The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About009-Stormwater Drainage Report 1105 REEVES RD. W. STE 6 BOZEMAN, MT 59718 406-581-5730 www.headwatersmt.net Page 1 of 11 Stormwater Drainage Report BCPC Facility 350 Gallatin Park Drive Bozeman, Montana COB Application # 25755 December 2025 Updated March 2026 Headwaters Engineering, Inc. Project #: 2127.001 Prepared For: Bozeman Classic Pickleball Club, LLC 2414 Arabian Ave Bozeman, MT 59718 1105 Reeves Rd. W. Ste 6, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 581-5730 www.headwatersmt.net Page 2 of 11 I. Introduction This design report outlines the storm water analysis conducted for the site and describes the storm water drainage and management facilities required for the BCPC Facility. The storm water plan follows the design standards set forth in the City of Bozeman Design and Construction Standards, October 2024 and subsequent addenda. Description of the property The BCPC Facility Site consists of 2 buildings with a total of a 18,605 square foot indoor pickleball facility and a 2,603 square foot office building. The site consists of four outdoor pickleball courts as well as parking for the two buildings. The site is on the 2.01-acre Lot 12, Block 2 of Plat J-300 of the Gallatin Park Subdivision. The existing vacant lot is located in Section 36, T1S, R5E, PMM in Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The site is well vegetated with the exception of the areas where historic stockpiles were removed. The vegetation mostly consists of smooth brome, common Timothy and Kentucky bluegrass. Existing use on the lot is vacant lot, with the proposed use being two commercial buildings and the associated infrastructure. The native ground slopes to the north-northwest at roughly 1%. There are still some remaining stockpiles on the lot which appear to be from nearby construction as well as from construction of the subdivision. The geologic features of the site are discussed in the Appendix C – Geotechnical & Hydrogeological Evaluation. Storm runoff from the site starts as sheet flow before slightly consolidating in the northwest corner of the subject property. When the stormwater leaves the property, it continues to flow northwest until it reaches the Cherry Lakes wetland complex, were is flows through existing channels and ponds before reaching the East Gallatin River roughly ½ mile away. No watercourses exist on the property, or adjacent property, but there is a surface water pond roughly 85’ north of the project site. The project site is not within the mapped floodplain of the East Gallatin River, nor any other waterways. The East Gallatin River floodplain is roughly ½ of a mile to the north of the project site and about 1/3rd of a mile to the east of the site. Figure 1 - Vicinity Map 1105 Reeves Rd. W. Ste 6, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 581-5730 www.headwatersmt.net Page 3 of 11 Previous Drainage Studies Stormwater was analyzed by TD&H in 1999 as part of the Gallatin Park Subdivision. The Design Report for Water, Sewer and Street Improvements, for the Gallatin Park Subdivision is attached. A stormwater design report was also completed for the Gallatin Park Mixed Use Project, planning # 22016, but that site plan approval has since expired. State or Federal Regulations The City of Bozeman regulations exceed the DEQ stormwater requirements within DEQ Circular 8, and therefore all DEQ requirements are met or exceeded with this design. Since there are no affected wetlands, no 404 Wetland Permitting will be required. 2. Hydrology and Hydrogeology The site runoff has been modeled using HydroCAD software and the SCS method for the storms ranging between the 2- year and 100-year event. This site has the luxury of being the last developed lot before with a downgradient drainageway which is protected all the way to the East Gallatin River. Therefore, any runoff has a direct, protected route to the river without risk of flooding any structures. The newly constructed Manley Ditch discharges roughly 200’ downstream of this property. Tables 6.5.1 & 6.5.2 from the City of Bozeman Design and Construction Standards “CBDCS” are included below. These charts were utilized for storm depth and intensity. Table 6.6.2 from the CBDCS was used to find the SCS Curve Numbers for the predevelopment and developed site. The attached Geotechnical /Hydrogeological Evaluation in Appendix C discusses the soils, in-situ conditions and groundwater for the site and surrounding area. Conclusion of that evaluation: While the groundwater is relatively high in this area, it is low enough to not interfere with the proposed stormwater pond. The soils in this area are very conducive to the plans and do not see any associated risks with the proposed stormwater plan. The clean sands and gravels retain their structural integrity when submerged under water. With the above provide in formation in unison with the C&H Geotechnical Report for the site, we feel the proposed storm plan is the best option for this site. 3. Existing Stormwater Drainage Conditions The native ground slopes to the north-northwest at roughly 1%, starting as sheet flow and then starting to collect into a shallow drainage path on the northwest corner of the property. From the site, the water continues to flow north to the area where the Manley Ditch discharges. Below the Manley Ditch is an existing drainage that continues northwest to the East Gallatin River. The Gallatin Park Subdivision was designed to have regional storm ponds which discharges roughly 300’ east of the subject property, but ultimately joins with the site drainage and flows to the East 1105 Reeves Rd. W. Ste 6, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 581-5730 www.headwatersmt.net Page 4 of 11 Gallatin River. As discussed above, the flow path downgradient of the site is through existing parks and open space which provides protection of the downstream flow path and prevents issues with downstream flooding. Table 1. Estimated Pre-Development Peak Flows Sub Area Description Area Tc Q10 Q25 Q100 CN (acres) (min) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) . A Onsite Basin – SCS 2.010 37.6 0.00 0.02 0.07 62 B Offsite Basin – SCS 1.34 38.6 0.01 0.09 0.26 75 Version 10 of HydroCAD was used to model the storm basins using the SCS Method. The printouts for each basin are provided in the appendices. The time of concentration calculations were completed per Chapter 6 of the CBDCS. Since the outfall is into a natural drainage channel which crosses an open space and then a park, capacities were not calculated. Since the subject property is on the north end of development, there are not any manmade drainage features downstream of the site. 4. Proposed Stormwater Drainage System Stormwater runoff from the proposed site is to be captured by one retention pond at the north end of the site. The storm pond was located so that any overflow will use the existing drainage, directly to the East Gallatin River without flowing through any other developed property. The parking lot runoff will be consolidated in the curbs and valley gutters and directed to the storm pond. The roofs will have gutters which will be collected and transported to the storm pond via small diameter PVC storm pipes. The connection between the gutters and the storm pipes will have an overflow so that any peak flows can still flow on the surface into the parking lot. The stormwater infrastructure was designed per the CBDCS. Storm pipes were modeled using Bentley StormCAD and the pond overflow and cross sections were modeled using Bentley FlowMaster. HydroCAD was utilized to determine the post development storm flows and retention basin volume. Since the site all drains to the one storm pond, only one onsite basin was utilized. Table 2. Estimated Post-Development Peak Flows Sub Area Description Area Tc Q10 Q25 Q100 CN (acres) (min) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) . A Onsite Basin – SCS 2.010 37 0.82 1.38 1.86 88 Sheet C1.2 depicts the proposed site drainage with contours and flow arrows, as well as the storm pond. Sheet C3.0 provides additional detail for the storm pond. Civil sheet C1.1 shows the proposed subsurface rain gutter pipes and manholes. Version 10 of HydroCAD was used to model the storm basins using the SCS Method. The printouts for each basin are provided in the appendices. The time of concentration calculations were completed per Chapter 6 of the CBDCS. The CN factor for an industrial site was chosen from Table 6.6.2, as we felt the warehouse nature of this site fit that description best. Results from each model and calculations are included in the appendix. The only storm pipes utilized for this site are to carry nuisance flows from the roof drains. The pipes are sized to carry the 100-year flows from the roofs with the 6” pipes capable of carrying 0.40 cfs and the 8” PVC pipes are capable of 0.85 cfs as shown in the StormCAD model with a summary below. The 100-year flow for the entire site is 1.86 cfs and the entire roof flow during the 100-year storm is under 0.5 cfs. The gutter pipes are also designed to overflow at the vertical connection to the underground pipe and then surface flow into the parking lot. 1105 Reeves Rd. W. Ste 6, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 581-5730 www.headwatersmt.net Page 5 of 11 Figure 2 - StormCad Pipe Printout Table 3. Storm Pond Volumes Pond Type Location Contributing 10 yr Volume 100 yr Volume Subarea (cft)_______________(cft)_________________ A Retention Onsite Basin 2.01 acre 4,805 8,293 As discussed above, since the site has a protected downgradient flow channel to the East Gallatin River, therefore storage of the 100-year storm is not required. We did evaluate the storage of the 100-year storm. As shown on sheet ST-1, the storage of the 100-year storm is possible with minor flooding into the parking lot. The water surface during the 100-year event is 4685.0, which is 1.25’ below the first floor of the office and 2.5’ below the floor of the BCPC facility. The storm pond overflow is also proposed to be armored and was designed to pass the 100-year storm without overtopping the pond embankment as shown in the attached Flowmaster Report. Since the proposed storm pond is a retention pond, the initial storm volume and runoff treatment volume will be captured in this pond with zero runoff during the 10-year & 100-year events. 5. Evaluation of Major Storm Flood Risks The site was evaluated for risks during the major storms. Since the parking lots slope away from the buildings and to the north, any offsite flows or major storm flows will follow that path north. A cross section between the buildings, and west of the facility, both show that flows exceeding the 100-year can pass down the parking lots before flooding any buildings. Section A-A has a capacity over 300 cfs. Through modeling of a 42” RCP from the Manley Ditch, it appears the design flow for the Manley Ditch is under 100 cfs, so a breach of the Manley Ditch can also be passed through the BCPC parking lot before inundating the building. Section B-B has a capacity of roughly 150 cfs, which far exceeds any offsite flows. Storm flows within Gallatin Park Drive will remain in the street due to the designed high point in the parking lot, roughly 25’ behind the sidewalk. The flood hazards for the area will remain largely the same if 100-year storage is used. The 100-year flow of 1.86 cfs will not increase flood risks along the historic flow path downgradient of the site. As discussed, the Manley Ditch will discharge between 50 & 100 cfs immediately downstream of this project. The addition of the Manley Ditch will improve the flood hazards in the area by capturing storm runoff and discharging it into a native, protected channel downgradient of the site. Since the site will construct its own storm pond, the regional storm pond for the subdivision will have less flow directed into the pond and will help to keep that pond operating properly. Since the project is at the north end of area development, the greater flood risks are from offsite flows. The parking lots have been designed to carry any offsite storm flows directly to the north and downgradient to the East Gallatin River. As shown with cross sections A-A and B-B, the capacity of these flow paths far exceeds the flows reaching the site. Per the 1999 Design Report for the Subdivision, the 100-year flows are around 50 cfs for the entire post construction drainage basin for regional pond 1. Since the pond discharge flows east of the site, the majority of that flow would never reach the site, but Section B-B could handle it regardless. 6. Operation, Inspection, and Maintenance Considerations 1105 Reeves Rd. W. Ste 6, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 581-5730 www.headwatersmt.net Page 6 of 11 The attached Stormwater Facilities Operation, Inspection and Maintenance Manual addresses maintenance and upkeep of the stormwater related infrastructure. The Acknowledgement of Stormwater Facility Maintenance Requirements and Inspection form are also attached. The responsible party is also listed below. Responsible Party: Bozeman Classic Pickleball Club, LLC Contact: Elliot Marcille em@bozemanpickleballclub.com, 406-931-0564 2414 Arabian Ave Bozeman, MT 59718 7. References City of Bozeman Design and Construction Standards, October 2024, and all addenda. Gallatin Park Subdivision Design Report – Appendix E (1999 TD&H) Montana Post-Construction Storm Water BMP Design Guidance Manual, September 2017 8. Appendices Appendix A – Civil Sheets C1.0, C1.1, C1.2, C3.0 Appendix A – Stormwater Exhibit Appendix B - Time of Concentration Calcs Appendix B - Storm Pond Volume Calcs Appendix B - StormCad Printouts Appendix B - Flowmaster Printouts Appendix B - HydroCAD printouts Appendix B – Parking Lot Cross Sections Appendix C – Geotechnical & Hydrogeological Evaluation & Soils Investigation Report Appendix C – Soils Investigation Report Appendix C – USGS Soil Mapper Report Appendix C – Geologic Map Appendix C – Madison Groundwater Study Map Appendix D - Stormwater Facilities Operation, Inspection and Maintenance Manual Appendix D - Acknowledgement of Stormwater Facility Maintenance Requirements Appendix D - Stormwater Facility Inspection Form Appendix E – 1999 Design Report for the Gallatin Park Subdivision H:\2127\001\DOCS\DESIGN\STORMWATER\Stormwater Drainage Report.doc 1105 Reeves Rd. W. Ste 6, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 581-5730 www.headwatersmt.net Page 7 of 11 Appendix A Plans & Exhibits ///////////////////////////8 WEEG GT T8 SS8 SS8 W8 W8 W8 WSS /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////8 WWSWSWSWS WSWSWS //////T T T T T T TTTTGGGGGGG G G G G E E E E E E E E E EEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSWSWSWSGGG/// /// 8 SS10 SS10 SS10 SS10 SS10 SS10 SS8 SS8 SSCLOS E T UPW W WWSSSSSSWWW W W WSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSEEEE E E E EG G G G GGGGFDCEEESSSSWSWSWSGGGTTTEXISTING CURB AND SIDEWALK11"X17": 1"= 40 ftNGRAPHIC SCALE1 inch = ft.0( IN FEET )10202020HEADWATERSPROJECT NUMBERDRAWING NUMBERDRAWN BY:DATE:2026VERIFY SCALETHESE PRINTS MAY BEREDUCED. LINE BELOWMEASURES ONE INCH ONORIGINAL DRAWING. MODIFY SCALE ACCORDINGLYH:\2127\001\ACAD\SHEETS\C1.1_UTILITY-GRADING PLAN.dwg Plot Date: 4/4/2026 9:39 AM© HEADWATERS ENGINEERING, INC.REVISION DATE:1105 REEVES RD WEST, SUITE 6, BOZEMAN, MT 59718HEADWATERSMT.NET406-581-5730PROJECT LOCATIONMONTANABOZEMAN04/04/2601/21/26JRMGRADING PLAN350 GALLATIN PARK DRIVEBCPC FACILITY2127.001C1.2STORM PONDSEE SHEET C3.0TOP POND=84.33OFFICEFFE=4686.25INDOORFACILITY(6 COURTS)OUTDOORCOURTSEXISTING SEWER MAINPROPERTY BOUNDARYPROPERTY BOUNDARYGALLATIN PA R K D R I V E PROPERTY BOUNDARYGRAVEL TRAILGRAVEL TRAIL CONNECTION3' REAR YARD346 GALLATINPARK DRIVEFACILITYFFE=4687.50TBC=88.86TBC(GB)=87.86TBC(GB)=86.64TBC=86.12TBC=85.90TBC=85.56TBC=85.44TBC(LOW)=84.82CURB CUTTBC=84.99TBC=85.34TBC=85.75(SP)TBC=86.01(SP)TBC=85.66TBC=85.76TBC=85.95TBC=PAVE=85.93(SP)TBC(GB)=86.61(SP)TBC=86.83(SP)TBC=86.57TBC(HI)=86.64BSW=85.55BSW=85.30BSW=85.88TBC(HI)=87.01TBC(SP)=87.25TBC(SP)=87.35TBC(SP)=86.98TBC(SP)=87.20TBC(SP)=86.87TBC(SP)=86.67TBC(SP)=87.13TBC(GB)=86.75(SP)LEGENDUNDERGROUND ELECTRICSEWER PIPEWATER SERVICE LINEEASEMENT OR SETBACK AS LABELEDUNDERGROUND GAS LINEUNDERGROUND COMMUNICATION LINEEXISTING CONTOURS 0.5' INTERVAL4" IRRIGATION CONDUITPROPOSED SIDEWALKGRADING NOTES:1. ALL TBC RADII ARE 3.0' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.2. ALL CURB & GUTTER SHALL BE INSTALLED PER DETAIL ON SHEET C3.0.3. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR LOCATION OF PROPOSED LANDSCAPING.4. CATCH TBC=FLAG + 0.40'5. SPILL TBC = FLAG + 0.55'6. TRANS TBC = FLAG + 0.45'7. SP=SPILL, LOW=LOW POINT, HI=HIGH POINT, GB=GRADE BREAK, CA=CATCH,TBC=TOP BACK CURB, SW=SIDEWALK, BSW=BACK SIDEWALK & FFE = FIRSTFLOOR ELEVATION.8. THE CONTRACTOR IS TO VERIFY THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES ANDAISLES HAVE A CROSS SLOPE LESS THAN 2% PRIOR TO PAVING/POURING.THE CONTRACTOR IS TO VERIFY THAT ALL CROSS WALKS AND SIDEWALKSHAVE A 1.5% MAX CROSS SLOPE PRIOR TO PAVING/POURING.9. MAX LANDSCAPING SLOPE IS 4:1 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.GRAVEL TRAILPROPOSED FENCETBC(SP)=86.75TBC(SP)=86.01TBC(SP)=85.89TBC(SP)=85.77(LO)TBC(SP)=86.38TBC(SP)=86.38TBC(SP)=86.38TBC(SP)=86.65TBC(SP)=86.90TBC(SP)=87.15TBC(SP)=86.35(GB)TBC(SP)=87.35(GB)TBC(SP)=87.95TBC(SP)=88.82SW=87.37SW=87.40SW=86.93SW=86.98SW=86.59SW=87.28SW=86.95SW=87.10SW=86.63SW=86.78SW=86.55FUTURE PARALLELSEWER MAINEXISTINGDRAINAGEPATTERNRAMPRAMPLANDINGRAMPRAMPLANDINGR AM P R A M PRAMP DRIVE OVERCURB FOR SNOWREMOVAL3' TAPER3' TAPERT A P ERPOST DEVELOPMENT FLOW DIRECTIONMANLEY DITCHSW=87.40(HP)SW=87.38SW=87.48SW=87.25(HP)86.586.086.086.085.087.085.086.087.53' TAPER3' TAPERMAJOR STORM WATERSURFACE LIMITSSEE SHEET C1.0 FOR OFFSITEDELINEATED WETLANDS50' WETLAND/WATERCOURSESETBACKSIDEWALK CURBEXISTINGREGIONALSTORM POND292.7'216.1'173.7'119.4' 124.0'155.8'1 1 4 . 4 'SEE SHEET C1.1 FORGUTTER PIPE INFONOTES:1. NO ROCK OUTCROPPINGS OR STEEP SLOPES EXIST ONSITE2. NO MAPPED FLOODPLAINS EXIST IN THE VICINITY3. NO WATERCOURSES EXIST ON OR NEAR THE SITE.4. NO IRRIGATION DITCHES EXIST ON OR NEAR THE SITE.TBC(LO)=87.9512" SIDEWALK CHASE,EXTEND GUTTER THRUCHASER AM P SW=87.10(HP)SW=86.8587.0SW=86.710.90' DROPSW=86.710.93' DROPSW=87.09SW=86.794'X4' LANDING@2% MAX87.0 85.586.5THICKENED EDGE1' TAPERR5.00R5.00R4.50EMERGENCYOVERFLOW /// /// /// //////////// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// 8 WEEGGTT8 SS 8 SS8 W8 W 8 W 8 W 8 W SS /// ////// ////// ///////// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// ///////// ////// /// /// /// /// /// /// ///////// /// 8 W 8 W WS WS WS WS WS WS WS 8 W 8 W8 W////// ///TTT T T T T T TTGGGG GGG G G G G E E E EEE E E E E EEESS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSSSS SS WSWSWS G G G G G G G G G G G G /// /// /// 8 SS 10 SS 10 SS 10 SS 10 SS 10 SS 10 SS 10 SS 10 SS 10 SS 10 SS 10 SS 10 SS 8 SS 8 SS 8 SS CLOSETUP LOBBY101 MECH &STORAGE104 COURTS105 WWW W SS SSWW WWWW TBC HIGH=86.6486.24 TBC=84.8284.42 TBC=85.3484.94 TBC=85.6685.16 TBC=85.7685.36 TBC=87.0485.64 TBC=85.9285.52 TBC=86.57 TBC=pave=85.93 CL=85.65PAVE=85.72 PAVE=85.92 TBC GB=86.61 PAVE=86.09CL=86.04 PAVE=85.19CL=85.14 PAVE=85.20TBC=85.75 CL=84.95PAVE=85.02 TBC LO=86.54(0.5SP) TBC LO=86.64(0.5SP) PAVE=86.06PAVE=85.96 bsw=86.06bsw=86.03 bsw=86.71 SPILL 1.0% TBC=86.46pave=85.91 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS tbc=86.9086.35 tbc=86.7586.20 tbc=87.1386.58 tbc=86.7986.24 tbc=86.6786.12 2.7% 3.2% 2.23% tbc=86.3185.76 tbc=86.0185.46tbc=85.77 LOW85.22 0.32% 2.1% tbc=85.7785.22 1.42%PAVE=86.27 PAVE=86.17 bsw=86.97 tbc=87.2386.68 0.62% PAVE=85.55PAVE=85.611.3% 4.0% TBC=85.6085.05 bsw=86.93 0.0% conc=86.68 0.23% conc=86.55 tbc=86.3885.83 gb conc=86.70 0.23% tbc=85.8985.34 tbc=86.75GB86.20 0.90% PAVE=86.10-gb 2.9%BSW=87.18-gb pave=86.55 TBC=84.9984.59 EEEE EEEE GGGGG G GG*87.48*87.25 *87.40-HP *87.48 *87.48 *87.10 *87.405.0%2.0% *87.19-HP *87.48 *87.48 3.2% *87.322.6% 1.5% *86.78 *85.83tbc=86.38 *86.1*86.65-gb 2.9% *86.63 *86.95 *86.85-gb BSW=87.23-gb 0.71%*87.381.0%*87.00 *86.85 *86.85 *87.25-gb 3.6% 3.0%0.0%1.2% 1.8% TBC=84.8284.42 PAVE=85.02 TBC=85.0984.69 3.1% gb=85.57.3% *86.69 .45% tbc=87.1586.60 1.5% bsw=87.22 *86.79 1.5% 2.6% 1.8% 1.1% 1.06% FDC *86.711.63%*86.77 bsw=86.93 tbc=86.3885.83 gb 0.90%0.23% *86.77 *86.71 0.90% 0.23% 0.90% *87.09 2.9% 0.00% *87.10-hp-gb *86.79*86.71 *86.96 *87.01-hp-gb *86.79 *86.78 N GRAPHIC SCALE 1 inch = ft. 0 ( IN FEET ) 50100 100 100 11"X17": 1"= 200 ft HEADWATERS PROJECT NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER DRAWN BY: DATE: 2026 VERIFY SCALE THESE PRINTS MAY BE REDUCED. LINE BELOW MEASURES ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING. MODIFY SCALE ACCORDINGLYPlot Date: 1/21/2026 7:35 AM H:\2127\001\ACAD\SHEETS\STORM REPORT MAP.dwg © HEADWATERS ENGINEERING, INC. REVISION DATE: 1105 REEVES RD WEST, SUITE 6, BOZEMAN, MT 59718 HEADWATERSMT.NET 406-581-5730 PROJECT LOCATION MONTANA BOZEMAN 1/21/26 JRM STORMWATER EXHIBIT 350 GALLATIN PARK DRIVE BCPC FACILITY 2127.001 ST-1 10-YEAR STORM POND EAST GALLATIN RIVER PRE AND POST DEVELOPMENT FLOWPATH CROSS SECTION A-A A A B B CROSSSECTION B-B MANLEY DITCH DISCHARGE MANLEY DITCH INTERSTATE 90GALLATIN PARK DR IVE BCPCFACILITY OFFSITE BASIN B ONSITEBASIN A SITE OUTFALL EXTENTS OF THE 100-YR STORM STORAGE 1105 Reeves Rd. W. Ste 6, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 581-5730 www.headwatersmt.net Page 8 of 11 Appendix B Modeling Software Printouts & Calculations BCPC Facility City of Bozeman Time of Concentration Calculations Jeremy May 3/26/2026 Offsite Basin Time of Concentration Tc=Tt1 + Tt2+Tt3 Tt1=0.007(n*L)^.8/(P2^.5*s^.4)*60 Tt1 36.5 sheet flow (min) n 0.24 mannings L 150 flow length (ft) P2 1.18 2yr 24 hour depth (in) s 0.015 slope (ft/ft) Tt2= length / velocity Tt2=1.6 minutes Lunpaved=0 ft Lpaved=200 ft V=16.1345xs^.5 unpaved Vunpaved=1.976065 ft/s slope 0.015 ft/ft V=20.3282*s^.5 paved Vpaved=2.03282 ft/s slope 0.01 ft/ft Tt3= length / velocity Tt3=0.538268 minutes L pipe/channel 186 ft Vel=1.49/n*R^(2/3)x S^.5 V=5.8 ft/s n 0.03 mannings R 2.1 Hydraulic radius S 0.005 slope ft/ft R=Flow Area/Wetted Perimeter Predevelopment Total Time of Concentration 38.6 minutes 0.6 hours Sheet Flow - 150' max Shallow Concentrated Open Channel & Pipe Flow BCPC Facility City of Bozeman Time of Concentration Calculations Jeremy May 3/26/2026 Onsite Storm Pond Basin Time of Concentration Tc=Tt1 + Tt2+Tt3 Predevelopment Post Development Tt1=0.007(n*L)^.8/(P2^.5*s^.4)*60 Tt1=0.007(n*L)^.8/(P2^.5*s^.4)*60 Tt1 36.5 sheet flow (min)Tt1 15.1 sheet flow (min) n 0.24 mannings n 0.24 mannings L 150 flow length (ft)L 50 flow length (ft) P2 1.18 2yr 24 hour depth (in)P2 1.18 2yr 24 hour depth (in) s 0.015 slope (ft/ft)s 0.015 slope (ft/ft) Tt2= length / velocity Tt2= length / velocity Tt2=2.2 minutes Tt2=4.5 minutes Lunpaved=265 ft Lunpaved=0 ft Lpaved=0 ft Lpaved=390 ft V=16.1345xs^.5 unpaved V=16.1345xs^.5 unpaved Vunpaved=1.976065 ft/s Vunpaved=1.976065 ft/s slope 0.015 ft/ft slope 0.015 ft/ft V=20.3282*s^.5 paved V=20.3282*s^.5 paved Vpaved=2.03282 ft/s Vpaved=1.437421 ft/s slope 0.01 ft/ft slope 0.005 ft/ft Tt3= length / velocity Tt3= length / velocity Tt3=0 minutes Tt3=0 minutes L pipe/channel 0 ft L pipe/channel 0 ft Vel=1.49/n*R^(2/3)x S^.5 Vel=1.49/n*R^(2/3)x S^.5 V=5.8 ft/s V=5.8 ft/s n 0.03 mannings n 0.03 mannings R 2.1 Hydraulic radius R 2.1 Hydraulic radius S 0.005 slope ft/ft S 0.005 slope ft/ft R=Flow Area/Wetted Perimeter R=Flow Area/Wetted Perimeter Predevelopment Post Development Total Time of Concentration 38.7 minutes Total Time of Concentration 19.7 minutes 0.6 hours 0.3 hours Sheet Flow - 150' max Sheet Flow - 150' max Shallow Concentrated Shallow Concentrated Open Channel & Pipe Flow Open Channel & Pipe Flow City of Bozeman BCPC Facility Storm Pond Volume 4/4/2026 Elevation Area Volume sf cf 4685 6390 4684.5 3600 2757.24 4684.33 3250 582.25 4684 2790 996.6 4682 1175 3965 4961.6 cf minor storm volume 8301.09 cf major storm volume Required 10 Year Storage Vol 4805 cf SCS Required 100 Year Storage Vol 8293 cf SCS Scenario: BasePage 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-166612/23/2025Bentley StormCAD V8i (SELECTseries 5)[08.11.05.113]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Centerdownspoutpipe.stsw Profile ReportEngineering Profile - Profile - 2 (downspoutpipe.stsw)Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-166612/22/2025Bentley StormCAD V8i (SELECTseries 5)[08.11.05.113]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Centerdownspoutpipe.stsw Project Description Friction Method Manning Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.030 Channel Slope 0.00500 ft/ft Normal Depth 0.25 ft Left Side Slope 3.00 ft/ft (H:V) Right Side Slope 3.00 ft/ft (H:V) Bottom Width 6.00 ft Results Discharge 2.17 ft³/s Flow Area 1.69 ft² Wetted Perimeter 7.58 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.22 ft Top Width 7.50 ft Critical Depth 0.16 ft Critical Slope 0.02520 ft/ft Velocity 1.29 ft/s Velocity Head 0.03 ft Specific Energy 0.28 ft Froude Number 0.48 Flow Type Subcritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.00 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.00 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Upstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Normal Depth 0.25 ft Critical Depth 0.16 ft Channel Slope 0.00500 ft/ft Emergency overflow 12/16/2025 1:47:29 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page Emergency overflow GVF Output Data Critical Slope 0.02520 ft/ft 12/16/2025 1:47:29 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of2Page Culvert Calculator Report 42" RCP Title: BCPC h:\2127\001\docs\design\stormwater\manley pipe.cvm 12/22/25 10:23:30 AM CAiHE Academic Site © Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Project Engineer: headw CulvertMaster v3.3 [03.03.00.04] Page 1 of 1 Solve For: Discharge Culvert Summary Allowable HW Elevation 94.30 ft Headwater Depth/Height 1.43 Computed Headwater Eleva 94.30 ft Discharge 77.53 cfs Inlet Control HW Elev. 94.30 ft Tailwater Elevation 91.30 ft Outlet Control HW Elev. 94.14 ft Control Type Inlet Control Grades Upstream Invert 89.30 ft Downstream Invert 89.36 ft Length 10.00 ft Constructed Slope -0.006000 ft/ft Hydraulic Profile Profile A2 Depth, Downstream 2.75 ft Slope Type Adverse Normal Depth 0.00 ft Flow Regime Subcritical Critical Depth 2.75 ft Velocity Downstream 9.55 ft/s Critical Slope 0.006427 ft/ft Section Section Shape Circular Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Section Material Concrete Span 3.50 ft Section Size 42 inch Rise 3.50 ft Number Sections 1 Outlet Control Properties Outlet Control HW Elev. 94.14 ft Upstream Velocity Head 1.11 ft Ke 0.50 Entrance Loss 0.56 ft Inlet Control Properties Inlet Control HW Elev. 94.30 ft Flow Control Submerged Inlet Type Square edge w/headwall Area Full 9.6 ft² K 0.00980 HDS 5 Chart 1 M 2.00000 HDS 5 Scale 1 C 0.03980 Equation Form 1 Y 0.67000 Type II 24-hr 100yr-24hr Rainfall=2.34"BCPC Printed 12/22/2025Prepared by Headwaters Engineering, IncHydroCAD® 10.20-8a s/n 14053 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLCEvents for Subcatchment 2S: Basin - Full Lot PREEvent Rainfall(inches)Runoff(cfs)Volume(cubic-feet)Depth(inches)2yr-24hr 1.18 0.00 0 0.005yr-24hr 1.49 0.00 68 0.0110yr-24hr 1.70 0.01 225 0.0325yr-24hr 1.96 0.02 533 0.0750yr-24hr 2.15 0.04 830 0.11100yr-24hr2.34 0.07 1,183 0.16 Type II 24-hr 100yr-24hr Rainfall=2.34"BCPC Printed 12/16/2025Prepared by Headwaters Engineering, Inc HydroCAD® 10.20-8a s/n 14053 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Events for Subcatchment 1S: Basin - Full Lot Event Rainfall (inches) Runoff (cfs) Volume (cubic-feet) Depth (inches) 2yr-24hr 1.18 0.49 2,343 0.32 5yr-24hr 1.49 0.82 3,758 0.52 10yr-24hr 1.70 1.06 4,805 0.66 25yr-24hr 1.96 1.38 6,177 0.85 50yr-24hr 2.15 1.61 7,221 0.99 100yr-24hr 2.34 1.86 8,293 1.14 Type II 24-hr 100yr-24hr Rainfall=2.34"BCPC Printed 12/22/2025Prepared by Headwaters Engineering, IncHydroCAD® 10.20-8a s/n 14053 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLCEvents for Subcatchment 3S: Off-SiteEvent Rainfall(inches)Runoff(cfs)Volume(cubic-feet)Depth(inches)2yr-24hr 1.18 0.01 313 0.065yr-24hr 1.49 0.05 757 0.1610yr-24hr 1.70 0.09 1,141 0.2325yr-24hr 1.96 0.15 1,694 0.3550yr-24hr 2.15 0.21 2,146 0.44100yr-24hr2.34 0.26 2,632 0.54 Type II 24-hr 10yr-24hr Rainfall=1.70"BCPC Printed 12/16/2025Prepared by Headwaters Engineering, Inc HydroCAD® 10.20-8a s/n 14053 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcatchment 1S: Basin - Full Lot Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 201918171615141312111098765Flow (cfs)1 0 Type II 24-hr 10yr-24hr Rainfall=1.70" Runoff Area=2.010 ac Runoff Volume=4,805 cf Runoff Depth>0.66" Flow Length=440' Tc=37.6 min CN=88 1.06 cfs Type II 24-hr 100yr-24hr Rainfall=2.34"BCPC Printed 12/16/2025Prepared by Headwaters Engineering, Inc HydroCAD® 10.20-8a s/n 14053 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcatchment 1S: Basin - Full Lot Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours)201918171615141312111098765Flow (cfs)2 1 0 Type II 24-hr 100yr-24hr Rainfall=2.34" Runoff Area=2.010 ac Runoff Volume=8,293 cf Runoff Depth>1.14" Flow Length=440' Tc=37.6 min CN=88 1.86 cfs Type II 24-hr 10yr-24hr Rainfall=1.70"BCPC Printed 12/22/2025Prepared by Headwaters Engineering, IncHydroCAD® 10.20-8a s/n 14053 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLCSummary for Subcatchment 2S: Basin - Full Lot PRERunoff = 0.01 cfs @ 16.10 hrs, Volume= 225 cf, Depth> 0.03"Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrsType II 24-hr 10yr-24hr Rainfall=1.70"Area (ac) CN Description Land Use* 2.010 62 Pre Development Rangeland2.010 100.00% Pervious AreaTc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)79.6 150 0.0150 0.03Sheet Flow, n= 0.800 P2= 1.70"2.2 265 0.0150 1.97Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps81.8 415 Total Type II 24-hr 10yr-24hr Rainfall=1.70"BCPC Printed 12/22/2025Prepared by Headwaters Engineering, IncHydroCAD® 10.20-8a s/n 14053 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLCSummary for Subcatchment 1S: Basin - Full Lot POSTRunoff = 1.06 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 5,267 cf, Depth> 0.72"Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrsType II 24-hr 10yr-24hr Rainfall=1.70"Area (ac) CN Description Land Use* 2.010 88 Post Development Industrial2.010 100.00% Pervious AreaTc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)33.1 50 0.0150 0.03Sheet Flow, Sheet n= 0.800 P2= 1.70"4.5 390 0.0050 1.44Shallow Concentrated Flow, PavedPaved Kv= 20.3 fps37.6 440 Total Type II 24-hr 10yr-24hr Rainfall=1.70"BCPC Printed 12/22/2025Prepared by Headwaters Engineering, IncHydroCAD® 10.20-8a s/n 14053 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLCSummary for Subcatchment 3S: Off-SiteRunoff = 0.09 cfs @ 13.11 hrs, Volume= 1,141 cf, Depth> 0.23"Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrsType II 24-hr 10yr-24hr Rainfall=1.70"Area (ac) CN Description Land Use* 1.340 75 Off-Site Commercial1.340 100.00% Pervious AreaTc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)79.6 150 0.0150 0.03Sheet Flow, n= 0.800 P2= 1.70"1.6 200 0.0100 2.03Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps0.6 186 0.0050 5.56 5.56Channel Flow, Area= 1.0 sf Perim= 0.5' r= 2.00' n= 0.03081.8 536 Total Project Description Friction Method Manning Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Channel Slope 0.00500 ft/ft Normal Depth 1.50 ft Discharge 318.28 ft³/s Cross Section Image Cross Section A-A 12/22/2025 7:23:46 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1of1Page Project Description Friction Method Manning Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Channel Slope 0.00500 ft/ft Normal Depth 1.01 ft Discharge 147.32 ft³/s Cross Section Image Section B-B 12/22/2025 9:55:05 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1of1Page 1105 Reeves Rd. W. Ste 6, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 581-5730 www.headwatersmt.net Page 9 of 11 Appendix C Geotechnical & Hydrogeological Evaluation & Soils Investigation Report 1105 REEVES RD. W. STE 6 BOZEMAN, MT 59718 406-581-5730 www.headwatersmt.net Page 1 of 6 Geotechnical/Hydrogeological Evaluation Report BCPC Facility 350 Gallatin Park Drive Bozeman, Montana COB Application #25755 December 2025 Headwaters Engineering, Inc. Project #: 2127.001 Prepared For: Bozeman Classic Pickleball Club, LLC 2414 Arabian Ave Bozeman, MT 59718 1105 Reeves Rd. W. Ste 6, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 581-5730 www.headwatersmt.net Page 2 of 6 Project Description This evaluation summarizes the geotechnical findings from the onsite Soil Investigation as well as the hydrogeological conditions of the site as they relate to the proposed stormwater disposal method for the BCPC Facility project. The evaluation follows the outline and methodology described in Chapter 6 of the City of Bozeman Design and Construction Standards, October 2024. The BCPC Facility consists of 2 buildings with a total of a 18,605 square foot indoor pickleball facility and a 2,282 square foot office building. The site consists of three outdoor pickleball courts as well as parking for the two buildings. The site is on the 2.01-acre Lot 12, Block 2 of Plat J-300 of the Gallatin Park Subdivision. The existing lot is located in Section 36, T1S, R5E, PMM in Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The site is well vegetated with the exception of the areas where historic stockpiles were removed. The vegetation mostly consists of smooth brome, common Timothy and Kentucky bluegrass. Existing use on the lot is vacant lot, with the proposed use being two commercial buildings and the associated infrastructure. The native ground slopes to the north-northwest at roughly 1%. There are still some remaining stockpiles on the lot which appear to be from nearby construction as well as from construction of the subdivision. The subdivision was originally designed with regional storm ponds, but a change in the City’s stormwater standards does not allow the use of these ponds without setting up a maintenance program for the regional storm ponds. Unfortunately, an attempt to resurrect the Owners Association for the subdivision failed and therefore a maintenance plan could not be established. Therefore, the stormwater will be handled onsite. Storm runoff from the site starts as sheet flow before slightly consolidating in the northwest corner of the subject property. When the stormwater leaves the property, it continues to flow northwest until it reaches the Cherry Lakes wetland complex, were is flows through existing channels and ponds before reaching the East Gallatin River roughly ½ mile away. No watercourses exist on the property, or adjacent property, but there is a surface water pond roughly 85’ north of the project site. Investigations A soils investigation report was completed for the project area by Michael Welch, P.E. in 2021. Four test pits were excavated on the site and the soil horizons were described; The first soil horizon encountered in each exploratory excavation (except TP-4) was an Organic Soil of Low Plasticity (OL); please note that 1.5 feet of organic undocumented fill was encountered above the native organic layer in TP-4 only. This material was black in color, moist, and very soft. This material was encountered to depths varying from 0.75 to 3.3 feet below grounds surface (bgs). 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 flexible or rigid pavements. Underlying the Organic Soil in each exploratory excavation was a Lean Clay with Sand (CL). This material was present to depths varying from 4.3 feet bgs to 6.7 feet bgs. This material was very moist and soft, suggesting groundwater is rising up within this material seasonally. This material is moisture sensitive, highly compressible and must be removed from beneath all foundation footings. Underlying the Lean Clay in each exploratory excavation was a Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand and Cobbles (GP), known locally as “pit-run” gravel. This material was dark brown in color, very moist to saturated, medium dense and estimated to contain approximately 40 percent coarse to fine grained sand, and approximately 60 percent rounded and subrounded gravels and cobbles. This material was present to the end of each excavation, depths varying from 5.6 to 7.6 feet bgs. Groundwater was encountered within this material in each exploratory excavation. 1105 Reeves Rd. W. Ste 6, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 581-5730 www.headwatersmt.net Page 3 of 6 Based on the subsurface investigation, it is recommended that the excavation for the foundation elements continue down to the Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand and Cobbles and structural fill be used to achieve the desired bottom of footing elevation. (C&H study) The site naturally slopes to the northwest, which is where the storm pond is proposed. The storm pond outlet aligns with the historic stormwater flow path. Following several site visits, there are not site characteristics that would interfere with the planned stormwater design. The native ground continues sloping to the north-northwest from the site to the East Gallatin River. This constant ground slope ensures water will not be backed up into the site. Since no structures exist to the north of the site or within 300’ of the proposed storm pond no potential impacts to neighboring buildings are expected. Groundwater is typically shallow in this area, but test pits on this site and to a site to the northeast show groundwater between 5 & 7 feet below ground surface. An onsite monitoring well shows groundwater at an elevation of 4679.07 or depth of 2.93’ below the bottom of the storm pond. Since the groundwater monitoring has not continued through the spring, an analysis of a nearby GWIC monitoring well at the Cherry River Rec Area was analyzed. In 2024, the highest groundwater occurred on May 10th. This highest measured groundwater was roughly 0.60’ higher than the groundwater in March/April. Therefore, 0.60’ was added to the highest measured groundwater elevation in March/April of 2025. This resulted in a highest groundwater elevation of 4679.63, or 2.37’ below the bottom of the pond. The groundwater monitoring summary and chart are shown below. The 2024 results from GWIC 226762 Cherry River Rec Area are attached. A wetland exists north of the project site with standing water. The standing water elevation is roughly 6.25 feet below the bottom of the storm pond. Even with seasonal fluctuations, the groundwater likely only comes to between two and three below ground surface. The test pits onsite were excavated in May which would coincide with an increasing groundwater elevation, commonly peaking in early June. The C&H Soils Investigation mentions the soil getting soft and moist at roughly 3 feet below ground surface, this correlates to high groundwater typically being 12” below the moist soil due to the capillary rise. Figure 1 – 2026 Groundwater Monitoring Results 1105 Reeves Rd. W. Ste 6, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 581-5730 www.headwatersmt.net Page 4 of 6 Figure 2 – 2026 Groundwater Monitoring chart. The Potentiometric Surface Map of the Gallatin Valley by James P. Madison, 2022 shows the groundwater in this area flowing in the same direction as the ground contours. Review of well logs in this area show the shallow aquifer continuing to a depth between 24’ & 36’ bgs, before a clay layer is encountered which separates another water bearing horizon. The site is within the Cenezoic Basin – Fill/Alluvial Aquifer, which is unconsolidated or weakly consolidated. The bore logs from the C&H Soils Investigation show lean clay with sand to a depth ranging from 4.3 to 6.7’ below ground surface. Below that is a poorly graded gravel which has no plasticity. Once the infiltrated stormwater reaches this layer, it will infiltrate quickly and have little to no effect on the structural capacity of the soil or affect groundwater levels. The lean clay with sand will result in slow infiltration into the ground, but with the infiltration rate of of 17 minutes per inch the pond will drain in roughly 7 hours. Using the Hantush_USGS_GW_mounding spreadsheet, the groundwater mounding was found to extend roughly 40’ from the pond, but the calculator does not analyze a distance between 20 & 40’ so it is likely less than 40’. The Hantush calculator also does not allow pond elevation to be part of the analysis and therefore the mounding is shown to be 22’ above the bottom of storm pond which is physically impossible. Therefore, the top of the curve should be lowered to the height of the storm pond water surface above the groundwater, or 2’ above existing grade. Lowering this curve results in the mounding approaching zero in well under 10’. Even without this correction shift, the mounding calculator shows the mounding approaching zero in roughly 40’ as discussed above. There are zero structures within 40’ of the proposed storm pond, no buildings down gradient and due to there being open space to the north, there will never be any structures down gradient of the storm pond. The nearest building will be the proposed buildings which are over 130’ away from the storm pond. Therefore, the groundwater monitoring will have no effect on nearby structures. Percolation tests were performed at the elevation of the bottom of the storm pond a showed infiltration rates of around 17 minutes per inch. These rates will allow the storm pond to completely empty in under 7 hours following a storm. Soils The NRCS Soil Survey identifies the major soil type on the site to be Turner loam (457A). These soils belong to hydrologic soil group B as they are comprised primarily of loams and silt loams with moderately high saturated hydraulic conductivity. Review of well logs in this area show the shallow aquifer consisting of sands and gravels continues to a depth between 24 & 36 bgs, before a clay layer is encountered which separates another water bearing horizon. The site is within the Qabo Geological Unit which is a braid plain alluvium, which refers to the course, gravelly 1105 Reeves Rd. W. Ste 6, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 581-5730 www.headwatersmt.net Page 5 of 6 and sandy sediments deposited by a braided river, forming a wide, flat landscape with multiple interlacing channels separated by temporary islands. This alluvial deposit results from high sediment loads, steep slopes and fluctuating water flow, common in glacial outwash or mountain foothills. Figure 1 – NRCS Soil Map Figure 2 – Madison Study GW Contours 1105 Reeves Rd. W. Ste 6, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 581-5730 www.headwatersmt.net Page 6 of 6 Conclusion While the groundwater is relatively high in this area, it is low enough to not interfere with the proposed stormwater pond. The proposed buildings will bear on the native gravels which will retail their structural integrity while submerged in water. The parking lot will be set several feet above the high groundwater with the proposed gravel section being separated from the native soils with separation fabric. With the above provided information, in unison with the C&H Geotechnical Report for the site, we feel the proposed storm plan is the best option for this site. Attachments: -2026 Onsite Groundwater Monitoring Results - 2024 GWIC well monitoring results -MBMG – Potentiometric Surface in Gallatin, Lower Madison, Lower Jefferson, and Upper Missouri River Valleys within Parts of Madison and Gallatin Counties, Montana, James P. Madison, 2022 -NRCS Soil Resource Report -MBMG Geologic Map of Gallatin Valley -Soils Investigation Report – C&H Engineering, September 10, 2021 Exhibits: C1.0_Existing Conditions C1.2_Grading Plan H:\2127\001\DOCS\DESIGN\STORMWATER\Geotechnical-Hydrogeological eval.doc Groundwater Monitoring Monitoring Well # Average EG at well =4682.48 ft Max Allow GW Elev 4678.48 ft TOP ELEV = 4683.92 ft STEM LENGTH 1.44 ft Tape Reading GW Elevation Depth EG to GW Date (ft)(ft)(ft) 11/5/2025 4.82 4679.10 3.38 12/9/2025 GPS 4678.84 3.64 12/22/2025 4.78 4679.14 3.34 1/13/2026 4.94 4678.98 3.50 2/15/2026 4.98 4678.94 3.54 3/12/2026 4.85 4679.07 3.41 4/1/2026 5.07 4678.85 3.63 Calculated High 4.29 4679.63 2.85 4683.92 -1.44 4683.92 -1.44 4683.92 -1.44 4683.92 -1.44 4683.92 -1.44 4683.92 -1.44 4683.92 -1.44 4683.92 -1.44 4683.92 -1.44 4683.92 -1.44 4683.92 -1.44 4683.92 -1.44 4683.92 -1.44 4683.92 -1.44 4683.92 -1.44 4683.92 -1.44 4683.92 -1.44 MW #1 H:\2127\001\DOCS\GROUNDWATER\Monitoring Wells.xls 0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.5010/10/2025 10/30/2025 11/19/2025 12/9/2025 12/29/2025 1/18/2026 2/7/2026 2/27/2026 3/19/2026 4/8/2026 4/28/2026Depth to GroundwaterDateMW #14' LineGround use consistent units (e.g. feet & days or inches & hours)Conversion Table Input Values inch/hour feet/day 2.2000 R Recharge (infiltration) rate (feet/day)0.67 1.33 0.100 Sy Specific yield, Sy (dimensionless, between 0 and 1) 0.28 K Horizontal hydraulic conductivity, Kh (feet/day)*2.00 4.0022.000 x 1/2 length of basin (x direction, in feet)52.000 y 1/2 width of basin (y direction, in feet)hours days1.000 t duration of infiltration period (days)36 1.50 10.000 hi(0)initial thickness of saturated zone (feet) 31.771 h(max)maximum thickness of saturated zone (beneath center of basin at end of infiltration period) 21.771 Δh(max)maximum groundwater mounding (beneath center of basin at end of infiltration period) Ground- water Mounding, in feet Distance from center of basin in x direction, in feet 21.771 0 14.155 20 0.044 40 0.008 50 0.007 60 0.007 70 0.007 80 0.007 90 0.007 100 0.007 120 Disclaimer This spreadsheet solving the Hantush (1967) equation for ground-water mounding beneath an infiltration basin is made available to the general public as a convenience for those wishing to replicate values documented in the USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5102 "Groundwater mounding beneath hypothetical stormwater infiltration basins" or to calculate values based on user-specified site conditions. Any changes made to the spreadsheet (other than values identified as user-specified) after transmission from the USGS could have unintended, undesirable consequences. These consequences could include, but may not be limited to: erroneous output, numerical instabilities, and violations of underlying assumptions that are inherent in results presented in the accompanying USGS published report. The USGS assumes no responsibility for the consequences of any changes made to the spreadsheet. If changes are made to the spreadsheet, the user is responsible for documenting the changes and justifying the results and conclusions. This spreadsheet will calculate the height of a groundwater mound beneath a stormwater infiltration basin. More information can be found in the U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5102 "Simulation of groundwater mounding beneath hypothetical stormwater infiltration basins". The user must specify infiltration rate (R), specific yield (Sy), horizontal hydraulic conductivity (Kh), basin dimensions (x, y), duration of infiltration period (t), and the initial thickness of the saturated zone (hi(0), height of the water table if the bottom of the aquifer is the datum). For a square basin the half width equals the half length (x = y). For a rectangular basin, if the user wants the water-table changes perpendicular to the long side, specify x as the short dimension and y as the long dimension. Conversely, if the user wants the values perpendicular to the short side, specify y as the short dimension, x as the long dimension. All distances are from the center of the basin. Users can change the distances from the center of the basin at which water-table aquifer thickness are calculated.Cells highlighted in yellow are values that can be changed by the user. Cells highlighted in red are output values based on user-specified inputs. The user MUST click the blue "Re-Calculate Now" button each time ANY of the user-specified inputs are changed otherwise necessary iterations to converge on the correct solution will not be done and values shown will be incorrect. Use consistent units for all input values (for example, feet and days) In the report accompanying this spreadsheet (USGS SIR 2010-5102), vertical soil permeability (ft/d) is assumed to be one-tenth horizontal hydraulic conductivity (ft/d). Re-Calculate Now -5.000 0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Groundwater Mounding, in feet 2024 Groundwater Depth Results from GWIC 226762 at Cherry River Rec Area GWIC 226762 Onsite Well Date Avg Daily Depth BGS (Depth BGS (ft) 1/1/2024 1.535 1/2/2024 1.542 1/3/2024 1.550 1/4/2024 1.550 1/5/2024 1.543 1/6/2024 1.541 1/7/2024 1.544 1/8/2024 1.553 1/9/2024 1.550 1/10/2024 1.545 1/11/2024 1.554 1/12/2024 1.559 1/13/2024 1.558 3.34 1/14/2024 1.560 1/15/2024 1.554 1/16/2024 1.551 1/17/2024 1.547 1/18/2024 1.548 1/19/2024 1.542 1/20/2024 1.540 1/21/2024 1.539 1/22/2024 1.540 1/23/2024 1.538 1/24/2024 1.540 1/25/2024 1.544 1/26/2024 1.546 1/27/2024 1.545 1/28/2024 1.548 1/29/2024 1.531 1/30/2024 1.513 1/31/2024 1.544 2/1/2024 1.560 2/2/2024 1.547 2/3/2024 1.462 2/4/2024 1.440 2/5/2024 1.488 2/6/2024 1.515 2/7/2024 1.523 2/8/2024 1.534 2/9/2024 1.543 2/10/2024 1.543 2/11/2024 1.551 2/12/2024 1.557 2/13/2024 1.563 2/14/2024 1.569 2/15/2024 1.576 3.5 2/16/2024 1.589 2/17/2024 1.583 2/18/2024 1.586 2/19/2024 1.603 2/20/2024 1.608 2/21/2024 1.599 2/22/2024 1.585 2/23/2024 1.547 2/24/2024 1.446 2/25/2024 1.240 2/26/2024 1.093 2/27/2024 1.160 2/28/2024 1.229 2/29/2024 1.238 3/1/2024 1.214 3/2/2024 1.249 3/3/2024 1.278 3/4/2024 1.304 3/5/2024 1.326 3/6/2024 1.349 3/7/2024 1.367 3/8/2024 1.388 3/9/2024 1.394 3/10/2024 1.395 3/11/2024 1.344 3/12/2024 1.183 3.41 3/13/2024 1.095 3/14/2024 1.085 3/15/2024 1.060 3/16/2024 1.055 3/17/2024 1.036 3/18/2024 1.048 3/19/2024 1.071 3/20/2024 1.090 3/21/2024 1.092 3/22/2024 1.108 3/23/2024 1.135 3/24/2024 1.158 3/25/2024 1.155 3/26/2024 1.137 3/27/2024 1.148 3/28/2024 1.156 3/29/2024 1.187 3/30/2024 1.240 3/31/2024 1.264 4/1/2024 1.285 3.63 4/2/2024 1.292 4/3/2024 1.284 4/4/2024 1.260 4/5/2024 1.241 4/6/2024 1.230 4/7/2024 1.183 4/8/2024 1.164 4/9/2024 1.202 4/10/2024 1.225 4/11/2024 1.240 4/12/2024 1.253 4/13/2024 1.246 4/14/2024 1.228 4/15/2024 1.212 4/16/2024 1.203 4/17/2024 1.178 4/18/2024 1.185 4/19/2024 1.212 4/20/2024 1.230 4/21/2024 1.238 4/22/2024 1.249 4/23/2024 1.263 4/24/2024 1.300 4/25/2024 1.331 4/26/2024 1.335 4/27/2024 1.327 4/28/2024 1.274 4/29/2024 1.259 4/30/2024 1.089 5/1/2024 1.098 5/2/2024 1.161 5/3/2024 1.203 5/4/2024 1.225 5/5/2024 1.240 5/6/2024 1.239 5/7/2024 1.247 5/8/2024 1.049 5/9/2024 0.716 5/10/2024 0.624 2.850833 Diff March/April 0.60' 5/11/2024 0.749 5/12/2024 0.813 5/13/2024 0.844 5/14/2024 0.881 5/15/2024 0.931 5/16/2024 0.979 5/17/2024 1.025 5/18/2024 1.071 5/19/2024 1.102 5/20/2024 1.118 5/21/2024 1.151 5/22/2024 1.154 5/23/2024 0.930 5/24/2024 0.728 5/25/2024 0.753 5/26/2024 0.806 5/27/2024 0.874 5/28/2024 0.940 5/29/2024 0.785 5/31/2024 0.644 6/1/2024 0.755 6/2/2024 0.828 6/3/2024 0.859 6/4/2024 0.906 6/5/2024 0.980 6/6/2024 1.041 6/7/2024 1.087 6/8/2024 1.141 6/9/2024 1.154 6/10/2024 1.120 6/11/2024 1.150 6/12/2024 1.203 6/13/2024 1.249 6/14/2024 1.268 6/15/2024 1.269 6/16/2024 1.272 6/17/2024 1.234 6/18/2024 1.122 6/19/2024 1.143 6/20/2024 1.217 6/21/2024 1.268 6/22/2024 1.311 6/23/2024 1.345 6/24/2024 1.378 6/25/2024 1.443 6/26/2024 1.421 6/27/2024 1.378 6/28/2024 1.346 6/29/2024 1.381 6/30/2024 1.374 7/1/2024 1.206 7/2/2024 1.192 7/3/2024 1.223 7/4/2024 1.283 7/5/2024 1.319 7/6/2024 1.368 7/7/2024 1.445 7/8/2024 1.487 7/9/2024 1.512 7/10/2024 1.530 7/11/2024 1.558 7/12/2024 1.585 7/13/2024 1.600 7/14/2024 1.618 7/15/2024 1.625 7/16/2024 1.644 7/17/2024 1.654 7/18/2024 1.722 7/19/2024 1.718 7/20/2024 1.748 7/21/2024 1.810 7/22/2024 1.810 7/23/2024 1.792 7/24/2024 1.800 7/25/2024 1.805 7/26/2024 1.766 7/27/2024 1.791 7/28/2024 1.763 7/29/2024 1.786 7/30/2024 1.749 7/31/2024 1.756 8/1/2024 1.810 8/2/2024 1.839 8/3/2024 1.858 8/4/2024 1.835 8/5/2024 1.820 8/6/2024 1.813 8/7/2024 1.700 8/8/2024 1.624 8/9/2024 1.713 8/10/2024 1.721 8/11/2024 1.683 8/12/2024 1.712 8/13/2024 1.680 8/14/2024 1.669 8/15/2024 1.695 8/16/2024 1.686 8/17/2024 1.675 8/18/2024 1.694 8/19/2024 1.745 8/20/2024 1.643 8/21/2024 1.656 8/22/2024 1.612 8/23/2024 1.716 8/24/2024 1.641 8/25/2024 1.708 8/26/2024 1.662 8/27/2024 1.776 8/28/2024 1.745 8/29/2024 1.773 8/30/2024 1.872 8/31/2024 1.846 9/1/2024 1.944 9/2/2024 1.898 9/3/2024 1.932 9/4/2024 1.852 9/5/2024 1.874 9/6/2024 1.885 9/7/2024 1.885 9/8/2024 1.903 9/9/2024 1.836 9/10/2024 1.891 9/11/2024 1.808 9/12/2024 1.837 9/13/2024 1.835 9/14/2024 1.843 9/15/2024 1.846 9/16/2024 1.847 9/17/2024 1.790 9/18/2024 1.432 9/19/2024 1.354 9/20/2024 1.384 9/21/2024 1.448 9/22/2024 1.482 9/23/2024 1.500 9/24/2024 1.539 9/25/2024 1.566 9/26/2024 1.570 9/27/2024 1.587 9/28/2024 1.617 9/29/2024 1.605 9/30/2024 1.609 10/1/2024 1.624 10/2/2024 1.599 10/3/2024 1.608 10/4/2024 1.608 10/5/2024 1.593 10/6/2024 1.602 10/7/2024 1.605 10/8/2024 1.617 10/9/2024 1.611 10/10/2024 1.600 10/11/2024 1.605 10/12/2024 1.604 10/13/2024 1.615 10/14/2024 1.613 10/15/2024 1.619 10/16/2024 1.630 10/17/2024 1.493 10/18/2024 1.399 10/19/2024 1.461 10/20/2024 1.493 10/21/2024 1.496 10/22/2024 1.504 10/23/2024 1.526 10/24/2024 1.498 10/25/2024 1.520 10/26/2024 1.527 10/27/2024 1.549 10/28/2024 1.541 10/29/2024 1.534 10/30/2024 1.556 10/31/2024 1.555 11/1/2024 1.569 11/2/2024 1.569 11/3/2024 1.532 11/4/2024 1.563 11/5/2024 1.547 11/6/2024 1.610 11/7/2024 1.638 11/8/2024 1.670 11/9/2024 1.677 11/10/2024 1.678 11/11/2024 1.705 11/12/2024 1.600 11/13/2024 1.636 11/14/2024 1.640 11/15/2024 1.669 11/16/2024 1.645 11/17/2024 1.637 11/18/2024 1.588 11/19/2024 1.598 11/20/2024 1.639 11/21/2024 1.636 11/22/2024 1.589 11/23/2024 1.540 11/24/2024 1.517 11/25/2024 1.568 11/26/2024 1.564 11/27/2024 1.563 11/28/2024 1.577 11/29/2024 1.578 11/30/2024 1.583 12/1/2024 1.587 12/2/2024 1.598 12/3/2024 1.599 12/4/2024 1.603 12/5/2024 1.609 12/6/2024 1.619 12/7/2024 1.631 12/8/2024 1.593 12/9/2024 1.598 12/10/2024 1.613 12/11/2024 1.622 0.624166 max APPENDIX A - INFILTRATION TESTING PROCEDURES One of the following methods must be used to determine the design infiltration rate: A. Design Infiltration Rate in A.1; or B. Encased Falling Head Test in A.2. C. A Double-Ring Infiltrometer Test (ASTM D3385); or D. Test Pit Infiltration Test Method (City of Missoula) Soil test pits and any infiltration tests must be within 25 feet of the proposed infiltration facility location. A.1 DESIGN INFILTRATION RATE For infiltration facilities with less than 5,000 square feet of infiltrative area, a design infiltration rate may be selected from Table 2 using the texture of the least-permeable soil layer encountered in a soil test pit. Table 3. Infiltration Rates Texture Infiltration rate (inches per hour) Gravel, gravelly sand, or very coarse sand 4.0 Loamy sand, coarse sand 1.6 Medium sand, sandy loam 1.4 Fine sandy loam, loam 1.1 Very fine sand, sandy clay loam, silt loam 1.1 Clay loam, silty clay loam 0.1 Sandy clay 0.1 Clays, silts, silty clays 0.0 A.2 ENCASED FALLING HEAD TEST The encased falling head test is performed with a 6-inch casing that is embedded approximately 24 inches into the native soil. The goal of this field test is to evaluate the vertical infiltration rate through a 24-inch plug of soil, without allowing any lateral infiltration. The test is not appropriate in gravelly soils or in other soils where a good seal with the casing cannot be established. A minimum of three encased falling head tests must be conducted within the footprint of each infiltration facility. For proposed infiltration facilities with more than 10,000 square feet of Percolation Test Results Owner Name:BCPC Soak Date 12/9/2025 Project Name:BCPC Facility Soak Start 7:00 AM Legal Description:Lot 12, Gallatin Park Sub Soak Length 4 hrs Test Number:1 Confirmation #: Test Date:12/9/2025 Weather:Overcast Ambient Temp:53 deg Eval by:JCH Hole Depth (in):15" Hole Diam (in):6" Distance of ref point above the bottom of the hole (in)0 Test Start Time 11:00 AM Time Interval (min)0:15 Start Time of Day End Time of Day Time Interval (min) Initial Dist Above Ref Point (in) Final Distance Above Ref Point Drop in Water Level (in) Percolation Rate (min/in) 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 0:15 -1.05 1.05 14.29 11:30 AM 0:15 -1.00 1.00 15.00 11:45 AM 0:15 -0.88 0.88 17.14 12:00 PM 0:15 0.00 GALLATIN COUNTYPARK COUNTYMADISON COUNTYGALLATIN COUNTYGALLATIN COUNTYBROADWATER COUNTYGALLATIN COUNTYMADISON COUNTYGALLATIN COUNTYBROADWATER COUNTY455045504550550055005500540054005400530053005300520052005200510051005100500050005000490049004900480048004800470047004700460046004600450045004500440044004400430043004300420042004200410041004100460046004600450045004500440044004400 430043004300 420042004200 410041004100 500050005000 490049004900480048004800 470047004700460046004600450045004500440044004400 430043004300 510051005100 520052005200 480048004800470047004700460046004600 450045004500440044004400430043004300420042004200410041004100 480048004800470047004700460046004600450045004500 490049004900550055005500560056005600570057005700540054005400400040004000475047504750465046504650445044504450435043504350425042504250415041504150405040504050415041504150425042504250435043504350445044504450445044504450570057005700560056005600530053005300570057005700560056005600445044504450 435043504350%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%9090909086191191848586N 7th Ave28728728722287284287Bozeman CreekBridger CreekHyalite Cre e k East G all ati n Rive r Gallatin Ri v e r Camp CreekGallatin RiverCherry CreekHot Springs CreekMadison RiverWillow CrJefferson RiverTrail CreekHyaliteReservoirEast Gallati n River Dry Cr eekDry CreekSixteen Mile CreekSixteen Mile CreekMiddle Fk Sixteen Mile CrSo Fk Si xt e e n Mil e CrBrackett CreekJackson CreekMissouri RiverMissouri River HarrisonLakeBelgradeBozemanManhattanThree ForksGallatinGatewayHarrisonWillow CreekAmsterdamAnceneyChurch HillClarkstonLoganLombardMaudlowMenardNorrisSappingtonSedanTridentFourCornersQTbfTbfTbfTbfp_fbKlvgsKshaleTfuTbfPzlCMirp_fbKlvgsTbfKlvgsCMirp_fbp_fbPzlTbfPzlPzlTbfTbfPzlKshalep_fbp_fbKkotnCMirCMirCMirPzlPzlp_fbPzlPzlKegleKkotnKkotnMmdsnMmdsnMmdsnKkotnPzlMPsedMPsedMPsedPzlKshaleMmdsnMPsedMmdsnPzlMmdsnMmdsnMPsedMmdsnPzlPzlPzlMmdsnMPsedKeglePzlMmdsnMPsedCMirKegleKkotnMPsedMmdsnKkotnCMirKkotnMPsedMmdsnMmdsnMmdsnKkotnMmdsnMmdsnKkotnKkotnMPsedKegleMmdsnMmdsnMPsedMmdsnMmdsnMPsedKegleMPsedMmdsnMPsedMPsedMPsedMmdsnMPsedMPsedMmdsnMPsedKkotnKkotnKkotnKkotnMPsedMmdsnMPsedMmdsnMmdsnMPsedMmdsnMmdsnPzlTbfTbfQTbfQTbfMmdsnPzlp_fbp_fbTbfQTbfQTbfTbfp_fbp_fbTbfTbfp_fbTbfTbfTbfQTbfQTbfQTbfQTbfTbfp_fbPzlMmdsnTfuTfuKshaleKshalep_fbPzlMPsedKlvgsPzlQTbfTbfPzlPzlKshaleMPsedKkotnMmdsnPzlQTbfKlvgsKegleKshaleKshaleKkotnMPsedMmdsnPzlTbfTbfTbfTbfQTbfQTbfQTbfQTbfTfuKshaleKshaleMmdsn############################################################################################!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!38793964398539943995399740014015401740244042404340454050405540584060406140624063406540674068407040714074407440754076407640764078407940954098409941024108411241214135413741384141414341474148415041514156415741584158416141624162416341634166416641674168416841694170417141724178417941824184418641884188418941894191419141974200420042024203421042154222422342244229423442344237423842394239424042484251425242554257425742584262426542674269427342754277428142824283428342844287429042934295429642964296429643034308431143134317431743214326432643294329433543364337433743374338433843414343434943504351435243554364436643684369436943714373437343734378437843784379437943794380438043804382438443884391439444044406440744094410441444144416442144254426442944314433443344334434444044424444444744514455445644594464446844784481448544874490449044914492449744994505451745284533453445354541454845494550455445584559456245634565456745684575457645784579457945794584459045914592460146034605460746124616461746214623462446524654465546564660466246634664467650885098510851105115513151315147514951515165517446774687469046984702471047114715471847194722472447324734473447354738474047414742474347524760476147624765476747694779478147844786478747924793479447984803480348044811481648244825482748354837483848504854485548564861486248624862486348704871488348844889489248944896489848984901491049134915491649184922493049334933493649414942494549464950495149634966496849734977498349874988499749985005500550065007500950195020502350305030503550405041504250435045504850495060506350655067507350745176518551865187519451945201520152075222523752395248526152625267527652795291529152945310532053275339534153485356537153815397541654185418543054325449545354595524553555455553556055665568557155775582561156255633566356685677571057265760577059584074BRIDGER R A N G E GALLATIN RANGEMADISON RANGEHORSESHOE HILLSCAMP CREEKHILLS5,0007,0006,5006,0005,5004,5004,0003,5003,000Figure 2. Cross Section A–A'AA'Elevation above sea level (ft)QTbfQTbfQTbfTbfTbfMmdsnPzl=fbMmdsnPzl=fbJefferson RiverMadison River226763 (Bend in cross section)763Gallatin River133165 (Bend in cross section)235475 (Bend in cross section)96132=fb— Belgrade— Manhattan— Logan— Three Forks— BozemanBased on Vuke and others, 2014.AA'KlvgsPzlMmdsnTertiary Basin-FillCenezoic and Mesozoic Igneous RocksCretaceous Eagle AquiferPrecambrian Fractured Igneous,Metasedimentary, and Metamorphic RocksTertiary Fort Union AquiferCretaceous Kootenai AquiferMississipppian Madison Group AquiferMesozoic–Paleozoic Sedimentary RocksCenezoic Basin-Fill/Alluvial AquiferQTbfCMirTbfTfuKegleKshaleKkotnMPsed=fbKshaleKshaleUnconsolidated to weakly consolidated basin-fill. Lenticular beds of clay, silt, sand, gravel.Cretaceous sandstone beds within Kootenai, Eagle, and Fort Union Formations. Primary porosity and permeability in combination with secondary permeability along fractures.Fractured bedrock with mostly secondary porosity and permeability along fractures and/or solution cavities.Hydrogeologic FrameworkRegional Aquifers1RegionalConfining Units2Bearpaw FmClaggett FmColorado GroupLower Paleozoic Sedimentary RocksCretaceous Livingston GroupModified after Crowley and others, 2017.1Aquifer where saturated with water.2Locally may yield water to wells from sandstone.LegendTownRoadStreamInventoried well and measured altitude of water in feet above mean sea level.Generalized Potentiometric Contour—Shows altitude at which water would have stood in tightly cased well. Dashed where approximately located. Contour interval 100 ft. Datum is sea level. Arrow shows direction of groundwater flow. Light line is supplemental 50' contour. Shaded relief created from 10 m digital elevation model of the U.S. Geological Survey National Elevation Dataset.Projection: Montana State Plane FIPS 2500 International feet.Datum: North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83).ReferencesCarstarphen, C.A., LaFave, J.I., Crowley, J., Mason, D.C., Richter, M.G., Madison, J.P. and Blythe, D.D., 2015, Data for water wells, springs, and streams visited during the Gallatin-Madison Ground Water Characterization Study: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Montana Ground-Water Assessment Atlas 8-01, 40 p., 1 sheet.Crowley, J.J., LaFave, J.I., Bergantino, R.N., Carstarphen, C.A. and Patton, T.W., 2017, Principal aquifers of Montana: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Hydrogeologic Map 11, 1 sheet, scale 1:1,000,000.Hackett, O.M Visher, F.N., McMurtrey, R.G., Steinhilber, W.L., Stermitz, Frank, Boner, F.C., and Krieger, R.A., 1960, Geology and ground-water resources of the Gallatin Valley, Gallatin County, Montana, with a section on Surface-water, and a section on chemical quality of the water: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1482.Michalek, T., and Sutherland, M., 2020, Hydrogeologic investigation of the Four Corners area, Gallatin County, Montana: Interpretive report: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 735, 74 p.Slagle, S.E., 1995, Geohydrologic conditions and land use in the Gallatin Valley, southwestern Montana, 1992-93; U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4034.Vuke, S.M., Lonn, J.D., Berg, R.B., and Schmidt, C.J., 2014, Geologic map of the Bozeman 30' x 60' quadrangle, southwestern Montana: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 648, 44 p., 1 sheet, scale 1:100,000.Waren, K.B., and LaFave, J.I., 2011, Potentiometric surface map of basin fill and selected bedrock aquifers: Deer Lodge, Granite, Powell, and Silver Bow Counties, Montana: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Montana Ground-Water Assessment Atlas 5-03, 1 sheet.Potentiometric Surface in Gallatin, Lower Madison, Lower Jefferson, and UpperMissouri River Valleys within Parts ofMadison and Gallatin Counties, MontanaJames P. Madison2022NBasin-fill wellFractured-bedrock well%##47624792%%TD Total depth of well Author’s Note: This map is part of the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Groundwater Assessment Atlas for the Gallatin–Madison Area groundwater characterization. It is intended to stand alone and describe a single hydrogeologic aspect of the study area, although many of the area’s hydrogeologic features are interrelated. For an integrated view of the hydrogeology of the Gallatin–Madison Area, the reader is referred to the other maps of Montana Groundwater Assessment Atlas 8 (http://mbmggwic.mtech.edu). This map represents the potentiometric surface for the unconsolidated basin-fill and fractured-bedrock aquifer system in the Gallatin, lower Madison, lower Jefferson, and upper Missouri river valleys within Madison and Gallatin Counties (fig. 1). In the map area, wells are completed mostly within the surficial unconsolidated alluvial and Tertiary basin-fill deposits or in fractured bedrock on the valley margins (fig. 2). On a basin scale, the basin-fill aquifer and surrounding bedrock typically function as a single hydrogeologic unit. A potentiometric surface represents the altitude to which water levels rise in wells completed in an aquifer; it is useful for determining the general direction of groundwater flow and estimating depth to water at a given location. In unconfined conditions, the potentiometric surface is generally a subdued representation of the regional topography; the highest groundwater altitudes coincide with the regional topographic highs and the lowest altitudes with the regional topographic lows. Lateral groundwater movement will be in a direction perpendicular to potentiometric contours from higher to lower altitudes, as indicated by the flow arrows on this map. Across the map area, groundwater generally flows away from mountainous recharge areas and the valley margins (regional topographic highs) towards and parallel to the major surface drainages (regional topographic lows). The potentiometric surface altitude at a site may be subtracted from the land-surface altitude at that location to yield the approximate depth to water. Groundwater levels fluctuate in response to natural and anthropogenic causes such as wet or dry climate anomalies, groundwater withdrawals, and land use. The fluctuations occur at seasonal, annual, or multi-year frequencies and provide insights on groundwater recharge and stresses acting on aquifers. Long-term (10+ year) hydrographs for 19 wells are included on the map to show representative groundwater-level fluctuations. Across the map area, groundwater levels fluctuate annually between 1 and 45 ft. The hydrographs show two main patterns of seasonal fluctuation that reflect different sources of recharge: (1) a natural pattern that reflects seasonal and interannual climate variability, and (2) an “irrigation” pattern that reflects recharge from leaky irrigation canals and over-applied irrigation water. Although the seasonal water-level fluctuations vary with respect to timing and magnitude, Michalek and Sutherland (2020) determined that long-term hydrographs from this region do not show declining trends. Hydrographs that show a natural (unirrigated) recharge pattern reflect water levels generally rising in spring and early summer due to infiltration of snowmelt and increased precipitation. These water levels decline during the late summer and fall, reaching seasonal lows in the winter months (hydrograph 213610). Changes in climate such as droughts or wet periods manifest as multi-year water-level declines or increases. Well hydrograph 234909 shows a declining trend from 2012–2015, increasing from 2016–2019, and decreasing from 2020–present. A similar response is observed in other wells east of the East Gallatin River, which is also located outside the area of intense irrigation practices. On the hydrographs that show an irrigation pattern (e.g., 201713, 226769, or 235473), water levels rise sharply at the beginning of the irrigation season, in late spring. Water levels remain elevated (a blunt peak or plateau) during the summer months while irrigation is ongoing, and sharply decline when irrigation water is “turned off.” Water level decline persists until the next irrigation period begins in the spring of the following year. The irrigation response is observed in wells 226763, 235475, 226769, 235473, and 96132 between Jackson Creek/East Gallatin River and the Camp Creek Hills. In this area, a 2,000-mi network of irrigation canals and laterals distribute water to about 5,350 acres (Michalek and Sutherland, 2020). The timing and magnitude of water-level fluctuation is consistent from year to year because irrigation practices that affect groundwater recharge have not significantly changed in the past 30 years. As demonstrated by Michalek and Sutherland (2020), some land has been taken out of production and flood irrigation has been replaced by wheel lines and center pivots. Although such changes may cause decreased groundwater recharge, these hydrographs demonstrate that water levels have not changed appreciably over the past decade. This potentiometric surface map builds upon and expands the potentiometric maps of Hackett and others (1960) and Slagle (1995).The map is based on about 500 measured water levels gathered during site visits between January 2008 and December 2012 (Carstarphen and others, 2015).1 Water levels were measured over a 4-year period across multiple seasons. Both of these factors can introduce variations in water levels and introduce error into the potentiometric contour configuration. Long-term well hydrographs for wells completed in the basin-fill and surrounding bedrock do not show water-level trends that would change the configuration of the potentiometric contours; these hydrographs show seasonal water-level fluctuations of 15 ft or less. Relative to the scale of this potentiometric map and the contour intervals, use of water levels measured across a 4-year period and during different seasons does not introduce noticeable error in interpretation. This potentiometric surface map is a general interpretation of regional conditions and groundwater flow directions. Readers interested in site-specific interpretations should reevaluate the data with an appropriate contour interval. This map and an ArcGIS Map Package with contours and point data are available at the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology’s publication website, http://www.mbmg.mtech.edu/mbmgcat/catmain.asp. 1Water-level measurements and other site information are available from the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology’s Ground Water Information Center (GWIC) database, http://mbmggwic.mtech.edu. Scale 1:100,000KILOMETERS 1 0 1 2 345678910MILES101234 7891056Figure 1. Location Map909415159090KalispellMissoulaHelenaGreat FallsBillingsBozemanButte116°104°106°108°110°112°114°49°45°46°47°48°MONTANA100 0 100 Miles160 0 160 KilometersThis mapGallatin–MadisonStudy Area45° 26' 35"111° 49' 52"46° 09' 40"111° 52' 00"45° 27' 48"110° 47' 05"46° 10' 55"110° 48' 23"R 6 ER 5 ER 4 ER 3 ER 7 ER 2 ET 4 S T 3 ST 2 ST 1 ST 1 NT 2 NT 3 NT 4 NT 5 N46° 00' 00"111° 45' 00"111° 30' 00"111° 15' 00"111° 00' 00"45° 45' 00"45° 30' 00"R 1 ER 1 WR 2 W111° 45' 00"111° 30' 00"111° 15' 00"111° 00' 00"MONTANA BUREAU OF MINES AND GEOLOGYA Department of Montana Technological UniversityMontana GroundwaterAssessmentAtlas 8, Map 4, Plate 1 2022project site United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Gallatin County Area, MontanaNatural Resources Conservation Service November 3, 2025 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Gallatin County Area, Montana.......................................................................13 457A—Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes.......................13 Soil Information for All Uses...............................................................................15 Soil Properties and Qualities..............................................................................15 Soil Erosion Factors........................................................................................15 K Factor, Whole Soil....................................................................................15 Soil Qualities and Features.............................................................................18 Hydrologic Soil Group.................................................................................18 References............................................................................................................23 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 5061510506153050615505061570506159050616105061490506151050615305061550506157050615905061610496390 496410 496430 496450 496470 496490 496510 496530 496550 496570 496390 496410 496430 496450 496470 496490 496510 496530 496550 496570 45° 42' 29'' N 111° 2' 47'' W45° 42' 29'' N111° 2' 38'' W45° 42' 25'' N 111° 2' 47'' W45° 42' 25'' N 111° 2' 38'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84 0 40 80 160 240 Feet 0 10 20 40 60 Meters Map Scale: 1:872 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 29, Aug 30, 2025 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 18, 2022—Aug 29, 2022 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 10 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 457A Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes 1.7 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 1.7 100.0% 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 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. Custom Soil Resource Report 11 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 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 Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 48 to 96 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R044BC032MT - Loamy (Lo) 15-19" PZ Frigid North Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Turner Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Stream terraces Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BC032MT - Loamy (Lo) 15-19" PZ Frigid North Hydric soil rating: No Meadowcreek Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Beaverton Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP818MT - Upland Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 14 Soil Information for All Uses Soil Properties and Qualities The Soil Properties and Qualities section includes various soil properties and qualities displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process is defined for each property or quality. Soil Erosion Factors Soil Erosion Factors are soil properties and interpretations used in evaluating the soil for potential erosion. Example soil erosion factors can include K factor for the whole soil or on a rock free basis, T factor, wind erodibility group and wind erodibility index. K Factor, Whole Soil Erosion factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water. Factor K is one of six factors used in the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) to predict the average annual rate of soil loss by sheet and rill erosion in tons per acre per year. The estimates are based primarily on percentage of silt, sand, and organic matter and on soil structure and saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat). Values of K range from 0.02 to 0.69. Other factors being equal, the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water. "Erosion factor Kw (whole soil)" indicates the erodibility of the whole soil. The estimates are modified by the presence of rock fragments. Factor K does not apply to organic horizons and is not reported for those layers. 15 16 Custom Soil Resource Report Map—K Factor, Whole Soil 5061510506153050615505061570506159050616105061490506151050615305061550506157050615905061610496390 496410 496430 496450 496470 496490 496510 496530 496550 496570 496390 496410 496430 496450 496470 496490 496510 496530 496550 496570 45° 42' 29'' N 111° 2' 47'' W45° 42' 29'' N111° 2' 38'' W45° 42' 25'' N 111° 2' 47'' W45° 42' 25'' N 111° 2' 38'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84 0 40 80 160 240 Feet 0 10 20 40 60 Meters Map Scale: 1:872 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons .02 .05 .10 .15 .17 .20 .24 .28 .32 .37 .43 .49 .55 .64 Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines .02 .05 .10 .15 .17 .20 .24 .28 .32 .37 .43 .49 .55 .64 Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points .02 .05 .10 .15 .17 .20 .24 .28 .32 .37 .43 .49 .55 .64 Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area, Montana Survey Area Data: Version 29, Aug 30, 2025 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 18, 2022—Aug 29, 2022 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 17 Table—K Factor, Whole Soil Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 457A Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes .24 1.7 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 1.7 100.0% Rating Options—K Factor, Whole Soil Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Layer Options (Horizon Aggregation Method): Surface Layer (Not applicable) Soil Qualities and Features Soil qualities are behavior and performance attributes that are not directly measured, but are inferred from observations of dynamic conditions and from soil properties. Example soil qualities include natural drainage, and frost action. Soil features are attributes that are not directly part of the soil. Example soil features include slope and depth to restrictive layer. These features can greatly impact the use and management of the soil. Hydrologic Soil Group Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Custom Soil Resource Report 18 Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Custom Soil Resource Report 19 20 Custom Soil Resource Report Map—Hydrologic Soil Group 5061510506153050615505061570506159050616105061490506151050615305061550506157050615905061610496390 496410 496430 496450 496470 496490 496510 496530 496550 496570 496390 496410 496430 496450 496470 496490 496510 496530 496550 496570 45° 42' 29'' N 111° 2' 47'' W45° 42' 29'' N111° 2' 38'' W45° 42' 25'' N 111° 2' 47'' W45° 42' 25'' N 111° 2' 38'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84 0 40 80 160 240 Feet 0 10 20 40 60 Meters Map Scale: 1:872 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area, Montana Survey Area Data: Version 29, Aug 30, 2025 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 18, 2022—Aug 29, 2022 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 21 Table—Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 457A Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes B 1.7 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 1.7 100.0% Rating Options—Hydrologic Soil Group Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Custom Soil Resource Report 22 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 23 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 24 Camp Creek Hills Belgrade Bozeman Dry Creek Central Park South Gallatin Fort Ellis Gateway Bridger Range Front Spring Hill Manhattan Upper East Gallatin East Belgrade Deep Gallatin Range Front Deep UT UT UT 3Q po po po Trdc Qalo Yla XAgqf Qal Tscmp Yla Mm XAgqf XAq Trdc Kho QTep Qep DjKk Qc Yla Qg XAgqf Qg Trdc Thaf Trdc XAgqf Qal Qat Ts Tscmp XAgqf Qep Qaf XAgqf Qafo Trdc Mmc Tscmv XAgqf XAgqf Tscmv Qal Dj XAgqf Ts Kcot Qal Kbc Qal Kho Qal Mmc Qalo _piQafo Kbc XAgqf Trdc Qal Tscmv Qafh Qafo QTaf Qafo Qabo Qal Qafh Qafo Qabo Tscmv Tscmv Qal Tscmv Tscmp Qafo Qaf Qal Qab Qabo Qabo Qalo Qalo Qalo Qabo Qab Qab Qabo Qafo Qabo Qafo Qep Tscmv Qab Qafo Tscr Qab Tscr Qab Qab Tscr Tscr Qafo Tscmv XAgqf Mm Thaf Kk Qls Thae Mm Qg Kmfr Thaf Kk Kmfr Tscmv QTaf _s 9366 500 7121 900 9585 900 99114 500 95595 500 90870 500 95855 500 90850 600 96132 700 91250 744 91222 750 95664 750 90986 800 90879 850 91213 900 237290 500 222604 500 193168 500 199205 500 191985 500 185586 500 162169 500 189039 500 248247 510 208337 530 226717 550 226716 550 220678 550 254429 550 223292 560 216438 565 216439 586 123992 600 222189 600 278577 600 265409 600 123991 600 276980 600240109 600 252339 650 242684 650 165803 700 252338 700 162185 700 188780 725 197946 750 185053 750 187133 800 223575 868 210249 900 970 1500 1500 1200 1200 1000 1100 1005 1100 1550 1000 1500 1000 1580 1100 1115 1600 1000 1800 1900 1500 1250 2000 1065 1200 2000 1200 1250 Hilltop Sourdough Lyman Creek Hyalite Intake Sourdough Intake Lyman Spring Box Water Treatment Plant I9 0 US191MT84 MT86MT85I90 U S 1 9 1Ga l l a t i n R i v e r Camp CreekMi d d l e C r e e kEa s t G a l l a t i n R i v e r Boze m a n C r e e k Bridg e r C r e e k Cherry CreekD r y C r e e k Rocky Cr e e kMadison RiverMiddle Fork B r a c k e t t C r e e k Gallatin RiverR 6 ER 5 ER 4 ER 3 ER 2 E R 3 E R 4 E R 5 E R 6 E T 3 S T 2 S T 1 S R 2 E T 1 N R 7 E R 7 E T 2 N T 4 S T 3 S T 2 S T 1 S T 1 N T 2 N T 4 S 02461Miles Madison Limestone High-Yield Aquifer Evaluation Area Gallatin Valley High-Yield Groundwater Evaluation Area Geologic Map of the Gallatin Valley with Existing High-Yield Well Locations Logan Southwest Mont a n a T r a n s v e r s e Z o n e PLATE 1 Manhattan Belgrade Bozeman Bridger RangeHorseshoe Hills Madison River ValleyMadison BluffsMadison P lateau Central Park F a u l t Z o n e Subsurface B e d r o c k H i g h N Gallat i n R a n g e Legend Wells Yield 500 to 950 gpm Well use Domestic Fire Protection Geothermal Industrial Irrigation Public Water Supply Wells Yield >950gpm Well use Fire Protection Geothermal Irrigation Public Water Supply Test Well Approximate City Limits Bozeman Public Water Supply Site typepoCity of Bozeman Water Intake 3Q Treatment Plant UT Water Storage Tank Major Roads Major Rivers and Streams PLSS Townships Groundwater Evaluation Areas Faults Inferred From Gravity Data (Davis and others, 1960) Mapped Faults (Vuke and others, 2014) Mapped Faults (Lonn and English, 2002) Mapped Fold Axis (Vuke, 2003) Mapped Faults (Vuke, 2003) Deep Tertiary Basin Deposits Deep Tertiary Basin Deposits Modified Subareas (Hackett and others, 1960) Hydrogeologic Subareas Geologic Units within the Groundwater Evaulation Areas Qal Alluvium of modern channels and flood plains (Holocene) Qaf Alluvial fan deposits (Holocene) Qls Landslide deposit (Holocene) Qab Alluvium of braid plain (Holocene and/or Pleistocene) Qabo Braid plain alluvium, older than Qab (Pleistocene) Qg Glacial deposits, undivided (Pleistocene) Qalo Alluvium, older than Qal (Pleistocene) Qafo Alluvial-fan deposit, older than Qaf (Pleistocene) Qep Eolian and pediment deposits, undivided (Pleistocene) Qafh Hyalite Alluvial Fan (Pleistocene) QTaf Alluvial fan deposits (Pleistocene and/or Pliocene) Tscmp Sixmile Creek Formation, Madison Plateau member (Miocene) Tscmv Sixmile Creek Formation, Madison Valley member Tscr Sixmile Creek Formation, Reese Creek member (Miocene) Thaf Hyalite Peak Volcanics, andesite flows Thae Hyalite Peak Volcanics, andesite epiclastic deposits Kmfr Mowry through Fall River Formations Kk Kootenai Formation Mm Madison Group Єs Cambrian sediments, undivided XAgqf Gneiss, quartz-feldspar 1091 Stoneridge Drive • Bozeman, Montana • Phone (406) 587-1115 • Fax (406) 587-9768 www.chengineers.com • E-Mail: info@chengineers.com September 10, 2021 Mountain High Homes Attn: Dan Barnes E-mail: dan@mountainhighhomes.net RE: Soils Investigation Report – Lot 12, Block 2, Gallatin Park Subdivision; Bozeman, Montana (210645) Dear Dan, C&H Engineering and Surveying Inc., (C&H Engineering) has conducted a subsurface soils investigation for the above referenced property. The scope of services was to conduct a subsurface soils investigation and provide a soils investigation report. The report documents the site conditions, soil properties, and provides foundation design and general earthwork recommendations. Proposed Construction It is understood that a commercial structure(s) is planned for construction. At the time of this report detailed plans regarding the proposed structure(s) were not available. It has been assumed that the foundation footings will not be subjected to unusual loading conditions such as eccentric loads. 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. Subsurface Soil and Conditions On May 13, 2021 a member of the staff of C&H Engineering visited the site to conduct a subsurface soils investigation. The subsurface soils investigation consisted of examining four exploratory test pit excavations. The exploratory test pits were excavated with a tracked excavator provided by AX&T Dirtworks. 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 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. SOILS INVESTIGATION REPORT #210645 – LOT 12, BLOCK 2, GALLATIN PARK SUBDIVISION; BOZEMAN, MONTANA 2 The first soil horizon encountered in each exploratory excavation (except TP-4) was an Organic Soil of Low Plasticity (OL); please note that 1.5 feet of organic undocumented fill was encountered above the native organic layer in TP-4 only. This material was black in color, moist, and very soft. This material was encountered to depths varying from 0.75 to 3.3 feet below grounds surface (bgs). 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 flexible or rigid pavements. Underlying the Organic Soil in each exploratory excavation was a Lean Clay with Sand (CL). This material was present to depths varying from 4.3 feet bgs to 6.7 feet bgs. This material was very moist and soft, suggesting groundwater is rising up within this material seasonally. This material is moisture sensitive, highly compressible and must be removed from beneath all foundation footings. Underlying the Lean Clay in each exploratory excavation was a Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand and Cobbles (GP), known locally as “pit-run” gravel. This material was dark brown in color, very moist to saturated, medium dense and estimated to contain approximately 40 percent coarse to fine grained sand, and approximately 60 percent rounded and subrounded gravels and cobbles. This material was present to the end of each excavation, depths varying from 5.6 to 7.6 feet bgs. Groundwater was encountered within this material in each exploratory excavation. Based on the subsurface investigation, it is recommended that the excavation for the foundation elements continue down to the Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand and Cobbles and structural fill be used to achieve the desired bottom of footing elevation. Groundwater Groundwater was encountered at the same elevation as the Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand and Cobbles in each exploratory excavation. Also, the Lean Clay with Sand soil encountered beneath the organic soil was very soft and moist starting at a depth of approximately 2.5 to 3.0 feet bgs, suggesting that groundwater is rising up to this level seasonally. Also, once the Lean Clay layer is removed from above the Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand and Cobbles, the groundwater table will likely be elevated in this area and may rise up higher than if the low permeability Lean Clay was left in place. Because of this, a slab-on-grade with stem wall foundation is recommended for any structure to be constructed on the subject property. 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 test pits on the day of the excavation, our general experience in the project area, and any available literature regarding groundwater conditions in the vicinity of the subject property. If more detailed knowledge of the seasonally high groundwater elevation across the subject property is desired, it is recommended that groundwater monitoring wells be installed and checked weekly from the early spring to late summer months. SOILS INVESTIGATION REPORT #210645 – LOT 12, BLOCK 2, GALLATIN PARK SUBDIVISION; BOZEMAN, MONTANA 3 Foundation Recommendations Based on the subsurface soils encountered in the exploratory excavations, it is recommended that a slab-on-grade with stem wall foundation be utilized. Basement and crawl space foundations are not recommended due to seasonally high groundwater. 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.  All foundation elements are to bear on compacted structural fill overlying the Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand and Cobbles. All foundation footings shall be dimensioned for an allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 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.  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 & Settlement 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 properly placed and compacted structural fill overlying the Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand and Cobbles. For this scenario it is recommended that an allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot be used to dimension all foundation footings. Settlement and differential settlement were estimated using conservative soil parameters and the assumption that the foundation footings bear on properly placed and compacted structural fill overlying the Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand and Cobbles. Based on conservative soil parameter estimates, the bearing capacity recommended, and the assumption that all recommendations made in this report will be properly implemented, it is expected that total and differential settlement will be ½-inch or less. Structures of the type proposed can generally tolerate movements of this magnitude, however, this movement should be checked by a structural engineer to determine if it is acceptable. SOILS INVESTIGATION REPORT #210645 – LOT 12, BLOCK 2, GALLATIN PARK SUBDIVISION; BOZEMAN, MONTANA 4 Subgrade Preparation and Structural Fill In general, the excavation for the foundation footings must be level and uniform and continue down to the Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand and Cobbles. If any soft spots, undocumented fill 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 outer edges of the footings or to a distance equal to ½ the height of the required structural fill, whichever is greater. For example, if 6 feet of structural fill is required, the excavation must extend out from the footing a minimum distance of 3 feet. The purpose of this requirement is to keep the loads from the structure fully contained within the structural fill. Once the excavation is complete, the native subgrade shall be proof rolled with a large compactor to an unyielding condition. Any areas that are found to be pumping or rutting 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. Structural fill will need to be imported for this project. 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. 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 and optimum moisture content 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 beginning placement of the structural fill. It is also acceptable to utilize a lift or two of ¾-inch washed rock to get up above the groundwater elevation and then switch over to using 3-inch minus “pit-run” gravel as structural fill. If ¾-inch washed rock is used as structural fill it needs to be compacted to an unyielding condition with a large vibrating smooth drum roller. 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 lifts SOILS INVESTIGATION REPORT #210645 – LOT 12, BLOCK 2, GALLATIN PARK SUBDIVISION; BOZEMAN, MONTANA 5 (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. The soils encountered during the field investigation, with the exception of the Organic Soil and the undocumented fill, are suitable for use as foundation wall backfill along the exterior of the foundation, provided they are not too moist. Structural fill is recommended as foundation wall backfill in all areas that will support concrete slabs-on-grade or other paving improvements. The 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 In preparation for the interior slabs-on-grade, the excavation must continue down to the Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand and Cobbles and structural fill be utilized to achieve 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. 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. In order to prevent the 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 the interior slab-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 SOILS INVESTIGATION REPORT #210645 – LOT 12, BLOCK 2, GALLATIN PARK SUBDIVISION; BOZEMAN, MONTANA 6 recommended that interior concrete slabs-on-grade have a minimum thickness of 4 inches, and the reinforcement shall be designed by a licensed structural engineer. Exterior Slabs-on-Grade For exterior areas to be paved with concrete slabs, 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. 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. 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. SOILS INVESTIGATION REPORT #210645 – LOT 12, BLOCK 2, GALLATIN PARK SUBDIVISION; BOZEMAN, MONTANA 7 Asphalt Paving Improvements For areas to be paved with asphalt, it is recommended that, as a minimum, the topsoil and any organics 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 geotextile (such as a Mirafi 160N) shall be installed. Next a 12- inch layer of compacted 6-inch minus gravel needs to be placed, followed by a 6-inch layer of compacted 1-inch minus road mix. Both gravel courses must be compacted at ± 2 percent of their optimum moisture content to 95 percent of their maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D698. A 3-inch-thick layer of asphalt pavement can then be placed and compacted over this cross-section. Construction Administration The foundation is a vital element of a structure; it transfers all of the structures 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 C&H Engineering 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 approved 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 local and federal regulations, including the excavation and trench safety standards provided by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Report Limitations The recommendations made in this report are based on limited information obtained from the exploratory test pit excavated on the subject property. It is not uncommon for variations in the subsurface conditions to occur, the nature and extent of which do not become evident until additional exploration or construction is conducted. The variations may result in additional construction costs, and it is suggested that a contingency be provided for this purpose. OL CL GP 0.8 4.3 5.6 0 TO 0.75 FEET: ORGANIC SOIL; (OL); black; moist; low plasticity; very soft. 0.75 TO 4.3 FEET: LEAN CLAY WITH SAND; (CL); tan; moist to very moist; medium plasticity; soft to very soft. 4.3 TO 5.6 FEET: POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND COBBLES; (GP); dark brown; moist to saturated; non plastic plasticity; dense. Bottom of test pit at 5.6 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION LOGGED BY Michael J. Welch, P.E. EXCAVATION METHOD Tracked Excavator EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR AX&T Dirtworks GROUND WATER LEVELS: DATE STARTED 5/13/21 COMPLETED 5/13/21 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION 5.60 ft AFTER EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION ---DEPTH(ft)0.0 2.5 5.0 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP1 PROJECT NUMBER 210645 CLIENT Mountain High Homes, Inc. PROJECT LOCATION Lot 12, Gallatin Park Subdivision PROJECT NAME Soils Investigation GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - GINT STD US.GDT - 9/9/21 13:56 - G:\C&H\21\210645S\TEST PIT LOGS (210645).GPJU.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION OL CL GP 1.2 5.5 6.3 0 TO 1.2 FEET: ORGANIC SOIL; (OL); black; moist; low plasticity; very soft. 1.2 TO 5.5 FEET: LEAN CLAY WITH SAND; (CL); tan; moist to very moist; mediumplasticity; soft to very soft. 5.5 TO 6.3 FEET: POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND COBBLES; (GP); dark brown; moist to saturated; non plastic plasticity; dense. Bottom of test pit at 6.3 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION LOGGED BY Michael J. Welch, P.E. EXCAVATION METHOD Tracked Excavator EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR AX&T Dirtworks GROUND WATER LEVELS: DATE STARTED 5/13/21 COMPLETED 5/13/21 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION 6.30 ft AFTER EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION ---DEPTH(ft)0.0 2.5 5.0 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP2 PROJECT NUMBER 210645 CLIENT Mountain High Homes, Inc. PROJECT LOCATION Lot 12, Gallatin Park Subdivision PROJECT NAME Soils Investigation GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - GINT STD US.GDT - 9/9/21 13:56 - G:\C&H\21\210645S\TEST PIT LOGS (210645).GPJU.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION OL CL GP 1.3 5.5 6.3 0 TO 1.3 FEET: ORGANIC SOIL; (OL); black; moist; low plasticity; very soft. 1.3 TO 5.5 FEET: LEAN CLAY WITH SAND; (CL); tan; moist to very moist; medium plasticity; soft to very soft. 5.5 TO 6.3 FEET: POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND COBBLES; (GP); dark brown; moist to saturated; non plastic plasticity; dense. Bottom of test pit at 6.3 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION LOGGED BY Michael J. Welch, P.E. EXCAVATION METHOD Tracked Excavator EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR AX&T Dirtworks GROUND WATER LEVELS: DATE STARTED 5/13/21 COMPLETED 5/13/21 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION 6.30 ft AFTER EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION ---DEPTH(ft)0.0 2.5 5.0 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP3 PROJECT NUMBER 210645 CLIENT Mountain High Homes, Inc. PROJECT LOCATION Lot 12, Gallatin Park Subdivision PROJECT NAME Soils Investigation GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - GINT STD US.GDT - 9/9/21 13:56 - G:\C&H\21\210645S\TEST PIT LOGS (210645).GPJU.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION OL OL CL GP 1.5 3.3 6.7 7.6 0 TO 1.5 FEET: UNDOCUMENTED FILL; (OL); black; dry to moist; low plasticity; loose. 1.5 TO 3.3 FEET: ORGANIC SOIL; (OL); black; moist; low plasticity; very soft. 3.3 TO 6.7 FEET: LEAN CLAY WITH SAND; (CL); tan; moist to very moist; mediumplasticity; soft to very soft. 6.7 TO 7.6 FEET: POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND COBBLES; (GP); dark brown; moist to saturated; non plastic plasticity; dense. Bottom of test pit at 7.6 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION LOGGED BY Michael J. Welch, P.E. EXCAVATION METHOD Tracked Excavator EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR AX&T Dirtworks GROUND WATER LEVELS: DATE STARTED 5/13/21 COMPLETED 5/13/21 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION 7.60 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 TP4 PROJECT NUMBER 210645 CLIENT Mountain High Homes, Inc. PROJECT LOCATION Lot 12, Gallatin Park Subdivision PROJECT NAME Soils Investigation GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - GINT STD US.GDT - 9/9/21 13:56 - G:\C&H\21\210645S\TEST PIT LOGS (210645).GPJU.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION 1105 Reeves Rd. W. Ste 6, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 581-5730 www.headwatersmt.net Page 10 of 11 Appendix D Stormwater Facilities Operation, Inspection and Maintenance Manual Acknowledgement of Stormwater Facility Maintenance Requirements Stormwater Facility Inspection Form BCPC Facility 350 Gallatin Park Drive Storm Water Facilities Operation & Maintenance Manual Responsible Party: Bozeman Classic Pickleball Club, LLC Contact: Elliot Marcille em@bozemanpickleballclub.com, 406-931-0564 2414 Arabian Ave Bozeman, MT 59718 Overview The lot owner is responsible for operation, inspections and maintenance of all of the onsite Storm Water Facilities, curb cuts, gutter pipes, storm outlet structure, and storm pond per the schedule below and using the included Stormwater Facility Inspection Form. The inspection forms shall be kept for a period of 3 years. This entity is also responsible for the replacement of any drainage facilities that are no longer functioning as designed. Maintenance The storm sidewalk curb cuts and curb lines are to have the sediment removed by hand on a yearly basis or an updated maintenance schedule as determined by monitoring the sediment build-up in the curb line. Any removed sediment shall be removed from the site and disposed of properly as to not discharge into state waters. The rain gutters drain into underground pipes which carry the stormwater to the stormwater pond. The connections from the vertical gutters to the underground pipes should be inspected every year before freezing weather occurs. The inspection shall check for any debris that may clog the pipe. The screen should also be inspected to ensure debris or rodents cannot enter the pipe. The small storm manholes shall also be inspected yearly to check sediment buildup in the sumps. If the sediment is deeper than 2”, the sediment shall be removed manually or using a vac-truck. The sediment needs to be disposed of in the dumpster or offsite at an approved location. The gutter drain pipes shall also be inspected yearly to check for plugs or sediment build-up. Inspection of the ends of the pipes in the manholes, gutter connections and discharge into the pond shall be sufficient unless backups are witnessed. If a backup is witnessed, the pipes shall be flushed and if that does not work, a camera shall be operated down the pipe to check for obstructions or a pipe collapse. The storm water pond shall be monitored every year for sediment build-up. When the sediment build-up exceeds three inches in either forebay, the sediment shall be removed mechanically and hauled from the site. If the extraction of the sediment removes the vegetation from the bottom of the pond, it should be reseeded or re-sodded. A static measuring device shall be placed in the pond in each forebay. This can be a visual ruler, a concrete pad, or a 24” steel stake set at exactly 3 inches above the bottom of the pond. With frequent cleaning of the forebays, it is not expected that the main pond bottom will need cleaning, but if the pond bottom ever is higher than the forebay divider, or the inlet pipe invert, the entire pond bottom shall be cleaned of sediment and reseeded/resodded. The storm pond has an armored overflow that is to be inspected yearly for any erosion. If any erosion or weakening of the overflow is witness, additional armor shall be added. Budget It is estimated that the yearly budget estimated to complete the above items is approximately $250 for inspections and an average of $1750 for maintenance in 2025 value. Since most of the maintenance is not expected to be needed yearly, the lot owner shall budget or set aside money for larger maintenance tasks as described below. Inspection & Maintenance Cost & Frequency List Financial Plan The maintenance costs will be borne by the owner of the lot and BCPC facility. Since there is only one owner, no HOA or shared costs. The yearly costs are expected to be less than $1750/year. This includes cleaning of the storm pond every 5 years. With this low cost, no separate accounts are expected to be created specifically for this use. This cost falls well within a typical month’s operating cost for this facility and will not require any budget planning or forecasting. Acknowledgement of Stormwater Facility Maintenance Requirements BCPC Facility 350 Galla�n Park Drive Bozeman, Montana COB Applica�on #25755 December 2025 Acknowledgement of Stormwater Facili�es Maintenance Requirements PROPERTY OWNER: Bozeman Classic Pickleball Club, LLC NAME OF PLAN/DEVELOPMENT: BCPC Facility LOT/BLOCK/SUBDIVISION: Lot 12, Block 2 of Galla�n Park Subdivision Property Owner hereby acknowledges that they are required to maintain all stormwater facili�es on the Property pursuant to Bozeman Municipal Code sec. 40.04.720. This requirement is binding on any successor or assign of the Property Owner listed above. The City requires stormwater facili�es be constructed and adequately maintained on the Property in order to maintain the health, safety and welfare of City residents. Adequate maintenance is defined as keeping the stormwater facili�es and all components thereof in good working condi�on so that these stormwater facili�es con�nue to perform in accordance with the design intent. Should the Property Owner fail to adequately maintain stormwater facili�es, the City may enter upon the Property and take such steps as are necessary to correct deficiencies. The City may assess against the Property Owner for the cost of any repairs or necessary maintenance by any means provided for in the Bozeman Municipal Code. By signing below Property Owner acknowledges they have read this document and the applicable provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code, and they agree to the maintenance requirements for all stormwater facili�es on their Property. BY:_____________________, Elliot Marcille, member, Bozeman Classic Pickleball Club, LLC Stormwater Facility Inspec�on Form BCPC Facility 350 Galla�n Park Drive Bozeman, Montana COB Applica�on #25755 December 2025 Headwaters Engineering, Inc. Project #: 2127.001 Prepared For: Bozeman Classic Pickleball Club, LLC 2414 Arabian Ave Bozeman, MT 59718 Stormwater Facility Inspection Form Section 1: General Information Facility ID: Facility Type: Choose an item. Date/Time: Click or tap to enter a date. Owner: Contact: Inspector’s Name, contact info: Choose an item. Location/Access info: Type of Inspection: ☐Routine, Dry Weather ☐ Routine, Wet Weather ☐ Complaint Driven ☐ Other: __________________ Section 2: Weather and Discharge Information Most recent precipitation or melt: Temperature: Is a stormwater discharge occurring? ☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, what is the source and quality of discharge? Is an illegal discharge occurring? ☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, what is the source and quality of discharge? Section 3: Facility Maintenance Priority ☐Low: Stormwater facility appears to be functioning as designed. Continue scheduled maintenance. ☐Medium: Stormwater facility requires minor to moderate sediment and vegetation maintenance to mitigate the risk of flooding, waterway pollution, and infrastructure failure. ☐High: Stormwater facility requires significant sediment dredging, vegetation removal, and/or infrastructure repairs to restore function. Notes, Findings & Recommendations: Inspector’s Signature: ________________________________ Date: ___________________ Section 4: Qualitative Analysis Components # Items Conditions Results Notes and Required Actions General Degraded, missing, or inadequate Yes 1.1 Accessibility maintenance access? No ☐☐ Trash, sediment, and waste within 1.2 Debris ☐Yesand around the facility? ☐No Overgrown or dead cattails, Yes 1.3 Vegetation woody shrubs, weeds, grass, and ☐ trees? ☐No Infrastructure Damaged inlet pipe, outlet pipe, Yes1.4 ☐Condition outfall structure, or fencing? ☐No Facility Condition Pretreatment Bay Clogged, obstructed, or filled 2.1 ☐Yesor Facility pretreatment forebay or facility? ☐No 2.2 Storage Bay Clogged or filled storage bay? ☐Yes☐No Stagnant water with infiltration Groundwater or Yes 2.3 greater than 48 hours post-rain ☐Standing Water event? ☐No 2.4 Flow Path Clogged or obstructed flow path? ☐Yes☐No Barren or exposed surfaces on Yes2.5 Side Slopes ☐Facility’s side slopes and bottom? ☐No Maintenance Maintenance Plan Is there a written plan specific to ☐Yes3.1 or Agreement this facility? ☐No Yes3.2 Implementation Is there evidence of maintenance? ☐☐No Section 5: Quantitative Analysis Vegetation Cover type % Within facility Notes Bare ground Aquatics Grasses/Herbaceou Trees >3” DBH Shrubs Total 100 Elevation Analysis Location Reading (ft) Elevation (ft) Notes SRV#CP Control Point SRV#1 Inlet SRV#2 Outlet SRV#3 Center SRV#4 North of Center SRV#5 East of Center SRV#6 South of Center SRV#7 West of center SRV#8 Berm or overflow SRV#9 Summary Section 6: Facility Maintenance Inspection Exhibit Photo 1 description Photo 2 description Section 7: Photo Log 1105 Reeves Rd. W. Ste 6, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 581-5730 www.headwatersmt.net Page 11 of 11 Appendix E 1999 Design Report for the Gallatin Park Subdivision