The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-RMF - Water and Sewer Design Report (2025-05-28) WATER MAIN AND SANITARY SEWER DESIGN REPORT ROCKY MOUNTAIN FLATS (COB Planning App #: 24717) (Alpine Project #: 749-01) Prepared For BlueLine Development, Inc. 1004 South Avenue Missoula, MT 59801 Prepared By 714 Stoneridge Drive, Suite 3 Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 586-5599 September 15, 2025 749-01 – Rocky Mountain Flats Water & Sanitary Sewer Design Report Page 1 September 15, 2025 TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL INFORMATION .............................................................................................................................. 3 WATER MAIN DESIGN REPORT ..................................................................................................................... 4 EXTENT ON WATER WORKS SYSTEM ........................................................................................................ 4 ALTERNATE PLANS .................................................................................................................................... 4 SITE CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 4 WATER USE DATA ..................................................................................................................................... 4 FLOW REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................................................................. 4 SOURCES OF WATER SUPPLY .................................................................................................................... 6 PROPOSED TREATMENT PROCESSES ........................................................................................................ 6 SEWAGE SYSTEM AVAILABLE .................................................................................................................... 6 WASTE DISPOSAL ...................................................................................................................................... 6 AUTOMATION ........................................................................................................................................... 6 PROJECT SITES ........................................................................................................................................... 7 FINANCING ................................................................................................................................................ 7 FUTURE EXTENSIONS ................................................................................................................................ 7 SANITARY SEWER DESIGN REPORT ............................................................................................................... 7 PROBLEM DEFINED ................................................................................................................................... 7 DESIGN CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................ 7 IMPACT OF EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES....................................................................................... 8 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................................. 8 DRAWINGS ................................................................................................................................................ 9 DESIGN CRITERIA ....................................................................................................................................... 9 SITE INFORMATION ................................................................................................................................... 9 ALTERNATIVE SELECTION/ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 9 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...................................................................................................................... 9 749-01 – Rocky Mountain Flats Water & Sanitary Sewer Design Report Page 2 September 15, 2025 APPENDICES Appendix A ........................................................................................... Water Demand and EPANET Results Appendix B ........................................................................................... Sanitary Sewer Demand Calculations Appendix C ..................................................................................................................... Geotechnical Report Appendix D ................................................................................................. Buffalo Run Sewer Design Report 749-01 – Rocky Mountain Flats Water & Sanitary Sewer Design Report Page 3 September 15, 2025 GENERAL INFORMATION The purpose of this report is to detail the water and sanitary sewer system designs for the Rocky Mountain Flats affordable housing project. The following report is outlined to meet the Montana Department of Environmental Quality’s Circular DEQ-1 Standards for Water Works requirements for water design reports and Circular DEQ-2 Standards for Public Sewage Systems requirements for sewer design reports. The proposed project will develop the 10.16-acre site with extensions of the city street grid, a large city park, an open space area, and two apartment sites containing 296 dwelling units between 3 buildings. The property is legally described as N ½ S ½ SW ¼ SW ¼ of Sec. 23, T2S, R5E, PMM, City of Bozeman, MT and the current address for the property is 5532 Fowler Lane, Bozeman, MT 59715. The property currently contains a single-family home and several outbuildings, including a garage and an additional combo garage/ADU. These structures are generally situated on the west side of the site along Fowler Lane and the remainder of the property is open field that was historically in agricultural use. The property is in the process of being annexed into the City of Bozeman with a proposed zoning designation of R-4 (high-density residential). The subject property is currently the southwestern most corner of the city limits of Bozeman and is therefore bordered by a mix of city and county properties. The property to the north is annexed into the city, zoned R-4, and is currently in the process of being developed into a multi-family apartment development known as Buffalo Run. The properties to the east of the site are also annexed into the city, zoned R-3, and are part of a single-family subdivision known as Meadow Creek Subdivision. A city park was complex was constructed along the eastern and northeastern boundaries of the project site as part of both Meadow Creek and Buffalo Run. The properties to the south and west are currently unannexed county properties that are in agricultural use and are zoned AS (Agricultural/Suburban). The property is bounded on the west by Fowler Lane, which is built to a City of Bozeman arterial street standard to the north of the property and transitions from a paved to gravel surface across the property frontage. Meah Lane and S. 31st Ave, both city local streets, intersect and dead end at the southeast corner of the property. Edgerton Ave and Gabriel Ave (also local streets) dead end at the northern property boundary. All of these street sections will either be widened or extended into the property as part of the proposed project. Proposed infrastructure improvements for the project include extensions of the city street grid and extensions of the city water and sanitary sewer systems within the street grid. Fowler Lane will be widened across the project frontage to a city minor arterial standard. Meah Lane will be extended from its current location on the southeastern property corner, west to Fowler Lane. Edgerton Avenue and Gabriel Avenue will be installed across the property from their stubs on the north property line, south to Meah Lane. 749-01 – Rocky Mountain Flats Water & Sanitary Sewer Design Report Page 4 September 15, 2025 WATER MAIN DESIGN REPORT EXTENT ON WATER WORKS SYSTEM The proposed water main extensions for the project will connect to the existing City of Bozeman Domestic Water system and extend the system to serve the proposed apartment buildings. The city system provides domestic water and fire flows for properties within the City of Bozeman, including treatment and storage facilities. The property is located in the southwestern most corner of the city of Bozeman and will represent the southwestern most extent of the city water system, when extended. The current city water system is stubbed into the subject property at 4 locations in the adjacent street rights-of-way and each of these stubs will be extended into the subject property, creating a looped system throughout the development. Extending these mains throughout the development will require approximately 2000’ of 8” DIP water main and 340’ of 16” DIP water main to be installed within the proposed city street extensions. The proposed 8” water main will connect to the existing water main stubs in Meah Lane, Edgerton Avenue, and Gabriel Avenue, while the proposed 16” water main will connect to the existing 16” water main located within Fowler Lane. The proposed development includes a full build out of the project at near maximum density given the lots current zoning and as such, no additional water demand is projected for the property after completion of the project. However, the water main extensions will be stubbed out to the property line to the south at 3 locations for future extension. This will provide an opportunity for future developments to the south and west to connect to the City of Bozeman’s domestic water system. ALTERNATE PLANS The subject property is in the process of being annexed, and once approved will lie within the City of Bozeman boundaries. Therefore, the property will be required to connect to the city system for domestic water supply, so no alternate plans were considered. SITE CONDITIONS As explained previously, the site is currently largely vacant agricultural land with three structures, including two dwelling units on the western half of the project. A septic drain field exists east of the structures and will be removed as part of the development. The property slopes gently to the north at ~2%. Soils horizons from the geotechnical investigation on the site include an ~1’ Silty Clay Organic Soil layer, followed by a ~2-3.5’ Silt Lean Clay. Underlying this horizon is a layer of Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand and Cobbles. Groundwater Monitoring indicated levels of seasonal high groundwater ranging from ~2.5’ to 3.5’ below ground surface. WATER USE DATA Section 4.2.4 of the City of Bozeman Design and Construction Standards (October 2024) requires development with known densities to use a population estimate of 2.17 people per dwelling unit and an average daily water usage of 135 gallons per capita. Peaking factors of 2.3 for Maximum Day Demand and 3.0 for Peak Hour Demand were used to calculate water demands and are summarized in Table 1 in the section below. Irrigation for the site landscaping is to be provided by an exempt groundwater well. FLOW REQUIREMENTS In addition to the domestic water demand, fire flow requirements pose a significant demand on the domestic water system, from both hydraulic and storage perspectives. Table 4.2.4 in Section 4.2.7 of the 749-01 – Rocky Mountain Flats Water & Sanitary Sewer Design Report Page 5 September 15, 2025 City of Bozeman’s Design and Construction Standards shows a fire flow requirement of 3,000 gallons per minute for Medium and High-Density Residential Development and otherwise in accordance with the International Fire Code (IFC). Table B105.2 of the 2024 IFC indicates that buildings designed with sprinklers meeting the requirements of the IFC shall reduce the required fire flow to 25% of the value required in Table B105.2 of the IFC, but to not less than 1,500 gpm if the sprinkler system meets the requirements of Section 903.1.2 of the IFC and to not less than 1,000 gpm if the sprinkler system meets the requirements of Section 903.1.1 of the IFC. The proposed development will have fully sprinkled buildings. Conservatively, a fire flow rate of 1,500 gallons per minute at the fire hydrants on site was used to calculate Maximum Day Demand Plus Fire Flow, as required by the City’s Design Standards. A summary of the demands are included below in Table 1. The City of Bozeman’s Design and Construction Standards require that the domestic water system be designed for the two design scenarios outlined in Table 1, the Maximum Day Demand (MDD) plus Fire flow, and the Peak Hour Demand (PHD). Section 8.2.1 of DEQ Circular 1 requires an absolute minimum pressure of 20 psi with a normal minimum working pressure 35 psi. The City of Bozeman has more conservative standards with the working pressure being no less than 50 psi and a minimum pressure of 35 psi under peak hour demand when approved the City Engineering Division. Bozeman also requires no less than 20 psi at any point in the water distribution system. Additionally, the City of Bozeman requires water main velocities to be under 10 feet per second for distribution mains under 10” diameter. The water distribution system was analyzed using EPANET Version 2.2.0 to evaluate the system for adequate pressure, flows, and check water main velocities. Domestic demand was applied to demand nodes located at the approximate locations where the domestic services for the buildings connect to the mains, and the water mains were run as links through Meah Lane, Fowler Avenue, Edgerton Avenue and Gabriel Avenue. The connection to the existing water system was modeled using a pump curve and reservoir located at the corner of Meah Lane and S. 31st Avenue. The pump curve was generated from hydrant flow data at this location that was provided by the City of Bozeman with the Buffalo Run development. The pump curve data is included in the EPA results in Appendix A. Building Demand Junction Dwellings Population Average Day (GPM) Max Day (GPM) Peak Hour (GPM) A N8-1 74 161 15.09 34.72 45.28 B N18-1 111 241 22.59 51.97 67.78 C N22-1 111 241 22.59 51.97 67.78 Total 296 643 60.28 138.65 180.84 Inputs Population / Dwelling 2.17 Persons (per COB DSSP) Domestic Water Use 135 Gallons Per Day per capita (per COB DSSP) Fire Flow 1500 Gallons Per Minute* Design Scenario Flow Rate (GPM) Max Daily Demand and Fire Flow 1638.6 Peak Hour Deamand 180.8 *Generated from EPA Net *Based on 2017 IFC Minimum Require Fire Flow and Flow Duration for Buildings. Table 1: Rocky Mountain Flats Water Demand 749-01 – Rocky Mountain Flats Water & Sanitary Sewer Design Report Page 6 September 15, 2025 The system was analyzed under three conditions, one under fire flows and MDD with an 8” water main in Meah Lane, one under fire flows and MDD with a 10” water main in Meah Lane, and a third scenario running PHD and an 8” water main in Meah Lane. The 1,500 GPM fire flows were applied to a node representing the fire hydrant at the northeastern corner of the intersection of Fowler Lane and Meah Lane. This hydrant is the furthest up gradient and most hydraulically distant in the proposed system from the connection to the existing system and is therefore a conservative choice for checking fire flow. The EPANET results showed that in order to meet maximum velocity and minimum pressure requirements during the MDD with fire flow scenario, a 10” dia. water main would be required in Meah Lane. Adequate working pressures during PHD above 35 psi and maximum velocity requirements were met when with an 8” water main in Meah Lane. It should be noted that the EPANET modeling is limited in its scope as it can only model a single connection point to the over all system. Ultimately, the proposed water system will connect to the surrounding city system at four locations, creating a looped system. For these reasons, the results of the three different modeling scenarios were provided to the City of Bozeman with the initial site plan submittal. The city added the proposed main extensions and domestic / fire demands to their city’s all pipe hydraulic model, which is able to model the system as a whole, not just a single connection point. The city model produced distribution pressures ranging from 36 psi to 44 psi during the MDD scenario for an 8” main in Meah Lane. The city provided these results in their initial site plan review and confirmed that based on their results, proceeding with an 8” main in Meah Lane would be acceptable. The system modeling results were provided to both the fire suppression and plumbing engineers who are designing the proposed buildings on site. As a result of the low pressure, the fire suppression engineers are designing fire booster pumps on the fire service lines in all buildings. The plumbing engineers designing the domestic system within the buildings will evaluate the need for booster pumps on the domestic services as well. Both of these designs will be submitted to the City of Bozeman for review with the building permit application. SOURCES OF WATER SUPPLY Other than the groundwater well for irrigation, no other sources of water supply are to be developed with the proposed main extensions for this project. The domestic water supply is provided by the City of Bozeman. PROPOSED TREATMENT PROCESSES No water source treatment processes are proposed with this project. SEWAGE SYSTEM AVAILABLE The proposed project will be served by the existing and proposed City of Bozeman sanitary sewer mains surrounding the site. WASTE DISPOSAL No water treatment is proposed with this project. Therefore, no waste disposal from water treatment is necessary. AUTOMATION No automation is proposed with this development. 749-01 – Rocky Mountain Flats Water & Sanitary Sewer Design Report Page 7 September 15, 2025 PROJECT SITES The proposed water mains will lie within the City of Bozeman dedicated public road and utility easements. No additional sites were considered for the water main extensions and alignments. No known on-site conditions exist that might influence the operation of the proposed water distribution system. FINANCING The project will be privately financed. FUTURE EXTENSIONS The proposed water distribution system will be extended to the property line to the south in Edgerton Ave, Gabriel Ave, and Fowler Lane for future expansion into adjacent properties to the south and west when they annex to the city. SANITARY SEWER DESIGN REPORT PROBLEM DEFINED The existing sanitary sewer system in the vicinity of the project site includes 8” PVC sanitary sewer main in Gabriel Avenue and Edgerton Avenue and 15” PVC Sanitary Sewer Main in Fowler Lane. Wastewater from the Rocky Mountain Flats project will flow north in Gabriel Avenue and Edgerton Avenue to the existing 8” PVC mains and on to an existing 8” PVC main in Kurk Drive, located on the north side of the Buffalo Run project. This 8” main in Kurk Drive then flows west into the 15” sewer main in Fowler Lane. The 15” main in Fowler was sized in accordance with the City of Bozeman Wastewater Collection Facilities Plan Update (2015) to provide adequate future drainage to the properties along Fowler Lane. The main in Fowler Lane ultimately flows to the existing Davis-Fowler Interceptor. Since the 15” main in Fowler Lane was sized with the facilities plan update, the intent of this report is to verify that adequate capacity exists in the proposed 8” main extensions within the Rocky Mountain Flats project and the 8” main in Kurk Drive. Since the 8” main in Kurk Drive receives sewer flow from all of the Rocky Mountain Flats project and all of the Buffalo Run Project, the combined flow rate from both developments was analyzed to see if the 8” main in Kurk Drive could accommodate the combined flow rate. The 8” main in Kurk Drive is also laid relatively flat at 0.45%, while the flattest section of main in Edgerton and Gabriel Avenues is 0.75%. Therefore, if the 0.45% section of main in Kurk Drive can accommodate the combined flow rate from the both developments, than it can be assumed that the steeper 8” mains in Edgerton Ave and Gabriel Ave can each accommodate their respective portions of this total flow. DESIGN CONDITIONS The proposed Rocky Mountain Flats project includes 296 dwelling units across the three proposed buildings. Buffalo Run is planned to have 237 units at full build out. During the City’s wastewater facility plan update it was determined that there are approximately 2.17 persons per dwelling unit in the City of Bozeman. From the 2015 facilities update plan, the average daily wastewater generation rate per capita is 64.4 gallons per day. A peaking factor was also calculated using the Harmon Formula from Section 5.25. of the City of Bozeman’s Design and Construction Standards (2024). Because the project is located with an area of shallow ground water, infiltration is also included with an estimate of 150 gallons per day per acre of infiltration into the sewer system. Infiltration from the Buffalo Run project is also included in the peak flow calculations for the Kurk Drive sewer main. 749-01 – Rocky Mountain Flats Water & Sanitary Sewer Design Report Page 8 September 15, 2025 Per the City of Bozeman Design and Construction Standards (2024), the sewer capacity calculations must consider the flow within a minimum main size of 8-inches flowing 75% full. A Manning’s friction factor of n=0.013 was also used in the calculation. Estimated peak flow calculations and pipe capacity calculations are included in Table 2 below and in Appendix B. The Buffalo Run Sewer Design Report is included in Appendix D for reference. Table 2 – Peak sanitary Sewer Calculations and Pipe Capacity Calculations Based on the above results, the total sewer flow generated by the two developments at Kurk Drive would be 0.47 cfs and the capacity of the 8” main in Kurk Drive flowing 75% full is 0.70 cfs. Therefore, it is expected that sufficient capacity exists in the mains downstream of the Rocky Mountain Flats project to convey flows from the project to the 15” trunk main in Fowler Lane. Since no connections are proposed to the 15” trunk main across the project site, the capacity of this portion of the trunk main was not analyzed with this report. IMPACT OF EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES As discussed in the previous section, the 2015 City of Bozeman Wastewater Facilitates Plan Update found adequate capacity in the existing facilities including the proposed 15” PVC main in Fowler Lane and the Davis-Fowler Interceptor. This report and plans for the proposed sanitary sewer mains will be provided to the City of Bozeman as part of the site plan review and infrastructure permitting process. It is understood that approval of the design plans and reports indicate adequate capacity for the proposed development within the city sewer system. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project includes the installation of 339’ of 15” PVC Sanitary Sewer in Fowler Lane, 332’ of 8” PVC Sanitary Sewer in Gabriel Avenue and 332’ of 8” PVC main Edgerton Avenue with associated manholes. Appurtenant 8” sanitary sewer services will serve the proposed buildings. Sewer Main Dwelling Units Population Average Day GPD Peaking Factor Peak Hour Flow (GPM) Design Flow Rate (CFS) Gabriel Avenue 111 241 15,520.4 4.12 44.4 0.0989 Edgerton Boulevard 185 402 25,888.8 4.02 72.3 0.1610 Buffalo Run 237 515 33,166.0 3.97 91.4 0.2037 Total 533 1158.0 74,575.2 - 208.12 0.4637 10 Acres 150 Gal./Acre/Day 1.04 GPM 2.08 GPM 3.12 GPM 211.24 GPM 0.4706 CFS Pipe Pipe Size (in) Flow Depth - d (in) Slope (ft/ft) Manning's n Flow (CFS) On-Site 8" PVC 8 6 0.004 0.013 0.70 8" PVC Pipe Capacity Total Infiltration (Buffalo Run) (20 acres) Peak Design Flow and Infiltration Peak Sanitary Sewer Demand Calculation RMF Lot Area Infiltration Rate Total Infiltration (RMF) Total Design Infiltration 749-01 – Rocky Mountain Flats Water & Sanitary Sewer Design Report Page 9 September 15, 2025 DRAWINGS The locations of the water, sewer and stormwater facilities are shown in the civil site plan application sheets for the City of Bozeman review. It is understood that infrastructure design and review will include construction drawings showing the sewer alignments and profiles in accordance with the City of Bozeman Design and Construction Standards (2024), City of Bozeman Modifications to the Montana Public Works Standard Specifications 7th Edition (2024), the Montana Public Works Standard Specifications 7th Edition (April 2021), and MDEQ Circular 2. DESIGN CRITERIA Peak flows were estimated as outlined in the Design Conditions portion of this report. It is understood that the proposed sanitary sewer mains and manholes will meet requirements set forth in MDEQ Circular 2 and the MPWSS for minimum separation for other utilities, alignment and minimum slope. The proposed infrastructure will also meet the requirements of the City of Bozeman Design and Construction Standards (2024) and the City’s modifications to the MPWSS, including pipe material, sizing and maximum separation. SITE INFORMATION The site is currently largely agricultural land with three structures, including two dwelling units on the western half of the project. A septic drain field exists east of the structures. The property slopes gently to the north at ~2%. Soils horizons include an ~1’ Silty Clay Organic Soil, followed by a ~2-3.5’ Silt Lean Clay. Underlying this horizon is a layer of Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand and Cobbles. Groundwater Monitoring indicated levels of groundwater ranging from ~2.5’ to 3.5’ below ground surface. A copy of the geotechnical report is included in Appendix C. ALTERNATIVE SELECTION/ANALYSIS No alternatives to the proposed sewer main extensions have been explored. The proposed mains and manholes will lie within dedicated public road and utility easements, that are extensions of the City’s existing road network. The project is privately funded and as such, no alternative locations have been considered. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The proposed project will provide adequate sanitation by conveying raw sewage to the City’s Wastewater Treatment plant. It is understood that the plant has adequate capacity to meet the needs of the proposed project. Appendix A WATER DEMAND AND EPANET RESULTS CITY OF BOZEMAN Fire Flow Request Form PHONE (406) 582-3200 FAX (406) 582-3201 Date June 18, 2025 Location Rocky Mountain Flats Pressure Zone HGL 5125 (S) GIS Hydrant ID# 2108 Adjacent Main Size 8-inch DI Model Scenario Maximum Day Demand, Steady State, Fire Flow Reference 2017 Water Facility Plan Update1 Hydrant Curves An Excel Spreadsheet with hydrant curves has been provided for the requested location Requested Location via the Bozeman Infrastructure Viewer2 If you have questions or need further information feel free to email. Data Disclaimer: Water distribution information is calculated using hydraulic modeling software and is subject to variation. Actual field conditions may vary. This information is provided to the requestor for evaluation purposes only, without warranty of any kind, including, but not limited to any expressed or implied warranty arising by contract, stature, or law. In no event regardless of cause, shall the City be liable for any direct, indirect, special, punitive or consequential damages of any kind whether such damages arise under contract, tort, strict liability or inequity. HOME OF MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY GATEWAY TO YELLOWSTONE PARK 1 https://www.bozeman.net/home/showpublisheddocument/4977/636420174896170000 2 https://gisweb.bozeman.net/Html5Viewer/?viewer=infrastructure Hydrant Elevation: 5017.16 GIS Hydrant # Available Flow (gpm) Residual Pressure (psi) Residual Pressure (ft)2108 0 40.03 92.47 200 39.59 91.45 400 39.01 90.11 600 38.34 88.57 800 37.56 86.76 1,000.00 36.64 84.64 1,200.00 35.56 82.14 1,400.00 34.34 79.33 1,600.00 32.98 76.18 1,800.00 31.49 72.74 2,000.00 29.86 68.98 2,200.00 28.11 64.93 2,400.00 26.22 60.57 2,600.00 24.21 55.93 2,800.00 22.07 50.98 3,000.00 19.81 45.76 3,200.00 17.42 40.24 3,400.00 14.92 34.47 3,600.00 12.29 28.39 3,800.00 9.55 22.06 4,000.00 6.68 15.43 4,200.00 3.7 8.55 4,400.00 0.61 1.41 4,438.57 0 0.00 Hydrant Curve 0510152025303540450 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000Residual Pressure (psi)Available Flow (gpm)Hydrant Curve 2108Data Disclaimer: Water distribution information is calculated using hydraulic modeling software and is subject to variation. Actual field conditions may vary. This information is provided to the requestor for evaluation purposes only, without warranty of any kind, including, but not limited to any expressed or implied warranty arising by contract, stature, or law. In no event regardless of cause, shall the City be liable for any direct, indirect, special, punitive or consequential damages of any kind whether such damages arise under contract, tort, strict liability or inequity. P11P6P5P4P21P17P16P11-1P12-1P17-1P7-1P3P22-1P7P8P8-1P12P13P15P18-1P2P1P22P23-1P23P24P9P10P9-1P18P19P20P19-1P4-1P14PMP-1N13N11N10N6N5N4N3N2N24N21N20N17N16N15N14HYD3HYD1HYD4N12HYD5HYD2N7N22-1N22N18-1N18N8-1N8N1N0N23N23-1N9N9-1N19N19-1R-1MEAH LANEFOWLER LANEEDGERTON AVENUEGABRIEL AVENUE(DEMAND JUNCTION)(DEMAND JUNCTION)(FIRE FLOW JUNCTION)(DEMAND JUNCTION)Pressure20.0035.0050.0075.00psiVelocity0.012.005.0010.00fpsDay 1, 12:00 AMNode Map - FF+MDD 8in - MeahEPANET 2Page 1 Network Table - LinksLength Diameter Roughness Flow Velocity Unit Headloss Friction Factor Link ID ft in GPM fps ft/KftPipe P11 24 8 130 -1500.02 9.57 38.70 0.018Pipe P6 113 8 130 -1586.74 10.13 42.95 0.018Pipe P5 97 8 130 -1586.74 10.13 42.95 0.018Pipe P4 24 8 130 -1586.75 10.13 42.95 0.018Pipe P21 76 8 130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P17 162 8 130 -51.99 0.33 0.08 0.029Pipe P16 35 8 130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P11-1 14 6 130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P12-1 14 6 130 -1500.00 17.02 157.16 0.017Pipe P17-1 10 6 130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P7-1 14 6 130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P3 189 8 130 1638.72 10.46 45.59 0.018Pipe P22-1 34 4 130 51.97 1.33 2.24 0.027Pipe P7 261 8 130 1586.74 10.13 42.95 0.018Pipe P8 74 8 130 1586.74 10.13 42.96 0.018Pipe P8-1 40 4 130 34.72 0.89 1.06 0.029Pipe P12 347 8 130 1500.01 9.57 38.71 0.018Links - FF+MDD 8in - MeahEPANET 2Page 1 Length Diameter Roughness Flow Velocity Unit Headloss Friction Factor Link ID ft in GPM fps ft/KftPipe P13 77 8 130 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P15 292 16 130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P18-1 37 4 130 51.97 1.33 2.23 0.027Pipe P2 43 8 130 -1638.72 10.46 45.59 0.018Pipe P1 26 100 130 -1638.72 0.07 0.00 0.000Pipe P22 166 8 130 51.97 0.33 0.08 0.030Pipe P23-1 34 6 130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P23 5 8 130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P24 84 8 130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P9 4 8 130 1552.02 9.91 41.26 0.018Pipe P10 141 8 130 1552.02 9.91 41.23 0.018Pipe P9-1 40 6 130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P18 43 8 130 51.98 0.33 0.08 0.031Pipe P19 3 8 130 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P20 90 8 130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P19-1 37 6 130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P4-1 14 6 130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P14 45 16 130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000Links - FF+MDD 8in - MeahEPANET 2Page 2 Length Diameter Roughness Flow Velocity Unit Headloss Friction Factor Link ID ft in GPM fps ft/KftPump PMP-1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 1638.72 0.00 -75.51 0.000Links - FF+MDD 8in - MeahEPANET 2Page 3 Network Table - Nodes Elevation Demand Head Pressure Node ID ft GPM ft psi Junc N13 5011.53 0.00 5034.71 10.04 Junc N11 5012.58 0.00 5048.14 15.41 Junc N10 5012.73 0.00 5049.07 15.75 Junc N6 5014.09 0.00 5069.44 23.98 Junc N5 5013.78 0.00 5074.29 26.22 Junc N4 5013.96 0.00 5078.46 27.95 Junc N3 5014.12 0.00 5079.49 28.32 Junc N2 5014.55 0.00 5088.10 31.87 Junc N24 5008.18 0.00 5079.47 30.89 Junc N21 5013.52 0.00 5079.49 28.58 Junc N20 5006.62 0.00 5049.05 18.39 Junc N17 5009.15 0.00 5049.06 17.29 Junc N16 5012.74 0.00 5049.07 15.74 Junc N15 5006.93 0.00 5034.71 12.04 Junc N14 5012.2 0.00 5034.71 9.75 Junc HYD3 5012.91 0.00 5048.14 15.27 Junc HYD1 5014.29 0.00 5078.46 27.80 Junc HYD4 5012.49 1500.00 5032.51 8.67 Junc N12 5012.17 0.00 5034.71 9.77 Junc HYD5 5009.57 0.00 5049.06 17.11 Junc HYD2 5012.42 0.00 5058.23 19.85 Junc N7 5012.10 0.00 5058.23 19.99 Junc N22-1 5010 51.97 5079.40 30.07 Junc N22 5009.99 0.00 5079.47 30.11 Junc N18-1 5006.25 51.97 5048.97 18.51 Junc N18 5006.25 0.00 5049.05 18.55 Nodes - FF+MDD 8in - Meah EPANET 2 Page 1 Elevation Demand Head Pressure Node ID ft GPM ft psi Junc N8-1 5012.6 34.72 5055.00 18.37 Junc N8 5012.58 0.00 5055.05 18.40 Junc N1 5014.55 0.00 5090.06 32.72 Junc N0 5014.55 0.00 5090.06 32.72 Junc N23 5009.87 0.00 5079.47 30.16 Junc N23-1 5010 0.00 5079.47 30.10 Junc N9 5012.60 0.00 5054.88 18.32 Junc N9-1 5012.6 0.00 5054.88 18.32 Junc N19 5006.20 0.00 5049.05 18.57 Junc N19-1 5006.25 0.00 5049.05 18.55 Resvr R-1 5014.55 -1638.72 5014.55 0.00 Nodes - FF+MDD 8in - Meah EPANET 2 Page 2 P11P6P5P4P21P17P16P11-1P12-1P17-1P7-1P3P22-1P7P8P8-1P12P13P15P18-1P2P1P22P23-1P23P24P9P10P9-1P18P19P20P19-1P4-1P14PMP-1N13N11N10N6N5N4N3N2N24N21N20N17N16N15N14HYD3HYD1HYD4N12HYD5HYD2N7N22-1N22N18-1N18N8-1N8N1N0N23N23-1N9N9-1N19N19-1R-1EDGERTON AVENUEGABRIEL AVENUEMEAH LANEFOWLER LANE(DEMAND JUNCTION)(DEMAND JUNCTION)(DEMAND JUNCTION)Pressure20.0035.0050.0075.00psiVelocity0.012.005.0010.00fpsDay 1, 12:00 AMNode Map - PHDEPANET 2Page 1 Network Table - LinksLength Diameter Roughness Flow Velocity Unit Headloss Friction Factor Link ID ft in GPM fps ft/KftPipe P11 24 8 130 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P6 113 8 130 -113.12 0.72 0.32 0.027Pipe P5 97 8 130 -113.12 0.72 0.32 0.027Pipe P4 24 8 130 -113.12 0.72 0.33 0.027Pipe P21 76 8 130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P17 162 8 130 -67.80 0.43 0.12 0.028Pipe P16 35 8 130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P11-1 14 6 130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P12-1 14 6 130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P17-1 10 6 130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P7-1 14 6 130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P3 189 8 130 180.90 1.15 0.77 0.025Pipe P22-1 34 4 130 67.78 1.73 3.66 0.026Pipe P7 261 8 130 113.12 0.72 0.32 0.027Pipe P8 74 8 130 113.11 0.72 0.32 0.027Pipe P8-1 40 4 130 45.28 1.16 1.73 0.028Pipe P12 347 8 130 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.000Links - PHDEPANET 2Page 1 Length Diameter Roughness Flow Velocity Unit Headloss Friction Factor Link ID ft in GPM fps ft/KftPipe P13 77 8 130 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P15 292 16 130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P18-1 37 4 130 67.78 1.73 3.66 0.026Pipe P2 43 8 130 -180.90 1.15 0.76 0.024Pipe P1 26 100 130 -180.90 0.01 0.00 0.000Pipe P22 166 8 130 67.78 0.43 0.13 0.029Pipe P23-1 34 6 130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P23 5 8 130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P24 84 8 130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P9 4 8 130 67.83 0.43 0.12 0.028Pipe P10 141 8 130 67.83 0.43 0.13 0.029Pipe P9-1 40 6 130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P18 43 8 130 67.80 0.43 0.12 0.029Pipe P19 3 8 130 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P20 90 8 130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P19-1 37 6 130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P4-1 14 6 130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000Pipe P14 45 16 130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000Links - PHDEPANET 2Page 2 Length Diameter Roughness Flow Velocity Unit Headloss Friction Factor Link ID ft in GPM fps ft/KftPump PMP-1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 180.90 0.00 -91.55 0.000Links - PHDEPANET 2Page 3 Network Table - Nodes Elevation Demand Head Pressure Node ID ft GPM ft psi Junc N13 5011.53 0.00 5105.72 40.81 Junc N11 5012.58 0.00 5105.72 40.36 Junc N10 5012.73 0.00 5105.72 40.29 Junc N6 5014.09 0.00 5105.84 39.76 Junc N5 5013.78 0.00 5105.88 39.91 Junc N4 5013.96 0.00 5105.91 39.84 Junc N3 5014.12 0.00 5105.92 39.78 Junc N2 5014.55 0.00 5106.06 39.65 Junc N24 5008.18 0.00 5105.90 42.34 Junc N21 5013.52 0.00 5105.92 40.04 Junc N20 5006.62 0.00 5105.69 42.93 Junc N17 5009.15 0.00 5105.70 41.83 Junc N16 5012.74 0.00 5105.72 40.29 Junc N15 5006.93 0.00 5105.72 42.80 Junc N14 5012.2 0.00 5105.72 40.52 Junc HYD3 5012.91 0.00 5105.72 40.21 Junc HYD1 5014.29 0.00 5105.91 39.70 Junc HYD4 5012.49 0.00 5105.72 40.40 Junc N12 5012.17 0.00 5105.72 40.53 Junc HYD5 5009.57 0.00 5105.70 41.65 Junc HYD2 5012.42 0.00 5105.76 40.44 Junc N7 5012.10 0.00 5105.76 40.58 Junc N22-1 5010 67.78 5105.77 41.50 Junc N22 5009.99 0.00 5105.90 41.56 Junc N18-1 5006.25 67.78 5105.56 43.03 Junc N18 5006.25 0.00 5105.69 43.09 Nodes - PHD EPANET 2 Page 1 Elevation Demand Head Pressure Node ID ft GPM ft psi Junc N8-1 5012.6 45.28 5105.67 40.33 Junc N8 5012.58 0.00 5105.74 40.36 Junc N1 5014.55 0.00 5106.10 39.67 Junc N0 5014.55 0.00 5106.10 39.67 Junc N23 5009.87 0.00 5105.90 41.61 Junc N23-1 5010 0.00 5105.90 41.55 Junc N9 5012.60 0.00 5105.73 40.36 Junc N9-1 5012.6 0.00 5105.73 40.36 Junc N19 5006.20 0.00 5105.69 43.11 Junc N19-1 5006.25 0.00 5105.69 43.09 Resvr R-1 5014.55 -180.90 5014.55 0.00 Nodes - PHD EPANET 2 Page 2 Appendix B SANITARY SEWER DEMAND CALCULATIONS Sewer Main Dwelling Units PopulationAverage Day GPDPeaking FactorPeak Hour Flow (GPM)Design Flow Rate (CFS)Gabriel Avenue 111 241 15,520.4 4.12 44.4 0.0989Edgerton Boulevard 185 402 25,888.8 4.02 72.3 0.1610Buffalo Run 237 515 33,166.0 3.97 91.4 0.2037Total 533 1158.0 74,575.2 - 208.12 0.463710 Acres150 Gal./Acre/Day1.04 GPM2.08 GPM3.12 GPM211.24 GPM0.4706 CFSPipe Pipe Size (in) Flow Depth - d (in) Slope (ft/ft) Manning's n Flow (CFS)On-Site 8" PVC 8 6 0.004 0.013 0.708" PVC Pipe CapacityTotal Infiltration (Buffalo Run) (20 acres)Peak Design Flow and InfiltrationPeak Sanitary Sewer Demand CalculationRMF Lot AreaInfiltration RateTotal Infiltration (RMF) Total Design Infiltration Appendix C GEOTECHNICAL REPORT January 30, 2025 Rocky Mountain Flats, LLLP Attn: Maddy Mason and Christian Pritchett E-mail: maddy@bluelinedevelopment.com christian@bluelinedevelopment.com RE: Geotechnical Investigation Report N½, S½, SW¼, SW¼ of Section 23 Gallatin County, Montana IMEG# 25000076.00 Dear Maddy and Christian, Per your request, IMEG has conducted a subsurface soils investigation for the above referenced property located in the Southwest Quarter of Section 23, Township 2 South, Range 5 East in Gallatin County, Montana. The scope of services was to conduct a subsurface soils investigation and provide a soils investigation report. The report documents the subsurface conditions, soil properties, and provides foundation design and general earthwork recommendations. This report also utilizes the subsurface soils observed during the installation of groundwater monitoring wells on the subject property in December of 2021. Proposed Construction It is understood that three multi-family residential structures are planned for construction. It is our understanding that the proposed structures will be constructed with a slab on grade with stem wall foundations and will utilize typical wood framing. The proposed structure’s are planned to be four to five stories in height with a total of 296-units. In determining the allowable bearing capacity and settlement estimates, it has been assumed that the foundation footings will not be subjected to unusual loading conditions such as eccentric loads. A footing is eccentrically loaded if the load transferred to the footing is not directed through the center of the footing. This creates a bending moment in the footing and results in a non-uniform load transfer to the underlying soil. If any of the foundation footings will be eccentrically loaded, please contact this office so we can appropriately revise our allowable bearing capacity and settlement estimates. Rocky Mountain Flats, LLLP – Geotechnical Investigation – Fowler Lane, Gallatin County Montana January 30, 2025 Page 2 of 15 Site Description The subject property has a total area of 10.0 acres and access is provided by Fowler Lane. The west half of the subject property has existing residential improvements consisting of a single-family residence, an additional dwelling unit in the southwest corner, a detached shop/garage in the northwest corner, and a septic drain field is located approximately 300 feet east of the residence. The east half of the property is currently undeveloped. No other significant topographical or geological features were observed in the direct vicinity of the desired building sites. Subsurface Soil and Conditions – Test Pits On December 21, 2021 a site visit was made to conduct a subsurface soils investigation and to install groundwater monitoring wells. The subsurface soils investigation consisted of examining seven exploratory test pit excavations. The exploratory test pits were excavated with a Hitachi tracked excavator provided by RLS Construction. The soil profiles revealed by the exploratory excavations were logged and visually classified according to ASTM D 2488, which utilizes the nomenclature of the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The relative density of each soil layer was estimated based on probing of the excavation sidewalls with a rock hammer and the overall stability of the excavations. Any evidence of seepage or other groundwater conditions were also noted. The location of the exploratory test pits and groundwater monitoring wells are shown on the included Test Pit Location Map. The following paragraphs briefly summarize the subsurface soils and conditions observed in the exploratory test pits excavated for the field investigation. The soil horizons are described as they were encountered in the test pit excavations, starting with the horizon nearest the surface and proceeding with each additional horizon encountered with depth. Please refer to the attached test pit logs for more detailed information. The first soil horizon encountered in each exploratory excavation was a Silty Clay Organic Soil of Low plasticity (OL). This material was dark brown to black in color, moist and soft. This material was encountered to depths varying from approximately 0.5 feet to 1.0 feet below grounds surface (bgs) in the exploratory excavations. Organic soils are highly compressible and are not suitable for foundation support. This material must be removed from beneath all foundation elements and in any area that will receive asphalt and/or concrete pavements. Underlying the Organic Soil in each exploratory excavation was a Sandy Lean Clay (CL). This material was present to depths varying from approximately 2.0 feet to 3.5 feet bgs. Penetration tests performed on this material with a static cone penetrometer indicate that it is soft to medium stiff in consistency. This material was brown in color, and moist. Rocky Mountain Flats, LLLP – Geotechnical Investigation – Fowler Lane, Gallatin County Montana January 30, 2025 Page 3 of 15 Underlying the Sandy Lean Clay in each exploratory excavation was a Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand and Cobbles (GP). This material was present to the end of each excavation at depths varying from approximately 6.75 feet to 8.0 feet bgs. This material with medium dense to dense in consistency, moist, and grayish brown to brown in color. It should be noted that approximately 12-inches of Clayey Gravel with Sand and Cobbles was encountered following the Sandy Lean Clay in TP-5 and TP-6. Subsurface Soil and Conditions – Geotechnical Borings On January 8th, 9th, and 10th of 2025, a member of the staff of IMEG visited the site to conduct an additional subsurface soils investigation. The subsurface soils investigation consisted of drilling seven soil borings. The exploratory borings were completed with a Mobile B-60X Drill Rig equipped with a hollow stem auger provided by O’Keefe Drilling. The boring locations were chosen based on the location of underground utilities, accessibility, and the desired building locations. The samples obtained from the soil borings were logged and visually classified according to ASTM D 2488, which utilizes the nomenclature of the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). In addition, drilling reactions were observed to further aid in assessing the subsurface soils. Standard Penetration tests were performed at 2.5-to-5-foot intervals in accordance with ASTM D 1586. The standard penetration test involves driving a standard 2-inch (outside diameter) split-barrel sampler a total distance of 1.5 feet below the tip of the hollow stem auger utilizing a 140-pound hammer that is dropped a distance of 30 inches onto the sampler (each drop is considered 1 blow). The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last foot of penetration is recorded as an index of the soils strength. In the event that the sampler could not be driven 6 inches with 50 blows, the distance the sampler was driven with 50 blows was recorded. When this situation occurs in the first 6 inches of drive, it was noted as having occurred during the "set". Any evidence of seepage or other groundwater conditions were also noted. The locations of the borings are shown on the included Boring Location Map. The following paragraphs briefly summarize the subsurface soils and conditions observed in the exploratory borings drilled for the field investigation. The soil horizons are described as they were encountered in the borings, starting with the horizon nearest the surface and proceeding with each additional horizon encountered with depth. Please refer to the attached boring logs for more detailed information. The first soil horizon encountered in each exploratory boring was a Silty Clay Organic Soil of Low plasticity (OL). This material was dark brown to black in color, moist and soft. This material was encountered to depths varying from approximately 0.5 feet to 1.0 feet below grounds surface (bgs) in the exploratory excavations. Organic soils are highly compressible and are not suitable for foundation support. This material must be removed from beneath all foundation elements and in any area that will receive asphalt and/or concrete pavements. Rocky Mountain Flats, LLLP – Geotechnical Investigation – Fowler Lane, Gallatin County Montana January 30, 2025 Page 4 of 15 The second soil horizon encountered in each exploratory boring was a Sandy Lean Clay (CL). This material was dark brown to brown in color, moist, and soft to medium stiff in consistency. This material was encountered to depths varying from approximately 2.0 feet bgs to 3.0 feet bgs. The third soil horizon encountered in each exploratory boring was a Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand and Cobbles (GP). This material was present to the end of each boring at depths varying from approximately 9.0 feet to 25.8 feet bgs. This material with medium dense to very dense in consistency, moist to wet, and grayish brown to brown in color. Based on the subsurface investigation, it is recommended that the loads from the proposed structures be transmitted to the Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand and Cobbles or to a structural fill pad overlying this material. Groundwater Groundwater was encountered within each of the exploratory excavations and borings. Groundwater monitoring performed by IMEG from early April 2022 through August 2022 indicated that the seasonally high groundwater elevation across the subject property varies from 2.42 feet bgs to 3.53 feet bgs. The highest groundwater levels were found on the north half of the property. During this monitoring period all seven monitoring wells peaked on June 3, 2022. Please note that our subsurface investigation is not a detailed groundwater study, and groundwater conditions may change dramatically due to conditions that are out of our control. Our assessment of the groundwater conditions is based on the conditions observed within the exploratory excavations and borings on the days of the field exploration, our general experience in the project area, and the groundwater monitoring completed in 2022. This data is provided as an attachment to this report. Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (WSS) provides soil data and information produced by the National Cooperative Soil Survey. The NRCS has determined the physical characteristics and engineering properties, among other data, of near surface soils across the United States. This data is reviewed against our observations and analysis of the subsurface soils encountered during the field investigation to determine if a correlation is present. If a strong correlation is determined, it is likely that other engineering properties or characteristics described by the NRCS regarding the soils present on the subject property are accurate as well. It should be noted that the NRCS typically only describes the soils located within 5 feet of the surface. NRCS Soil Survey information of the area was taken from the NRCS WSS, Version 2.0. For more information, please visit the NRCS Web Soil Survey on the World Wide Web, at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. The NRCS Soils Survey identifies two soil types across the Rocky Mountain Flats, LLLP – Geotechnical Investigation – Fowler Lane, Gallatin County Montana January 30, 2025 Page 5 of 15 subject property. The first soil type is 448A – Hyalite-Beaverton Complex. The NRCS describes this soil type as Loamy Alluvium. The second soil type is 457A – Turner Loam. The NRCS describes this soil type as Alluvium. Geologic Setting The following paragraphs discuss the geologic setting in the direct vicinity of the subject property. The geologic setting is determined from a review of surface geology maps and reports published by the United States Geological Survey and others that contain the subject property. This information is especially helpful in determining any geologic hazards that may be present in the immediate area (such as landslide deposits) and what types of soil and rock may be present in the area. Additional information regarding the parent material and depositional environment of a given soil type can also sometimes be obtained or inferred from these maps and reports. The local surface geology in the direct vicinity of the subject property was determined from the USGS Surface Geologic Map of the Eastern Part of The Gallatin Valley. The USGS Geological Map identifies the surface geology in the vicinity of the project site as Qabo – Older Alluvium of Braid Plains: “Well-rounded, moderately to well-sorted, bouldery gravel with interbedded silt. Underlies the northern part of the “Bozeman Fan” (Hackett and others, 1960). Deposited on and possibly incised into a pediment surface developed on Sixmile Creek Formation, but too thick to call pediment gravel. Probably deposited as glacial outwash during an early Pleistocene glacial period. Poorly exposed, but well logs suggest it is 15-30 feet (4-9 meters) thick. Groundwater in this unit is perched above the pediment surface and is found at shallow depths, limiting effectiveness and advisability of septic systems (Custer and others, 2001) and may hinder construction.” Seismicity The general Gallatin County area is located in an earthquake zone known as the intermountain seismic belt, which is a zone of earthquake activity that extends from northwest Montana to southern Arizona. In general, this zone is expected to experience moderately frequent, potentially damaging earthquakes. With that in mind, it is important that the structure be designed to withstand horizontal seismic accelerations that may be induced by such an earthquake, as is required by the International Building Code. The USGS provides seismic design parameters for the design of buildings and bridges across the United States. These parameters are based on the 2015 National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Recommended Seismic Provisions. The primary intent of the NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions is to prevent, for typical buildings and structures, serious injury and life loss caused by damage from earthquake ground shaking. The following seismic design parameters were determined for the subject property using the USGS Seismic Design Application: Rocky Mountain Flats, LLLP – Geotechnical Investigation – Fowler Lane, Gallatin County Montana January 30, 2025 Page 6 of 15 Approximate site Location: Latitude = 45.6432° N Longitude = 111.0816° W Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters: Short Period (SS) = 0.684g 1-Second Period (S1) = 0.216g Site Coefficients and Adjusted MCE Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters: SMS = 0.857g SM1 = 0.468g Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters: SDS = 0.571g SD1 = 0.312g The seismic site class for this project is D. Liquefaction In general terms, liquefaction is defined as the condition when saturated, loose, fine sand-type soils lose their support capabilities due to the development of excessive pore water pressure, which can develop during a seismic event. Loose silty sandy soils, if located below the groundwater table, have the potential to liquefy during a major seismic event. Our subsurface investigation did not encounter any loose sand or silt horizons within the depth of excavation that will be located within the water table, and it is our opinion that the potential for differential settlement resulting from liquefaction during a moderate seismic event is low. Foundation Recommendations Based on the subsurface soils encountered in the exploratory excavations and exploratory borings, it will be acceptable to utilize a slab-on-grade with stem wall foundation, provided the recommendations made in this report are properly implemented. Please find the following as general recommendations for all foundation elements: • In order to keep the footing out of the active frost zone it is recommended that the bottom of all footing elevations be a minimum of 48 inches below finished grade. Rocky Mountain Flats, LLLP – Geotechnical Investigation – Fowler Lane, Gallatin County Montana January 30, 2025 Page 7 of 15 • All foundation footings are to bear on the Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand and Cobbles or on a structural fill pad overlying this material. All foundation footings shall be dimensioned for an allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf). • It is recommended that typical strip footings for this structure have a minimum width of 16 inches and column footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches, provided the soils allowable bearing capacity is not exceeded. • The foundation subgrade must remain in a dry condition throughout construction of the foundation elements. • If construction takes place during the colder months of the year, the subgrade must be protected from freezing. This may require the use of insulating blankets and/or ground heaters. Allowable Bearing Capacity The bearing capacity of a soil is defined as the ultimate pressure per unit area by the foundation that can be supported by the soil in excess of the pressure caused by the surrounding soil at the footing level. Bearing capacity is determined by the physical and chemical properties of the soil located beneath the proposed structures footings. It is recommended that the loads from the proposed structure be transmitted to the Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand and Cobbles or on to a structural fill pad overlying this material. For this scenario it is recommended that an allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 pounds per square foot be used to dimension all foundation footings. Settlement While the soil at the site may be able to physically support the footings, it is also important to analyze the possible settlement of the structure. In many cases, settlement determines the allowable bearing capacity. When a soil deposit is loaded by a structure, deformations within the soil deposit will occur. The total vertical deformation of the soil at the surface is called total settlement. Total settlement is made up of two components: elastic settlement and consolidation settlement. Elastic settlement is the result of soil particles rearranging themselves into a denser configuration due to a load being imposed on them and usually occurs during the construction process and shortly after. Consolidation settlement occurs more slowly and over time as water within the pore spaces of a soil are forced out and the soil compresses as the stress from the load is transferred from the water molecules to the soil particles. Consolidation settlement is more of a concern with fine-grained soils with low permeability and high in-situ moisture contents. The degree of settlement is a function of the type of bearing material, the bearing pressure of Rocky Mountain Flats, LLLP – Geotechnical Investigation – Fowler Lane, Gallatin County Montana January 30, 2025 Page 8 of 15 the foundation elements, local groundwater conditions, and in some cases determines the allowable bearing capacity for a structures’ footings. In addition to analyzing total settlement, the potential for differential settlement must also be considered. Differential settlement occurs in soils that are not homogeneous over the length of the foundation or in situations where the foundation rests on cut and fill surfaces. If the foundation rests on structural fill overlaying properly prepared soils with rock, differential settlement is expected to be well within tolerable limits. Areas that have significantly more fill under the foundation footings (four feet of more) create greater potential for differential settlement. In these cases, the structural fill must be installed properly and tested frequently. Compaction efforts and structural fill consistence are vital in minimizing differential settlement. For this project it is not anticipated that significant quantities of structural fill will be required. For this project, total settlement is expected to consist of elastic settlement. A settlement analysis based on conservative soil parameter estimates, the recommended allowable bearing capacity, and the assumption that all recommendations made in this report are properly adhered to, indicates the total and differential settlement are expected to be ¾-inch or less. Structures of the type assumed can generally tolerate this amount of movement, however, these values should be checked by a structural engineer to verify that they are acceptable. Please note that the settlement estimates are based on loads originating from the proposed structure. If additional loads are introduced, such as the placement of large quantities of fill, our office should be contacted to re-evaluate the settlement estimates. Lateral Pressures Lateral pressures imposed upon foundation and retaining walls due to wind, seismic forces, and earth pressures may be resisted by the development of passive earth pressures and/or frictional resistance between the base of the footings and the supporting soils. If a foundation or retaining wall is restrained from moving, the lateral earth pressure exerted on the wall is called the at-rest earth pressure. If a foundation or retaining wall is allowed to tilt away from the retained soil, the lateral earth pressure exerted on the wall is called the active earth pressure. Passive earth pressure is the resistance pressure the foundation or retaining wall develops due to the wall being pushed laterally into the earth on the opposite side of the retained soil. Each of these pressures is proportional to the distance below the earth surface, the unit weight of the soil, and the shear strength properties of the soil. It is recommended that all foundation and retaining walls be backfilled with well-draining granular material. Well-draining granular backfill has a more predictable behavior in terms of the lateral earth pressure exerted on the foundation or retaining wall and will not generate expansive related forces. If backfill containing significant quantities of clayey material is used, the seepage of water into the backfill could potentially generate horizontal swelling pressures well above at-rest values. Additionally, seepage into a clayey backfill Rocky Mountain Flats, LLLP – Geotechnical Investigation – Fowler Lane, Gallatin County Montana January 30, 2025 Page 9 of 15 material will also cause significant hydrostatic pressures to build up against the foundation wall due to the low permeability of clay soils and will make the backfill susceptible to frost action. Subsurface walls that are restrained from moving at the top are recommended to be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) (at-rest pressure); the equivalent fluid pressure is the product of the retained soils unit weight and its coefficient of active or at-rest earth pressure. Any subsurface walls that are allowed to move away from the restrained soil, such as cantilevered retaining walls, are recommended to be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 45 pcf (active pressure). For passive pressures, an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pcf is recommended, and the coefficient of friction between the cast-in-place concrete and the Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand and Cobbles is 0.5. These recommended values were calculated assuming a near horizontal backfill and that the on-site soils with the exceptions of the organics, will be used as foundation wall backfill. It is also assumed that the backfill will be compacted as recommended in this report. Also, please note that these design pressures do not include a factor of safety and are for static conditions, they do not account for additional forces that may be induced by seismic loading. Subgrade Preparation and Structural Fill In general, the excavation for the foundation footings must be level and uniform and continue down through any organics and Sandy Lean Clay to the Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand and Cobbles. If any soft spots or boulders are encountered, they will need to be removed and backfilled with structural fill. The excavation width must extend a minimum of one footing width from the outside edges of the footings or to a distance equal to ½ the height of the required structural fill. For example, if 4 feet of structural fill is required under the foundation footings, the excavation width must extend out a minimum distance of 2 feet from the outside edges of the foundation footings. Once the excavation is complete, the native subgrade shall be compacted to an unyielding condition with a large smooth drum roller. Any areas that are found to rut or pump shall be sub-excavated and replaced with structural fill. Structural fill is defined as all fill that will ultimately be subjected to structural loadings, such as those imposed by footings, floor slabs, pavements, etc. The Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand and Cobbles encountered during the field investigations is suitable for reuse as structural fill, provided it is not too moist and any cobbles larger than 3 inches in size are removed. Structural fill may also be imported if required. Imported structural fill is recommended to be a well graded gravel with sand that contains less than 15 percent of material that will pass a No. 200 sieve and that has a maximum particle size of 3 inches. Also, the fraction of material passing the No. 40 sieve shall have a liquid limit not exceeding 25 and a plasticity index not exceeding 6. The gravel and sand particles also need to be made up of durable rock materials that will not degrade when compacted; no shale or mudstone fragments should be present. Rocky Mountain Flats, LLLP – Geotechnical Investigation – Fowler Lane, Gallatin County Montana January 30, 2025 Page 10 of 15 Structural fill must be placed in lifts no greater than 12-inches (uncompacted thickness) and be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 97 percent of its maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D698. Typically, the structural fill must be moisture conditioned to within + 2 percent of the materials optimum moisture content to achieve the required density. It is recommended that the structural fill be compacted with a large vibrating smooth drum roller. Please note that if a moisture-density relationship test (commonly referred to as a proctor) needs to be performed for a proposed structural fill material to determine its maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D698, a sample of the material must be delivered to this office a minimum of three full working days prior to density testing being needed. At no time should surface water runoff be allowed to flow into and accumulate within the excavation for the foundation elements. If necessary, a swale or berm should be temporarily constructed to reroute all surface water runoff away from the excavation. Excavation should not proceed during large precipitation events. If any of the foundation footings are found to be located on a test pit, the area will need to be excavated down to the full depth of the test pit and structural fill be placed and compacted in controlled lifts as described in this report to bring the area back up to the desired grade. Foundation Wall Backfill Approved backfill material should be placed and compacted between the foundation wall and the edge of the excavation. Structural fill is recommended as foundation wall backfill in all areas that will support concrete slabs-on-grade or asphalt paving improvements. The on-site soils with the exception of the organics encountered during the field investigation are suitable for reuse as foundation wall backfill along the exterior of the foundation where asphalt and concrete pavements will not be located, provided it is not too moist and any cobbles larger than 6 inches in size are removed. The organic soil shall not be used as foundation wall backfill. The foundation wall backfill shall be placed in uniform lifts and be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the material’s maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D698. The foundation wall backfill will need to be compacted with either walk behind compaction equipment or hand operated compaction equipment in order to avoid damaging the foundation walls. If walk behind compaction equipment is used lifts should not exceed 8-inches (loose thickness) and if hand operated compaction equipment is used lifts should not exceed 4-inches (loose thickness). Interior Slabs-on-Grade For any interior slabs-on-grade, it is recommended that, at a minimum, the organic soil be removed. The native subgrade then needs to be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D698. Following compaction of the native subgrade, a layer of separation geotextile Rocky Mountain Flats, LLLP – Geotechnical Investigation – Fowler Lane, Gallatin County Montana January 30, 2025 Page 11 of 15 (such as a Mirafi 160N) shall be installed, structural fill can then be placed and compacted to within 6- inches of the desired bottom of slab elevation. For all interior concrete slabs-on-grade, preventative measures must be taken to stop moisture from migrating upwards through the slab. Moisture that migrates upwards through the concrete slab can damage floor coverings such as carpet, hardwood, and vinyl, in addition to causing musty odors and mildew growth. Moisture barriers will need to be installed to prevent water vapor migration and capillary rise through the concrete slab. Capillarity is the result of the liquid property known as surface tension, which arises from an imbalance of cohesive and adhesive forces near the interface between different materials. With regards to soils, surface tension arises at the interface between groundwater and the mineral grains and air of a soil. The height of capillary rise within a given soil is controlled by the size of the pores between the soil particles and not the size of the soil particles directly. Soils that have small pore spaces experience a higher magnitude of capillary rise than soils with large pore spaces. Typically, soils composed of smaller particles (such as silt and clay) have smaller pore spaces. In order to prevent capillary rise through the concrete slab-on-grade it is recommended that 6 inches of ¾- inch washed rock (containing less than 10 percent fines) be placed and compacted once the excavation for the slab is complete. The washed rock has large pore spaces between soil particles and will act as a capillary break, preventing groundwater from migrating upwards towards the bottom of the slab. Water vapor is currently understood to act in accordance with the observed physical laws of gases, which state that the water vapor will travel from an area of higher concentration to that of a lower concentration until equilibrium is achieved. Because Earth contains large quantities of liquid water, water vapor is ubiquitous in Earth’s atmosphere, and, as a result, also in soils located above the water table (referred to as the vadose zone). Typically, the concentration of water vapor in the vadose zone is greater than that inside the residence. This concentration difference may result in an upward migration of water vapor from the vadose zone through the concrete slab-on-grade and into the building. In order to prevent this upward migration of water vapor through the slab, it is recommended that a 15-mil extruded polyolefin plastic that complies with ASTM E1745 (such as a Stego Wrap 15-mil Vapor Barrier) be installed. The vapor barrier should be pulled up at the sides and secured to the foundation wall or footing. Care must be taken during and after the installation of the vapor barrier to avoid puncturing the material, and all joints are to be sealed per the manufacture’s recommendations. Once the excavation for any interior slabs-on-grade is completed as described in the first paragraph of this section, and the ¾ inch washed rock and moisture barriers have been properly installed, it will be acceptable to form and cast the steel reinforced concrete slab. It is recommended that interior concrete slabs-on-grade have a minimum thickness of 4 inches, provided all slab reinforcement is designed by a licensed structural engineer. Rocky Mountain Flats, LLLP – Geotechnical Investigation – Fowler Lane, Gallatin County Montana January 30, 2025 Page 12 of 15 Exterior Slabs-on-Grade For exterior areas to be paved with concrete slabs such as sidewalks and/or patios, it is recommended that, at a minimum, the organic soil be removed. The subgrade then needs to be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D698. Then for non-vehicular traffic areas, a minimum of 6 inches of ¾-inch minus rock needs to be placed, and 4 inches of 4000 pounds per square inch (psi) concrete placed over the ¾-inch minus rock. For areas with vehicular traffic, a minimum of 9 inches of ¾-inch minus rock should be placed, followed by 6 inches of 4000 psi concrete. Exterior slabs that will be located adjacent to the foundation walls need to slope away from the structure at a minimum grade of 2 percent and should not be physically connected to the foundation walls. If they are connected, any movement of the exterior slab will be transmitted to the foundation wall, which may result in damage to the structure. Site Grading Surface water should not be allowed to accumulate and infiltrate the soil near the foundation. Proper site grading will ensure surface water runoff is directed away from the foundation elements and will aid in the mitigation of excessive settlement. Please find the following as general site grading recommendations: • Finished grade must slope away from the building a minimum of 5 percent within the first 10 feet, in order to quickly drain ground surface and roof runoff away from the foundation walls. Please note that in order to maintain this slope; it is imperative that any backfill placed against the foundation walls be compacted properly. If the backfill is not compacted properly, it will settle and positive drainage away from the structure will not be maintained. • Permanent sprinkler heads for lawn care should be located a sufficient distance from the structure to prevent water from draining toward the foundation or saturating the soils adjacent to the foundation. • Rain gutter down spouts are to be placed in such a manner that surface water runoff drains away from the structure. • All roads, walkways, and architectural land features must properly drain away from all structures. Special attention should be made during the design of these features to not create any drainage obstructions that may direct water towards or trap water near the foundation. Asphalt Paving Improvements For areas to be paved with asphalt, it is recommended that, as a minimum, the organic soil be removed. The native subgrade then needs to be compacted at ± 2 percent of its optimum moisture content to 95 percent of its maximum dry density. Following compaction of the native subgrade, a layer of separation Rocky Mountain Flats, LLLP – Geotechnical Investigation – Fowler Lane, Gallatin County Montana January 30, 2025 Page 13 of 15 geotextile (such as a Mirafi 160N) shall be installed followed by a 12-inch layer of compacted 6-inch minus gravel. Next by a 6-inch layer of compacted 1-inch minus road mix shall be installed. Both gravel courses must be compacted at ± 2 percent of their optimum moisture content to 95 percent of their maximum dry density. A 3-inch-thick layer of asphalt pavement can then be placed and compacted over this cross- section. If asphalt paving is to be placed on foundation wall backfill, the backfill must be compacted to 95 percent of its maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D698. It is recommended the backfill be placed in uniform lifts and be compacted to an unyielding condition. Underground Utilities We recommend specifying non-corrosive materials or providing corrosion protection unless additional tests are performed to verify the onsite soils are not corrosive. It is recommended that ¾-inch minus gravel be used as a bedding material, where bedding material is defined as all material located within 6 inches of the utility pipe(s). The bedding material should be thoroughly compacted around all utility pipes. Trench backfill shall be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density in paved or landscaped areas and a minimum of 97 percent of its maximum dry density beneath foundation footings. Backfilling around and above utilities shall meet the requirements of Montana Public Works Standard Specifications. Construction Administration The foundation is a vital element of a structure; it transfers all of the structure’s dead and live loads to the native soil. It is imperative that the recommendations made in this report are properly adhered to. A representative from IMEG should observe the construction of any foundation or drainage elements recommended in this report. The recommendations made in this report are contingent upon our involvement. If the soils encountered during the excavation differ than those described in this report or any unusual conditions are encountered, our office should be contacted immediately to examine the conditions, re-evaluate our recommendations and provide a written response. If construction and site grading take place during cold weather, it is recommended that appropriate winter construction practices be observed. All snow and ice shall be removed from cut and fill areas prior to site grading taking place. No fill should be placed on soils that are frozen or contain frozen material. No frozen soils can be used as fill under any circumstances. Additionally, Concrete should not be placed on frozen soils and should meet the temperature requirements of ASTM C 94. Any concrete placed during cold weather conditions shall be protected from freezing until the necessary compressive strength has been attained. Once the footings are placed, frost shall not be permitted to extend below the foundation footings, as this could heave and crack the foundation footings and/or foundation walls. It is the responsibility of the contractor to provide a safe working environment with regards to excavations on the site. All excavations should be sloped or shored in the interest of safety and in accordance with Rocky Mountain Flats, LLLP – Geotechnical Investigation – Fowler Lane, Gallatin County Montana January 30, 2025 Page 14 of 15 local and federal regulations, including the excavation and trench safety standards provided by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use This report was prepared to be used exclusively by Rocky Mountain Flats, LLLP for residential improvements to be constructed on the N½, S½, SW¼, SW¼ of Section 23, located in the Southwest Quarter of Section 23, Township 2 South, Range 5 East in Gallatin County, Montana. All of the work was performed in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices used by geotechnical engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. This report should not be used by anyone it was not prepared for, or for uses it was not intended for. Field investigations and preparation of this report was conducted in accordance with a specific set of requirements set out by the client, which may not satisfy the requirements of others. This report should not be used for nearby sites or for structures on the same site that differ from the structures that were proposed at the time this report was prepared. Any changes in the structures (type, orientation, size, elevation, etc.) proposed for this site must be discussed with our company for this report to be valid. The recommendations made in this report are based upon data obtained from the exploratory borings and test pits excavated at the locations indicated on the attached Test Pit and Boring Location Maps. It is not uncommon that variations will occur between these locations, the nature and extent of which will not become evident until additional exploration or construction is conducted. These variations may result in additional construction costs, and it is suggested that a contingency be provided for this purpose. If the soils encountered during the excavation differ than those described in this report or any unusual conditions are encountered, our office should be contacted immediately to examine the conditions and re-evaluate our recommendations and provide a written response. This report is valid as a complete document only. No portion of this report should be transmitted to other parties as an incomplete document. Misinterpretation of portions of this report (i.e. test pit logs) is possible when this information is transmitted to others without the supporting information presented in other portions of the report. The scope of our investigation did not include an environmental assessment for determining the presence or absence of hazardous or toxic materials on the site. If information regarding the potential presence of hazardous materials on the site is desired, please contact us to discuss your options for obtaining this information. If any questions arise with regards to any aspects of this report, please contact us at your convenience to avoid misinterpretation. Costly mistakes due to misinterpretation of geotechnical reports can usually be avoided by a quick phone call. OL CL GP 1.0 2.0 6.8 0 TO 1 FEET: SILTY CLAY ORGANIC SOIL; (OL); dark brown to black; moist; soft. 1 TO 2 FEET: SANDY LEAN CLAY; (CL); brown; moist; medium stiff; approximately 10percent subrounded gravels; approximately 40 percent fine to coarse grain sand; approximately 50 percent clayey fines. 2 TO 6.75 FEET: POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND COBBLES; (GP); grayish brown to brown; moist; medium dense to dense; approximately 50 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 40 percent fine to coarse grain sand; approximately 10 percentclayey fines. Bottom of test pit at 6.8 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION LOGGED BY Noah J. Schaible, E.I. EXCAVATION METHOD Tracked Excavator EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR RLS Construction GROUND WATER LEVELS: DATE STARTED 12/21/21 COMPLETED 12/21/21 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION 6.75 ft AFTER EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION ---DEPTH(ft)0.0 2.5 5.0 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP 1 PROJECT NUMBER 211431 CLIENT Bridger Land Group PROJECT LOCATION 5532 Fowler Lane PROJECT NAME Geotechnical Investigation Report GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - GINT STD US.GDT - 1/29/25 14:27 - C:\USERS\NOAH.J.SCHAIBLE\ONEDRIVE - IMEG CORP\DESKTOP\GEOTECH PROOJECTS\FOWLER DRILLING PROJECT\TEST PIT LOGS (211431).GPJU.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION OL CL GP 1.0 2.0 6.8 0 TO 1 FEET: SILTY CLAY ORGANIC SOIL; (OL); dark brown to black; moist; soft. 1 TO 2 FEET: SANDY LEAN CLAY; (CL); brown; moist; medium stiff; approximately 10percent subrounded gravels; approximately 30 percent fine to coarse grain sand; approximately 60 percent clayey fines. 2 TO 6.75 FEET: POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND COBBLES; (GP); grayish brown to brown; moist; medium dense to dense; approximately 50 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 40 percent fine to coarse grain sand; approximately 10 percentclayey fines. Bottom of test pit at 6.8 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION LOGGED BY Noah J. Schaible, E.I. EXCAVATION METHOD Tracked Excavator EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR RLS Construction GROUND WATER LEVELS: DATE STARTED 12/21/21 COMPLETED 12/21/21 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION 6.75 ft AFTER EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION ---DEPTH(ft)0.0 2.5 5.0 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP 2 PROJECT NUMBER 211431 CLIENT Bridger Land Group PROJECT LOCATION 5532 Fowler Lane PROJECT NAME Geotechnical Investigation Report GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - GINT STD US.GDT - 1/29/25 14:27 - C:\USERS\NOAH.J.SCHAIBLE\ONEDRIVE - IMEG CORP\DESKTOP\GEOTECH PROOJECTS\FOWLER DRILLING PROJECT\TEST PIT LOGS (211431).GPJU.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION OL CL GP 1.0 3.0 7.0 0 TO 1 FEET: SILTY CLAY ORGANIC SOIL; (OL); dark brown to black; moist; soft. 1 TO 3 FEET: SANDY LEAN CLAY; (CL); brown; moist; medium stiff; approximately 10percent subrounded gravels; approximately 30 percent fine to coarse grain sand; approximately 60 percent clayey fines. 3 TO 7 FEET: POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND COBBLES; (GP); grayish brown to brown; moist; medium dense to dense; approximately 50 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 40 percent fine to coarse grain sand; approximately 10 percent clayey fines. Bottom of test pit at 7.0 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION LOGGED BY Noah J. Schaible, E.I. EXCAVATION METHOD Tracked Excavator EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR RLS Construction GROUND WATER LEVELS: DATE STARTED 12/21/21 COMPLETED 12/21/21 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION 7.00 ft AFTER EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION ---DEPTH(ft)0.0 2.5 5.0 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP 3 PROJECT NUMBER 211431 CLIENT Bridger Land Group PROJECT LOCATION 5532 Fowler Lane PROJECT NAME Geotechnical Investigation Report GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - GINT STD US.GDT - 1/29/25 14:27 - C:\USERS\NOAH.J.SCHAIBLE\ONEDRIVE - IMEG CORP\DESKTOP\GEOTECH PROOJECTS\FOWLER DRILLING PROJECT\TEST PIT LOGS (211431).GPJU.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION OL CL GP 1.0 3.5 7.0 0 TO 1 FEET: SILTY CLAY ORGANIC SOIL; (OL); dark brown to black; moist; soft. 1 TO 3.5 FEET: SANDY LEAN CLAY; (CL); brown; moist; medium stiff; approximately 10percent subrounded gravels; approximately 30 percent fine to coarse grain sand; approximately 60 percent clayey fines. 3.5 TO 7 FEET: POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND COBBLES; (GP); grayishbrown to brown; moist; medium dense to dense; approximately 50 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 40 percent fine to coarse grain sand; approximately 10 percent clayey fines. Bottom of test pit at 7.0 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION LOGGED BY Noah J. Schaible, E.I. EXCAVATION METHOD Tracked Excavator EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR RLS Construction GROUND WATER LEVELS: DATE STARTED 12/21/21 COMPLETED 12/21/21 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION 7.00 ft AFTER EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION ---DEPTH(ft)0.0 2.5 5.0 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP 4 PROJECT NUMBER 211431 CLIENT Bridger Land Group PROJECT LOCATION 5532 Fowler Lane PROJECT NAME Geotechnical Investigation Report GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - GINT STD US.GDT - 1/29/25 14:27 - C:\USERS\NOAH.J.SCHAIBLE\ONEDRIVE - IMEG CORP\DESKTOP\GEOTECH PROOJECTS\FOWLER DRILLING PROJECT\TEST PIT LOGS (211431).GPJU.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION OL CL GC GP 1.0 3.0 4.5 8.0 0 TO 1 FEET: SILTY CLAY ORGANIC SOIL; (OL); dark brown to black; moist; soft. 1 TO 3 FEET: SANDY LEAN CLAY; (CL); brown; moist; medium stiff; approximately 10percent subrounded gravels; approximately 30 percent fine to coarse grain sand; approximately 60 percent clayey fines. 3 TO 4.5 FEET: CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND AND COBBLES; (GC); brown; moist; medium dense; approximately 40 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 30 percent fine to coarse grain sand; approximately 30 percent clayey fines. 4.5 TO 8 FEET: POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND COBBLES; (GP); grayish brown to brown; moist; medium dense to dense; approximately 50 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 40 percent fine to coarse grain sand; approximately 10 percentclayey fines. Bottom of test pit at 8.0 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION LOGGED BY Noah J. Schaible, E.I. EXCAVATION METHOD Tracked Excavator EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR RLS Construction GROUND WATER LEVELS: DATE STARTED 12/21/21 COMPLETED 12/21/21 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION 7.50 ft AFTER EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION ---DEPTH(ft)0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP 5 PROJECT NUMBER 211431 CLIENT Bridger Land Group PROJECT LOCATION 5532 Fowler Lane PROJECT NAME Geotechnical Investigation Report GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - GINT STD US.GDT - 1/29/25 14:27 - C:\USERS\NOAH.J.SCHAIBLE\ONEDRIVE - IMEG CORP\DESKTOP\GEOTECH PROOJECTS\FOWLER DRILLING PROJECT\TEST PIT LOGS (211431).GPJU.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION OL CL GC GP 1.0 2.5 3.5 8.0 0 TO 1 FEET: SILTY CLAY ORGANIC SOIL; (OL); dark brown to black; moist; soft. 1 TO 2.5 FEET: SANDY LEAN CLAY; (CL); brown; moist; medium stiff; approximately 10percent subrounded gravels; approximately 30 percent fine to coarse grain sand; approximately 60 percent clayey fines. 2.5 TO 3.5 FEET: CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND AND COBBLES; (GC); brown; moist; medium dense; approximately 40 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 30 percent fine to coarse grain sand; approximately 30 percent clayey fines. 3.5 TO 8 FEET: POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND COBBLES; (GP); grayishbrown to brown; moist; medium dense to dense; approximately 50 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 40 percent fine to coarse grain sand; approximately 10 percent clayey fines. Bottom of test pit at 8.0 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION LOGGED BY Noah J. Schaible, E.I. EXCAVATION METHOD Tracked Excavator EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR RLS Construction GROUND WATER LEVELS: DATE STARTED 12/21/21 COMPLETED 12/21/21 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION 7.75 ft AFTER EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION ---DEPTH(ft)0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP 6 PROJECT NUMBER 211431 CLIENT Bridger Land Group PROJECT LOCATION 5532 Fowler Lane PROJECT NAME Geotechnical Investigation Report GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - GINT STD US.GDT - 1/29/25 14:27 - C:\USERS\NOAH.J.SCHAIBLE\ONEDRIVE - IMEG CORP\DESKTOP\GEOTECH PROOJECTS\FOWLER DRILLING PROJECT\TEST PIT LOGS (211431).GPJU.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION OL CL GP 1.0 2.5 7.8 0 TO 1 FEET: SILTY CLAY ORGANIC SOIL; (OL); dark brown to black; moist; soft. 1 TO 2.5 FEET: SANDY LEAN CLAY; (CL); brown; moist; medium stiff; approximately 10percent subrounded gravels; approximately 30 percent fine to coarse grain sand; approximately 60 percent clayey fines. 2.5 TO 7.75 FEET: POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND COBBLES; (GP); grayish brown to brown; moist; medium dense to dense; approximately 50 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 40 percent fine to coarse grain sand; approximately 10 percent clayey fines. Bottom of test pit at 7.8 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION LOGGED BY Noah J. Schaible, E.I. EXCAVATION METHOD Tracked Excavator EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR RLS Construction GROUND WATER LEVELS: DATE STARTED 12/21/21 COMPLETED 12/21/21 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION 7.50 ft AFTER EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION ---DEPTH(ft)0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP 7 PROJECT NUMBER 211431 CLIENT Bridger Land Group PROJECT LOCATION 5532 Fowler Lane PROJECT NAME Geotechnical Investigation Report GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - GINT STD US.GDT - 1/29/25 14:27 - C:\USERS\NOAH.J.SCHAIBLE\ONEDRIVE - IMEG CORP\DESKTOP\GEOTECH PROOJECTS\FOWLER DRILLING PROJECT\TEST PIT LOGS (211431).GPJU.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION SS2 SS 3 SS4 SS 5 SS6 SS7 61 56 61 78 100 89 6-17-19(36) 17-38-40 (78) 29-32-29(61) 18-32-33 (65) 18-50/2" 28-50/3" MC = 5%Fines = 18% MC = 3% Fines = 7% OL CL GP 1.0 2.0 20.8 0 TO 1 FEET: SILTY CLAY ORGANIC SOIL; (OL); dark brown to black; moist; soft. 1 TO 2 FEET: SANDY LEAN CLAY; (CL); dark brown to brown; moist; medium plasticity; soft to medium stiff; approximately 30 percent fine to coarse grain sand; approximately 70 percentclayey fines. 2 TO 20.75 FEET: POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND COBBLES; (GP); grayish brown to brown; moist to wet; dense to very dense; approximately 60 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 30 percent fine to coarse grain sand;approximately 10 percent clayey fines. Refusal at 20.8 feet. Bottom of borehole at 20.8 feet. NOTES Driller: Larry P. / Mike H., Partly Cloudy, Breezy, 20F GROUND ELEVATION LOGGED BY Noah J. Schaible, E.I. DRILLING METHOD B-60X Mobile Drill Rig DRILLING CONTRACTOR O'keefe Drilling GROUND WATER LEVELS: DATE STARTED 1/8/25 COMPLETED 1/8/25 AT TIME OF DRILLING 7.50 ft AFTER DRILLING --- AT END OF DRILLING ---DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 15 20 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER B1 PROJECT NUMBER 25000076.00 CLIENT Rocky Mountain Flats, LLLP PROJECT LOCATION 5532 Fowler Lane, Bozeman MT PROJECT NAME Geotechnical Investigation GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - GINT STD US.GDT - 1/28/25 14:49 - \\FILES\ACTIVE\PROJECTS\2025\25000076.00\DESIGN\CIVIL\GEOTECHNICAL\BORING LOGS\BORING LOGS (25000076.00).GPJRECOVERY %BLOWCOUNTS(N VALUE)TESTS U.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION SS11 SS12 SS 13 SS14 SS15 0 0 56 0 100 28-50/3" 50/4" 20-24-32 (56) 46-50/5" 50/4" OL CL GP 1.0 2.0 20.3 0 TO 1 FEET: SILTY CLAY ORGANIC SOIL; (OL); dark brown to black; moist; soft. 1 TO 2 FEET: SANDY LEAN CLAY; (CL); dark brown to brown; moist; medium plasticity; soft to medium stiff; approximately 30 percent fine to coarse grain sand; approximately 70 percent clayey fines. 2 TO 20.33 FEET: POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND ANDCOBBLES; (GP); grayish brown to brown; moist to wet; medium dense to very dense; approximately 60 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 30 percent fine to coarse grain sand; approximately 10 percent clayey fines. 15: NOTE: at approx. 15' bgs refusal on cobble/boulder, pulled auger to offset 4' and re-drilled boring. Refusal at 20.3 feet. Bottom of borehole at 20.3 feet. NOTES Driller: Larry P. / Mike H., Partly Cloudy, Breezy, 20F GROUND ELEVATION LOGGED BY Noah J. Schaible, E.I. DRILLING METHOD B-60X Mobile Drill Rig DRILLING CONTRACTOR O'keefe Drilling GROUND WATER LEVELS: DATE STARTED 1/8/25 COMPLETED 1/8/25 AT TIME OF DRILLING 7.50 ft AFTER DRILLING --- AT END OF DRILLING ---DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 15 20 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER B2 PROJECT NUMBER 25000076.00 CLIENT Rocky Mountain Flats, LLLP PROJECT LOCATION 5532 Fowler Lane, Bozeman MT PROJECT NAME Geotechnical Investigation GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - GINT STD US.GDT - 1/28/25 14:49 - \\FILES\ACTIVE\PROJECTS\2025\25000076.00\DESIGN\CIVIL\GEOTECHNICAL\BORING LOGS\BORING LOGS (25000076.00).GPJRECOVERY %BLOWCOUNTS(N VALUE)U.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION SS17 SS18 SS19 SS20 56 44 56 50 3-7-3(10) 8-25-25(50) 24-46-39(85) 26-27-20(47) MC = 4%Fines = 10% OL CL GP 0.7 2.0 9.0 0 TO 0.67 FEET: SILTY CLAY ORGANIC SOIL; (OL); dark brown to black; moist; soft. 0.67 TO 2 FEET: SANDY LEAN CLAY; (CL); dark brown to brown; moist; medium plasticity; soft to medium stiff; approximately 30 percent fine to coarse grain sand; approximately 70 percent clayey fines. 2 TO 9 FEET: POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND COBBLES; (GP); grayish brown to brown; moist to wet; dense to very dense; approximately 60 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 30 percent fine to coarse grain sand;approximately 10 percent clayey fines. Bottom of borehole at 9.0 feet. NOTES Driller: Larry P. / Mike H., Partly Cloudy, Breezy, 20F GROUND ELEVATION LOGGED BY Noah J. Schaible, E.I. DRILLING METHOD B-60X Mobile Drill Rig DRILLING CONTRACTOR O'keefe Drilling GROUND WATER LEVELS: DATE STARTED 1/8/25 COMPLETED 1/8/25 AT TIME OF DRILLING 7.50 ft AFTER DRILLING --- AT END OF DRILLING ---DEPTH(ft)0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER B3 PROJECT NUMBER 25000076.00 CLIENT Rocky Mountain Flats, LLLP PROJECT LOCATION 5532 Fowler Lane, Bozeman MT PROJECT NAME Geotechnical Investigation GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - GINT STD US.GDT - 1/28/25 14:49 - \\FILES\ACTIVE\PROJECTS\2025\25000076.00\DESIGN\CIVIL\GEOTECHNICAL\BORING LOGS\BORING LOGS (25000076.00).GPJRECOVERY %BLOWCOUNTS(N VALUE)TESTS U.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION SS23 SS24 SS25 SS26 SS27 SS28 SS29 44 89 33 44 67 45 55 34-34-35(69) 24-40-30(70) 16-31-25(56) 11-25-30(55) 23-37-47(84) 38-50/5" 50/6" MC = 4%Fines = 11% OL CL GP 1.0 2.0 25.5 0 TO 1 FEET: SILTY CLAY ORGANIC SOIL; (OL); dark brown to black; moist; soft. 1 TO 2 FEET: SANDY LEAN CLAY; (CL); dark brown to brown; moist; medium plasticity; soft to medium stiff; approximately 30 percent fine to coarse grain sand; approximately 70 percentclayey fines. 2 TO 25.46 FEET: POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND COBBLES; (GP); grayish brown to brown; moist to wet; dense to very dense; approximately 60 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 30 percent fine to coarse grain sand;approximately 10 percent clayey fines. Bottom of borehole at 25.5 feet. NOTES Driller: Larry P. / Mike H., Partly Cloudy, Breezy, 20F GROUND ELEVATION LOGGED BY Noah J. Schaible, E.I. DRILLING METHOD B-60X Mobile Drill Rig DRILLING CONTRACTOR O'keefe Drilling GROUND WATER LEVELS: DATE STARTED 1/9/25 COMPLETED 1/9/25 AT TIME OF DRILLING 7.50 ft AFTER DRILLING --- AT END OF DRILLING ---DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 15 20 25 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER B4 PROJECT NUMBER 25000076.00 CLIENT Rocky Mountain Flats, LLLP PROJECT LOCATION 5532 Fowler Lane, Bozeman MT PROJECT NAME Geotechnical Investigation GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - GINT STD US.GDT - 1/28/25 14:49 - \\FILES\ACTIVE\PROJECTS\2025\25000076.00\DESIGN\CIVIL\GEOTECHNICAL\BORING LOGS\BORING LOGS (25000076.00).GPJRECOVERY %BLOWCOUNTS(N VALUE)TESTS U.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION SS31 SS32 SS33 SS34 SS 35 SS 36 SS37 33 33 0 0 56 35 56 2-2-13(15) 15-22-31(53) 9-15-13(28) 10-14-28(42) 34-45- 50/4" 8-11-50/5" 47-50/3" OL CL GP 1.0 3.0 25.8 0 TO 1 FEET: SILTY CLAY ORGANIC SOIL; (OL); dark brown to black; moist; soft. 1 TO 3 FEET: SANDY LEAN CLAY; (CL); dark brown to brown; moist; medium plasticity; soft to medium stiff; approximately 30 percent fine to coarse grain sand; approximately 70 percent clayey fines. 3 TO 25.75 FEET: POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND ANDCOBBLES; (GP); grayish brown to brown; moist to wet; medium dense to very dense; approximately 60 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 30 percent fine to coarse grain sand; approximately 10 percent clayey fines. Bottom of borehole at 25.8 feet. NOTES Driller: Larry P. / Mike H., Partly Cloudy, Breezy, 20F GROUND ELEVATION LOGGED BY Noah J. Schaible, E.I. DRILLING METHOD B-60X Mobile Drill Rig DRILLING CONTRACTOR O'keefe Drilling GROUND WATER LEVELS: DATE STARTED 1/9/25 COMPLETED 1/9/25 AT TIME OF DRILLING 7.50 ft AFTER DRILLING --- AT END OF DRILLING ---DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 15 20 25 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER B5 PROJECT NUMBER 25000076.00 CLIENT Rocky Mountain Flats, LLLP PROJECT LOCATION 5532 Fowler Lane, Bozeman MT PROJECT NAME Geotechnical Investigation GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - GINT STD US.GDT - 1/28/25 14:49 - \\FILES\ACTIVE\PROJECTS\2025\25000076.00\DESIGN\CIVIL\GEOTECHNICAL\BORING LOGS\BORING LOGS (25000076.00).GPJRECOVERY %BLOWCOUNTS(N VALUE)U.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION SS38 SS39 SS40 SS41 33 39 39 50 1-4-3(7) 7-21-30(51) 28-47-29(76) 10-12-22(34) OL CL GP 0.5 2.0 9.0 0 TO 0.5 FEET: SILTY CLAY ORGANIC SOIL; (OL); dark brown to black; moist; soft. 0.5 TO 2 FEET: SANDY LEAN CLAY; (CL); dark brown to brown; moist; medium plasticity; soft to medium stiff; approximately 30 percent fine to coarse grain sand; approximately 70 percent clayey fines. 2 TO 9 FEET: POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND COBBLES; (GP); grayish brown to brown; moist to wet; dense to very dense; approximately 60 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 30 percent fine to coarse grain sand; approximately 10 percent clayey fines. Bottom of borehole at 9.0 feet. NOTES Driller: Larry P. / Mike H., Partly Cloudy, Breezy, 20F GROUND ELEVATION LOGGED BY Noah J. Schaible, E.I. DRILLING METHOD B-60X Mobile Drill Rig DRILLING CONTRACTOR O'keefe Drilling GROUND WATER LEVELS: DATE STARTED 1/9/25 COMPLETED 1/9/25 AT TIME OF DRILLING 7.50 ft AFTER DRILLING --- AT END OF DRILLING ---DEPTH(ft)0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER B6 PROJECT NUMBER 25000076.00 CLIENT Rocky Mountain Flats, LLLP PROJECT LOCATION 5532 Fowler Lane, Bozeman MT PROJECT NAME Geotechnical Investigation GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - GINT STD US.GDT - 1/28/25 14:49 - \\FILES\ACTIVE\PROJECTS\2025\25000076.00\DESIGN\CIVIL\GEOTECHNICAL\BORING LOGS\BORING LOGS (25000076.00).GPJRECOVERY %BLOWCOUNTS(N VALUE)U.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION SS 45 SS47 SS48 SS49 SS49A 51 0 40 0 0 47-50/6" 30-32-27(59) 21-48-50/3" 50/3" 50/3" MC = 4% Fines = 13% OL CL GP 1.0 2.0 25.3 0 TO 1 FEET: SILTY CLAY ORGANIC SOIL; (OL); dark brown to black; moist; soft. 1 TO 2 FEET: SANDY LEAN CLAY; (CL); dark brown to brown; moist; medium plasticity; soft to medium stiff; approximately 30 percent fine to coarse grain sand; approximately 70 percentclayey fines. 2 TO 25.25 FEET: POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND COBBLES; (GP); grayish brown to brown; moist to wet; dense to very dense; approximately 60 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 30 percent fine to coarse grain sand;approximately 10 percent clayey fines. 20: NOTE: at approx. 4' bgs refusal on cobble/boulder, pulled auger to offset 4' and re-drilled boring. Bottom of borehole at 25.3 feet. NOTES Driller: Larry P. / Mike H., Partly Cloudy, Breezy, 20F GROUND ELEVATION LOGGED BY Noah J. Schaible, E.I. DRILLING METHOD B-60X Mobile Drill Rig DRILLING CONTRACTOR O'keefe Drilling GROUND WATER LEVELS: DATE STARTED 1/9/25 COMPLETED 1/9/25 AT TIME OF DRILLING 7.50 ft AFTER DRILLING --- AT END OF DRILLING ---DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 15 20 25 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER B7 PROJECT NUMBER 25000076.00 CLIENT Rocky Mountain Flats, LLLP PROJECT LOCATION 5532 Fowler Lane, Bozeman MT PROJECT NAME Geotechnical Investigation GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - GINT STD US.GDT - 1/28/25 14:49 - \\FILES\ACTIVE\PROJECTS\2025\25000076.00\DESIGN\CIVIL\GEOTECHNICAL\BORING LOGS\BORING LOGS (25000076.00).GPJRECOVERY %BLOWCOUNTS(N VALUE)TESTS U.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION SS50 SS51 SS52 SS53 17 50 61 50 3-3-3(6) 18-37-40(77) 25-44-50(94) 31-36-43(79) MC = 3%Fines = 12% OL CL GP 0.7 2.0 9.0 0 TO 0.67 FEET: SILTY CLAY ORGANIC SOIL; (OL); dark brown to black; moist; soft. 0.67 TO 2 FEET: SANDY LEAN CLAY; (CL); dark brown to brown; moist; medium plasticity; soft to medium stiff; approximately 30 percent fine to coarse grain sand; approximately 70 percent clayey fines. 2 TO 9 FEET: POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND COBBLES; (GP); grayish brown to brown; moist to wet; dense to very dense; approximately 60 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 30 percent fine to coarse grain sand;approximately 10 percent clayey fines. Bottom of borehole at 9.0 feet. NOTES Driller: Larry P. / Mike H., Partly Cloudy, Breezy, 20F GROUND ELEVATION LOGGED BY Noah J. Schaible, E.I. DRILLING METHOD B-60X Mobile Drill Rig DRILLING CONTRACTOR O'keefe Drilling GROUND WATER LEVELS: DATE STARTED 1/10/25 COMPLETED 1/10/25 AT TIME OF DRILLING 7.50 ft AFTER DRILLING --- AT END OF DRILLING ---DEPTH(ft)0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER B8 PROJECT NUMBER 25000076.00 CLIENT Rocky Mountain Flats, LLLP PROJECT LOCATION 5532 Fowler Lane, Bozeman MT PROJECT NAME Geotechnical Investigation GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - GINT STD US.GDT - 1/28/25 14:49 - \\FILES\ACTIVE\PROJECTS\2025\25000076.00\DESIGN\CIVIL\GEOTECHNICAL\BORING LOGS\BORING LOGS (25000076.00).GPJRECOVERY %BLOWCOUNTS(N VALUE)TESTS U.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION Project Engineer: Noah J. SchaibleProject:Well Information:bgs = below ground surface ags = above ground surfaceMW-1 MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-73.67 3.25 3.75 2.42 2.42 2.58 3.42Date Depth to Ground Water (feet-bgs)MW-1 MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-704/07/22 4.62 4.92 4.67 4.70 5.55 5.24 5.1704/15/22 4.98 5.30 5.01 5.04 5.83 5.56 5.4804/21/22 4.93 5.31 5.05 5.10 5.87 5.60 4.7704/29/22 4.26 4.53 4.04 4.24 5.09 4.73 4.8205/06/22 3.66 3.80 3.30 3.28 4.18 4.00 4.2105/13/22 3.41 3.43 2.78 2.70 3.70 3.59 3.9105/20/22 3.28 3.71 3.26 3.17 4.24 4.00 3.9805/27/22 3.20 3.72 3.34 3.30 4.41 4.07 4.4106/03/22 2.94 3.14 2.53 2.42 3.53 3.33 3.5106/10/22 3.38 3.63 2.71 2.56 3.72 3.56 3.9106/17/22 3.43 3.58 3.09 2.89 4.14 3.91 4.1106/24/22 3.62 3.96 3.63 3.54 4.71 4.39 4.3906/30/22 3.63 4.13 3.95 3.92 5.09 4.57 4.4207/08/22 3.72 4.32 4.27 4.31 5.39 4.80 4.5207/15/22 3.71 4.46 4.49 4.64 5.57 4.95 4.5407/22/22 3.75 4.56 4.69 4.90 5.78 5.12 4.6307/29/22 4.00 4.83 4.99 5.21 6.06 5.41 4.8708/05/22 4.31 5.15 5.28 5.49 6.33 5.70 5.1308/12/22 3.74 4.83 5.08 5.34 6.15 5.44 4.7008/19/22 4.20 5.10 5.26 5.49 6.31 5.67 5.0908/26/22 4.14 5.16 5.31 5.54 6.35 5.71 5.05Groundwater Information:N2S2SW4SW4 Sec. 23Monitor Well DataProject Number: 2114315532 Fowler Lane Gallatin County MTProject Location:1143 Stoneridge Drive • Bozeman, Montana • Phone (406) 587-1115Well IDGround Elevation Well Depth (feet bgs)Top of Well (feet ags) Appendix D BUFFALO RUN SEWER DESIGN REPORT Table of Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 1 2 PROBLEM DEFINED (DEQ 11.11) ...................................................................................................... 1 3 DESIGN CONDITIONS (DEQ 11.12) ................................................................................................... 1 4 IMPACT ON EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES (11.13) ............................................................ 4 5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION (11.14) ....................................................................................................... 4 6 DRAWINGS (11.15) .............................................................................................................................. 4 7 DESIGN CRITERIA (11.16) .................................................................................................................. 4 8 SITE INFORMATION (11.17) ............................................................................................................... 4 9 ALTERNATIVE SELECTION/ANALYSIS (11.18) ................................................................................ 4 10 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (11.19) ............................................................................................. 4 APPENDICES Appendix A Location Maps / Site Plan (by Vogel & Associates) Appendix B Collection System Map (from City of Bozeman GIS Infrastructure Viewer) Appendix C As-built Plans (from Meadow Creek Subdivision by Engineering, Inc. / Allied Engineering) Appendix D NRCS Soils Report Appendix E Geotechnical Report Prepared by: Morrison-Maierle, Inc. 2880 Technology Blvd. W. Bozeman, Montana 59771 Phone: (406) 587-0721 Fax: (406) 922-6702 Written By: LRH________ Checked By: MEE Approved By: JRN Project No.: 6475.005 N:\6475\005 - Buffalo Run - Site Plan\04 Design\Reports\Sewer Design Report\6475 - Buffalo Run Sewer Report.docx 1 Buffalo Run Site Plan Preliminary Sewer Collection Design Report 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This design report provides a basis of design for the Buffalo Run Site Plan sewer main extension improvements project and is submitted in conjunction with the site plan. The sewer collection system serving the Buffalo Run Site Plan will be designed and installed in accordance with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Circular No. 2; Montana Public Works Standard Specifications (MPWSS); The City of Bozeman Modifications to MPWSS; and the City of Bozeman Wastewater Facility Plan. The design report is to verify that there is an adequate capacity to receive wastewater flows from the proposed development. The following design report follows the section numbering of the Circular DEQ-2 Standards for Public Sewage Systems (2018 Edition). 2 PROBLEM DEFINED (DEQ 11.11) a. The Buffalo Run Site Plan is located off of Kurk Drive between S 31st Ave and Fowler Ln. This project has been annexed and zoned into the City of Bozeman, Montana. See Appendix A, the location maps for location details. Buffalo Run Bozeman, LLC plans to construct a 237-unit multi-family apartment community and a clubhouse as part of this development (see the attached Site Plan in Appendix A for details). All of the wasterwater generated by this project will gravity flow to the west and utilize a the new 12” sewer main to be constructed in Fowler Lane. The new Fowler main will connect to the existing 21” sewer trunk main located in Stucky Road (see Appendix C for details). This work involves extending approximately 4,000 LF of a new 12-inch sewer main in Fowler Lane and approximately 3,700 LF 8-inch sewer main within the property to serve the proposed development. Sewer facilities included in this project will be designed in accordance with Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) regulations. Flow and population data for the project will be consistent with the City’s approved Facilities Plan, where applicable. 3 DESIGN CONDITIONS (DEQ 11.12) The proposed development includes 237 dwelling units (see Site Plan included in Appendix A). The capacity requirement for the sewer main extension is calculated as follows: Residential Flows 237 dwelling units (DU) Population = ~514 persons (237 DU x 2.17 people/DU) Design Values from 2014 Wastewater Facility Plan 2.17 People per DU 64.4 gallons per day (GPD) per person 2.17 people/DU * 64.4 GPD/person = 140 GPD/DU Table 1: Sewer Flow Summary – Residential BUILDING TOTAL DU POPULATION (PEOPLE) AVE DAY FLOW (GPD) BLD A 24 52 3360 BLD B 30 65 4200 BLD C 30 65 4200 BLD D 30 65 4200 BLD E 22 48 3080 BLD F 22 48 3080 BLD G 5 11 700 BLD H 22 48 3080 BLD I 2 4 280 BLD J 4 9 560 BLD K 5 11 700 BLD L 5 11 700 BLD M 2 4 280 BLD N 4 9 560 BLD O 2 4 280 DUPLEX 1 /A/B 2 4 280 DUPLEX 2 /A/B 2 4 280 DUPLEX 3 /A/B 2 4 280 DUPLEX 4 /A/B 2 4 280 DUPLEX 5 /A/B 2 4 280 DUPLEX 6 /A/B 2 4 280 DUPLEX 7 /A/B 2 4 280 DUPLEX 8 /A/B 2 4 280 DUPLEX 9 /A/B 2 4 280 DUPLEX 10 /A/B 2 4 280 DUPLEX 11 /A/B 2 4 280 DUPLEX 12 /A/B 2 4 280 DUPLEX 13 /A/B 2 4 280 DUPLEX 14 /A/B 2 4 280 237 514 33,180 AVERAGE DAILY FLOW (ADF): ADF = 237 DU x 140 GPD/DU = 33,180 GPD Community Clubhouse Flows Assume (4) employees work out of the clubhouse Assume 1/3 of the total population use the clubhouse per day = 514/3 = 171 people ADF = (4 employees)(13 GPD) + (171 patrons/day)(3 GPD) = 565 GPD Infiltration ADF = 20.00 acres x 150 gallons/acre/day (COB Design Standards) = 3,000 GPD Total Average Day Flow Total Average Day Flow (TADF) = 33,180 GPD + 565 GPD + 3,000 GPD = 36,745 GPD = 25.5 GPM Total Peak Day Flow Population = TADF / 64.4 (GPD/person) = 36,745 GPD / 64.4 (GPD/person) = 571 people 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃=18+√0.5704+√0.570 =3.94 Total Peak Day Flow = (ADFResidential + ADFClubhouse) x PF + ADFInfiltration = (33,180 GPD + 565 GPD) x 3.94 + 3,000 GPD = 135,955 GPD = 94.4 GPM Therefore - 305 GPM (see Table 2 below) >>>>> 94.4 GPM √√√√ Maximum flow within sewer mains installed at minimum grade (per DEQ-2) with a roughness coefficient (n) value of 0.013 are provided in the table below for typical main sizes. As illustrated below, an 8-inch pipe size is adequate for all sewer mains included within this development. Table 2: Sewer Main Capacity (SDR-35 PVC) NOMINAL PIPE SIZE MINIMUM SLOPE FLOW DEPTH CAPACITY CAPACITY (in) (ft/ft) (d/D) (GPD) (GPM) 8" 0.0040 0.75 438,500 305 10" 0.0028 0.75 665,200 462 12" 0.0022 0.75 937,400 651 Notes: - Flows were calculated using actual inside diameters of standard SDR-35 sewer pipe. 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃=𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄=18 +√𝑃𝑃4 +√𝑃𝑃;(𝑃𝑃=𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑄𝑄𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃ℎ𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑜𝑜𝑄𝑄𝑃𝑃𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜) 4 IMPACT ON EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES (11.13) The existing sewer mains in the vicinity of this project (the 21” existing sewer main in Stucky Road) can handle the increase in flows based on information in the 2015 City of Bozeman Wastewater Collection Facilities Plan Update. The 2015 Wastewater Facility Plan identified a number of long-term pipe upgrades downstream of this development. All of the pipes that require long term upgrades have adequate capacity for this development. The pipe section identified as the most limiting is the WWTP Interceptor which had an available capacity of 2,280 gpm based on the 2015 plan. 5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION (11.14) This work involves extending approximately 4,000 LF of a new 12-inch sewer main in Fowler Lane and approximately 3,700 LF 8-inch sewer main within the property to serve the proposed development. 6 DRAWINGS (11.15) Drawings identifying the site of the project, including the location and alignment of proposed facilities, will be provided with the final design report submitted with the future infrastructure plans. 7 DESIGN CRITERIA (11.16) Design criteria including average and peak flows as well as sewer depth information were provided in previous sections. The proposed sewer mains conform to the State’s minimum vertical and horizontal separation criteria from water mains. The proposed conventional gravity sewer collection system is to be constructed to City of Bozeman and the current edition of Montana Public Works (MPW) Standard Specifications. The sewer mains shall be 8-inch diameter SDR 35 Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) pipe. All manholes shall be standard concrete manholes spaced no more than 400 feet apart. 8 SITE INFORMATION (11.17) The property is currently zoned R-4 and is annexation into the City of Bozeman. The Buffalo Run Site Plan is located off of Kurk Drive between S 31st Ave and Fowler Ln. The property for the proposed development is currently an improved rural property which slopes gently to the north with existing grades of less than 4% and mostly Turner loam and Hyalite-Beaverton complex deposits (USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey) as shown in Appendix D. In Appendix E is the site Geotech Report prepared by Rawhide Engineering, Inc. The groundwater levels onsite range between approximately 1 and 5 feet below existing grade based on well monitoring performed from March 2020 to September of 2021. 9 ALTERNATIVE SELECTION/ANALYSIS (11.18) No proposed alternatives were considered 10 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (11.19) There are no expected environmental impacts from this sewer main extension, as the City of Bozeman Wastewater Treatment Plant has more than adequate capacity for this extension. N:\6475\005 - Buffalo Run - Site Plan\04 Design\Reports\Sewer Design Report\6475 - Buffalo Run Sewer Report.docx A APPENDIX A LOCATION MAP (by Vogel & Associates) A B C D E G F IJ K L M1 A/B 2 A/B 3 A/B 8 A/B 9 A/B 10 A/B 11 A/B 13 A/B 14 A/B 4 A/B 5 A/B 6 A/B 7 A/B 12 A/B N H O xx' 26' 24' xx'xx' 26' xx'xx' xx'xx' xx'xx'26' 26' 26' 26'26' 10' MIN. 10' MIN. Scale:475 W. 12th Avenue - Suite E Denver, Colorado 80204-3688 (303) 893-4288 Date:OCTOBER 01, 2021 SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL BUFFALO RUN 5400 FOWLER LANE S23, T02 S, R05 E, N2SW4SW4, CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA. Revision Date: S1 - SITE PLAN 05010025SCALE: 1"=50' 100' KURK DRIVE (60' R.O.W.) MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS, UNITS VARY, SEE SITE DATA CHART ON C-COVER SHEET. ROWHOUSES, WITH ATTACHED 2-CAR GARAGE EA. 30' PED R.O.W, WITH 5' BUILDING SETBACKS SITE VISION TRIANGLE, COLLECTOR AND LOCAL STREET REQUIREMENTS, TYP.FOWLER LANE, MINOR ARTERIAL, (100' R.O.W.)AVENUE C (60' EASEMENT)AVENUE B (60' EASEMENT)SITE VISION TRIANGLE, ARTERIAL STREET REQUIREMENTS ON STREET PARKING, TYP. (1 SPACE/24 LF), SEE S3, PARKING PLAN. EXISTING POND AND DRAINAGE (RE-ALIGNED) DUPLEX, TYP. SITE SETBACK LINES, 10' EASEMENT FROM R.O.W., TYP. PARKING FACILITY #1 PARKING FACILITY #2 PARKING FACILITY #3 PARKING FACILITY #3 PARKING FACILITY #4PARKING FACILITY #4 T 10' UTILITY SETBACK 10' ACCESS EASEMENT WITH 10' SETBACKS LANDSCAPED BLOCK FRONTAGE LANDSCAPED BLOCK FRONTAGE TRAIL/PATHWAY FRONTAGE MIXED BLOCK FRONTAGE LANDSCAPED BLOCK FRONTAGE T GRILL AREA WITH COVERED PAVILION, TYP. (X2 ON SITE) 10' EASEMENT WITH 10' SETBACKS MEADOW CREEK PARK EXPANSION, (2.16 ACRES), SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS. FUTURE SIDEWALK EXISTING R.O.W. COVERED PARKING, TYP. COMMUNITY CENTER COMMUNITY GARDEN & PAVILION BIKE RACK STATIONS, SEE S3, PARKING PLAN. 30' PED R.O.W. TEMPORARY 120' HAMMERHEAD TEMPORARY HAMMERHEAD (60' FROM CENTER LINE) SNOW STORAGE: REQUIRED: PARKING, DRIVES AND PEDESTRIAN WALKS: PROVIDED: LANDSCAPE AREA LEGEND CONCRETE WALK ASPHALT DRIVES & PARKING SNOW STORAGE * SEE CALCULATION CHART, THIS SHEET T TRASH ENCLOSURE NOTES: 1.ALL TRASH ENCLOSURE AREAS ON THE SITE PLAN ARE 10'x10', THESE AREAS WILL ACCOMMODATE A CONTAINER CAPACITY OF 8 CU YD EACH. 2.ENCLOSURES TO HAVE 6" WALL SURROUNDING THE SIDES AND BACK. 3.FRONT SIDE WILL HAVE A PIVOTING GATE WITH LATCH TO ACCESS THE CONTAINERS. 4.ALL ENCLOSURES TO BE DESIGNED WITH A SHELTER OVERHANG. 5.TOTAL TRASH ENCLOSURES : 12 (8 CU YD CONTAINER EA.) T T T T T T TRASH ENCLOSURES, 2 CONTAINERS PER ENCLOSURE, TYP,. SEE NOTES, THIS SHEET. T T PARKING FACILITY #3LANDSCAPED BLOCK FRONTAGEPARKING FACILITY #4T Blackwood RoadFowler RoadSouth 27thAvenue Kurk Drive South 28thAvenue South 29thAvenue South 29thAvenue South 30thAvenue Meah Lane Blackwood Road South 27 thAvenue Subject Site Subject Site B APPENDIX B COLLECTION SYSTEM MAP (from City of Bozeman GIS Infrastructure Viewer) VERIFY SCALE! THESE PRINTS MAY BE REDUCED. LINE BELOW MEASURES ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING. MODIFY SCALE ACCORDINGLY! 2020COPYRIGHT © MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., SHEET NUMBER PROJECT NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.BY N:\6475\002 - TOPO AND BOUNDARY SURVEY\ACAD\EXHIBITS\2020_PRELIMWATERSEWERDISTRIBUTION.DWG PLOTTED BY:LEE HAGEMAN ON Jul/25/2020 REVISIONS DRAWN BY: DSGN. BY: APPR. BY: DATE: Q.C. REVIEW DATE: BY: 2880 Technology Blvd West Bozeman, MT 59718 406.587.0721 www.m-m.net engineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle BUFFALO RUN SUBDIVISION BOZEMAN MONTANA EXISTING WASTEWATER COLLECTION MAP (FROM CITY OF BOZEMAN GIS MAPPER) 6475.002 EX-2 LRH 07/2020 BUFF A L O R U N SUBDI VI SI O N KURK DR S 30TH AVEALLEYMEAD O W C R E E K SUBDI VI SI O N PHAS E 1 APPENDIX C AS-BUILT PLANS (from Meadow Creek Subdivision by Engineering, Inc. / Allied Engineering) APPENDIX D NRCS SOILS REPORT United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Gallatin County Area, Montana Buffalo Run Natural Resources Conservation Service July 20, 2020 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Gallatin County Area, Montana.......................................................................13 448A—Hyalite-Beaverton complex, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes....................................................................................................13 457A—Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes.......................15 510B—Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes......................................16 References............................................................................................................18 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report 6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Custom Soil Resource Report 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 50544305054480505453050545805054630505468050547305054430505448050545305054580505463050546805054730493480 493530 493580 493630 493680 493730 493780 493830 493880 493930 493480 493530 493580 493630 493680 493730 493780 493830 493880 493930 45° 38' 46'' N 111° 5' 2'' W45° 38' 46'' N111° 4' 39'' W45° 38' 35'' N 111° 5' 2'' W45° 38' 35'' N 111° 4' 39'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600 Feet 0 30 60 120 180 Meters Map Scale: 1:2,220 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area, Montana Survey Area Data: Version 24, Jun 4, 2020 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 3, 2009—Sep 1, 2016 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 10 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 448A Hyalite-Beaverton complex, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes 5.8 27.8% 457A Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes 13.6 65.2% 510B Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 1.4 7.0% Totals for Area of Interest 20.8 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or Custom Soil Resource Report 11 landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 12 Gallatin County Area, Montana 448A—Hyalite-Beaverton complex, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56sq Elevation: 4,450 to 5,300 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance Map Unit Composition Hyalite and similar soils: 70 percent Beaverton and similar soils: 20 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Hyalite Setting Landform: Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Loamy alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 5 inches: loam Bt1 - 5 to 9 inches: clay loam Bt2 - 9 to 17 inches: silty clay loam 2Bt3 - 17 to 26 inches: very cobbly sandy clay loam 3C - 26 to 60 inches: very cobbly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 48 to 96 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 5 percent Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: Upland Grassland (R043BP818MT) Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Description of Beaverton Setting Landform: Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 5 inches: cobbly loam Bt - 5 to 21 inches: very gravelly clay loam Bk - 21 to 25 inches: very cobbly coarse sandy loam 2Bk - 25 to 60 inches: extremely cobbly loamy coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 48 to 96 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Low (about 3.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: Upland Grassland (R043BP818MT) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Meadowcreek Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Subirrigated (Sb) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS359MT) Hydric soil rating: No Beaverton Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Stream terraces, alluvial fans Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS354MT) Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 14 457A—Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56tb Elevation: 4,300 to 5,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Turner and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Turner Setting Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 6 inches: loam Bt - 6 to 12 inches: clay loam Bk - 12 to 26 inches: clay loam 2C - 26 to 60 inches: very gravelly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 48 to 96 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Low (about 5.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: Loamy (Lo) LRU 44B-B (R044BB032MT) Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 15 Minor Components Meadowcreek Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Subirrigated (Sb) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS359MT) Hydric soil rating: No Beaverton Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS354MT) Hydric soil rating: No Turner Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS355MT) Hydric soil rating: No 510B—Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56vt Elevation: 4,200 to 5,950 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Meadowcreek and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Meadowcreek Setting Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium Custom Soil Resource Report 16 Typical profile A - 0 to 11 inches: loam Bg - 11 to 25 inches: silt loam 2C - 25 to 60 inches: very gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 4 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 24 to 42 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Low (about 5.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: Subirrigated (Sb) LRU 44B-Y (R044BY150MT) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Blossberg Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Wet Meadow (WM) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS365MT) Hydric soil rating: Yes Beaverton Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS354MT) Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 17 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 18 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report 19 APPENDIX E GEOTECHNICAL REPORT