIREMENTS ITEDESIGENGINEER E ER I n p THIS CHAMBER SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED WITHOUT SITE-SPECIFIC INFORMATION ON SOIL CONDITIONS OR BEARING CAPACITY.THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR a DETERMINING BED LIMITS THESUITABILITV OF THE SOIL AND PROVIDING THE BEARING CAPACITY OF THE INSITU SOILS.THE BASE STONE DEPTH MAYBE INCREASED OR DECREASED ONCE THIS INFORMATION IS SHEET Z N: PROVIDED. E 9 • NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIO THIS LAYOUT IS FOR DIMENSIONAL PURPOSES ONLY TO PROVE CONCEPT 8 THE REQUIRED STORAGE VOLUME CAN BE ACHIEVED ON SITE. 3 OF .I I Z pl 0 Ln ZF rC ry IU J PROPOSED LAYOUT:BED 1 CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS 'INVERT ABOVE BASE OF CHAMBER w QoQ a 2 STORMTECH SC1WUP CHAMBERS MAXIMUMALLOWABLEGRADETOPOFA NPAED: PART TYPE OU DESCRIPTION l a U a 4 STORMTECH 6 STONEABOVE 160LP END CAPS MINI MUM ALLOWABLE GRADE UNPAVED NO TRAFFIC: 2.87MANIFOLDMUM ALLOWAB A 8'x8'BOTTOM MANIFOLD,MOLDED FITTINGS 6 L 28]PIPE CONNECTION B 8'BOTTOM CONNECTION 0.86" U 40 STONE VOID n 2.6] ¢ N p OP OF STONE: 2.00 (PERIMETER STONE INCLUDED) OP OF SC-16OLP CHAMBER: 1.50 O w �' ]3 (COVER STONE INCLUDED) 8"z 8"BOTTOM MANIFOLD INVERT: 0.58 0o U BASE STONE INCLUDED FISOLATOR ROW PLUS INVERT: 0.58 81 SYSTEM AREA SF BOTTOM OF SGi60LP CHAMBER: 0.50 d 38.6 BOTTOM OF STONE: 0.06 w g � O °1 4 Q i o Q 'o � a p o Q g� H 13AT x _ w F N A s G u E o BE = a � _ a � W fN ci H mb: O z � Z w w op 8 N Ln On Q Z m m Q I[ �ISOLATORROWPLUS 1\\\(SEE DETAIL) F ■ q-\-� NOTES o� �NI FOLD SIZE TO BE DETERMINED BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER.SEE TECH NOTE DESIGN FOR MANIFOLD SIZING GUIDANCE. 1,14 -m GENTS IN ADAPTATION OF THIS CHAMBER SYSTEM TO SPECIFIC SITE AND DESIGNCONSTRAINTS,IT MAYBE NECESSARY TO CUT AND COUPLE ADDITIONAL PIPE TO STANDARD MANIFOLD og COMPONENTS IN THE FIELD. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER MUST REVIEW ELEVATIONS AND IF NECESSARY ADJUST GRADING TO ENSURE THE CHAMBER COVER REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. n D THIS CHAMBER SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED WITHOUT SITE-SPECIFIC INFORMATION ON SOIL CONDITIONS OR BEARING CAPACITY.THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMNING SHEET BED LIMITS THE SUITABILITY OF THE SOIL AND PROVIDING THE BEARING CAPACITY OF THE INSITU SOILS.THE BASE STONE DEPTH MAV BE INCREASED OR DECREASED ONCE THIS INFORMATION IS PROVIDED. .I 1 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION:THIS LAYOUT IS FOR DIMENSIONAL PURPOSES ONLY TO PROVE CONCEPT 8 THE REQUIRED STORAGE VOLUME CAN BE ACHIEVED ON SITE. `>' OF I Z PROPOSED LAYOUT:BED 3 CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS 2 STORMTECHSC-160LPCHAMBERS MA%IMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE TOP OF PAVEMENT/UNPAVED: 11.50 m 2 STORMTECH SG160LP END CAPS 3.17 - 8 STONE ABOVE in MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE UNPAVED NO TRAFFIC: 2.8] 8 2.67 40 STONE VOID 2.00 Z rn p E JUETUT-TOP OF STONE: 2.50 63 (PERIMETER STONE INCLUDED) IS OF TOR ROW CHAMBER: 0.58 L- w �' V (COVER STONE INCLUDED) 8'ISOLATOR ROW PLUS INVERT: 0.50 O o U o BASE STONE INCLUDED BOTTOM OF SG160LP CHAMBER' 0.50 1. SYSTEM AREA SF BOTTOM OF STONE: 0.00 d 41.6 NO 0 g w rn 0 0cn Y� x�g 16.70' rc 6s 14.70'- w �CHREI'vER �� u � � i'S14yYi STEREO�V\?�` u E oz fN ci � H r 0U s � ti W boa a� (DIt t m a w U, ISOLATOR ROW PLUS S (SEE DETAIL) F NOTES St �NIFOLD SIZE TO BE DETERMINED BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER.SEE TECH NOTE N6.32 FOR MANIFOLD SIZING GUIDANCE. r t9 I'J NO WOVEN GEOTEXTILE DUE TO THE ADAPTATION OF THIS CHAMBER SYSTEM TO SPECIFIC SITE AND DESIGN CONSTRAINTS,IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO CUT AND COUPLE ADDITIONAL PIPE TO STANDARD MANIFOLD \ 08 0 COMPONENTS IN THE FIELD. \� - Is HE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER MUST REVIEW ELEVATIONS AND IF NECESSARY ADJUST GRADING TO ENSURE THE CHAMBER COVER REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. n N THIS CHAMBER SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED WITHOUT SITE-SPECIFIC INFORMATION ON SOIL CONDITIONS OR BEARING CAPACITY.THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR a DETERMNING BED LIMITS THE SUITABILITY OF THE SOIL AND PROVIDING THE BEARING CAPACITY OF THE INSITU SOILS.THE BASE STONE DEPTH MAYBE INCREASED OR DECREASED ONCE THIS INFORMATION IS SHEET ZQ N: PROVIDED. C • NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIO THIS LAYOUT IS FOR DIMENSIONAL PURPOSES ONLY TO PROVE CONCEPT 8 THE REQUIRED STORAGE VOLUME CAN BE ACHIEVED ON SITE. 5 OF 12 �I O ZF VrCQQI ry IU J Lli ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIALS:STORMTECH SC-740 CHAMBER SYSTEMS a AASHTO MATERIAL U g MATERIAL LOCATION DESCRIPTION COMPACTION/DENSITY REQUIREMENT a CLASSIFICATIONS w € FINAL FILL:FILL MATERIAL FOR LAYER-D'STARTS FROM THE TOP OF THE'C' P- LAYER TO THE BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT OR UNPAVED FINISHED ANY SOIUROCK MATERIALS,NATIVE SOILS,OR PER ENGINEER'S PLANS. PREPARE PER SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S PLANS.PAVED o U D NIA INSTALLATIONS MAY HAVE STRINGENT MATERIAL AND GRADE ABOVE.NOTE THAT PAVEMENT SUBBASE MAY BE PART OF THE-D' CHECK PLANS FOR PAVEMENT SUBGRADE REQUIREMENTS. _ PREPARATION REQUIREMENTS. LAVER. 0 a AASHTO M145' BEGIN COMPACTIONS AFTER I2"(300 mm)OF MATERIAL OVER Q m GRANULAR WELL-GRADED SOIUAGGREGATE MIXTURES,<35%FINES OR A-1,A-24,A-3 THE CHAMBERS IS REACHED.COMPACT ADDITIONAL LAVERS IN F 4 INITIAL FILL:FILL MATERIAL FOR O 18-(45 STARTS FROM THE TOP OF THE J EMBEDMENTSTONE('6'LAVER)T018"(650 mm)ABOVE THE TOP OF THE PROCESSED AGGREGATE. 6'(150 mm)MAX LIFTS TO MIN.95%PROCTOR DENSITY FOR Q # o C CHAMBER.NOTE THAT PAVEMENT SUBBASE MAYBE A PART OF THE'C' OR WELL GRADED MATERIAL AND 95%RELATIVE DENSITY FOR LAVER. MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE MATERIALS CAN BE USED IN LIEU OFTHIS PROCESSED AGGREGATE MATERIALS.ROLLER GROSS LAYER. AASHTO M43' VEHICLE WEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED 12,000 Ib.(53 kN).DYNAMIC w p 3,351,4,d67,5,N.57,6,Bl,W.7,]8,8,89,9,10 FORCE NOT TO EXCEED 20,000 lb.(89 M). o ysp B EMBEDMENT STONE:FILL SURROUNDING THE CHAMBERS FROM THE CLEAN,CRUSHED,ANGULAR STONE AASHTO M43' NO COMPACTION REQUIRED. m FOUNDATION STONE('A•LAYER)TO THE'C'LAVER ABOVE. OR RECYCLED CONCRETES 3,351,4,48],5,56,5] oU FOUNDATION STONE:FILL BELOW CHAMBERS FROM THE SUBGRADE UP TO CLEAN,CRUSHED,ANGULAR STONE A,SHTO M43' A THE FOOT(BOTTOM)OF THE CHAMBER. OR RECYCLED CONCRETES 3,35]4,48],5,58,57 PLATE COMPACTOR ROLL TO ACHIEVE A FLAT SURFACE PLEASE NOTE: w 1. THE LISTED AASHTO DESIGNATIONS ARE FOR GRADATIONS ONLY.THE STONE MUST ALSO BE CLEAN,CRUSHED,ANGULAR.FOR EXAMPLE,A SPECIFICATION FOR#4 STONE WOULD STATE:"CLEAN,CRUSHED,ANGULAR NO.4(AASHTO M43)STONE'. o 2. STORMTECH COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS ARE MET FORA•LOCATION MATERIALS WHEN PLACED AND COMPACTED IN 6'•(150 mm)(MAX)LIFTS USING TWO FULL COVERAGES WITH A VIBRATORY COMPACTOR. �z 3. WHERE INFILTRATION SURFACES MAY BE COMPROMISED BY COMPACTION,FOR STANDARD DESIGN LOAD CONDITIONS,A FLAT SURFACE MAY BE ACHIEVED BY RAKING OR DRAGGING WITHOUT COMPACTION EQUIPMENT.FOR SPECIAL LOAD DESIGNS,CONTACT STORMTECH FOR .' COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS. 4. ONCE LAVER'C•E PLACED,ANY AGGREGATE IS CAN BE PLACED IN LAVER'D'UPTE THE FINISHED GRADE.MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE SOILS CAN BE USED C REPLACE THE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS OF STRUCTURAL L OR'D'AT THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S DISCRETION. 5. WHERE RECYCLED CONCRETE AGGREGATE IS USED IN LAYERS'A'OR'B'THE MATERIAL SHOULD ALSO MEET THE ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA OUTLINED IN TECHNICAL NOTE 6.20'RECVGLED CONCRETE STRUCTURAL BACKFILL". x�� rc Hg Q 0F N A GEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE ALL w b0 AROUND CLEAN,CRUSHED,ANGULAR STONE IN A B B LAVERS PAVEMENT LAYER(DESIGNED $ BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER) Is w 81LbblLY.Y.Y.KYI L1W.NW11Y.Yo-4 + � 3� V � �)� . 0 t>� tt. t as e' u o, pill STONE C!/Ilir] III iIIF 1)I(' �H-I�i /lly�JI7�/i-IR II H ?III III 11,E/i II��NII ,a J 18' (2.4 (450mm)MIN' MAXw Z U 6'(150 mm)MIN EXCAVATION WALL CAN ® `O O BE SLOPED OR VERTCAL) - © 30" _ ~ d` • m -THIS CROSS SECTION DETAIL REPRESENTS V E 5, (]60 mm) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR INSTALLATION. GI .d. oA O II I��� PLEASE SEE THE LAYOUT SHEET(S)FOR - Q IIILIII t IIII=11�� a PROJECT SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS. n rce i,ILsll �IiI�IIi�i A " _' d W = -III III-III i= u- > -ii=-II%-m=ll=it=l=u=III=IiI=IiI-=uLILI Hy a F IIITI�1-11 IL II=11I IIII IIII IIIIT_IL IIII_Ill_Ill_I III IIII JII IJIi Ji'i=I"J �l iill, ii ., II DEPTH OF STONE TO BE DETERMINED BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER 6"(150 mm)MIN 12'(300 mm)MIN END CAP -�BUBGRADE SOILS -- 8•• 51"(1295mm) 12"(300 mm)TYP w^ Z O (SEE NOTE 3) (150 mm)MIN mg W < W o 8 N Ln NOTES: z C, m 1. CHAMBERS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2418,'STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR POLYPROPYLENE(PP)CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS'. _rcrc 2. SG140 CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787'STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". $J 3. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSESSING THE BEARING RESISTANCE(ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY)OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS AND THE DEPTH OF FOUNDATION STONE WITH ■� CONSIDERATION FOR THE RANGE OF EXPECTED SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS. I" 4. PERIMETER STONE MUST BE EXTENDED HORIZONTALLY TO THE EXCAVATION WALL FOR BOTH VERTICAL AND SLOPED EXCAVATION WALLS. 5. REQUIREMENTS FOR HANDLING AND INSTALLATION: tg • TO MAINTAIN THE WIDTH OF CHAMBERS DURING SHIPPING AND HANDLING,CHAMBERS SHALL HAVE INTEGRAL,INTERLOCKING STACKING LUGS. a zr • TO ENSURE A SECURE JOINT DURING INSTALLATION AND BACKFILL,THE HEIGHT OF THE CHAMBER JOINT SHALL NOT BE LESS THANT. og • TOE SURE THE INTEGRITY OF THE ARCH SHAPE DURING INSTALLATION,a)THE ARCH STIFFNESS CONSTANT SHALL BE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 550 LBSIFT/%.THE ABC IS DEFINED IN SECTION 6Z.8 nB OF ASTM F2418.AND b)TO RESIST CHAMBER DEFORMATION DURING INSTALLATION AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES(ABOVE 73-F/23-C),CHAMBERS SHALL BE PRODUCED FROM REFLECTIVE GOLD OR SHEET YELLOW COLORS. 6OF12 H ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIALS.STORMTECH SC-160LP CHAMBER SYSTEMS �_ m AASHTO MATERIAL U y .E MATERIAL LOCATION DESCRIPTION COMPACTION/DENSITY REQUIREMENT CLASSIFICATIONS p . W E FINAL FILL:FILL MATERIAL FOR UYER'D'STARTS FROM THE TOP OF THE'C' REPERSIGN -4d LAYER TO THE BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT OR UNPAVED FINISHED ANY SOIL/ROCK MATERIALS,NATIVE SOILS,OR PER ENGINEER'S PLANS. PREPALUTIOSI MAY HAVE ENGINEER'S PUNS. O I O U o D N/A INSTALLATIONS MAY HAVE STRINGENT MATERIAL AND = GRADE ABOVE.NOTE THAT PAVEMENT SUBBASE MAY BE PART OF THE'D' CHECK PLANS FOR PAVEMENT SUBGRADE REQUIREMENTS. LAVER PREPARATION REQUIREMENTS. 0_ N a AASHTOM145' BEGIN COMPACTIONS AFTER I2"(300 mm)OF MATERIAL OVER O m GRANULAR WELL-GRADED SOILIAGGREGATE MIXTURES,<35%FINES OR A-1,A-2-0,A-3 THE CHAMBERS IS REACHED.COMPACT ADDITIONAL LAVERS IN h 4 INITIAL FILL:FILL MATERIAL FOR LAVER'C'STARTS FROM THE TOP OF THE Q # o ? EMBEDMENT STONE('B'LAYER)TO 14"(355 mm)MOVE THE TOP OF THE PROCESSED AGGREGATE. 6"(150..)MAX UFTSTOAMIN.95%PROCTORDENSITYFOR C OR WELL GRADED MATERIAL AND 95%RELATIVE DENSITY FOR _ CHAMBER.NOTE THAT PAVEMENT SUBBASE MAYBE A PART OF THE MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE MATERIALS CAN BE USED IN LIEU OF THIS PROCESSED AGGREGATE MATERIALS.ROLLER GROSS LAYER. LAVER. AASHTO M4V VEHICLE WEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED 12,000 ft(53 kN).DYNAMIC 3,357,4,467,5,%,57,6,67,68,],]8,8,89,9,10 FORCE NOT TO EXCEED 20,000 ft(89 kN). o ysp B EMBEDMENT STONE:FILL SURROUNDING THE CHAMBERS FROM THE CLEAN,CRUSHED,ANGULAR STONE AASHTO M43' NO COMPACTION REQUIRED. m FOUNDATION STONE('A'LAVER)TO THE'C'LAVER ABOVE. OR RECYCLED CONCRETE° 3,357,4,467,5,56,5] w c FOUNDATION STONE:FILL BELOW CHAMBERS FROM THE SUBGRADE UP TO CLEAN,CRUSHED,ANGULAR STONE AASHTO M43' O A cn THE FOOT(BOTTOM)OF THE CHAMBER. OR RECYCLED CONCRETE° 3,357,4,467,5,56,5] PLATE COMPACT OR ROLL TO ACHIEVE A FLAT SURFACE z,a o PLEASE NOTE: w 1. THE LISTED AASHTO DESIGNATIONS ARE FOR GRADATIONS ONLY.THE STONE MUST ALSO BE CLEAN,CRUSHED,ANGULAR.FOR EXAMPLE,A SPECIFICATION FOR#4 STONE WOULD STATE:"CLEAN,CRUSHED,ANGULAR NO(AASHTO M43)STONE'. o 2. STORMTECH COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS ARE MET FORA'LOCATION MATERIALS WHEN PLACED AND COMPACTED IN 6"(150 mm)(MAX)LIFTS USING TWO FULL COVERAGES WITH A VIBRATORY COMPACTOR. z 3. WHERE INFILTRATION SURFACES MAY BE COMPROMISED By COMPACTION,FOR STANDARD DESIGN LOAD CONDITIONS,A FLAT SURFACE MAY BE ACHIEVED BY RAKING OR DRAGGING WITHOUT COMPACTION EQUIPMENT.FOR SPECIAL LOAD DESIGNS,CONTACT STORMTECH FOR .° COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS. 4. ONCE LAVER'C'IS PLACED,ANY SOILJMATERIAL CAN BE PLACED IN LAVER'D'UP TO THE FINISHED GRADE.MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE SOILS CAN BE USED TO REPLACE THE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAYER'C'OR C.AT THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S DISCRETION. 5. WHERE RECYCLED CONCRETE AGGREGATE IS USED IN LAYERS'A'OR'B'THE MATERIAL SHOULD ALSO MEET THE ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA OUTLINED IN TECHNICAL NOTE 6.20'RECYCLED CONCRETE STRUCTURAL BACKFILL". x � o ppF J"s%'N A GEOSVNTHETICS 601T NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE ALL PAVEMENT LAVER(DESIGNED Q b0 >' ,,•�'*� AROUND CLEAN CRUSHED,ANGULAR STONE IN A 8 B LAVERS BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER) bCHREIIER �S PERIMETER SEE NOTE 4) �\�,\\�\\�\�\ L[ \\\\��\�i \ ��)\ Nb_ fit` 14. 10' U ?U qF4j C-•:\$\� � 0 (350mm) (3.0m) x o� '� siER.•V�\� +m MIN. MAX 6"(150 )MIN EXCAVATION WALL (CAN BE SLOPED OR VERTICAL) )III _ (300 mm1 V o ��� IH� BOLPi_ - SCO � -ii— � — —iTi k DEPTH OF BASE STONE TO BE DETERMINED m :y 12"(300 MIN END CAP A 25'm) 12'(300 mm) BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER 6"(150 mm)MIN ` n ow NO SPACING REQUIRED (635 m TVP _o BETWEEN CHAMBERS 0 m 0, SUBGRADE SOILS y U o8 (SEE NOTE 3) O NOTES' � w ¢ p 1. CHAMBERS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2618,'STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR POLYPROPYLENE(PP)CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS'. ¢me F? 2. CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED,TESTED AND ALLOWABLE LOAD CONFIGURATIONS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787,"STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF W ^ Z THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS".LOAD CONFIGURATIONS SHALL INCLUDE:1)INSTANTANEOUS(<l MIN)AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK LIVE LOAD ON MINIMUM r "� ?� U, ry ry COVER 2)MAXIMUM PERMANENT(]&VR)COVER LOAD AND 3)ALLOWABLE COVER WITH PARKED(1-WEEK)AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK. $=off Q a $ 3. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSESSING THE BEARING RESISTANCE(ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY)OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS AND THE DEPTH OF FOUNDATION STONE WITH p p CONSIDERATION FOR THE RANGE OF EXPECTED SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS. 4. PERIMETER STONE MUST BE EXTENDED HORIZONTALLY TO THE EXCAVATION WALL FOR BOTH VERTICAL AND SLOPED EXCAVATION WALLS. F 5. REQUIREMENTS FOR HANDLING AND INSTALLATION: • TO MAINTAIN THE WIDTH OF CHAMBERS DURING SHIPPING AND HANDLING,CHAMBERS SHALL HAVE INTEGRAL,INTERLOCKING STACKING LUGS • TO ENSURE A SECURE JOINT DURING INSTALLATION AND BACKFILL,THE HEIGHT OF THE CHAMBER JOINT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN I.5" og 0 • TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY OF THE ARCH SHAPE DURING INSTALLATION,a)THE ARCH STIFFNESS CONSTANT SHALL BE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 400 LBS/FTI%.THE MC IS DEFINED IN nD SECTION 6.2.8 OF ASTM F241 B.AND b)TO RESIST CHAMBER DEFORMATION DURING INSTALLATION AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES(ABOVE 7W F/23-C),CHAMBERS SHALL BE PRODUCED FROM a L1J REFLECTIVE GOLD OR YELLOW COLORS. SHEET �I Z 7 OF 12 �I O z VQQI N b i a U a U m . INSTALL FLAMP ON 26'(NOmm)ACCESS PIPE 0 W E PART#:SC]4024RAMR O o U OPTIONAL INSPECTION PORT STORMTECH HIGHLY RECOMMENDS SG]60 CHAMBER 0- m I FLEXSTORM INSERTS IN ANY UPSTREAM dJ w s STRUCTURES WITH OPEN GRATES Ygt g+ g't t gt 5 P2 A g �%Sy`a 8Aa &1 - SC-740 END CAP W ELEVATED BYPASS MANIFOLD t` " ' R `t'" AtT S p d Yt�t .St•T re 0 �^ °5 Ing SUMP DEPTH TBD BY U SITE DESIGN ENGINEER NYLOPLAST (24"[800 mml MIN RECOMMENDED) 24"(600 mm)HIRE ACCESS PIPE REQUIRED < USE EZ END CAP PART*SC740ECEZ ONE LAVER OF D C WOVEN GEOTEXTILE BETWEEN FOUNDATION STTONEONE AND CHAMBERS 5'(1.5m)MIN WIDE CONTINUOUS FABRIC WITHOUT SEAMS x�� SC-740 ISOLATOR ROW PLUS DETAIL ; Q NTS o a g H INSPECTION&MAINTENANCEIs STEP 1) INSPECT ISOLATOR ROW PLUS FOR SEDIMENT i w� A. INSPECTION PORTS(IF PRESENT) A.1. REMOVEIOPEN LID ON NVLOPLAST INLINE DRAIN U A.2. REMOVE AND CLEAN FLEXSTORM FILTER IF INSTALLED ® o ys O Q A.3. USING A FLASHLIGHT AND STADIA ROD,MEASURE DEPTH OF SEDIMENT AND RECORD ON MAINTENANCE LOG m A.A. LOWERACAMERA INTO ISOLATOR ROW PLUS FOR VISUAL INSPECTION OF SEDIMENT LEVELS(OPTIONAL) V dy O A.5. IF SEDIMENT IS AT,OR MOVE,3" mm)PROCEED TO STEP 2.IF NOT,PROCEED TO STEP 3. .E Eo B. ALL ISOLATOR PLUS ROWS `� _5, B.1. REMOVE COVER FROM STRUCTURE AT UPSTREAM END OF ISOLATOR ROW PLUS F y T a B.2. USING A FLASHLIGHT,INSPECT DOWN THE ISOLATOR ROW PLUS THROUGH OUTLET PIPE n rce i i) MIRRORS ON POLES OR CAMERAS MAYBE USED TO AVOID A CONFINED SPACE ENTRY d I 5' A V W ii)FOLLOW OSHA REGULATIONS FOR CONFINED SPACE ENTRY IF ENTERING MANHOLE O m $ ii Li- > F B.3. IF SEDIMENT IS AT,OR ABOVE,3"(80 mm)PROCEED TO STEP 2.IF NOT,PROCEED TO STEP 3. UJ U Y, STEP 2) CLEANOUT ISOUTORVERT ROW PLUS USING THE HREAR PROCESS w` O Z Q A. A FIXED CULVERT CLEANING NOZZLE WITH REAR FACING SPREAD OES"(1.1.)OR MORE IS PREFERRED B. APPLY MULTIPLE PASSES OF UNTIL BACKFLUSH WATER IS CLLAN E C. VACUUM STRUCTURE SUMP ASS REQUIRED STEP 3) REPLACE ALL COVERS,GRATES,FILTERS,AND LIDS;RECORD OBSERVATIONS AND ACTIONS. ¢m E UD N STEP 4) INSPECT AND CLEAN BASINS AND MANHOLES UPSTREAM OF THE STORMTECH SYSTEM. WO s Z C, m Q NOTES � w ° C5.8 1. INSPECT EVERY 6 MONTHS DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION.ADJUST THE INSPECTION INTERVAL BASED ON PREVIOUS OBSERVATIONS OF SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION AND HIGH WATER ELEVATIONS. � �� 2. CONDUCT JETTING AND VACTORING ANNUALLY OR WHEN INSPECTION SHOWS THAT MAINTENANCE IS NECESSARY. og b� SHEET 8 OF 12 Q w € (D Vo F Q N 0 U o STORMTECH HIGHLY RECOMMENDS OPTIONAL INSPECTION PORT N N- M a FLEXSTOR INSERTS IN ANY UPSTREAM SGi80LP CHAMBER Q STRUCTURES WITH OPEN GRATES J m Q u o salsoLP END CAPLvi a I I,I II I„I II I,I I II II I,I I I �,I�;!'',' :� _m SUMP DEPTH TBD BV CATCH BASIN g c SITE DESIGN ENGINEER OR(2/"[800 mm(MIN RECOMMENDED) MANHOLE ONE LAYER OF ADSPLUS625 WOVEN GEOTEXTILE BETWEEN 8"(200 mm)HOPE ACCESS PIPE REQUIRED USE 8'OPEN END CAP FOUNDATION STONE AND CHAMBERS w ,'U PART#:SC1601EPP08 4'(1.2 m)MIN WIDE CONTINUOUS FABRIC WITHOUT SEAMS : Y� SC-16OLP ISOLATOR ROW PLUS DETAIL o CHAD ,a. *c w SCHRE,IR '=1 a 6233-_HE-v`;`� u IFu wG iss��y�s�w••��,�\\ O O U E m co fNci °$ r r Zz oe �� g �s c ui SHEET Z 9 OF 12 �I zz VQQI N b Lli SC-740 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION J O ¢�Q Q i a U d NTS < 0 U m z . Z j w 80.7"(2304 mm)ACTUAL LENGTH 85.4"(2168 mm)INSTALLED LENGTH Q w € F a BUILD ROW IN THIS DIRECTION Q UO o E F ° 4 J Q E c START END Q O d yz OlERI-APNEXTCHAMBERHERE y (OVER SMALL CORRUGATION) 5 DZ -L O 29.m" 30.m' rc w (]44 12 2" (310 mm) I" �^45.9"(1166 (129551.0"mm) NOMINAL CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONS O SIZE(WX H X INSTALLED LENGTH) 51.0"X 30.0'X 85.4" (1295 mm X]62 mm X 2169 CHAMBER STORAGE 45.9 CUBIC FEET (1.30 MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE' ]4.9 CUBIC FEET (2.12 WEIGHT ]5.0 Ibs. (33.6 kg) NOMINAL END CAP SPECIFICATIONS SIZE(W X H X INSTALLED LENGTH) 45.9'X 29.3"X9.6' (1166 mm X l44 mm X 244 END CAP STORAGE 2.6 CUBIC FEET (0.07 m') 3 V MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE" 13.5 CUBIC FEET (0.38m') A A N Is WEIGHT 11.7 lbs. (5.3 kg) i w� 'ASSUMES 6'(152 mm)STONE ABOVE,BELOW,AND BETWEEN CHAMBERS ¢ O U "ASSUMES 6"(152 mm)STONE ABOVE AND BELOW END CAPS.6"(152 mm) w BETWEEN ROWS,12"(305 mm)BEYOND END CAPS 1 = of �� ` QJ U E €� r B OPRE-FAB STUBS AT BOTTOM OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH.,. m _5, Q PRE-FAB STUBS AT TOP OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH T' C ,66 Q PRE-CORED END CAPS END WITH'PC' n rce PART# STUB A B C G E g` d li F SC740EPE06T/SC740EPE06TPC 6"(150 mm) 10.9'(2P mm) 18.5'(4]0 mm) SC740EPEMB I SC740EPE06BPC -- 0.5"(13mm) U o� SC740EPE08TISC740EPEOBTPC 16.5-(419 SC]40EPEp8BISC]40EPEO8BPC 8"(200 mm) 12.2'(310 mm) - 0.6"(15mm) O W Q W SC740EPE10T I SC740EPElOTPC 14.] 10' '(3l3 Q 14.5-(368 (250 mm) 13.4'(340 mm) o ry 2 L1J SC740EPEIOB I SC740EPE10BPC -- 0.7'(18mm) .e SC]40EPE12T/SC740EPE12TPC 12'(300 12.5-(318 mm) ._ me 8 N mm) mm) }p p SC740EPE1261 SC740EPE12BPC -- 1.2'(30 mm) ��i^y i W \` Q Z � m Q SC]40EP C4 mm) 8.0'22C4E1S4 C15(3]5 18.4(46] S0E1610E1 mm) ._ w rcrc ri z -- 1.3'(33 mm) r SC740EPE18T I SC]40EPE18TPC (500 5.0'(12]mm) ._ $_ 18"(45) 19.]' � mm) mm) SC]40EPE186ISC]40EPE18BPC SC]40ECEZ' 24'(6W mm) 18.5'(4]0 ALL STUBS,EXCEPT FOR THE SC740ECEZARE PLACED AT BOTTOM OF END CAP SUCH THAT THE OUTSIDE DIAMETER OF THE C5.9 STUB IS FLUSH WITH THE BOTTOM OF THE END CAP.FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT STORMTECH AT r 1-UM92-2694. _ -FOR THE SC740ECEZ THE 24"(600 mm)STUB LIES BELOW THE BOTTOM OF THE END CAP APPROXIMATELY 1.75"(44 mm). BACKFILL MATERIAL SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM BELOW THE N-12 STUB SO THATTHE FITTING SITS LEVEL. NOTE:ALL DIMENSIONS ARE NOMINAL SHEET 10 OF 12 NYLOPLAST DRAIN BASIN F g NTS 0 y z c U Z a E INTEGRATED DUCTILE IRON O w �+ o FRAMEBGRATEISOLID TO 0) O I o U o MATCH BASIN O.D. _ -Wo a � � 1 a MI WIN WIDTHTH 0 O C � AASHTO H-20 CONCRETE SLAB Q W 8"(203 mm)MIN THICKNESS 12 m)MIN o m TRAFFIC LOADS:CONCRETE DIMENSIONS (FORR AASHTO AASHTO H-20) ARE FOR GUIDELINE S ONLY. ACTUAL CONCRETE SLABLAB MUST BE INVERT ACCORDING TO DESIGNED GIVING O w c PLANSITAKE OFF LOCAL SOIL CONDITIONS,TRAFFIC LOADING 80THER APPLICABLE DESIGN FACTORS O o cn ADAPTER ANGLES VARIABLE 0'-360' rc w ACCORDING TO PLANS VARIABLE SUMP DEPTH ACCORDING TO PLANS IV(152 mm)MIN ON 8-24'(200-600 mm), 10.(254 mm)MIN ON 30-(]5)mm)I =6= VARIOUS TYPES OF INLET AND 4'(102 mm)MIN ON 8-24-(200.600 mm) O S OUTLETT R]50VmmLAFOR 6"(152mm)MINONW"(750mm) a30' I.p oIN�7 CORRUGATED HOPE w b o gFl 4F= CHAD ,a. *c WATERTIGHT JOINT BACKFILL MATERIAL BELOW AND TO SIDES w (CORRUGATED HOPE SHOWN) A OF STRUCTURE SHALL BE ASTM D2321 JCHi2EI�`IER =1 CLASSIORIICRUSHEDSTONEORGRAVEL o 3 ^6Z.i3%-� ✓lV� AND BE PLACED UNIFORMLY IN 12'(305 LIFTS AND COMPACTED TO MIN OF 90% d NOTES 1. 8-30-(200-]50 mm)GRATES/SOLID COVERS SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON PER ASTM A536 GRADE 7050-05 a $ p W 2. 12-30-(300-]50 mm)FRAMES SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON PER ASTM A536 GRADE 70-5M5 Q 3. DRAIN BASIN TO BE CUSTOM MANUFACTURED ACCORDING TO PLAN DETAILS 4. DRAINAGE CONNECTION STUB JOINT TIGHTNESS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM D3212 �I °1 $' O FOR CORRUGATED HOPE(ADS 8 HANCOR DUAL WALL)&SDR 35 PVC Z 28 k k 5. FOR COMPLETE DE SIGN AND PRODUCT INFORMATION:WWW.NYLOPLAST4S.COM w^ r d £ £ 6. TOORDERCALL:8004214710 b� m K A PART# GRATE/SOLID COVER OPTIONS o w 8' 2808AG PEDESTRIAN LIGHT STANDARD LIGHT SOLID LIGHT DUTY me g_Q o N DUTY DUTY(200 mm) 10" PEDESTRIAN LIGHT STANDARD LIGHT W R v 2810AG SOLID LIGHT DUTY ^' (250 mm) DUTY DUTY $ o 12" PEDESTRIAN STANDARD AASHTO SOLID S Q (30 2812AG 0 mm) AASHTO H-10 H-20 AASHTO H-20 IF PEDESTRIAN STANDARD AASHTO SOLID I" (3]5 mm) 2815AG AASHTO H-10 H-20 AASHTO H-n 18" 2818AG PEDESTRIAN STANDAROAASHTO SOLID (450 mm) AASHTO H-10 H-20 AASHTO H-20 24" 2824AG PEDESTRIAN STANDARDAASRTO SOLID o 0 (600 mm) AASHTO H-10 H-20 AASHTO H-20 Zz 30' PEDESTRIAN STANDARD AASHTO SOLID nD O (]50 mm) 2830AG AASHTO H-20 H-20 AASHTO H-20 a W SHEET �I Z 11 OF 12 �I O z VQQI N b SC-160LP TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION i a U a NTS n U m z . O W E 90.]'(2306 mm)ACTUAL LENGTH� = I o U a � � o 0 o a o a o o t;w rc o 85.4'(2169 mm)INSTALLED LENGTH OVERLAP NEXT CHAMBER HERE(OVER SMALL CORRUGATION) O rcSg Q w5 N a BUILD ROW IN THIS DIRECTION START END p gD Q�Q C oQ Z (29]mm) u (305 mm) w co o 4.4" J L � 18.6' «J � 25.0' V � asDO (112 mm) ff (4]2 mm) f�(635 mm) 0 yQ O NOMINAL CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONS d W SIZE(W X H X INSTALLED LENGTH) 25.0-X 12.0"X 85.4" (635 mm X 305 mm X 2169 mm) m CHAMBER STORAGE 6.85 CUBIC FEET (0.19 m') og //� a W MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE' 16.0 CUBIC FEET (0.45 WEIGHT 24.0lb.. (10.9kg) m b� O` z z 'ASSUMES 6"(152 mm)ABOVE,6"(152 mm)BELOW,AND STONE BETWEEN CHAMBERS WITH 40%STONE POROSITY. r = 2 Q 8 Z N In PART# STUB A �rc^ °p Q z rn m Q SC160EPP SC180EPP08 8'(200 mm) 0.96"(24 mm) E ■1 O A ALL STUBS ARE PLACED AT BOTTOM OF END CAP SUCH THAT THE OUTSIDE T DIAMETER OF THE STUB IS FLUSH WITH THE BOTTOM OF THE END CAP.FOR r ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT STORMTECH AT 1588-892-2694. _ NOTE:ALL DIMENSIONS ARE NOMINAL og nN SHEET 12 OF 12 ALTOS PHOTONICS Project # 24141.01 G) M O C Z v D D � m M � v o = z O M z G� Intelligent Infrastructure. sanbell Enduring Communities. MW-1 Date Monitored By(Initials) Ground Surface Elevation(ft) Top of Casing Elevation(ft) Casing Height(ft) TOC to GW Depth(ft) GW Depth Below Ground Surface(ft) GW Elevation(ft) 5/15/2024 RP 100.000 100.200 0.200 9.96 9.760 90.240 5/22/2024 RP 100.000 100.200 0.200 10.61 10.410 89.590 5/29/2024 RP 100.000 100.200 0.200 10.05 9.850 90.150 6/5/2024 AB 100.000 100.200 0.200 10.05 9.850 90.150 6/12/2024 RP 100.000 100.200 0.200 10.15 9.950 90.050 6/20/2024 RP 100.000 100.200 0.200 10.2 10.000 90.000 6/26/2024 EH 100.000 100.200 0.200 10.33 10.130 89.870 7/3/2024 EH 100.000 100.200 0.200 10.23 10.030 89.970 7/9/2024 EH 100.000 100.200 0.200 10.33 10.130 89.870 san..b, ell Intelligent Infrastructure. Enduring Communities. www.sanbell.com