HomeMy WebLinkAboutStorm Report Master SiteStorm Drainage Report
for
Gardner Simmental Lot 1A, Tract 1
Bridger Point Project – Phase 1
Chick-Fil-A and Shared Access
City of Bozeman
Site Plan Submittal
Prepared For:
Rickert Development
Prepared By:
714 Stoneridge Drive, Suite 3
Bozeman, MT 59718
April 10, 2025
2
Introduction
The purpose of this design report is to outline and size the storm drainage system proposed for
the Phase 1 Site Plan Application of the Bridger Point Project. The stormwater is detailed in the
stormwater sheets SW1.0 – SW1.7.
Phase 1 includes the construction of a Chick-Fil-A (CFA) on the east side of the site and a shared
access road off 19th Ave. Proposed improvements include a building, an access road into the site,
a parking area for employees and customers, and utilities to service the building.
The site is proposed to be graded such that all stormwater flows to on-site inlets, through mains
and into an underground detention system that releases at pre-development rates. The stormwater
is treated with hydrodynamic separation systems before flowing into the underground facilities.
The following are photos of the site:
Figure 1: Looking east of the proposed redevelopment approach:
Figure 2: Looking north at the proposed redevelopment approach (proposed site on right).
3
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing conditions of the site include a large paved looped area, sidewalks, an old building
foundation, and small culverts and swales. The general slope of the site is 1.5% in the northerly
direction. Historically, stormwater has run around the site in existing roadside ditches on the west
and east/north-east of the site. A detailed narrative and exhibit outlining the historic flows are
included in the Historic Flow Exhibit” and “Historic Flow Narrative” in the appendix of this report.
GROUNDWATER
Test pits were dug for the geotechnical reports and showed shallow groundwater. Eight test pits
were dug on the eastern side of the site on 5/6/24 and showed groundwater at a depth of 2-2.5’
below existing grade. Five test pits were excavated on the western portion of the site on 5/28/24
and showed groundwater at depths of 4.5-5’ below existing grade. It appears that the peak
groundwater was captured between the two test pit explorations.
STORMWATER DESIGN
The proposed stormwater improvements for the CFA Site are designed to meet the City of
Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy (2004 – w/ addendums approved through
03/13/20). The design storm return interval for retention and detention facilities in the City of
Bozeman is 10 years. The storm duration for these design events is 2 hours. Conveyance facilities
are required to have sufficient capacity to convey a 25-year storm event. The Montana Post-
Construction Storm Water BMP Design Guidance Manual recommends three feet of separation
between seasonal high groundwater levels and stormwater retention/detention facilities. Given the
high levels of groundwater, this recommendation is not feasible, but the stormwater facilities have
been designed to be at least one foot above the seasonal high groundwater table.
PROPOSED STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS
Stormwater Improvements include a series of inlets (grate/solid top, curb inlets), stormwater
mains, and an underground stormwater facility. All stormwater will flow into the underground
facilities following treatment by hydrodynamic separators, which are designed to separate any
trash, sediment, and debris from the stormwater. This will enhance the stormwater quality before
it reinfiltrates into the ground or outflows from the site.
UNDERGROUND STORAGE FACILITIES
The project proposes one underground detention facility that is designed to capture all runoff,
retain the first 0.5” of rainfall, and release all runoff at the pre-development rate of 1.22 cfs. The
CMP facility consists of three 151-ft long laterals, with a total storage capacity volume of 4,392
cubic feet. The laterals are 33”x49” corrugated metal pipe.
Stormwater enters the facility from three hydrodynamic separator manholes, which will remove
any debris or sediment from the runoff. At the discharge end of the underground facility,
stormwater will release at the 1.22 cfs pre-development rate through a manhole fitted with an
overflow weir. The weir will be placed at 6” above the bottom of the underground facility, which
will allow the first 0.5” of rainfall to be retained. To prevent standing water in the system, the CMP
pipes will have exfiltration joints to allow any retained water to infiltrate into the ground.
OUTFALL
4
The stormwater outfall for the entire site is an existing 24” culvert under the I-90 onramp from N
19th Ave. Based on the MDT Permit 8566, the site is allowed to discharge a total of 2.32 cfs from
the entire post-development site. Proportionally, the Phase 1/CFA site is allowed to release 1.22
cfs. Once the runoff enters the culvert, it releases to the MDT retention basin between the highway
lanes.
SUMMARY
This system is designed to meet COB’s stormwater requirements. All stormwater will be treated
through hydrodynamic separation before entering the underground detention system. The system
will retain the first 0.5” of runoff from the site and discharge the remainder at pre-development
rates. The system connects to the existing MDT culvert under the Hwy 90 onramp. The MDT
permit approving the discharge is included in the appendices.
APPENDICES
1.Historic Flows and Narrative
2.BASINS Exhibit
3.Stormwater Basin and Pipe Summary
4.MDT Permit
5.Calculations
6.Geotechnical Reports
Appendix 1
Historical Drainage Flows Narrative
Master Site Plan Application
Gardner Simmental Lot 1A, Tract 1
Project Name 24345 Bridger Point CONR
This narrative outlines the historical drainage patterns on and around the project site. Please
reference the “Exhibit: Historic Drainage Pathways” with this narrative as well as the old exhibit
“L.4”, which was the original grading plan for the existing site. This is included for you to see all
existing culverts and swales on site that are to be removed during this development.
The proposed detailed grading and drainage plans are not discussed in this narrative but are
included in this application. The purpose of this narrative is only to show the historical drainage
pathways.
The stormwater that flows onto and around the site is generally topographically divided into east
and west drainage basins, which ultimately discharge to two separate culverts. The site is at the
downstream end of a subdivision, which has flows from the east side of N 19th Ave and
Simmental Ave.
Western Drainage Patterns
N 19th Ave has a roadside ditch that runs along eastern side of the road, which ultimately runs
along the western portion of the site and discharges into a 24” culvert (“Culvert 1” on the
Exhibit: Historic Drainage Pathways) at the SE corner of the N 19th Ave and Hwy 90 On-Ramp
Intersection.
“Culvert 1” discharges the flows to the west of N 19th Ave, and then finally into another culvert
that flows under the N 19th Ave On-Ramp into a large MDT retention basin. The proposed
grading of the site does not drain any of its stormwater into this N 19th Ave roadside ditch or
“Culvert 1”.
Eastern Drainage Patterns
The north and north-eastern boundary of the site has a ditch that captures water from Hwy 90
and from a small portion of the northern portion of Simmental Road and discharges it into a 24”
culvert (“Culvert 2” on the Exhibit: Historic Drainage Pathways).
As projects are developed in the City of Bozeman on Simmental Road, they are required to
capture, manage, and store stormwater on their own site. Much of the stormwater on Simmental
Road is already captured and managed on developed sites, and as Simmental Rd becomes fully
developed, no stormwater will discharge to the Hwy 90 roadside ditch. Therefore, the roadside
ditch that borders the property on the east and north-east side will primarily capture and route
stormwater from Hwy 90.
The proposed grading on this site will route any stormwater flow from the adjacent southern
property to either the eastern or western sides of the property and into either western or eastern
ditches discussed above. This will prevent run-on to the site and maintain historical flow
patterns.
MDT Permit
This site has an approved MDT permit (Permit #8566, included in this application) that permits
discharge to “Culvert 2” at the pre-development rate of 2.32 CFS. This discharge rate will be
split between Phase 1 (CFA Site Plan) and the future Phase 2. More detailed information
regarding the proposed stormwater plan is included in the Stormwater Report and Plans in the
application.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>GAS
GAS
GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS
GAS
GAS
GASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASUGPUGPUGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGP
UGPWWWWWWWWWGASUG-FIBUG-FIBUG-FIBUG-FIBUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPWWWWWWWLOT 1TRACT 2PLAT J-50.00'
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
W
WW"Culvert 2"EXT'G 24" CULVERTINV IN 4667.99EXT'G 24" CULVERTINV OUT 4667.73HW
Y
9
0
O
N
-
R
AM
PMDT DETENTION BASINMDTDETENTIONBASINEXT'G CULVERT IMPLIED FROMAERIAL IMAGERYCONFIRMED WITH MDT"Culvert 1"EXT'G 24" CULVERTINV IN 4667.09EXT'G 24" CULVERTINV IN 4665.81THIS EXHIBIT ONLY SHOWS HISTORICALDRAINAGE PATTERNS AND THUS DOES NOTREFLECT MDT'S PROPOSED PLANS FOR N 19THWIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT. PLEASEREFERENCE THE MDT PLANS INCLUDED IN THISAPPLICATION IF NEEDED. THE MDT PLANS DONOT ALTER THE HISTORICAL DRAINAGE.A SMALL PORTION OF THENORTHERN MOST END OFSIMMENTAL DRAINS INTO THEHWY 90 ROADSIDE DITCHHWY 90 ROADSIDE DITCH19TH ROADSIDE DITCHSITE GRADING WILLROUTE OFF-SITEDRAINAGE AROUND SITESEE THE ON-SITESTORMWATERDRAINAGE PLANSSCALE 1"=100'11"x17"BASIS OF BEARINGBobcat LDPCoordinate SystemEXHIBIT:HISTORICDRAINAGEPATHWAYSEXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN
Appendix 2
PROPOSED HOTEL(180 ROOMS)202812171817151444108ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRFPROJECT NO:DATE:ENGINEER:REVISIONSDATENO.DESC.SHEETOF325-05CHICK-FIL-A SITE PLAN APPLICATION
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
4500 E VALLEY CENTER DRIVE1
1BASINSFUTURE DEVELOPMENTPROPERTY LINE
Appendix 3
Drainage Basin Area (Ac.)C-Value Peak Flow (cfs)
A 0.32 0.59 0.74
B 0.17 0.74 0.55
C 0.09 0.78 0.37
D 0.09 0.95 0.40
E 0.22 0.92 0.71
F 0.27 0.88 1.10
G 0.10 0.83 0.33
H 0.06 0.95 0.27
I 0.05 0.68 0.17
J 0.08 0.77 0.36
K 0.03 0.95 0.17
L 0.08 0.95 0.35
M 1.00 1.19 0.54
N 1.00 1.19 0.54
O 1.00 1.19 0.86
P 1.00 1.19 0.52
Q 1.00 1.19 0.53
Pipe Pipe Size Req'd Capacity Contributing basins
1 18 1.29 A, B
2 18 1.66 A, B, C
3 18 2.18 A, B, C, P
4 18 2.53 A, B, C, P, L
5 21 4.61 A, B, C, P, L, E, F, 0.5M
6 15 0.53 Q
7 15 0.70 Q, K
8 15 1.23 Q, K, J, I
9 15 1.50 Q, K, J, I, H
10 15 1.83 Q, K, J, I, H, G
11 15 1.67 N, O, 0.5M
12 15 0.35 L
Pipe Summary
Drainage Basin Summary
Appendix 4
Montana Department of Transportation
Approach Permit
Printed Date: 07/09/2024
2701 Prospect Ave
PO Box 201001
Helena, MT 59620-1001
(406) 444-6200
www.mdt.mt.gov
8566Permit Number:
CRAIG RICKERTName:
C. A. RICKERT AND ASSOCIATES INC.Company Name:
34 OUTLIER WAYAddress:
BOZEMAN, MT 59718
(406) 624-3630Phone Number:
Nature of Permit:
AN APPROACH PERMIT FOR THE USE OF THE ENTIRE BOZEMAN REST AREA DEEDED AREA UNDER THE CONDITION
THAT THE PROPERTY IS USED FOR A FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT AND HOTEL. THIS APPROACH IS LOCATED AT THE
EXISTING APPROACH TO THE BOZEMAN REST AREA.
1) All other necessary permits for this project must be obtained by and are the responsibility of the applicant/permitee.
2) Permittee shall repair any damage done to MDT right of way as soon as possible
3) Permittee shall be responsible for all utility locates
4) If any deviation from the approved plans is determined necessary at the time of construction, the deviation must be approved
by MDT.
5) Applicant/Permitee Shall Not Store or Park Equipment or Materials in Right-A-Way After Hours of Project.
6) Any affected ground on MDT right of way must be returned to its original condition and reseeded with certified weed free seed.
7) Approval is contingent upon the applicant complying with all applicable environmental laws. The applicant is solely responsible
for any environmental impacts as a result of this project and is solely responsible for obtaining any necessary environmental
permits, notifications, and/or any other necessary environmental clearances.
8) Applicant/Permittee Shall Only Work in MDT Right-Of-Way Monday Through Friday, No Holidays.
9) Applicant/Permitee is responsible for any rocks, gravel or debris that is carried onto the roadway by this activity. Sweeping
and cleaning the highway surface will be done daily at the permitee's expense as required.
10) The applicant/permittee will submit a traffic control plan to the Division Office for approval before entering MDT right of way
for construction.
11) Permittee shall keep area clean of garbage and debris.
12) Permittee or their contractors are required to meet all signing and traffic control requirements while working on MDT right of
way in accordance with MUTCD specifications. A traffic control plan must be submitted and approved prior to any work
beginning. Provisions may or may not be necessary for pedestrians and bicyclists (site specific). Contractor is responsible for
Traffic Control and work schedule coordination with other projects in the vicinity to ensure public safety, adequate traffic flow and
appropriate signage is met at all times.
13) If any aquatic resources, such as streams, canals, wetlands, irrigation ditches, springs, etc. will be impacted as a result of
this project, the appropriate water quality permits should be obtained from state, federal, tribal, and/or local agencies.
14) Final Issuance of Approach Permit is conditional upon a passing inspection by MDT.
15) If permittee does not clean up and remove debris from MDT site within a reasonable timeframe, the permittee will be invoiced
for MDT personnel, materials, & equipment required to clean up site.
16) Applicant/Permittee shall have permit on hand and able to display to MDT personnel on site upon request.
Conditions of Permit:
0.800.70C001201
Sign Route Corridor Mile Post Start Mile Post End
N-412
County
Gallatin
Page 1 of 5
Montana Department of Transportation
Approach Permit
Printed Date: 07/09/2024
2701 Prospect Ave
PO Box 201001
Helena, MT 59620-1001
(406) 444-6200
www.mdt.mt.gov
17) Applicant/Permittee or their contractors are required to meet all signing and traffic control requirements while working on
MDT right of way in accordance with MUTCD specifications.
18) Applicant/Permitee Is Responsible of Putting Slopes and Borrow Ditch to Match Existing Area.
19) All disturbed area must be returned to original compacted condition with topsoil and certified weed free seed or comparable
grass seeded. Initial full growth is the responsibility of the permittee.
20) Permittee shall not disturb any Right of Way Markers
21) Permittee or their contractors are required to locate and move or protect all utilities currently in MDT right of way. Repair of
any damage caused by construction will be the responsibility of the permittee.
22) The portion of the approach on the Montana Department of Transportation right of way must be paved.
23) If any deviation(s) from the MDT-approved plans is determined necessary at the time of construction due to unforeseen
obstacles, the deviation(s) must be approved by MDT in writing before installation begins.
24) Applicant/Permittee or their affiliates are required to meet all signing and traffic control requirements while occupying MDT
right of way in accordance with MUTCD specifications and standards.
25) The applicant/permitee must coordinate their project with any MDT projects in the area.
26) Any work performed before MDT review and approval that requires permitting is subject to removal by the applicant/permitee
at their sole expense if MDT design standards and/or guidelines are not met.
27) Applicant/Permitee Shall Provide MDT A 24 Hour Emergency Call List to The Division Office.
28) Permittee shall not effect the flow of water or block any drainage structures
29) No open trenches are allowed overnight or unattended.
30) Any work performed prior to MDT review and approval is subject to removal if MDT design standards and/or guidelines are
not met.
31) Additional Conditions
• If any aquatic resources such as streams, wetlands, canals, irrigation ditches, springs, etc. will be impacted as a result of this
project, the appropriate water quality permits will need to be obtained from state, federal and/or local agencies.
• The applicant must obtain approvals from downstream landowners if their proposed actions impact downstream properties
(easements, etc.) and provide documentation of appropriate coordination with affected landowners.
• Any damage done to MDT facilities or adjacent landowners as a result of the applicant’s design or construction is the sole
responsibility of the applicant and MDT will not be liable for damages.
• The permit, along with all conditions and restrictions, will be transferred to any subsequent parties. It is the responsibility of the
applicant or their successor to notify MDT of any ownership changes within two weeks of the change.
• If any deviation(s) from the MDT-approved plans is determined necessary at the time of construction due to unforeseen
obstacles, the deviation(s) must be approved by MDT in writing before installation begins.
• Any work performed before MDT review and approval that requires permitting is subject to removal by the applicant at their
sole expense if MDT design standards and/or guidelines are not met.
• The applicant will submit a traffic control plan to the District office for approval before entering MDT right of way for
construction.
• The applicant must coordinate their project with any MDT projects in the area.
• MDT design reviews are meant to ensure compatibility with existing facilities and design standards and guidelines. The
applicant is responsible for all survey and plan errors and/or omissions that impact the constructability or intended design
function of the project.
• The applicant must provide full time construction inspection and certification for any work done within MDT right-of-way. Upon
completion of the project, or at any time upon request from MDT, the applicant must provide all construction inspection reports.
The MDT District Office may assign staff to provide construction inspection oversight at their discretion.
• The applicant will provide “as-builts” to MDT Planning within 30 days after construction company, contractor, or work crew
have demobilized from the work zone
32) All Flaggers used on project shall be Montana certified.
Page 2 of 5
Montana Department of Transportation
Approach Permit
Printed Date: 07/09/2024
2701 Prospect Ave
PO Box 201001
Helena, MT 59620-1001
(406) 444-6200
www.mdt.mt.gov
33) LIABILITY CLAUSE - That the approach owners shall protect the state and save it harmless from all claims, actions, or
damages of every kind which may accrue to, or be suffered by persons, or persons by reason of performance of the work, or by
the improper occupancy of the highway right of way. In the event any legal suit or action is brought against the state arising out
of any of the above causes, the approach owners shall defend the suit or claim.
34) MDT design reviews are meant to insure compatibility with existing facilities and design standards and guidelines. The
applicant is responsible for all survey and plan errors and/or omissions that impact the constructability or intended design
function of the project.
35) Environmental Services has the following condition:
Approval is contingent upon the applicant complying with all applicable environmental
laws. The applicant is solely responsible for any environmental impacts incurred as a result of
this project and is solely responsible for obtaining any necessary environmental permits,
notifications, and/or any other necessary environmental clearances
36) Applicant/Permitee shall cease all operations when inclement weather creates a hazard to the roadway conditions for the
traveling public. MDT maintenance division reserves the right to make this determination.
37) Provide full time construction inspection and certification for any work the applicant/permitee does in MDT right of way. The
applicant/permitee will provide construction inspection reports upon MDT request during construction and will provide all
construction inspection reports upon completion of the project.
38) MDT design reviews are made to insure compatibility with existing facilities and design standards and guidelines. The
permittee is responsible for all survey and plan errors and/or omissions that impact the constructability or intended design
function of the project.
39) If in the future MDT needs more right of way for road expansion or any other use it will be up to the permittee at their
expense to remove or relinquish at no charge the improvements to MDT.
40) Permittee shall notify the City of Bozeman of work being done and for how long.
41) All memorandum of understanding and maintenance agreements are applicable to this permit
42) All improvements must follow any City requirements for installations or repair to current landscape improvements now being
maintained by the City. All maintenance of the sidewalk will be the responsibility of the permittee.
Feb 28, 2024
Applicant Date Issue Date End Date
Feb 28, 2024
Permit Type
Bozeman
Maintenance Division
Hydraulic impacts of redevelopment to be evaluated and mitigated with future encroachment permit, no additional flow to
interstate R/W without MDT approval. Any use of the subject property other than listed in the Scope of Work above will constitute
a change in use and will require a new approach permit application. Daily trips from attached TIS. When executed the document
"Bozeman Rest Area Conveyance Statement of Understanding" will be considered part of this permit and are to be attached. Any
future agreements for improvements related to this development will be considered part of this permit and are to be attached. By
signing these and all future agreements the listed applicant/landowner tacitly signs and approves this application.
Other Remarks and/or Conditions:
Drainage Information:
Type Size Length Drain Site Distance Right Drain Site Distance Left
Existing N/A N/A N/AN/AN/A
Type Signature Title
MDT District Rep on Behalf Of Applicant LeRoy Wosoba SIAP Section Supervisor
MDT District Rep Ted Jones Bozeman Field Maintenance Chief
Signatures
Page 3 of 5
Montana Department of Transportation
Approach Permit
Printed Date: 07/09/2024
2701 Prospect Ave
PO Box 201001
Helena, MT 59620-1001
(406) 444-6200
www.mdt.mt.gov
SIGNATORIES TITLE: Bozeman Field Maintenance Chief
DATE:SIGNATORIES NAME: Ted Jones 02/28/2024
Applicant will review the terms and conditions of this permit. In signing and submitting this permit, the applicant has agreed to
accept and abide by those terms and conditions in their entirety. This permit has been officially approved by the Montana
Department of Transportation by:
Page 4 of 5
Approach Permits are subject to the following terms and conditions:
TERM - This permit shall be in full force and effect from the date hereof until revoked as herein provided.
REVOCATION - This permit may be revoked by State upon giving thirty (30) days notice to Permittee by ordinary mail, directed
to the address shown in the application hereto attached, but the State reserves the right to revoke this permit without giving said
notice in the event Permittee breaks any of the conditions or terms set forth herein.
COMMENCEMENT OF WORK - No work shall be commenced until Permittee notifies the Maintenance Chief shown in
application the date the Permittee proposes to commence work.
CHANGES IN HIGHWAY - If the State changes the highway, or there are other changes to adjoining streets, alleys, etc., which
necessitate alterations in structures or installations installed under this permit, Permittee shall make the necessary alterations at
Permittee's sole expense or in accordance with a separate agreement.
STATE SAVED HARMLESS FROM CLAIMS - In accepting this permit the Permittee, its/his successors or assigns, agree to
protect the State and save it harmless from all claims, actions or damage of every kind and description which may accrue to, or
be suffered by, any person or persons, corporations or property by reason of the performance of any such work, character of
materials used, or manner of installations, maintenance and operation, or by the improper occupancy of said highway right of
way, and in case any suit or action is brought against the State and arising out of, or by reason of, any of the above causes, the
Permittee, its/his successors or assigns, will upon notice to it/him of the commencement of such action, defend the same at
its/his sole cost and expense and satisfy any judgment which may be rendered against the State in any such suit or action.
PROTECTION OF TRAFFIC - Submit a traffic control plan for review and approval prior to any work being performed in MDT
Right-of-Way. Traffic control must meet current MUTCD and MDT standards and guidance. The approval shall in no way operate
to relieve or discharge the Permittee from any of the obligations assumed by acceptance of this permit, and especially those set
forth under Section 6 thereof.
HIGHWAY AND DRAINAGE - If the work done under this permit interferes in any way with the drainage of the State Highway
affected, Permittee shall, at its/his own expense, make such provisions as the State may direct to take care of said drainage.
RUBBISH AND DEBRIS - Permittee is responsible for debris that is carried onto the roadway by this construction with sweeping
and cleaning done daily at permittee's expense. Upon completion of work contemplated under this permit, all rubbish and debris
shall be immediately removed and the roadway and the roadside left in a neat and presentable condition satisfactory to the State.
WORK TO BE SUPERVISED BY STATE - All work contemplated under this permit shall be done under the supervision of and to
the satisfaction of the authorized representative of the State, and the State hereby reserves the right to order the change of
location or removal of any structure or installation authorized by this permit at any time, said changes or removal to be made at
the sole expense of the permittee.
STATES RIGHT NOT TO BE INTERFERED WITH - All such changes, reconstructing or relocation shall be done by Permittee, in
such a manner as will cause the least interference with any of the State's work, and the State shall in no way be liable for any
damage to the Permittee by reason of any such work by the State, its agents, contractors or representatives, or by the exercise
of any rights by the State upon the highways by the installations or structures placed under this permit.
REMOVAL OF INSTALLATIONS OR STRUCTURES - Unless waived by the State, upon termination of this permit, the Permittee
shall remove the installations or structures contemplated by this permit and restore the premises to the condition existing at the
time of entering upon the same under this permit, reasonable and ordinary wear and tear and damage by the elements, or by
circumstances over which the Permittee has no control, excepted.
MAINTENANCE AT EXPENSE OF PERMITTEE - Permittee shall maintain, at its/his sole expense the installations and
structures for which this permit is granted, in a condition satisfactory to the State.
STATE NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGE TO INSTALLATIONS - In accepting this permit the Permittee agrees that any damage or
injury done to said installations or structures by a contractor working for the State, or by any State employee engaged in
construction, alteration, repair, maintenance or improvement of the State Highway, shall be at the sole expense of the Permittee.
STATE TO BE REIMBURSED FOR REPAIRING ROADWAY - Upon being billed therefor Permittee agrees to promptly
reimburse State for any expense incurred in repairing surface or roadway due to settlement at installation, or for any other
damage to roadway as a result of the work performed under this permit.
OTHER CONDITIONS:
All approach side slopes will preferably be constructed on 10 to 1 slope but not less than 6 to 1 slope, unless otherwise
approved.
No private signs or devices etc., will be constructed or installed within the highway right-of-way limits.
This permit is valid only if approach construction is completed within specified months from date of issue as described in Other
Remarks and/or Conditions.
Montana Department of Transportation
Printed Date: 07/09/2024
2701 Prospect Ave
PO Box 201001
Helena, MT 59620-1001
(406) 444-6200
www.mdt.mt.gov
Approach Application
The Montana Approach Manual can be found on the web at
https://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/docs/manuals/approach_manual.pdf
First Name *
CRAIG
Last Name *
RICKERT craig@rickertdevelopment.com
Email *
Applicant Information
Company
C. A. RICKERT AND ASSOCIATES INC.
Mailing Address *
34 OUTLIER WAY
Contact Phone *
(406) 624-3630
City *
BOZEMAN
State *
MT
Zip *
59718
Alternate Contact/Co-Applicant Information (Optional)
First Name Last Name Email Phone Contact Type
STEVE WILSON swilson@sm-wilson.
com (303) 802-9001 Co-Applicant Alternate Contact
Location Information
Mile Post Start *
N 19TH AVE
Route Name
0.7
Sign Route *
N-412
Mile Post End
0.8
NORTH 19TH AVENUE
Physical Address *
City *
BOZEMAN
County *
GALLATIN
Legal Description
RangeTownship Section
Page 1 of 8
Montana Department of Transportation
Printed Date: 07/09/2024
2701 Prospect Ave
PO Box 201001
Helena, MT 59620-1001
(406) 444-6200
www.mdt.mt.gov
Approach Application
Permit Information
Nature of Permit (Give sufficient detail of anticipated build/structure/activities that the applicant is requesting to occur
in MDT's right-of-way.) *
AN APPROACH PERMIT FOR THE USE OF THE ENTIRE BOZEMAN REST AREA DEEDED AREA UNDER THE
CONDITION THAT THE PROPERTY IS USED FOR A FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT AND HOTEL. THIS APPROACH IS
LOCATED AT THE EXISTING APPROACH TO THE BOZEMAN REST AREA.
Apply Date *
2/28/24
For how long a period is the permit desired? (e.g. Permanent, 30 days, May 1-June 30, 202x)?
Project Scope (Please describe location of work and entire project scope. Include distance from existing highway
survey station (if applicable), milepost, centerline, or right-of-way line near which installations of structures will be
installed. Please attach a map depicting location.)
AN APPROACH PERMIT IN ORDER TO USE THE ENTIRE BOZEMAN REST AREA DEEDED AREA UNDER THE
CONDITION THAT THE PROPERTY IS USED FOR A FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT AND HOTEL. THE DEVELOPER WILL
ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ADJACENT INTERSECTION OF N19TH AND E
VALLEY CENTER RD THAT WILL BE COVERED BY A SEPARATE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT TO BE COMPLETED AT A
LATER DATE.
If a Corporation, give State of Incorporation and names of President and Secretary
Commercial
Side of Roadway *
North
Single Family Residence
West
Estimated Trips/Day *
Mutli Family Residence
South
East
Use of Property *
Field Access
3280
Other. If 'Other' please enter Use of Property
Joint Use
No
Are there environmental actions involving hazardous waste sites? (Superfund, Spills, Underground Storage Tanks, Old
Mines, etc.) If Yes you will need to fill out additional environment questions.
Yes
Page 2 of 8
Montana Department of Transportation
Printed Date: 07/09/2024
2701 Prospect Ave
PO Box 201001
Helena, MT 59620-1001
(406) 444-6200
www.mdt.mt.gov
Approach Application
Environmental Checklist
Checklist Conditions and Required Approvals
A. The applicant is not authorized to proceed with the proposed work until the checklist has been reviewed and approved, as necessary, and
any requested conditions of approval have been incorporated.
B. Complete the checklist items 1 through 16, indicating "Yes" or "No" for each item. Include comments, explanations, information sources,
and a description of the magnitude/importance of potential impacts in the right hand column. Attach additional and supporting information as
needed. The checklist preparer, by signing, certifies the accuracy of the information provided.
C. If "Yes" is indicated on any of the items, the Applicant must explain the impacts as applicable. Appropriate mitigation measures that will be
taken to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate adverse impacts must also be described. Any proposed mitigation measures will become a condition
of approval. Use attachments if necessary. If the applicant checks “No” and the District concludes there may in fact be potential impacts, the
Environmental Checklist must be forwarded to Transportation Planning for review and approval.
D. If “Yes” is indicated in item 11 a. (threatened or endangered species), the Applicant should provide information naming the particular
species and the expected location, distribution and habitat use in the proposed action area, i.e. within the immediate area of the proposed
action; or, in the general area on occasion (seasonally passes through) but does not nest, den or occupy the area for more than a few days.
E. If the applicant checks "Yes" for any item, the approach permit, occupancy agreement or permit, along with the checklist and supporting
information, including the Applicant's mitigation proposal, documentation, evaluation and/or permits must be submitted to Transportation
Planning. Electronic format is preferred.
F. When the applicant checks “Yes” to any item, the Applicant cannot be authorized to proceed with the proposed work until the MDT
Environmental Services Bureau and/or Transportation Planning, as appropriate, reviews the information and signs the checklist.
G. Applicant must obtain all necessary permits or authorizations from other entities with jurisdiction prior to beginning the proposed action or
activity. The Applicant is solely responsible for any environmental impacts incurred as a result of the project; obtaining any necessary
environmental permits, notifications, and/or clearances; and ensuring compliance with environmental laws and regulations.
The Montana Environmental Checklist Help Guide can be found on the web at
https://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/webdata/external/planning/forms/environmental-checklist-helpsheet.pdf
Impact Questions *
Actions that qualify for Categorical Exclusion under MEPA and/or NEPA (See ARM
18.2.261 and 23 CFR 771.117)
Comment, Explanation, and/or
Information Source (Attach supporting
information, as necessary.)
1 Will the proposed action impact any known historical or
archaeological site(s)?
NO
2 Will the proposed action impact any publicly owned parkland(s),
recreation area(s), wildlife or waterfowl refuge(s)?
NO
3 Will the proposed action impact prime farmlands? (If "YES", attach a
completed Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Ad-1006.)
NO
4a Will the proposed action have an impact on the human environment
that may result from relocations of persons or businesses, changes
in traffic patterns, changes in grade, or other types of changes?
YES See attached TIS for changes.
4b Has the proposed action received any preliminary or final approval
from the local land use authority?
NO Permitting/approvals from City of
Bozeman.
5 For the proposed action, is there documented controversy on
environmental grounds? (For example, has the applicant received a
letter of petition from an environmental organization?)
NO
6 Will the proposed action require work in, across or adjacent to a
listed or proposed Wild or Scenic River?
NO
7 Will the proposed action require work in a Class I Air Shed or
nonattainment area?
NO
Page 3 of 8
Montana Department of Transportation
Printed Date: 07/09/2024
2701 Prospect Ave
PO Box 201001
Helena, MT 59620-1001
(406) 444-6200
www.mdt.mt.gov
Approach Application
8 Will the proposed action impact air quality or increase noise, even
temporarily?
YES Noise during construction, temporary.
Within existing developed area, between
Interstate and N 19th Ave. Not likely to
increase noise permanently above
existing.
9a Is the proposed action located within an MS4 Area?
(HTTPS://TINYURL.COM/3H54CNMD)
YES within Bozeman MS4 area. will need to
contact local MS4 coordinator.
9b Will the proposed action have potential to affect water quality,
wetlands, streams or other water bodies? If "YES", an environment-
related permit or authorization may be required.
NO NWI shows no wetlands present.
10 Are solid or hazardous wastes or petroleum products likely to be
encountered? (For example, project occurs in or adjacent to
Superfund sites, known spill areas, understorage tanks, or
abandoned mines.)
NO
11a Are there any listed or candidate threatened or endangered species,
or critical habitat in the vicinity of the proposed action?
YES Canada Lynx, Grizzly Bear, North
American Wolverine, and Candidate
Monarch Butterfly. There are no critical
habitats at this location. None impacted
by redevelopment of existing developed
area.
11b Will the proposed action adversely affect listed or candidate
threatened or endangered species, or adversely modify critical
habitat?
NO None impacted by redevelopment of
existing developed area. There are no
critical habitats at this location.
12 Will the proposed action require an environmental-related permit or
authorization? If the answer is "YES", please list the specific permits
or authorizations.
YES SWPPP
13 Is the proposed action within designated sage grouse habitat (
https://sagegrouse.mt.gov/ProgramMap ). (If "YES", a consultation
letter issued from the Montana Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation
Program is required.)
NO
14a Is the proposed action on or within approximately 1 mile of an Indian
Reservation?
NO
14b If "YES", will a Tribal Water Permit be required?N/A
15 Will the proposed action result in increased traffic volumes, increased
wait or delays on state highways, or have adverse impacts on other
forms of transportation (rail, transit or air movements)?
YES Impacts of redevelopment will be
mitigated by separate agreement.
16 Is the proposed action part of a project that may require other
governmental permits, licenses or easements? If “Yes”, describe the
full extent of the project and any other permits, licenses or
easements that may be necessary for the applicant to acquire in the
project scope box above.
YES SWPPP
17 Attach a brief description of the work to be performed, including any
subsurface work.
YES
18 Attach representative photos of the site(s) where the proposed action
would be implemented. Photos are to include any structures,
streams, irrigation canals, and/or potential wetlands in the project
area.
NO
19 Attach map(s) showing the location(s) of the proposed action(s);
Section, Township, Range; highway or route number and
approximate route post(s).
NO
Page 4 of 8
Montana Department of Transportation
Printed Date: 07/09/2024
2701 Prospect Ave
PO Box 201001
Helena, MT 59620-1001
(406) 444-6200
www.mdt.mt.gov
Approach Application
Checklist preparer:LEROY WOSOBA
(Signature)
Page 5 of 8
Montana Department of Transportation
Printed Date: 07/09/2024
2701 Prospect Ave
PO Box 201001
Helena, MT 59620-1001
(406) 444-6200
www.mdt.mt.gov
Approach Application
Applicant Signature Date
Page 6 of 8
Montana Department of Transportation
Printed Date: 07/09/2024
2701 Prospect Ave
PO Box 201001
Helena, MT 59620-1001
(406) 444-6200
www.mdt.mt.gov
Approach Application
Review Signatures
Project Name
Review for completeness by:
MDT Representative DateTitle
Checklist approved by:
TitleEnvironmental Services Bureau Date
Title DateTransportation Planning
Access Control Title Date
FHWA Approval Title Date
(Anytime a TCP is submitted on an interstate)
(Anytime a project is proposed in an access control area)
(When any of the items 15 or 16 are checked 'Yes')
(When any of the items 1 through 16 are checked 'Yes')
Page 7 of 8
Approach Permits are subject to the following terms and conditions:
TERM - This permit shall be in full force and effect from the date hereof until revoked as herein provided.
REVOCATION - This permit may be revoked by State upon giving thirty (30) days notice to Permittee by ordinary mail, directed
to the address shown in the application hereto attached, but the State reserves the right to revoke this permit without giving said
notice in the event Permittee breaks any of the conditions or terms set forth herein.
COMMENCEMENT OF WORK - No work shall be commenced until Permittee notifies the Maintenance Chief shown in
application the date the Permittee proposes to commence work.
CHANGES IN HIGHWAY - If the State changes the highway, or there are other changes to adjoining streets, alleys, etc., which
necessitate alterations in structures or installations installed under this permit, Permittee shall make the necessary alterations at
Permittee's sole expense or in accordance with a separate agreement.
STATE SAVED HARMLESS FROM CLAIMS - In accepting this permit the Permittee, its/his successors or assigns, agree to
protect the State and save it harmless from all claims, actions or damage of every kind and description which may accrue to, or
be suffered by, any person or persons, corporations or property by reason of the performance of any such work, character of
materials used, or manner of installations, maintenance and operation, or by the improper occupancy of said highway right of
way, and in case any suit or action is brought against the State and arising out of, or by reason of, any of the above causes, the
Permittee, its/his successors or assigns, will upon notice to it/him of the commencement of such action, defend the same at
its/his sole cost and expense and satisfy any judgment which may be rendered against the State in any such suit or action.
PROTECTION OF TRAFFIC - Submit a traffic control plan for review and approval prior to any work being performed in MDT
Right-of-Way. Traffic control must meet current MUTCD and MDT standards and guidance. The approval shall in no way operate
to relieve or discharge the Permittee from any of the obligations assumed by acceptance of this permit, and especially those set
forth under Section 6 thereof.
HIGHWAY AND DRAINAGE - If the work done under this permit interferes in any way with the drainage of the State Highway
affected, Permittee shall, at its/his own expense, make such provisions as the State may direct to take care of said drainage.
RUBBISH AND DEBRIS - Permittee is responsible for debris that is carried onto the roadway by this construction with sweeping
and cleaning done daily at permittee's expense. Upon completion of work contemplated under this permit, all rubbish and debris
shall be immediately removed and the roadway and the roadside left in a neat and presentable condition satisfactory to the State.
WORK TO BE SUPERVISED BY STATE - All work contemplated under this permit shall be done under the supervision of and to
the satisfaction of the authorized representative of the State, and the State hereby reserves the right to order the change of
location or removal of any structure or installation authorized by this permit at any time, said changes or removal to be made at
the sole expense of the permittee.
STATES RIGHT NOT TO BE INTERFERED WITH - All such changes, reconstructing or relocation shall be done by Permittee, in
such a manner as will cause the least interference with any of the State's work, and the State shall in no way be liable for any
damage to the Permittee by reason of any such work by the State, its agents, contractors or representatives, or by the exercise
of any rights by the State upon the highways by the installations or structures placed under this permit.
REMOVAL OF INSTALLATIONS OR STRUCTURES - Unless waived by the State, upon termination of this permit, the Permittee
shall remove the installations or structures contemplated by this permit and restore the premises to the condition existing at the
time of entering upon the same under this permit, reasonable and ordinary wear and tear and damage by the elements, or by
circumstances over which the Permittee has no control, excepted.
MAINTENANCE AT EXPENSE OF PERMITTEE - Permittee shall maintain, at its/his sole expense the installations and
structures for which this permit is granted, in a condition satisfactory to the State.
STATE NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGE TO INSTALLATIONS - In accepting this permit the Permittee agrees that any damage or
injury done to said installations or structures by a contractor working for the State, or by any State employee engaged in
construction, alteration, repair, maintenance or improvement of the State Highway, shall be at the sole expense of the Permittee.
STATE TO BE REIMBURSED FOR REPAIRING ROADWAY - Upon being billed therefor Permittee agrees to promptly
reimburse State for any expense incurred in repairing surface or roadway due to settlement at installation, or for any other
damage to roadway as a result of the work performed under this permit.
OTHER CONDITIONS:
All approach side slopes will preferably be constructed on 10 to 1 slope but not less than 6 to 1 slope, unless otherwise
approved.
No private signs or devices etc., will be constructed or installed within the highway right-of-way limits.
This permit is valid only if approach construction is completed within specified months from date of issue as described in Other
Remarks and/or Conditions.
September 27, 2022
Montana Department of Transportation
Attn: LeRoy Wosoba, P.E., Policy Analysis Manager
PO Box 201001
Helena, MT 59620-1001
RE: N 19th Ave Rest Area Redevelopment Property.
Dear Leroy,
As per our conversation last week, we are submitting the Bozeman Rest Area approach permit
with the drainage portion complete. Also included is the Traffic Impact Study completed by
Morrison Maierle, November 2019.
The geometrics for the traffic cannot be completed until in November as the consultant's
workload pushes it out until then.
Thank you for allowing us to submit this portion of the application. Please contact myself or Bill
Dreyer with any questions.
Thank you
Craig Rickert
Rickert Development
(406) 624-3630
(605) 376-5833
Attachments
Appendix 5
Basis For Calculations Storage Facility Information
Design Rainfall Frequency:10 year Storage Method:Detention
Rational Method Peak Runoff Equation: Q = CIA Discharge Method:Outlet Structure
Q = Peak Runoff Rate (cfs)Facility Type: Pond
C = Runoff Coefficient Facility Make/Model:N/A
I = Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) (I = 0.64x-0.65)
A = Drainage Basin (acres)
Land Use Drainage Basin
Number
Contributing
Area (sf)
Contributing
Area (Ac)
Runoff Coe.
(C)A (Ac) x C
DB - Impervious Total 100,863 2.32 0.95 2.1997
DB - Pervious Total 20,598 0.47 0.20 0.0946
DB - Roof 1 0 0.00 0.95 0.0000
Totals 121,461 2.79 2.2943
Weighted C:0.82
Pre-Development Discharge Rate (cfs) =1.22
Rainfall
Intensity
(in/hr)
(I = 0.64x-0.65)
Runoff Rate
(cfs)
(Q = CIA)
Runoff
Volume (ft3)
(=Q-(Storm
Duration x 60))
Discharge
Volume (ft3)
Required Detention Volume (ft3)
(= Runoff Volume - Infiltration Volume)
2.05 4.71 2,823 732 2,091.4
1.93 4.42 2,919 805 2,114.0
1.82 4.18 3,009 878 2,131.1
1.73 3.97 3,095 952 2,143.4
1.65 3.78 3,176 1,025 2,151.5
1.58 3.62 3,254 1,098 2,155.9
1.51 3.47 3,328 1,171 2,157.1
1.45 3.33 3,400 1,244 2,155.3
1.40 3.21 3,468 1,318 2,150.8
1.35 3.10 3,535 1,391 2,143.8
1.31 3.00 3,599 1,464 2,134.6
1.27 2.91 3,661 1,537 2,123.4
Required Detention Volume (ft3):2,157
Provided Detention Volume (ft3):4,392
(Volume determined using the ADS sizing tool)
Area of Hardscape
Total Area (ft2) = 121,461
Weighted C =0.82
Area of Hardscape (ft2) =100,863
Runoff Reduction Volume (RRV) Requirement
Reference: (Eq. 3-1, Montana Post-Construction Storm Water BMP Design Guidance Manual)
RRV = (PRvA)/12
P = Water Quality Rainfall Depth (in.)0.5
I = % Impervious Cover 0.83
Rv = Runoff Coefficient (.05+0.9*I)0.80
A = Site Drainage Area (acres)2.79
Req. Runoff Reduction Volume (ft3)=4,034
OUTLET STRUCTURE SLOT
Q=CLH3/2
Q = Discharge (cfs)1.22
C = Weir Coefficient 3.33 (per COB Design Standards)
H = Head (ft)1.5
L = Slot Width (ft)0.20
L = Slot Width (inches)2.4
16
Storage Facility Calculations
UG Storage Facility
Contributing Area & Runoff Coefficient Tabulation
Required Detention Volume
Storm Duration (min)
10
11
12
13
14
15
0.5" Retention Requirement (DSSP II.A.4)
17
18
19
20
21
Bridger Point Project Phase 1 Stormwater Design
Pipes 1-4
Long. Slope: 0.001 ft/ft
Pipe Material:PVC
n:0.013
Diameter (in):18 in
Water Depth y (in):18.0 in
Diameter (ft):1.5 ft
Water Depth y (ft):1.50 ft
theta:6.28 =2*ACOS(1-2*y/D)
Top Width w: 0.00 =D*SIN(theta/2)
Flow Area Af:1.77 =theta/2*(D/2)^2-(D/2-y)*(W/2)
Wet Perimeter Pw:4.71 =theta*D/2
Hydraulic Radius Rh:0.38 ft =Af/Pw
Velocity:1.88 ft/s =(1.486/n)*(Rh^(2/3))*(slope^(1/2))
Design Flow:3.32 ft^3/s =Af*Velocity
Pipe 1: 3.32 > 1.29, ok
Pipe 2: 3.32 > 1.66, ok
Pipe 3: 3.32 > 2.18, ok
Pipe 4: 3.32 > 2.53, ok
PARTIALLY FILLED PIPE
D
y
Bridger Point Project Phase 1 Stormwater Design
Pipe 5
Long. Slope: 0.001 ft/ft
Pipe Material:PVC
n:0.013
Diameter (in):21 in
Water Depth y (in):21.0 in
Diameter (ft):1.75 ft
Water Depth y (ft):1.75 ft
theta:6.28 =2*ACOS(1-2*y/D)
Top Width w: 0.00 =D*SIN(theta/2)
Flow Area Af:2.41 =theta/2*(D/2)^2-(D/2-y)*(W/2)
Wet Perimeter Pw:5.50 =theta*D/2
Hydraulic Radius Rh:0.44 ft =Af/Pw
Velocity:2.08 ft/s =(1.486/n)*(Rh^(2/3))*(slope^(1/2))
Design Flow:5.01 ft^3/s =Af*Velocity
Pipe 5: 5.01 > 4.61, ok
PARTIALLY FILLED PIPE
D
y
Bridger Point Project Phase 1 Stormwater Design
Pipe 6 - 12
Long. Slope: 0.001 ft/ft
Pipe Material:PVC
n:0.013
Diameter (in):15 in
Water Depth y (in):15.0 in
Diameter (ft):1.25 ft
Water Depth y (ft):1.25 ft
theta:6.28 =2*ACOS(1-2*y/D)
Top Width w: 0.00 =D*SIN(theta/2)
Flow Area Af:1.23 =theta/2*(D/2)^2-(D/2-y)*(W/2)
Wet Perimeter Pw:3.93 =theta*D/2
Hydraulic Radius Rh:0.31 ft =Af/Pw
Velocity:1.66 ft/s =(1.486/n)*(Rh^(2/3))*(slope^(1/2))
Design Flow:2.04 ft^3/s =Af*Velocity
Pipe 2.04 >
6 0.53, ok
7 0.7, ok
8 1.23, ok
9 1.5, ok
10 1.83, ok
11 1.67, ok
12 0.35, ok
PARTIALLY FILLED PIPE
D
y
Drainage Basin Q
Land Use
Drainage
Basin
Number
Contributing
Area (sf)
Contributing
Area (Ac)
Runoff
Coefficient
(C)
A (Ac) x C
DB - Impervious Q 3548 0.08 0.95 0.0774
DB - Pervious Q 0.00 0.20 0.0000
DB - Roof Q 0.00 0.95 0.0000
Total 3548 0.08 0.0774
Weighted C:0.95
10 25 100
Cf - Frequency Adjustment Factor 1 1.1 1.25
C - Runoff Coefficient (Overland Flow)0.95
C * Cf 0.95 1.05 1.19
D - Length of Basin (ft)29
Sb - Slope of Basin (%)0.02
To - Time of Conc. - Overland (min.)5.56 2.04 -3.25
L - Length of Channel (ft)0
n - Manning's Coefficient 0.013
R - Hydraulic Radius(ft)0.136
Sc - Slope of Channel (ft/ft)0.02
V - Velocity (ft/sec)4.28 4.28 4.28
Tc - Time of Conc. - Channel (min.)0 0 0
Time of Concentration (Ttotal)5.56 2.04 -3.25
X - Storm Duration (hr)0.09 0.03 -0.05
I - Intensity (in/hr)3.00 6.79 #NUM!
Q - Peak Runoff (cfs)0.23 0.53 #NUM!
Rainfall Frequency (yr)
Drainage Basin A CFA
Land Use
Drainage
Basin
Number
Contributing
Area (sf)
Contributing
Area (Ac)
Runoff
Coefficient
(C)
A (Ac) x C
DB - Impervious A 7225 0.17 0.95 0.1576
DB - Pervious A 6680 0.15 0.20 0.0307
DB - Roof A 0 0.00 0.95 0.0000
Total 13905 0.32 0.1882
Weighted C:0.59
10 25 100
Cf - Frequency Adjustment Factor 1 1.1 1.25
C - Runoff Coefficient (Overland Flow)0.95
C * Cf 0.95 1.05 1.19
D - Length of Basin (ft)160
Sb - Slope of Basin (%)0.02
To - Time of Conc. - Overland (min.)13.07 4.79 -7.62
L - Length of Channel (ft)3
n - Manning's Coefficient 0.013
R - Hydraulic Radius(ft)0.136
Sc - Slope of Channel (ft/ft)0.02
V - Velocity (ft/sec)4.28 4.28 4.28
Tc - Time of Conc. - Channel (min.)0.01 0.01 0.01
Time of Concentration (Ttotal)13.08 4.8 -7.61
X - Storm Duration (hr)0.22 0.08 -0.13
I - Intensity (in/hr)1.72 3.93 #NUM!
Q - Peak Runoff (cfs)0.32 0.74 #NUM!
Rainfall Frequency (yr)
Drainage Basin B
Land Use
Drainage
Basin
Number
Contributing
Area (sf)
Contributing
Area (Ac)
Runoff
Coefficient
(C)
A (Ac) x C
DB - Impervious B 5348 0.12 0.95 0.1166
DB - Pervious B 2024 0.05 0.20 0.0093
DB - Roof B 0 0.00 0.95 0.0000
Total 7372 0.17 0.1259
Weighted C:0.74
10 25 100
Cf - Frequency Adjustment Factor 1 1.1 1.25
C - Runoff Coefficient (Overland Flow)0.95
C * Cf 0.95 1.05 1.19
D - Length of Basin (ft)112
Sb - Slope of Basin (%)0.02
To - Time of Conc. - Overland (min.)10.94 4.01 -6.38
L - Length of Channel (ft)3
n - Manning's Coefficient 0.013
R - Hydraulic Radius(ft)0.136
Sc - Slope of Channel (ft/ft)0.02
V - Velocity (ft/sec)4.28 4.28 4.28
Tc - Time of Conc. - Channel (min.)0.01 0.01 0.01
Time of Concentration (Ttotal)10.95 4.02 -6.37
X - Storm Duration (hr)0.18 0.07 -0.11
I - Intensity (in/hr)1.93 4.40 #NUM!
Q - Peak Runoff (cfs)0.24 0.55 #NUM!
Rainfall Frequency (yr)
Drainage Basin C
Land Use
Drainage
Basin
Number
Contributing
Area (sf)
Contributing
Area (Ac)
Runoff
Coefficient
(C)
A (Ac) x C
DB - Impervious C 3130 0.07 0.95 0.0683
DB - Pervious C 935 0.02 0.20 0.0043
DB - Roof C 0.00 0.95 0.0000
Total 4065 0.09 0.0726
Weighted C:0.78
10 25 100
Cf - Frequency Adjustment Factor 1 1.1 1.25
C - Runoff Coefficient (Overland Flow)0.95
C * Cf 0.95 1.05 1.19
D - Length of Basin (ft)74
Sb - Slope of Basin (%)0.02
To - Time of Conc. - Overland (min.)8.89 3.26 -5.19
L - Length of Channel (ft)0
n - Manning's Coefficient 0.013
R - Hydraulic Radius(ft)0.136
Sc - Slope of Channel (ft/ft)0.02
V - Velocity (ft/sec)4.28 4.28 4.28
Tc - Time of Conc. - Channel (min.)0 0 0
Time of Concentration (Ttotal)8.89 3.26 -5.19
X - Storm Duration (hr)0.15 0.05 -0.09
I - Intensity (in/hr)2.21 5.03 #NUM!
Q - Peak Runoff (cfs)0.16 0.37 #NUM!
Rainfall Frequency (yr)
Drainage Basin D
Land Use
Drainage
Basin
Number
Contributing
Area (sf)
Contributing
Area (Ac)
Runoff
Coefficient
(C)
A (Ac) x C
DB - Impervious D 3741 0.09 0.95 0.0816
DB - Pervious D 0.00 0.20 0.0000
DB - Roof D 0.00 0.95 0.0000
Total 3741 0.09 0.0816
Weighted C:0.95
10 25 100
Cf - Frequency Adjustment Factor 1 1.1 1.25
C - Runoff Coefficient (Overland Flow)0.95
C * Cf 0.95 1.05 1.19
D - Length of Basin (ft)78
Sb - Slope of Basin (%)0.02
To - Time of Conc. - Overland (min.)9.13 3.35 -5.32
L - Length of Channel (ft)0
n - Manning's Coefficient 0.013
R - Hydraulic Radius(ft)0.136
Sc - Slope of Channel (ft/ft)0.02
V - Velocity (ft/sec)4.28 4.28 4.28
Tc - Time of Conc. - Channel (min.)0 0 0
Time of Concentration (Ttotal)9.13 3.35 -5.32
X - Storm Duration (hr)0.15 0.06 -0.09
I - Intensity (in/hr)2.18 4.94 #NUM!
Q - Peak Runoff (cfs)0.18 0.40 #NUM!
Rainfall Frequency (yr)
Drainage Basin E
Land Use
Drainage
Basin
Number
Contributing
Area (sf)
Contributing
Area (Ac)
Runoff
Coefficient
(C)
A (Ac) x C
DB - Impervious E 9239 0.21 0.95 0.2015
DB - Pervious E 406 0.01 0.20 0.0019
DB - Roof E 0.00 0.95 0.0000
Total 9645 0.22 0.2034
Weighted C:0.92
10 25 100
Cf - Frequency Adjustment Factor 1 1.1 1.25
C - Runoff Coefficient (Overland Flow)0.95
C * Cf 0.95 1.05 1.19
D - Length of Basin (ft)231
Sb - Slope of Basin (%)0.02
To - Time of Conc. - Overland (min.)15.71 5.76 -9.16
L - Length of Channel (ft)0
n - Manning's Coefficient 0.013
R - Hydraulic Radius(ft)0.136
Sc - Slope of Channel (ft/ft)0.02
V - Velocity (ft/sec)4.28 4.28 4.28
Tc - Time of Conc. - Channel (min.)0 0 0
Time of Concentration (Ttotal)15.71 5.76 -9.16
X - Storm Duration (hr)0.26 0.10 -0.15
I - Intensity (in/hr)1.53 3.49 #NUM!
Q - Peak Runoff (cfs)0.31 0.71 #NUM!
Rainfall Frequency (yr)
Drainage Basin F
Land Use
Drainage
Basin
Number
Contributing
Area (sf)
Contributing
Area (Ac)
Runoff
Coefficient
(C)
A (Ac) x C
DB - Impervious F 10532 0.24 0.95 0.2297
DB - Pervious F 1102 0.03 0.20 0.0051
DB - Roof F 0.00 0.95 0.0000
Total 11634 0.27 0.2348
Weighted C:0.88
10 25 100
Cf - Frequency Adjustment Factor 1 1.1 1.25
C - Runoff Coefficient (Overland Flow)0.95
C * Cf 0.95 1.05 1.19
D - Length of Basin (ft)93
Sb - Slope of Basin (%)0.02
To - Time of Conc. - Overland (min.)9.97 3.65 -5.81
L - Length of Channel (ft)0
n - Manning's Coefficient 0.013
R - Hydraulic Radius(ft)0.136
Sc - Slope of Channel (ft/ft)0.02
V - Velocity (ft/sec)4.28 4.28 4.28
Tc - Time of Conc. - Channel (min.)0 0 0
Time of Concentration (Ttotal)9.97 3.65 -5.81
X - Storm Duration (hr)0.17 0.06 -0.10
I - Intensity (in/hr)2.06 4.68 #NUM!
Q - Peak Runoff (cfs)0.48 1.10 #NUM!
Rainfall Frequency (yr)
Drainage Basin G
Land Use
Drainage
Basin
Number
Contributing
Area (sf)
Contributing
Area (Ac)
Runoff
Coefficient
(C)
A (Ac) x C
DB - Impervious G 3537 0.08 0.95 0.0771
DB - Pervious G 648 0.01 0.20 0.0030
DB - Roof G 0.00 0.95 0.0000
Total 4185 0.10 0.0801
Weighted C:0.83
10 25 100
Cf - Frequency Adjustment Factor 1 1.1 1.25
C - Runoff Coefficient (Overland Flow)0.95
C * Cf 0.95 1.05 1.19
D - Length of Basin (ft)138
Sb - Slope of Basin (%)0.02
To - Time of Conc. - Overland (min.)12.14 4.45 -7.08
L - Length of Channel (ft)0
n - Manning's Coefficient 0.013
R - Hydraulic Radius(ft)0.136
Sc - Slope of Channel (ft/ft)0.02
V - Velocity (ft/sec)4.28 4.28 4.28
Tc - Time of Conc. - Channel (min.)0 0 0
Time of Concentration (Ttotal)12.14 4.45 -7.08
X - Storm Duration (hr)0.20 0.07 -0.12
I - Intensity (in/hr)1.81 4.12 #NUM!
Q - Peak Runoff (cfs)0.14 0.33 #NUM!
Rainfall Frequency (yr)
Drainage Basin H
Land Use
Drainage
Basin
Number
Contributing
Area (sf)
Contributing
Area (Ac)
Runoff
Coefficient
(C)
A (Ac) x C
DB - Impervious H 2576 0.06 0.95 0.0562
DB - Pervious H 0.00 0.20 0.0000
DB - Roof H 0.00 0.95 0.0000
Total 2576 0.06 0.0562
Weighted C:0.95
10 25 100
Cf - Frequency Adjustment Factor 1 1.1 1.25
C - Runoff Coefficient (Overland Flow)0.95
C * Cf 0.95 1.05 1.19
D - Length of Basin (ft)87
Sb - Slope of Basin (%)0.02
To - Time of Conc. - Overland (min.)9.64 3.53 -5.62
L - Length of Channel (ft)0
n - Manning's Coefficient 0.013
R - Hydraulic Radius(ft)0.136
Sc - Slope of Channel (ft/ft)0.02
V - Velocity (ft/sec)4.28 4.28 4.28
Tc - Time of Conc. - Channel (min.)0 0 0
Time of Concentration (Ttotal)9.64 3.53 -5.62
X - Storm Duration (hr)0.16 0.06 -0.09
I - Intensity (in/hr)2.10 4.78 #NUM!
Q - Peak Runoff (cfs)0.12 0.27 #NUM!
Rainfall Frequency (yr)
Drainage Basin I
Land Use
Drainage
Basin
Number
Contributing
Area (sf)
Contributing
Area (Ac)
Runoff
Coefficient
(C)
A (Ac) x C
DB - Impervious I 1269 0.03 0.95 0.0277
DB - Pervious I 733 0.02 0.20 0.0034
DB - Roof I 0.00 0.95 0.0000
Total 2002 0.05 0.0310
Weighted C:0.68
10 25 100
Cf - Frequency Adjustment Factor 1 1.1 1.25
C - Runoff Coefficient (Overland Flow)0.95
C * Cf 0.95 1.05 1.19
D - Length of Basin (ft)55
Sb - Slope of Basin (%)0.02
To - Time of Conc. - Overland (min.)7.66 2.81 -4.47
L - Length of Channel (ft)0
n - Manning's Coefficient 0.013
R - Hydraulic Radius(ft)0.136
Sc - Slope of Channel (ft/ft)0.02
V - Velocity (ft/sec)4.28 4.28 4.28
Tc - Time of Conc. - Channel (min.)0 0 0
Time of Concentration (Ttotal)7.66 2.81 -4.47
X - Storm Duration (hr)0.13 0.05 -0.07
I - Intensity (in/hr)2.44 5.53 #NUM!
Q - Peak Runoff (cfs)0.08 0.17 #NUM!
Rainfall Frequency (yr)
Drainage Basin J
Land Use
Drainage
Basin
Number
Contributing
Area (sf)
Contributing
Area (Ac)
Runoff
Coefficient
(C)
A (Ac) x C
DB - Impervious J 2760 0.06 0.95 0.0602
DB - Pervious J 870 0.02 0.20 0.0040
DB - Roof J 0.00 0.95 0.0000
Total 3630 0.08 0.0642
Weighted C:0.77
10 25 100
Cf - Frequency Adjustment Factor 1 1.1 1.25
C - Runoff Coefficient (Overland Flow)0.95
C * Cf 0.95 1.05 1.19
D - Length of Basin (ft)55
Sb - Slope of Basin (%)0.02
To - Time of Conc. - Overland (min.)7.66 2.81 -4.47
L - Length of Channel (ft)0
n - Manning's Coefficient 0.013
R - Hydraulic Radius(ft)0.136
Sc - Slope of Channel (ft/ft)0.02
V - Velocity (ft/sec)4.28 4.28 4.28
Tc - Time of Conc. - Channel (min.)0 0 0
Time of Concentration (Ttotal)7.66 2.81 -4.47
X - Storm Duration (hr)0.13 0.05 -0.07
I - Intensity (in/hr)2.44 5.53 #NUM!
Q - Peak Runoff (cfs)0.16 0.36 #NUM!
Rainfall Frequency (yr)
Drainage Basin K
Land Use
Drainage
Basin
Number
Contributing
Area (sf)
Contributing
Area (Ac)
Runoff
Coefficient
(C)
A (Ac) x C
DB - Impervious K 1295 0.03 0.95 0.0282
DB - Pervious K 0.00 0.20 0.0000
DB - Roof K 0.00 0.95 0.0000
Total 1295 0.03 0.0282
Weighted C:0.95
10 25 100
Cf - Frequency Adjustment Factor 1 1.1 1.25
C - Runoff Coefficient (Overland Flow)0.95
C * Cf 0.95 1.05 1.19
D - Length of Basin (ft)45
Sb - Slope of Basin (%)0.02
To - Time of Conc. - Overland (min.)6.93 2.54 -4.04
L - Length of Channel (ft)0
n - Manning's Coefficient 0.013
R - Hydraulic Radius(ft)0.136
Sc - Slope of Channel (ft/ft)0.02
V - Velocity (ft/sec)4.28 4.28 4.28
Tc - Time of Conc. - Channel (min.)0 0 0
Time of Concentration (Ttotal)6.93 2.54 -4.04
X - Storm Duration (hr)0.12 0.04 -0.07
I - Intensity (in/hr)2.60 5.90 #NUM!
Q - Peak Runoff (cfs)0.07 0.17 #NUM!
Rainfall Frequency (yr)
Drainage Basin L
Land Use
Drainage
Basin
Number
Contributing
Area (sf)
Contributing
Area (Ac)
Runoff
Coefficient
(C)
A (Ac) x C
DB - Impervious L 3593 0.08 0.95 0.0784
DB - Pervious L 0.00 0.20 0.0000
DB - Roof L 0.00 0.95 0.0000
Total 3593 0.08 0.0784
Weighted C:0.95
10 25 100
Cf - Frequency Adjustment Factor 1 1.1 1.25
C - Runoff Coefficient (Overland Flow)0.95
C * Cf 0.95 1.05 1.19
D - Length of Basin (ft)109
Sb - Slope of Basin (%)0.02
To - Time of Conc. - Overland (min.)10.79 3.96 -6.29
L - Length of Channel (ft)0
n - Manning's Coefficient 0.013
R - Hydraulic Radius(ft)0.136
Sc - Slope of Channel (ft/ft)0.02
V - Velocity (ft/sec)4.28 4.28 4.28
Tc - Time of Conc. - Channel (min.)0 0 0
Time of Concentration (Ttotal)10.79 3.96 -6.29
X - Storm Duration (hr)0.18 0.07 -0.10
I - Intensity (in/hr)1.95 4.44 #NUM!
Q - Peak Runoff (cfs)0.15 0.35 #NUM!
Rainfall Frequency (yr)
Drainage Basin M
Land Use
Drainage
Basin
Number
Contributing
Area (sf)
Contributing
Area (Ac)
Runoff
Coefficient
(C)
A (Ac) x C
DB - Impervious M 5574 0.13 0.95 0.1216
DB - Pervious M 1629 0.04 0.20 0.0075
DB - Roof M 0.00 0.95 0.0000
Total 7203 0.17 0.1290
Weighted C:0.78
10 25 100
Cf - Frequency Adjustment Factor 1 1.1 1.25
C - Runoff Coefficient (Overland Flow)0.95
C * Cf 0.95 1.05 1.19
D - Length of Basin (ft)128
Sb - Slope of Basin (%)0.02
To - Time of Conc. - Overland (min.)11.69 4.29 -6.82
L - Length of Channel (ft)0
n - Manning's Coefficient 0.013
R - Hydraulic Radius(ft)0.136
Sc - Slope of Channel (ft/ft)0.02
V - Velocity (ft/sec)4.28 4.28 4.28
Tc - Time of Conc. - Channel (min.)0 0 0
Time of Concentration (Ttotal)11.69 4.29 -6.82
X - Storm Duration (hr)0.19 0.07 -0.11
I - Intensity (in/hr)1.85 4.22 #NUM!
Q - Peak Runoff (cfs)0.24 0.54 #NUM!
Rainfall Frequency (yr)
Drainage Basin N
Land Use
Drainage
Basin
Number
Contributing
Area (sf)
Contributing
Area (Ac)
Runoff
Coefficient
(C)
A (Ac) x C
DB - Impervious N 4779 0.11 0.95 0.1042
DB - Pervious N 773 0.02 0.20 0.0035
DB - Roof N 0.00 0.95 0.0000
Total 5552 0.13 0.1078
Weighted C:0.85
10 25 100
Cf - Frequency Adjustment Factor 1 1.1 1.25
C - Runoff Coefficient (Overland Flow)0.95
C * Cf 0.95 1.05 1.19
D - Length of Basin (ft)77
Sb - Slope of Basin (%)0.02
To - Time of Conc. - Overland (min.)9.07 3.32 -5.29
L - Length of Channel (ft)0
n - Manning's Coefficient 0.013
R - Hydraulic Radius(ft)0.136
Sc - Slope of Channel (ft/ft)0.02
V - Velocity (ft/sec)4.28 4.28 4.28
Tc - Time of Conc. - Channel (min.)0 0 0
Time of Concentration (Ttotal)9.07 3.32 -5.29
X - Storm Duration (hr)0.15 0.06 -0.09
I - Intensity (in/hr)2.19 4.97 #NUM!
Q - Peak Runoff (cfs)0.24 0.54 #NUM!
Rainfall Frequency (yr)
Drainage Basin O
Land Use
Drainage
Basin
Number
Contributing
Area (sf)
Contributing
Area (Ac)
Runoff
Coefficient
(C)
A (Ac) x C
DB - Impervious O 8960 0.21 0.95 0.1954
DB - Pervious O 2900 0.07 0.20 0.0133
DB - Roof O 0.00 0.95 0.0000
Total 11860 0.27 0.2087
Weighted C:0.77
10 25 100
Cf - Frequency Adjustment Factor 1 1.1 1.25
C - Runoff Coefficient (Overland Flow)0.95
C * Cf 0.95 1.05 1.19
D - Length of Basin (ft)138
Sb - Slope of Basin (%)0.02
To - Time of Conc. - Overland (min.)12.14 4.45 -7.08
L - Length of Channel (ft)0
n - Manning's Coefficient 0.013
R - Hydraulic Radius(ft)0.136
Sc - Slope of Channel (ft/ft)0.02
V - Velocity (ft/sec)4.28 4.28 4.28
Tc - Time of Conc. - Channel (min.)0 0 0
Time of Concentration (Ttotal)12.14 4.45 -7.08
X - Storm Duration (hr)0.20 0.07 -0.12
I - Intensity (in/hr)1.81 4.12 #NUM!
Q - Peak Runoff (cfs)0.38 0.86 #NUM!
Rainfall Frequency (yr)
Drainage Basin P
Land Use
Drainage
Basin
Number
Contributing
Area (sf)
Contributing
Area (Ac)
Runoff
Coefficient
(C)
A (Ac) x C
DB - Impervious P 5832 0.13 0.95 0.1272
DB - Pervious P 0.00 0.20 0.0000
DB - Roof P 0.00 0.95 0.0000
Total 5832 0.13 0.1272
Weighted C:0.95
10 25 100
Cf - Frequency Adjustment Factor 1 1.1 1.25
C - Runoff Coefficient (Overland Flow)0.95
C * Cf 0.95 1.05 1.19
D - Length of Basin (ft)138
Sb - Slope of Basin (%)0.02
To - Time of Conc. - Overland (min.)12.14 4.45 -7.08
L - Length of Channel (ft)0
n - Manning's Coefficient 0.013
R - Hydraulic Radius(ft)0.136
Sc - Slope of Channel (ft/ft)0.02
V - Velocity (ft/sec)4.28 4.28 4.28
Tc - Time of Conc. - Channel (min.)0 0 0
Time of Concentration (Ttotal)12.14 4.45 -7.08
X - Storm Duration (hr)0.20 0.07 -0.12
I - Intensity (in/hr)1.81 4.12 #NUM!
Q - Peak Runoff (cfs)0.23 0.52 #NUM!
Rainfall Frequency (yr)
Appendix 6
Chick-fil-A, Inc. 5200 Buffington Road Atlanta, Georgia 30349-2998 Telephone 888-232-9378
7/22/2024 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Bridger Children’s Group, LLC 34 Outlier Way Bozeman, Montana 59718 EMAIL: Ryan@cleanslategroupus.com ATTN: Ryan Rickert
Re: Letter Agreement Regarding Receipt and Use of Due Diligence Materials; GROUND LEASE ("Lease") is entered into by and between BRIDGER CHILDREN’S GROUP, LLC, a South Dakota limited liability company ("Landlord"), and CHICK-FIL-A, INC., a Georgia corporation ("Tenant").
To whom it may concern:
Reference is made to the above-referenced Agreement concerning that certain real property
located in the City of Bozeman, County of Gallatin, State of Montana, which is more fully described in the Agreement (the “Land”). Any capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in this letter shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.
In connection with Chick-fil-A’s due diligence investigations of the Land, Chick-fil-A has performed certain studies and tests and has received reports and/or written assessments and materials in connection therewith. Pursuant to your request or as otherwise required pursuant to the Agreement, please find enclosed the following due diligence materials obtained by Chick-fil-A (collectively, “Due Diligence Materials”)
1.Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared for Chick-fil-A by TerraconConsultants, Inc. dated June 27, 2024
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in the Agreement, Chick-fil-A is delivering the Due Diligence Materials to Receiving Party and Receiving Party is accepting the Due Diligence Materials
pursuant to the following conditions and mutual understanding and agreement of the parties:
(a)Chick-fil-A makes absolutely no representation or warranty as to the accuracy or
completeness of any of the Due Diligence Materials which were not prepared by Chick-fil-A;
(b)The Due Diligence Materials are being provided by Chick-fil-A to Receiving Party as acourtesy and for informational purposes only and Receiving Party shall have absolutely no right torely thereon;
(c)Receiving Party agrees that other than as set forth in subsections (d) and (e) below,Receiving Party shall treat the Due Diligence Materials confidentially and shall not share, discloseor otherwise disseminate the Due Diligence Materials (or the content thereof) to third-parties (otherthan to its employees, consultants and legal counsel);
(d)Receiving Party agrees and acknowledges that by receiving the Due Diligence Materials,Receiving Party may incur certain legal obligations to disclose the contents thereof to applicable
July 22, 2024 Page 2 governmental agencies and/or authorities, such as, by way of example, and not limitation, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control or the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board; and
(e) Receiving Party is permitted to disclose the Due Diligence Materials if legally compelled or otherwise required to do so (by deposition, interrogatory, request for documents, subpoena, civil investigative demand or similar process), provided Receiving Party shall (to the extent permitted by applicable law) provide Chick-fil-A written notice of any such proceeding and offer reasonable cooperation in any effort to obtain a protective order.
Receiving Party hereby agrees and acknowledges that in the event there is a conflict between the terms and conditions set forth in this letter and the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement, the terms and conditions most favorable to Chick-fil-A shall govern and control.
By accepting receipt of the Due Diligence Materials, Receiving Party intends to be bound by the terms and conditions set forth in this letter.
Very truly yours, CHICK-FIL-A, INC.
cc: Lydia Lake, Chick-fil-A, Inc., via email Tyler Chester, Chick-fil-A, Inc., via email
Report Cover Page
Chick-fil-A Restaurant
#04665
Geotechnical Engineering Report
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Prepared for:
Chick-fil-A, Inc.
5200 Buffington Road
Atlanta, Georgia 30349
RED
2110 Overland Avenue
Billings, Montana 59102
P (406) 656-3072
Terracon.com
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials
Report Cover Letter to Sign June 27, 2024
Chick-fil-A, Inc.
5200 Buffington Road
Atlanta, Georgia 30349
Attn: Ms. Sabrina Wright, Principal Development Lead
P: 619-840-6713
E: sabrina.wright2@cfacorp.com
Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665
I-90 and 19th Avenue
Bozeman, Montana
Terracon Project No. C4245027
Dear Ms. Wright:
We have completed the scope of Geotechnical Engineering services for the referenced
project in general accordance with Terracon’s Task Order dated April 23, 2024. This
report presents the findings of the subsurface exploration and provides geotechnical
recommendations concerning earthwork and the design and construction of foundations,
floor slabs, and pavements for the proposed project.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any
questions concerning this report or if we may be of further service, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Terracon Consultant, Inc.
Jim Pierce, P. E. Matthew D. Hoffmann, P.E.
Senior Geotechnical Engineer Principal | APR
National Account Manager: Joshua J. Schilling
This report has been electronically signed and sealed by Jim Pierce, P.E. on June 27, 2024 using a Digital
Signature.
Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed and the signature must be verified on
any electronic copies.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials i
Table of Contents
Report Summary .............................................................................................. i
Introduction .................................................................................................... 1
Project Description .......................................................................................... 1
Site Conditions ................................................................................................ 3
Geotechnical Characterization ......................................................................... 3
Seismic Site Class ............................................................................................ 5
Liquefaction .................................................................................................... 5
Corrosivity ...................................................................................................... 5
Geotechnical Overview .................................................................................... 6
Earthwork ....................................................................................................... 7
Demolition ............................................................................................... 7
Site Preparation........................................................................................ 7
Subgrade Preparation ................................................................................ 7
Existing Fill .............................................................................................. 8
Excavation ............................................................................................... 8
Fill Material Types ................................................................................... 10
Fill Placement and Compaction Requirements ............................................. 11
Utility Trench Backfill ............................................................................. 12
Grading and Drainage ............................................................................. 12
Earthwork Construction Considerations ..................................................... 13
Construction Observation and Testing ....................................................... 14
Shallow Foundations ................................................................................... 14
Design Parameters – Compressive Loads ................................................... 15
Design Parameters – Overturning and Uplift Loads ...................................... 16
Foundation Construction Considerations .................................................... 16
Floor Slabs .................................................................................................... 17
Floor Slab Design Parameters .................................................................... 17
Floor Slab Construction Considerations ........................................................ 18
Pavements .................................................................................................... 19
Pavement Subgrade Support Characteristics ................................................ 19
General Pavement Comments .................................................................... 19
Pavement Design Parameters .................................................................... 19
Pavement Section Thicknesses ................................................................... 19
Pavement Drainage .................................................................................. 21
Pavement Maintenance ............................................................................. 21
Frost Considerations...................................................................................... 21
General Comments ........................................................................................ 22
Figures
GeoModel
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials ii
Attachments
Exploration and Testing Procedures
Site Location and Exploration Plans
Exploration and Laboratory Results
Supporting Information
Note: This report was originally delivered in a web-based format. Blue Bold text in the
report indicates a referenced section heading. The PDF version also includes hyperlinks
which direct the reader to that section and clicking on the logo will bring you
back to this page. For more interactive features, please view your project online at
client.terracon.com.
Refer to each individual Attachment for a listing of contents.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials i
Report Summary
Topic 1 Overview Statement 2
Project
Description
Approximately 6,058 square foot, single-story structure
Column loads: 50 kips, assumed maximum
Wall loads: 2 kips per lineal foot, assumed maximum
Finished floor elevation: Not provided at the time of this report
Excavations to include demolition of existing rest area building
and appurtenant pavement structures prior to new foundation
construction
Expected traffic for pavement areas:
■ 1500 autos/light trucks per day
■ Up to 7 medium-duty delivery/trash trucks and 1 Tractor-
trailer per week
Geotechnical
Characterization
Medium dense to very dense alluvial gravel with poorly graded
sand lenses was encountered below pavement sections or topsoil,
extending to the maximum depths explored in all borings. Thin
lenses of existing fine grained fill were encountered in the upper
two feet of Borings T-1 and P-3, at the proposed trash enclosure
and pavement areas outside of the building area.
Elevated groundwater conditions were observed in all borings,
with groundwater encountered at an average depth of 2.5 feet in
all borings.
Earthwork
Options for floor slab subgrade preparation and risk of post-
construction movement:
■ Low risk (Terracon recommendation): Use existing
pavement section gravel as floor slab subgrade in the
building area. Two feet of Structural Fill and base course
are recommended on top of the existing base course to
raise the bearing elevation for footings above groundwater
level.
■ Any material proposed to be used for Structural Fill should
be tested and approved by Terracon
Shallow
Foundations
Shallow foundations are recommended for building support
Allowable bearing pressure = 4,000 psf – native gravel or
Structual Fill
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials ii
Topic 1 Overview Statement 2
Expected settlements: < 1-inch total, < 0.5-inch differential
Deep
Foundations
In our opinion, deep foundations are not necessary, nor
recommended, for the site as currently planned.
Pavements
With subgrade prepared as noted in Earthwork; the existing
pavement section is a suitable subgrade.
All areas except the dumpster pad: 3 inches Asphaltic Cement
Concrete (ACC) over 6 inches granular base or 5 inches Portland
Cement Concrete (PCC) over 6 inches granular base
Dumpster Pad - 6 inches PCC over 6 inches granular base
General
Comments
This section contains important information about the limitations
of this geotechnical engineering report.
1. If the reader is reviewing this report as a pdf, the topics above can be used to
access the appropriate section of the report by simply clicking on the topic
itself.
2. This summary is for convenience only. It should be used in conjunction with the
entire report for design purposes.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 1
Introduction
This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and Geotechnical
Engineering services performed for the proposed Chick-fil-A restaurant #04665 to be
located at the intersection of I-90 and 19th Avenue in Bozeman, Montana. The purpose
of these services was to provide information and geotechnical engineering
recommendations relative to:
■ Subsurface soil conditions
■ Groundwater conditions
■ Seismic site classification per IBC
■ Site preparation and earthwork
■ Demolition considerations
■ Dewatering considerations
■ Foundation design and construction
■ Floor slab design and construction
■ Pavement design and construction
■ Frost considerations
The geotechnical engineering Scope of Services for this project included the
advancement of soil borings, laboratory testing, engineering analysis, and preparation of
this report.
Drawings showing the site and boring locations are shown on the Site Location and
Exploration Plan, respectively. The results of the laboratory testing performed on soil
samples obtained from the site during our field exploration are included on the boring
logs and as separate plates in the Exploration and Laboratory Results section.
Project Description
Our current understanding of the project conditions is as follows:
Item Description
Information
Provided
We were provided with a site plan, titled I-90 and 19th St
Bozeman (04665) PSP26_LAX20-0062-01.pdf, along with a
request for proposal via email from Jessika Guerrero on April 11,
2024.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 2
Item Description
Project
Description
The development will include the construction of a restaurant,
with sit-down and drive-thru accessibility. The site will include
construction of drive lanes for drive-thru on the north side of
the store and a parking lot along with ancillary structures (curb,
gutter, sidewalk and landscaping) north of the drive-thru.
Proposed
Structure
Approximately 6,058 square foot, single story structure
Building
Construction
Anticipated frost-depth foundations with light, wood framed
construction and slab-on-grade.
Finished Floor
Elevation
Not provided at the time of this report development.
Maximum Loads
Column loads: 50 kips, assumed maximum
Wall loads: 2 kips per lineal foot, assumed maximum
Grading/Slopes
Grading plan not provided. A minimum grade raise of two feet in
the building area is recommended to reduce groundwater
impacts on the construction.
Below-Grade
Structures None planned
Free-Standing
Retaining Walls None planned
Pavements
Paved parking areas and drives will surround the building
structure. No traffic loads or vehicle distributions have been
provided, therefore we have assumed the following:
■ 1,500 autos/light trucks per day
■ Up to 7 medium-duty delivery/trash trucks and 1 Tractor-
trailer per week
The pavement design period is approximately 20 years.
Terracon should be notified if any of the above information is inconsistent with the
planned construction, especially the grading limits, as modifications to our
recommendations may be necessary.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 3
Site Conditions
The following description of site conditions is derived from our site visit in association
with the field exploration and our review of publicly available geologic and topographic
maps.
Item Description
Parcel
Information See Site Location
Existing
Improvements
The site is currently a Montana Department of Transportation
Rest Area that is not in use. There is an existing building, truck
parking area, access drive, sidewalks, and landscaped/grass
areas as well as a trash disposal area.
Current Ground
Cover
Current ground cover is primarily asphalt in the truck parking
area, and concrete walkways and grass around the rest area
building.
Existing
Topography
The site is gently sloping down from south to north with
approximately two feet of elevation change across the site.
Geology
The Gallatin Valley floor is comprised of deep alluvial sediment
that has been eroded from the surrounding foothills and
mountains by the Gallatin River. In the near-surface
environment, these sediments typically include a shallow fine-
grained layer of clay/silt overlying sand and gravel. It is
assumed that the clay and silt layer was removed from this site
during the original construction.
Geotechnical Characterization
Subsurface Profile
We have developed a general characterization of the subsurface conditions based upon
our review of the subsurface exploration, laboratory data, geologic setting and our
understanding of the project. This characterization, termed GeoModel, forms the basis of
our geotechnical calculations and evaluation of the site. Conditions observed at each
exploration point are indicated on the individual logs. The individual logs can be found in
the Exploration Results and the GeoModel can be found in the Figures attachment of this
report.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 4
As part of our analyses, we identified the following model layers within the subsurface
profile. For a more detailed view of the model layer depths at each boring location, refer
to the GeoModel.
Model
Layer Layer Name General Description
1 Asphaltic
Concrete Existing Plant Mix Surfacing, 4 to 6 inches thick
2 Aggregate
Base Course
-1 1/2” well graded crushed and uncrushed gravel with
varying amounts of sand, silt and clay
3
Native
Alluvial
Gravel
-3” poorly graded silty gravel with sand and varying
amounts of clay present in all borings.
Groundwater Conditions
The borings were advanced in the dry using hollow stem auger drilling techniques that
allow short-term groundwater observations to be made while drilling. Groundwater was
encountered in all borings, with the exception of B-2, within the maximum drilling depth
at the time of our field exploration. Groundwater conditions may be different at the time
of construction. Groundwater conditions may change because of seasonal variations in
rainfall, runoff, and other conditions not apparent at the time of drilling. Observation of
long-term groundwater levels was outside the scope of services for this project.
We estimate that during the normal wet season (typically June through October) with
rainfall and recharge at a maximum, groundwater levels may be as high as about 2 feet
below the existing grade. Our estimates of the seasonal groundwater conditions are
based on the soil borings, the encountered soil types, and the interpreted water levels.
The water levels observed in the boreholes can be found on the boring logs in
Exploration and Laboratory Results and are summarized below.
Boring
Number
Approximate Depth to
Groundwater while Drilling
(feet)
B-1 2.5
B-2 Not Encountered, Refusal
occurred at 1.5 ft.
B-3 2.5
B-4 2.5
T-1 2.0
P-1 2.0
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 5
Boring
Number
Approximate Depth to
Groundwater while Drilling
(feet)
P-2 2.5
P-3 2.5
Seismic Site Class
The seismic design requirements for buildings and other structures are based on Seismic
Design Category. Site Classification is required to determine the Seismic Design
Category for a structure. The Site Classification is based on the upper 100 feet of the
site profile defined by a weighted average value of either shear wave velocity, standard
penetration resistance, or undrained shear strength in accordance with Section 20.4 of
ASCE 7 and the International Building Code (IBC). Based on the soil properties observed
at the site and as described on the exploration logs and results, our professional opinion
is for that a Seismic Site Classification of C be considered for the project. Subsurface
explorations at this site were extended to a maximum depth of 16 feet. The site
properties below the boring depth to 100 feet were estimated based on our experience
and knowledge of geologic conditions of the general area. Additional deeper borings or
geophysical testing may be performed to confirm the conditions below the current boring
depth.
Liquifaction
In review of the subsurface information to determine the potential for liquefaction
triggered by strong ground motion, consideration was given to the age of the sediment,
soil classification and stratigraphy, groundwater conditions, relative soil density, and
depth to bedrock. The project site is located in an area with predominately medium
dense to very dense poorly graded gravels with discontinuous poorly graded sand
lenses. Groundwater was encountered at 2.0 to 2.5 feet below ground surface.
The potential for seismically-induced liquefaction of the soils at the project site is low,
based on consideration of the on-site soil types and conditions, groundwater elevations,
seismic zone design conditions, a cursory review of published information, and the
seismicity of the project area.
Corrosivity
The table below lists the results of laboratory soluble sulfate, electrical resistivity, and
pH testing. The values may be used to estimate potential corrosive characteristics of the
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 6
on-site soils with respect to contact with the various underground materials which will be
used for project construction.
Corrosivity Test Results Summary
Boring
Sample
Depth
(feet)
Soil
Description
Soluble
Sulfate
(%)
Electrical
Resistivity
(Ω-cm)
pH
P-3 1.0-5.0 Poorly Graded
Gravel 0.003 3,580 8.2
Results of soluble sulfate testing indicate samples of the on-site soils have an exposure
class of S0 when classified in accordance with Table 19.3.1.1 of the American Concrete
Institute (ACI) Design Manual. Concrete should be designed in accordance with the
provisions of the ACI Design Manual, Section 318, Chapter 19.
Geotechnical Overview
The site appears suitable for the proposed construction based upon geotechnical
conditions encountered in the test borings, provided that the recommendations made in
this report are implemented in the design and construction phases of this project.
The subsurface materials generally consisted of medium to very dense alluvial gravel
with poorly graded sand lenses extending to the maximum depth of the borings. Shallow
groundwater was encountered within the maximum depths of exploration during drilling.
Due to the presence of shallow groundwater on-site, it is strongly recommended that the
first floor elevation of the proposed building be raised a minimum of two feet above
existing elevation to reduce the likelihood of encountering groundwater in the foundation
trenches and the amount of required dewatering during building construction.
Based on the conditions encountered and estimated load-settlement relationships, the
proposed structures can be supported on conventional continuous or spread footings.
On-site soils are considered suitable to be used as engineered fill materials.
Our opinion of pavement section thickness design has been developed based on our
understanding of the intended use, assumed traffic, and subgrade preparation
recommended herein using methodology contained in the “1993 Guideline for Design of
Pavement Structures by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO-1993)” and adjusted with consideration to local practice.The
Pavements section includes minimum pavement component thickness.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 7
The recommendations contained in this report are based upon the results of field and
laboratory testing (presented in the Exploration and Laboratory Results),
engineering analyses, and our current understanding of the proposed project. The
General Comments section provides an understanding of the report limitations.
Earthwork
Earthwork is anticipated to include demolition, clearing and grubbing, excavations, and
Structural Fill placement. The following sections provide recommendations for use in the
preparation of specifications for the work.
Demolition
The proposed building will be constructed within the footprint of the existing truck
parking area and access roads. The asphaltic concrete portion of the existing pavement
section will need to be removed in the area of building footprint only. The asphaltic
concrete portion of the existing pavement section is a suitable subgrade for the exterior
sidewalks, curbing and pavements where final grades can be achieved without its
removal. We recommend existing utilities be removed from within the proposed building
footprint and their trenches backfilled with Structural Fill placed in accordance with the
table in the Fill Placement and Compaction Requirements section of the report.
For areas outside the proposed building footprint and foundation bearing zones, existing
foundations, floor slabs and asphaltic concrete pavement should be removed where they
conflict with proposed construction.
Site Preparation
Prior to placing fill, existing fill should be removed in the proposed parking/driveway
areas.
Although no evidence of underground facilities (such as septic tanks, cesspools,
basements) was observed during the exploration and site reconnaissance, such features
could be encountered during construction. If unexpected fills or underground facilities
are encountered, such features should be removed, and the excavation thoroughly
cleaned prior to backfill placement and/or construction.
Subgrade Preparation
We recommend that the asphaltic concrete portion of the existing pavement section
within the proposed structure’s footprint be removed down to native gravel. On-site soils
(with the exception of topsoil and other fine-grained soils, or soils containing deleterious
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 8
materials like organic matter) are considered suitable to be used as Structural Fill
materials.
Subgrade soils beneath proposed exterior slabs and pavements where the existing
asphaltic concrete pavement conflicts with proposed grades should be removed to a
minimum depth of six inches beneath existing grade.
The subgrade should be proofrolled with an adequately loaded vehicle such as a fully-
loaded tandem-axle dump truck. The proofrolling should be performed under the
observation of the Geotechnical Engineer or representative. Areas excessively deflecting
under the proofroll should be delineated and subsequently addressed as directed by the
Geotechnical Engineer. Excessively wet or dry material should either be removed or
moisture conditioned and recompacted.
All exposed areas which will receive fill, once properly cleared and where necessary,
should be scarified to a minimum depth of 10 inches, moisture conditioned as necessary,
and compacted per the compaction requirements in this report. Compacted Structural
Fill soils should then be placed to the proposed design grade and the moisture content
and compaction of subgrade soils should be maintained until foundation or pavement
construction.
Based upon the subsurface conditions determined from the geotechnical exploration,
subgrade soils exposed during construction are anticipated to be workable; however, the
workability of the subgrade may be affected by precipitation, repetitive construction
traffic or other factors. If unworkable conditions develop, workability may be improved
by scarifying and drying.
Existing Fill
As noted in Geotechnical Characterization, Borings T-1 and P-3 encountered thin
layers of previously placed fine grained fill. Support of concrete slabs and pavements on
or above existing fill soils is not recommended and these soils should be removed. The
small amount of fill encountered during drilling indicates that this fill removal should
require a minimal amount of excavation.
Excavation
We anticipate that excavations for the proposed construction can be accomplished with
conventional earthmoving equipment. The bottom of excavations should be thoroughly
cleaned of loose soils and disturbed materials and compacted to the same specifications
as Structural Fill below foundations shown in the Fill Placement and Compaction
Requirements section of this report, prior to backfill placement and/or construction.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 9
Soil Stabilization
Due to the relatively shallow depth of site groundwater, site soils may become unstable
during compaction efforts and require improvement. Methods of subgrade improvement,
as described below, could include scarification, moisture conditioning and recompaction,
removal of unstable materials and replacement with granular fill (with or without
geosynthetics). The appropriate method of improvement, if required, would be
dependent on factors such as schedule, weather, the size of area to be stabilized, and
the nature of the instability. More detailed recommendations can be provided during
construction as the need for subgrade stabilization occurs. Performing site grading
operations during warm seasons and dry periods would help reduce the amount of
subgrade stabilization required.
If the exposed subgrade is unstable during proofrolling operations, it could be stabilized
using one of the methods outlined below.
■ Scarification and Recompaction - It may be feasible to scarify, dry, and
recompact the exposed soils. The success of this procedure would depend
primarily upon favorable weather and sufficient time to dry the soils. Stable
subgrades likely would not be achievable if the thickness of the unstable soil is
greater than about 1 foot, if the unstable soil is at or near groundwater levels, or
if construction is performed during a period of wet or cool weather when drying is
difficult.
■ Crushed Stone - The use of crushed stone or crushed gravel is a common
procedure to improve subgrade stability. Typical undercut depths would be
expected to range from about 12 to 18 inches below finished subgrade elevation.
The use of high modulus geotextiles (i.e., engineering fabric or geogrid) could
also be considered after underground work such as utility construction is
completed. Prior to placing the fabric or geogrid, we recommend that all below
grade construction, such as utility line installation, be completed to avoid
damaging the fabric or geogrid. Equipment should not be operated above the
fabric or geogrid until one full lift of crushed stone fill is placed above it. The
maximum particle size of granular material placed over geotextile fabric or
geogrid should not exceed 1 1/2 inches.
Further evaluation of the need and recommendations for subgrade stabilization can be
provided during construction as the geotechnical conditions are exposed.
Fill Material Types
Fill required to achieve design grade should be classified as Structural Fill and general
fill. Structural Fill is material used below, or within 10 feet horizontally of structures or
pavements. General fill is material used to achieve grade outside of these areas.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 10
Reuse of On-Site Soil: Excavated on-site gravel soils may be selectively reused as
Structural Fill or general fill when it meets the material and placement specifications put
forth in this report.
Material property requirements for on-site soil for use as general fill and Structural Fill
are noted in the table below:
Property General Fill Structural Fill
Composition Free of deleterious
material Free of deleterious material
Maximum particle size
6 inches
(or 2/3 of the lift
thickness)
3 inches
Fines content for
Granular Soils Not limited Less than 12% Passing No. 200
sieve
Plasticity for Cohesive
Soils Not limited Maximum plasticity index of 10
GeoModel Layer
Expected to be Suitable1 2, 3 2, 3
1. Based on subsurface exploration. Actual material suitability should be
determined in the field at time of construction.
Imported Fill Materials: Imported fill materials should meet the following material
property requirements. Regardless of its source, compacted fill should consist of
approved materials that are free of organic matter and debris. Frozen material should
not be used, and fill should not be placed on a frozen subgrade.
Soil Type 1 USCS
Classification
Acceptable Parameters (for Structural
Fill)
Low Plasticity
Cohesive
CL, CL-ML
ML, SM, SC Not Acceptable
Granular GW, GP, GM, GC,
SW, SP, SM, SC
Less than 3” maximum sized particles, less
than 12% passing No. 200 sieve, PI less
than or equal to 10.
1. Structural and general fill should consist of approved materials free of organic
matter and debris. Frozen material should not be used, and fill should not be
placed on a frozen subgrade. A sample of each material type should be
submitted to the Geotechnical Engineer for evaluation prior to use on this site.
Additional geotechnical consultation should be provided prior to use of
uniformly graded gravel on the site.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 11
Fill Placement and Compaction Requirements
Structural and general fill should meet the following compaction requirements.
Item Structural Fill General Fill
Maximum Lift
Thickness
9 inches or less in loose thickness when
heavy, self-propelled compaction equipment
is used
4 inches in loose thickness when hand-
guided equipment (i.e. jumping jack or
plate compactor) is used
Same as
Structural Fill
Minimum
Compaction
Requirements 1,2
98% of max. below foundations
95% of max. above foundation elevation
(exterior to building)
95% of max. above foundations, below
floor slabs
95% of max. if
some settlement
is tolerable
Water Content
Range 1 Granular: -3% to +1% of optimum
As required to
achieve min.
compaction
requirements
1. Maximum density and optimum water content as determined by the Standard
Proctor test (ASTM D 698).
2. If the granular material is a coarse sand or gravel, or of a uniform size, or has a
low fines content, compaction comparison to relative density may be more
appropriate. In this case, granular materials should be compacted to at least
70% relative density (ASTM D 4253 and D 4254). Materials not amenable to
density testing should be placed and compacted to a stable condition observed
by the Geotechnical Engineer or representative.
Utility Trench Backfill
Any soft or unsuitable materials encountered at the bottom of utility trench excavations
should be removed and replaced with structural fill or bedding material in accordance
with the Montana Public Works Standard Specifications (MPWSS), 7th edition, for the
utility being supported. This recommendation is particularly applicable to utility work
requiring grade control and/or in areas where subsequent grade raising could cause
settlement in the subgrade supporting the utility. Trench excavation should not be
conducted below a downward 1:1 projection from existing foundations without
engineering review of shoring requirements and geotechnical observation during
construction.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 12
On-site materials are generally considered suitable for backfill of utility and pipe
trenches from 1 foot above the top of the pipe to the final ground surface, provided the
soil is free of organic matter and deleterious substances. IF THE MATERIALS ARE NOT
SUITABLE – Granular soils are recommended for trench backfill in structural areas due to
their relative ease of compaction in confined areas as opposed to cohesive soils.
Trench backfill should be mechanically placed and compacted as discussed earlier in this
report. Compaction of initial lifts should be accomplished with hand-operated tampers or
other lightweight compactors. Where trenches are placed beneath slabs or footings, the
backfill should satisfy the gradation and plasticity index requirements of Structural Fill
discussed in this report. Flooding or jetting for placement and compaction of backfill is
not recommended.
Grading and Drainage
All grades must provide effective drainage away from the building during and after
construction and should be maintained throughout the life of the structure. Water
retained next to the building can result in soil movements greater than those discussed
in this report. Greater movements can result in unacceptable differential floor slab
and/or foundation movements, cracked slabs and walls, and roof leaks. The roof should
have gutters/drains with downspouts that discharge onto splash blocks at a distance of
at least 10 feet from the building.
Adjacent ground should be sloped and maintained at a minimum 5 percent away from
the building for at least 10 feet beyond the perimeter of the building. Locally, flatter
grades may be necessary to transition ADA access requirements for flatwork. After
building construction and landscaping have been completed, final grades should be
verified to document effective drainage has been achieved. Grades around the structure
should also be periodically observed and adjusted, as necessary, as part of the
structure’s maintenance program. Where paving or flatwork abuts the structure, a
maintenance program should be established to effectively seal and maintain joints and
prevent surface water infiltration.
Earthwork Construction Considerations
Shallow excavations for the proposed structure are anticipated to be accomplished with
conventional construction equipment. Upon completion of filling and grading, care should
be taken to maintain the subgrade water content prior to construction of grade-
supported improvements such as floor slabs and pavements. Construction traffic over
the completed subgrades should be avoided. The site should also be graded to prevent
ponding of surface water on the prepared subgrades or in excavations. Water collecting
over or adjacent to construction areas should be removed. If the subgrade freezes,
desiccates, saturates, or is disturbed, the affected material should be removed, or the
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 13
materials should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted prior to floor slab
construction.
The groundwater table has the potential to affect excavation efforts significantly,
especially where overexcavation and replacement of lower strength soils is necessary. A
temporary dewatering system consisting of sumps with pumps may be necessary to
achieve the recommended depth of excavation for conventional footings, depending on
groundwater conditions at the time of construction. Due to groundwater levels
encountered during field exploration, it is recommended that consideration be given to
site grade raising to establish foundation elevation above groundwater levels.
As a minimum, excavations should be performed in accordance with OSHA 29 CFR, Part
1926, Subpart P, “Excavations” and its appendices, and in accordance with any
applicable local and/or state regulations.
Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor who controls the
means, methods, and sequencing of construction operations. Under no circumstances
shall the information provided herein be interpreted to mean Terracon is assuming
responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such
responsibility shall neither be implied nor inferred.
Construction Observation and Testing
The earthwork efforts should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer (or others under
their direction). Observation should include documentation of adequate removal of
surficial materials (vegetation, topsoil, and pavements), evaluation and remediation of
existing fill materials, as well as proofrolling and mitigation of unsuitable areas
delineated by the proofroll.
Each lift of compacted fill should be tested, evaluated, and reworked, as necessary, as
recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of additional lifts. Each
lift of fill should be tested for density and water content at a frequency of at least one
test for every 1,500 square feet of compacted fill in the building areas and 5,000 square
feet in pavement areas. Where not specified by local ordinance, one density and water
content test should be performed for every 100 linear feet of compacted utility trench
backfill and a minimum of one test performed for every 12 vertical inches of compacted
backfill.
In areas of foundation excavations, the subgrade should be evaluated by the
Geotechnical Engineer. If unanticipated conditions are observed, the Geotechnical
Engineer should prescribe improvement options.
In addition to the documentation of the essential parameters necessary for construction,
the continuation of the Geotechnical Engineer into the construction phase of the project
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 14
provides the continuity to maintain the Geotechnical Engineer’s evaluation of subsurface
conditions, including assessing variations and associated design changes.
Shallow Foundations
The primary geotechnical considerations are the need to provide reliable bearing and
limit the potential for differential settlement. The native gravel layer provides
substantial available support for new foundation loading; however, the presence of an
elevated groundwater condition poses some risk of differential bearing support with
fluctuation in groundwater level over the lifetime of the foundation. It is strongly
recommended that the proposed building be raised a minimum of two feet above
existing elevation to reduce the likelihood of encountering groundwater in the foundation
trenches, which will have impactes on the the amount of required dewatering during
building construction, as well as provide for a zone of bearing materials that are likely to
be less impacted by groundwater fluctuation over time.
In our opinion, the proposed Chick-Fil-A building should be supported by a combination
of conventional frost-depth footings and isolated interior spread footings with both
bearing on properly prepared native gravel materials or Structural Fill extending to
properly prepared native gravel materials. In addition, it is assumed the canopy
structure will be supported by frost-depth spread footings and the trash enclosure will be
supported by conventional frost-depth footings.
If the site has been prepared in accordance with the requirements noted in Earthwork,
the following design parameters are applicable for shallow foundations.
Design Parameters – Compressive Loads
Item Description
Maximum Net Allowable
Bearing Pressure 1, 2
4,000 psf - foundations bearing on Structural Fill
4,000 psf - foundation bearing on undisturbed
gravel soils
Required Bearing Stratum 3
GeoModel Layer 3 or undisturbed native gravel
soils or Structural Fill extending to undisturbed
native gravel soils
Minimum Foundation
Dimensions Per IBC 1809.7
Ultimate Passive Resistance 4
(equivalent fluid pressures) 500 pcf (granular backfill)
Sliding Resistance 5 0.40 allowable coefficient of friction - granular
material
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 15
Item Description
Minimum Embedment below
Finished Grade 6
Exterior footings in unheated areas: 48 inches
Exterior footings in heated areas: 24 inches
Interior footings in heated areas: 18 inches
Estimated Total Settlement
from Structural Loads 2 Less than about 1 inch
Estimated Differential
Settlement 2, 7 About 1/2 of total settlement
1. The maximum net allowable bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum
surrounding overburden pressure at the footing base elevation. Values assume that
exterior grades are no steeper than 20% within 10 feet of structure.
2. Values provided are for maximum loads noted in Project Description. Additional
geotechnical consultation will be necessary if higher loads are anticipated.
3. Unsuitable or soft soils should be overexcavated and replaced per the recommendations
presented in Earthwork.
4. Use of passive earth pressures require the sides of the excavation for the spread footing
foundation to be nearly vertical and the concrete placed neat against these vertical
faces or that the footing forms be removed and compacted Structural Fill be placed
against the vertical footing face. Assumes no hydrostatic pressure.
5. Can be used to compute sliding resistance where foundations are placed on suitable
soil/materials. Frictional resistance for granular materials is dependent on the bearing
pressure which may vary due to load combinations.
6. Embedment necessary to minimize the effects of frost and/or seasonal water content
variations. For sloping ground, maintain depth below the lowest adjacent exterior grade
within 5 horizontal feet of the structure.
7. Differential settlements are noted for equivalent-loaded foundations and bearing
elevation as measured over a span of 50 feet.
Design Parameters – Overturning and Uplift Loads
Shallow foundations subjected to overturning loads (such as isolated canopy
foundations) should be proportioned such that the resultant eccentricity is maintained in
the center-third of the foundation (e.g., e < b/6, where b is the foundation width). This
requirement is intended to keep the entire foundation area in compression during the
extreme lateral/overturning load event. Foundation oversizing may be required to satisfy
this condition.
Uplift resistance of spread footings can be developed from the effective weight of the
footing and the overlying soils with consideration to the IBC basic load combinations.
Item Description
Soil Moist Unit Weight 130 pcf
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 16
Foundation Construction Considerations
As noted in Earthwork, the base of footing excavations should be observed by the
Geotechnical Engineer or their representative. The base of all foundation excavations
should be free of water and loose soil, prior to placing concrete. Concrete should be
placed soon after excavating to reduce bearing soil disturbance. Care should be taken to
prevent wetting or drying of the bearing materials during construction. Excessively wet
or dry material or any loose/disturbed material in the bottom of the footing excavations
should be removed/reconditioned before foundation concrete is placed.
If unsuitable bearing soils are observed at the base of the planned footing excavation,
the excavation should be extended deeper to suitable soils, and the footings could bear
directly on these soils at the lower level or on Structural Fill. The overexcavation should
be backfilled up to the Design Footing Level with compacted Structural Fill such as
specified in the Earthwork section.
Item Description
Soil Effective Unit Weight 1 70 pcf
Soil Weight Included in Uplift
Resistance
Soil included within the prism extending up from
the top perimeter of the footing at an angle of 20
degrees from vertical to ground surface
1. Effective (or buoyant) unit weight should be used for soil above the foundation
level and below the shallowest anticipated groundwater level. The high
groundwater level should be used in uplift design as applicable.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 17
Floor Slabs
Design parameters for floor slabs assume the requirements for Earthwork have been
followed. Specific attention should be given to positive drainage away from the structure
and positive drainage of the aggregate base beneath the floor slab.
As previously described, the existing gravel portion of the pavement section present
beneath the proposed floor slab is a suitable floor slab subgrade. Structural Fill and base
course placed on top of the existing base course necessary to reach final subgrade
elevation should be placed in accordance with the specifications in the Fill Placement
and Compaction Requirements section of the report for Structural Fill prior to the
placement of concrete.
The floor slab should be supported on at least 2 feet of compacted cohesionless gravel
soils or Structural Fill.
Floor Slab Design Parameters
Item Description
Floor Slab
Support 1
Use 6 inches of base course meeting material specifications of
Montana Public Works Standard Specifications (MPWSS), 7th Ed,
Section 02235, 3/4 or 1 ½-inch minus
Subgrade compacted to recommendations in Earthwork
Estimated Modulus
of Subgrade
Reaction 2
300 pounds per square inch per inch (psi/in) for point loads
1. Floor slabs should be structurally independent of building footings or walls to
reduce the possibility of floor slab cracking caused by differential movements
between the slab and foundation.
2. Modulus of subgrade reaction is an estimated value based upon our experience
with the subgrade condition, the requirements noted in Earthwork, and the
floor slab support as noted in this table. It is provided for point loads. For large
area loads the modulus of subgrade reaction would be lower.
The use of a vapor retarder should be considered beneath concrete slabs on grade
covered with wood, tile, carpet, or other moisture sensitive or impervious coverings,
when the project includes humidity-controlled areas, or when the slab will support
equipment sensitive to moisture. When conditions warrant the use of a vapor retarder,
the slab designer should refer to ACI 302 and/or ACI 360 for procedures and cautions
regarding the use and placement of a vapor retarder.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 18
Saw-cut contraction joints should be placed in the slab to help control the location and
extent of cracking. For additional recommendations, refer to the ACI Design Manual.
Joints or cracks should be sealed with a waterproof, non-extruding compressible
compound specifically recommended for heavy duty concrete pavement and wet
environments.
Where floor slabs are tied to perimeter walls or turn-down slabs to meet structural or
other construction objectives, our experience indicates differential movement between
the walls and slabs will likely be observed in adjacent slab expansion joints or floor slab
cracks beyond the length of the structural dowels. The Structural Engineer should
account for potential differential settlement through use of sufficient control joints,
appropriate reinforcing or other means.
Mitigation measures, as noted in Existing Fill within Earthwork, are critical to the
performance of floor slabs. In addition to the mitigation measures, the floor slab can be
stiffened by adding steel reinforcement, grade beams, and/or post-tensioned elements.
Floor Slab Construction Considerations
Finished subgrade, within and for at least 10 feet beyond the floor slab, should be
protected from traffic, rutting, or other disturbance and maintained in a relatively moist
condition until floor slabs are constructed. If the subgrade should become damaged or
desiccated prior to construction of floor slabs, the affected material should be removed,
and Structural Fill should be added to replace the resulting excavation. Final conditioning
of the finished subgrade should be performed immediately prior to placement of the floor
slab support course.
The Geotechnical Engineer should observe the condition of the floor slab subgrades
immediately prior to placement of the floor slab support course, reinforcing steel, and
concrete. Attention should be paid to high traffic areas that were rutted and disturbed
earlier, and to areas where backfilled trenches are located.
Pavements
General Pavement Comments
Pavement designs are provided for the traffic conditions and pavement life conditions as
noted in Project Description and in the following sections of this report. A critical
aspect of pavement performance is site preparation. Pavement designs noted in this
section must be applied to the site which has been prepared as recommended in the
Earthwork section.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 19
Pavement Design Parameters
An assumed California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of 10 was used for the native gravel
subgrade for the asphaltic concrete (AC) pavement design along with a 20 year design
life. A modulus of rupture of 630 psi was used in design for the concrete (based on
correlations with a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,500 psi).
Based on our expectation that the parking area will be subjected to automobile traffic
primarily and that the drive areas will be subjected to a maximum of seven delivery
trucks/trash collection trucks per week, it is our opinion that Chick-fil-A’s minimum
pavement sections noted below are acceptable for this site.
Pavement Section Thicknesses
The following table provides our opinion of minimum thickness for pavement sections:
Layer
Pavement Section Thickness (inches)
Sections
Asphaltic Concrete
Option 2 Portland
Cement
Concrete
Option 2
Aggregate
Base
Course,
Both
Options 1
Surface
Course
Asphalt
Base
Course
All areas
except
dumpster
ACC 3 - 5 6
Dumpster
pad PCC --- --- 6 6
1. See Project Description for more specifics regarding traffic assumptions. All
aggregate base course materials should meet the current Montana Public Works
Standard Specifications (MPWSS), 7th Ed, Section 02235, 3/4 or 1 ½-inch minus
2. All asphaltic concrete materials should meet the current Montana Public Works
Standard Specifications, Section 02510, all Portland Cement concrete materials
should meet the requirements of Section 02515.
Areas for parking of heavy vehicles, concentrated turn areas, and start/stop maneuvers
could require thicker pavement sections. Edge restraints (i.e. concrete curbs or
aggregate shoulders) should be planned along curves and areas of maneuvering
vehicles.
Although not required for structural support, a minimum 6-inch thick base course layer
is recommended to help reduce potential for slab curl, shrinkage cracking, and subgrade
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 20
pumping through joints and for constructability considerations. Proper joint spacing will
also be required to prevent excessive slab curling and shrinkage cracking. Joints should
be sealed to prevent entry of foreign material and doweled where necessary for load
transfer. PCC pavement details for joint spacing, joint reinforcement, and joint sealing
should be prepared in accordance with ACI 330 and ACI 325.
We recommend early-entry cutting of crack-control joints in PCC pavements. Cutting of
the concrete in its “green” state typically reduces the potential for micro-cracking of the
pavements prior to the crack control joints being formed, compared to cutting the joints
after the concrete has fully set. Micro-cracking of pavements may lead to crack
formation in locations other than the sawed joints, and/or reduction of fatigue life of the
pavement.
Openings in pavements, such as decorative landscaped areas, are sources for water
infiltration into surrounding pavement systems. Water can collect in the islands and
migrate into the surrounding subgrade soils thereby degrading support of the pavement.
Islands with raised concrete curbs, irrigated foliage, and low permeability near-surface
soils are particular areas of concern. The civil design for the pavements with these
conditions should include features to restrict or collect and discharge excess water from
the islands. Examples of features are edge drains connected to the stormwater collection
system, longitudinal subdrains, or other suitable outlets and impermeable barriers
preventing lateral migration of water such as a cutoff wall installed to a depth below the
pavement structure.
Pavement Drainage
Pavements should be sloped to provide rapid drainage of surface water. Water allowed
to pond on or adjacent to the pavements could saturate the subgrade and contribute to
premature pavement deterioration. In addition, the pavement subgrade should be
graded to provide positive drainage within the granular base section.
Pavement Maintenance
The pavement sections represent minimum recommended thicknesses and, as such,
periodic upkeep should be anticipated. Preventive maintenance should be planned and
provided for through an on-going pavement management program. Maintenance
activities are intended to slow the rate of pavement deterioration and to preserve the
pavement investment. Pavement care consists of both localized (e.g., crack and joint
sealing and patching) and global maintenance (e.g., surface sealing). Additional
engineering consultation is recommended to determine the type and extent of a cost-
effective program. Even with periodic maintenance, some movements and related
cracking may still occur, and repairs may be required.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 21
Pavement performance is affected by its surroundings. In addition to providing
preventive maintenance, the civil engineer should consider the following
recommendations in the design and layout of pavements:
■ Final grade adjacent to paved areas should slope down from the edges at a
minimum 2%.
■ Install joint sealant and seal cracks immediately.
■ Seal all landscaped areas in or adjacent to pavements to reduce moisture
migration to subgrade soils.
Frost Considerations
The native gravel soils on this site have some frost susceptibility, and small amounts of
water can affect the performance of unheated slabs on-grade, sidewalks, and
pavements. Exterior slabs should be anticipated to heave during winter months. If frost
action needs to be eliminated in critical areas, we recommend the use of non-frost
susceptible (NFS) fill or structural slabs (for instance, structural stoops in front of
building doors). Placement of NFS material in large areas may not be feasible; however,
the following recommendations are provided to help reduce potential frost heave:
■ Provide surface drainage away from the building and slabs, and toward the site
storm drainage system.
■ Place NFS fill as backfill beneath slabs and sidewalk areas critical to the project.
As an alternative to extending NFS fill to the full frost depth, consideration can be made
to placing extruded polystyrene or cellular concrete under a buffer of at least 2 feet of
NFS material.
General Comments
Our analysis and opinions are based upon our understanding of the project, the
geotechnical conditions in the area, and the data obtained from our site exploration.
Variations will occur between exploration point locations or due to the modifying effects
of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become
evident until during or after construction. Terracon should be retained as the
Geotechnical Engineer, where noted in this report, to provide observation and testing
services during pertinent construction phases. If variations appear, we can provide
further evaluation and supplemental recommendations. If variations are noted in the
absence of our observation and testing services on-site, we should be immediately
notified so that we can provide evaluation and supplemental recommendations.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 22
Our Scope of Services does not include either specifically or by implication any
environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or
identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner
is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies
should be undertaken.
Our services and any correspondence are intended for the sole benefit and exclusive use
of our client for specific application to the project discussed and are accomplished in
accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices with no third-
party beneficiaries intended. Any third-party access to services or correspondence is
solely for information purposes to support the services provided by Terracon to our
client. Reliance upon the services and any work product is limited to our client and is not
intended for third parties. Any use or reliance of the provided information by third
parties is done solely at their own risk. No warranties, either express or implied, are
intended or made.
Site characteristics as provided are for design purposes and not to estimate excavation
cost. Any use of our report in that regard is done at the sole risk of the excavating cost
estimator as there may be variations on the site that are not apparent in the data that
could significantly affect excavation cost. Any parties charged with estimating excavation
costs should seek their own site characterization for specific purposes to obtain the
specific level of detail necessary for costing. Site safety and cost estimating including
excavation support and dewatering requirements/design are the responsibility of others.
Construction and site development have the potential to affect adjacent properties. Such
impacts can include damages due to vibration, modification of groundwater/surface
water flow during construction, as well as noise or air quality concerns. Evaluation of
these items on nearby properties are commonly associated with contractor means and
methods and are not addressed in this report. The owner and contractor should consider
a preconstruction/precondition survey of surrounding development. If changes in the
nature, design, or location of the project are planned, our conclusions and
recommendations shall not be considered valid unless we review the changes and either
verify or modify our conclusions in writing.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials
Figures
Contents:
GeoModel
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
100
ELEVATION (MSL) (feet)Layering shown on this figure has been developed by the geotechnical
engineer for purposes of modeling the subsurface conditions asrequired for the subsequent geotechnical engineering for this project.Numbers adjacent to soil column indicate depth below ground surface.
NOTES:
B1
B2
B3
B4 T1
P1
P2
P3
This is not a cross section. This is intended to display the Geotechnical Model only. See individual logs for more detailed conditions.
Geomodel
1392 13th Ave SW
Chick-fil-A-04665 Bozeman, Montana
North 19th Avenue and Valley Center Drive | Bozeman, MT
Great Falls, MT
Terracon Project No. C4245027
Groundwater levels are temporal. The levels shown are representative of the dateand time of our exploration. Significant changes are possible over time.Water levels shown are as measured during and/or after drilling. In some cases,
boring advancement methods mask the presence/absence of groundwater. Seeindividual logs for details.
First Water Observation
-2" Poorly Graded, Silty Gravel with Sand, subrounded to3subangular, wet, medium to very dense
LEGEND
Asphalt Concrete
Aggregate Base Course
Silty Gravel with Sand
Lean Clay
Topsoil
Clayey Gravel
Model Layer General DescriptionLayer Name
Asphaltic Concrete Surfacing1
2 -1 1/2 " Crushed aggregate base course
Native Gravel
AC Pavement
Aggregate Base Course
0.5
2.5
15
1
2
3
2.5
0.4
1.31.5
1
2
3
0.4
2
11.5
1
2
3
2.5
0.5
2
11
1
2
3
2.5
0.5
9
2
3
2
7
3
2
0.4
2
10.5
1
2
3
2.5 1
8.7
2
3
2.5
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials
Attachments
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials
Exploration and Testing Procedures
Field Exploration
Number of Borings Approximate Boring
Depth (feet) Location
4 1.5 to 15 or auger refusal building
4 7 to 10.5 or auger refusal pavement / utilities
Boring Layout and Elevations: Terracon personnel provided the boring layout using
tape measurement and referencing existing site features. Ground surface elevations at
the boring locations were determined by rod and level survey referenced to the existing
rest area building.
Subsurface Exploration Procedures: We advanced the borings with a truck-mounted
drill rig using continuous hollow stem flight augers. In general, four to five samples were
obtained in the upper 10 feet of each boring with additional samples obtained at
intervals of 5 feet thereafter. In the split-barrel sampling procedure, a standard 2-inch
outer diameter split-barrel sampling spoon was driven into the ground by a 140-pound
automatic hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to
advance the sampling spoon the last 12 inches of a normal 18-inch penetration is
recorded as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance value. The SPT resistance
values, also referred to as N-values, are indicated on the boring logs at the test depths.
For safety purposes, all borings were backfilled with auger cuttings after their
completion. Pavements were patched with pre-mixed concrete.
We also observed the boreholes while drilling and at the completion of drilling for the
presence of groundwater. The groundwater levels are shown on the attached boring
logs.
The sampling depths, penetration distances, and other sampling information were
recorded on the field boring logs. The samples were placed in appropriate containers and
taken to our soil laboratory for testing and classification by a Geotechnical Engineer. Our
exploration team prepared field boring logs as part of the drilling operations. These field
logs included visual classifications of the materials observed during drilling and our
interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. Final boring logs were
prepared from the field logs. The final boring logs represent the Geotechnical Engineer's
interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on observations and tests
of the samples in our laboratory.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials
Laboratory Testing
The project engineer reviewed the field data and assigned laboratory tests. The
laboratory testing program included the following types of tests:
■ Moisture Content
■ Atterberg Limits
■ Grain Size Analysis
■ Corrosivity Suite
■ Standard Proctor
The laboratory testing program included observation of soil samples by an engineer.
Based on the results of our field and laboratory programs, we described and classified
the soil samples in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials
Site Location and Exploration Plans
Contents:
Site Location
Exploration Plan
Note: All attachments are one page unless noted above.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials
Note to Preparer: This is a large table with outside borders. Just click inside the table
above this text box, then paste your GIS Toolbox image.
When paragraph markers are turned on you may notice a line of hidden text above
and outside the table – please leave that alone. Limit editing to inside the table.
The line at the bottom about the general location is a separate table line. You can edit
it as desired, but try to keep to a single line of text to avoid reformatting the page.
Site Location
DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES MAP PROVIDED BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials
Note to Preparer: This is a large table with outside borders. Just click inside the table
above this text box, then paste your GIS Toolbox image.
When paragraph markers are turned on you may notice a line of hidden text above
and outside the table – please leave that alone. Limit editing to inside the table.
The line at the bottom about the general location is a separate table line. You can edit
it as desired, but try to keep to a single line of text to avoid reformatting the page.
Exploration Plan (Landscape)
DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES MAP PROVIDED BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Exploration and Laboratory Results
Contents:
Boring Logs (B-1 through B-4, P-1 through P-3, and T-1)
Atterberg Limits
Grain Size Distribution
Corrosivity
Moisture Density Relationship
Note: All attachments are one page unless noted above.
99.29
97.29
84.79
ASPHALT CONCRETE
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE (GW), subangular tosubrounded, brown, moist, medium dense
SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GM), subrounded, brown, wet,dense to very dense, gravels to 2", 1' of heave 13.5'-14.5'
Auger Refusal at 15 Feet
Boring Log No. B-1
Depth (Ft.)5
10
15 Water LevelObservationsFacilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | MaterialsGraphic Log4.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
12.0
14.0
29.0
0.5
2.5
15.0
0.8
1.2
1
0.7
0.8
1.1
12-12-12N=24
15-25-22N=47
14-25-23N=48
8-12-18N=30
8-30-30N=60
0-1-26N=27
Water Level Observations
Abandonment MethodBoring backfilled with Auger CuttingsSurface capped with asphalt
Advancement MethodHollow Stem AugerNotes
Elevation Reference: Elevations were measured in the field using an engineer's level andgrade rod.
Hammer TypeAutomatic
DrillerChris Tigert/Boland Drilling
Logged byJim Pierce
Boring Started05-06-2024
Boring Completed05-06-2024
1392 13th Ave SW
Drill RigMobile B-59
Chick-fil-A-04665 Bozeman, Montana
Great Falls, MT
North 19th Avenue and Valley Center Drive | Bozeman, MT
Terracon Project No. C4245027
2.5' while sampling
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratoryprocedures used and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.Sample TypePercentFinesWaterContent (%)Elevation.: 99.79 (Ft.)
AtterbergLimits
LL-PL-PI
Location:
Latitude: 45.7115° Longitude: -111.0635°
See Exploration Plan
Depth (Ft.)Recovery ()Field TestResults
ASPHALT CONCRETE
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE (GW), fine to coarse grained
SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GM)
Auger Refusal at 1.5 Feet
98.75
97.8597.65
Boring Log No. B-2
Depth (Ft.)Water LevelObservationsGraphic LogFacilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials
0.4
1.31.5
Water Level Observations
Abandonment MethodBoring backfilled with Auger CuttingsSurface capped with asphalt
Advancement MethodHollow Stem AugerNotes
Elevation Reference: Elevations were measured in the field using an engineer's level andgrade rod.
Hammer TypeAutomatic
DrillerChris Tigert/Boland Drilling
Logged byJim Pierce
Boring Started05-06-2024
Boring Completed05-06-2024
1392 13th Ave SW
Drill RigMobile B-59
Chick-fil-A-04665 Bozeman, Montana
Great Falls, MT
North 19th Avenue and Valley Center Drive | Bozeman, MT
Terracon Project No. C4245027
Groundwater not encountered
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratoryprocedures used and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.Sample TypePercentFinesLocation:
Latitude: 45.7115° Longitude: -111.0630°
See Exploration Plan
Depth (Ft.)Recovery ()Field TestResultsWaterContent (%)Elevation.: 99.15 (Ft.)
AtterbergLimits
LL-PL-PI
99.58
97.98
88.48
ASPHALT CONCRETE
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE (GW), fine to coarse grained,subangular, -1 1/2" gravel
SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GM), subangular to rounded,wet, dense to very dense, gravels to +2", sand poorly graded,medium grained lens below 5.5'
Auger Refusal at 11.5 Feet
Boring Log No. B-3
Depth (Ft.)5
10 Water LevelObservationsFacilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | MaterialsGraphic Log1
1
0.2
0.9
25-38-32N=70
3-25-27N=52
7-14-19N=33
18-24-29N=53
7.0
14.0
14.0
11.0
0.4
2.0
11.5
Water Level Observations
Abandonment MethodBoring backfilled with Auger CuttingsSurface capped with asphalt
Advancement MethodHollow Stem AugerNotes
Elevation Reference: Elevations were measured in the field using an engineer's level andgrade rod.
Hammer TypeAutomatic
DrillerChris Tigert/Boland Drilling
Logged byJim Pierce
Boring Started05-06-2024
Boring Completed05-06-2024
1392 13th Ave SW
Drill RigMobile B-59
Chick-fil-A-04665 Bozeman, Montana
Great Falls, MT
North 19th Avenue and Valley Center Drive | Bozeman, MT
Terracon Project No. C4245027
2.5' while sampling
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratoryprocedures used and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.Sample TypePercentFinesField TestResultsWaterContent (%)Elevation.: 99.98 (Ft.)
AtterbergLimits
LL-PL-PI
Location:
Latitude: 45.7114° Longitude: -111.0635°
See Exploration Plan
Depth (Ft.)Recovery ()
98.94
97.44
88.44
ASPHALT CONCRETE
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE (GW), fine to coarse grained,subangular, -1 1/2" gravel
SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GM), subangular to subrounded,wet, dense to very dense, gravels to +2", sand poorly graded,fine grained below 5.0'
Auger Refusal at 11 Feet
Boring Log No. B-4
Depth (Ft.)5
10 Water LevelObservationsFacilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | MaterialsGraphic Log13.0
14.0
15.0
13.0
0.5
2.0
11.0
0.5
1
1.2
1.1
11-26-16N=42
8-17-24N=41
17-26-45N=71
12-24-18N=42
Water Level Observations
Abandonment MethodBoring backfilled with Auger CuttingsSurface capped with asphalt
Advancement MethodHollow Stem AugerNotes
Elevation Reference: Elevations were measured in the field using an engineer's level andgrade rod.
Hammer TypeAutomatic
DrillerChris Tigert/Boland Drilling
Logged byJim Pierce
Boring Started05-06-2024
Boring Completed05-06-2024
1392 13th Ave SW
Drill RigMobile B-59
Chick-fil-A-04665 Bozeman, Montana
Great Falls, MT
North 19th Avenue and Valley Center Drive | Bozeman, MT
Terracon Project No. C4245027
2.5' while sampling
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratoryprocedures used and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.Sample TypePercentFinesWaterContent (%)Elevation.: 99.44 (Ft.)
AtterbergLimits
LL-PL-PI
Location:
Latitude: 45.7114° Longitude: -111.0630°
See Exploration Plan
Depth (Ft.)Recovery ()Field TestResults
98.49
98.19
89.99
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE (GW), fine to coarse grained,subangular to subrounded, moist, -1" gravel
FILL - LEAN CLAY (CL), black, moist, reworked
SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GM), subrounded, dark brown,wet, medium dense to dense, sand poorly graded, mediumgrained lens below 5.0'
Boring Terminated at 9 Feet
Boring Log No. T-1
Depth (Ft.)5 Water LevelObservationsFacilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | MaterialsGraphic Log6.0
12.0
29.0
11.0
0.5
0.8
9.0
1.1
0.9
0.8
1.3
10-6-14N=20
15-20-16N=36
7-5-1N=6
15-22-26N=48
Water Level Observations
Abandonment MethodBoring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.
Advancement MethodHollow Stem AugerNotes
Elevation Reference: Elevations were measured in the field using an engineer's level andgrade rod.
Hammer TypeAutomatic
DrillerChris Tigert/Boland Drilling
Logged byJim Pierce
Boring Started05-07-2024
Boring Completed05-07-2024
1392 13th Ave SW
Drill RigMobile B-59
Chick-fil-A-04665 Bozeman, Montana
Great Falls, MT
North 19th Avenue and Valley Center Drive | Bozeman, MT
Terracon Project No. C4245027
2' while sampling
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratoryprocedures used and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.Sample TypePercentFinesWaterContent (%)Elevation.: 98.99 (Ft.)
AtterbergLimits
LL-PL-PI
Location:
Latitude: 45.7117° Longitude: -111.0629°
See Exploration Plan
Depth (Ft.)Recovery ()Field TestResults
96.97
94.97
90.47
TOPSOIL, dark brown
CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC), black, wet, loose
SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GM), dark brown, wet, dense,sand poorly graded, medium grained lens below 5.0'
Boring Terminated at 7 Feet
Boring Log No. P-1
Depth (Ft.)5 Water LevelObservationsFacilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | MaterialsGraphic Log10.0
6.0
13.0
0.5
2.5
7.0
0.4
0.9
1.1
4-4-2N=6
12-22-24N=46
6-25-23N=48
Water Level Observations
Abandonment MethodBoring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.
Advancement MethodHollow Stem AugerNotes
Elevation Reference: Elevations were measured in the field using an engineer's level andgrade rod.
Hammer TypeAutomatic
DrillerChris Tigert/Boland Drilling
Logged byJim Pierce
Boring Started05-06-2024
Boring Completed05-06-2024
1392 13th Ave SW
Drill RigMobile B-59
Chick-fil-A-04665 Bozeman, Montana
Great Falls, MT
North 19th Avenue and Valley Center Drive | Bozeman, MT
Terracon Project No. C4245027
2' while sampling
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratoryprocedures used and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.Sample TypePercentFinesWaterContent (%)Elevation.: 97.47 (Ft.)
AtterbergLimits
LL-PL-PI
Location:
Latitude: 45.7122° Longitude: -111.0634°
See Exploration Plan
Depth (Ft.)Recovery ()Field TestResults
98.91
97.31
88.81
ASPHALT CONCRETE
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE (GW), fine to coarse grained,subangular, -1" crushed gravel
SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GM), subrounded to rounded,dark brown, wet, dense, gravels to +2", sand poorly graded,fine to medium grained lens below 2.5'
Auger Refusal at 10.5 Feet
Boring Log No. P-2
Depth (Ft.)5
10 Water LevelObservationsFacilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | MaterialsGraphic Log5.0
16.0
19.0
13.0
0.4
2.0
10.5
1
1.1
1.2
0.8
1.2
15-17-13N=30
7-14-19N=33
4-19-24N=43
11-17-20N=37
15-18-22N=40
Water Level Observations
Abandonment MethodBoring backfilled with Auger CuttingsSurface capped with asphalt
Advancement MethodHollow Stem AugerNotes
Elevation Reference: Elevations were measured in the field using an engineer's level andgrade rod.
Hammer TypeAutomatic
DrillerChris Tigert/Boland Drilling
Logged byJim Pierce
Boring Started05-07-2024
Boring Completed05-07-2024
1392 13th Ave SW
Drill RigMobile B-59
Chick-fil-A-04665 Bozeman, Montana
Great Falls, MT
North 19th Avenue and Valley Center Drive | Bozeman, MT
Terracon Project No. C4245027
2.5' while sampling
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratoryprocedures used and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.Sample TypePercentFinesWaterContent (%)Elevation.: 99.31 (Ft.)
AtterbergLimits
LL-PL-PI
Location:
Latitude: 45.7116° Longitude: -111.0633°
See Exploration Plan
Depth (Ft.)Recovery ()Field TestResults
97.26
96.26
89.56
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE (GW), black, moist, asphaltmillings surfacing, -1"
FILL - LEAN CLAY (CL), black, moist, reworked
SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GM), dark brown, wet, mediumdense to very dense, sand poorly graded, coarse grained lensbelow 5.5', fine grained lens below 7.5'
Boring Terminated at 8.7 Feet
Boring Log No. P-3
Depth (Ft.)5 Water LevelObservationsFacilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | MaterialsGraphic Log14
7.0
8.0
15.0
18.0
19-18-1
1.0
2.0
8.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
0.7
11-11-5N=16
4-1-15N=16
4-19-18N=37
11-46-50/2"N=96/0.7
Water Level Observations
Abandonment MethodBoring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.
Advancement MethodHollow Stem AugerNotes
Elevation Reference: Elevations were measured in the field using an engineer's level andgrade rod.
Hammer TypeAutomatic
DrillerChris Tigert/Boland Drilling
Logged byJim Pierce
Boring Started05-06-2024
Boring Completed05-06-2024
1392 13th Ave SW
Drill RigMobile B-59
Chick-fil-A-04665 Bozeman, Montana
Great Falls, MT
North 19th Avenue and Valley Center Drive | Bozeman, MT
Terracon Project No. C4245027
2.5' while sampling
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratoryprocedures used and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.Sample TypePercentFinesWaterContent (%)Elevation.: 98.26 (Ft.)
AtterbergLimits
LL-PL-PI
Location:
Latitude: 45.7120° Longitude: -111.0631°
See Exploration Plan
Depth (Ft.)Recovery ()Field TestResults
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110"A" Line
ASTM D4318
CH or
O
H
CL or OL
ML or OL
MH or OH
1 13.6 GM18 1 13.6 GM18 19 SILTY GRAVEL with SAND
Atterberg Limit Results
"U" LineLiquid Limit
LL PL PI Fines USCS DescriptionFinesPlasticity IndexCL - ML
16
4
7
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | MaterialsLaboratory tests are not valid if separated from original report.
1 - 5P-3
Boring ID Depth (Ft)
CFA_Bozeman_4500 E. Valley Center Dr.
4500 East Valley Drive | Bozeman, MT
Terracon Project No. C4245027
Great Falls, MT
1392 13th Ave SW
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0.0010.010.1110100
Grain Size (mm)
30 403 60
U.S. Sieve Numbers
16 20
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
044100632 10 14 506 2001.5 8
1 140
HydrometerU.S. Sieve Opening in Inches
Grain Size Distribution
ASTM D422 / ASTM C136
3/4 1/23/8
D30
0.757Percent Finer by WeightSand Silt or ClayCobblescoarse fine coarse finemedium
GravelPercent Finer by WeightPercent Coarser by WeightBoring ID
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | MaterialsLaboratory tests are not valid if separated from original report.
D60 9.5
CU
Sieve % FinerSieve% Finer
Sieve% Finer
3"2"1 1/2"1"3/4"1/2"3/8"#4#10#20#40#80#100#200
32.4
% Fines
Grain Size
D10
Coefficients
CC
Remarks
100.099.095.084.076.066.060.046.038.031.025.019.017.013.6
54.0
% Cobbles % Gravel % Sand % Clay
0.0
% Silt
13.6
SILTY GRAVEL with SAND
Description
1 - 5
Depth
P-3
CFA_Bozeman_4500 E. Valley Center Dr.
4500 East Valley Drive | Bozeman, MT
Terracon Project No. C4245027
Great Falls, MT
1392 13th Ave SW
USCS
GM
Minimum Soil Resistivity
AASHTO T288-92 (1996)
1392 13th Ave SW, Great Falls, Montana 59404 (406) 453-5400
Project:CFA Bozeman Date:
Job No:Report No.:Sample No.:
Drill Hole:Depth:Tested By:
Classification:Silty Gravel With Sand (GM)Reviewed By:
Material Size:-#10
Remarks:pH = 8.2, Sulfate Content = 0.003% as tested by Energy Labortories in Helena, MT
Soil Data (As Received)
wet (g):na 237 10.00
dry (g):na na 5% Increments 11.85
pan (g):na Beginning MC%10%3,580
Reading Box Constant Multilplier Resistivity
10 8.17 10 100 8,170
15 3.8 10 100 3,800
3.58 10 100 3,580
25 3.6 10 100 3,600
P3
5/29/2024
GRAB
MS
AP
C4245027
1'-5'
C4245027
Initial Moisture %:
% Moisture Added
Resistivity (ohm-cm):
Weight of Sample:
As Received MC%:
20
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10 15 20 25
R
e
s
i
s
t
i
v
i
t
y
(o
h
m
-
c
m
)Percent Moisture %
Minimum Resistivity
Minimum Resistivity
50
54
58
62
66
70
74
78
82
86
90
94
98
102
106
110
114
118
122
126
130
134
138
142
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Curves of 100% Saturationfor Specific Gravity Equal to:
2.80
2.70
2.60
Moisture-Density Relationship
Dry Density (pcf)Water Content (%)
ASTM D698-Method C
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | MaterialsLaboratory tests are not valid if separated from original report.
CFA_Bozeman_4500 E. Valley Center Dr.
4500 East Valley Drive | Bozeman, MT
Terracon Project No. C4245027
Great Falls, MT
1392 13th Ave SW
Description of Materials
Optimum Water Content(%)Maximum Dry Density(pcf)Test Method
ASTM D698-Method C 126.3 10.6
Fines(%)PIPLLLFraction> mm size
0.0
P-3 1 - 5
Depth (Ft)Boring ID
Silty Gravel with Sand (GM)
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Supporting Information
Contents:
General Notes
Unified Soil Classification System
Note: All attachments are one page unless noted above.
Grab
Sample
Shelby
Tube
Split Spoon
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials
1392 13th Ave SW
Chick-Fil-A Restaurant, #04665
June 27, 2024 | Bozeman, MT
Great Falls, MT
Terracon Project No.
C4245027
N
(HP)
(T)
(DCP)
UC
(PID)
(OVA)
Standard Penetration TestResistance (Blows/Ft.)
Hand Penetrometer
Torvane
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
Unconfined CompressiveStrength
Photo-Ionization Detector
Organic Vapor Analyzer
Water Level After aSpecified Period of Time
Water Level Aftera Specified Period of Time
Cave InEncountered
Water Level Field Tests
Water InitiallyEncountered
Sampling
Water levels indicated on the soil boring logs are the
levels measured in the borehole at the times
indicated. Groundwater level variations will occur over
time. In low permeability soils, accurate
determination of groundwater levels is not possible
with short term water level observations.
General Notes
Location And Elevation Notes
Exploration point locations as shown on the Exploration Plan and as noted on the soil boring logs in the form of Latitude and Longitude are
approximate. See Exploration and Testing Procedures in the report for the methods used to locate the exploration points for this project. Surface
elevation data annotated with +/- indicates that no actual topographical survey was conducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface
elevation was approximately determined from topographic maps of the area.
Soil classification as noted on the soil boring logs is based Unified Soil Classification System. Where sufficient laboratory data exist to classify the
soils consistent with ASTM D2487 "Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes" this procedure is used. ASTM D2488 "Description and
Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure)" is also used to classify the soils, particularly where insufficient laboratory data exist to classify the
soils in accordance with ASTM D2487. In addition to USCS classification, coarse grained soils are classified on the basis of their in-place relative
density, and fine-grained soils are classified on the basis of their consistency. See "Strength Terms" table below for details. The ASTM standards
noted above are for reference to methodology in general. In some cases, variations to methods are applied as a result of local practice or
professional judgment.
Exploration/field results and/or laboratory test data contained within this document are intended for application to the project as described in this
document. Use of such exploration/field results and/or laboratory test data should not be used independently of this document.
Relevance of Exploration and Laboratory Test Results
Descriptive Soil Classification
> 30
15 - 30
8 - 15
4 - 8
2 - 4
Hard
> 50 Very Stiff
Stiff
Medium Stiff
Soft
Very Soft
30 - 50
10 - 29
4 - 9
0 - 3Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
less than 0.25
0.25 to 0.50
0.50 to 1.00
1.00 to 2.00
2.00 to 4.00
> 4.00
Relative Density of Coarse-Grained Soils
(More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve.)Density determined by Standard PenetrationResistance
Consistency of Fine-Grained Soils
(50% or more passing the No. 200 sieve.)Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing, field visual-manualprocedures or standard penetration resistance
0 - 1
Relative Density ConsistencyStandard Penetration orN-Value(Blows/Ft.)
Standard Penetration orN-Value(Blows/Ft.)
Unconfined Compressive StrengthQu (tsf)
Strength Terms
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Chick-fil-A Restaurant #04665 | Bozeman, Montana
June 27, 2024 | Terracon Project No. C4245027
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials
Unified Soil Classification System
Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using
Laboratory Tests A
Soil Classification
Group Symbol Group Name B
Coarse-Grained Soils: More than 50% retained
on No. 200 sieve
Gravels: More than 50% of
coarse fraction retained on No. 4
sieve
Clean Gravels: Less than 5% fines C
Cu≥4 and 1≤Cc≤3 E GW Well-graded gravel F
Cu<4 and/or [Cc<1 or Cc>3.0] E GP Poorly graded gravel F
Gravels with Fines:
More than 12% fines C
Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F, G, H
Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F, G, H
Sands: 50% or more of
coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve
Clean Sands: Less than 5% fines D
Cu≥6 and 1≤Cc≤3 E SW Well-graded sand I
Cu<6 and/or [Cc<1 or Cc>3.0] E SP Poorly graded sand I
Sands with Fines:
More than 12% fines D
Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G, H, I
Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G, H, I
Fine-Grained Soils: 50% or more passes the
No. 200 sieve
Silts and Clays:
Liquid limit less than 50
Inorganic: PI > 7 and plots above “A” line J CL Lean clay K, L, M
PI < 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt K, L, M
Organic: 𝐿𝐿 𝑛𝑣𝑑𝑛 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑑
𝐿𝐿 𝑛𝑛𝑡 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑑<0.75 OL Organic clay K, L, M, N
Organic silt K, L, M, O
Silts and Clays:
Liquid limit 50 or more
Inorganic: PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K, L, M
PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic silt K, L, M
Organic: 𝐿𝐿 𝑛𝑣𝑑𝑛 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑑
𝐿𝐿 𝑛𝑛𝑡 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑑<0.75 OH Organic clay K, L, M, P
Organic silt K, L, M, Q
Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat
A Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve. B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with
cobbles or boulders, or both” to group name. C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-
graded gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay.
D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM
poorly graded sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay.
E Cu = D60/D10 Cc =
F If soil contains ≥ 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.
G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.
H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name. I If soil contains ≥ 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.
J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay. K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or
“with gravel,” whichever is predominant. L If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add
“sandy” to group name. M If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add
“gravelly” to group name. N PI ≥ 4 and plots on or above “A” line.
O PI < 4 or plots below “A” line. P PI plots on or above “A” line.
Q PI plots below “A” line.
6010
2
30
DxD
)(D