The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About206-WastewaterDesignReportP:\10678-Laurel Parkway LLC\001 - Norton Ranch Lift Station\04 Design\Reports\Wastewater Report\10678-001_WastewaterDesignReport.docx Table of Contents 1 PROBLEM DEFINED (DEQ 11.11)......................................................................................................2 2 DESIGN CONDITIONS (DEQ 11.12) ...................................................................................................4 3 IMPACT ON EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES (DEQ 11.13)...................................................4 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION (DEQ 11.14)..............................................................................................5 5 DRAWINGS (DEQ 11.15).....................................................................................................................5 6 DESIGN CRITERIA (DEQ 11.16).........................................................................................................5 7 SITE INFORMATION (DEQ 11.17) ......................................................................................................5 8 ALTERNATIVE SELECTION/ANALYSIS (DEQ 11.18).......................................................................6 9 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (DEQ 11.19)........................................................................................6 10 DESIGN OF SEWERS (DEQ 30) .....................................................................................................6 10.1 SEPARATION OF CLEAR WATER (DEQ 31)........................................................................................6 10.2 DESIGN CAPACITY AND DESIGN FLOW (DEQ 32)..............................................................................6 10.3 DETAILS OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FOR SEWER MAINS (DEQ 33)............................................7 10.4 DETAILS OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FOR MANHOLES (DEQ 34).................................................7 10.5 INVERTED SIPHONS (DEQ 35).........................................................................................................7 10.6 SEWERS IN RELATION TO STREAMS (DEQ 36)..................................................................................8 10.7 AERIAL CROSSINGS (DEQ 37).........................................................................................................8 10.8 PROTECTION OF WATER SUPPLIES (DEQ 38)...................................................................................8 10.9 SEWER SERVICES AND PLUMBING (DEQ 39)....................................................................................8 11 WASTEWATER PUMPING STATIONS (DEQ 40)...........................................................................8 11.1 GENERAL (DEQ 41)........................................................................................................................8 11.2 DESIGN (DEQ 42)...........................................................................................................................9 11.2.1 Type (DEQ 42.1) ..................................................................................................................................9 11.2.2 Structures (DEQ 42.2)..........................................................................................................................9 11.2.3 Pumps and Pneumatic Ejectors (DEQ 42.3)........................................................................................9 11.2.4 Controls (DEQ 42.4)..........................................................................................................................10 11.2.5 Valves (DEQ 42.5)..............................................................................................................................10 11.2.6 Wet Wells (DEQ 42.6)........................................................................................................................11 11.2.7 Safety Ventilation (DEQ 42.7)............................................................................................................11 11.2.8 Flow Measurement and Instrumentation (DEQ 42.8)........................................................................11 11.2.9 Flow Measurement and Instrumentation (DEQ 42.9)........................................................................11 11.3 SUCTION LIFT PUMP STATIONS (DEQ 43) ......................................................................................12 P:\10678-Laurel Parkway LLC\001 - Norton Ranch Lift Station\04 Design\Reports\Wastewater Report\10678-001_WastewaterDesignReport.docx 11.4 SUBMERSIBLE PUMP STATIONS – SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS (DEQ 44) ..........................................12 11.4.1 Construction (DEQ 44.1) ...................................................................................................................12 11.4.2 Pump Removal (DEQ 44.2)................................................................................................................12 11.4.3 Electrical Equipment (DEQ 44.3)......................................................................................................12 11.4.4 Valves (DEQ 44.4)..............................................................................................................................12 11.5 SCREW PUMP STATIONS – SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS (DEQ 45)....................................................12 11.6 ALARM SYSTEMS (DEQ 46)...........................................................................................................12 11.7 EMERGENCY OPERATION (DEQ 47)...............................................................................................13 11.8 INSTRUCTIONS AND EQUIPMENT (DEQ 48).....................................................................................13 12 FORCE MAINS (DEQ 49)...............................................................................................................13 12.1 VELOCITY AND DIAMETER (DEQ 49.1) ...........................................................................................13 12.2 AIR AND VACUUM RELIEF VALVE (DEQ 49.2) .................................................................................14 12.3 TERMINATION (DEQ 49.3).............................................................................................................14 12.4 PIPE AND DESIGN PRESSURE (DEQ 49.4)......................................................................................14 12.5 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION (DEQ 49.5)............................................................................................14 12.6 FREEZE PREVENTION (DEQ 49.6) .................................................................................................14 12.7 FRICTION COEFFICIENT (DEQ 49.7)...............................................................................................14 12.8 IDENTIFICATION (DEQ 49.8)..........................................................................................................15 12.9 LEAKAGE TESTING (DEQ 49.9)......................................................................................................15 12.10 MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS (DEQ 49.10) ..............................................................................15 APPENDICES Appendix A Vicinity Map Appendix B HDR Report - Norton Ranch Lift Station Evaluation Appendix C Distribution System Map (City of Bozeman GIS Infrastructure Viewer) Appendix D City of Bozeman Downstream Capacity Email Appendix E NRCS Soils Report Appendix F FEMA Firmette Map Appendix G Geotechnical Report Appendix H Groundwater Memo Appendix I Design Calculations – Wet Well & Force Main Appendix J Wetland Delineation for Norton East (Laurel Meadows) Appendix K Wetland Delineation for Force Main Alignment Appendix L Technical Specifications Appendix M Pump Data Sheets Appendix N Wetland Covenant of Dedication Appendix O Operations and Maintenance Manual P:\10678-Laurel Parkway LLC\001 - Norton Ranch Lift Station\04 Design\Reports\Wastewater Report\10678-001_WastewaterDesignReport.docx DESIGN DRAWINGS Attached Separately Written By: LRH Checked By: BJH Approved By: MEE Project No.: 10678.001 1 Norton Ranch Lift Station Design Report for Improvements and New Force Main EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The existing Norton Ranch Lift Station is owned and operated by the City of Bozeman. The lift station receives flow from multiple existing developments and was designed to accommodate additional planned developments in the service area. The lift station was originally designed and installed in 2010, with modifications made in 2022 to increase the size of the pumps and provide additional connectivity for the service area. The projected flows for lift station service area were further updated for the lift station per the report completed by HDR (Appendix B). Additional historical background information on the sizing of the lift station can be found in this report. Due to increased sewer flows, the installation of larger force main, wet well, pumps, electrical controls, and upgrades to the existing building are required to adequately serve the service area to ultimate buildout. The lift station property has been used by the City of Bozeman for the operation of the current facility. The following is the legal description for the property (refer to Appendix A for the project location): Lot 1 of the Norton East Ranch Phase 6 Subdivision Phase (Plat J-694); situated in Section 9, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, Principal Meridian, Gallatin County, Montana. This design report provides a basis of design for proposed improvements to the lift station site, including: •Expansion of the existing building to accommodate revised internal manifolding. •Relocating the existing generator to a new generator room. •Replacement of the existing wet well to increase working volume and response time. •Re-routing the existing gravity sewer to the new wet well. •Installation of new submersible wastewater pumps. •Installation of new electrical components. •Installation of a new 8-inch force main. •Abandonment of the existing 4” force main. The proposed sanitary sewer facilities will be designed and installed in accordance with the Project Specifications, which is inclusive of the following documents in order of precedence: 1. Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Circular No. 2 2. Project Technical Specifications and Special Provisions 3. City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy (October 2024 edition) 4. City of Bozeman Modifications to MPWSS (October 2024 edition) 5. Montana Public Works Standard Specifications (MPWSS) 6. City of Bozeman Wastewater Facility Plan. The following design report generally follows the section numbering of the Circular DEQ-2 Standards for Public Sewage Systems, 2018. 2 1 PROBLEM DEFINED (DEQ 11.11) The purpose of this design report is to describe the proposed improvements planned for the project in accordance with Circular DEQ-2. Gravity sewer collection mains for the project will consist of sewer mains located in the rights-of-way or easements. The proposed force main shall be located in existing easements and/or public rights-of-way, and within new easements as required. The purpose of the project is to increase lift station capacity and provide increased redundancy and response time. Wet Well Existing Wet Well The working volume of the existing wet well was evaluated by HDR to determine if the future flows could be accommodated. Based on this evaluation, the working volume of the existing wet well was determined to be inadequate based on the long-term projected average and peak flows of 280 gpm and 905 gpm respectively (Appendix B). It was recommended that the existing wet well be replaced with a larger structure. This replacement will provide additional response time for City of Bozeman staff during emergencies. Wet Well Replacement In the HDR report, the recommended working volume for the replacement wet well was proposed to be 2,350 gallons based on a 10-ft diameter structure and four (4) feet of operating level between pump on and off setpoints. During further design development, a rectangular wet well structure was selected to accommodate installation of pumps and to provide additional volume compared with a circular structure. It was also determined that installing the replacement wet well in a new location would be more constructible and minimize the downtime experienced by the lift station by keeping the existing wet well in operation. As a result, the existing gravity mains are proposed to be reconfigured to convey flow to the new location as described in following sections. As a result of the larger wet well footprint, the working depth required was reduced to 3 feet. To address the City’s concerns regarding response time, a 4-foot emergency buffer depth was provided between the high-high alarm float and the invert depth of the incoming sewer. This will provide an additional 12 minutes of storage above the emergency float elevation at average day flows. Force Mains Existing Force Mains Pumps within the existing wet well discharge through a common manifold in the existing building and ultimately into parallel force mains (4-inch and 6-inch diameter). The flow in the manifold is passively split between the two force mains which convey wastewater beneath Laurel Parkway and Durston Road. Wastewater is discharged into a manhole located at the intersection of North Cottonwood Road and Durston Road. Proposed Force Main Configuration The expected peak flows from the lift station would create high flow velocities (exceeding 7 ft/s) within the existing 4-inch and 6-inch mains (Appendix B). Therefore, the proposed design includes installation of an 8-inch diameter force main to accommodate peak flow rates. 3 The proposed design includes abandoning the existing 4” force main in place. The existing 6” force main will be preserved and will be used for conveying typical average day flow from the lift station. A new 8-inch force main will be installed to provide conveyance of peak flow discharges using the lag pumps. The new 8-inch force main is proposed to be isolated from the 6-inch force main using a normally closed valve within the revised discharge manifold. An 8-inch force main will keep the expected velocities within acceptable ranges. The 8-inch force main is proposed to be installed generally east across the Laurel Meadows subdivision property within easements and within future City of Bozeman rights-of-way for Vaughn Drive. The force main will be installed via directional drilling across the existing deed restricted wetlands area and into the existing 60 foot right of way for Cascade Street. The proposed force main length is approximately 2,735 feet long as shown on the attached design plan sheets. Submersible Pumps Existing Pumps The existing lift station is designed with 3-pump configuration. There are currently three (3) Flygt NP 3102 SH 3 Adaptive 256 pumps installed, with two pumps operating in lead/lag mode and a third pump provided for redundancy. When operated in parallel the existing pumps are capable of conveying approximately 473 gpm through the existing parallel force mains (Appendix B). Therefore, the existing pumps and force mains incapable of conveying the proposed future design flow of 905 gpm and it will be necessary to replace the existing pumps with larger pumps. Proposed Pumps The existing Flygt NP 3102 SH 3 Adaptive 256 pumps are planned to be salvaged. One pump will be installed in the new wet well to serve as a duty pump to smaller flows. The other two existing pumps will be cleaned kept in storage by the City of Bozeman to serve as replacements in the event of duty pump failure. Two new pumps will be installed in the new wet well and shall operate in a lead-lag configuration to convey peak flows. These new pumps are each capable of conveying the future peak flow, and they will be configured to automatically alternate operation. Information on the pumps specified can be found in Appendix M. Gravity Sewer Mains Existing Configuration The existing gravity sewer mains within Laurel Parkway currently convey wastewater to City of Bozeman Manhole ID #0530, where it then directed east into the existing wet well. The gravity sewer system was modified as part of the 2022 improvements as shown on HDR’s 2022 Record Drawings (dated November 2022). Currently, wastewater flows from MH #0439 to MH #0530 via 15” sewer main prior to discharging into the existing wet well. 4 Proposed Configuration As part of the new wet well location, the existing gravity sewer mains will be reconfigured within Laurel Parkway and to the new wet well. This includes reversing the flow direction between City of Bozeman MH #0439 and MH #0530 and replacing MH #0439 with new manhole SSMH-01. The configuration will then direct flow east to SSMH-02 prior to discharging in the new wet well. Further detail is provided in the attached design drawings. 2 DESIGN CONDITIONS (DEQ 11.12) Existing Conditions The current average flow for the existing system is 108 gpm, with a peak hour flow value of 439 gpm as determined by HDR (Appendix B). The peaking factor was calculated using Equation 10-1 in DEQ-2 using expected population using the current census data of 2.24 persons per household. Please note that these values include additional flows as required by the City’s Design Standards and Specifications Policy for inflow and infiltration (I&I) of 150 gallons per acre per day (gpad). I&I flows were excluded from peaking. Proposed Conditions Based on the expected service area, the ultimate average flow for service area was estimated to be 280 gpm, with a peak flow value of 905 gpm as determined by HDR (Appendix B). 3 IMPACT ON EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES (DEQ 11.13) Existing System Effluent from the existing lift station is currently discharged into City of Bozeman MH #L0352, located in at the intersection of Cottonwood Road and Durston Road. The gravity main downstream of this manhole is 21-inch diameter PVC and conveys wastewater north to the City of Bozeman’s Davis-Fowler Interceptor, ultimately discharging to the City of Bozeman Wastewater Treatment Plant. Proposed Discharge Conditions The existing 4-inch force main will be abandoned; therefore, only the existing 6-inch force main will discharge into MH #L0352. The proposed design considers discharging only smaller flows from the Norton Ranch Lift Station into this manhole. Therefore, the expected maximum flow rate discharged expected at MH #L0352 is 280 gallons per minute. This is less than the existing peak rate of 439 gpm for the lift station in its current configuration. The new 8” force main is proposed to be discharged into City of Bozeman MH #L04133, located in Cottonwood Road just north of Cascade Street. This manhole is a 60-inch diameter manhole and includes 18” PVC mains. Downstream, wastewater is conveyed north to MH #L04139 where it is combined with flows from MH #L0352 (the existing force main discharge point). As indicated above, the gravity main downstream of this manhole is 21-inch diameter PVC, and conveys wastewater to the Davis-Fowler Interceptor. 5 The City of Bozeman staff has evaluated the capacity of the existing 18-inch PVC mains within Cottonwood downstream of the new discharge point using their calibrated wastewater model. The City has approved the discharge point, indicating that the existing mains and downstream facilities are capable of treating the expected wastewater from the lift station (Appendix D). 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION (DEQ 11.14) The purpose of this project is to increase the capacity of the lift station by installing a new wet well, pumps, electrical controls and a new 8-inch force main. The improvements will provide additional working volume in the wet well to meet Circular DEQ-2 requirements, plus provide City of Bozeman staff additional response time in the event of lift station failure. These upgrades are anticipated to capture the full buildout of the service area for the Norton Lift Station. Modification of some existing gravity sewer facilities will be required to accommodate the proposed location of the wet well and downstream discharge piping. 5 DRAWINGS (DEQ 11.15) Drawing for the project are attached and include the location and alignment of proposed facilities (attached separately). 6 DESIGN CRITERIA (DEQ 11.16) Design criteria including average and peak flows were provided in previous sections. The proposed facilities were designed in conformance with the project specifications as listed in the executive summary of this report. 7 SITE INFORMATION (DEQ 11.17) The lift station site is located on Lot 1 of the Norton East Ranch Phase 6 Subdivision Phase (Plat J-694) and is generally located east of Laurel Parkway and south of Vaughn Drive. The site currently includes an existing 8-foot by 8-foot wet well, 20.5-foot by 16-foot building, and concrete access drive. The existing lift station site has slopes between 0% and 13%, with an average slope of 3.6%. The soils in the lift station site are Hyalite-Beaverton complex (USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey). The soils within the proposed force main alignment consist of Lamoose silt loam, Hyalite-Beaverton complex, and Enbar loam. Generally, the slopes within the force main alignment are 0-4 percent based on the Web Soil Survey (Appendix E). Based on the geotechnical report for the neighboring subdivision, the soils in the lift station and force main alignment generally include a topsoil layer of 1.5 to 2 feet, a clay loam layer approximately 2 to 3 feet deep, and gravels (GP and GW) to an unknown depth (Appendix G). Groundwater levels for the project are generally high. Based on groundwater monitoring for the planned subdivision adjacent to the lift station, the closest wells indicate that groundwater depth near the lift station site fluctuates between 2.4 feet and 3.5 feet below ground surface throughout the season. Groundwater along the proposed force main alignment varies based on location, but generally fluctuates between 0.4 feet and 3.9 feet below ground surface. This information has been attached as Appendix H. 6 8 ALTERNATIVE SELECTION/ANALYSIS (DEQ 11.18) Several alternatives were considered for the project, including the location of the new wet well, pump configurations, and force main alignments. These alternatives were discussed with City of Bozeman Engineering, adjacent landowners, and contractors to find the most feasible solution. Force main alignment and installation alternatives were the main challenge to overcome as part of this design. Pipe-bursting the existing force main was determined to be impractical as these lines did not have sufficient separation to ensure that damage to the 6” force main would not be sustained. Trenching along the existing force main alignment was also considered but was abandoned due to high cost and extended impact to the residents. The City of Bozeman staff preferred that the force main be installed across the proposed subdivision within future rights-of- ways to minimize disturbance. 9 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (DEQ 11.19) The alignment for the force main is proposed to cross existing wetlands and waterways. Based on the attached wetland delineation reports (Appendix J and K), the force main will cross both non-jurisdictional and jurisdictional wetlands. Additionally, the force main is proposed to cross Baxter Creek and an unnamed tributary to Baxter Creek. An existing deed-restricted wetland area will be crossed via directional drilling. This deed restriction is filed as Gallatin County Document #2299907 (Appendix N). Since the deed restriction does not permit disturbance of the existing ground surface, this area will be crossed using trenchless directional drilling methods. A 310 permit will be submitted to provide a frac- out plan for drilling materials. Since trenchless installation methods are proposed, a 404 permit will not be required for crossing this area. Crossing of the unnamed tributary to Baxter Creek is planned to be performed using directional drilling. Similarly to crossing of Baxter Creek, a 310 permit will be submitted to provide a frac- out plan for drilling materials, but a 404 permit will not be required. 10 DESIGN OF SEWERS (DEQ 30) Alterations to the existing gravity sewer main are shown on the attached design plans. 10.1 SEPARATION OF CLEAR WATER (DEQ 31) Sewers are designed for municipal wastewater only. 10.2 DESIGN CAPACITY AND DESIGN FLOW (DEQ 32) Design capacity and flow of existing gravity sewer networks upstream of the project were not comprehensively evaluated as part of this project. However, based on the slopes shown in record drawings for the 15” gravity main within Laurel Parkway, the minimum slope listed is 0.48%. Using a Mannings coefficient of 0.013, the 15” main is capable of conveying 1,831 gpm at a 75% full flow condition (d/D). For the reconfiguration of existing mains within Laurel Parkway, flow capacities were maintained using pipe sizes and slopes that are equal to or above the existing slopes for influent pipes to maintain existing capacities within the upstream networks. 7 10.3 DETAILS OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FOR SEWER MAINS (DEQ 33) All gravity sewer mains are designed with diameters larger than 8 inches and are installed with a minimum depth of 5 feet. All gravity sewer pipes are planned to be constructed with SDR-35 PVC with integral bell and spigot connections and gaskets. Leakage tests will be performed in accordance with applicable standards at the time of construction. Buoyancy calculations have been provided for manholes, sewer mains, and the proposed wet well structure (Appendix I). The project includes installation of 8-inch and 15-inch gravity sewer pipe. Proposed 8-inch mains are designed with a slope of 0.45%. Proposed 15-inch mains are designed with a slope of 0.65%. These exceed the minimum slopes required and are steeper than the existing mains that are being replaced. The mains are designed with uniform slopes between manholes. High velocities are not expected in the sewer mains, and all sewers are proposed on slopes less than 20 percent. All pipes are proposed to be installed in straight alignments between manholes. A proposed change in pipe size is planned at SSMH-01. The incoming drop inlet size for the 15-inch main and the 8-inch main were designed to match the 0.8 depth point of both pipes. Installation shall be performed in accordance with the Project Specifications as defined previously in this report. This applies to the following items: •Trenching •Pipe Bedding Materials and Placement •Trench Backfill •Deflection Testing •Pipe Joint Installation and Testing •Sewer Service Connections Casing pipe for gravity sewer is not planned. 10.4 DETAILS OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FOR MANHOLES (DEQ 34) Manholes have been designed in accordance with the Project Specifications. They have been placed at all changes in directions and at distances less than 400 feet. The City of Bozeman requires that manholes must be 60-inch diameter for pipe sizes 15 inches and larger. An inside drop manhole currently exists at City of Bozeman MH #M0439. As part of the rerouting of gravity sewer, this manhole will be replaced with SSMH-01. The City of Bozeman requires that drop manholes shall be “inside drop” manholes with a minimum diameter of 60 inches. SSMH-01 meets these requirements as shown in the design plans. Manhole channels shall be full depth as required by the Project Specifications. Benches shall be installed on each side of the manhole channel. Manholes shall be pre-cast concrete and include gasketed flexible pipe connections. Manholes shall be tested for water tightness using approved methods within the Project Specifications. Corrosive environments are not expected; therefore, no corrosion protection is planned for manholes. 10.5 INVERTED SIPHONS (DEQ 35) No inverted siphons are planned for this project. 8 10.6 SEWERS IN RELATION TO STREAMS (DEQ 36) Two stream crossings are proposed as part of this project with the new 8-inch force main. This includes crossing of Baxter Creek and an Unnamed Tributary to Baxter Creek. In both cases, the minimum cover at the crossing is 6 feet below the bottom of the channel. 10.7 AERIAL CROSSINGS (DEQ 37) No aerial crossings are proposed with this project. 10.8 PROTECTION OF WATER SUPPLIES (DEQ 38) Per the well map provided by the Montana Ground Water Information Center (GWIC), the closest existing water supply facilities are irrigation wells (GWIC ID#s 262696 and 305365). These facilities are located at least 300 feet away from the proposed force main alignment; therefore, isolation distances are met. A deviation for section 38.2 of DEQ-2 has been provided self-certifying the location of water supply facilities. No cross-connections are proposed for the project. In all cases a minimum 10 feet of horizontal separation is provided for water and sewer mains. A minimum vertical separation distance of 1.5 feet is provided for all water main crossings. 10.9 SEWER SERVICES AND PLUMBING (DEQ 39) The existing floor drain is the only sewer service on the project. The service currently connects directly into the existing wet well. As part of the project, this floor drain will be extended to the proposed 15” main and installed using a service wye. These improvements will conform to relevant local and state plumbing codes. 11 WASTEWATER PUMPING STATIONS (DEQ 40) 11.1 GENERAL (DEQ 41) As shown in Appendix F, the pumping station is not within a FEMA flood plain. Additionally, the top of the structure is proposed to be installed 6” above surrounding grade, with positive drainage offsite. Therefore, the wet well and building are expected to be operational during the 25-year storm event. Electrical equipment for the pumping station is proposed within a building that is above surrounding grade and will be protected from physical damage during the 100-year flood. The pumping station includes a concrete access driveway that will permit access by maintenance vehicles during all weather conditions. Security locks are provided on the building entry doors and on the access hatches. The submersible pumps are designed to pass solids up to 3 inches in diameter, therefore grit is not expected to create operational problems. The proposed wet well will not be accessible. Submersible pumps include stainless steel guide rails and pitless adapters to allow maintenance without physical entry. The contractor shall observe all requirements for confined space entry of the structure during construction in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the State of Montana Department of Labor and Industry, and regulatory agency requirements. 9 11.2 DESIGN (DEQ 42) 11.2.1 Type (DEQ 42.1) The proposed lift station is designed as a submersible configuration. 11.2.2 Structures (DEQ 42.2) 11.2.2.1 Separation (DEQ 42.21) Dry wells are not proposed for the lift station. 11.2.2.2 Equipment Removal (DEQ 42.22) Submersible pumps include stainless steel guide rails and pitless adapters to allow maintenance without physical entry. 11.2.2.3 Access and Safety Landings (DEQ 42.23) A hatch with integrated safety grate will be provided as safety protections. No access steps or safety landings are proposed. 11.2.2.4 Buoyancy (DEQ 42.24) Wet well buoyancy calculations are provided for the wet well structure (Appendix I). An extended base will be provided as shown increase buoyancy protection. 11.2.2.5 Construction Materials (DEQ 42.25) A hydrogen sulfide protective coating is specified to be applied to the interior of the wet well structure. Specifications for the proposed coating have been included in the technical specifications (Appendix L). Other materials within the wet well have are made of non-corrosive materials and/or have anti-corrosive finishes applied. 11.2.3 Pumps and Pneumatic Ejectors (DEQ 42.3) 11.2.3.1 Multiple Units (DEQ 42.31) Three pumps are proposed within the wet well in a duty, lead/lag configuration. The duty pump will convey typical average day wastewater flow to the north through the existing 6-inch force main. The two larger “lag” pumps will be manifolded together in the lift station and convey peak wastewater flow to the east within the proposed 8-inch force main. The lag pumps are redundant and can each convey the expected peak hourly flow with one pump out of service. The duty pump is not proposed to operate in parallel with the other pumps or utilize the force mains passively. A normally-closed isolation valve between the two force main discharge points will provide separation between the two discharge mains while allowing City of Bozeman staff the operational flexibility to direct flows to each force main discharge as needed. Information on the pumps specified can be found in Appendix M, and the expected duty point is shown in Appendix I at its intersection with the system curve. 10 11.2.3.2 Protection Against Clogging (DEQ 42.32) Protection against clogging is not required as the facility is planned to handle separate sanitary wastewater from mains smaller than 30 inches. 11.2.3.3 Pump Openings (DEQ 42.33) The modern submersible pump design provides a 1.69” clearance. This is less than the 3” requirement specified in DEQ 42.33. The pumps include inlets and outlets of at least 4 inches in diameter. A deviation with justification is provided with the submittal. 11.2.3.4 Priming (DEQ 42.34) Submersible pumps are planned, therefore they do not require priming and have positive suction head under all normal operating conditions. 11.2.3.5 Electrical Equipment (DEQ 42.35) Electrical systems are designed to be located in a separate building from the wet well. An air gap has been provided using a buried electrical handhole that includes reversible splices and seal-offs between electrical and control conduiting and the building to prevent the buildup of hazardous and/or flammable buildup of gases and vapors. Flexible cables have been designed with watertight seals and strain relief, and an above-ground fused disconnect switch is provided for the main power feed. All exterior electrical equipment will have enclosures with NEMA 3R or NEMA 4 rating. 11.2.3.6 Intake (DEQ 42.36) Pumps have individual intakes cast integral to the pump body. The locations of the pumps have been spaced appropriately for maintenance and avoidance of turbulence and vortex creation. 11.2.3.7 Dry Well Dewatering (DEQ 42.37) Dry wells are not proposed. 11.2.3.8 Pumping Rates (DEQ 42.38) Pumps will be provided with variable frequency drives to allow them to vary discharge rates and provide ramping at startup to minimize hydraulic surges. The peak hourly flow was designed in accordance with Section 11.24 of Circular DEQ-2. The set point for pumps shall be set to maintain velocities between 2 and 8 feet per second. 11.2.4 Controls (DEQ 42.4) Primary level control within the wet well is provided via pressure transducer. These sensors will be installed within perforated tubes (stilling wells) to minimize turbulence. The lag pumps are designed to alternate each cycle. 11.2.5 Valves (DEQ 42.5) The existing piping manifold includes check valves between the pump and shut off valves. This equipment will be preserved as shown on the design drawings. New valves provided as part of the manifold modifications are accessible and may be operated by personnel at floor level. All valves are capable of withstanding normal pressure and water hammer. 11 11.2.6 Wet Wells (DEQ 42.6) 11.2.6.1 Divided Wells (DEQ 42.61) Divided wells are not proposed for this project. 11.2.6.2 Size (DEQ 42.62) A single 9-foot by 12-foot rectangular wet well is proposed for the project. The size of the wet well was designed considering the full buildout of the service area for the lift station. The fill time for the wet well was designed to be less than 30 minutes at the projected future average flow rate of 280 gpm. Considering a 3-foot working depth between pump on/off setpoints, the expected fill time is 8.7 minutes. Based on 2024 data provided by the City of Bozeman, the pumps cycle approximately every 33 minutes (1.8 cycles per hour). The pumps run between 2 and 3 minutes, with an average pumping rate of approximately 360 gallons per minute. Additionally, the existing wastewater inflow rate was estimated to be 50 gpm or less (depending on the time of day) using this data. City of Bozeman operation will need to adjust the level setpoints within the new wet well when it is commissioned to ensure that the pumps are activated at least every 30 minutes on average at existing flow rates. This may require an on/off setpoint of 1 foot or less initially until additional flow is received from the service area. The proposed duty pump is expected to convey approximately 285 gallons per minute through the single 6” force main. At this rate, the duty pump will need to operate for approximately 4.3 minutes for every foot of effective depth (ignoring inflow). At full buildout, lag pumps will be activated when inflow exceeds the pumping capacity of the duty pump. 11.2.6.3 Floor Slope (DEQ 42.63) The wet well floor includes fillets in the corners with a slope of 1-to-1. The flat bottom of the wet well is large enough to accommodate the proposed pumps. 11.2.6.4 Air Displacement (DEQ 42.64) Two 6” vents with rain caps have been included for passive air displacement. 11.2.7 Safety Ventilation (DEQ 42.7) The wet well does not require any additional safety ventilation, as it is not designed to be entered. The wet will shall have passive ventilation as indicated above. Additionally, the City of Bozeman has portable ventilation equipment that will be used if wet well entry is required. 11.2.8 Flow Measurement and Instrumentation (DEQ 42.8) Flow meters are planned for each discharge line of the force main including indicating, totalizing, and recording. Elapsed time meters will be provided for all pumps. A pressure gauge is provided at each pump inlet and each force main outlet on the existing manifold within the lift station building. 11.2.9 Flow Measurement and Instrumentation (DEQ 42.9) No water supply is provided to the lift station building. 12 11.3 SUCTION LIFT PUMP STATIONS (DEQ 43) Suction lift pump stations are not proposed. 11.4 SUBMERSIBLE PUMP STATIONS – SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS (DEQ 44) 11.4.1 Construction (DEQ 44.1) Submersible pumps and motors are specifically designed for raw wastewater and meet National Electrical Code. The pumps include sensors to detect temperature and seal failures. 11.4.2 Pump Removal (DEQ 44.2) Submersible pumps include stainless steel guide rails and pitless adapters to allow removal without physical entry. 11.4.3 Electrical Equipment (DEQ 44.3) 11.4.3.1 Power Supply and Control Circuitry (DEQ 44.31) Electrical cables for supply, control, and alarm circuits include strain relief and a means of disconnection outside of the wet well. All terminals and connectors are located within a protected enclosure or use watertight seals. 11.4.3.2 Controls (DEQ 44.32) A motor control center is proposed to be installed in the proposed building expansion. A buried electrical handhole that includes a reversible splices and seal-offs between electrical and control conduiting is proposed to prevent wet well gases and vapors from entering the building. The handhole is designed to meet weatherproof requirements of NEMA 4 and provide a junction point for pump removal without effecting permanent wiring. 11.4.3.3 Power Cord (DEQ 44.33) Pump power cords meet National Electrical Code standards for flexible cords in wastewater pump stations. Ground fault interruption protection is incorporated to de-energize the circuit in the event of cable failure. Power cord terminal fittings are designed to be corrosion resistant, prevent moisture entry, facilitate field connections, and include strain relief appurtenances. 11.4.4 Valves (DEQ 44.4) No valves are proposed within the wet well. All valving shall be located in the lift station building. 11.5 SCREW PUMP STATIONS – SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS (DEQ 45) Screw pumps are not proposed. 11.6 ALARM SYSTEMS (DEQ 46) The existing lift station includes a SCADA system that transmits alarm conditions via telemetry to City of Bozeman operation staff. City of Bozeman staff have means of being alerted 24 hours per day. The alarm conditions that will be monitored and transmitted include: power failure, high and low wet well levels, and pump failure. Pump failure will be monitored via integral sensors and report alarms for shaft seal failure, moisture, and thermal overload. The lift station has a generator to provide backup power to pumps, controls, and standard building loads. 13 11.7 EMERGENCY OPERATION (DEQ 47) Emergency operation during events of primary grid outages is provided via a 125 kVA diesel- powered generator that is capable of powering building loads, controls, and a pump sized to convey the peak wastewater flow quantity at full buildout. The existing generator is proposed to be relocated to a separate generator and controls room as part of the building expansion Additionally, an exterior connection is provided from the discharge manifold to facilitate rapid connection of a portable suction pump. This existing connection will be preserved on the west side of the existing building. An emergency high level overflow is not proposed. Alternatively, the alarm and control system has been designed to provide a second set of emergency floats that will activate in the event of a total loss of the primary level control and alarm system. Upon activation of the emergency floats, the pump will operate independently of the PLC in a fill-draw condition between the emergency pump on and emergency pump off levels. Additionally, the lift station is proposed to include an automatic transfer switch (ATS) with bypass capabilities. This component will allow maintenance of the ATS without having to endure downtime of the backup generator system. The existing generator is designed to shut down during low oil pressure and overheating, as well as provide a generator failure alarm. The generator is capable of running building loads and an emergency pump. Since the generator is diesel-powered and located in an interior building, cold weather conditions should not be encountered, increasing reliability and ease of starting. The existing generator is currently automatically scheduled to exercise regularly and run at full loads. City of Bozeman staff will continue to follow a routine startup schedule after final improvements are completed. As previously mentioned, the controls system includes an ATS to protect the generator at the restoration of regular grid power. The backup system will be capable of providing sufficient power to run the primary duty pump for average day flow conditions, plus one of the lag pumps that can convey the ultimate peak hourly flows. The backup generator will not permit the system to run both lag pumps in parallel, as this condition is not required. 11.8 INSTRUCTIONS AND EQUIPMENT (DEQ 48) An Operations and Maintenance Manual shall be provided to the City as part of handover once construction is complete. A copy of the draft manual is provided as Appendix O. 12 FORCE MAINS (DEQ 49) The pumping station is designed to operate with two force mains that are isolated from each other via a normally closed valve. The duty pump shall discharge using the existing 6” force mains for average flows, and the lag pumps shall use the 8-inch force main. 12.1 VELOCITY AND DIAMETER (DEQ 49.1) Duty Pump and 6” Force Main The duty pump shall pump average day flows via the existing 6” PVC main, and shall be operated with a minimum pumping rate of 185 gpm to achieve the minimum pumping velocity of 2 ft/s. Pumping rates in the 6” force main shall be limited to 700 gpm to prevent velocities above 8 ft/s. At full buildout, the duty pump is capable of pumping the total average flow of 280 14 gpm at a rate of 3 ft/s. Hydraulic calculations are provided in Appendix I. To overcome initial startup head, the pumps are expected to require flow rates above approximately 225 gallons per minute. Lag Pumps and 8” Force Main Lag pumps were selected to be capable of pumping the ultimate peak flow rate of 905 gpm. These pumps are designed to discharge to the new 8-inch force main, and shall be operated between 340 gpm and 1,300 gpm to provide pipe velocities between 2 and 8 ft/s. To overcome initial startup head, the pumps are expected to require flow rates above approximately 350 gallons per minute. 12.2 AIR AND VACUUM RELIEF VALVE (DEQ 49.2) Combination air and vacuum relief valves are proposed on each force main discharge line at the proposed high point of the manifold with the lift station building to prevent excessive positive and negative pressures. 12.3 TERMINATION (DEQ 49.3) At the termination point for the new 8” force main, the existing discharge will be located approximately 0.5 feet above the flow line of the receiving manhole. A spray-applied liner will be applied to the inside of the receiving manhole per the project specifications of the same kind as the coating applied to the interior of the wet well. 12.4 PIPE AND DESIGN PRESSURE (DEQ 49.4) The proposed pipe materials for the force main include DR-25 C900 PVC and DR-11 HDPE. At proposed bends, the contractor shall install joint restraints and/or concrete thrust blocking. The maximum expected operating pressure is approximately 52 psi. C900 PVC (DR-25) has an operating pressure class of 165 psi. DR-11 HDPE has a standard pressure rating of 200 psi. Therefore, pipe materials are designed to withstand expected pressures in the force main. 12.5 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION (DEQ 49.5) As discussed previously in this document, the force mains have been designed to meet the requirements of Sections 36, 37, and 38 of Circular DEQ-2. Crossings have been designed with a minimum of 6 feet of cover below the existing flow line of the stream. Both stream crossings are proposed to be installed using directional drilling. Additionally, the crossing of Baxter Creek is proposed to include a casing pipe to allow future maintenance and replacement of the force main across the existing wetlands and deed-restricted area without surface disturbance. The crossing of the unnamed tributary to Baxter Creek will not include a casing pipe. The force main is designed with adequate horizontal and vertical separation from water mains and is located outside of isolation zones of known wells. 12.6 FREEZE PREVENTION (DEQ 49.6) The force main is designed with a minimum of 6 feet of cover to prevent freezing. 12.7 FRICTION COEFFICIENT (DEQ 49.7) For hydraulic calculations, a Hazen-Williams C factor of 120 used, as the design includes lined ductile iron, PVC, and HDPE materials. Calculations of friction losses have been overlaid with the pump curves at different operating frequencies to estimate the expected flow rates within the 15 mains. Additionally, a C factor of 140 was considered for the new materials to ensure that pumps were capable of operating under the range of frictional losses that could be expected. The system was evaluated during a startup head condition. Startup head for the pumps considers that the pumps must initially pump wastewater to the top of the manifold within the lift station building as this will be the maximum elevation head that will need to be initially overcome. 12.8 IDENTIFICATION (DEQ 49.8) A detectable warning tape buried approximately 18-24” below the proposed ground surface will be used indicating Since both C900 PVC and HDPE piping materials with green color and indicate “Force Main”. This is required as shown in the Standard Details within the design plans. 12.9 LEAKAGE TESTING (DEQ 49.9) Force mains will undergo leakage tests using hydrostatic pressure tests to ensure continuity and leakage is within required limits. Isolation valves and cleanouts are not proposed within the force main. 12.10 MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS (DEQ 49.10) Isolation valves are not required, as the proposed main does not connect to a common force main. No provisions were made for pig launching and/or catching. A APPENDIX A VICINITY MAP G IS S P SS E FM © PROJECT NO. FIGURE NUMBER COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE,2025 P:\10678-Laurel Parkway LLC\001 - Norton Ranch Lift Station\ACAD\Exhibits\VicinityMap\10678-001_VicinityMap.dwg Plotted by lee hageman on Feb/3/2025 DRAWN BY: DSGN. BY: APPR. BY: DATE:engineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle 2880 Technology Blvd West Bozeman, MT 59718 406.587.0721 www.m-m.net 10678.001 FIG-1 NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION UPGRADES VICINITY MAP BOZEMAN MONTANA LRH LRH MEE 02/2025 500 1,0000 SCALE IN FEET LIFT STATION FORCE MAIN DURSTON RD N COTTONWOOD RDW BABCOCK STLAUREL PKWYHUFFINE LN W OAK ST B APPENDIX B HDR REPORT - NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION EVALUATION (City of Bozeman GIS Infrastructure Viewer) City of Bozeman Norton Ranch Lift Station Flow Projections, Infrastructure Evaluation, and Recommended Long-Term Improvements Bozeman, MT November 22, 2023 Revised: October 3, 2024 Revised: November 5, 2024 ooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooo oo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooATNNOAM JARRETT D. MORAN No. 75162PE 01/14/2025 i Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 2 Projected Flows .......................................................................................................................... 2 Infrastructure Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 3 Lift Station Wet Well .................................................................................................................. 3 Existing Wet Well ................................................................................................................... 3 Wet Well Replacement .......................................................................................................... 4 Force Main System ................................................................................................................... 5 Existing Pumps and Force Main ............................................................................................ 5 Force Main Upgrades ............................................................................................................ 5 Lift Station Pumps and Piping ................................................................................................... 6 Existing Lift Station Piping ..................................................................................................... 6 Proposed Lift Station Pumps and Piping ............................................................................... 7 Permanent Emergency Bypass Pump Configuration .............................................................. 10 Existing Bypass Pumping Configuration .............................................................................. 10 Bypass Pumping Alternatives .............................................................................................. 10 Alternatives Discussion and Selection ................................................................................. 10 Electrical Equipment ................................................................................................................ 11 Proposed Electrical Load ..................................................................................................... 11 Electrical Upgrades .............................................................................................................. 13 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 13 ii Figures Figure 1. Existing Norton Ranch Lift Station Piping ...................................................................... 7 Figure 2. Duty Pump Curve and System Curve, New 8-inch Force Main Alignment .................... 8 Figure 3. Lift Station Piping Preliminary Design Plan ................................................................... 9 Tables Table 1. Planned Developments and Project Flows ..................................................................... 3 Table 2. Estimated Response Times for Surcharge / Overflow Scenarios ................................... 4 Table 3. Preliminary Design Wet Well Operating Levels and Alarms ........................................... 4 Table 4. Pumping Capacity Available with Existing Infrastructure ................................................ 5 Table 5. Pipe Flow Velocity at Various Force Main Diameters ..................................................... 5 Table 6. Flygt NP 3202 HT 3~ 462 (Duty Pump) Operating Points .............................................. 8 Table 7. Projected Lift Station Electrical Load ............................................................................ 12 Appendices Appendix A. Flygt Pump Cut Sheets Appendix B. Bypass Pumping Alternatives and Equipment Cut Sheets Appendix C. Generator Sizing Reports iii This page is intentionally left blank. 1 Executive Summary A flow projection evaluation was completed for the proposed developments within the service area of the existing City of Bozeman Norton Ranch Lift Station. The results of this evaluation include a total projected average day flow of 280 gpm and a total projected peak hour flow of 905 gpm. These total flows incorporate the proposed developments, as well as the current developments that were constructed in previous phases of development. The projected flows discussed herein necessitate the need for the long-term improvements to allow the Norton Ranch Lift Station and the associated force main system to continue operating as intended. The existing lift station infrastructure and force main system were evaluated based on the projected flows, with a subsequent list of recommended improvements. The recommended improvements identified and discussed in this evaluation include the following: • Remove the existing wet well and install a new wet well to increase operating volume. • Install a new 8-inch force main, that will generally align with development roadway alignments, and through an existing utility easement, and discharge to the existing gravity sewer collection system. • Abandon / cut and cap of an existing 4-inch force main. • Install two (2) new Flygt NP 3202 HT 3~ 462 pumps in the new wet well to serve as duty pumps. Leave one (1) existing Flygt NP 3102 SH 3 Adaptive 256 pump in place to act as a jockey pump. • Relocate existing generator from lift station building to a new generator building. • Install new piping in existing lift station building to accommodate force main improvements and provide adequate upstream and downstream distances for new flow meters. • Install a new submersible bypass pump system utilizing the Godwin Heidra 150NC Hydraulic Submersible Pump. • Install two (2) new VFDs for the duty pumps including required electrical improvements (e.g., new conduits/connections for the air gap panel, general conduit, and conductors inside the lift station). The recommended improvements are described in detail in their respective subsections of this report. A Class 4 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (OPCC) was prepared for the recommended improvements and is considered a feasibility study estimate for planning level purposes. A Class 4 cost estimate accuracy ranges from -30% to +50%, which includes an estimated accuracy of -15 to -30% and +20 to +50% on the low and high ends, respectively. The cost estimate for the Norton Ranch Lift Station Long-Term Improvements is expected to range between $1,837,000 (-30%) and $3,936,000 (+50%). 2 Introduction The Norton Ranch Lift Station receives wastewater flow from several existing developments and will need to accommodate future wastewater flow from several additional and planned developments. A previous flow projection evaluation was completed for these planned developments by others; however, they do not reflect updated wastewater planning numbers recently adopted by the City of Bozeman or final firm development acreages/plans. This information is summarized and included in this report. Revised flow projections are used herein to develop and evaluate long-term improvements for the Norton Ranch Lift Station. Projected Flows The planned developments and their associated acreages, wastewater planning numbers, peaking factors, and projected flows are summarized in Table 1. The projected flows include the City’s base dry weather planning values, which are zoning dependent, and an additional 150 gallons per acre per day (gpad) to account for typical inflow and infiltration (I&I). For each of the specific development areas, Urban + Farm Phase 1 (R-5), Urban + Farm Phase 2 (B-2M), , Phase 6, the specific number of planned units were provided and used in conjunction with an estimated wastewater generation 64.4 gallons per capita per day for “residential users” combined with a value of 2.24 persons per household based on the most recent census data. A peaking factor was calculated for the totalized flow from the Norton Ranch LS Service Area, using equation 10-1 in Circular DEQ-2, to provide the peak design flow. Table 1 below includes average day and peak wastewater flows. 3 Table 1. Planned Developments and Project Flows Phase/Location Owner / Developer Number of Units Acres Average Flows (gpd) Inflow & Infiltration (I&I) (gpad) Phases 1,2,3* Past Project - 65 37,870 9,750 Phases 4,5* Past Project - 50.39 56,130 7,559 Phase 6 (300 Single Family) * Past Project - 42.5 43,277 6,375 West Side Flats (138 Single Family) * Past Project - 14 19,907 2,100 Urban + Farm Phase 1 (R-5) Outlaw Real Estate Partners 64 8.72 9,232 1,308 Urban + Farm Phase 2 (B2-M) Outlaw Real Estate Partners 1,423 31.94 205,276 4,791 Phase 6 McCaw, Devries, Steinhauer and Company Real Estate 220 42.5 31,736 Accounted For Above Average Flow (gpd) 403,429 - Peaking Factor 3.153 - Total I&I (gpad) - 31,883 Peak Flow (gpd) 1,303,851 - Peak Flow (gpm) 905 - Note: * Previous Project Phase Infrastructure Evaluation Lift Station Wet Well Existing Wet Well The existing Norton Ranch Lift Station wet well was evaluated to determine if adequate operating volume is available during various scenarios for the projected wastewater flows. To align with the City’s standard approach for wastewater lift station operation, the Norton Ranch Lift Station will continue to operate in a fill/draw configuration in lieu of an alternative operation (e.g., flow matching, etc.). It should be noted that during the previous Norton Ranch Lift Station improvements, the influent gravity sewer line that conveys flow into the wet well was lowered approximately 5’-10” from elevation 4776.01 to elevation 4770.20. As a result of this change, the existing pumps to date have operated with a reduced operating volume within the wet well, which presents no issue at the current average and peak flows of 108 gpm and 439 gpm, respectively. However, at the future projected average and peak flows of 280 gpm and 905 gpm, respectively, there is inadequate operating volume available in the wet well for efficient fill/draw pump operation and replacement of the existing wet well is recommended. 4 Estimated response times for City Staff were also evaluated in the event that the lift station experiences a power loss, and the automatic transfer switch (ATS) does not transfer power to the generator, or if there is an overall PLC failure and the lift station pumps become inoperable. This evaluation determined how fast the wet well would fill and begin to surcharge the gravity sewer collection system, up to potential overflow locations, primarily at lateral connections to nearby homes. The results of this evaluation are shown in Table 2 for both the existing average and peak flows with the existing gravity sewer collection system configuration, as well as the projected average and peak flows with the proposed new gravity sewer configuration layout based on available plans of the proposed development areas. Approximate response times for City Staff to travel to the lift station, determine and address an issue, and/or setup a portable bypass pump before sewer surcharges is significantly reduced between the existing lift station operation/flows and the proposed lift station operation/flows. Estimated response times at average and peak flows are twenty-five (25) minutes and six (6) six minutes, respectively, which does not provide adequate time for City Staff to respond. As a result, a new wet well with additional volume will be required for the Norton Ranch Lift Station. Table 2. Estimated Response Times for Surcharge / Overflow Scenarios Scenario Approximate Storage Volume (gal) Response Time Current Norton Ranch LS Configuration (Surcharge point at the intersection of Laurel Parkway and Boomtown Road) 15,481 Average Flow (108 gpm) Peak Flow (439 gpm) 144 min (2.4 hour) 35 min (0.6 hour) Proposed Flows with Existing Wet Well (Surcharge point near intersection of South Reliance and Vaughn Drive) 5,111 Average Flow (280 gpm) Peak Flow (905 gpm) 18.3 min (0.3 hour) 5.6 min (0.09 hour) Wet Well Replacement The preliminary design includes a new 10-ft diameter circular wet well with four (4) feet of operating level between the “Pump ON” and “Pump OFF” elevations, which provides for approximately 2,350 gallons of operational volume. The wet well fill time at average flows will be approximately 8.4 minutes, meeting Circular DEQ-2 design standards. The location of the wet well and the influent gravity sewer invert elevation of 4770.20 will not change. Key wet well operational levels for the preliminary design are summarized below in Table 3. Wet well set points and levels will be further evaluated as part of the detailed design. Table 3. Preliminary Design Wet Well Operating Levels and Alarms Set Point / Level Elevation (ft) Influent Gravity Sewer Invert 4770.20 High-High Level Float 4769.70 High Level Float 4768.70 Lag Duty Pump No. 2 On 4767.70 5 Lead Duty Pump No. 1 On 4766.70 Jockey Pump On 4764.70 Lead Pump Off 4760.70 Force Main System Existing Pumps and Force Main The existing lift station was designed for use with a triplex wet well configuration in conjunction with dual force mains (4-inch and 6-inch diameter). The lift station is currently equipped with three (3) submersible Flygt NP 3102 SH 3 Adaptive 256 pumps that were installed in the previous phase of lift station upgrades. The current design utilizes two (2) pumps operated in lead/lag with the third pump serving as redundancy. The capacity provided by the existing pumps and existing force main arrangement, for each respective force main, and for the resulting total flow achieved with both force mains open and flow splitting passively between the two, is summarized below in Table 4. Table 4. Pumping Capacity Available with Existing Infrastructure Number of Pumps in Use Flow in 4” Force Main (gpm) Flow in 6” Force Main (gpm) Flow through Both Force Mains (gpm) One Pump 147 299 348 Two Pumps 159 379 473 The pumping capacity evaluation shows that the existing infrastructure is not capable of conveying the projected peak design flow of 905 gpm with required redundancy. Additionally, larger pumps installed in conjunction with the existing force mains are not feasible, as this approach results in high flow velocities in the force main in excess of 7 ft/s; therefore, adding a new and larger force main will be required. Force Main Upgrades A larger diameter force main will be required to provide adequate capacity to convey the design peak flow of 905 gpm. Force main diameters of 6, 8, 10, and 12-inches were evaluated, including pipe velocities at a percentage of the peak design flow for each respective force main size. The results of this analysis are summarized below in Table 5. Table 5. Pipe Flow Velocity at Various Force Main Diameters Flow (At Various Pump Motor Speeds) Force Main Size and Pipe Velocity Pipe Velocity 6-inch Dia. FM Pipe Velocity, 8-inch Dia. FM Pipe Velocity, 10-inch Dia. FM Pipe Velocity, 12-inch Dia. FM 970 gpm (100%, 60 Hz) 9.9 ft/s 5.5 ft/s 3.6 ft/s 2.5 ft/s 866 gpm (92%, 55 Hz) 8.8 ft/s 5.0 ft/s 3.2 ft/s 2.3 ft/s 747 gpm (83%, 50 Hz) 7.6 ft/s 4.3 ft/s 2.8 ft/s 1.9 ft/s 6 638 gpm (75%, 45 Hz) 6.5 ft/s 3.6 ft/s 2.4 ft/s 1.7 ft/s 523 gpm (67%, 40 Hz) 5.3 ft/s 3.0 ft/s 2.0 ft/s 1.4 ft/s Note: 1. Pipe velocities calculated with actual pipe inside diameter (ID). 2. Duty Pump: Flygt NP 3202 HT 3 ~462 (45 hp). A 6-inch and 12-inch force main will not be able to convey wastewater flow in accordance with Montana DEQ Circular 2 standards and City of Bozeman requirements. The velocities in a 6-inch force main exceed 7 ft/s at the peak design flow, as discussed in the previous section, and the velocities in a 12-inch force main will result in less than 2 ft/s (scouring velocity) when the pumps are operating at a reduced speed, which eliminates operational flexibility; therefore, these two pipe sizes were removed from further consideration. The range of pipe velocities for a 10-inch force main are acceptable; however, anticipated pipe velocities that result from pumps operating at a reduced speed, which will likely be required in the near-term, are on the edge of the scouring velocity requirement of 2 ft/s (near the minimum pump motor speeds of 70% and 60%). The range of pipe velocities for an 8-inch force main are adequate across a wide range of pumped flows spanning from the potential reduced speed operation up to the peak design flow. Therefore, an 8-inch force main is the selected alternative. The new proposed force main alignment will differ from the existing 4-inch and 6-inch force mains and will ultimately discharge to the gravity sewer main along South Cottonwood Road. Based on a 2001 Final Plat for Valley West Subdivision, there is an existing 10-foot utility easement within a larger 60-foot street and utility easement that spans west from Cottonwood Road approximately 1,260 feet and then north approximately 200 feet. This alignment would route the new 8-inch force main from the Norton Ranch Lift Station east, then south, and finally east again with a gravity discharge location in manhole (MH-5) just north of the intersection of Cottonwood Road and Cascade Street. This force main alignment is approximately 2,900 linear feet, when measured from the existing lift station along the utility easement to the proposed discharge manhole. The proposed force main routing will be coordinated with the planned development so that the alignment will generally fall within the proposed street alignment. The City of Bozeman has evaluated their gravity sewer model and confirmed that available capacity exists within the 18-inch gravity sewer along Cottonwood Road. In addition to the new 8-inch force main, the existing 6-inch force main will remain operational and the 4-inch force main will be abandoned in place and capped at both ends. Lift Station Pumps and Piping Existing Lift Station Piping The pump discharge piping in the lift station currently manifolds together in a common header from three (3) respective 6-inch discharge lines, one for each pump. As previously discussed, the existing force main system consists of a 4-inch and 6-inch force main. The 6-inch force main departs from the north end of the common pipe header and the 4-inch force main departs from the south end of the common pipe header. There is limited space in the building for piping and as a result, adequate lay length for the existing flow meters, which are aligned vertically, cannot be achieved. Since the current piping arrangement does not allow for proper upstream and 7 downstream pipe lengths, per the flow meter manufacturer’s recommended distances, the flow meters demonstrate poor measuring accuracy and often have empty pipe detection error messages due to the vertical installation. The existing lift station piping is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Existing Norton Ranch Lift Station Piping Proposed Lift Station Pumps and Piping As discussed in the Force Main System Section, the 4-inch force main will be abandoned in place and a new 8-inch force main is proposed to operate in conjunction with the existing 6-inch force main. To facilitate the addition of a new force main, the existing lift station piping will require significant reconfiguration. As part of the overall infrastructure improvements, the existing generator in the lift station will be removed and re-installed in a new, separate building (see Electrical Equipment Section). This relocation of the generator and associated electrical equipment will provide additional space within the lift station building to allow for a new piping configuration and proper flow meter arrangements. The proposed operation for the new submersible pumps and lift station piping will include two (2) duty submersible pumps conveying flow through the proposed 8-inch force main and one (1) jockey submersible pump conveying flow through the existing 6-inch force main. Each duty pump will be sized to handle the peak design flow, which provides for the required redundancy. As part of the overall pump evaluation, it was determined that the existing submersible pumps currently installed at the lift station meet the preferred requirements for the jockey pump operating with the 8 existing 6-inch force main. Therefore, the existing submersible pumps are the preliminary pump selection for the jockey pump. A new system curve was developed for the proposed 8-inch force main and associated piping changes discussed below and shown in Figure 3. At the peak design flow of 905 gpm, the total dynamic head (TDH) condition is approximately 92.0 feet. A Hazen-Williams coefficient “C” value of 112 was used for the new force main piping and all other new lift station piping. The preliminary pump selection for the proposed duty pumps is a Flygt NP 3202 HT 3~ 462. A pump cut sheet for this pump selection is included in Appendix A. Two of the existing submersible pumps will be replaced with the 45 horsepower Flygt NP 3202 HT 3~ 462 pumps, with one existing submersible pump remaining as the jockey pump. New variable frequency drives (VFDs) will be installed for each new pump. The anticipated operating points for the duty pumps were evaluated, at various VFD set points, with the 8-inch force main arrangement. Pump control will follow the current pump operation with the use of VFDs to allow the pumps to start at a reduced speed and slowly ramp up to full speed (60 Hz). This will allow the existing 6-inch force main to gradually increase as it goes from an empty pipe to full pipe pressure. The proposed 8-inch force main should be installed correctly so that it avoids the potential for column separation or from draining subsequent to each pump cycle. The operating points are summarized below in Table 6. The duty pump curves, and 8-inch force main system curve, are shown below in Figure 2. A conceptual piping layout is shown in Figure 3. Figure 2. Duty Pump Curves and System Curve, New 8-inch Force Main Alignment 0204060801001201400 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400Total Dynamic Head (ft)Single Pump Flow (GPM)Norton Ranch Lift Station 8-inch Force MainOne (1) Flygt 3202 HT 3~ 462 523 GPM @ 46' TDH970 GPM @ 93' TDH 9 Table 6. Flygt NP 3202 HT 3~ 462 (Duty Pump) Operating Points Motor Speed 8” Force Main 60 Hz, 100% 970 gpm @ 93’ TDH 55 Hz, 92% 866 gpm @ 80’ TDH 50 Hz, 83% 747 gpm @ 67’ TDH 45 Hz, 75% 638 gpm @ 55’ TDH 40 Hz, 67% 523 gpm @ 46’ TDH New and proposed piping includes a mix of 4-inch and 6-inch pump discharge piping, and 6-inch piping within the lift station building. The jockey pump will convey wastewater flow to the north and utilizing the existing 6-inch force main. The two duty pumps will manifold above grade in the lift station and convey wastewater flow to the south and through the previous bypass pump connection penetration, where it will increase to 8-inch pipe and utilize the new 8-inch force main. It is anticipated that the jockey pump and the duty pumps will not operate in parallel or passively as the existing lift station is currently operated. An isolation valve will provide separation between the two pumping systems but would still allow, under certain scenarios and if required, the ability to pump passively or to alternate which pump(s) convey wastewater flow to which force main. A conceptual piping layout is shown below in Figure 3. Figure 3. Lift Station Piping Preliminary Design Plan 10 Permanent Emergency Bypass Pump Configuration Existing Bypass Pumping Configuration There is an existing portable bypass pump connection on the southwest side of the building that connects to the force main system; however, there is currently no permanent bypass pump to serve as backup for the lift station or to help mitigate response times associated with equipment failures. Bypass Pumping Alternatives Three proposed bypass pumping alternatives were considered as a means to provide backup to the lift station. Conceptual layouts showing equipment placement and piping connections for each alternative are included in Appendix B, as well as equipment cut sheets. ALTERNATIVE 1. PERMANENT ABOVE GRADE DIESEL BYPASS PUMPING SYSTEM, OUTDOOR PLACEMENT A permanent above grade diesel bypass pumping system would be installed in close proximity to the wet well. A Godwin CD150S Dri-Prime Pump was selected for this application. The pump would be installed in a sound attenuated enclosure and placed on a concrete equipment pad approximately 15 feet from the edge of the wet well. This pumping arrangement would require approximately 3.5 minutes of priming time. Given the close proximity of this location to the neighboring development units, a screen wall would be used to obscure the pumping equipment from view. ALTERNATIVE 2. PERMANENT ABOVE GRADE DIESEL BYPASS PUMPING SYSTEM, INDOOR PLACEMENT In Alternative 2, a permanent above grade diesel bypass pumping system would be installed in the new generator building. A Godwin CD150S Dri-Prime Pump was selected for this application. Placing a Godwin CD150S Dri-Prime Pump in the new building necessitates approximately 75 feet of horizontal pipe distance from the wet well to the pump. This pumping arrangement would require approximately 8 minutes of priming time. ALTERNATIVE 3. PERMANENT HYDRAULIC BYPASS PUMPING SYSTEM, SUBMERSIBLE / WET WELL In Alternative 3, a permanent submersible bypass pump would be installed in the wet well. The accompanying power pack for the pump would be placed in the new generator building, and the hydraulic hoses would be routed to the pump in the wet well. A Godwin Heidra 150NC Hydraulic Submersible Pump was selected for this application. The hydraulic hoses can be routed up to 200 feet, but longer hose lengths typically lead to a slight decrease in pump performance. The Norton Ranch Lift Station site would necessitate a hose length of approximately 100 to 150 feet, depending on the final routing. A submersible pump will not require priming time but will still have a power pack starting cycle. Alternatives Discussion and Selection An above grade diesel bypass pumping system offers a number of advantages over a submersible bypass pumping system and provides operational convenience and requires minimal maintenance as compared to a submersible bypass pump that must be removed from the wet well for any required work. A submersible bypass pump requires more physical space in the wet well and requires that the power and control cables be routed into the wet well to reach the pump. 11 An above grade diesel bypass pump only requires that a suction line be placed in the wet well, as all other components are housed above grade. However, the proposed operating depths of the wet well will force an above grade diesel pumping system to operate on the edge of its efficient performance due to the suction head and low available NPSH. The static suction head from the “Pump OFF” level in Table 3 to the top of the wet well is approximately 22 feet, and 2.5 feet of additional suction head would be required to reach the bypass pump itself. According to the manufacturer (Xylem), this length of static suction head renders these operating levels not viable due to the resultant NPSH conditions. Operating a pump without adequate available NPSH can result in cavitation and poor pump performance. The operating levels for the bypass pump could be adjusted to a “Pump ON” elevation of 4770.20 (i.e., the influent sewer invert elevation) and to a “Pump OFF” elevation of 4767.70, giving 2.5 feet of operating depth. This would reduce the suction elevation to the top of the wet well to 15 feet, and the distance to the above grade diesel pump itself to approximately 17.5 feet. The feasibility of Alternatives 1 and 2 using these updated operating levels were discussed with Xylem and determined that Alternative 1 would be possible, but the pump would be operating with an approximate 0.16’ of positive NPSH margin and cavitation may be potential. Xylem determined that Alternative 2 would not be feasible, as the pump would be operating with a negative NPSH margin. The three bypass pump alternatives were presented to City staff during a Norton Ranch Lift Station Review Workshop. Alternative 3, the submersible bypass pump, was ultimately selected by the City. This selection was based on the NPSH considerations of the above grade pumps and greater operational familiarity with the submersible bypass option. Additionally, City staff were concerned about operating the above grade bypass pump in cold winter climate and were concerned about the potential for drain lines or other pump components to freeze. City staff felt more comfortable operating a submersible bypass pump in cold conditions as there are less components susceptible to freezing. Electrical Equipment The pump upgrades described in this report will necessitate improvements to the lift station electrical system. The existing 3-Phase service is 480 Volts (V), 200 Ampere (A), grounded-wye served by a 75 kilovoltamp (kVA) transformer. At full load, the 75 kVA transformer can deliver 90A, but can be overloaded at the discretion of the utility, Northwestern Energy. The system is backed up by a standby 125 kVA generator set that was manufactured in 2010 by Generac Power Systems, Inc and fed through a 3-pole, 200A Automatic Transfer Switch to the main 200A panelboard “H”. Existing submersible pumps are powered from panel H through 10 Horsepower (HP) VFDs in order to vary the speed of each pump individually. The VFDs are controlled by a lift station control panel installed during the recent upgrade in 2022. Proposed Electrical Load As shown in the table below, the expected new connected load is 66.9 kVA. With diversity applied, since only one (1) duty pump is required to run at once to meet peak hour flows, running load on 12 a day requiring heat is 36.6 kVA. All existing electrical equipment is sized with adequate capacity to support the proposed electrical load. Table 7. Projected Lift Station Electrical Load Load Description Diversity kVA Connected kVA Diversity Applied Flygt Pump 1 (Duty Pump) 0.67 39.5 26.5 Flygt Pump 2 (Duty Pump) 0.67 39.5 26.5 Flygt Pump 3 (Jockey Pump) 0.67 5.7 3.8 EH-1 1.0 5.0 5.0 Panel L 1.0 5.1 5.1 TOTAL - 94.8 66.9 Generator sizing software by Generac, Power Design Pro, was used to validate the existing generator size and capacity. Refer to Appendix C for output results. The existing generator is adequately sized to serve the proposed new electrical loads, but to reduce harmonic distortion to within acceptable levels, 6-pulse VFDs will require full filtering. This reduces total harmonic distortion to 3.5%1. Under the worst-case scenario, the existing generator can sustain a simultaneous start and load step of all lift station equipment. The maximum calculated load is approximately 75% of the existing generator capacity. However, potential scenarios could occur at low influent flows when only the jockey pump is operating under emergency power that potential impacts of wet stacking the generator need to be considered. Wet stacking occurs when diesel generators run with light loading for a period of time and do not reach the designed operating temperatures. The severity of wet stacking varies, but in extreme cases can cause equipment damage. To prevent wet stacking, increase equipment life, and reduce maintenance, installation of a load bank that engages when the load is under the manufacturer recommended setpoint is advised. Appendix C includes a scenario with one pump operating and a load bank of 25kVA switched on to reduce wet stacking. Actual size of the load bank shall be selected during design. Due to limited space in the existing building, and the need to add piping along with larger VFDs, it is recommended to relocate the existing generator into a new dedicated building. The new generator building will generally match the architectural styles of the existing lift station building. The new building should be adjacent to the existing as shown in the Alternative 3 site plan in Appendix B, equipped with louvers for airflow and external exhaust oriented identical to the current building. Recommended clearance from the NWE transformer is ten feet, but current clearance from the existing building is only six and a half feet. Retaining the existing electrical infrastructure in the existing building, the required additional electrical upgrades will be a feeder and controls from the relocated generator to the ATS and a 120V circuit to serve a panel in the generator building for lighting, battery charger, block heater, and ancillary loads. 13 Electrical Upgrades To accommodate the lift station mechanical upgrades, several electrical modifications are required in addition to the generator relocation stated above: • Demolish existing VFD line reactors and VFDs • Demolish existing conductors from air gap panel to VFD enclosures • Demolish existing ductbanks and wiring from air gap panel to wet well • Provide new ductbanks with conductors from upgraded wet well to air gap panel • Provide new instrumentation including level transmitter and float switches in wet well • Provide terminations for new pumps at air gap panel • Provide duty pump VFDs with new 50 HP VFDs • Provide new VFD filters if not built-in to new equipment • Replace circuit breakers in Panel H feeding VFDs • Provide new conduit and conductors from Panel H to new VFDs • Relocate existing flowmeters for new piping arrangement with manufacturer recommended straight lengths of pipe upstream and downstream • Provide EtherNet/IP connectivity to VFDs • Provide new controls connections from the Godwin Diesel pump to the wet well and to the existing lift station control panel. Conclusion A Class 4 OPCC was prepared for the improvements described in this report. The OPCC includes a range from -30% to +50% of the overall estimated construction cost, which is consistent with the guidelines of a Class 4 OPCC. Any opinions of probable project cost or probable construction cost are made on the basis of information available to the Engineer and on the basis of Engineer's experience and qualifications and represents its judgment as an experienced and qualified professional engineer. However, since the Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or services furnished by others, or over the contractor(s') methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, the Engineer does not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual project or construction cost will not vary from opinions of probable construction cost. The OPCC for the Norton Ranch Lift Station Long-Term Improvements ranges from $1,837,000 (-30%) to $3,936,000 (+50%). Appendix A. Flygt Pump Cut Sheets 74.0 - 7/1/2024 (Build 136) Program version Data version 8/29/2024 13:07 A8P8 User group(s) Xylem: USA - INT 40 °C Patented self cleaning semi-open channel impeller, ideal for pumping in waste water applications. Modular based design with high adaptation grade. Head 462 278mm 75.8% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 [ft] 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 [US g.p.m.] NP 3202 HT 3~ 462 278 mm Number of blades 2 Technical specification P - Semi permanent, Wet Configuration 6 inch Impeller diameter 278 mm Discharge diameter 6 inch Motor number Installation type N3202.185 30-19-4AA-W 45hp Inlet diameter Maximum operating speed 1770 rpm Material Curves according to: Pump information Discharge diameter 200 mm Impeller diameter Impeller Hard-Iron ™ Water, pure [100%],39.2 °F,62.42 lb/ft³,1.6891E-5 ft²/s Curve: ISO 9906 Max. fluid temperature Water, pure Nominal (mean) data shown. Under- and over-performance from this data should be expected due to standard manufacturing tolerances. Please consult your local Flygt representative for performance guarantees. Xylect-20666693 9/25/2024Last updateCreated on 9/25/2024 Dalton OylerCreated byProject Block 74.0 - 7/1/2024 (Build 136) Program version Data version 8/29/2024 13:07 A8P8 User group(s) Xylem: USA - INT NP 3202 HT 3~ 462 Technical specification Motor - General Frequency Rated voltage Rated powerRated speed Rated current 460 V 45 hp1770 rpm 51 A 3~N3202.185 30-19-4AA-W 45hp Phases Total moment of inertia 7.18 lb ft² Power factor - 1/1 Load 0.91 0.89 0.82 90.5 % 91.5 % 91.5 % ATEX approved 60 Hz Number of poles 4 Stator variant 4 Insulation class H Type of Duty Motor - Technical Power factor - 3/4 Load Power factor - 1/2 Load Motor efficiency - 1/1 Load Motor efficiency - 3/4 Load Motor efficiency - 1/2 Load Starting current, direct starting Starting current, star-delta 315 A 105 A S1 Starts per hour max. 30 No Version code 185 Motor number Xylect-20666693 9/25/2024Last updateCreated on 9/25/2024 Dalton OylerCreated byProject Block 74.0 - 7/1/2024 (Build 136) Program version Data version 8/29/2024 13:07 A8P8 User group(s) Xylem: USA - INT NP 3202 HT 3~ 462 Performance curve Duty point 93.9 ft961 US g.p.m. HeadFlow Curves according to: Head Overall Efficiency Efficiency Power input P1 Shaft power P2 NPSHR-values 462 278mm 75.8% 93.9 ft 74 % 66.7 % 30.8 hp 16.2 ft 961.3 US g.p.m. 34.2 hp 462 278mm 93.9 ft 74 % 66.7 % 30.8 hp 16.2 ft 961.3 US g.p.m. 34.2 hp 462 278mm 93.9 ft 74 % 66.7 % 30.8 hp 16.2 ft 961.3 US g.p.m. 34.2 hp462 278mm (P2) 93.9 ft 74 % 66.7 % 30.8 hp 16.2 ft 961.3 US g.p.m. 34.2 hp 462 278mm (P1) 93.9 ft 74 % 66.7 % 30.8 hp 16.2 ft 961.3 US g.p.m. 34.2 hp 462 278mm NPSHR = 32.809 ft 93.9 ft 74 % 66.7 % 30.8 hp 16.2 ft 961.3 US g.p.m. 34.2 hp 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 [ft] 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 [%] 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 [hp] 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 [ft] 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 [US g.p.m.] Water, pure [100%],39.2 °F,62.42 lb/ft³,1.6891E-5 ft²/s Curve: ISO 9906 Water, pure Xylect-20666693 9/25/2024Last updateCreated on 9/25/2024 Dalton Oyler 9/25/2024 Nominal (mean) data shown. Under- and over-performance from this data should be expected due to standard manufacturing tolerances.Please consult your local Flygt representative for performance guarantees. 74.0 - 7/1/2024 (Build 136) Program version Data version 8/29/2024 13:07 A8P8 User group(s) Xylem: USA - INT US g.p.m. Pumps /Flow Head Shaft power Flow Head Shaft power Hydr.eff.Spec. Energy NPSHre Systems 1 961 93.9 30.8 961 93.9 30.8 74 %442 16.2 US g.p.m. NP 3202 HT 3~ 462 Duty Analysis Curves according to:Water, pure [100%] ; 39.2°F; 62.42lb/ft³; 1.6891E-5ft²/s Head 55 Hz 75.8% 50 Hz 75.8% 45 Hz 75.8% 40 Hz 75.8% 462 278mm 75.8% 93.9 ft 961.3 US g.p.m.0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 [ft] 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 [US g.p.m.] Operating characteristics kWh/US MGfthpUS g.p.m.f t hp ft Nominal (mean) data shown. Under- and over-performance from this data should be expected due to standard manufacturing tolerances. Please consult your local Flygt representative for performance guarantees. Xylect-20666693 9/25/2024Last updateCreated on 9/25/2024 Dalton OylerCreated byProject Block 74.0 - 7/1/2024 (Build 136) Program version Data version 8/29/2024 13:07 A8P8 User group(s) Xylem: USA - INT Head Overall Efficiency Efficiency Pow er input P1 Shaft pow er P2 NPSHR-values 55 Hz 75.8% 50 Hz 75.8% 45 Hz 75.8% 40 Hz 75.8%462 278mm 75.8% 55 Hz50 Hz45 Hz40 Hz 462 278mm55 Hz50 Hz45 Hz40 Hz 462 278mm 55 Hz 50 Hz 45 Hz 40 Hz 462 278mm (P2) 55 Hz 50 Hz 45 Hz 40 Hz 462 278mm (P1) 55 Hz 50 Hz 45 Hz 40 Hz 462 278mm NPSHR = 32.809 ft 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 [ft] 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 [%] 0 10 20 30 [hp] 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 [ft] 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 [US g.p.m.] NP 3202 HT 3~ 462 VFD Curve Curves according to:,39.2 °F,62.42 lb/ft³,1.6891E-5 ft²/s Curve: ISO 9906 Water, pure Xylect-20666693 9/25/2024Last updateCreated on 9/25/2024 Dalton OylerCreated byProject Block Nominal (mean) data shown. Under- and over-performance from this data should be expected due to standard manufacturing tolerances.Please consult your local Flygt representative for performance guarantees. 74.0 - 7/1/2024 (Build 136) Program version Data version 8/29/2024 13:07 A8P8 User group(s) Xylem: USA - INT Head 55 Hz 75.8% 50 Hz 75.8% 45 Hz 75.8% 40 Hz 75.8% 462 278mm 75.8% 93.9 ft 961.3 US g.p.m.0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 [ft] 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 [US g.p.m.] 1 NP 3202 HT 3~ 462 VFD Analysis Curves according to:Water, pure [100%] ; 39.2°F; 62.42lb/ft³; 1.6891E-5ft²/s ft Pumps /Frequency Flow Head Shaft power Flow Head Shaft power Hydr.eff.Specific energy NPSHreSystems 1 60 Hz 961 93.9 30.8 961 93.9 30.8 74 %442 16.2 1 55 Hz 881 78.9 23.7 881 78.9 23.7 74 %365 14.1 1 50 Hz 801 65.2 17.8 801 65.2 17.8 74 %304 12.1 1 45 Hz 721 52.8 13 721 52.8 13 74 %250 10.2 ft Operating Characteristics kWh/US MGUS g.p.m.ft hp US g.p.m.hp ft Water, pure [100%] ; 39.2°F; 62.42lb/ft³; 1.6891E-5ft²/s Nominal (mean) data shown. Under- and over-performance from this data should be expected due to standard manufacturing tolerances.Please consult your local Flygt representative for performance guarantees. Xylect-20666693 9/25/2024Last updateCreated on 9/25/2024 Dalton OylerCreated byProject Block 74.0 - 7/1/2024 (Build 136) Program version Data version 8/29/2024 13:07 A8P8 User group(s) Xylem: USA - INT Head 55 Hz 75.8% 50 Hz 75.8% 45 Hz 75.8% 40 Hz 75.8% 462 278mm 75.8% 93.9 ft 961.3 US g.p.m.0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 [ft] 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 [US g.p.m.] 1 NP 3202 HT 3~ 462 VFD Analysis Curves according to:Water, pure [100%] ; 39.2°F; 62.42lb/ft³; 1.6891E-5ft²/s ft Pumps /Frequency Flow Head Shaft power Flow Head Shaft power Hydr.eff.Specific energy NPSHreSystems 1 40 Hz 641 41.7 9.13 641 41.7 9.13 74 %204 8.45 ft Operating Characteristics kWh/US MGUS g.p.m.ft hp US g.p.m.hp ft Water, pure [100%] ; 39.2°F; 62.42lb/ft³; 1.6891E-5ft²/s Nominal (mean) data shown. Under- and over-performance from this data should be expected due to standard manufacturing tolerances.Please consult your local Flygt representative for performance guarantees. Xylect-20666693 9/25/2024Last updateCreated on 9/25/2024 Dalton OylerCreated byProject Block 74.0 - 7/1/2024 (Build 136) Program version Data version 8/29/2024 13:07 A8P8 User group(s) Xylem: USA - INT NP 3202 HT 3~ 462 Dimensional drawing Weight (lbs)Pump Discharge with cooling jacket 1260 180 without cooling jacket 1150 180Min water levelRef. line Outlet center line BOLT Ø13 16 (4X) Ø6" Z Z Z Z Scale Date RevisionDrawing number Suction inlet Pump inlet Pump outlet DischargeoutletFP,NP 3202 HT 090,095,180,185,350,390,660,670 Ø6" Ø6"1:40 210318 6664300 11 221 453 8 271 2 111 16 41 2 4858173413123411 8 501 4 383 4 37813344 5 ° 111 8713 16 103812187131691316111 16 23 8415163" Guide bars VIEW Xylect-20666693 9/25/2024Last updateCreated on 9/25/2024 Dalton OylerCreated byProject Block Appendix B. Bypass Pumping Alternatives and Equipment Cut Sheets 1 A B C 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 D SHEET Norton Properties, LLC Norton East Ranch Subdivision NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS Bozeman, Montana 2023 01 NORTON BYPASS PUMP SITE PLAN ALTERNATIVE 1. ABOVE GRADE BYPASS PUMP, OUTDOOR PLACEMENT UP M. BEDROOM M. BATH 104 LIVING ROOM LIVING ROOM 113 M. BATH 115 STORAGE 125 STORAGE 126 8S 8" BYPASS DISCHARGE PIPING 8" FORCE MAIN PIPING EQUIPMENT PAD SCREEN WALL TRANSFORMER SIDEWALK PROPERTY BOUNDARY REPAIR GENERATOR EXHAUST WALLPENETRATION 8" BYPASS SUCTION PIPING 6'- 6 "6'-6" WEST PARK NEIGHBOORHOOD 18-PLEX, THREE STORIES LOT R1A NORTON RANCH SUBDIVISION 45° BEND PERMANENT BYPASS PUMP (SOUND ATTENUATED)3'-7"8'-5" 3'-6" 10' DIAMETER WET WELL 1 A B C 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 D SHEET Norton Properties, LLC Norton East Ranch Subdivision NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS Bozeman, Montana 2023 02 NORTON BYPASS PUMP SITE PLAN ALTERNATIVE 2. ABOVE GRADE BYPASS PUMP, INDOOR PLACEMENT UP M. BEDROOM 101 M. BATH 104 LIVING ROOM 105 LIVING ROOM 113 M. BATH 115 STORAGE 125 STORAGE 126 8S TRANSFORMER SIDEWALK PROPERTY BOUNDARY REPAIR GENERATOR EXHAUST WALL PENETRATION 6'- 6 " WEST PARK NEIGHBOORHOOD 18-PLEX, THREE STORIES LOT R1A NORTON RANCH SUBDIVISION 10' DIAMETER WET WELL 8" BYPASS DISCHARGE PIPING 8" BYPASS SUCTION PIPING PERMANENT BYPASS PUMP45° BEND 1 A B C 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 D SHEET Norton Properties, LLC Norton East Ranch Subdivision NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS Bozeman, Montana 2023 03 NORTON BYPASS PUMP SITE PLAN ALTERNATIVE 3. SUBMERSIBLE BYPASS PUMP 8" FORCE MAIN PIPING TRANSFORMER SIDEWALK PROPERTY BOUNDARY REPAIR GENERATOR EXHAUST WALL PENETRATION 10' DIAMETER WET WELL 6" BYPASS SUCTION PIPING 6'- 6 " 6'-6" WEST PARK NEIGHBOORHOOD 18-PLEX, THREE STORIES LOT R1A NORTON RANCH SUBDIVISION SUBMERSIBLE BYPASS PUMP SUBMERSIBLE BYPASS PUMP HYDRAULIC CABLES 3'-6"SUBMERSIBLE PUMP HYDRAULICPOWER PACKSTORAGE STORAGE 126 8S 10' DIAMETER WET WELL Godwin CD150S Dri-Prime® Pump The Godwin CD150S Dri-Prime pump is a versatile, general purpose dewatering pump designed for use in the industry’s most challenging construction, municipal, industrial and emergency response applications. This rugged pump is ideally suited for tough dewatering jobs, and is the reliable choice for rental solutions. The CD150S is a member of the Godwin S Series of Smart pumps, equipped with a new generation of Field Smart Technology (FST) for remote monitoring and control. In addition to improved hydraulic efficiency, greater fuel economy, and streamlined serviceability, the CD impeller is now interchangeable with a Flygt N-Technology non-clog impeller, providing the flexibility to tackle stringy, modern wastewater applications with the same pump. • Interchangeable impellers to tackle a full range of solids handling applications. • Field Smart Technology (FST) allows the user to monitor & control the pump from anywhere in the world. • New compressor belt tensioner reduces time to change and adjust belt to approximately 30 minutes. • New sight glass and measuring stick added to monitor level and quality of mechanical seal oil. • Improved hydraulic design reduces vibration, maximizes efficiency and fuel economy. • Diesel Oxidative Catalyst (DOC) technology maximizes available power from diesel engine, and reduces maintenance and downtime. • Fully automatic priming from dry to 28 feet (8.5 m). • Venturi priming requires no adjustment or control. • Available as open set or Sound Attenuated Enclosure. • Standard build engine Isuzu 4LE2X (EPA Final Tier 4). • Other engine options available. • Optional environmentally friendly skid base contains all fluid spills. Specifications Suction connection 6 in (150 mm) flange Delivery connection 6 in (150 mm) flange Max capacity 2290 USGPM (520 m³/hr) † Max impeller diameter 11.8 in (300 mm) Max solids handling 3 in (75 mm) Max operating temp 176 °F (80°C) * Max working pressure 91 psi (6.3 bar) Max suction pressure 58 psi (4 bar) Max casing pressure 138 psi (9.5 bar) Max operating speed 2200 rpm * Please contact our office for applications in excess of 80°C (176°F). † Larger diameter pipes may be required for maximum flows. Features and benefits 200GPA0001580, Issue -Engine Engine Isuzu 4LE2X Engine power 62 hp (46.2 kW) max engine rating Emissions standard EPA Final Tier 4 Fuel consumption @ 1800 rpm 2.6 USGal/hr (10 l/hr) Please contact the factory or office for further details. A typical picture of the pump is shown. All information is approximate and for general guidance only. Sound attenuated enclosure Noise @ 23 ft (7m) 66 db(A) Fuel capacity 80 US Gal (303 liters) Weight dry 3100 lb (1410 kg) Weight wet 3680 lb (1670 kg) Dimensions L 101 in x W 43 in x H 70 in L 2565 mm x W 1092 mm x H 1778 mm Godwin CD150S Dri-Prime® Pump © 2018 Xylem. All rights reserved. Godwin is a trademark of Xylem Dewatering Solutions, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Xylem Inc. Specifications and illustrations are subject to revision without notice. Xylem makes no representation regarding the completeness or accuracy of this information and is not liable for any direct or indirect damages arising from or relating to this information or its use. Performance curve Pump curve is based on 0ft (0m) dynamic suction lift. Open trailer Fuel capacity 60 US Gal (227 liters) Weight dry 2750 lb (1250 kg) Weight wet 3170 lb (1440 kg) Dimensions L 119 in x W 66 in x H 87 in (L 3023 mm x W 1676 mm x H 2210 mm) Materials Pump casing Cast Iron BS EN 1561/EN-JL1030 Wearplates Cast Iron BS1561:1997 Pump shaft Carbon steel BS970:1991 817M40T Impeller Cast Steel BS3100 A5 Hardness to 200 HB Brinell Mechanical seal faces Silicon carbide Vs Silicon carbide Xylem Dewatering Solutions 84 Floodgate Rd. Bridgeport, NJ 0814 United States Tel (856) 467-3636 Fax (856) 467-4841 www.xylem.com/godwin Suction lift table 1800 rpm Performance data provided in tables is based on water tests at sea level and 20°C (68°F) ambient. All information is approximate and for general guidance only. Please contact the factory or office for further details. Total suction Head (feet) Total Delivery Head (feet) 30 43 56 69 82 Output (USGPM) 10 1852 1710 1520 1314 1140 15 1789 1646 1441 1251 1061 20 1741 1567 1361 1172 934 25 1678 1425 1251 1061 823 Dri-Prime Backup System PUMP STATION STANDBY PUMPING AND POWER IN ONE PACKAGE Flow Rate (gpm)Total Dynamic Head (ft)6,0005,0004,0003,0002,0001,000 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 00 2 Compressed air Exhausted air Evacuated air DBS Basic Pump Performance Field Sample of pump line: 3" to 8" DBS Dri-Prime Backup System Automatic priming without operator assistance The Godwin Dri-Prime Backup System (DBSTM ) provides peace-of-mind as the ideal contingency plan for pump stations. The DBS provides independently- powered backup pumping in one dependable package for a variety of emergency situations. It is ideal for areas prone to hurricanes, heavy rain or snowmelt. The Dri-Prime Backup System is engaged during loss of primary power (whether from a scheduled outage or natural disaster) or switch gear failure. It is also used during routine pump maintenance or unexpected pump failure. DBS: Backup pumping instead of backup power • 100% pump station redundancy (Capacity and head) • Automatic pump priming without operator assistance • Optional Flygt N-technology, for sustained efficiency while handling stringy material • Automated control system assures cost efficient running • Sound attenuation enclosure for quiet operation • Flexible fuel options to meet your needs: diesel, natural gas (including propane) or LP vapor • Cold weather package for use in freezing conditions • Allows for routine pump maintenance on existing equipment, ensuring continuous pumping operation.Straight line: • Improved flow pattern • Better solids handling — with CD-impeller • Sustained pump efficiency — with N-impeller Impeller materials: • Cast chromium steel • Stainless Steal CD4MCu • Stainless Steal #316 • Hard IronTM Venturi air evacuation: automatic priming • 28' of static lift • Continuous operation • Automatic re-prime Oil bath mechanical seal: • Indefinite dry-running • Allows pump to prime from dry • Isolated from pumpage 3 DBS Features • Continuous pumping despite loss of power, switch gear or failure of lift station submersible pumps • Ability to function as primary pump during lift station pump maintenance • Available in sizes 3” to 24” with flows to 15,000 gpm and discharge heads to 600 feet Flygt Submersible + DBS = Xylem Total Pump Station Solution Possible Malfunction Pump Station w/ Generator Pump Station w/ DBS Loss of Utility Power Transfer Switch ---- Control Panel Failure ---- Automatic Control ---- Existing Pumps ---- Comparing a DBS pump station to a standby generator Pump discharge Check valve Pump suction Priming System Compressor Engine Fuel Tank What's Inside the Box • PrimeGuard digital control panel allowing seamless interface to existing control systems for remote monitoring and control • Optional sound-attenuating enclosure reducing sound levels as low as 64 to 69 dBA at 30 feet • Hinged locking doors providing access to operating controls and service locations • 100% Redundancy • Flygt N-technology • Redundant level controls • SCADA interface capability Backup Generator vs. DBS Picture 22 Features and Benefits Performance Curve • • • Materials Pump End Specifications Suction Size 6" with strainer Discharge Size 6" NPT (F) Max capacity 1530 USGPM † Max operating speed 2200 rpm Max Impeller diameter 11.3" Hydraulic Motor Data Max operating temperature 140 °F * Max Drive pressure Max working pressure 73 psi Hydraulic motor Max suction pressure 58 psi Hydraulic Flow Max casing pressure 109 psi * Please contact our office for applications in excess of 176°F.Dimensions (L x W x H) 23" (L) x 18" (W) x 32" (H) † Larger diameter pipes may be required for maximum ﬂows.Weight 386 lbs Weight 386 lbs Picture 101 84 Floodgate Road Reference number : 200GPA0001060 Bridgeport, NJ 08014 USA Date of issue : February 22, 2016 (856) 467-3636 . Fax (856) 467-4841 Issue : - Please contact the factory or office for further details. A typical picture of the pump is shown. All information is approximate and for general guidance only. © 2016 Xylem, Inc. All rights reserved. Godwin is a trademark of Xylem Dewatering Solutions, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Xylem Inc. Specifications and illustrations are subject to revision without notice. Xylem makes no representation regarding the completeness or accuracy of this information and is not liable for any direct or indirect damages arising from or relating to this information or its use. Silicon Carbide vs Silicon Carbide Fabricated Mild Steel tube and plate Wear plates Pump Shaft Impeller Mechanical Seal Face Suction Strainer Rear - Cast iron BS1452 Gr220 Front - Hard Iron BS EN 12513:2000 Carbon Steel BS 970-3:1991 080M40 Hard Iron BS EN 12513:2000 The Godwin Heidra 150NC hydraulic submersible pump is a compact self-contained pumping unit featuring a diesel driven power pack and 6" hydraulic pump end. With variable speed diesel engine power, the Heidra 150NC offers flow rates to 1530 USGPM. Gear motor connections are standard two-bolt SAE flange & shaft, which allows easy connection to bearing bracket. Hard faced mechanical seal in its own clean oil bath allows for indefinite dry running. Hydraulic motor circuit designed to allow automatic start and stopping without damage to submersible pump. www.godwinpumps.com 3500 psi Gear type 17-31 USGPM Pump casing Cast iron to BS1452 Grade 220 32% 2018 rpm (2200) rpm 1834 rpm (2000) rpm 1651 rpm (1800) rpm 1100 rpm (1200) rpm 25% 20% 36% 40% 43% 41% 32% 36% 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 150 300 450 600 750 900 1050 1200 1350 1500 1650 Head (metres)Flow (m³/hr)Head (feet)Flow (USGPM) NOTE: Curves reference pump speed with power pack engine speed in parenthesis. Performance base on new hydraulic components. Age and wear will reduce performance. Heidra 150NC Hydraulic Submersible Pump Hydraulic Pump Data Hydraulic Hose Max Drive pressure 3500 psi Feed (1) 1" x 50' with wingnut Hydraulic pump Gear type Return (1) 1" x 50' with wingnut Hydraulic Flow 17-31 USGPM Bleed (1) 1/2" x 50' with push connect Resovoir capacity 40 US Gallons Slurry Gate N/A Power Pack - Option 1 Power Pack - Option 2 Engine model: JCB TCAE-55 (FT4) Engine model: John Deere 4045TFC03 (FT4) Engine power: 74 HP @ 2200 rpm Engine power: 74 HP @ 2200 rpm Fuel capacity: 100 US Gallons Fuel capacity: 100 US Gallons Max Fuel consumption @ 2200 rpm: 3.7 US Gallons/hr Max Fuel consumption @ 2200 rpm: 4.3 US Gallons/hr Max Fuel consumption @ 1800 rpm: 2.9 US Gallons/hr Max Fuel consumption @ 1800 rpm: 3.4 US Gallons/hr Output flow: 31 USGPM Output flow: 31 USGPM Weight (dry): 3,570 lbs Weight (dry): 3,540 lbs Weight (wet): 4,290 lbs Weight (wet): 4,260 lbs Dimensions: 133" (L) x 70" (W) x 82" (H) Dimensions: 133" (L) x 70" (W) x 82" (H) Picture 3 Picture 102 84 Floodgate Road Reference number : 200GPA0001060 Bridgeport, NJ 08014 USA Date of issue : February 22, 2016 (856) 467-3636 . Fax (856) 467-4841 Issue : - © 2016 Xylem, Inc. All rights reserved. Godwin is a trademark of Xylem Dewatering Solutions, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Xylem Inc. Specifications and illustrations are subject to revision without notice. Xylem makes no representation regarding the completeness or accuracy of this information and is not liable for any direct or indirect damages arising from or relating to this information or its use. The Godwin GHPU30 hydraulic power pack features an open loop hydraulic system with integrated oil filter and strainer. One on/off handle for simple operation with integrated pressure relief and open center hydraulic valve. www.godwinpumps.com GHPU30 Hydraulic Power Pack Appendix C. Generator Sizing Reports Solution Summary Contact Information Project :Norton Ranch Solution Name :Backup Power - Copy 2 Spec Ref# : Description :Station Upgrade Contact : Email : Prepared By Name :Trey Morris Company :HDR Engineering Phone :4065233902 Email :trey.morris@hdrinc.com Solution Type Solution Type :Stationary Environment Ambient Temperature :100 F / 38 C Elevation :5000 ft / 1524 m Electrical Configuration Phase :Three Phase Frequency (Hz) :60 Hz Voltage (Nominal) :480/277V (High Wye) Voltage (Specific) :480 volts Maximum Allowable Transients Maximum Running Load :80 % Voltage Dip :35.00 % Frequency Dip :15 hertz Load Sequence Configuration Cyclic #1:75 % After Largest Cyclic #2:75 % After Largest Units Units :English Engine Duty :Standby Fuel :Diesel Market Region Region :US & Canada Application:General Generator Configuration Sound (desired) :No Requirement Fuel Tank :Sub Base UL 142 Run Time (desired) :24 hr Max Allowable Voltage Distortion (% THVD) Continuous :11 % Momentary :13 % S45W29290 Hwy 59 Waukesha, WI 53189 Page 1 of 9 09/05/2023 Generator and Load Summary Selected Generator & Alternator Product Family Method :Auto Select Product Family :SD/MD Diesel Sizing Method :Manual Generator :1 x 100 kW, 6.7L Quantity :1 Alternator :K0100124Y21 - 100kW Load Summary -- Connected Load of 25.04 kW Running Transients Harmonics kW:25.04 kW (Step ):14.94 kVA:17.6 kVA:27.68 kW (Peak ):25.04 THID Cont:12.5% PF:0.9 kVA (Step ):15.8 THID Peak :12.5% Model 100 kW, 6.7L 100 kw, Diesel Genset -- Site rated 100 kw 6.7 L Engine with Standard (K0100124Y21 - 100kW) Alternator Load Level Transients Harmonics Running :25 %Fdip (Hz):0.8 THVD Cont:1.8 % Peak :19 Vdip (%):2.9 THVD Peak :1.8 % Solution Limits Max Loading :80 %Fdip (Hz):15 THVD Cont:11 % Vdip (%):35 THVD Peak :13 % Load List Starting Running Harmonic Current Distortion Limits Sequence Description kW kVA kW kVA Peak Cont.kVA Vdip Fdip Step 1 (Concurrent) Miscellaneous : Panel L 1 X 5.10 kW @ 1.00 PF , Harmonics: THID = 0.00% 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 0 %0 %0 35.00 %15 Hertz Step 1 (Concurrent) Miscellaneous : EH-1 1 X 5.00 kW @ 1.00 PF , Harmonics: THID = 0.00% 5 5 5 5 0 %0 %0 35.00 %15 Hertz Step 1 (Concurrent) Motor : Motor #1 1 X 15.00 HP Code G (6 kVA/Hp) 6 Pulse Filtered VFD Industrial (150%) Rated torque at start running at 100% , 4.84 5.7 14.94 17.58 12.5 %12.5 %17.6 15.00 %5 Hertz Step 1 (Concurrent) Summary All loads on (sequence starting) 25.0kW All loads on (sequence starting) 25 kW Application Peak 14.94 15.8 25.04 27.68 12.5 %12.5 %17.6 15 % 42 volts 8.3 % 5 hertz S45W29290 Hwy 59 Waukesha, WI 53189 Page 2 of 9 09/05/2023 Transient Analysis Most difficult alternator transient requirements (Vdip) Sequence :Step 1 (Concurrent) Load :Motor #1 Starting kVA:15.8 Vdip Tolerance :15.00 % Vdip Expected :2.9 % Most difficult engine transient requirements (Fdip) Sequence :Step 1 (Concurrent) Load :Panel L Starting kVA:14.94 Fdip Tolerance :5 Fdip Expected :0.75 Alternator Transient Analysis (Vdip)Engine Transient Analysis (Fdip) Sequence Allowable Vdip Expected Vdip Sequence Starting kVA Largest Transient Load Step 1 (Concurrent)15.0 %2.90 %15.8 Motor #1 Sequence Allowable Fdip Expected Fdip Sequence Starting kW Largest Transient Load Step 1 (Concurrent)5 0.75 14.94 Panel L Note: UPS that revert to battery on system transients do not establish a sequence frequency dip limit through they may impact the sizing. The sizing algorithm verfifies the engine can accept the UPS within its frequency tolerance. S45W29290 Hwy 59 Waukesha, WI 53189 Page 3 of 9 09/05/2023 Harmonic Analysis Harmonic Profile :Application Total (running) kVA Nonlinear Load:17.6 kVA Base (all non-linear):17.6 Sequence (Total) THID: 12.5 %THVD: 1.8 % Selected sequence(s) harmonic alternator loading: 20 % Selected Harmonic Current and Voltage Profiles Profile 3rd 5th 7th 9th 11th 13th 15th 17th 19th Current 0 %10.9 %4.3 %0 %3.2 %2 %0 %1.6 %1.5 % Voltage 0 %1.2 %0.7 %0 %0.8 %0.6 %0 %0.3 %1.5 % S45W29290 Hwy 59 Waukesha, WI 53189 Page 4 of 9 09/05/2023 S45W29290 Hwy 59 Waukesha, WI 53189 Page 5 of 9 09/05/2023 Harmonic Analysis Harmonic Profile :Application Total (peak) kVA Nonlinear Load:17.6 kVA Base (all non-linear):17.6 Sequence (Total) THID: 12.5 %THVD: 1.8 % Selected sequence(s) harmonic alternator loading: 20 % Selected Harmonic Current and Voltage Profiles Profile 3rd 5th 7th 9th 11th 13th 15th 17th 19th Current 0 %10.9 %4.3 %0 %3.2 %2 %0 %1.6 %1.5 % Voltage 0 %1.2 %0.7 %0 %0.8 %0.6 %0 %0.3 %1.5 % S45W29290 Hwy 59 Waukesha, WI 53189 Page 6 of 9 09/05/2023 S45W29290 Hwy 59 Waukesha, WI 53189 Page 7 of 9 09/05/2023 Gas Piping Gas Pipe size only applies to gaseous fuel. S45W29290 Hwy 59 Waukesha, WI 53189 Page 8 of 9 09/05/2023 Exhaust Piping Generator Summary Sizing Method :Auto Select Pipe Size :2.00'' Product Family :SD/MD Diesel Generator :100 kW, 6.7L Total Exahust Flow (ft3 / Min):1022 Maximum Back Pressure (inches of water) :20.39 Solution Pressure Drop (inches of water) :0 Inputs Length of run (ft):1 Number of Standard Elbows :0 Number of Long Elbows (radius > 1.5 dia):0 Number of 45 elbows :0 *Piping pressure drop calculations only. Verify installation is performed per code requirements S45W29290 Hwy 59 Waukesha, WI 53189 Page 9 of 9 09/05/2023 Solution Summary Contact Information Project :Norton Ranch Solution Name :Backup Power - Copy 2 Spec Ref# : Description :Station Upgrade Contact : Email : Prepared By Name :Trey Morris Company :HDR Engineering Phone :4065233902 Email :trey.morris@hdrinc.com Solution Type Solution Type :Stationary Environment Ambient Temperature :100 F / 38 C Elevation :5000 ft / 1524 m Electrical Configuration Phase :Three Phase Frequency (Hz) :60 Hz Voltage (Nominal) :480/277V (High Wye) Voltage (Specific) :480 volts Maximum Allowable Transients Maximum Running Load :80 % Voltage Dip :35.00 % Frequency Dip :15 hertz Load Sequence Configuration Cyclic #1:75 % After Largest Cyclic #2:75 % After Largest Units Units :English Engine Duty :Standby Fuel :Diesel Market Region Region :US & Canada Application:General Generator Configuration Sound (desired) :No Requirement Fuel Tank :Sub Base UL 142 Run Time (desired) :24 hr Max Allowable Voltage Distortion (% THVD) Continuous :11 % Momentary :13 % S45W29290 Hwy 59 Waukesha, WI 53189 Page 1 of 9 09/05/2023 Generator and Load Summary Selected Generator & Alternator Product Family Method :Auto Select Product Family :SD/MD Diesel Sizing Method :Manual Generator :1 x 100 kW, 6.7L Quantity :1 Alternator :K0100124Y21 - 100kW Load Summary -- Connected Load of 50.04 kW Running Transients Harmonics kW:50.04 kW (Step ):25 kVA:17.6 kVA:52.68 kW (Peak ):50.04 THID Cont:12.5% PF:0.95 kVA (Step ):25 THID Peak :12.5% Model 100 kW, 6.7L 100 kw, Diesel Genset -- Site rated 100 kw 6.7 L Engine with Standard (K0100124Y21 - 100kW) Alternator Load Level Transients Harmonics Running :50 %Fdip (Hz):1.3 THVD Cont:1.8 % Peak :38 Vdip (%):4.5 THVD Peak :1.8 % Solution Limits Max Loading :80 %Fdip (Hz):15 THVD Cont:11 % Vdip (%):35 THVD Peak :13 % Load List Starting Running Harmonic Current Distortion Limits Sequence Description kW kVA kW kVA Peak Cont.kVA Vdip Fdip Group 1 (Non- Concurrent) Miscellaneous : Load Bank 1 X 25.00 kW @ 1.00 PF , Harmonics: THID = 0.00% 25 25 25 25 0 %0 %0 35.00 %15 Hertz Group 1 (Non- Concurrent) Summary All loads on (sequence starting) 25.0kW All loads on (sequence starting) 25 kW Application Peak 25 25 25 25 0 %0 %0 35 % 168 volts 25 % 15 hertz Step 1 (Concurrent) Miscellaneous : Panel L 1 X 5.10 kW @ 1.00 PF , Harmonics: THID = 0.00% 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 0 %0 %0 35.00 %15 Hertz Step 1 (Concurrent) Miscellaneous : EH-1 1 X 5.00 kW @ 1.00 PF , Harmonics: THID = 0.00% 5 5 5 5 0 %0 %0 35.00 %15 Hertz Step 1 (Concurrent) Motor : Motor #1 1 X 15.00 HP Code G (6 kVA/Hp) 6 Pulse Filtered VFD Industrial (150%) Rated torque at start running at 100% , 4.84 5.7 14.94 17.58 12.5 %12.5 %17.6 15.00 %5 Hertz Step 1(Concurrent) Summary All loads on (sequence starting) 25.0kW All loads on (sequence starting) 50 kW Application Peak 14.94 15.8 25.04 27.68 12.5 %12.5 %17.6 15 %42 volts 8.3 %5 hertz S45W29290 Hwy 59 Waukesha, WI 53189 Page 2 of 9 09/05/2023 Transient Analysis Most difficult alternator transient requirements (Vdip) Sequence :Step 1 (Concurrent) Load :Motor #1 Starting kVA:15.8 Vdip Tolerance :15.00 % Vdip Expected :2.9 % Most difficult engine transient requirements (Fdip) Sequence :Step 1 (Concurrent) Load :Panel L Starting kVA:14.94 Fdip Tolerance :5 Fdip Expected :0.75 Alternator Transient Analysis (Vdip)Engine Transient Analysis (Fdip) Sequence Allowable Vdip Expected Vdip Sequence Starting kVA Largest Transient Load Group 1 (Non- Concurrent) 35.0 %4.50 %25 Load Bank Step 1 (Concurrent)15.0 %2.90 %15.8 Motor #1 Sequence Allowable Fdip Expected Fdip Sequence Starting kW Largest Transient Load Group 1 (Non- Concurrent) 15 1.25 25 Load Bank Step 1 (Concurrent)5 0.75 14.94 Panel L Note: UPS that revert to battery on system transients do not establish a sequence frequency dip limit through they may impact the sizing. The sizing algorithm verfifies the engine can accept the UPS within its frequency tolerance. S45W29290 Hwy 59 Waukesha, WI 53189 Page 3 of 9 09/05/2023 Harmonic Analysis Harmonic Profile :Application Total (running) kVA Nonlinear Load:17.6 kVA Base (all non-linear):17.6 Sequence (Total) THID: 12.5 %THVD: 1.8 % Selected sequence(s) harmonic alternator loading: 20 % Selected Harmonic Current and Voltage Profiles Profile 3rd 5th 7th 9th 11th 13th 15th 17th 19th Current 0 %10.9 %4.3 %0 %3.2 %2 %0 %1.6 %1.5 % Voltage 0 %1.2 %0.7 %0 %0.8 %0.6 %0 %0.3 %1.5 % S45W29290 Hwy 59 Waukesha, WI 53189 Page 4 of 9 09/05/2023 S45W29290 Hwy 59 Waukesha, WI 53189 Page 5 of 9 09/05/2023 Harmonic Analysis Harmonic Profile :Application Total (peak) kVA Nonlinear Load:17.7 kVA Base (all non-linear):17.6 Sequence (Total) THID: 12.5 %THVD: 1.8 % Selected sequence(s) harmonic alternator loading: 20 % Selected Harmonic Current and Voltage Profiles Profile 3rd 5th 7th 9th 11th 13th 15th 17th 19th Current 0 %10.9 %4.3 %0 %3.2 %2 %0 %1.6 %1.5 % Voltage 0 %1.2 %0.7 %0 %0.8 %0.6 %0 %0.3 %1.5 % S45W29290 Hwy 59 Waukesha, WI 53189 Page 6 of 9 09/05/2023 S45W29290 Hwy 59 Waukesha, WI 53189 Page 7 of 9 09/05/2023 Gas Piping Gas Pipe size only applies to gaseous fuel. S45W29290 Hwy 59 Waukesha, WI 53189 Page 8 of 9 09/05/2023 Exhaust Piping Generator Summary Sizing Method :Auto Select Pipe Size :2.00'' Product Family :SD/MD Diesel Generator :100 kW, 6.7L Total Exahust Flow (ft3 / Min):1022 Maximum Back Pressure (inches of water) :20.39 Solution Pressure Drop (inches of water) :0 Inputs Length of run (ft):1 Number of Standard Elbows :0 Number of Long Elbows (radius > 1.5 dia):0 Number of 45 elbows :0 *Piping pressure drop calculations only. Verify installation is performed per code requirements S45W29290 Hwy 59 Waukesha, WI 53189 Page 9 of 9 09/05/2023 Solution Summary Contact Information Project :Norton Ranch Solution Name :Backup Power Spec Ref# : Description :Station Upgrade Contact : Email : Prepared By Name :Trey Morris Company :HDR Engineering Phone :4065233902 Email :trey.morris@hdrinc.com Solution Type Solution Type :Stationary Environment Ambient Temperature :100 F / 38 C Elevation :5000 ft / 1524 m Electrical Configuration Phase :Three Phase Frequency (Hz) :60 Hz Voltage (Nominal) :480/277V (High Wye) Voltage (Specific) :480 volts Maximum Allowable Transients Maximum Running Load :80 % Voltage Dip :35.00 % Frequency Dip :15 hertz Load Sequence Configuration Cyclic #1:75 % After Largest Cyclic #2:75 % After Largest Units Units :English Engine Duty :Standby Fuel :Diesel Market Region Region :US & Canada Application:General Generator Configuration Sound (desired) :No Requirement Fuel Tank :Sub Base UL 142 Run Time (desired) :24 hr Max Allowable Voltage Distortion (% THVD) Continuous :11 % Momentary :13 % S45W29290 Hwy 59 Waukesha, WI 53189 Page 1 of 9 09/05/2023 Generator and Load Summary Selected Generator & Alternator Product Family Method :Auto Select Product Family :SD/MD Diesel Sizing Method :Manual Generator :1 x 100 kW, 6.7L Quantity :1 Alternator :K0100124Y21 - 100kW Load Summary -- Connected Load of 39.98 kW Running Transients Harmonics kW:39.98 kW (Step ):5.1 kVA:35.2 kVA:45.26 kW (Peak ):39.98 THID Cont:12.5% PF:0.88 kVA (Step ):5.7 THID Peak :12.5% Model 100 kW, 6.7L 100 kw, Diesel Genset -- Site rated 100 kw 6.7 L Engine with Standard (K0100124Y21 - 100kW) Alternator Load Level Transients Harmonics Running :40 %Fdip (Hz):0.3 THVD Cont:3.5 % Peak :31 Vdip (%):1 THVD Peak :3.5 % Solution Limits Max Loading :80 %Fdip (Hz):15 THVD Cont:11 % Vdip (%):35 THVD Peak :13 % Load List Starting Running Harmonic Current Distortion Limits Sequence Description kW kVA kW kVA Peak Cont.kVA Vdip Fdip Group 1 (Non- Concurrent) Miscellaneous : EH-1 1 X 5.00 kW @ 1.00 PF , Harmonics: THID = 0.00% 5 5 5 5 0 %0 %0 35.00 %15 Hertz Group 1 (Non- Concurrent) Miscellaneous : Panel L 1 X 5.10 kW @ 1.00 PF , Harmonics: THID = 0.00% 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 0 %0 %0 35.00 %15 Hertz Group 1 (Non- Concurrent) Motor : Motor #1 1 X 15.00 HP Code G (6 kVA/Hp) 6 Pulse Filtered VFD Industrial (150%) Rated torque at start running at 100% , 4.84 5.7 14.94 17.58 12.5 %12.5 %17.6 15.00 %5 Hertz Group 1 (Non- Concurrent) Motor : Motor #2 1 X 15.00 HP Code G (6 kVA/Hp) 6 Pulse Filtered VFD Industrial (150%) Rated torque at start running at 100% , 4.84 5.7 14.94 17.58 12.5 %12.5 %17.6 15.00 %5 Hertz Group 1 (Non- Concurrent) Summary All loads on (sequence starting) 40.0kW All loads on (sequence starting) 40 kW Application Peak 5.1 5.7 39.98 45.26 12.5 %12.5 %35.2 15 % 42 volts 8.3 % 5 hertz S45W29290 Hwy 59 Waukesha, WI 53189 Page 2 of 9 09/05/2023 Transient Analysis Most difficult alternator transient requirements (Vdip) Sequence :Group 1 (Non-Concurrent) Load :Motor #1 Starting kVA:5.7 Vdip Tolerance :15.00 % Vdip Expected :1.0 % Most difficult engine transient requirements (Fdip) Sequence :Group 1 (Non-Concurrent) Load :Panel L Starting kVA:5.1 Fdip Tolerance :5 Fdip Expected :0.26 Alternator Transient Analysis (Vdip)Engine Transient Analysis (Fdip) Sequence Allowable Vdip Expected Vdip Sequence Starting kVA Largest Transient Load Group 1 (Non- Concurrent) 15.0 %1.00 %5.7 Motor #1 Sequence Allowable Fdip Expected Fdip Sequence Starting kW Largest Transient Load Group 1 (Non- Concurrent) 5 0.26 5.1 Panel L Note: UPS that revert to battery on system transients do not establish a sequence frequency dip limit through they may impact the sizing. The sizing algorithm verfifies the engine can accept the UPS within its frequency tolerance. S45W29290 Hwy 59 Waukesha, WI 53189 Page 3 of 9 09/05/2023 Harmonic Analysis Harmonic Profile :Application Total (running) kVA Nonlinear Load:35.2 kVA Base (all non-linear):35.2 Sequence (Total) THID: 12.5 %THVD: 3.5 % Selected sequence(s) harmonic alternator loading: 40 % Selected Harmonic Current and Voltage Profiles Profile 3rd 5th 7th 9th 11th 13th 15th 17th 19th Current 0 %10.9 %4.3 %0 %3.2 %2 %0 %1.6 %1.5 % Voltage 0 %2.5 %1.4 %0 %1.6 %1.2 %0 %0.6 %1.5 % S45W29290 Hwy 59 Waukesha, WI 53189 Page 4 of 9 09/05/2023 S45W29290 Hwy 59 Waukesha, WI 53189 Page 5 of 9 09/05/2023 Harmonic Analysis Harmonic Profile :Application Total (peak) kVA Nonlinear Load:35.2 kVA Base (all non-linear):35.2 Sequence (Total) THID: 12.5 %THVD: 3.5 % Selected sequence(s) harmonic alternator loading: 40 % Selected Harmonic Current and Voltage Profiles Profile 3rd 5th 7th 9th 11th 13th 15th 17th 19th Current 0 %10.9 %4.3 %0 %3.2 %2 %0 %1.6 %1.5 % Voltage 0 %2.5 %1.4 %0 %1.6 %1.2 %0 %0.6 %1.5 % S45W29290 Hwy 59 Waukesha, WI 53189 Page 6 of 9 09/05/2023 S45W29290 Hwy 59 Waukesha, WI 53189 Page 7 of 9 09/05/2023 Gas Piping Gas Pipe size only applies to gaseous fuel. S45W29290 Hwy 59 Waukesha, WI 53189 Page 8 of 9 09/05/2023 Exhaust Piping Generator Summary Sizing Method :Auto Select Pipe Size :2.00'' Product Family :SD/MD Diesel Generator :100 kW, 6.7L Total Exahust Flow (ft3 / Min):1022 Maximum Back Pressure (inches of water) :20.39 Solution Pressure Drop (inches of water) :0 Inputs Length of run (ft):1 Number of Standard Elbows :0 Number of Long Elbows (radius > 1.5 dia):0 Number of 45 elbows :0 *Piping pressure drop calculations only. Verify installation is performed per code requirements S45W29290 Hwy 59 Waukesha, WI 53189 Page 9 of 9 09/05/2023 C APPENDIX C DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MAP (City of Bozeman GIS Infrastructure Viewer) 10,0000.3 Miles This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Feet 1,1650 Legend 582 Location 1,165 01/29/2025 Created By: Created For: Date: Norton Ranch Lift Station - Wastewater Map Lift Stations Manholes Abandoned Mains Force Mains Gravity Mains Street Names City Limits World Imagery Low Resolution 15m Imagery High Resolution 60cm Imagery High Resolution 30cm Imagery Citations 2.4m Resolution Metadata EXISTING NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION D APPENDIX D CITY OF BOZEMAN DOWNSTREAM CAPACITY EMAIL Outlook RE: [EXTERNAL]Norton Ranch Lift Station - Proposed Site Configuration From Lance Lehigh <llehigh@BOZEMAN.NET> Date Fri 10/18/2024 2:49 PM To Lee Hageman <lhageman@m-m.net>; Shawn Kohtz <SKohtz@BOZEMAN.NET>; Nick Pericich <NPericich@BOZEMAN.NET>; Cody Flammond <CFlammond@BOZEMAN.NET> 2 attachments (2 KB) ATT00001.txt; ATT00002.htm; ***This message originated from an External Source.*** Please use proper judgment and cauon when opening aachments, clicking links, or responding to this message. Lee, I was able to sit down with Shawn (Director of Ulies) and Nick P (Water/Sewer Superintendent) to discuss your email. The following comments are in relaon to the conceptual layout and provide general feedback as you connue to move into dra design. Design Feedback 1. Keep force main in City ROW as much as possible. 2. Limit amount of piping as much as possible, nong there are constraints you are working around such as the electrical and gas mains, etc. 3. The City is ok with the wet well located on the east side of the property as present. 4. The City would like to limit the number of future manholes. The direcve was to limit the amount of manholes vs placing mulple manholes in the BLVD space. This would require reconfiguraon of the exisng manholes in the Laurel Parkway, which may require regrading to achieve the desired flow results. 5. The City is ok ulizing the 30 foot easement to the south of the structure to maintain proper ulity spacing requirements and future access. 6. The proposed Revised Manifold – Isometric drawing – Is the intent to split the flow between the 6-inch and 8-inch force main. A second closed gate valve may be necessary on the downstream side of the six-inch jockey pump feed for isolaon. Based on our discussion it sounds like you ancipate using the 6 – inch main during low flows and the 8-inch during peak periods. I was also able to discuss the downstream evaluaon and model results with Shawn and Nick. Downstream Capacity analysis Director Determinaon 1. The ancipated flow associated with the Norton Ranch Li staon upgrades have adequate downstream capacity in the near-term to handle the expected Peak Flows at the future e-in point on the 18-inch main within Coonwood Road a. No downstream upgrades are required as part of these improvements. Please let us know if you any quesons. Lance City of Bozeman MT Lance Lehigh, PE, CFM | Engineer III From: Lee Hageman <lhageman@m-m.net> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2024 2:46 PM To: Shawn Kohtz <SKohtz@BOZEMAN.NET>; Nick Pericich <NPericich@BOZEMAN.NET>; Lance Lehigh <llehigh@BOZEMAN.NET>; Cody Flammond <CFlammond@BOZEMAN.NET> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Norton Ranch Li Staon - Proposed Site Configuraon CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Shawn, Lance, and Nick, Lance was kind enough to jump on a quick screen share with me yesterday to look at the lift station site and the proposed configuration. Based on our chat, I prepared a conceptual layout to get additional feedback from everyone on this email so everyone is comfortable and I can move this conceptual plan forward into draft design documents. The attached exhibit shows our proposed configuration of the site and piping with the new wet well. A couple of notes on this site and configuration: The proposed wet well location (east of the existing building) is the most constructable to avoid undermining the existing wet well, existing building, and a proposed expansion of the existing building. The site is constrained to the south between the building and the property line. There is not sufficient space to accommodate the gravity main to the new wet well and the buried wet well underground piping while providing adequate separation distances from the existing property lines, the existing building, and between the buried piping and gravity main. An existing sewer easement on the property to the south can help resolve this issue (see image below and attached easement). There is a manhole in Laurel Parkway and 8" stub that was previously installed to service that property that we could reconfigure to provide an alignment for the new gravity main to the wet well. We are proposing to abandon those plans in favor of rerouting the effluent from the inlet pipe to the existing wet well to the new wet well location. The proposed manholes would be installed outside of the existing banks of the stormwater pond to avoid inundation in the existing conditions. The existing pond shown is proposed to be abandoned when that lot is developed based on conceptual site plan we are working on. The site still gravity main service for the subdivision/lot. Manholes in the boulevards could be made accessible with curb cuts and approaches (if needed). The wet well will have a concrete access driveway, plus include a gravel access route to the south property line. Proposed Manifolding I've also drafted a proposed manifold configuration for the building that would prevent the issues with the flow meters. Here's a few images of the existing configuration and the proposed configuration for reference. EXISTING WET WELL - SECTION VIEW Proposed Revised Manifold - Plan Proposed Revised Manifold - Isometric Please reach out with any questions or suggestions at your earliest convenience. I'm happy to jump on a quick call if that's easier. I appreciate your feedback on this. Thank you, Lee Hageman, PESenior Engineer, Morrison-Maierle +14069226734 direct | +14062091948 mobile 2880 Technology Blvd W, Bozeman, MT 59718 A 100% Employee-Owned Company E APPENDIX E NRCS SOILS REPORT United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Gallatin County Area, Montana Norton Lift Station and Force Main Improvements Natural Resources Conservation Service January 22, 2025 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Gallatin County Area, Montana.......................................................................13 448A—Hyalite-Beaverton complex, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes....................................................................................................13 509B—Enbar loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes...................................................15 510B—Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes......................................16 537A—Lamoose silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes........................................17 748A—Hyalite-Beaverton complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes..........................19 References............................................................................................................22 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report 6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Custom Soil Resource Report 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 505840050585005058600505870050588005058900505840050585005058600505870050588005058900491100 491200 491300 491400 491500 491600 491700 491800 491900 491100 491200 491300 491400 491500 491600 491700 491800 491900 45° 41' 3'' N 111° 6' 54'' W45° 41' 3'' N111° 6' 11'' W45° 40' 44'' N 111° 6' 54'' W45° 40' 44'' N 111° 6' 11'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84 0 200 400 800 1200 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 Meters Map Scale: 1:4,240 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area, Montana Survey Area Data: Version 28, Aug 22, 2024 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 18, 2022—Aug 29, 2022 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 10 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 448A Hyalite-Beaverton complex, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes 1.1 11.9% 509B Enbar loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 1.5 15.6% 510B Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 0.0 0.0% 537A Lamoose silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 3.2 34.4% 748A Hyalite-Beaverton complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes 3.5 38.1% Totals for Area of Interest 9.3 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it Custom Soil Resource Report 11 was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 12 Gallatin County Area, Montana 448A—Hyalite-Beaverton complex, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56sq Elevation: 4,450 to 5,300 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance Map Unit Composition Hyalite and similar soils:70 percent Beaverton and similar soils:20 percent Minor components:10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Hyalite Setting Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Loamy alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 5 inches: loam Bt1 - 5 to 9 inches: clay loam Bt2 - 9 to 17 inches: silty clay loam 2Bt3 - 17 to 26 inches: very cobbly sandy clay loam 3C - 26 to 60 inches: very cobbly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 48 to 96 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:5 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R043BP818MT - Upland Grassland Group Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Description of Beaverton Setting Landform:Stream terraces, alluvial fans Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 5 inches: cobbly loam Bt - 5 to 21 inches: very gravelly clay loam Bk - 21 to 25 inches: very cobbly coarse sandy loam 2Bk - 25 to 60 inches: extremely cobbly loamy coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 48 to 96 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R043BP818MT - Upland Grassland Group Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Meadowcreek Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Beaverton Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP818MT - Upland Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 14 509B—Enbar loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56vp Elevation: 4,400 to 6,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Enbar and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Enbar Setting Landform:Flood plains Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Loamy alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 22 inches: loam Cg - 22 to 49 inches: sandy loam 2C - 49 to 60 inches: very gravelly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 4 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 24 to 42 inches Frequency of flooding:Rare Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:10 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 15 Minor Components Nythar Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Flood plains Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: Yes Straw Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BB032MT - Loamy (Lo) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No 510B—Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56vt Elevation: 4,200 to 5,950 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Meadowcreek and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Meadowcreek Setting Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 11 inches: loam Bg - 11 to 25 inches: silt loam 2C - 25 to 60 inches: very gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 4 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat poorly drained Custom Soil Resource Report 16 Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 24 to 42 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Blossberg Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: Yes Beaverton Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP818MT - Upland Grassland Hydric soil rating: No 537A—Lamoose silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56wp Elevation: 4,000 to 5,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance Map Unit Composition Lamoose and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Custom Soil Resource Report 17 Description of Lamoose Setting Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 9 inches: silt loam Bg - 9 to 27 inches: silt loam 2C - 27 to 60 inches: very gravelly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 12 to 24 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 3.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D Ecological site: R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: Yes Minor Components Bonebasin Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: Yes Meadowcreek Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 18 748A—Hyalite-Beaverton complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 570v Elevation: 4,350 to 6,150 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance Map Unit Composition Hyalite and similar soils:70 percent Beaverton and similar soils:20 percent Minor components:10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Hyalite Setting Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Loamy alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 5 inches: loam Bt1 - 5 to 9 inches: clay loam Bt2 - 9 to 17 inches: silty clay loam 2Bt3 - 17 to 26 inches: very cobbly sandy clay loam 3C - 26 to 60 inches: very cobbly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 4 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:5 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R043BP818MT - Upland Grassland Group Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 19 Description of Beaverton Setting Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 5 inches: cobbly loam Bt - 5 to 21 inches: very gravelly clay loam Bk - 21 to 25 inches: very cobbly coarse sandy loam 2Bk - 25 to 60 inches: extremely cobbly loamy coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 4 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R043BP818MT - Upland Grassland Group Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Hyalite Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP818MT - Upland Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Turner Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BB032MT - Loamy (Lo) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 20 Custom Soil Resource Report 21 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 22 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report 23 F APPENDIX F FEMA FIRMETTE MAP National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250 Feet Ü SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT SPECIAL FLOODHAZARD AREAS Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)Zone A, V, A99With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR Regulatory Floodway 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areasof 1% annual chance flood with averagedepth less than one foot or with drainageareas of less than one square mile Zone X Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Zone X Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes.Zone X Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer Levee, Dike, or Floodwall Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17.5 Water Surface Elevation Coastal Transect Coastal Transect Baseline Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Effective LOMRs Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary Digital Data Available No Digital Data Available Unmapped This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemapaccuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from theauthoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This mapwas exported on 1/22/2025 at 11:43 PM and does notreflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date andtime. The NFHL and effective information may change orbecome superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. Legend OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD OTHER AREAS GENERAL STRUCTURES OTHER FEATURES MAP PANELS 8 B 20.2 The pin displayed on the map is an approximatepoint selected by the user and does not representan authoritative property location. 1:6,000 111°7'9"W 45°41'8"N 111°6'32"W 45°40'43"N Basemap Imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023 G APPENDIX G GEOTECHNICAL REPORT H APPENDIX H GROUNDWATER MEMO memo Page 1 TO: James Nickelson, PE FROM: Breanne Cline, Environmental Scientist DATE: 04/28/2022 Updated 08/16/2022 and 10/27/2022 by JRN JOB NO.: 10130.001 RE: RE: West Park Groundwater Memo CC: Urgent For Review Please Comment Please Reply For Your Use The purpose of this memo is to document the expected groundwater conditions on the West Park Subdivision property (Norton East Ranch Sub Ph 6, Lot R1A – R1D) in Gallatin County, Montana. Groundwater Monitoring Wells A limited geo-investigation was performed on the subject property in March/April 2020 to determine the depth to gravels across the site. A total of 23 test holes were drilled at this time, and seven of the test holes have been used as groundwater monitoring locations since March 24, 2021. The depth to groundwater data tables and graphs for March 24, 2021 to March 30, 2022 are provided in Attachment 1. A map of groundwater monitoring locations is provided as Attachment 2. Monitoring is ongoing and the data will be further evaluated as the design for the project progresses. Across the seven monitoring wells, the depth to groundwater was generally at its shallowest in late May and ranged from 0.33 feet to 2.64 feet below ground surface. Groundwater was generally at its deepest level in late September/early October with groundwater levels between 1.69 feet and 3.54 feet below ground surface. With the limited data provided for the subject property, it appears groundwater levels fluctuate at or less than approximately two feet throughout the calendar year. Groundwater Degradation There are no identified steps to avoid groundwater degradation for the project. Groundwater resources will be protected through normal development routines and there are no identified project elements that will result in groundwater degradation. Such normal development routines include installing sanitary sewer systems, not installing garage floor drains connected to sumps, and following the design guidelines of the City of Bozeman and the adopted Building Codes. Conclusion The relatively shallow groundwater at the site will require that the design of the project take into account groundwater levels in terms of road, stormwater and building foundation design. 3/24/2021 4/7/2021 4/21/2021 5/6/2021 5/19/2021 6/2/2021 6/16/2021 7/1/2021 7/14/2021 7/28/2021 8/11/2021 8/25/2021 9/8/2021 9/22/2021 10/20/2021 11/17/2021 12/8/2021 1 TH-11 1.47 1.31 1.72 1.71 1.81 1.80 2.12 2.30 2.32 2.38 2.21 1.97 2.10 2.20 2.31 1.71 1.57 2 TH-14 0.37 0.37 0.90 0.98 1.04 1.02 1.32 1.52 1.55 1.67 1.55 1.37 1.37 1.53 1.55 1.01 0.67 3 TH-18 2.69 2.90 3.11 3.07 3.16 3.04 3.27 3.73 3.80 3.88 3.74 3.49 3.53 3.56 3.44 3.30 3.20 4 TH- 16 1.23 0.81 1.47 1.40 1.65 1.52 1.90 2.19 2.22 2.39 2.26 1.99 2.17 2.33 1.88 1.68 1.52 5 TH-4 0.65 0.31 0.98 1.07 1.33 1.28 1.77 2.09 2.13 2.28 2.02 1.71 1.89 2.13 - 1.46 0.82 6 TH-1 3.02 2.58 3.20 3.13 3.18 3.11 - - - - - - - - - - - 7 TH-8 1.17 1.01 1.57 1.53 1.73 1.75 2.18 2.45 2.43 2.54 2.26 1.95 2.19 2.46 2.73 1.73 1.55 All Measurements Shown on This Sheet are Water Depths Below Existing Ground In Feet. Cells marked with "-" notes that there was no water in the well. 0.36 -0.05 -0.26 -0.31 -0.65 -0.27 -0.13 -0.20 -0.070 -0.02 0.23 -0.17 -0.07 0.20 0.10 1.47 0.19 -0.15 -0.36 -0.35 -0.69 -0.24 -0.15 -0.17 -0.090 -0.05 0.16 -0.11 -0.02 0.14 0.02 0.15 0.66 0.03 -0.12 -0.18 -0.36 -0.40 -0.06 -0.43 -0.16 -0.060 0.06 0.26 -0.13 0.01 0.10 0.07 0.04 3.21 0.54 -0.15 -0.25 -0.41 -0.66 -0.32 -0.23 -0.06 -0.090 0.18 0.26 -0.05 -0.07 0.32 0.07 -0.02 1.54 0.42 -0.18 -0.40 -0.62 -1.00 -0.38 -0.21 -0.26 -0.110 0.10 0.32 -0.20 -0.07 0.09 0.07 0.78 0.57 -0.19 -0.21 -0.55 -0.66 0.39 -0.12 -0.26 -0.40 -0.65 -0.32 -0.20 -0.28 -0.050 -0.05 0.28 -0.09 -0.02 0.16 0.11 -0.04 1.50 0.36 -0.14 -0.27 -0.43 -0.67 -0.27 -0.23 -0.19 -0.08 0.04 0.25 -0.13 -0.04 0.18 0.08 0.03 1.53 Well Number Previous Label DATES OF MEASUREMENT (2021) WEST PARK SUBDIVISION MONITORING WELLS - 10130.001 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 2/23/2021 4/14/2021 6/3/2021 7/23/2021 9/11/2021 10/31/2021 12/20/2021 2/8/2022 Depth Below Ground (ft)DateNorton Ranch 2021 Ground Water Depth Below Ground Well 1 Well 2 Well 3 Well 4 Well 5 Well 6 Well 7 1/5/2022 1/19/2022 2/2/2022 2/10/2022 2/16/2022 2/23/2022 3/2/2022 3/9/2022 3/16/2022 3/23/2022 3/30/2022 1 TH-11 1.69 1.79 1.88 1.80 1.62 1.60 0.48 1.47 1.37 1.45 1.37 2 TH-14 1.05 1.04 1.30 1.05 0.83 0.91 0.06 0.68 0.53 0.63 0.57 3 TH-18 3.21 3.20 3.26 3.27 3.17 3.20 2.51 2.91 2.85 2.87 2.75 4 TH- 16 1.53 1.66 1.75 1.70 1.54 1.56 0.34 1.43 1.41 1.43 1.36 5 TH-4 1.04 1.21 1.49 1.39 1.17 1.24 0.14 0.89 0.79 1.14 1.07 6 TH-1 - - - - - - 2.46 3.12 3.32 - - 7 TH-8 1.76 1.91 2.09 2.0 1.81 1.87 0.39 1.39 1.35 1.45 1.39 -0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 1.1 -1.0 0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.0 -0.3 0.3 0.2 -0.1 0.9 -0.6 0.2 -0.1 0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.7 -0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.2 -1.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.2 -0.3 0.1 0.2 -0.1 1.1 -0.8 0.1 -0.4 0.1 -0.7 -0.2 -0.1 -0.2 0.1 0.2 -0.1 1.5 -1.0 0.0 -0.1 0.1 Average= -0.09 -0.16 0.09 0.18 -0.04 1.08 -0.79 0.04 -0.11 0.08 WEST PARK SUBDIVISION MONITORING WELLS - 10130.001 Well Number Previous Label DATES OF MEASUREMENT (measurements are ground water depth below ground elevation in feet) 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 12/30/2021 1/9/2022 1/19/2022 1/29/2022 2/8/2022 2/18/2022 2/28/2022 3/10/2022 3/20/2022 3/30/2022 4/9/2022 Depth Below Ground (ft)DateNorton Ranch 2022 Ground Water Depth Below Ground Elevation Well 1 Well 2 Well 3 Well 4 Well 5 Well 6 Well 7 © 2022 Microsoft Corporation © 2022 Maxar ©CNES (2022) Distribution Airbus DS © 2022 TomTom 4780.26 4787.34 4783.98 4785.78 4790.53 4793.07 4792.68 4785 4790 47 9 5 4785 4790 4795 4800 TRACT 1 11.85 acs. TRACT 2 6.79 acs. TRACT 3 12.30 acs. TRACT 4 10.04 acs. © PROJECT NO. FIGURE NUMBER COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE,2022 N:\10130\001.02 Site Plan\ACAD\Civil\Worksheet\groundwater\10130.002 Groundwater Exhibit.dwg Plotted by rosie nickelson on Apr/11/2022 DRAWN BY: DSGN. BY: APPR. BY: DATE:engineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle 2880 Technology Blvd West Bozeman, MT 59718 406.587.0721 www.m-m.net 10130.001 EX-B WEST PARK SUBDIVISION GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL MAP BOZEMAN MONTANA BTB BTB JRN 4/1/2022 100 2000 SCALE IN FEET GROUNDWATER MON. WELL #5 (TH-4) GROUNDWATER MON. WELL #6 (TH-1) GROUNDWATER MON. WELL #4 (TH-16) GROUNDWATER MON. WELL #3 (TH-18) GROUNDWATER MON. WELL #2 (TH-14) GROUNDWATER MON. WELL #7 (TH-8)GROUNDWATER MON. WELL #1 (TH-11) GROUNDWATER ELEVATION FROM MARCH. 2, 2022 (TYP) EXISTING GROUND (TYP) EXISTING DETETION POND #4, NORTON PHASE 1 WETLANDS (TYP) I APPENDIX I DESIGN CALCULATIONS – WET WELL & FORCE MAIN NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTED SEWER FLOWS Project Flow Summary Table Development/Phase Acres Included in Previous LS Design # Units Average Flows (gpd) Estimated Population I&I (gpd) Phases 1,2,3 65 Yes -37,870 589 9,750 Phases 4,5 50.39 Yes -56,130 872 7,559 Phase 6 (300 Single Family) 42.5 Yes 520 75,013 1,165 6,375 West Side Flats (138 Single Family) 14 Yes 138 19,907 310 2,100 Urban + Farm Phase 1 (R-5)8.72 No - New 64 9,232 144 1,308 Urban + Farm Phase 2 (B2-M)31.94 No - New 1,423 205,276 3,188 4,791 6,268 403,429 31,883 Lift Station Projected Flows (Combined Population Peak Factor) Total Average Flow (gpd)Population Lift Station Peaking Factor Peak Flow (gpd) I&I (gpd) Peak Flow + I&I (gpd) Peak Flow + I&I (gpm) 403,429 6,268 3.15 1,270,802 31,883 1,302,684 905 LiftStationCalcs(RectangularWetWell).xlsx Page 1 of 1 NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS SEWER FLOW CALCULATIONS Project #:10678.001 Date:1/29/2025 Preparer:LRH SEWER FLOW CALCULATIONS Assumptions: - Flows are based on HDR summary flows, with populations calculated based on 64.4 gpcd Sewer Flows Average Day Flow (ADF)403,429 gpd Average Day Flow (ADF)280 gpm Per Capita Demand 64.4 gpcd Persons Per Household 2.24 Equivalent Population 6,268 people Peaking Factor 3.15 Peak Hour Flow 1,270,802 gpd I & I 31,883 gpd Peak Flow + I&I 1,302,684 gpd Peak Hour Flow 905 gpm LiftStationCalcs(RectangularWetWell).xlsx Page 1 of 1 NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS WET WELL SIZING Project #:10678.001 Date:1/29/2025 Preparer:LRH Wet Well Calculations Assumptions: - Elevations based on September 2024 survey by Morrison-Maierle. Sewer Main Depth at Lift Station: Sewer Main Invert at Wet Well:4,768.61 ft Ground Elevation at Wet Well:4,782.64 ft Top of Wet Well Structure 4,783.14 ft IE Depth at Lift Station (From Top):14.53 ft Wet Well Sizing Wet Well Inside Width:9 ft Wet Well Length:12 ft Minimum Level for Pump (LL Alarm):1.15 ft Pump Off Buffer:1.00 ft Pump On Depth (LL Alarm to Lead Pump On):3.00 ft Duty Pump On to Lag Pump 1 On 2.00 ft Lag Pump 1 On to Lag Pump 2 On 1.00 ft Lag Pump 2 On to High Alarm 1.00 ft High alarm to HH Alarm 1.00 ft Emergency Response Buffer:4.00 ft Gallons Per Foot Depth:808 gallons/ft Effective Volume Fill time:8.7 min Lift Station Summary Average Daily Flow 403,429 gpd Effective Volume Available (Duty Pump):2,424 gallons Effective Depth:3 ft Total Required Wet Well Depth (Exact)28.7 ft Total Required Wet Well Depth (Rounded)29.0 ft Wet Well Elevation Summary Bottom of Structure:4754.14 Pump Inlet Elevation:4755.29 Low-low Float:4755.79 Duty Pump Off:4756.29 Duty Pump On:4759.29 Lag Pump 1 On:4761.29 Lag Pump 2 On:4762.29 High Level Alarm:4763.29 High-High Level Float:4764.29 Emergency Pump Elevations Height of Pump Inlet Above Wet Well Floor 1.15 Backup Pump Inlet Elevation (Wet Well)4,755.29 Emergency Pump On:4764.29 Emergency Pump Off:4756.29 LiftStationCalcs(RectangularWetWell).xlsx Page 1 of 2 NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS WET WELL SIZING PUMP 4754.14 4755.79 4756.29 4759.29 4761.29Lag Pump 1 On: Duty Pump On: Duty Pump Off: Low-low Float: 4762.29Lag Pump 2 On: 4763.29High Level Alarm: 4764.29 4,783.14 4,775.50Yard Piping (Buried DIP) Emergency Pump On: GravityInletPipe 4,768.61 Pump Inlet Elevation: Emergency Pump Off: Top of Wet Well Structure 4755.29 Bottom of Structure: LiftStationCalcs(RectangularWetWell).xlsx Page 2 of 2 NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS HYDRAULIC ELEVATION SUMMARY Project #:10678.001 Date:1/29/2025 Preparer:LRH HYDRAULIC ELEVATION SUMMARY Assumptions: - Elevations are based on NAVD 88 datum. Building / Piping Finished Floor Elevation 4,783.14 Existing Manifold Elevation (Centerline)4,785.77 Proposed Manifold Elevation (Centerline)4,788.44 Yard Piping (Buried DIP)4,775.50 Approximate Existing 6" Force Main Outlet at Building 4,776.18 Pump Elevations Duty Pump Inlet Elevation 4,754.98 Lead/Lag Pump Inlet Elevations 4,755.29 Outfalls Existing 6" Force Main Outfall 4,762.98 Proposed 8" Force Main Outfall 4,785.04 LiftStationCalcs(RectangularWetWell).xlsx Page 1 of 1 NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS NEW 8" FORCE MAIN SIZING CALCULATIONS Project #:10678.001 Date:1/29/2025 Preparer:LRH Force Main Sizing Calculations PVC (TRENCH INSTALLATION) Pipe Characteristics Nominal Diameter of Pipe 8 in (C900 PVC) Pipe Inside Diameter 8.28 in (DR-25 = 8.28in ID) Minimum Flow Rate Minimum velocity in force main 2 ft/s Min. flow rate to achieve min. velocity 336 gpm Flow Velocity Evaluation Design Peak Flow:905 gpm Velocity at Peak Flow Rate:5.39 ft/s HDPE (DIRECTIONAL DRILLING) Pipe Characteristics Nominal Diameter of Pipe 10 in IRON PIPE SIZE PE4710 Pipe Inside Diameter 8.68 in (DR-11 = 8.68in ID) Minimum Flow Rate Minimum velocity in force main 2 ft/s Min. flow rate to achieve min. velocity 369 gpm Flow Velocity Evaluation Design Peak Flow:905 gpm Velocity at Peak Flow Rate:4.91 ft/s LiftStationCalcs(RectangularWetWell).xlsx Page 1 of 1 NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS DUTY PUMP - SYSTEM CURVE - WET WELL TO EXISTING 6" FORCE MAIN Project #:10678.001 Date:1/29/2025 Preparer:LRH HEADLOSS - WET WELL TO FORCE MAIN C value (DEQ-2)120 C value (new pipe)140 Length of Buried Pipe (ft)114 Manifold Length (ft)47 From vertical 90 inlet through manifold to vertical 90 outlet. Manifold Maximum Elevation 4,788.44 Pump Inlet Elevation 4,755.29 Buried Piping Elevation 4,775.50 Length of 4" Piping (pump to yard depth)(ft)20.21 4" PIPING (WET WELL) Hazen-Williams Continuity per ACAD C=120 C=120 C=140 C=140 B C=120 C=140 C=120 C=140 Max Pipe Max Length Friction Friction Loss Friction Friction Loss Minor Losses Max Min Friction & Minor Friction and Minor Elevation Max. Total Max. Total Flow (gpm)ID (in)Velocity (fps)(ft)Loss(ft/100ft)Total (ft)Loss(ft/100ft)Total (ft)Elevation Elevation Losses (ft)Losses (ft)Difference Head (ft)Head (ft) 0 4.18 0.00 20.2 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 4775.50 4755.29 0.00 0.00 20.21 20.2 20.2 50 4.18 1.17 20.2 0.20 0.0 0.15 0.0 0.23 4775.50 4755.29 0.27 0.26 20.21 20.5 20.5 100 4.18 2.34 20.2 0.71 0.1 0.54 0.1 0.93 4775.50 4755.29 1.08 1.04 20.21 21.3 21.3 150 4.18 3.51 20.2 1.51 0.3 1.14 0.2 2.10 4775.50 4755.29 2.41 2.33 20.21 22.6 22.5 200 4.18 4.68 20.2 2.58 0.5 1.94 0.4 3.74 4775.50 4755.29 4.26 4.13 20.21 24.5 24.3 250 4.18 5.85 20.2 3.90 0.8 2.93 0.6 5.84 4775.50 4755.29 6.62 6.43 20.21 26.8 26.6 300 4.18 7.01 20.2 5.46 1.1 4.11 0.8 8.40 4775.50 4755.29 9.51 9.23 20.21 29.7 29.4 350 4.18 8.18 20.2 7.27 1.5 5.46 1.1 11.44 4775.50 4755.29 12.91 12.54 20.21 33.1 32.8 400 4.18 9.35 20.2 9.31 1.9 6.99 1.4 14.94 4775.50 4755.29 16.82 16.35 20.21 37.0 36.6 450 4.18 10.52 20.2 11.57 2.3 8.70 1.8 18.91 4775.50 4755.29 21.25 20.67 20.21 41.5 40.9 500 4.18 11.69 20.2 14.07 2.8 10.57 2.1 23.34 4775.50 4755.29 26.19 25.48 20.21 46.4 45.7 550 4.18 12.86 20.2 16.78 3.4 12.61 2.5 28.25 4775.50 4755.29 31.64 30.80 20.21 51.9 51.0 600 4.18 14.03 20.2 19.72 4.0 14.82 3.0 33.62 4775.50 4755.29 37.60 36.61 20.21 57.8 56.8 650 4.18 15.20 20.2 22.87 4.6 17.19 3.5 39.45 4775.50 4755.29 44.07 42.93 20.21 64.3 63.1 700 4.18 16.37 20.2 26.23 5.3 19.72 4.0 45.75 4775.50 4755.29 51.06 49.74 20.21 71.3 70.0 750 4.18 17.54 20.2 29.81 6.0 22.40 4.5 52.52 4775.50 4755.29 58.55 57.05 20.21 78.8 77.3 800 4.18 18.70 20.2 33.59 6.8 25.25 5.1 59.76 4775.50 4755.29 66.55 64.87 20.21 86.8 85.1 850 4.18 19.87 20.2 37.58 7.6 28.25 5.7 67.47 4775.50 4755.29 75.06 73.18 20.21 95.3 93.4 900 4.18 21.04 20.2 41.78 8.4 31.40 6.3 75.64 4775.50 4755.29 84.08 81.98 20.21 104.3 102.2 950 4.18 22.21 20.2 46.18 9.3 34.71 7.0 84.27 4775.50 4755.29 93.61 91.29 20.21 113.8 111.5 1000 4.18 23.38 20.2 50.78 10.3 38.17 7.7 93.38 4775.50 4755.29 103.64 101.09 20.21 123.9 121.3 1050 4.18 24.55 20.2 55.58 11.2 41.78 8.4 102.95 4775.50 4755.29 114.18 111.39 20.21 134.4 131.6 1100 4.18 25.72 20.2 60.59 12.2 45.54 9.2 112.99 4775.50 4755.29 125.23 122.19 20.21 145.4 142.4 1150 4.18 26.89 20.2 65.78 13.3 49.45 10.0 123.49 4775.50 4755.29 136.79 133.49 20.21 157.0 153.7 1200 4.18 28.06 20.2 71.18 14.4 53.50 10.8 134.46 4775.50 4755.29 148.85 145.28 20.21 169.1 165.5 Minor Losses Description Quantity k value1 Total K Nominal Outlet Size Actual ID 90-degree Fitting (Std.)2 0.9 1.80 4"4.18 Ductile 3" to 4" Expansion (At pump)1 0.2 0.20 4" to 6" Expansion (Outside of Wet Well)1 0.2 0.20 2.20 total Assuming Flanged Connections Minor Loss Coefficients from Engineeringtoolbox.com LiftStationCalcs(RectangularWetWell).xlsx Page 1 of 2 NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS DUTY PUMP - SYSTEM CURVE - WET WELL TO EXISTING 6" FORCE MAIN 6" PIPING (THROUGH BUILDING) Hazen-Williams Continuity per ACAD C=120 C=120 C=140 C=140 B C=120 C=140 C=120 C=140 Max Pipe Max Length Friction Friction Loss Friction Friction Loss Minor Losses Max Min Main Friction & Minor Friction and Minor Elevation Max. Total Max. Total Flow (gpm)ID (in)Velocity (fps)(ft)Loss(ft/100ft)Total (ft)Loss(ft/100ft)Total (ft)Elevation Elevation Losses (ft)Losses (ft)Difference Head (ft)Head (ft) 0 6.28 0.00 161 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 4788.44 4775.50 0.00 0.00 12.94 12.9 12.9 50 6.28 0.52 161 0.03 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.05 4788.44 4775.50 0.09 0.08 12.94 13.0 13.0 100 6.28 1.04 161 0.10 0.2 0.07 0.1 0.18 4788.44 4775.50 0.34 0.30 12.94 13.3 13.2 150 6.28 1.55 161 0.21 0.3 0.16 0.3 0.41 4788.44 4775.50 0.75 0.67 12.94 13.7 13.6 200 6.28 2.07 161 0.36 0.6 0.27 0.4 0.73 4788.44 4775.50 1.31 1.16 12.94 14.2 14.1 250 6.28 2.59 161 0.54 0.9 0.40 0.7 1.15 4788.44 4775.50 2.01 1.80 12.94 15.0 14.7 300 6.28 3.11 161 0.75 1.2 0.57 0.9 1.65 4788.44 4775.50 2.86 2.56 12.94 15.8 15.5 350 6.28 3.63 161 1.00 1.6 0.75 1.2 2.25 4788.44 4775.50 3.86 3.46 12.94 16.8 16.4 400 6.28 4.14 161 1.28 2.1 0.97 1.6 2.93 4788.44 4775.50 5.00 4.49 12.94 17.9 17.4 450 6.28 4.66 161 1.60 2.6 1.20 1.9 3.71 4788.44 4775.50 6.28 5.64 12.94 19.2 18.6 500 6.28 5.18 161 1.94 3.1 1.46 2.3 4.58 4788.44 4775.50 7.71 6.93 12.94 20.6 19.9 550 6.28 5.70 161 2.32 3.7 1.74 2.8 5.54 4788.44 4775.50 9.27 8.35 12.94 22.2 21.3 600 6.28 6.22 161 2.72 4.4 2.05 3.3 6.60 4788.44 4775.50 10.98 9.89 12.94 23.9 22.8 650 6.28 6.73 161 3.16 5.1 2.37 3.8 7.74 4788.44 4775.50 12.82 11.56 12.94 25.8 24.5 700 6.28 7.25 161 3.62 5.8 2.72 4.4 8.98 4788.44 4775.50 14.81 13.36 12.94 27.7 26.3 750 6.28 7.77 161 4.11 6.6 3.09 5.0 10.31 4788.44 4775.50 16.93 15.29 12.94 29.9 28.2 800 6.28 8.29 161 4.64 7.5 3.48 5.6 11.73 4788.44 4775.50 19.19 17.34 12.94 32.1 30.3 850 6.28 8.80 161 5.19 8.3 3.90 6.3 13.24 4788.44 4775.50 21.59 19.52 12.94 34.5 32.5 900 6.28 9.32 161 5.77 9.3 4.33 7.0 14.85 4788.44 4775.50 24.13 21.82 12.94 37.1 34.8 950 6.28 9.84 161 6.37 10.3 4.79 7.7 16.54 4788.44 4775.50 26.80 24.25 12.94 39.7 37.2 1000 6.28 10.36 161 7.01 11.3 5.27 8.5 18.33 4788.44 4775.50 29.61 26.81 12.94 42.6 39.7 1050 6.28 10.88 161 7.67 12.3 5.77 9.3 20.21 4788.44 4775.50 32.56 29.49 12.94 45.5 42.4 1100 6.28 11.39 161 8.36 13.5 6.28 10.1 22.18 4788.44 4775.50 35.64 32.29 12.94 48.6 45.2 1150 6.28 11.91 161 9.08 14.6 6.82 11.0 24.24 4788.44 4775.50 38.85 35.22 12.94 51.8 48.2 1200 6.28 12.43 161 9.82 15.8 7.38 11.9 26.39 4788.44 4775.50 42.21 38.28 12.94 55.1 51.2 Minor Losses Description Quantity k value1 Total K Nominal Outlet Size Actual ID 90-degree Fitting (Std.)7 0.9 6.30 6"6.28 Ductile Iron Tee (through branch)1 1.8 1.80 45-degree Fitting (Std.)0 0.4 0.00 22.5-degree Fitting (Std.)0 0.2 0.00 11.25-degree Fitting (Std.)0 0.2 0.00 Check Valve (swing)1 2.5 2.50 Flow Meter 1 0.0 0.00 Magmeter has no pressure loss 3" to 6" Expansion 1 0.2 0.20 Gate Valves (open)1 0.2 0.20 11.00 total Assuming Flanged Connections Minor Loss Coefficients from Engineeringtoolbox.com LiftStationCalcs(RectangularWetWell).xlsx Page 2 of 2 NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING 6" FORCE MAIN SYSTEM CURVE (DOWNSTREAM OF LIFT STATION) Project #:10678.001 Date:1/29/2025 Preparer:LRH SYSTEM CURVE FOR 6" FORCEMAIN (DOWNSTREAM OF BUILDING - DURSTON DISCHARGE) C value (DEQ-2)120 C value (new pipe)140 Buried Outlet Elevation at Building 4,776.18 Elevation at Outfall 4,762.98 Manifold Maximum Elevation 4,788.44 Pump Inlet Elevation 4754.98 Pipe Length (ft)4,101 Hazen-Williams Continuity per ACAD C=120 C=120 C=140 C=140 B C=120 C=140 C=120 C=140 Max Pipe Max Length Friction Friction Loss Friction Friction Loss Minor Losses Max Min Friction & Minor Friction and Minor Elevation Max Total Max Total Flow (gpm)ID (in)Velocity (fps)(ft)Loss(ft/100ft)Total (ft)Loss(ft/100ft)Total (ft)(ft)Elevation Elevation Losses (ft)Losses (ft)Difference Head (ft)Head (ft) 0 6.115 0.00 4,101 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 4762.98 4754.98 0.00 0.00 8.00 8.0 8.0 50 6.115 0.55 4,101 0.03 1.27 0.02 1.0 0.03 4762.98 4754.98 1.31 0.99 8.00 9.3 9.0 100 6.115 1.09 4,101 0.11 4.60 0.08 3.5 0.13 4762.98 4754.98 4.73 3.59 8.00 12.7 11.6 150 6.115 1.64 4,101 0.24 9.75 0.18 7.3 0.29 4762.98 4754.98 10.03 7.61 8.00 18.0 15.6 200 6.115 2.19 4,101 0.40 16.60 0.30 12.5 0.51 4762.98 4754.98 17.12 12.99 8.00 25.1 21.0 250 6.115 2.73 4,101 0.61 25.10 0.46 18.9 0.80 4762.98 4754.98 25.90 19.67 8.00 33.9 27.7 300 6.115 3.28 4,101 0.86 35.18 0.64 26.4 1.15 4762.98 4754.98 36.34 27.60 8.00 44.3 35.6 350 6.115 3.82 4,101 1.14 46.81 0.86 35.2 1.57 4762.98 4754.98 48.38 36.75 8.00 56.4 44.8 400 6.115 4.37 4,101 1.46 59.94 1.10 45.1 2.05 4762.98 4754.98 61.99 47.10 8.00 70.0 55.1 450 6.115 4.92 4,101 1.82 74.55 1.37 56.0 2.59 4762.98 4754.98 77.14 58.63 8.00 85.1 66.6 500 6.115 5.46 4,101 2.21 90.62 1.66 68.1 3.20 4762.98 4754.98 93.82 71.31 8.00 101.8 79.3 550 6.115 6.01 4,101 2.64 108.11 1.98 81.3 3.87 4762.98 4754.98 111.98 85.13 8.00 120.0 93.1 600 6.115 6.56 4,101 3.10 127.02 2.33 95.5 4.60 4762.98 4754.98 131.62 100.08 8.00 139.6 108.1 650 6.115 7.10 4,101 3.59 147.31 2.70 110.7 5.40 4762.98 4754.98 152.72 116.13 8.00 160.7 124.1 700 6.115 7.65 4101 4.12 168.98 3.10 127.0 6.27 4762.98 4754.98 175.25 133.28 8.00 183.3 141.3 750 6.115 8.19 4,101 4.68 192.02 3.52 144.3 7.19 4762.98 4754.98 199.21 151.52 8.00 207.2 159.5 800 6.115 8.74 4101 5.28 216.39 3.97 162.7 8.18 4762.98 4754.98 224.58 170.84 8.00 232.6 178.8 850 6.115 9.29 4,101 5.90 242.11 4.44 182.0 9.24 4762.98 4754.98 251.35 191.22 8.00 259.3 199.2 900 6.115 9.83 4,101 6.56 269.14 4.93 202.3 10.36 4762.98 4754.98 279.50 212.66 8.00 287.5 220.7 950 6.115 10.38 4,101 7.25 297.49 5.45 223.6 11.54 4762.98 4754.98 309.03 235.15 8.00 317.0 243.1 1000 6.115 10.93 4,101 7.98 327.13 6.00 245.9 12.79 4762.98 4754.98 339.92 258.68 8.00 347.9 266.7 1050 6.115 11.47 4,101 8.73 358.07 6.56 269.1 14.10 4762.98 4754.98 372.17 283.24 8.00 380.2 291.2 1100 6.115 12.02 4,101 9.52 390.29 7.15 293.4 15.47 4762.98 4754.98 405.76 308.83 8.00 413.8 316.8 1150 6.115 12.56 4,101 10.33 423.78 7.77 318.5 16.91 4762.98 4754.98 440.69 335.44 8.00 448.7 343.4 1200 6.115 13.11 4,101 11.18 458.53 8.40 344.7 18.42 4762.98 4754.98 476.94 363.07 8.00 484.9 371.1 Other Losses Description Quantity k value1 Total K Nominal Outlet Size Actual ID 90-degree Fitting (Std.)3 0.9 2.70 6 6.115 Existing SDR 26 PVC(actual ID = 6.115") 45-degree Fitting (Std.)7 0.4 2.80 22.5-degree Fitting (Std.)2 0.2 0.40 11.25-degree Fitting (Std.)1 0.2 0.20 Flow Rate:280.16 gpm Valves and Meters (Std.)4 0.2 0.80 2 fps (min.)183.08 gpm 6.90 total Pipe Outlet Velocity 3.06 (peak) Assuming Flanged Connections Minor Loss Coefficients from Engineeringtoolbox.com LiftStationCalcs(RectangularWetWell).xlsx Page 1 of 1 NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS COMBINED SYSTEM CURVE - DUTY PUMP W/ 6" FORCE MAIN Project #:10678.001 Date:1/29/2025 Preparer:LRH Combined System Curve For 6" Force Main - Durston Discharge C value (DEQ-2)120 C value (new pipe)140 Pump Inlet Elevation 4,754.98 Max Elevation 4,788.44 Discharge Elevation 4,762.98 Target Pumping Rate (gpm)280.16 C=120 Max Normal Elevation Head Max Elevation Head Wet Well Piping Yard and Lift Station 6" Force Main Initial System Typical Pumping Flow (gpm)(ft)(ft)Head Loss (ft)Head Loss (ft)Head Loss (ft)Head Over Manifold (ft)Head (ft) 0 8.00 33.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.5 8.0 50 8.00 33.46 0.27 0.09 1.31 33.8 9.7 100 8.00 33.46 1.08 0.34 4.73 34.9 14.1 150 8.00 33.46 2.41 0.75 10.03 36.6 21.2 200 8.00 33.46 4.26 1.31 17.12 39.0 30.7 250 8.00 33.46 6.62 2.01 25.90 42.1 42.5 300 8.00 33.46 9.51 2.86 36.34 45.8 56.7 350 8.00 33.46 12.91 3.86 48.38 50.2 73.1 400 8.00 33.46 16.82 5.00 61.99 55.3 91.8 450 8.00 33.46 21.25 6.28 77.14 61.0 112.7 500 8.00 33.46 26.19 7.71 93.82 67.4 135.7 550 8.00 33.46 31.64 9.27 111.98 74.4 160.9 600 8.00 33.46 37.60 10.98 131.62 82.0 188.2 650 8.00 33.46 44.07 12.82 152.72 90.4 217.6 700 8.00 33.46 51.06 14.81 175.25 99.3 249.1 750 8.00 33.46 58.55 16.93 199.21 108.9 282.7 800 8.00 33.46 66.55 19.19 224.58 119.2 318.3 850 8.00 33.46 75.06 21.59 251.35 130.1 356.0 900 8.00 33.46 84.08 24.13 279.50 141.7 395.7 950 8.00 33.46 93.61 26.80 309.03 153.9 437.4 1000 8.00 33.46 103.64 29.61 339.92 166.7 481.2 1050 8.00 33.46 114.18 32.56 372.17 180.2 526.9 1100 8.00 33.46 125.23 35.64 405.76 194.3 574.6 1150 8.00 33.46 136.79 38.85 440.69 209.1 624.3 1200 8.00 33.46 148.85 42.21 476.94 224.5 676.0 LiftStationCalcs(RectangularWetWell).xlsx Page 1 of 3 NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS COMBINED SYSTEM CURVE - DUTY PUMP W/ 6" FORCE MAIN C=140 Max Normal Elevation Head Max Elevation Head Wet Well Piping Yard and Lift Station 6" Force Main Initial System Typical Pumping Flow (gpm)(ft)(ft)Head Loss (ft)Head Loss (ft)Head Loss (ft)Head Over Manifold (ft)Head (ft) 0 8.00 33.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.5 8.0 50 8.00 33.46 0.26 0.08 0.99 33.8 9.3 100 8.00 33.46 1.04 0.30 3.59 34.8 12.9 150 8.00 33.46 2.33 0.67 7.61 36.5 18.6 200 8.00 33.46 4.13 1.16 12.99 38.8 26.3 250 8.00 33.46 6.43 1.80 19.67 41.7 35.9 300 8.00 33.46 9.23 2.56 27.60 45.3 47.4 350 8.00 33.46 12.54 3.46 36.75 49.5 60.8 400 8.00 33.46 16.35 4.49 47.10 54.3 75.9 450 8.00 33.46 20.67 5.64 58.63 59.8 92.9 500 8.00 33.46 25.48 6.93 71.31 65.9 111.7 550 8.00 33.46 30.80 8.35 85.13 72.6 132.3 600 8.00 33.46 36.61 9.89 100.08 80.0 154.6 650 8.00 33.46 42.93 11.56 116.13 88.0 178.6 700 8.00 33.46 49.74 13.36 133.28 96.6 204.4 750 8.00 33.46 57.05 15.29 151.52 105.8 231.9 800 8.00 33.46 64.87 17.34 170.84 115.7 261.0 850 8.00 33.46 73.18 19.52 191.22 126.2 291.9 900 8.00 33.46 81.98 21.82 212.66 137.3 324.5 950 8.00 33.46 91.29 24.25 235.15 149.0 358.7 1000 8.00 33.46 101.09 26.81 258.68 161.4 394.6 1050 8.00 33.46 111.39 29.49 283.24 174.3 432.1 1100 8.00 33.46 122.19 32.29 308.83 187.9 471.3 1150 8.00 33.46 133.49 35.22 335.44 202.2 512.2 1200 8.00 33.46 145.28 38.28 363.07 217.0 554.6 LiftStationCalcs(RectangularWetWell).xlsx Page 2 of 3 NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS COMBINED SYSTEM CURVE - DUTY PUMP W/ 6" FORCE MAIN System Curve (Duty Pump - Existing 6" Force Main - Durston Discharge)4504003503002502001501005000 25 50 75 100 125 Q (gpm)TDH (ft)System Curve - Max (C=120)System Curve - Max (C=140)NP 3102 SH 3 256 @ 30 Hz Design Flow Rate NP 3102 SH 3 256 @ 40 Hz NP 3102 SH 3 256 @ 50 Hz NP 3102 SH 3 256 @ 60 Hz Startup Head LiftStationCalcs(RectangularWetWell).xlsx Page 3 of 3 NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS LEAD LAG PUMPS - SYSTEM CURVE - WET WELL TO OUTLET Project #:10678.001 Date:1/29/2025 Preparer:LRH HEADLOSS THROUGH LIFT STATION PIPING C value (DEQ-2)120 C value (new pipe)140 Length of Buried Yard Piping (ft)107 Manifold Length (ft)49 From vertical 90 inlet through manifold to vertical 90 outlet. Manifold Maximum Elevation 4,788.44 Pump Inlet Elevation 4,755.29 Buried Piping Elevation 4,775.50 Length of 6" Piping (wet well) (ft)20.21 Hazen-Williams Continuity per ACAD C=120 C=120 C=140 C=140 B C=120 C=140 C=120 C=140 Max Pipe Max Length Friction Friction Loss Friction Friction Loss Minor Losses Max Min Pump Friction & Minor Friction and Minor Elevation Max. Total Max. Total Flow (gpm)ID (in)Velocity (fps)(ft)Loss(ft/100ft)Total (ft)Loss(ft/100ft)Total (ft)Elevation Elevation Losses (ft)Losses (ft)Difference Head (ft)Head (ft) 0 6.28 0.00 176 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 4788.44 4755.29 0.00 0.00 33.15 33.2 33.2 50 6.28 0.52 176 0.03 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.07 4788.44 4755.29 0.11 0.10 33.15 33.3 33.3 100 6.28 1.04 176 0.10 0.2 0.07 0.1 0.27 4788.44 4755.29 0.44 0.40 33.15 33.6 33.6 150 6.28 1.55 176 0.21 0.4 0.16 0.3 0.60 4788.44 4755.29 0.97 0.88 33.15 34.1 34.0 200 6.28 2.07 176 0.36 0.6 0.27 0.5 1.07 4788.44 4755.29 1.69 1.54 33.15 34.8 34.7 250 6.28 2.59 176 0.54 0.9 0.40 0.7 1.67 4788.44 4755.29 2.61 2.38 33.15 35.8 35.5 300 6.28 3.11 176 0.75 1.3 0.57 1.0 2.40 4788.44 4755.29 3.73 3.40 33.15 36.9 36.6 350 6.28 3.63 176 1.00 1.8 0.75 1.3 3.27 4788.44 4755.29 5.03 4.59 33.15 38.2 37.7 400 6.28 4.14 176 1.28 2.3 0.97 1.7 4.27 4788.44 4755.29 6.53 5.97 33.15 39.7 39.1 450 6.28 4.66 176 1.60 2.8 1.20 2.1 5.40 4788.44 4755.29 8.21 7.51 33.15 41.4 40.7 500 6.28 5.18 176 1.94 3.4 1.46 2.6 6.66 4788.44 4755.29 10.09 9.24 33.15 43.2 42.4 550 6.28 5.70 176 2.32 4.1 1.74 3.1 8.06 4788.44 4755.29 12.15 11.13 33.15 45.3 44.3 600 6.28 6.22 176 2.72 4.8 2.05 3.6 9.60 4788.44 4755.29 14.39 13.20 33.15 47.5 46.4 650 6.28 6.73 176 3.16 5.6 2.37 4.2 11.26 4788.44 4755.29 16.82 15.44 33.15 50.0 48.6 700 6.28 7.25 176 3.62 6.4 2.72 4.8 13.06 4788.44 4755.29 19.44 17.86 33.15 52.6 51.0 750 6.28 7.77 176 4.11 7.2 3.09 5.4 15.00 4788.44 4755.29 22.24 20.44 33.15 55.4 53.6 800 6.28 8.29 176 4.64 8.2 3.48 6.1 17.06 4788.44 4755.29 25.23 23.20 33.15 58.4 56.4 850 6.28 8.80 176 5.19 9.1 3.90 6.9 19.26 4788.44 4755.29 28.40 26.13 33.15 61.6 59.3 900 6.28 9.32 176 5.77 10.2 4.33 7.6 21.59 4788.44 4755.29 31.75 29.23 33.15 64.9 62.4 950 6.28 9.84 176 6.37 11.2 4.79 8.4 24.06 4788.44 4755.29 35.29 32.50 33.15 68.4 65.7 1000 6.28 10.36 176 7.01 12.3 5.27 9.3 26.66 4788.44 4755.29 39.01 35.94 33.15 72.2 69.1 1050 6.28 10.88 176 7.67 13.5 5.77 10.2 29.39 4788.44 4755.29 42.91 39.55 33.15 76.1 72.7 1100 6.28 11.39 176 8.36 14.7 6.28 11.1 32.26 4788.44 4755.29 46.99 43.33 33.15 80.1 76.5 1150 6.28 11.91 176 9.08 16.0 6.82 12.0 35.26 4788.44 4755.29 51.25 47.28 33.15 84.4 80.4 1200 6.28 12.43 176 9.82 17.3 7.38 13.0 38.39 4788.44 4755.29 55.70 51.40 33.15 88.9 84.6 1250 6.28 12.95 176 10.59 18.7 7.96 14.0 41.65 4788.44 4755.29 60.32 55.69 33.15 93.5 88.8 1300 6.28 13.47 176 11.39 20.1 8.56 15.1 45.05 4788.44 4755.29 65.13 60.14 33.15 98.3 93.3 1350 6.28 13.98 176 12.22 21.5 9.18 16.2 48.59 4788.44 4755.29 70.11 64.77 33.15 103.3 97.9 1400 6.28 14.50 176 13.07 23.0 9.82 17.3 52.25 4788.44 4755.29 75.28 69.56 33.15 108.4 102.7 1450 6.28 15.02 176 13.95 24.6 10.48 18.5 56.05 4788.44 4755.29 80.62 74.52 33.15 113.8 107.7 1500 6.28 15.54 176 14.85 26.2 11.16 19.7 59.98 4788.44 4755.29 86.15 79.65 33.15 119.3 112.8 LiftStationCalcs(RectangularWetWell).xlsx Page 1 of 2 NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS LEAD LAG PUMPS - SYSTEM CURVE - WET WELL TO OUTLET Minor Losses Description Quantity k value1 Total K Nominal Outlet Size Actual ID 90-degree Fitting (Std.)10 0.9 9.00 2 horiz. 1 underground. 2 manifold 6"6.28 Ductile Iron Tee (through branch)2 1.8 3.60 45-degree Fitting (Std.)0 0.4 0.00 22.5-degree Fitting (Std.)2 0.2 0.40 11.25-degree Fitting (Std.)0 0.2 0.00 Check Valve (swing)1 2.5 2.50 Flow Meter 1 0 0.00 Magmeter has no pressure loss 6" to 8" Expansion 1 0.1 0.10 Gate Valves (open)2 0.2 0.40 16.00 total Assuming Flanged Connections Minor Loss Coefficients from Engineeringtoolbox.com LiftStationCalcs(RectangularWetWell).xlsx Page 2 of 2 NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS NEW 8" FORCE MAIN SYSTEM CURVE (DOWNSTREAM OF LIFT STATION) - CASCADE DISCHARGE Project #:10678.001 Date:1/29/2025 Preparer:LRH SYSTEM CURVE FOR 8" FORCEMAIN (DOWNSTREAM OF BUILDING - CASCADE DISCHARGE) C value (DEQ-2)120 C value (new pipe)140 Buried Outlet Elevation at Building 4,775.50 Elevation at Outfall 4,785.04 Manifold Maximum Height 4,788.44 Pump Inlet Elevation 4755.29 Pipe Length (ft)2,738 To Cottonwood (north of Cascade) Hazen-Williams Continuity per ACAD C=120 C=120 C=140 C=140 B C=120 C=140 C=120 C=140 Max Pipe Max Length Friction Friction Loss Friction Friction Loss Minor Losses Max Min Friction & Minor Friction and Minor Elevation Max Total Max Total Flow (gpm)ID (in)Velocity (fps)(ft)Loss(ft/100ft)Total (ft)Loss(ft/100ft)Total (ft)Elevation Elevation Losses (ft)Losses (ft)Difference Head (ft)Head (ft) 0 8.28 0.00 2,738 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 4785.04 4755.29 0.00 0.00 29.75 29.75 29.75 50 8.28 0.30 2,738 0.01 0.19 0.01 0.1 0.01 4785.04 4755.29 0.20 0.15 29.75 29.95 29.91 100 8.28 0.60 2,738 0.03 0.70 0.02 0.5 0.02 4785.04 4755.29 0.73 0.55 29.75 30.48 30.31 150 8.28 0.89 2,738 0.05 1.49 0.04 1.1 0.05 4785.04 4755.29 1.54 1.17 29.75 31.30 30.93 200 8.28 1.19 2,738 0.09 2.54 0.07 1.9 0.09 4785.04 4755.29 2.63 2.00 29.75 32.39 31.76 250 8.28 1.49 2,738 0.14 3.84 0.11 2.9 0.15 4785.04 4755.29 3.98 3.03 29.75 33.74 32.79 300 8.28 1.79 2,738 0.20 5.38 0.15 4.0 0.21 4785.04 4755.29 5.59 4.25 29.75 35.34 34.01 350 8.28 2.09 2,738 0.26 7.15 0.20 5.4 0.29 4785.04 4755.29 7.44 5.67 29.75 37.20 35.42 400 8.28 2.38 2,738 0.33 9.16 0.25 6.9 0.38 4785.04 4755.29 9.54 7.26 29.75 39.29 37.02 450 8.28 2.68 2,738 0.42 11.39 0.31 8.6 0.48 4785.04 4755.29 11.87 9.04 29.75 41.63 38.80 500 8.28 2.98 2,738 0.51 13.85 0.38 10.4 0.59 4785.04 4755.29 14.44 11.00 29.75 44.19 40.75 550 8.28 3.28 2,738 0.60 16.52 0.45 12.4 0.72 4785.04 4755.29 17.24 13.13 29.75 46.99 42.89 600 8.28 3.58 2,738 0.71 19.41 0.53 14.6 0.85 4785.04 4755.29 20.26 15.44 29.75 50.01 45.19 650 8.28 3.87 2,738 0.82 22.51 0.62 16.9 1.00 4785.04 4755.29 23.51 17.92 29.75 53.26 47.67 700 8.28 4.17 2738 0.94 25.82 0.71 19.4 1.16 4785.04 4755.29 26.98 20.57 29.75 56.73 50.32 750 8.28 4.47 2,738 1.07 29.34 0.81 22.1 1.33 4785.04 4755.29 30.67 23.38 29.75 60.42 53.14 800 8.28 4.77 2738 1.21 33.06 0.91 24.9 1.52 4785.04 4755.29 34.58 26.37 29.75 64.33 56.12 850 8.28 5.06 2,738 1.35 36.99 1.02 27.8 1.71 4785.04 4755.29 38.70 29.52 29.75 68.46 59.27 900 8.28 5.36 2,738 1.50 41.12 1.13 30.9 1.92 4785.04 4755.29 43.04 32.83 29.75 72.80 62.58 950 8.28 5.66 2,738 1.66 45.45 1.25 34.2 2.14 4785.04 4755.29 47.59 36.30 29.75 77.35 66.06 1000 8.28 5.96 2,738 1.83 49.98 1.37 37.6 2.37 4785.04 4755.29 52.35 39.94 29.75 82.11 69.69 1050 8.28 6.26 2,738 2.00 54.71 1.50 41.1 2.61 4785.04 4755.29 57.32 43.73 29.75 87.08 73.49 1100 8.28 6.55 2,738 2.18 59.63 1.64 44.8 2.87 4785.04 4755.29 62.50 47.69 29.75 92.25 77.44 1150 8.28 6.85 2,738 2.36 64.75 1.78 48.7 3.14 4785.04 4755.29 67.88 51.80 29.75 97.64 81.56 1200 8.28 7.15 2,738 2.56 70.06 1.92 52.7 3.41 4785.04 4755.29 73.47 56.07 29.75 103.22 85.83 1250 8.28 7.45 2,738 2.76 75.56 2.07 56.8 3.70 4785.04 4755.29 79.26 60.50 29.75 109.02 90.25 1300 8.28 7.75 2,738 2.97 81.25 2.23 61.1 4.01 4785.04 4755.29 85.26 65.08 29.75 115.01 94.83 1350 8.28 8.04 2,738 3.18 87.13 2.39 65.5 4.32 4785.04 4755.29 91.45 69.81 29.75 121.21 99.57 1400 8.28 8.34 2,738 3.40 93.20 2.56 70.1 4.65 4785.04 4755.29 97.85 74.70 29.75 127.60 104.46 1450 8.28 8.64 2,738 3.63 99.46 2.73 74.8 4.98 4785.04 4755.29 104.45 79.74 29.75 134.20 109.50 1500 8.28 8.94 2,738 3.87 105.91 2.91 79.6 5.33 4785.04 4755.29 111.24 84.94 29.75 141.00 114.69 LiftStationCalcs(RectangularWetWell).xlsx Page 1 of 2 NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS NEW 8" FORCE MAIN SYSTEM CURVE (DOWNSTREAM OF LIFT STATION) - CASCADE DISCHARGE Other Losses Description Quantity k value1 Total K Nominal Outlet Size Actual ID 90-degree Fitting (Std.)1 0.9 0.90 8 8.28 C900 PVC (DR-25) 45-degree Fitting (Std.)7 0.4 2.80 22.5-degree Fitting (Std.)2 0.2 0.40 11.25-degree Fitting (Std.)1 0.2 0.20 Peak Flow:905.00 gpm Valves and Meters (Std.)0 0.2 0.00 2 fps (min.)335.66 gpm 4.30 total Pipe Outlet Velocity 5.39 (peak) Assuming Flanged Connections Minor Loss Coefficients from Engineeringtoolbox.com LiftStationCalcs(RectangularWetWell).xlsx Page 2 of 2 NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS COMBINED SYSTEM CURVE - LEAD/LAG PUMP AND 8" FORCE MAIN - CASCADE DISCHARGE Project #:10678.001 Date:1/29/2025 Preparer:LRH Combined System Curve For Lead & Lag Pumps - 8" Force Main (Cascade Street) C value (DEQ-2)120 C value (new pipe)140 Pump Inlet Elevation 4,754.98 Max Elevation 4,788.44 Discharge Elevation 4,785.04 Target Pumping Rate (gpm)905.00 C = 120 (Service Conditions) Max Normal Elevation Head Max Elevation Head Wet Well & Lift Station 8" Force Main Initial System Typical Pumping Flow (gpm)(ft)(ft)Head Loss (ft)Head Loss (ft)Head Over Manifold (ft)Head (ft) 0 30.06 33.46 0.00 0.00 33.5 30.1 50 30.06 33.46 0.11 0.20 33.6 30.4 100 30.06 33.46 0.44 0.73 33.9 31.2 150 30.06 33.46 0.97 1.54 34.4 32.6 200 30.06 33.46 1.69 2.63 35.2 34.4 250 30.06 33.46 2.61 3.98 36.1 36.7 300 30.06 33.46 3.73 5.59 37.2 39.4 350 30.06 33.46 5.03 7.44 38.5 42.5 400 30.06 33.46 6.53 9.54 40.0 46.1 450 30.06 33.46 8.21 11.87 41.7 50.1 500 30.06 33.46 10.09 14.44 43.5 54.6 550 30.06 33.46 12.15 17.24 45.6 59.4 600 30.06 33.46 14.39 20.26 47.9 64.7 650 30.06 33.46 16.82 23.51 50.3 70.4 700 30.06 33.46 19.44 26.98 52.9 76.5 750 30.06 33.46 22.24 30.67 55.7 83.0 800 30.06 33.46 25.23 34.58 58.7 89.9 850 30.06 33.46 28.40 38.70 61.9 97.2 900 30.06 33.46 31.75 43.04 65.2 104.9 950 30.06 33.46 35.29 47.59 68.8 112.9 1000 30.06 33.46 39.01 52.35 72.5 121.4 1050 30.06 33.46 42.91 57.32 76.4 130.3 1100 30.06 33.46 46.99 62.50 80.5 139.5 1150 30.06 33.46 51.25 67.88 84.7 149.2 1200 30.06 33.46 55.70 73.47 89.2 159.2 1250 30.06 33.46 60.32 79.26 93.8 169.6 1300 30.06 33.46 65.13 85.26 98.6 180.4 1350 30.06 33.46 70.11 91.45 103.6 191.6 1400 30.06 33.46 75.28 97.85 108.7 203.2 1450 30.06 33.46 80.62 104.45 114.1 215.1 1500 30.06 33.46 86.15 111.24 119.6 227.4 LiftStationCalcs(RectangularWetWell).xlsx Page 1 of 3 NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS COMBINED SYSTEM CURVE - LEAD/LAG PUMP AND 8" FORCE MAIN - CASCADE DISCHARGE C = 140 (New Pipe) Max Normal Elevation Head Max Elevation Head Wet Well & Lift Station 8" Force Main Initial System Typical Pumping Flow (gpm)(ft)(ft)Head Loss (ft)Head Loss (ft)Head Over Manifold (ft)Head (ft) 0 30.06 33.46 0.00 0.00 33.5 30.1 50 30.06 33.46 0.10 0.15 33.6 30.3 100 30.06 33.46 0.40 0.55 33.9 31.0 150 30.06 33.46 0.88 1.17 34.3 32.1 200 30.06 33.46 1.54 2.00 35.0 33.6 250 30.06 33.46 2.38 3.03 35.8 35.5 300 30.06 33.46 3.40 4.25 36.9 37.7 350 30.06 33.46 4.59 5.67 38.1 40.3 400 30.06 33.46 5.97 7.26 39.4 43.3 450 30.06 33.46 7.51 9.04 41.0 46.6 500 30.06 33.46 9.24 11.00 42.7 50.3 550 30.06 33.46 11.13 13.13 44.6 54.3 600 30.06 33.46 13.20 15.44 46.7 58.7 650 30.06 33.46 15.44 17.92 48.9 63.4 700 30.06 33.46 17.86 20.57 51.3 68.5 750 30.06 33.46 20.44 23.38 53.9 73.9 800 30.06 33.46 23.20 26.37 56.7 79.6 850 30.06 33.46 26.13 29.52 59.6 85.7 900 30.06 33.46 29.23 32.83 62.7 92.1 950 30.06 33.46 32.50 36.30 66.0 98.9 1000 30.06 33.46 35.94 39.94 69.4 105.9 1050 30.06 33.46 39.55 43.73 73.0 113.3 1100 30.06 33.46 43.33 47.69 76.8 121.1 1150 30.06 33.46 47.28 51.80 80.7 129.1 1200 30.06 33.46 51.40 56.07 84.9 137.5 1250 30.06 33.46 55.69 60.50 89.1 146.2 1300 30.06 33.46 60.14 65.08 93.6 155.3 1350 30.06 33.46 64.77 69.81 98.2 164.6 1400 30.06 33.46 69.56 74.70 103.0 174.3 1400 30.06 33.46 69.56 74.70 103.0 174.3 1500 30.06 33.46 79.65 84.94 113.1 194.6 LiftStationCalcs(RectangularWetWell).xlsx Page 2 of 3 NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS COMBINED SYSTEM CURVE - LEAD/LAG PUMP AND 8" FORCE MAIN - CASCADE DISCHARGE System Curve (8" Force Main - Lead & Lag - Cascade Discharge)17501700165016001550150014501400135013001250120011501100105010009509008508007507006506005505004504003503002502001501005000 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 Q (gpm)TDH (ft)System Curve - Max (C=120)System Curve - Max (C=140)Design Peak Flow NP 3202-458 @ 30 Hz NP 3202-458 @ 40 Hz NP 3202-458 @ 50 Hz NP 3202-458 @ 60 Hz Startup Head LiftStationCalcs(RectangularWetWell).xlsx Page 3 of 3 NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS WET WELL BUOYANCY CALCULATIONS Project #:10678.001 Date:1/29/2025 Preparer:LRH Wet Well Buoyancy Concrete Weight Calculations Dimensions 9.00 ft Width 12.00 ft Length 29.00 ft Depth 0.67 ft Wall thickness 1.00 ft Base thickness 1.00 ft Lid Thickness 1.00 ft Base protrusion 1190.4 ft3 Volume of Concrete 150 lb/ft3 Concrete Unit Weight 178,567 lb Wetwell Weight 29.00 ft Depth of soil over base protrusion 51.33 ft2 Soil bearing area on base protrusion 1,489 ft3 Volume of Soil 100 lb/ft3 Soil Weight 148,867 lb Soil Dead Weight 327,433 lb Wetwell Concrete and Soil Weight Displaced Water Water Dimensions 10.33 ft Width 13.33 ft Length 0 ft Depth to Groundwater 30.00 ft Height 4,133 ft3 Volume of Water 62.4 lb/ft3 Water Unit Weight 257,920 lb Water Weight Factor of Safety:1.27 Notes: To be conservative,groundwater elevation was assumed to be at existing ground to produce maximum buoyancy force. Compacted pipe backfill will keep the sewer pipe from moving due to buoyancy effects. LiftStationCalcs(RectangularWetWell).xlsx Page 1 of 1 NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS MANHOLE BUOYANCY CALCULATIONS Project #:10678.001 Date:1/29/2025 Preparer:LRH SSMH-02 Buoyancy (60" ID) Concrete Weight Calculations Dimensions 5.00 ft Diameter 13.83 ft Depth 0.50 ft Wall thickness 0.50 ft Base thickness 0.00 ft Lid Thickness 0.50 ft Base protrusion 133.6 ft3 Volume of Concrete 150 lb/ft3 Concrete Unit Weight 20033 lb Manhole Weight 13.83 ft Depth of soil over base protrusion 8.64 ft2 Soil bearing area on base protrusion 119 ft3 Volume of Soil 100 lb/ft3 Soil Weight 11942 lb Soil Dead Weight 31,975 lb Manhole Weight and Soil Weight Displaced Water Water Dimensions 6.00 ft Diameter 0 Depth to Groundwater* 14.33 ft Height 405 ft3 Volume of Water 62.4 lb/ft3 Water Unit Weight 25,270 lb Water Weight Factor of Safety:1.27 Notes: *To be conservative,groundwater elevation was assumed to be at ground surface to produce a larger buoyancy force. Compacted pipe backfill will keep the sewer pipe from moving due to buoyancy effects. LiftStationCalcs(RectangularWetWell).xlsx Page 1 of 1 NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS PIPE BUOYANCY CALCULATIONS Project #:10678.001 Date:1/29/2025 Preparer:LRH Standard 15" SDR-35 PVC Sewer Pipe Pipe Weight Calculations Dimensions 14.43 in Nominal Inside Diameter 15.30 in Average Outside Diameter 0.44 in Wall thickness 14.19 lbs/ft Pipe Unit Weight per Length Cover Soil Weight Calculations 5.00 ft Min Allowable Depth of Cover (see note below) 6.38 ft2 Average area of soil above pipe 100 lb/ft3 Soil Unit Weight (conservative) 638 lb/ft Cover Soil Unit Weight per Length Displaced Water Calculations Water Dimensions 15.30 in Diameter of Water 0 ft Depth to Groundwater 62.4 lb/ft3 Water Unit Weight 1.28 ft2 Area of Water in 1 foot of Pipe 79.7 lb/ft Water Unit Weight per Length Factor of Safety:8.2 Notes: -To be conservative,groundwater elevation was assumed to be at ground surface and pipes were assumed empty to produce the largest buoyancy force. -The cover depth is expected to be at least 12 ft of cover per design drawings. -As shown,compacted pipe backfill has more than enough weight to counteract buoyancy forces in the pipe. LiftStationCalcs(RectangularWetWell).xlsx Page 1 of 1 J APPENDIX J WETLAND DELINEATION FOR NORTON EAST RANCH (LAUREL MEADOWS) Norton East Wetland Delineation - May 2021 Prepared for: Kilday Stratton Prepared by: 2880 Technology Blvd West Bozeman, MT 59718 June 2021 Project No. 5418.002 Norton East Wetland Delineation Page i Table of Contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 1 2.1 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Soil ................................................................................................................................................. 1 2.3 Hydrology ...................................................................................................................................... 2 3 Results ................................................................................................................................................... 2 3.1 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Soil ................................................................................................................................................. 2 3.3 Hydrology ...................................................................................................................................... 3 3.3.1 Topography ........................................................................................................................... 3 3.3.2 National Wetland Inventory.................................................................................................. 3 3.3.3 Floodplains and On-Site Hydrology ....................................................................................... 3 4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 3 5 References ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Appendices Appendix A Figures Appendix B USACE Wetland Determination Forms Appendix C Site Photographs Norton East Wetland Delineation Page 1 1 Introduction Morrison-Maierle, Inc. (Morrison-Maierle) completed a wetland delineation for the Norton East project located in Bozeman, Montana. This technical memo summarizes the findings of the wetland investigation. The project area consisted of 42 acres of land located north of West Babcock Street in Gallatin County, Montana. Appendix A includes figures of the project area location. 2 Methods The wetland investigation utilized the methodology presented in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and subsequent modifications outlined in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast (Version 2.0) (Environmental Laboratory 2010). Upland data points (UDP) and wetland data points (WDP) were established as needed during the field visit. Sample data points were labeled with an UDP or WDP, followed by the number associated with the data point, (e.g. noted here in bold (UDP 1) to correspond to the sample points for that location. Data for vegetation, hydrology, and soils were recorded in the field and entered on Wetland Determination Data Forms located in Appendix B. Photographs of sample points are provided in Appendix C. Sample points and wetland boundaries (if present) were recorded using a handheld Global Positioning System (GPS) unit and post-processed to sub-meter accuracy. Locations were then converted to shapefiles and uploaded into ArcMap 10.7.1 for display on figures included in Appendix A. 2.1 Vegetation Vegetation at upland and wetland data points was classified based on wetland indicator status. The indicator status of vegetation was derived from the 2018 National Wetland Plant List (USACE 2018). Using the current plant list, vegetation cover qualified as hydrophytic where over 50% of the dominant plant species had an indicator status of obligate (OBL), facultative wet (FACW), and/or facultative (FAC). FAC plants, such as Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), are equally likely to occur in wetlands and non-wetlands. Vegetation cover was considered as upland where over 50% of the dominant plant species were classified as upland (UPL), and/or facultative upland (FACU). Plants observed within each data plot were identified using Montana Manual of Vascular Plants (Lesica 2012). 2.2 Soil Wetlands must meet the qualifications of at least one hydric soil indicator, or meet the definition of a hydric soil (a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (NRCS 2019a)). Soils at each data point were evaluated and described notating the depth, matrix color, mottle abundance and contrast (if present), texture, etc. (Environmental Laboratory, 1987 and 2010). Norton East Wetland Delineation Page 2 Moist matrix color and moist mottle color of the soils were determined utilizing the Munsell Soil Color Chart (Kollmorgan Instruments Corporation, 2009). 2.3 Hydrology Primary and secondary hydrologic indicators were assessed at each wetland and upland data point; one primary indicator or two secondary indicators are required to qualify the area as containing wetland hydrology. Examples of primary hydrologic indicators are saturation within 12 inches of the ground surface, surface water, and water table within 12 inches of the ground surface. Examples of secondary hydrologic indicators are FAC-neutral test and geomorphic position on the landscape. 3 Results A wetland delineation of the project area was performed by a Morrison-Maierle environmental scientist on May 25, 2021. The vegetation, hydrology, and soil characteristics at each of nine data points were documented in the field and recorded on Wetland Determination Data Forms for the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast (Supplement, 2010). 3.1 Vegetation Vegetation communities were evaluated and documented to delineate wetland and upland boundaries. The upland herbaceous areas within the project consisted of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW), wood’s rose (Rosa woodsia, FACU), and American licorice (Glycyrrhiza lepidota, FAC). The wetlands within the project area were dominated by reed canary grass and cattail (Typha latifolia, OBL). The location of all data points is identified on Figure 5 of Appendix A. 3.2 Soil Mapped soil types within the project area were obtained from the Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2021b). According to the Web Soil Survey, five soil types are located within the project area: • Hyalite-Beaverton complex, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes (448A) • Enbar loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes (509B) • Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes (510B) • Lamoose silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (537A) • Hyalite-Beaverton complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes (748A) Soils were analyzed in the field for texture and color using the Munsell Soil Color Charts (Munsell 2009). The upland soils exhibited a 10YR 2/1 silty clay down to approximately 12 inches. Soil in the wetland areas also exhibited a 10YR 2/1 silty clay down to approximately 12 inches and the hydric soil indicator is loamy mucky mineral (F1). It was noted that there was not much difference between the soils in the upland and wetland areas. This field has gone though several changes over the years including draining, farming, excavation, and fill. Norton East Wetland Delineation Page 3 3.3 Hydrology 3.3.1 Topography The project area lies within the Bozeman, Montana (2020), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5- minute Topographic Map. The project area lies at approximately 4,800 feet above sea level (Appendix A, Figure 1). A perennial stream, Baxter Creek, is shown to intersect the project area. 3.3.2 National Wetland Inventory The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) maintains the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), which serves as a publicly available resource that provides detailed information on the abundance, characteristics, and distribution of US Wetlands. According to the NWI database, several freshwater emergent wetland (PEM1A and PEM1C) features are present within the investigation area (USFWS 2021). Appendix A, Figure 4 depicts the NWI features in the project vicinity. 3.3.3 Floodplains and On-Site Hydrology The project area is located within Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) FIRM Panel 30031C0811D with an effective date of September 2, 2011 (FEMA 2021). The floodplain data for this area is not printed and cannot be viewed. The project area consists of several wetland areas with similar hydrology indicator. These include geomorphic position, standing water, and shallow water table. Upland areas did not exhibit any hydrology indicators. 4 Conclusion The western half of the subject property contained 4 seemingly isolated wetlands, which included a stormwater pond. The eastern half of the subject property contained remnants of an unused irrigation ditch and the OHWM of Baxter Creek. Baxter Creek also maintained a wetland fringe. In total the following resources were delineated on the subject property: Feature Size Wetlands 6.76 acres Baxter Creek 780 linear feet Remnant irrigation ditch 1,166 linear feet Borrow pit pond 1.54 acres Based on the results of the wetland delineation performed according to USACE guidelines, it is Morrison-Maierle’s professional judgement that portions of the project area meet the technical criteria to be classified as wetlands and waterways. The USACE is the final authority over Waters of the U.S., and a jurisdictional determination would need to be submitted to the USACE for review to make that determination. Norton East Wetland Delineation Page 4 5 References Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. Environmental Laboratory. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corp of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast. (Version 2.0) U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory. Vicksburg, MS. Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). 2021. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home Lesica, P. 2012. Manual of Montana Vascular Plants. Brit Press. Fort Worth, Texas. Montana Department of Agriculture. 2017. Montana Noxious Weed List. Effective: February 2017. https://agr.mt.gov/Portals/168/Documents/Weeds/2017%20Noxious%20Weed %20List.pdf Munsell. 2009. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Macbeth Division of Kollmorgan Instruments. New Windsor, NY. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2019b. Hydric Soils Definition. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/use/hydric/?cid=nrcs142p2_053961 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2021a. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 2018. National Wetland Plant List 2018. http://wetland-plants.usace.army.mil/ US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2021. National Wetland Inventory Wetlands Mapper. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html U.S. Geological Survey. 2020. Bozeman, Montana, 7.5-minute Series Topographic Quadrangle Map. APPENDIX A: FIGURES DRAWN BY: BC CHK'D BY: BC APPR. BY: CP DATE: GALLATIN COUNTY MT COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2021N:\5418\002 - Master Agreement\GIS\Exhibits\2021_WD\Fig 1_Vicinity.mxd FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 5418.002 1 2880 Technology Bldv.Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721Fax: (406) 922-6702 6/16/2021 DURSTON RD HUFFLINE RD GOOCH HILL RDCOTTONWOOD RD±0 1 20.5 Miles Legend Investigation Area  TOPOGRAPHIC & VICINITY MAP NORTON EAST RANCH PROPERTY NORTON EAST RANCH PROPERTYBOZEMAN, MONTANAT2S R5E SEC 9GALLATIN COUNTY DRAWN BY: BC CHK'D BY: BC APPR. BY: CP DATE: GALLATIN COUNTY MT COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2021C:\GISTemp\Fig 2_Aerial.mxd FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 5418.002 2 2880 Technology Bldv.Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721Fax: (406) 922-6702 6/16/2021 DURSTON RD HUFFLINE RD COTTONWOOD RD±0 800 1,600400Feet Legend Investigation Area  2019 NAIP AERIAL MAP NORTON EAST RANCH PROPERTY DRAWN BY: BC CHK'D BY: BC APPR. BY: CP DATE: GALLATIN COUNTY MT COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2021N:\5418\002 - Master Agreement\GIS\Exhibits\2021_WD\Fig 3_Soils.mxd FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 5418.002 3 2880 Technology Bldv.Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721Fax: (406) 922-6702 6/16/2021 W BABCOCK ST 510B 537A 748A 509B 509B 448A 537A 509B 448A 510B±0 400 800200Feet Legend Investigation Area NRCS Soil Map Unit  NRCS SOILS MAP NORTON EAST RANCH PROPERTY DRAWN BY: BC CHK'D BY: BC APPR. BY: CP DATE: GALLATIN COUNTY MT COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2021N:\5418\002 - Master Agreement\GIS\Exhibits\2021_WD\Fig 4_NWI.mxd FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 5418.002 4 2880 Technology Bldv.Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721Fax: (406) 922-6702 6/16/2021 W BABCOCK ST ±0 400 800200Feet Legend Investigation Area Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Pond  NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY MAP NORTON EAST RANCH PROPERTY DRAWN BY: BC CHK'D BY: BC APPR. BY: CP DATE: GALLATIN COUNTY MT COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2021N:\5418\002 - Master Agreement\GIS\Exhibits\2021_WD\Fig 5_WD.mxd FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 5418.002 5 2880 Technology Bldv.Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721Fax: (406) 922-6702 6/23/2021 !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( W BABCOCK ST WET 1 WET 2 WET 5 WET 3 WE T 4 UDP 1 WDP 1 UDP 2 WDP 3 WDP 2 UDP 3 UDP 4 UDP 5 WDP 4 ±0 250 500125Feet Legend Investigation Area Wetlands (6.76 acres) Stream (780 linear feet) Ditch (1,166 linear feet) Pond (1.54 acres) !(Upland Data Point !(Wetland Data Point  WETLAND DELINEATION MAP NORTON EAST RANCH PROPERTY Feature Area (ac)WET 1 2.18WET 2 0.09WET 3 2.58WET 4 1.57WET 5 0.34 APPENDIX B: USACE WETLAND DETERMINATION FORMS Project Site:City/County:Sampling Date:5/25/2021 Applicant/Owner: Greg & Kilday Stratton State:Montana Sampling Point:UDP 1 Investigator(s):C. Pearcy Section/Range:Slope (%):0-5 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Upland concave Datum:NAD83 SP MT Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Rocky Mountain Range and Forest Lat:45.67902 Long:-111.114753 Soil Map Unit Name:509B none Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Are "Normal Circumstances" present?Yes No X SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, ect. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No X Yes No X Yes Yes No X No X Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2)MLRA 1, 2, 4A, an d4B)4A, an d4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes No X Depth (inches) Water Table Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Wetland Hydrology Present? Saturation Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Yes (includes cappillary fringe)No X Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Norton East Gallatin Local relief (concave, convex, none): NWI classification: S9 T2 S R5 E WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Is the Sample Area within a Wetland?Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Based on the absence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology, this location does not meet the criteria of a wetland. HYDROLOGY Remarks: Hydrologic indicators were not observed at this location. Vegetation- Use scientific names of plants Montana UDP 1 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1 Number of Dominant Species 1 (A) 2 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 4 Total Number of Dominant 2 (B) 5 Species Across All Strata: 6 7 Percent of Dominant Species 50%(A/B) Total Cover 0 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Prevalance Index Worksheet: 1 2 OBL species 0 x 1 =0 3 FACW species 65 x 2 =130 4 FAC species 0 x 3 =0 5 FACU species 35 x 4 =140 6 UPL species 0 x 5 =0 7 Column Totals:100 (A) (B)270 Total Cover 0 Prevalence Index = B/A =3 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 35 YES FACU Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 Dominance Test is >50% 3 Prevalence Index < 3.01 4 Morphological Adaptation1 (Provide supporting data) 5 Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 6 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Total Cover 35 Definitions for Four Vegetation Strata: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 inches or more 1 65 YES FACW in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 2 height 3 4 Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines less 5 than 3 inch DBH and greater than 1 meter tall. 6 7 Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless 8 of size, and wood plants less than 1 meter tall. 9 10 Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 1 meter in 11 height. 12 Total Cover 65 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status 1 2 3 X 4 YES NO 5 Total Cover 0 Shrub Stratum (30') Herb Stratum (30') Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below) Hydrophytic vegetation was not observed at this location. Woody Vine Stratum (30') Sapling Stratum (30') Phalaris arundinacea Rosa woodsii Tree Stratum (Plot Sizes: 30') Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Total % Cover of:Multiply by: SOIL Profile Desription: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Montana UDP 1 Depth (inches) % % Type1 Loc2 Texture 0-12 100 silty clay 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Yes No X 3Indicators of hydrolophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Hydric soil indicators were not observed at this location. Remarks Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) Redox Fetures Hydric Soil Present? Matrix Project Site:City/County:Sampling Date:5/25/2021 Applicant/Owner: Greg & Kilday Stratton State:Montana Sampling Point:UDP 2 Investigator(s):C. Pearcy Section/Range:Slope (%):0-5 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): upland plain concave Datum:NAD83 SP MT Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Rocky Mountain Range and Forest Lat:45.6799 Long:-111.112283 Soil Map Unit Name:510B none Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Are "Normal Circumstances" present?Yes No X SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, ect. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No X Yes No X Yes Yes No X No X Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2)MLRA 1, 2, 4A, an d4B)4A, an d4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes No X Depth (inches) Water Table Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Wetland Hydrology Present? Saturation Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Yes (includes cappillary fringe)No X Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Norton East Gallatin Local relief (concave, convex, none): NWI classification: S9 T2 S R5 E WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Is the Sample Area within a Wetland?Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Based on the absence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology, this location does not meet the criteria of a wetland. HYDROLOGY Remarks: Hydrologic indicators were not observed at this location. Vegetation- Use scientific names of plants Montana UDP 2 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1 Number of Dominant Species 1 (A) 2 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 4 Total Number of Dominant 2 (B) 5 Species Across All Strata: 6 7 Percent of Dominant Species 50%(A/B) Total Cover 0 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Prevalance Index Worksheet: 1 2 OBL species 0 x 1 =0 3 FACW species 60 x 2 =120 4 FAC species 20 x 3 =60 5 FACU species 20 x 4 =80 6 UPL species 0 x 5 =0 7 Column Totals:100 (A) (B)260 Total Cover 0 Prevalence Index = B/A =3 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 20 YES FACU Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 Dominance Test is >50% 3 Prevalence Index < 3.01 4 Morphological Adaptation1 (Provide supporting data) 5 Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 6 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Total Cover 20 Definitions for Four Vegetation Strata: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 inches or more 1 60 YES FACW in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 2 10 NO FAC height 3 10 NO FAC 4 Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines less 5 than 3 inch DBH and greater than 1 meter tall. 6 7 Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless 8 of size, and wood plants less than 1 meter tall. 9 10 Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 1 meter in 11 height. 12 Total Cover 80 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status 1 2 3 X 4 YES NO 5 Total Cover 0 Shrub Stratum (30') Herb Stratum (30') Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below) Hydrophytic vegetation was not observed at this location. Woody Vine Stratum (30') Sapling Stratum (30') Phalaris arundinacea Rosa woodsii Tree Stratum (Plot Sizes: 30') Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Total % Cover of:Multiply by: Glycyrrhiza lepidota Equisetum arvense SOIL Profile Desription: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Montana UDP 2 Depth (inches) % % Type1 Loc2 Texture 0-12 100 silty clay 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Yes No X 3Indicators of hydrolophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Hydric soil indicators were not observed at this location. Remarks Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) Redox Fetures Hydric Soil Present? Matrix Project Site:City/County:Sampling Date:5/25/2021 Applicant/Owner: Greg & Kilday Stratton State:Montana Sampling Point:UDP 3 Investigator(s):C. Pearcy Section/Range:Slope (%):0-5 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): upland plain concave Datum:NAD83 SP MT Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Rocky Mountain Range and Forest Lat:45.68217 Long:-111.112606 Soil Map Unit Name:748A none Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology x significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Are "Normal Circumstances" present?Yes No X SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, ect. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes X No Yes No X Yes Yes No X No X Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2)MLRA 1, 2, 4A, an d4B)4A, an d4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes No X Depth (inches) Water Table Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Wetland Hydrology Present? Saturation Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Yes (includes cappillary fringe)No X Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Norton East Gallatin Local relief (concave, convex, none): NWI classification: S9 T2 S R5 E WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Is the Sample Area within a Wetland?Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Based on the absence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology, this location does not meet the criteria of a wetland. HYDROLOGY Remarks: Hydrologic indicators were not observed at this location. Vegetation- Use scientific names of plants Montana UDP 3 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1 Number of Dominant Species 1 (A) 2 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 4 Total Number of Dominant 1 (B) 5 Species Across All Strata: 6 7 Percent of Dominant Species 100%(A/B) Total Cover 0 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Prevalance Index Worksheet: 1 2 OBL species 0 x 1 =0 3 FACW species 100 x 2 =200 4 FAC species 0 x 3 =0 5 FACU species 0 x 4 =0 6 UPL species 0 x 5 =0 7 Column Totals:100 (A) (B)200 Total Cover 0 Prevalence Index = B/A =2 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 X Dominance Test is >50% 3 Prevalence Index < 3.01 4 Morphological Adaptation1 (Provide supporting data) 5 Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 6 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Total Cover 0 Definitions for Four Vegetation Strata: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 inches or more 1 100 YES FACW in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 2 height 3 4 Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines less 5 than 3 inch DBH and greater than 1 meter tall. 6 7 Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless 8 of size, and wood plants less than 1 meter tall. 9 10 Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 1 meter in 11 height. 12 Total Cover 100 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status 1 2 3 X 4 YES NO 5 Total Cover 0 Shrub Stratum (30') Herb Stratum (30') Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below) Hydrophytic vegetation was observed at this location. Woody Vine Stratum (30') Sapling Stratum (30') Phalaris arundinacea Tree Stratum (Plot Sizes: 30') Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Total % Cover of:Multiply by: SOIL Profile Desription: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Montana UDP 3 Depth (inches) % % Type1 Loc2 Texture 0-14 100 silty clay 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Yes No X 3Indicators of hydrolophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Hydric soil indicators were not observed at this location. Remarks Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) Redox Fetures Hydric Soil Present? Matrix Project Site:City/County:Sampling Date:5/25/2021 Applicant/Owner: Greg & Kilday Stratton State:Montana Sampling Point:UDP 4 Investigator(s):C. Pearcy Section/Range:Slope (%):0-5 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): upland plain concave Datum:NAD83 SP MT Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Rocky Mountain Range and Forest Lat:45.68189 Long:-111.111882 Soil Map Unit Name:748A none Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology x significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Are "Normal Circumstances" present?Yes No X SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, ect. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes X No Yes No X Yes Yes No X No X Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2)MLRA 1, 2, 4A, an d4B)4A, an d4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes No X Depth (inches) Water Table Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Wetland Hydrology Present? Saturation Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Yes (includes cappillary fringe)No X Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Norton East Gallatin Local relief (concave, convex, none): NWI classification: S9 T2 S R5 E WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Is the Sample Area within a Wetland?Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Based on the absence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology, this location does not meet the criteria of a wetland. HYDROLOGY Remarks: Hydrologic indicators were not observed at this location. Vegetation- Use scientific names of plants Montana UDP 4 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1 Number of Dominant Species 2 (A) 2 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 4 Total Number of Dominant 2 (B) 5 Species Across All Strata: 6 7 Percent of Dominant Species 100%(A/B) Total Cover 0 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Prevalance Index Worksheet: 1 2 OBL species 0 x 1 =0 3 FACW species 40 x 2 =80 4 FAC species 50 x 3 =150 5 FACU species 10 x 4 =40 6 UPL species 0 x 5 =0 7 Column Totals:100 (A) (B)270 Total Cover 0 Prevalence Index = B/A =3 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 X Dominance Test is >50% 3 Prevalence Index < 3.01 4 Morphological Adaptation1 (Provide supporting data) 5 Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 6 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Total Cover 0 Definitions for Four Vegetation Strata: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 inches or more 1 50 YES FAC in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 2 40 YES FACW height 3 10 NO FACU 4 Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines less 5 than 3 inch DBH and greater than 1 meter tall. 6 7 Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless 8 of size, and wood plants less than 1 meter tall. 9 10 Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 1 meter in 11 height. 12 Total Cover 100 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status 1 2 3 X 4 YES NO 5 Total Cover 0 Shrub Stratum (30') Herb Stratum (30') Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below) Hydrophytic vegetation was observed at this location. Hydrology appears to have been altered, as there are dead cattails but no new cattail growth.l Woody Vine Stratum (30') Sapling Stratum (30') Cirsium arvense Tree Stratum (Plot Sizes: 30') Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Total % Cover of:Multiply by: Phalaris arundinacea Sisymbrium altissimum SOIL Profile Desription: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Montana UDP 4 Depth (inches) % % Type1 Loc2 Texture 0-14 100 silty clay 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Yes No X 3Indicators of hydrolophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Hydric soil indicators were not observed at this location. Remarks Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) Redox Fetures Hydric Soil Present? Matrix Project Site:City/County:Sampling Date:5/25/2021 Applicant/Owner: Greg & Kilday Stratton State:Montana Sampling Point:UDP 5 Investigator(s):C. Pearcy Section/Range:Slope (%):0-5 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): upland plain concave Datum:NAD83 SP MT Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Rocky Mountain Range and Forest Lat:45.6818 Long:-111.110153 Soil Map Unit Name:537A PEMA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology x significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Are "Normal Circumstances" present?Yes No X SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, ect. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes X No Yes No X Yes Yes No X No X Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2)MLRA 1, 2, 4A, an d4B)4A, an d4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes No X Depth (inches) Water Table Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Wetland Hydrology Present? Saturation Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Yes (includes cappillary fringe)No X Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Norton East Gallatin Local relief (concave, convex, none): NWI classification: S9 T2 S R5 E WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Is the Sample Area within a Wetland?Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Based on the absence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology, this location does not meet the criteria of a wetland. HYDROLOGY Remarks: Hydrologic indicators were not observed at this location. Vegetation- Use scientific names of plants Montana UDP 5 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1 Number of Dominant Species 2 (A) 2 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 4 Total Number of Dominant 3 (B) 5 Species Across All Strata: 6 7 Percent of Dominant Species 67%(A/B) Total Cover 0 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Prevalance Index Worksheet: 1 2 OBL species 0 x 1 =0 3 FACW species 50 x 2 =100 4 FAC species 30 x 3 =90 5 FACU species 20 x 4 =80 6 UPL species 0 x 5 =0 7 Column Totals:100 (A) (B)270 Total Cover 0 Prevalence Index = B/A =3 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 20 YES FACU Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 X Dominance Test is >50% 3 Prevalence Index < 3.01 4 Morphological Adaptation1 (Provide supporting data) 5 Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 6 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Total Cover 20 Definitions for Four Vegetation Strata: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 inches or more 1 50 YES FACW in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 2 30 YES FAC height 3 4 Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines less 5 than 3 inch DBH and greater than 1 meter tall. 6 7 Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless 8 of size, and wood plants less than 1 meter tall. 9 10 Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 1 meter in 11 height. 12 Total Cover 80 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status 1 2 3 X 4 YES NO 5 Total Cover 0 Shrub Stratum (30') Herb Stratum (30') Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below) Hydrophytic vegetation was observed at this location. Woody Vine Stratum (30') Sapling Stratum (30') Phalaris arundinacea Rosa woodsii Tree Stratum (Plot Sizes: 30') Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Total % Cover of:Multiply by: Glycyrrhiza lepidota SOIL Profile Desription: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Montana UDP 5 Depth (inches) % % Type1 Loc2 Texture 0-14 100 silty clay 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Yes No X 3Indicators of hydrolophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Hydric soil indicators were not observed at this location. Remarks Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) Redox Fetures Hydric Soil Present? Matrix Project Site:City/County:Sampling Date:5/25/2021 Applicant/Owner: Kilday Stratton State:Montana Sampling Point:WDP 1 Investigator(s):C. Pearcy Section/Range:Slope (%):0-5 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): concave Datum:NAD83 SP MT Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Rocky Mountain Range and Forest Lat:45.67916 Long:-111.114851 Soil Map Unit Name:509B none Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology x significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Are "Normal Circumstances" present?Yes No X SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, ect. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) X Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2)MLRA 1, 2, 4A, an d4B)4A, an d4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)X Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes X No Depth (inches 2 Water Table Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Wetland Hydrology Present? Saturation Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Yes X (includes cappillary fringe)No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Norton East Gallatin Local relief (concave, convex, none): NWI classification: S9 T2 S R5 E WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Is the Sample Area within a Wetland?Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology, this location meets the criteria of a wetland. HYDROLOGY Remarks: Hydrologic indicators were observed at this location. Vegetation- Use scientific names of plants Montana WDP 1 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1 Number of Dominant Species 2 (A) 2 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 4 Total Number of Dominant 2 (B) 5 Species Across All Strata: 6 7 Percent of Dominant Species 100%(A/B) Total Cover 0 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Prevalance Index Worksheet: 1 2 OBL species 50 x 1 =50 3 FACW species 50 x 2 =100 4 FAC species 0 x 3 =0 5 FACU species 0 x 4 =0 6 UPL species 0 x 5 =0 7 Column Totals:100 (A) (B)150 Total Cover 0 Prevalence Index = B/A =2 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 X Dominance Test is >50% 3 X Prevalence Index < 3.01 4 Morphological Adaptation1 (Provide supporting data) 5 Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 6 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Total Cover 0 Definitions for Four Vegetation Strata: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 inches or more 1 50 YES FACW in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 2 50 YES OBL height 3 4 Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines less 5 than 3 inch DBH and greater than 1 meter tall. 6 7 Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless 8 of size, and wood plants less than 1 meter tall. 9 10 Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 1 meter in 11 height. 12 Total Cover 100 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status 1 2 3 X 4 YES NO 5 Total Cover 0 Shrub Stratum (30') Herb Stratum (30') Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below) Hydrophytic vegetation was observed at this location. Woody Vine Stratum (30') Sapling Stratum (30') Phalaris arundinacea Tree Stratum (Plot Sizes: 30') Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Total % Cover of:Multiply by: Typha latifolia SOIL Profile Desription: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Montana WDP 1 Depth (inches) % % Type1 Loc2 Texture 0-12 100 silty clay loam 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)X Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Yes X No 3Indicators of hydrolophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Hydric soil indicators were observed at this location. Remarks Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 heavy organics/muck Color (moist) Redox Fetures Hydric Soil Present? Matrix Project Site:City/County:Sampling Date:5/25/2021 Applicant/Owner: Greg & Kilday Stratton State:Montana Sampling Point:WDP 2 Investigator(s):C. Pearcy Section/Range:Slope (%):0-5 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): wet meadow concave Datum:NAD83 SP MT Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Rocky Mountain Range and Forest Lat:45.67858 Long:-111.114497 Soil Map Unit Name:510B none Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Are "Normal Circumstances" present?Yes No X SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, ect. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) X Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, X High Water Table (A2)MLRA 1, 2, 4A, an d4B)4A, an d4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)X Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes X No Depth (inches 4 Water Table Present?Yes X No Depth (inches 4 Wetland Hydrology Present? Saturation Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Yes X (includes cappillary fringe)No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology, this location meets the criteria of a wetland. HYDROLOGY Remarks: Hydrologic indicators were observed at this location. This data point was recorded in the location of a man-made storm water pond. Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Norton East Gallatin Local relief (concave, convex, none): NWI classification: S9 T2 S R5 E WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Is the Sample Area within a Wetland? Vegetation- Use scientific names of plants Montana WDP 2 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1 Number of Dominant Species 3 (A) 2 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 4 Total Number of Dominant 3 (B) 5 Species Across All Strata: 6 7 Percent of Dominant Species 100%(A/B) Total Cover 0 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Prevalance Index Worksheet: 1 2 OBL species 80 x 1 =80 3 FACW species 20 x 2 =40 4 FAC species 0 x 3 =0 5 FACU species 0 x 4 =0 6 UPL species 0 x 5 =0 7 Column Totals:100 (A) (B)120 Total Cover 0 Prevalence Index = B/A =1 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 X Dominance Test is >50% 3 X Prevalence Index < 3.01 4 Morphological Adaptation1 (Provide supporting data) 5 Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 6 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Total Cover 0 Definitions for Four Vegetation Strata: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 inches or more 1 60 YES OBL in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 2 20 YES OBL height 3 20 YES FACW 4 Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines less 5 than 3 inch DBH and greater than 1 meter tall. 6 7 Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless 8 of size, and wood plants less than 1 meter tall. 9 10 Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 1 meter in 11 height. 12 Total Cover 100 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status 1 2 3 X 4 YES NO 5 Total Cover 0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Total % Cover of:Multiply by: Carex utriculata Phalaris arundinacea Tree Stratum (Plot Sizes: 30') Sapling Stratum (30') Typha latifolia Shrub Stratum (30') Herb Stratum (30') Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below) Hydrophytic vegetation was observed at this location. Woody Vine Stratum (30') SOIL Profile Desription: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Montana WDP 2 Depth (inches) % % Type1 Loc2 Texture 0-12 100 silty clay loam 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)X Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Matrix Color (moist) Redox Fetures 10YR 2/1 heavy organics/muck Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Hydric soil indicators were observed at this location. Remarks Color (moist) 3Indicators of hydrolophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. Project Site:City/County:Sampling Date:5/25/2021 Applicant/Owner: Greg & Kilday Stratton State:Montana Sampling Point:WDP 3 Investigator(s):C. Pearcy Section/Range:Slope (%):0-5 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): wet meadow concave Datum:NAD83 SP MT Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Rocky Mountain Range and Forest Lat:45.67978 Long:-111.112387 Soil Map Unit Name:510B PEMA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Are "Normal Circumstances" present?Yes No X SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, ect. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, X High Water Table (A2)MLRA 1, 2, 4A, an d4B)4A, an d4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)X Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes No Depth (inches) Water Table Present?Yes X No Depth (inches 3 Wetland Hydrology Present? Saturation Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Yes X (includes cappillary fringe)No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology, this location meets the criteria of a wetland. HYDROLOGY Remarks: Hydrologic indicators were observed at this location. Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Norton East Gallatin Local relief (concave, convex, none): NWI classification: S9 T2 S R5 E WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Is the Sample Area within a Wetland? Vegetation- Use scientific names of plants Montana WDP 3 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1 Number of Dominant Species 3 (A) 2 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 4 Total Number of Dominant 3 (B) 5 Species Across All Strata: 6 7 Percent of Dominant Species 100%(A/B) Total Cover 0 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Prevalance Index Worksheet: 1 2 OBL species 60 x 1 =60 3 FACW species 20 x 2 =40 4 FAC species 20 x 3 =60 5 FACU species 0 x 4 =0 6 UPL species 0 x 5 =0 7 Column Totals:100 (A) (B)160 Total Cover 0 Prevalence Index = B/A =2 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 X Dominance Test is >50% 3 X Prevalence Index < 3.01 4 Morphological Adaptation1 (Provide supporting data) 5 Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 6 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Total Cover 0 Definitions for Four Vegetation Strata: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 inches or more 1 60 YES OBL in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 2 20 YES FAC height 3 20 YES FACW 4 Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines less 5 than 3 inch DBH and greater than 1 meter tall. 6 7 Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless 8 of size, and wood plants less than 1 meter tall. 9 10 Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 1 meter in 11 height. 12 Total Cover 100 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status 1 2 3 X 4 YES NO 5 Total Cover 0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Total % Cover of:Multiply by: Equisetum arvense Phalaris arundinacea Tree Stratum (Plot Sizes: 30') Sapling Stratum (30') Typha latifolia Shrub Stratum (30') Herb Stratum (30') Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below) Hydrophytic vegetation was observed at this location. Woody Vine Stratum (30') SOIL Profile Desription: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Montana WDP 3 Depth (inches) % % Type1 Loc2 Texture 0-12 100 silty clay loam 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)X Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Matrix Color (moist) Redox Fetures 10YR 2/1 heavy organics/muck Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Hydric soil indicators were observed at this location. Remarks Color (moist) 3Indicators of hydrolophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. Project Site:City/County:Sampling Date:5/25/2021 Applicant/Owner: Greg & Kilday Stratton State:Montana Sampling Point:WDP 4 Investigator(s):C. Pearcy Section/Range:Slope (%):0-5 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): fringe to Baxter Creek concave Datum:NAD83 SP MT Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Rocky Mountain Range and Forest Lat:45.68202 Long:-111.110429 Soil Map Unit Name:537A PEMA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Are "Normal Circumstances" present?Yes No X SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, ect. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, X High Water Table (A2)MLRA 1, 2, 4A, an d4B)4A, an d4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)X Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes No Depth (inches) Water Table Present?Yes X No Depth (inches 4 Wetland Hydrology Present? Saturation Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Yes X (includes cappillary fringe)No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology, this location meets the criteria of a wetland. HYDROLOGY Remarks: Hydrologic indicators were observed at this location. Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Norton East Gallatin Local relief (concave, convex, none): NWI classification: S9 T2 S R5 E WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Is the Sample Area within a Wetland? Vegetation- Use scientific names of plants Montana WDP 4 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1 Number of Dominant Species 1 (A) 2 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 4 Total Number of Dominant 1 (B) 5 Species Across All Strata: 6 7 Percent of Dominant Species 100%(A/B) Total Cover 0 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Prevalance Index Worksheet: 1 2 OBL species 100 x 1 =100 3 FACW species 0 x 2 =0 4 FAC species 0 x 3 =0 5 FACU species 0 x 4 =0 6 UPL species 0 x 5 =0 7 Column Totals:100 (A) (B)100 Total Cover 0 Prevalence Index = B/A =1 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 X Dominance Test is >50% 3 X Prevalence Index < 3.01 4 Morphological Adaptation1 (Provide supporting data) 5 Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 6 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Total Cover 0 Definitions for Four Vegetation Strata: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 inches or more 1 100 YES OBL in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 2 height 3 4 Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines less 5 than 3 inch DBH and greater than 1 meter tall. 6 7 Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless 8 of size, and wood plants less than 1 meter tall. 9 10 Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 1 meter in 11 height. 12 Total Cover 100 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status 1 2 3 X 4 YES NO 5 Total Cover 0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Total % Cover of:Multiply by: Tree Stratum (Plot Sizes: 30') Sapling Stratum (30') Typha latifolia Shrub Stratum (30') Herb Stratum (30') Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below) Hydrophytic vegetation was observed at this location. Woody Vine Stratum (30') SOIL Profile Desription: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Montana WDP 4 Depth (inches) % % Type1 Loc2 Texture 0-12 100 silty clay loam 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)X Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Matrix Color (moist) Redox Fetures 10YR 2/1 heavy organics/muck Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Hydric soil indicators were observed at this location. Remarks Color (moist) 3Indicators of hydrolophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. APPENDIX C: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Norton East Wetland Delineation Photo Log – June 2021 Photo 1: Wetland Data Point 1 (WDP1) Photo 2: Upland Data Point 1 (UDP 1) Norton East Wetland Delineation Photo Log – June 2021 Photo 3: Stormwater Pond Photo 4: Borrow area pond Norton East Wetland Delineation Photo Log – June 2021 Photo 5: Wetland Data Point 3 (WDP3) Photo 6: Wetland complex overview, view south from northern boundary Norton East Wetland Delineation Photo Log – June 2021 Photo 7: Wetland Data Point 4 (WDP 4) Photo 8: Historic ditch infrastructure no longer in use K APPENDIX K WETLAND DELINEATION FOR FORCE MAIN ALIGNMENT PO BOX 1424 BOZEMAN, MT 59771 406.539.7244 briana@sundogeco.com Technical Memorandum To: Thomas Berkley Outlaw Real Estate Partners 201 S Wallace, Unit A-4 Bozeman, MT 59715 From: Briana Schultz Sundog Ecological Inc. PO Box 1424 Bozeman, MT 59771 Date: February 7, 2025 Subject: Urban Farm Lift Station Aquatic Delineation Introduction A routine wetland delineation and investigation of Waters of the U.S. was conducted by Sundog Ecological, Inc., on September 10th, 2024. This delineation was conducted to investigate and identify aquatic resources that may be impacted from lift station construction. This project site is located at in Bozeman, MT at Section 9, Township 2 South, Range 5 East (Figure 1). The purpose of this wetland delineation was to investigate the project area, identify areas meeting the technical guidelines for aquatic resources (wetlands and watercourses), delineate the extent of these resources within the project area and classify these aquatic resource habitats. This report describes the methodologies used, summarizes the results of wetland investigations, and provides technical documentation for all delineated wetlands and watercourses within the project area. Figure 1. Urban Farm Lift Station aquatic delineation boundary. Methods The wetland delineation was conducted using the routine on-site-approach in accordance with standard practices outlined in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and by the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 (USACE 2010). The study evaluated the presence or absence of three wetland parameters described in the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual. Under the delineation procedures outlined in the USACE manual, an area must exhibit characteristic wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation to be considered a wetland. If field investigation determines that any of the three parameters are not satisfied, the area generally does not usually qualify as a wetland; however, there are circumstances when one or more parameters may be absent within a wetland area. Wetlands were classified according to the Cowardin (Cowardin et al., 1979) systems. The aquatic resources delineation map is included in Appendix A (Exhibit A). A delineation report, data forms, and technical information are required by the USACE (2010) to document the presence or absence of the three wetland indicators at data points (DP) within the investigation area. Data was also collected at points in non-wetland areas to determine the boundary between wetland and non-wetland areas. Four data points were established, two points within wetlands and 2 two points within non-wetlands, to enable boundary determination; approximately 15-20 additional unofficial data points (no data collected) were also observed. Data forms are included in Appendix B. Photographs were taken at data points and of general habitat conditions within the investigation area (Appendix C). Soils map and information, Montana Natural Heritage Program wetland inventory map, USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map are included in Appendix D. Results Four wetland areas were identified within the Urban Farm Lift Station investigation boundary. Wetland 1 is associated with a depressional area with high groundwater. This wetland is classified by Phalaris arundinacea (reed canary grass) and Typha latifolia (broadleaf cattail). Wetland 2 is associated with Baxter Creek. Wetland 3 was identified along the northern property boundary of the Springhill Presbyterian Church;they are characterized by Carex sp. (sedge) and creeping foxtail. Wetland 4 was identified along Cottonwood Road and associated with an unnamed tributary to Baxter Creek. This wetland is dominated by Alopecurus arundinaeus (creeping foxtail) along with Salix fragilis (crack willow). References Berglund, J. and R. McEldowney. 2008. MDT Montana Wetland Assessment Method. Prepared for Montana Department of Transportation, Helena, Montana. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Helena, Montana. 42pp. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S.D.I Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Washington, DC. Lichvar, R.W., M. Butterwick, N.C. Melvin, and W.N. Kirchner. 2014. The National Wetland Plant List. 2014 Update of Wetland Ratings. Phytoneuron 2014-41:1-42. Montana Natural Heritage Program website. Accessed in June 2024 at http://mtnhp.org/mapviewer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2022. National Wetland Plant List - 2022, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, version 3.6. https://wetland-plants.sec.usace.army.mil/ USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey. Gallatin County, Montana. Accessed August 2024 at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory website. Accessed August 2024 at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html. US Fish & Wildlife Service. Information for Planning and Conservation. Accessed August 2024 at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ Appendix A Exhibit A – Mapped Aquatic Boundary of Urban + Farm Lift Station Route 12''S12''S12''S12''S12''S12''S18''S18''S18''S18''S18''S18''SDP 1DP 2DP 4DP 30'100'200'300'FEBRUARY 2025URBAN + FARM PHASE 2NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION WETLANDS Feb 12, 2025 - 2:21pmCAD FILE: M:\203430\Drawings\PHASE 2\WETLANDS\IMPACTS.dwg 1OF 1EXISTINGBAXTER CREEKEXISTINGNORTON RANCHLIFT STATIONEXISTINGOFFSITEWETLANDS(TYP.)VAUGHN DRS LAUREL PARKWAY COTTONWOOD ROADEXISTINGUNNAMEDTRIBUTARY TOBAXTER CREEKWET, BUT NOTASSESSEDLOT 2 BLOCK 3OFVALLEY WEST SUBDIVISIONLOT 1 BLOCK 3OFVALLEY WEST SUBDIVISIONLOT R18OFNORTON EAST RANCHSUBDIVISION PHASE 6BRONKENPARKWETLAND #1WETLAND #2WETLAND #3WETLAND #4 Appendix B Urban + Farm Lift Station Route Wetland Determination Data Forms Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): 0 Subregion (LRR/MLRA): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: x Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes x No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2. (A) 3. 4. (B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4. x 1 = 5. x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1. x 5 = 2. Column Totals: (A) (B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. X 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 9/30/2027 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? No 100 20 Yes Remarks: Indicator Status 2 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Phalaris arundinacea No FAC UPL Herb Stratum 10 No Bromus inermis 50 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Mixed grasses along western edge of wetland. Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 3.11 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: 10 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 20 Prevalence Index = B/A = 70 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species No Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 0/10/2024 Laurel Parkway LLC B Schultz valley bottom Bozeman / GallatinCity/County: Litter Hyalite-Beaverton Complex, 0-4% slopes none 3 ft. NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S 9, T 2S, R 5E MT DP1 none Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 210 10 Project/Site: Urban Farm Lift Station NWI classification: Dominant Species? WGS 84 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 0 Sampling Date: Elymus trachycaulus Alopecurus pratensis 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 10 Yes FACW 45*40'54.43" Long: -111*06'47.32"LRR E Mixed grasses. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 50 280 10 90 =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: % %Type1 Loc2 100 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yes Saturation Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and unless disturbed or problematic. Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) DP1SOIL damp dry to very dry Remarks Loamy/Clayey Color (moist) 0-6 FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Dry soil with no hydric soil indicators were observed. Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 6-16 Texture Redox FeaturesDepth Loamy/Clayey Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 10YR 3/2 10YR 3/1 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron Monosulfide (A18) Other (Explain in Remarks) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Surface Water (A1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) No wetland hydrology indicators were observed. Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): 0 Subregion (LRR/MLRA): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: x Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes x No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2. (A) 3. 4. (B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4. x 1 = 5. x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1. x 5 = 2. Column Totals: (A) (B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. X 8. X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 9/30/2027 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? No 98 5 No Remarks: Indicator Status 1 1 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Alopecurus arundinaceus No FAC OBL Herb Stratum 80 Yes Carex aquatilis 3 10 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species FAC 2.80 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 88 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species No Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 09/10/2024 Laurel Parkway LLC B Schultz valley bottom Bozeman / GallatinCity/County: Elymus trachycaulus Hyalite-Beaverton Complex, 0-4% slopes PEM1C (NWI) none (MTNHP) 3 ft. NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S 9, T 2S, R 5E MT DP2 none Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 264 5 Project/Site: Urban Farm Lift Station NWI classification: Dominant Species? WGS 84 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 10 Sampling Date: Typha latifolia Cirsium arvense 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 5 No FAC 45*40'54.37" Long: -111*06'47.05"LRR E Mixed grass with other wetland species. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 0 274 0 98 =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: % %Type1 Loc2 100 97 3 C M X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) x x x X Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yes Saturation Present? Yes x Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and unless disturbed or problematic. Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) DP2SOIL silty loam silty clay loam Remarks Loamy/Clayey Color (moist) 10YR 4/6 0-6 FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Redox at 6 inches. Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 6-14 Texture Redox FeaturesDepth Loamy/Clayey Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 10YR 3/1 10YR 2/1 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 0 Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron Monosulfide (A18) Other (Explain in Remarks) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Surface Water (A1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Saturated to soil surface. Three secondary indicators were also observed. Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): 0 Subregion (LRR/MLRA): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: x Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes x No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2. (A) 3. 4. (B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4. x 1 = 5. x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1. x 5 = 2. Column Totals: (A) (B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. X 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 9/30/2027 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? No 98 30 Yes Remarks: Indicator Status 2 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Alopecurus arundinaceus Yes FAC FAC Herb Stratum 15 No Agrostis gigantea 3 15 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Located near the intersection of trails near Baxter Creek side channel. Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species FAC 2.69 15 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: NoLitter OBL 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 83 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species No Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 09/10/2024 Laurel Parkway LLC B Schultz valley bottom Bozeman / GallatinCity/County: Poa pratensis Hyaltie-Beaverton Complex, moderately wet, 0-2% slopes none 3 ft. NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S 9, T 2S, R 5E MT DP3 none Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 249 5 Project/Site: Urban Farm Lift Station NWI classification: Dominant Species? WGS 84 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 15 Sampling Date: Elymus repens Cirsium arvense 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 30 No FAC 45*40'52.92" Long: -111*06'32.03"LRR E Mixed grasses. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 0 264 0 98 =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: % %Type1 Loc2 100 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yes Saturation Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and unless disturbed or problematic. Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) DP3 SOIL very dry silty clay loam , very dry Remarks Loamy/Clayey Color (moist) 0-4 FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) No hydric soil indicators were observed. Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 4-14 Texture Redox FeaturesDepth Loamy/Clayey Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 10YR 3/2 10YR 2/2 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron Monosulfide (A18) Other (Explain in Remarks) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Surface Water (A1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) No wetland hydrology indicators were observed. Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): 0 Subregion (LRR/MLRA): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: x Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes x No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2. (A) 3. 4. (B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4. x 1 = 5. x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1. x 5 = 2. Column Totals: (A) (B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. X 8. X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 9/30/2027 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? No 98 3 No Remarks: Indicator Status 1 1 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Argentina anserina (Plot size: Agrostis gigantea Yes FAC OBL Herb Stratum 5 No Typha latifolia 10 15 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Mixed grasses along Baxter Creek sid echannel. Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species FAC 2.68 5 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: NoLitter 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 78 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species No Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 09/10/2024 Laurel Parkway LLC B Schultz valley bottom Bozeman / GallatinCity/County: Alopecurus arundinaceus Hyaltie-Beaverton Complex, moderately wet, 0-2% slopes none 3 ft. NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S 9 T 2S, R 5E MT DP 4 none Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 234 5 Project/Site: Urban Farm Lift Station NWI classification: Dominant Species? WGS 84 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 15 Sampling Date: Cirsium arvense Poa pratensis 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 60 10 No FAC 45*40'53.17" Long: -111*06'31.90"LRR E Mixed grasses and wetland species. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 0 249 0 93 =Total Cover No OBL ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: % %Type1 Loc2 100 93 7 C M X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) x x x X Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yes Saturation Present? Yes x Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and unless disturbed or problematic. Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) DP 4SOIL silty clay loam strong redox features Remarks Loamy/Clayey Color (moist) 10YR 4/6 0-6 FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Strong redox at six inches. Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 6-14 Texture Redox FeaturesDepth Loamy/Clayey Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 10YR 3/2 10YR 2/1 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 0 Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron Monosulfide (A18) Other (Explain in Remarks) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Surface Water (A1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Saturated to soil surface. Three secondary indicators were also observed. Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Appendix C Urban + Farm Lift Station Route Aquatic Site Photographs DP 1u DP 2w DP 3u DP 4w Appendix D Aerial Overview Urban + Farm Lift Station Route Topographic Overview of Urban + Farm Lift Station Route National Wetland Inventory – Mapped Wetlands at Urban + Farm Lift Station Route Montana Natural Heritage Program – Mapped Wetlands at Urban + Farm Lift Station Route Soils of Gallatin County - at Urban + Farm Lift Station Route Urban Farm Lift Station Aquatic Delineation Boundary Legend Feature 1 1000 ft N➤➤N Image © 2025 Airbus Image © 2025 Airbus Image © 2025 Airbus Urban Farm Lift Station Route Wetlands U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team,wetlands_team@fws.gov Wetlands Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Lake Other Riverine February 4, 2025 0 0.25 0.50.125 mi 0 0.4 0.80.2 km 1:15,047 This page was produced by the NWI mapperNational Wetlands Inventory (NWI) This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Gallatin County Area, MontanaNatural Resources Conservation Service February 4, 2025 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Gallatin County Area, Montana.......................................................................13 448A—Hyalite-Beaverton complex, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes....................................................................................................13 509B—Enbar loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes...................................................15 537A—Lamoose silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes........................................16 748A—Hyalite-Beaverton complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes..........................17 References............................................................................................................20 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report 6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Custom Soil Resource Report 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 50584105058500505859050586805058770505886050589505058410505850050585905058680505877050588605058950491080 491170 491260 491350 491440 491530 491620 491710 491800 491890 491080 491170 491260 491350 491440 491530 491620 491710 491800 491890 45° 41' 3'' N 111° 6' 54'' W45° 41' 3'' N111° 6' 12'' W45° 40' 44'' N 111° 6' 54'' W45° 40' 44'' N 111° 6' 12'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84 0 200 400 800 1200 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 Meters Map Scale: 1:4,120 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area, Montana Survey Area Data: Version 28, Aug 22, 2024 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 18, 2022—Aug 29, 2022 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 10 Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 2/4/2025 Page 1 of 550584105058500505859050586805058770505886050589505058410505850050585905058680505877050588605058950491080491170491260491350491440491530491620491710491800491890 491080 491170 491260 491350 491440 491530 491620 491710 491800 491890 45° 41' 3'' N 111° 6' 54'' W45° 41' 3'' N111° 6' 12'' W45° 40' 44'' N 111° 6' 54'' W45° 40' 44'' N 111° 6' 12'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84 0 200 400 800 1200 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 Meters Map Scale: 1:4,120 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area, Montana Survey Area Data: Version 28, Aug 22, 2024 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 18, 2022—Aug 29, 2022 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 2/4/2025 Page 2 of 5 Hydric Rating by Map Unit Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 448A Hyalite-Beaverton complex, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes 0 2.0 20.0% 509B Enbar loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 10 0.6 6.2% 537A Lamoose silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 95 4.2 41.9% 748A Hyalite-Beaverton complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes 0 3.2 31.9% Totals for Area of Interest 10.1 100.0% Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 2/4/2025 Page 3 of 5 Description This rating indicates the percentage of map units that meets the criteria for hydric soils. Map units are composed of one or more map unit components or soil types, each of which is rated as hydric soil or not hydric. Map units that are made up dominantly of hydric soils may have small areas of minor nonhydric components in the higher positions on the landform, and map units that are made up dominantly of nonhydric soils may have small areas of minor hydric components in the lower positions on the landform. Each map unit is rated based on its respective components and the percentage of each component within the map unit. The thematic map is color coded based on the composition of hydric components. The five color classes are separated as 100 percent hydric components, 66 to 99 percent hydric components, 33 to 65 percent hydric components, 1 to 32 percent hydric components, and less than one percent hydric components. In Web Soil Survey, the Summary by Map Unit table that is displayed below the map pane contains a column named 'Rating'. In this column the percentage of each map unit that is classified as hydric is displayed. Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (Federal Register, 1994). Under natural conditions, these soils are either saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to support the growth and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation. The NTCHS definition identifies general soil properties that are associated with wetness. In order to determine whether a specific soil is a hydric soil or nonhydric soil, however, more specific information, such as information about the depth and duration of the water table, is needed. Thus, criteria that identify those estimated soil properties unique to hydric soils have been established (Federal Register, 2002). These criteria are used to identify map unit components that normally are associated with wetlands. The criteria used are selected estimated soil properties that are described in "Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 1999) and "Keys to Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 2006) and in the "Soil Survey Manual" (Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993). If soils are wet enough for a long enough period of time to be considered hydric, they should exhibit certain properties that can be easily observed in the field. These visible properties are indicators of hydric soils. The indicators used to make onsite determinations of hydric soils are specified in "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States" (Hurt and Vasilas, 2006). References: Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 2/4/2025 Page 4 of 5 Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Percent Present Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Lower Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 2/4/2025 Page 5 of 5 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 448A Hyalite-Beaverton complex, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes 2.0 20.0% 509B Enbar loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 0.6 6.2% 537A Lamoose silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 4.2 41.9% 748A Hyalite-Beaverton complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes 3.2 31.9% Totals for Area of Interest 10.1 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. Custom Soil Resource Report 11 The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 12 Gallatin County Area, Montana 448A—Hyalite-Beaverton complex, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56sq Elevation: 4,450 to 5,300 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance Map Unit Composition Hyalite and similar soils:70 percent Beaverton and similar soils:20 percent Minor components:10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Hyalite Setting Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Loamy alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 5 inches: loam Bt1 - 5 to 9 inches: clay loam Bt2 - 9 to 17 inches: silty clay loam 2Bt3 - 17 to 26 inches: very cobbly sandy clay loam 3C - 26 to 60 inches: very cobbly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 48 to 96 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:5 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R043BP818MT - Upland Grassland Group Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Description of Beaverton Setting Landform:Stream terraces, alluvial fans Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 5 inches: cobbly loam Bt - 5 to 21 inches: very gravelly clay loam Bk - 21 to 25 inches: very cobbly coarse sandy loam 2Bk - 25 to 60 inches: extremely cobbly loamy coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 48 to 96 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R043BP818MT - Upland Grassland Group Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Meadowcreek Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Beaverton Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP818MT - Upland Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 14 509B—Enbar loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56vp Elevation: 4,400 to 6,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Enbar and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Enbar Setting Landform:Flood plains Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Loamy alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 22 inches: loam Cg - 22 to 49 inches: sandy loam 2C - 49 to 60 inches: very gravelly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 4 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 24 to 42 inches Frequency of flooding:Rare Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:10 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 15 Minor Components Nythar Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Flood plains Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: Yes Straw Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BB032MT - Loamy (Lo) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No 537A—Lamoose silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56wp Elevation: 4,000 to 5,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance Map Unit Composition Lamoose and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Lamoose Setting Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 9 inches: silt loam Bg - 9 to 27 inches: silt loam 2C - 27 to 60 inches: very gravelly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Poorly drained Custom Soil Resource Report 16 Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 12 to 24 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 3.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D Ecological site: R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: Yes Minor Components Bonebasin Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: Yes Meadowcreek Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: No 748A—Hyalite-Beaverton complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 570v Elevation: 4,350 to 6,150 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance Map Unit Composition Hyalite and similar soils:70 percent Beaverton and similar soils:20 percent Minor components:10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Custom Soil Resource Report 17 Description of Hyalite Setting Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Loamy alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 5 inches: loam Bt1 - 5 to 9 inches: clay loam Bt2 - 9 to 17 inches: silty clay loam 2Bt3 - 17 to 26 inches: very cobbly sandy clay loam 3C - 26 to 60 inches: very cobbly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 4 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:5 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R043BP818MT - Upland Grassland Group Hydric soil rating: No Description of Beaverton Setting Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 5 inches: cobbly loam Bt - 5 to 21 inches: very gravelly clay loam Bk - 21 to 25 inches: very cobbly coarse sandy loam 2Bk - 25 to 60 inches: extremely cobbly loamy coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 4 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Custom Soil Resource Report 18 Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R043BP818MT - Upland Grassland Group Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Hyalite Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP818MT - Upland Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Turner Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BB032MT - Loamy (Lo) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 19 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 20 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report 21 L APPENDIX L TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (ATTACHED SEPARATELY) TABLE OF CONTENTS NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION UPGRADES Table of Contents – Page 2 of 5 P:\10678-Laurel Parkway LLC\001 - Norton Ranch Lift Station\04 Design\Specifications\00 TOC.docx February 14, 2025 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS The Montana Public Works Standard Specifications (MPWSS), Seventh Edition, April 2021, shall apply on this project, subject to the modifications and additions specified in the City of Bozeman Modifications to Montana Public Works Standard Specifications, Seventh Edition, dated October, 2024, including all addendums through January 1, 2025. All of the above are incorporated herein by reference and shall be subject to the modifications and additions provided in the following Technical Specifications. The asterisked (*) MPWSS technical sections have been specifically identified in this Table of Contents for convenience, but are not bound in this Project Manual. SECTION TITLE GREEN PAPER DIVISION 01 00 00 – GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 01 11 00 Summary of Work 01 14 16 Coordination and Site Conditions 01 19 00 Abbreviations and Reference Standards 01 33 00 Submittals 01 40 00 Quality Control 01 50 00 Construction Facilities & Temporary Controls 01 57 00 Environmental Quality Control 01 66 00 Product Shipment, Handling, Storage, & Protection 01 66 40 Manufacturer's Services 01 77 00 Contract Closeout DIVISION 02 00 00 – EXISTING CONDITIONS 02 01 90 Move-In and Site Preparation 02 41 10 Demolition and Salvage DIVISION 03 00 00 – CONCRETE 03 10 00 Concrete Forming and Accessories 03 15 00 Expansion, Construction, and Control Joints 03 20 00 Concrete Reinforcement 03 30 00 Concrete DIVISION 05 00 00 – METALS 05 50 00 Miscellaneous Metal Items 05 50 10 Access Hatches DIVISION 06 00 00 – WOOD, PLASTICS, AND COMPOSITES 06 10 00 Rough Carpentry 06 13 00 Metal Plate Connected Wood Trusses DIVISION 07 00 00 – THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION 07 11 13 Bituminous Damp-Proofing 07 14 16 Cold Fluid Applied Waterproofing TABLE OF CONTENTS NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION UPGRADES Table of Contents – Page 3 of 5 P:\10678-Laurel Parkway LLC\001 - Norton Ranch Lift Station\04 Design\Specifications\00 TOC.docx February 14, 2025 07 21 00 Building Insulation 07 60 00 Flashing and Sheet Metal 07 90 00 Caulking and Sealants DIVISION 08 00 00 – OPENINGS 08 11 13 Standard Steel Doors and Frames DIVISION 09 00 00 – FINISHES 09 90 00 Painting DIVISION 10 00 00 – SPECIALTIES 10 14 00 Identifying Devices 10 43 52 Portable Fire and Safety Equipment DIVISION 23 00 00 – HEATING, VENTILATING, AND AIR CONDITIONING 23 07 13 Duct Insulation 23 11 13 Facility Fuel-Oil Piping 23 11 23 Facility Natural-Gas Piping 23 31 13 Metal Ducts 23 33 30 Louvers 23 34 23 HVAC Power Ventilators 23 51 00 High-Temperature Gas Venting & Insulation 23 55 33 Gas-Fired Unit Heaters DIVISION 26 00 00 – ELECTRICAL 26 00 10 General Electrical Requirements 26 00 50 Basic Electrical Materials and Methods 26 05 05 Selective Demolition of Electrical Systems 26 05 19 Low-Voltage Electrical Conductors and Cables 26 05 26 Grounding and Bonding for Electrical Systems 26 05 29 Hangers and Supports for Electrical Systems 26 05 33 Raceways and Boxes for Electrical Systems 26 05 44 Sleeves and Sleeve Seals for Raceways and Cabling 26 05 48.16 Seismic Controls for Electrical Systems 26 05 53 Identification for Electrical Systems 26 05 74 Overcurrent Protective Device Coordination and Arc-Flash Study 26 09 23 Lighting Control Devices 26 24 19 Motor Control Centers 26 27 13 Electricity Utility Metering 26 27 26 Wiring Devices 26 28 13 Fuses 26 28 16 Enclosed Switches 26 29 13.03 Manual and Magnetic Motor Controllers 26 36 00 Transfer Switches 26 43 13 Surge Protection for Low-Voltage Electrical Power Circuits 26 51 00 LED Lighting TABLE OF CONTENTS NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION UPGRADES Table of Contents – Page 4 of 5 P:\10678-Laurel Parkway LLC\001 - Norton Ranch Lift Station\04 Design\Specifications\00 TOC.docx February 14, 2025 DIVISION 31 00 00 - EARTHWORK 31 11 00 Clearing and Grubbing 31 23 00 Earthwork for Structures 31 23 33 Trench Excavation and Backfill for Pipelines and Appurtenant Structures 31 25 00 Erosion Control Measures DIVISION 32 00 00 – EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS 32 40 00 Surface Restoration DIVISION 33 00 00 - UTILITIES 33 05 15 Directional Drilling 33 05 60 Manhole, Cleanout, and Valve Pit Construction DIVISION 40 00 00 – PROCESS INTERCONNECTIONS 40 02 05 Piping Schedule 40 05 10 Piping General 40 05 10.01 DPS:Cement Lined Ductile Iron Piping 41 05 10.14 DPS: Thickwall PVC Pipe (AWWA C900-16) 40 05 10.30 DPS: High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Pipe and Fittings 40 05 53 Manual Valves 40 05 55 Self Contained Automatic Valves 40 61 10 Process Instrumentation and Controls System DIVISION 43 00 00 – PROCESS GAS AND LIQUID HANDLING EQUIPMENT 43 23 30 Submersible Non-Clog Centrifugal Pumps and Accessories Montana Public Works Standard Specifications (MPWSS) *02112 Removal of Existing Pavement, Concrete Curb, Sidewalk… *02230 Street Excavation, Backfill, and Compaction APPENDICES APPENDIX A GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT** ** Note: The geotechnical report is included within this Project Manual for the Contractor’s information only. There is no expressed or implied guarantee that the data included, or the interpretations thereof, represent either extreme, average, or the only soil and groundwater conditions to be found at the project site. TABLE OF CONTENTS NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION UPGRADES Table of Contents – Page 5 of 5 P:\10678-Laurel Parkway LLC\001 - Norton Ranch Lift Station\04 Design\Specifications\00 TOC.docx February 14, 2025 APPENDIX B RECORD DRAWINGS AND WASTEWATER FLOW INFORMATION: DRAWINGS BOUND UNDER SEPARATE COVER END OF TABLE OF CONTENTS M APPENDIX M PUMP DATA SHEETS 75.0 - 11/6/2024 (Build 274) Program version Data version 12/2/2024 16:17 A12P12 User group(s) Xylem: USA - INT 40 °C Patented self cleaning semi-open channel impeller, ideal for pumping in waste water applications. Modular based design with high adaptation grade. Head 256 135mm 60.4% Eff. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 [ft] 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500[US g.p.m.] NP 3102 SH 3~ Adaptive 256 135 mm Number of blades 2 Technical specification P - Semi permanent, Wet Configuration 3 inch Impeller diameter 135 mm Discharge diameter 3 inch Motor number Installation type N3102.070 18-10-2AL-W 6.5hp Inlet diameter Maximum operating speed 3440 rpm Material Grey cast iron Stator housing material Curves according to: Pump information Discharge diameter 100 mm Impeller diameter Impeller Hard-Iron ™ Water, pure [100%],39.2 °F,62.42 lb/ft³,1.6891E-5 ft²/s Curve: ISO 9906 Max. fluid temperature Water, pure Nominal (mean) data shown. Under- and over-performance from this data should be expected due to standard manufacturing tolerances. Please consult your local Flygt representative for performance guarantees. Xylect-20280863 12/2/2024Last updateCreated on 12/2/2024 Dalton OylerCreated byProject Block 75.0 - 11/6/2024 (Build 274) Program version Data version 12/2/2024 16:17 A12P12 User group(s) Xylem: USA - INT NP 3102 SH 3~ Adaptive 256 Technical specification Motor - General Frequency Rated voltage Rated powerRated speed Rated current 460 V 6.5 hp3440 rpm 8.2 A 3~N3102.070 18-10-2AL-W 6.5hp Phases Total moment of inertia 0.349 lb ft² Power factor - 1/1 Load 0.94 0.94 0.91 78.9 % 80.5 % 79.6 % ATEX approved 60 Hz Number of poles 2 Stator variant 12 Insulation class H Type of Duty Motor - Technical Power factor - 3/4 Load Power factor - 1/2 Load Motor efficiency - 1/1 Load Motor efficiency - 3/4 Load Motor efficiency - 1/2 Load Starting current, direct starting Starting current, star-delta 56 A 18.7 A S1 Starts per hour max. 30 FM Version code 070 Motor number Xylect-20280863 12/2/2024Last updateCreated on 12/2/2024 Dalton OylerCreated byProject Block 75.0 - 11/6/2024 (Build 274) Program version Data version 12/2/2024 16:17 A12P12 User group(s) Xylem: USA - INT NP 3102 SH 3~ Adaptive 256 Performance curve Duty point 54.5 ft282 US g.p.m. HeadFlow Curves according to: Head Efficiency Overall Efficiency Power input P1 Shaft power P2 NPSHR-values 256 135mm 60.4% Eff. 54.5 ft 60.4 % 52.9 % 6.42 hp 12.2 ft 282 US g.p.m. 7.34 hp 256 135mm 54.5 ft 60.4 % 52.9 % 6.42 hp 12.2 ft 282 US g.p.m. 7.34 hp 256 135mm 54.5 ft 60.4 % 52.9 % 6.42 hp 12.2 ft 282 US g.p.m. 7.34 hp 256 135mm (P2) 54.5 ft 60.4 % 52.9 % 6.42 hp 12.2 ft 282 US g.p.m. 7.34 hp 256 135mm (P1) 54.5 ft 60.4 % 52.9 % 6.42 hp 12.2 ft 282 US g.p.m. 7.34 hp 256 135mm 54.5 ft 60.4 % 52.9 % 6.42 hp 12.2 ft 282 US g.p.m. 7.34 hp 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 [ft] 0 10 20 30 40 50 [%] 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [hp] 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 [ft] 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 480 [US g.p.m.] Water, pure [100%],39.2 °F,62.42 lb/ft³,1.6891E-5 ft²/s Curve: ISO 9906 Water, pure Xylect-20280863 12/2/2024Last updateCreated on 12/2/2024 Dalton Oyler 12/2/2024 Nominal (mean) data shown. Under- and over-performance from this data should be expected due to standard manufacturing tolerances.Please consult your local Flygt representative for performance guarantees. 75.0 - 11/6/2024 (Build 274) Program version Data version 12/2/2024 16:17 A12P12 User group(s) Xylem: USA - INT US g.p.m. Pumps /Flow Head Shaft power Flow Head Shaft power Hydr.eff.Spec. Energy NPSHre Systems 1 282 54.5 6.42 282 54.5 6.42 60.4 %324 12.2 US g.p.m. NP 3102 SH 3~ Adaptive 256 Duty Analysis Curves according to:Water, pure [100%] ; 39.2°F; 62.42lb/ft³; 1.6891E-5ft²/s Head 55 Hz 60.4% 50 Hz 60.4% 45 Hz 60.4% 40 Hz 60.4% 35 Hz 60.4% 30 Hz 60.4% 256 135mm 60.4% Eff. 54.5 ft 282 US g.p.m.0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 116 [ft] 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 [US g.p.m.] Operating characteristics kWh/US MGfthpUS g.p.m.f t hp ft Nominal (mean) data shown. Under- and over-performance from this data should be expected due to standard manufacturing tolerances. Please consult your local Flygt representative for performance guarantees. Xylect-20280863 12/2/2024Last updateCreated on 12/2/2024 Dalton OylerCreated byProject Block 75.0 - 11/6/2024 (Build 274) Program version Data version 12/2/2024 16:17 A12P12 User group(s) Xylem: USA - INT Head Efficiency Overall Efficiency Pow er input P1 Shaft pow er P2 NPSHR-values 55 Hz 60.4% 50 Hz 60.4% 45 Hz 60.4% 40 Hz 60.4% 35 Hz 60.4% 30 Hz 60.4%256 135mm 60.4% Eff. 55 Hz50 Hz45 Hz40 Hz35 Hz30 Hz 256 135mm55 Hz50 Hz45 Hz40 Hz35 Hz30 Hz 256 135mm 55 Hz 50 Hz 45 Hz40 Hz35 Hz30 Hz 256 135mm (P2)55 Hz 50 Hz 45 Hz 40 Hz35 Hz30 Hz 256 135mm (P1) 55 Hz 50 Hz 45 Hz 40 Hz 35 Hz30 Hz 256 135mm 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 [ft] 0 10 20 30 40 50 [%] 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [hp] 5 10 15 20 25 [ft] 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 [US g.p.m.] NP 3102 SH 3~ Adaptive 256 VFD Curve Curves according to:,39.2 °F,62.42 lb/ft³,1.6891E-5 ft²/s Curve: ISO 9906 Water, pure Xylect-20280863 12/2/2024Last updateCreated on 12/2/2024 Dalton OylerCreated byProject Block Nominal (mean) data shown. Under- and over-performance from this data should be expected due to standard manufacturing tolerances.Please consult your local Flygt representative for performance guarantees. 75.0 - 11/6/2024 (Build 274) Program version Data version 12/2/2024 16:17 A12P12 User group(s) Xylem: USA - INT Head 55 Hz 60.4% 50 Hz 60.4% 45 Hz 60.4% 40 Hz 60.4% 35 Hz 60.4% 30 Hz 60.4% 256 135mm 60.4% Eff. 54.5 ft 282 US g.p.m.0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 116 [ft] 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 [US g.p.m.] 1 NP 3102 SH 3~ Adaptive 256 VFD Analysis Curves according to:Water, pure [100%] ; 39.2°F; 62.42lb/ft³; 1.6891E-5ft²/s ft Pumps /Frequency Flow Head Shaft power Flow Head Shaft power Hydr.eff.Specific energy NPSHreSystems 1 60 Hz 282 54.5 6.42 282 54.5 6.42 60.4 %324 12.2 1 55 Hz 258 45.8 4.95 258 45.8 4.95 60.4 %296 10.6 1 50 Hz 235 37.8 3.72 235 37.8 3.72 60.4 %245 9.08 1 45 Hz 211 30.7 2.71 211 30.7 2.71 60.4 %204 7.67 ft Operating Characteristics kWh/US MGUS g.p.m.ft hp US g.p.m.hp ft Water, pure [100%] ; 39.2°F; 62.42lb/ft³; 1.6891E-5ft²/s Nominal (mean) data shown. Under- and over-performance from this data should be expected due to standard manufacturing tolerances.Please consult your local Flygt representative for performance guarantees. Xylect-20280863 12/2/2024Last updateCreated on 12/2/2024 Dalton OylerCreated byProject Block 75.0 - 11/6/2024 (Build 274) Program version Data version 12/2/2024 16:17 A12P12 User group(s) Xylem: USA - INT Head 55 Hz 60.4% 50 Hz 60.4% 45 Hz 60.4% 40 Hz 60.4% 35 Hz 60.4% 30 Hz 60.4% 256 135mm 60.4% Eff. 54.5 ft 282 US g.p.m.0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 116 [ft] 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 [US g.p.m.] 1 NP 3102 SH 3~ Adaptive 256 VFD Analysis Curves according to:Water, pure [100%] ; 39.2°F; 62.42lb/ft³; 1.6891E-5ft²/s ft Pumps /Frequency Flow Head Shaft power Flow Head Shaft power Hydr.eff.Specific energy NPSHreSystems 1 40 Hz 188 24.2 1.9 188 24.2 1.9 60.4 %170 6.35 1 35 Hz 164 18.5 1.27 164 18.5 1.27 60.4 %143 5.13 1 30 Hz 141 13.6 0.803 141 13.6 0.803 60.4 %123 4.01 ft Operating Characteristics kWh/US MGUS g.p.m.ft hp US g.p.m.hp ft Water, pure [100%] ; 39.2°F; 62.42lb/ft³; 1.6891E-5ft²/s Nominal (mean) data shown. Under- and over-performance from this data should be expected due to standard manufacturing tolerances.Please consult your local Flygt representative for performance guarantees. Xylect-20280863 12/2/2024Last updateCreated on 12/2/2024 Dalton OylerCreated byProject Block 75.0 - 11/6/2024 (Build 274) Program version Data version 12/2/2024 16:17 A12P12 User group(s) Xylem: USA - INT NP 3102 SH 3~ Adaptive 256 Dimensional drawing Ref line Ø3"Outlet center lineWeight Pump Stand lbs 235 80Min water level*Z Z Z * Only applicable for intermittent duty. Consult the IOM for more info. Z Ø1316(4x)241831433 8 1513 16 181 16 11 8 49 16 97 16 2" GUIDE BARS 9 161034153412 71 16 361 4 263 16 71166"5111687 8 214511 16 7 8 3151621 2 778913 16 10116Scale Date RevisionDrawing number Suctioninlet Pump inlet Pump outlet DischargeoutletNP3102SH 060,070,160,190,760,770,900,910,920,930,960,970 Ø3" Ø3"1:20 240228 5385500 12 VIEW Xylect-20280863 12/2/2024Last updateCreated on 12/2/2024 Dalton OylerCreated byProject Block 75.0 - 11/6/2024 (Build 274) Program version Data version 12/2/2024 16:17 A12P12 User group(s) Xylem: USA - INT 40 °C Patented self cleaning semi-open channel impeller, ideal for pumping in waste water applications. Modular based design with high adaptation grade. Head 458 310mm 73.5% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 [ft] 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 [US g.p.m.] NP 3202 HT 3~ 458 310 mm Number of blades 2 Technical specification P - Semi permanent, Wet Configuration 6 inch Impeller diameter 310 mm Discharge diameter 6 inch Motor number Installation type N3202.095 30-24-4AA-W 60hp Inlet diameter Maximum operating speed 1775 rpm Material Curves according to: Pump information Discharge diameter 200 mm Impeller diameter Impeller Hard-Iron ™ Water, pure [100%],39.2 °F,62.42 lb/ft³,1.6891E-5 ft²/s Curve: ISO 9906 Max. fluid temperature Water, pure Nominal (mean) data shown. Under- and over-performance from this data should be expected due to standard manufacturing tolerances. Please consult your local Flygt representative for performance guarantees. Xylect-20280858 12/2/2024Last updateCreated on 12/2/2024 Dalton OylerCreated byProject Block 75.0 - 11/6/2024 (Build 274) Program version Data version 12/2/2024 16:17 A12P12 User group(s) Xylem: USA - INT NP 3202 HT 3~ 458 Technical specification Motor - General Frequency Rated voltage Rated powerRated speed Rated current 460 V 60 hp1775 rpm 69 A 3~N3202.095 30-24-4AA-W 60hp Phases Total moment of inertia 8.94 lb ft² Power factor - 1/1 Load 0.89 0.86 0.78 91.9 % 92.6 % 92.3 % ATEX approved 60 Hz Number of poles 4 Stator variant 4 Insulation class H Type of Duty Motor - Technical Power factor - 3/4 Load Power factor - 1/2 Load Motor efficiency - 1/1 Load Motor efficiency - 3/4 Load Motor efficiency - 1/2 Load Starting current, direct starting Starting current, star-delta 470 A 157 A S1 Starts per hour max. 30 FM Version code 095 Motor number Xylect-20280858 12/2/2024Last updateCreated on 12/2/2024 Dalton OylerCreated byProject Block 75.0 - 11/6/2024 (Build 274) Program version Data version 12/2/2024 16:17 A12P12 User group(s) Xylem: USA - INT NP 3202 HT 3~ 458 Performance curve Duty point 125 ft1010 US g.p.m. HeadFlow Curves according to: Head Efficiency Overall Efficiency Power input P1 Shaft power P2 NPSHR-values 458 310mm 73.5% 125 ft 70.5 % 64.7 % 45.4 hp 16.5 ft 1014 US g.p.m. 49.5 hp 458 310mm 125 ft 70.5 % 64.7 % 45.4 hp 16.5 ft 1014 US g.p.m. 49.5 hp 458 310mm 125 ft 70.5 % 64.7 % 45.4 hp 16.5 ft 1014 US g.p.m. 49.5 hp 458 310mm (P2) 125 ft 70.5 % 64.7 % 45.4 hp 16.5 ft 1014 US g.p.m. 49.5 hp 458 310mm (P1) 125 ft 70.5 % 64.7 % 45.4 hp 16.5 ft 1014 US g.p.m. 49.5 hp 458 310mm NPSHR = 32.809 ft 125 ft 70.5 % 64.7 % 45.4 hp 16.5 ft 1014 US g.p.m. 49.5 hp 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 505560657075 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 [ft] 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 [%] 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 [hp] 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 [ft] 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 [US g.p.m.] Water, pure [100%],39.2 °F,62.42 lb/ft³,1.6891E-5 ft²/s Curve: ISO 9906 Water, pure Xylect-20280858 12/2/2024Last updateCreated on 12/2/2024 Dalton Oyler 12/2/2024 Nominal (mean) data shown. Under- and over-performance from this data should be expected due to standard manufacturing tolerances.Please consult your local Flygt representative for performance guarantees. 75.0 - 11/6/2024 (Build 274) Program version Data version 12/2/2024 16:17 A12P12 User group(s) Xylem: USA - INT US g.p.m. Pumps /Flow Head Shaft power Flow Head Shaft power Hydr.eff.Spec. Energy NPSHre Systems 1 1010 125 45.4 1010 125 45.4 70.5 %606 16.5 US g.p.m. NP 3202 HT 3~ 458 Duty Analysis Curves according to:Water, pure [100%] ; 39.2°F; 62.42lb/ft³; 1.6891E-5ft²/s Head 55 Hz 73.5% 50 Hz 73.5% 45 Hz 73.5% 40 Hz 73.5% 35 Hz 73.5% 30 Hz 73.5% 458 310mm 73.5% 125 ft 1014 US g.p.m.0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 [ft] 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 [US g.p.m.] Operating characteristics kWh/US MGfthpUS g.p.m.f t hp ft Nominal (mean) data shown. Under- and over-performance from this data should be expected due to standard manufacturing tolerances. Please consult your local Flygt representative for performance guarantees. Xylect-20280858 12/2/2024Last updateCreated on 12/2/2024 Dalton OylerCreated byProject Block 75.0 - 11/6/2024 (Build 274) Program version Data version 12/2/2024 16:17 A12P12 User group(s) Xylem: USA - INT Head Efficiency Overall Efficiency Pow er input P1 Shaft pow er P2 NPSHR-values 55 Hz 73.5% 50 Hz 73.5% 45 Hz 73.5% 40 Hz 73.5% 35 Hz 73.5% 30 Hz 73.5% 458 310mm 73.5% 55 Hz50 Hz45 Hz40 Hz35 Hz30 Hz 458 310mm55 Hz50 Hz45 Hz40 Hz35 Hz30 Hz 458 310mm 55 Hz 50 Hz 45 Hz 40 Hz35 Hz30 Hz 458 310mm (P2) 55 Hz 50 Hz 45 Hz 40 Hz35 Hz30 Hz 458 310mm (P1) 55 Hz 50 Hz 45 Hz 40 Hz 35 Hz30 Hz 458 310mm NPSHR = 32.809 ft 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 [ft] 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 [%] 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 [hp] 10 20 30 40 [ft] 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 [US g.p.m.] NP 3202 HT 3~ 458 VFD Curve Curves according to:,39.2 °F,62.42 lb/ft³,1.6891E-5 ft²/s Curve: ISO 9906 Water, pure Xylect-20280858 12/2/2024Last updateCreated on 12/2/2024 Dalton OylerCreated byProject Block Nominal (mean) data shown. Under- and over-performance from this data should be expected due to standard manufacturing tolerances.Please consult your local Flygt representative for performance guarantees. 75.0 - 11/6/2024 (Build 274) Program version Data version 12/2/2024 16:17 A12P12 User group(s) Xylem: USA - INT Head 55 Hz 73.5% 50 Hz 73.5% 45 Hz 73.5% 40 Hz 73.5% 35 Hz 73.5% 30 Hz 73.5% 458 310mm 73.5% 125 ft 1014 US g.p.m.0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 [ft] 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 [US g.p.m.] 1 NP 3202 HT 3~ 458 VFD Analysis Curves according to:Water, pure [100%] ; 39.2°F; 62.42lb/ft³; 1.6891E-5ft²/s ft Pumps /Frequency Flow Head Shaft power Flow Head Shaft power Hydr.eff.Specific energy NPSHreSystems 1 60 Hz 1010 125 45.4 1010 125 45.4 70.5 %606 16.5 1 55 Hz 930 105 35 930 105 35 70.5 %505 14.3 1 50 Hz 845 86.6 26.3 845 86.6 26.3 70.5 %420 12.3 1 45 Hz 761 70.2 19.2 761 70.2 19.2 70.5 %345 10.4 ft Operating Characteristics kWh/US MGUS g.p.m.ft hp US g.p.m.hp ft Water, pure [100%] ; 39.2°F; 62.42lb/ft³; 1.6891E-5ft²/s Nominal (mean) data shown. Under- and over-performance from this data should be expected due to standard manufacturing tolerances.Please consult your local Flygt representative for performance guarantees. Xylect-20280858 12/2/2024Last updateCreated on 12/2/2024 Dalton OylerCreated byProject Block 75.0 - 11/6/2024 (Build 274) Program version Data version 12/2/2024 16:17 A12P12 User group(s) Xylem: USA - INT Head 55 Hz 73.5% 50 Hz 73.5% 45 Hz 73.5% 40 Hz 73.5% 35 Hz 73.5% 30 Hz 73.5% 458 310mm 73.5% 125 ft 1014 US g.p.m.0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 [ft] 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 [US g.p.m.] 1 NP 3202 HT 3~ 458 VFD Analysis Curves according to:Water, pure [100%] ; 39.2°F; 62.42lb/ft³; 1.6891E-5ft²/s ft Pumps /Frequency Flow Head Shaft power Flow Head Shaft power Hydr.eff.Specific energy NPSHreSystems 1 40 Hz 676 55.4 13.5 676 55.4 13.5 70.5 %281 8.61 1 35 Hz 592 42.4 9.01 592 42.4 9.01 70.5 %226 6.95 1 30 Hz 507 31.2 5.67 507 31.2 5.67 70.5 %180 5.43 ft Operating Characteristics kWh/US MGUS g.p.m.ft hp US g.p.m.hp ft Water, pure [100%] ; 39.2°F; 62.42lb/ft³; 1.6891E-5ft²/s Nominal (mean) data shown. Under- and over-performance from this data should be expected due to standard manufacturing tolerances.Please consult your local Flygt representative for performance guarantees. Xylect-20280858 12/2/2024Last updateCreated on 12/2/2024 Dalton OylerCreated byProject Block 75.0 - 11/6/2024 (Build 274) Program version Data version 12/2/2024 16:17 A12P12 User group(s) Xylem: USA - INT NP 3202 HT 3~ 458 Dimensional drawing Weight (lbs)Pump Discharge with cooling jacket 1260 180 without cooling jacket 1150 180Min water levelRef. line Outlet center line BOLT Ø13 16 (4X) Ø6" Z Z Z Z Scale Date RevisionDrawing number Suction inlet Pump inlet Pump outlet DischargeoutletFP,NP 3202 HT 090,095,180,185,350,390,660,670 Ø6" Ø6"1:40 210318 6664300 11 221 453 8 271 2 111 16 41 2 4858173413123411 8 501 4 383 4 37813344 5 ° 111 8713 16 103812187131691316111 16 23 8415163" Guide bars VIEW Xylect-20280858 12/2/2024Last updateCreated on 12/2/2024 Dalton OylerCreated byProject Block N APPENDIX N WETLAND COVENANT OF DEDICATION O APPENDIX O OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL Norton Ranch Wastewater Lift Station 2025 Improvements OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL Prepared by 2880 Technology Blvd W. Bozeman, MT 59718 February 2025 Norton Ranch Lift Station Wastewater Lift Station Bozeman, MT Operations and Maintenance Manual TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 GUIDE TO THIS MANUAL 1-1 1.1 General 1-1 1.2 Contractors and Suppliers 1-1 1.3 Operator Responsibility 1-1 1.4 Personnel Certification 1-2 CHAPTER 2 FACILITY OVERVIEW 2-1 2.1 Purpose of Facility 2-1 2.2 Lift Station Components 2-1 2.2.1 Instrumentation and Controls 2-2 2.2.2 Maintenance 2-3 2.3 Standby Generator 2-3 2.3.1 Maintenance 2-4 APPENDIX A WASTEWATER DESIGN REPORT AND EPA FACT SHEET A APPENDIX B EQUIPMENT B APPENDIX C RECORD DRAWINGS C Norton Ranch Lift Station Wastewater Lift Station Bozeman, MT Operations and Maintenance Manual 1-1 CHAPTER 1 GUIDE TO THIS MANUAL 1.1 GENERAL The purpose of this Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Manual is to provide a guide for the operation of the Norton Ranch Lift Station located at Bozeman, MT. In addition to this O&M Manual, the following references are available for operator use: 1. Design report and record drawings prepared by Morrison-Maierle, Inc. 2. Manufacturer O&M manuals and equipment information 1.2 CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS The primary equipment supplier and contractor for the Lift Station are provided for owner and operator reference over the life of the facility. Table 1.1 includes the supplier name, address, and other contact information. Table 1.1: Contact Information Contact Contact Address Representative General Contractor: Sime Construction 90 Ramshorn Drive Bozeman, MT 59715 Parker Brown 406-582-9841 p.brown@simeconst.com Pump Supplier: Xylem Water Solutions, Inc. 3860 Helberg Dr. Helena, MT 59602 Dalton Oyler 406-417-1984 Dalton.Oyler@XylemInc.com Generator Supplier: Unknown (Re-using Existing Generator) UNKNOWN Refer to Previous O&M Manual UNKNOWN Refer to Previous O&M Manual 1.3 OPERATOR RESPONSIBILITY For the wastewater lift station, the operator’s responsibility is to provide adequate conveyance of wastewater using the provided equipment and ensure the long life of the facility through effective maintenance and operation. Some general operator guidelines are listed. The operator must: 1. Be thoroughly familiar with all equipment and their efficiencies, know proper operational and monitoring procedures and use this knowledge to operate the system effectively. 2. Keep informed of current operating and maintenance practices through short courses and schools, periodicals related to wastewater conveyance, and MDEQ literature. Norton Ranch Lift Station Wastewater Lift Station Bozeman, MT Operations and Maintenance Manual 1-2 3. Maintain accurate and complete operation and maintenance records. Submit required records to the City of Bozeman and MDEQ. 4. Assist in preparing an adequate budget and use sound judgment in spending funds. 5. Keep adequate spare parts on hand and maintain contractor contacts to expedite repairs. 6. Conduct inspections and recommend preventative maintenance needs. 7. Be aware of potential safety hazards connected with sewer conveyance operations. 8. Maintain good public relations as a representative of the facility when dealing with visitors. 9. Communicate. Keep system owner advised of potential problems or possible areas of improvement in facility operation and maintenance. 1.4 PERSONNEL CERTIFICATION The operator of the wastewater treatment system shall be certified in accordance with State of Montana regulations and statutes as applicable. Table 1.3: Wastewater System Operator Contact Information Name Address Contact City of Bozeman Water & Sewer Office 814 N Bozeman Bozeman, MT 59715 406-582-3200 Norton Ranch Lift Station Wastewater Lift Station Bozeman, MT Operations and Maintenance Manual 2-1 CHAPTER 2 FACILITY OVERVIEW 2.1 PURPOSE OF FACILITY The Norton Ranch Lift Station conveys sewer flows collected from approximately 212 acres located generally south of the lift station site and includes most phases of the Norton East Ranch Subdivision, the West Side Flats, and Urban Farms Subdivision. Sewer mains located within the street rights-of-way will gravity flow to the north and onto the existing lift station site. The lift station and force mains convey wastewater to the existing gravity mains within North Cottonwood Road, which further convey wastewater to the City of Bozeman Davis Lane Lift Station and to a final destination at the City’s Water Reclamation Facility. 2.2 LIFT STATION COMPONENTS The lift station consists of a precast concrete wetwell structure which includes three (3) submersible pumps and a separate building to house check valves, isolation valves, flow metering, pump control systems, and a diesel-powered backup generator. A smaller duty pump provides conveyance of smaller average day flows, and redundant larger pumps can each convey the ultimate peak wastewater flows expected in the service area. The lift station building has utility power service and generator backup power with space for electrical panels, pump control panels, and a SCADA panel with alarm notification to the operator. Transport of pumped wastewater will be accomplished by using the existing 6” force main and a new 8” force main. An existing 4” force main that is parallel to the 6” force main was abandoned as part of this project. The lift station wet well will contain two submersible level transducers with backup level switches that indicate level in the wet well. These transducers will provide a redundant check to prevent errant readings due to fouling. Level information is provided to the pump control panel. An additional set of backup floats is provided to bypass the control panel and operate independently in the event of control panel failure to cycle a lag pump in fill-draw scenario. Table 2-1 below provides a list of equipment associated with the lift station pump and control equipment. Norton Ranch Lift Station Wastewater Lift Station Bozeman, MT Operations and Maintenance Manual 2-2 TABLE 2-1 WRF INFLUENT LIFT STATION EQUIPMENT Number Description Location P-100-1-1 Duty Pump Wet Well P-100-1-2 Lag Pump 1 Wet Well P-100-1-3 Lag Pump 2 Wet Well FE/FIT-100-1 Flow Meter – 6” Discharge Lift Station Manifold Room FE/FIT-100-2 Flow Meter – 8” Discharge Lift Station Manifold Room ARV-100-1 Air Release Valve – 6” FM IPS Building ARV-100-2 Air Release Valve – 6” FM IPS Building LE/LIT-100-1-A Wet Well Level Controls Wet Well LE/LIT-100-1-B Wet Well Level Controls Wet Well LSHH-100-1-4 Primary High-High Level Alarm Float Wet Well LSH-100-1-3 Primary High Level Alarm Float Wet Well LSLL-100-1-2 Primary Low-Low Level Float Switch Wet Well LSHH-100-2-1 Backup High-High Level Float Switch Wet Well LSLL-100-2-2 Backup Low-Low Level Float Switch Wet Well 2.2.1 Instrumentation and Controls The control panel selects which of the pumps to run in duty, lead, lag, and standby modes based on operator inputs. All three pumps are driven with variable frequency drives (VFDs) and controlled by the control panel to ramp up or down to maintain level within a desired range. There is manual speed control available for the pumps by utilizing the pump VFDs HMI (human machine interface). Flow monitoring of the lift station output will be provided by magnetic flow meters which can be read in the station or through the control panel. Building temperature sensors and entry switches for each exterior door will be communicated to the control panel. The control panel will have remote control and alarming capabilities provided through an existing telemetry system to the City of Bozeman. Norton Ranch Lift Station Wastewater Lift Station Bozeman, MT Operations and Maintenance Manual 2-3 2.2.2 Maintenance Maintenance items for the submersible pumps include the following: •Daily: •Check for proper operation. •Every 4,000 operating hours: •Measure the insulate resistance •Check the power cables •Visually inspect the lifting chain/rope •Every 10,000 operating hours: •Check pump sensors •Check for signs of mechanical seal leakage •Change lubricant •Lubricate the bearings •Every 5 Years: Perform a general pump overhaul with Manufacturer’s assistance 2.3 STANDBY GENERATOR Backup power will be provided by a diesel generator and automatic transfer switch (ATS) to run critical lift station loads in the event of utility power outage. The control panel will be alerted for the following conditions: (1) generator fail; (2) generator run; (3) fuel low; (4) battery low (5) ATS status. Standby power generation is in place to supply electrical power during interruption of the normal power supply. The normal and standby electrical power sources serve the plant’s loads via a system including an automatic transfer switch, motor control center (MCC’s), step-down transformer, and electrical panels. The generator is located on the southwest corner of the site next to the IPS and is an indoor skid-mounted generator with a belly-mounted tank. The generation equipment consists of a Generac diesel-fueled 4-cycle, engine rated for 100 kW configured for a 480Y/277VAC, 3-phase, 60HZ power system. In the event of a power outage at the plant, an Automatic Transfer Switch (ATS) will send a “Generator Call” to the generator. When the generator is started and up to speed the ATS will swap power to the generator. After utility power is restored, the ATS will transfer the plant to the utility power, allow a preset cool down period for the generator and then power down the generator. The ATS will provide a programmable exerciser to provide weekly exercising of the generator with and without the plant loads. Norton Ranch Lift Station Wastewater Lift Station Bozeman, MT Operations and Maintenance Manual 2-4 The plant PLC will lock out non-essential equipment during a standby power condition which allows a smaller generator to be installed. Essential components within the lift station, such as controls, heating, and lights, will be operated by standby power as well as the following: •Primary Duty Pump •Selected Lag Pump (Emergency Pump) •Heating and Ventilation System •Building Lighting and receptacle loads •SCADA and instrumentation system Calculations of the essential system loads yield a total of 58.5 kW. The essential loads are shown in Table 2-2. TABLE 2-2 ESSENTIAL LOADS FOR NORTON RANCH LIFT STATION Equipment Name/Essential Load Quantity Power (kW)Total Power in kW Duty Pump 1 of 1 6.5 HP (5 kW)5 kW Lag Pump (Selected Emergency Pump)1 of 2 60 HP (45 kW)45 kW HVAC – Unit Heater and fans 1 of 1 1.5 kW 1.5 kW Electric Wall Heater EH-1 1 of 1 5 kW 5 kW Misc. Building Loads 1 2 kW 2 kW Total Essential Load Power (kW)--58.5 kW 2.3.1 Maintenance The generator manufacturer’s O&M Manual contains a weekly checklist containing routine maintenance items that should be addressed on a weekly basis. Recording operational parameters on a regular basis provides operators with a baseline log that allows for the identification of potential malfunctions. Operators must be familiar with this weekly checklist and the routine maintenance items to ensure proper care of the generator set. The main items on the weekly maintenance schedule are: •Weekly: o Maintain oil level. o Maintain coolant level. o Exercise the generator to verify that it runs as designed and to test functionality of the ATS. o Record operational parameters as indicated on the checklist. Norton Ranch Lift Station Wastewater Lift Station Bozeman, MT Operations and Maintenance Manual 2-5 Also included in the Manufacturer’s O&M Manual are troubleshooting guides for the various components of the generators and further maintenance items such as oil changes and coolant changes. Preventative maintenance log sheets for the generators must be completed for each maintenance event. Norton Ranch Lift Station Wastewater Lift Station Bozeman, MT Operations and Maintenance Manual A APPENDIX A WASTEWATER DESIGN REPORT AND EPA FACT SHEET Wastewater Design Report EPA 832-F00-073 Norton Ranch Lift Station Wastewater Lift Station Bozeman, MT Operations and Maintenance Manual B APPENDIX B EQUIPMENT Pumps Existing Diesel Generator Controls Equipment Norton Ranch Lift Station Wastewater Lift Station Bozeman, MT Operations and Maintenance Manual C APPENDIX C RECORD DRAWINGS