Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Haggerty Lane Multi-Family Storm Report
HAGGERTY MULTI-FAMILY Project # 250389.01/.02 Bozeman, Montana AUGUST 2026 DRAINAGE REPORT FOR HAGGERTY MULTI-FAMILY CERTIFICATION I hereby state that this drainage report has been prepared by me or under my supervision and meets the standard of care and expertise which is usual and customary in this community of professional engineers. The analysis has been prepared utilizing procedures and practices specified by the City of Bozeman and within the standard accepted practices. Robert Egeberg, P.E. Date 8/14/2026 August 2026 Project No. 250389.01/.02 DRAINAGE REPORT HAGGERTY MULTI-FAMILY BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715 SITE NARRATIVE The purpose of this drainage report is to present a summary of calculations to quantify the stormwater runoff for the Haggerty Multi-Family project (referred to in this document as “the project”). The proposed project includes two new residential buildings with 5 units in each building for a total of 10 units. All design criteria and calculations are in accordance with the City of Bozeman Design and Construction Standards, dated October 2024. The site stormwater improvements have been designed with the intent of meeting the current drainage regulations for the City of Bozeman. LOCATION The development site is one lot located on the south side of Haggerty Lane in Bozeman, Montana. The legal description of the property is: MINOR SUB 16B, S08, T02 S, R06 E, LOT 2A1, ACRES 0.468, REARR ELKS CLUB PROPERTY. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The project location is currently an undeveloped lot with native grass and vegetation. The existing area generally slopes southeast to northwest at 4.6% towards Haggerty Lane. The nearest storm drain inlet is located adjacent to the site on Haggerty Lane. The total area of the site is 20,373 square feet (0.468 acres). The project site is bordered by the Bozeman Softball Complex to the south and commercial properties to the east and west. PROPOSED CONDITIONS The proposed project includes the construction of two new multi-story buildings with an asphalt drive aisle, concrete sidewalks, grass permeable pavers, and landscaped areas. The new improvements area will be treated as two basins. Runoff from most of the building roof areas will be collected via downspouts and conveyed to an underground closed pipe storage system located in the center of the proposed drive Drainage Report Page 2 of 12 AUGUST 2026 aisle. Outflow from the site will be limited to the pre-development flowrate. Runoff exits the storage system through a system of 15” and 24” pipes and two outlet control structures. After flowing through a hydrodynamic separator, a new 12” storm drain connects the final outlet structure to the existing inlet on Haggerty Lane. HYDROLOGY The modified rational method was used in Autodesk’s Hydraflow Hydrographs to determine peak runoff rates and volumes within the project. Hydraflow was used to calculate the peak runoff rates on-site and off-site, time of concentration, etc. For asphalt, roof areas, and concrete surfaces, a runoff coefficient of 0.95 was assumed, for landscape surfaces, a runoff coefficient of 0.15 was assumed, and for gravel surfaces, a runoff coefficient of 0.70 was assumed. The project proposes the construction of an underground closed pipe detention system to manage the on-site and off-site runoff. To calculate the required storage for the 2-year through 100-year storms, the combined closed pipe systems were modeled using Autodesk’s Hydraflow Hydrographs to generate discharge hydrographs that compare the combined pre-development discharge and post development discharge to confirm the post-development discharge does not exceed the pre-development flowrates. All hydrology calculations and results have been provided in Appendix B of this report. A. Pre-Development Basins For the following sections, please refer to Appendix A – Exhibit A of this report which shows and labels the existing drainage basins for the project. Existing basins were evaluated to include offsite areas that contribute runoff to the site. This includes a portion of the neighboring property to the east of the site and the Bozeman Softball Complex to the south of the site. Existing Basin A On-site and Off-site Existing Basin A has 11,086 square feet of unimproved area, 799 square feet of gravel area, and 50,633 square feet of lawn area. Runoff generated in this basin flows from the softball field complex southeast to northwest towards the project site. The pre-development peak flows for Basin A are listed below. 2-yr, Qpeak= 0.212 cfs 5-yr, Qpeak= 0.319 cfs 10-yr, Qpeak= 0.389 cfs 25-yr, Qpeak= 0.527 cfs 50-yr, Qpeak= 0.657 cfs 100-yr, Qpeak= 0.768 cfs Drainage Report Page 3 of 12 AUGUST 2026 Existing Basin B On-site Existing Basin B has 5,092 square feet of unimproved area. Runoff generated in this basin flows from southeast to northwest and ultimately flows into Haggerty Lane. The pre-development peak flows for Basin B are listed below. 2-yr, Qpeak= 0.039 cfs 5-yr, Qpeak= 0.059 cfs 10-yr, Qpeak= 0.072 cfs 25-yr, Qpeak= 0.097 cfs 50-yr, Qpeak= 0.121 cfs 100-yr, Qpeak= 0.141 cfs Existing Basin C On-site and Off-site Existing Basin C has 13,347 square feet of unimproved area, 930 square feet of gravel, and 1,230 square feet of lawn area. Runoff generated in this basin flows from southeast to northwest to the west side of the project site and to the property directly east of the project site and ultimately into Haggerty Lane. The pre-development peak flows for Basin C are listed below. 2-yr, Qpeak= 0.074 cfs 5-yr, Qpeak= 0.112 cfs 10-yr, Qpeak= 0.136 cfs 25-yr, Qpeak= 0.185 cfs 50-yr, Qpeak= 0.231 cfs 100-yr, Qpeak= cfs Pre-Development Drainage Characteristics The pre-development characteristics and combined hydrograph for Basins A, B, and C are shown below for comparison purposes. 2-yr, Qpeak= 0.283 cfs 5-yr, Qpeak= 0.426 cfs 10-yr, Qpeak= 0.520 cfs 25-yr, Qpeak= 0.704 cfs 50-yr, Qpeak= 0.878 cfs 100-yr, Qpeak= 1.025 cfs Drainage Report Page 4 of 12 AUGUST 2026 B. Post-Development Basins For the following sections, please refer to Appendix A – Exhibit B of this report, which shows and labels the post-development basins. A geotechnical report was completed in January 2026 by Allied Engineering and is included in Appendix D. Peak flows for the full range of storms from the 2-year event to the 100-year event were evaluated for each basin, see Appendix B. Basin 1 Basin 1 has 1,650 square feet of concrete, 1,672 square feet of TRUEGRID grass pavers, 1,074 square feet of asphalt, 4,812 square feet of roof area, and 459 square feet of landscape area. This basin also includes 799 square feet of gravel area, 50,633 square feet of lawn area, and 1,419 square feet of unimproved area from the off-site area in existing Basin A that will contribute runoff to the site. Runoff within Basin 1 flows into the proposed drive aisle and enters the 24” closed pipe storage system via a storm drain inlet and a combined inlet/overflow structure. Within this structure, water backs up into the 24” pipe system and is stored until it discharges into the second closed pipe system through orifices. The orifices within this structure limit discharge from Basin 1 to the allowable pre-development flowrates for the 2-year through 100-year storm events, which is then released into the pipe storage system for Basin 2. Within the second pipe storage system, water flows to a second overflow structure where it is Drainage Report Page 5 of 12 AUGUST 2026 ultimately released to a Contech CDS unit for treatment prior to discharging to the existing inlet on Haggerty Lane at the allowable pre-development flowrate for the 2-year through 100-year storm events. Proposed Basin 3 has water exiting the property with only water quality storage, so Basin 1 and Basin 2 are sized to limit the flow from all post-development basins to pre-development flowrates. Therefore, the combined flowrate from Basins 1, 2, and 3 match discharge at a rate less than the combined pre-development flowrate. The post-development peak flows for Basin 1 are listed below. The water quantity storage requirement for the 100-year storm is 1,381 cf. 2-yr, Qpeak= 0.258 cfs 5-yr, Qpeak= 0.333 cfs 10-yr, Qpeak= 0.407 cfs 25-yr, Qpeak= 0.531 cfs 50-yr, Qpeak= 0.659 cfs 100-yr, Qpeak= 0.775 cfs Basin 2 Basin 2 has 231 square feet of concrete, 1,653 square feet of asphalt, and 3,208 square feet of roof area. This basin also receives the discharge allowed from Basin 1. Runoff within Basin 2 flows into the proposed drive aisle and enters the 15” closed pipe storage system via the second overflow structure. Within this structure, water backs up into the 15” pipe system and is stored until it discharges to the CDS hydrodynamic separator and ultimately to the existing inlet on Haggerty Lane at the allowable pre-development flowrate through orifices. The post-development peak flows for Basin 2 are listed below. The water quantity storage requirement for the 100-year storm is 381 cf. 2-yr, Qpeak= 0.103 cfs 5-yr, Qpeak= 0.191 cfs 10-yr, Qpeak= 0.233 cfs 25-yr, Qpeak= 0.315 cfs 50-yr, Qpeak= 0.318 cfs 100-yr, Qpeak= 0.458 cfs Basin 3 Basin 3 has 3,212 square feet of concrete, 222 square feet of TRUEGRID grass pavers, 1,367 square feet of gravel area, 1,428 square feet of roof area, and 5,552 square feet of landscape area. This basin also includes 689 square feet of gravel area, 1,230 square feet of lawn area, and 1,691 square feet of unimproved area from existing Basins A and C (off-site) that will contribute runoff to the site. Runoff within Basin 3 sheet flows towards the east and west property boundaries of the site and then flows along gravel Drainage Report Page 6 of 12 AUGUST 2026 strips along the boundaries. Runoff from Basin 3 ultimately enters Haggerty Lane as it has historically. The post-development peak flows for Basin 3 are listed below. Basin 3 has a water quality storage requirement of 288 cf. 2-yr, Qpeak= 0.237 cfs 5-yr, Qpeak= 0.357 cfs 10-yr, Qpeak= 0.434 cfs 25-yr, Qpeak= 0.589 cfs 50-yr, Qpeak= 0.734 cfs 100-yr, Qpeak= 0.855 cfs Post-Development Drainage Characteristics The post-development characteristics and hydrograph for Basins 1, 2, and 3 are shown below for comparison purposes. 2-yr, Qpeak= 0.250 cfs 5-yr, Qpeak= 0.412 cfs 10-yr, Qpeak= 0.501 cfs 25-yr, Qpeak= 0.670 cfs 50-yr, Qpeak= 0.816 cfs 100-yr, Qpeak= 0.987 cfs Drainage Report Page 7 of 12 AUGUST 2026 REQUIRED STORAGE VOLUME CALCULATIONS 24” Closed Pipe Storage System The runoff from Basin 1 is detained by the proposed 24” closed pipe storage system. Basin 1 has a total area of 62,518 square feet (1.44 acres) and has a runoff coefficient of 0.25, and a required water quantity storage of 1,381 cubic feet. The proposed pipe system consists of six 24” diameter pipes running side-by-side, ranging in length from 26’ to 72.5’. This system has a total storage volume of 1,448 cubic feet, making the system adequate to meet the storage requirements. 2-yr, Max Elevation= 4822.17’ Max Storage= 390 cf 5-yr, Max Elevation= 4822.37’ Max Storage= 566 cf 10-yr, Max Elevation= 4822.51’ Max Storage= 688 cf 25-yr, Max Elevation= 4822.78’ Max Storage= 937 cf 50-yr, Max Elevation= 4823.07’ Max Storage= 1,176 cf 100-yr, Max Elevation= 4823.43’ Max Storage= 1,381 cf 15” Closed Pipe Storage System The peak flow from Basin 2 and outflow/bypass from Basin 1 are detained by the proposed closed 15” pipe storage system. Basin 2 has a total area of 5,092 square feet (0.12 acres) and has a runoff coefficient of 0.95, and a required water quantity storage of 381 cubic feet. The proposed pipe system consists of four 84 foot long 15” diameter pipes running side-by-side. This system has a total storage volume of 412 cubic feet, making the system adequate to meet the storage requirements. 2-yr, Max Elevation= 4819.06’ Max Storage= 100 cf 5-yr, Max Elevation= 4819.40’ Max Storage= 183 cf 10-yr, Max Elevation= 4819.53’ Max Storage= 217 cf 25-yr, Max Elevation= 4819.78’ Max Storage= 284 cf 50-yr, Max Elevation= 4820.11’ Max Storage= 344 cf 100-yr, Max Elevation= 4820.59’ Max Storage= 381 cf Gravel Strip Storage System The gravel strips running along the east and west property boundaries will manage the water quality volume from Basin 3. The proposed material for the gravel storage system is AASHTO #2 stone which has an accepted design porosity of 40%. To be conservative, the storage has been designed with a porosity of 30%. The gravel strips will tie into the native gravel layer on site. The eastern gravel strip has a total storage volume of 219 cubic feet while the western gravel strip has a total storage volume of 80 cubic feet, making the system adequate to meet the storage requirements. Drainage Report Page 8 of 12 AUGUST 2026 Required Volume = 288 cubic ft Eastern Gravel Strip = 293 sq. ft. X 2.5’ D X 0.30 = 219 cubic feet Western Gravel Strip = 66.8 sq. ft. X 4’ D X 0.30 = 80 cubic feet Total Volume Provided = 299 cubic feet HYDRAULICS All storm drainage pipes were sized to handle peak flow resulting from the minor storm event. All storm drain pipes were designed with a minimum slope to maintain a full-flow velocity of at least 2.5 feet per second while limiting the full flow velocity to a maximum of 12 feet per second. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Hydraulic Toolbox Software Version 5.3.0 was used for pipe and inlet capacity/bypass evaluations. See Appendix C for hydraulics calculations. Water Quality The City of Bozeman has a requirement to capture or reuse the runoff generated from the first 0.5 inches of rainfall from a 24-hour storm. We meet this requirement by treating the water quality volume for Basins 1 and 2 with a Contech CDS2015-4 hydrodynamic separator. Before entering the City of Bozeman storm system, the discharge from the underground storage system is routed through a Contech CDS2015-4 hydrodynamic separator. The runoff treatment flow rate was calculated as recommended by the City of Bozeman Design and Construction Standards using the Montana Post-Construction Storm Water BMP Guidance Manual, dated September 2017. The water quality volume for Basin 3 is stored in the gravel strips along the east and west property boundaries. Stormwater systems need to be maintained, per the recommendations in the Operations and Maintenance Manual, see Appendix E. A. Calculations WQV = ((P x Rv x A) / 12) x 43,560 Where: WQV=Water Quality volume P=Water Quality Rainfall Depth, inches (0.5-inches) Rv=The Unitless Runoff Coefficient, Rv=0.5+0.9(I) I=the percent impervious cover draining to the facility A=total site area draining to the structure Basin 1 Water Quality Volume = 0.5in x 0.16 x 1.44 ac x (1ft/12in) x 43,560ft/ac = 435 cf Drainage Report Page 9 of 12 AUGUST 2026 Basin 2 Water Quality Volume = 0.5in x 0.95 x 0.12 ac x (1ft/12in) x 43,560ft/ac = 202 cf Basin 3 Water Quality Volume = 0.5in x 0.44 x 0.36 ac x (1ft/12in) x 43,560ft/ac = 288 cf Runoff Treatment Flow Rate = quAQ Where: RTF=Runoff treatment flow rate (cfs) qu= Unit peak discharge (cfs/sq. mi/inch) A=drainage area (sq. mi) Q= Runoff depth (watershed inches) RTF treated by Contech CDS 2015-4 = 950 cfs/sq. mi/inch x 0.002 sq. mi x 0.11 watershed inches = 0.26 cfs OUTLET STRUCTURES The orifice outlet structures within the drive aisle will control flow from the 24” closed pipe storage system to the 15” closed pipe storage system and from the 15” closed pipe storage system to the existing inlet on Haggerty Lane. The outlet structures have been designed using orifices similar to the COB Standard Drawing No. 02720-12. Orifices were calculated to release runoff at pre-development runoff rates for the range of storms between the minor and major event. The two pipe systems have been summarized below. The discharges from the site are being routed through these outlet structures. The combined pipe systems and outlet structures were modeled using Autodesk’s Hydraflow Hydrographs to generate a discharge hydrograph that is routed to the City of Bozeman municipal storm drainage system. The routed results are summarized below. Additional information can be found in Appendix B. 24” Closed Pipe Storage System Includes runoff from Basin 1 Bottom of System Elevation = 4821.28’ Top of System Elevation = 4823.81’ Provide 12-inch riser pipe in discharge outlet structure with the following: One 1.2” hole with invert at 4821.28’ One 2.6” hole with invert at 4822.03’ One 3.1” hole with invert at 4823.28’ Drainage Report Page 10 of 12 AUGUST 2026 24” Closed Pipe Storage System Routed Results 2-yr, Max Elevation= 4822.17’ Max Storage= 390 cf 5-yr, Max Elevation= 4822.37’ Max Storage= 566 cf 10-yr, Max Elevation= 4822.51’ Max Storage= 688 cf 25-yr, Max Elevation= 4822.78’ Max Storage= 937 cf 50-yr, Max Elevation= 4823.07’ Max Storage= 1,176 cf 100-yr, Max Elevation= 4823.43’ Max Storage= 1,381 cf 15” Closed Pipe Storage System Includes runoff from Basin 2 and Outflow from 24” pipe system Bottom of System Elevation = 4817.81’ Top of System Elevation = 4821.17’ Provide 12-inch riser pipe in discharge outlet structure with the following: One 0.7” hole with invert at 4817.81’ One 1.9” hole with invert at 4818.81’ One 1.7” hole with invert at 4819.31’ 15” Closed Pipe Storage System Routed Results 2-yr, Max Elevation= 4819.06’ Max Storage= 100 cf 5-yr, Max Elevation= 4819.40’ Max Storage= 183 cf 10-yr, Max Elevation= 4819.53’ Max Storage= 217 cf 25-yr, Max Elevation= 4819.78’ Max Storage= 284 cf 50-yr, Max Elevation= 4820.11’ Max Storage= 344 cf 100-yr, Max Elevation= 4820.59’ Max Storage= 381 cf Combined System Routed Peak Discharge from Structure 2 2-yr, Q= 0.053 cfs 5-yr, Q= 0.095 cfs 10-yr, Q= 0.122 cfs 25-yr, Q= 0.156 cfs 50-yr, Q= 0.189 cfs 100-yr, Q= 0.229 cfs The table below shows the combined pre-development discharge rates for combined basins A,B, and C in comparison to the combined post-development discharge from Basin 3 and the outflow from the closed pipe storage system. Drainage Report Page 11 of 12 AUGUST 2026 Storm Interval Pre-Development Qpeak Post-Development Qpeak 2-Year 0.283 cfs 0.250 cfs 5-Year 0.426 cfs 0.412 cfs 10-Year 0.520 cfs 0.501 cfs 25-Year 0.704 cfs 0.670 cfs 50-Year 0.878 cfs 0.816 cfs 100-Year 1.025 cfs 0.987 cfs The combined peak outflow from the project site is less than the combined pre-development peak outflow for the full range of storms. GROUNDWATER MOUNDING CALCULATIONS Groundwater mounding calculations were completed as recommended by the City of Bozeman Design and Construction Standards using the Hantush method provided by the USGS. Each gravel strip has gravel proposed to tie the bottom of the strip in with the existing native gravel found on site to promote infiltration to groundwater. The existing native layer is clayey gravel and clayey sandy gravel. A maximum infiltration rate of 0.06 inches per hour (0.12 ft/day) was used for each strip per USCS determination of soils on site. A conservative horizontal hydraulic conductivity of ten times the infiltration rate was used as assumed by the USGS SIR 2010-5102 report accompanying the Hantush method spreadsheet used. A specific yield of 0.08 was used for each calculation correlating with estimated values for lean clay. The half width and length of each strip were input as the half length extents of the gravel tying the strip to native gravels, and the infiltration period duration was set as 3 days. The initial thickness of the saturated zone was defined as the depth of the perched water table encountered in the geotechnical investigation of the site. Groundwater mounding calculations under each gravel strip are shown in Appendix D. CONCLUSION Runoff generated from Basins 1 and 2 will be captured and detained on-site in the underground closed pipe storage systems proposed for the development of the project site. Runoff generated from Basin 3 will be captured for the water quality volume but the remainder of the storm event is allowed to flow offsite as it has historically. The detention system has been designed to store the minor and major storm events while releasing a portion of the storm event at the pre-development peak flow rate for Basins 1,2, and 3. There are two planned outlet structures within the site with ultimately one discharging into the City of Bozeman Municipal stormwater system after it has been treated by the proposed CDS unit. During the major storm event larger than the 100-year, the underground storage system will overflow into the larger 12” overflow weir within the overflow structures and ultimately discharge into the proposed outflow pipe. Runoff from the outflow pipe flows to the existing inlet in Haggerty Lane and Drainage Report Page 12 of 12 AUGUST 2026 discharges to the north side of Haggerty Lane as it has historically. In the case of the major storm event, no runoff will impact the existing or proposed structures of the Haggerty Multi-Family project. APPENDICES Appendix A – Stormwater Basins Appendix B – Hydrology Calculations Appendix C - Hydraulic Calculations Appendix D – Groundwater Mounding Calculations Appendix E – O&M Plan Appendix F – Geotechnical Report HAGGERTY MULTI-FAMILY Project # 250389.01/.02 APPENDIX A STORMWATER BASINS 025SCALE:1" = 50'5025 025SCALE:1" = 50'5025 HAGGERTY MULTI-FAMILY Project # 250389.01/.02 APPENDIX B HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS Hydraflow Table of Contents250389.01_Hydraflow_08112026.gpwHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Watershed Model Schematic...................................................................................... 1Hydrograph Return Period Recap............................................................................. 22 - YearSummary Report......................................................................................................................... 3Hydrograph Reports................................................................................................................... 4Hydrograph No. 1, Mod. Rational, Pre-Development Basin A.................................................. 4Hydrograph No. 2, Mod. Rational, Pre-Development Basin B................................................. 5Hydrograph No. 3, Mod. Rational, Pre-Development Basin C................................................. 6Hydrograph No. 4, Mod. Rational, Post Development Ba sin 1................................................ 7Hydrograph No. 5, Mod. Rational, Post-Development Ba sin 2................................................ 8Hydrograph No. 6, Mod. Rational, Post-Development Ba sin 3................................................ 9Hydrograph No. 7, Reservoir, Combined Ponds.................................................................... 10Pond Report - 24-Inch....................................................................................................... 11Pond Report - 15-Inch....................................................................................................... 12Hydrograph No. 8, Combine, Combined Pre-Development...................................................13Hydrograph No. 9, Combine, Post-Development Runoff....................................................... 145 - YearSummary Report....................................................................................................................... 15Hydrograph Reports................................................................................................................. 16Hydrograph No. 1, Mod. Rational, Pre-Development Basin A................................................ 16Hydrograph No. 2, Mod. Rational, Pre-Development Basin B...............................................17Hydrograph No. 3, Mod. Rational, Pre-Development Basin C...............................................18Hydrograph No. 4, Mod. Rational, Post Development Ba sin 1.............................................. 19 Hydrograph No. 5, Mod. Rational, Post-Development Ba sin 2.............................................. 20 Hydrograph No. 6, Mod. Rational, Post-Development Ba sin 3.............................................. 21 Hydrograph No. 7, Reservoir, Combined Ponds.................................................................... 22Hydrograph No. 8, Combine, Combined Pre-Development...................................................23Hydrograph No. 9, Combine, Post-Development Runoff....................................................... 2410 - YearSummary Report....................................................................................................................... 25Hydrograph Reports................................................................................................................. 26Hydrograph No. 1, Mod. Rational, Pre-Development Basin A................................................ 26Hydrograph No. 2, Mod. Rational, Pre-Development Basin B...............................................27Hydrograph No. 3, Mod. Rational, Pre-Development Basin C...............................................28Hydrograph No. 4, Mod. Rational, Post Development Ba sin 1.............................................. 29 Hydrograph No. 5, Mod. Rational, Post-Development Ba sin 2.............................................. 30 Hydrograph No. 6, Mod. Rational, Post-Development Ba sin 3.............................................. 31 Hydrograph No. 7, Reservoir, Combined Ponds.................................................................... 32Hydrograph No. 8, Combine, Combined Pre-Development...................................................33Hydrograph No. 9, Combine, Post-Development Runoff....................................................... 3425 - YearSummary Report....................................................................................................................... 35Hydrograph Reports................................................................................................................. 36 Contents continued...250389.01_Hydraflow_08112026.gpwHydrograph No. 1, Mod. Rational, Pre-Development Basin A................................................ 36Hydrograph No. 2, Mod. Rational, Pre-Development Basin B...............................................37Hydrograph No. 3, Mod. Rational, Pre-Development Basin C...............................................38Hydrograph No. 4, Mod. Rational, Post Development Ba sin 1.............................................. 39 Hydrograph No. 5, Mod. Rational, Post-Development Ba sin 2.............................................. 40 Hydrograph No. 6, Mod. Rational, Post-Development Ba sin 3.............................................. 41 Hydrograph No. 7, Reservoir, Combined Ponds.................................................................... 42Hydrograph No. 8, Combine, Combined Pre-Development...................................................43Hydrograph No. 9, Combine, Post-Development Runoff....................................................... 4450 - YearSummary Report....................................................................................................................... 45Hydrograph Reports................................................................................................................. 46Hydrograph No. 1, Mod. Rational, Pre-Development Basin A................................................ 46Hydrograph No. 2, Mod. Rational, Pre-Development Basin B...............................................47Hydrograph No. 3, Mod. Rational, Pre-Development Basin C...............................................48Hydrograph No. 4, Mod. Rational, Post Development Ba sin 1.............................................. 49 Hydrograph No. 5, Mod. Rational, Post-Development Ba sin 2.............................................. 50 Hydrograph No. 6, Mod. Rational, Post-Development Ba sin 3.............................................. 51 Hydrograph No. 7, Reservoir, Combined Ponds.................................................................... 52Hydrograph No. 8, Combine, Combined Pre-Development...................................................53Hydrograph No. 9, Combine, Post-Development Runoff....................................................... 54100 - YearSummary Report....................................................................................................................... 55Hydrograph Reports................................................................................................................. 56Hydrograph No. 1, Mod. Rational, Pre-Development Basin A................................................ 56Hydrograph No. 2, Mod. Rational, Pre-Development Basin B...............................................57Hydrograph No. 3, Mod. Rational, Pre-Development Basin C...............................................58Hydrograph No. 4, Mod. Rational, Post Development Ba sin 1.............................................. 59 Hydrograph No. 5, Mod. Rational, Post-Development Ba sin 2.............................................. 60 Hydrograph No. 6, Mod. Rational, Post-Development Ba sin 3.............................................. 61 Hydrograph No. 7, Reservoir, Combined Ponds.................................................................... 62Hydrograph No. 8, Combine, Combined Pre-Development...................................................63Hydrograph No. 9, Combine, Post-Development Runoff....................................................... 64 1 2 3 4 5 67891Watershed Model SchematicHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026Project: 250389.01_Hydraflow_08112026.gpwThursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd.OriginDescriptionLegend1 Mod. Rational Pre-Development Basin A2 Mod. Rational Pre-Development Basin B3 Mod. Rational Pre-Development Basin C4 Mod. Rational Post Development Basin 15 Mod. Rational Post-Development Basin 26 Mod. Rational Post-Development Basin 37 Reservoir(i) Combined Ponds8 Combine Combined Pre-Development9 Combine Post-Development Runoff Hydrograph Return Period Recap2Hyd. Hydrograph Inflow Peak Outflow (cfs) HydrographNo. type hyd(s)Description(origin) 1-yr 2-yr 3-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr1 Mod. Rational ------ ------- 0.212 ------- 0.319 0.389 0.527 0.657 0.768 Pre-Development Basin A2 Mod. Rational ------ ------- 0.039 ------- 0.059 0.072 0.097 0.121 0.141 Pre-Development Basin B3 Mod. Rational ------ ------- 0.074 ------- 0.112 0.136 0.185 0.231 0.269 Pre-Development Basin C4 Mod. Rational ------ ------- 0.258 ------- 0.333 0.407 0.531 0.659 0.775 Post Development Basin 15 Mod. Rational ------ ------- 0.103 ------- 0.191 0.233 0.315 0.318 0.458 Post-Development Basin 26 Mod. Rational ------ ------- 0.237 ------- 0.357 0.434 0.589 0.734 0.855 Post-Development Basin 37 Reservoir(i) 4, 5 ------- 0.053 ------- 0.095 0.122 0.1560.189 0.229 Combined Ponds8 Combine 1, 2, 3, ------- 0.283 ------- 0.426 0.520 0.704 0.878 1.025 Combined Pre-Development9 Combine 6, 7, ------- 0.250 ------- 0.412 0.501 0.670 0.816 0.987 Post-Development RunoffProj. file: 250389.01_Hydraflow_08112026.gpw Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Hydrograph Summary Report3Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Hyd. Inflow Maximum TotalHydrographNo. type flow interval Peak volume hyd(s) elevation strge used Description(origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cuft) (ft) (cuft)1 Mod. Rational 0.212 1 24 306 ------ ------ ------ Pre-Development Basin A2 Mod. Rational 0.039 1 9 21 ------ ------ ------ Pre-Development Basin B3 Mod. Rational 0.074 1 23 103 ------ ------ ------ Pre-Development Basin C4 Mod. Rational 0.258 1 24 497 ------ ------ ------ Post Development Basin 15 Mod. Rational 0.103 1 5 105 ------ ------ ------ Post-Development Basin 26 Mod. Rational 0.237 1 12 171 ------ ------ ------ Post-Development Basin 37 Reservoir(i) 0.053 1 61 596 4, 5 4822.17 491 Combined Ponds8 Combine 0.283 1 24 429 1, 2, 3, ------ ------ Combined Pre-Development9 Combine 0.250 1 12 767 6, 7, ------ ------ Post-Development Runoff250389.01_Hydraflow_08112026.gpw Return Period: 2 Year Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 1Pre-Development Basin A Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.212 cfs Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 0.40 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 306 cuft Drainage area = 1.440 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.166 Intensity = 0.888 in/hr Tc by TR55 = 24.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 1.0 x TcTarget Q =n/a Est. Req'd Storage =n/a40000000000000001111111111Q (cfs)0.000.000.050.050.100.100.150.150.200.200.250.250.300.300.350.350.400.400.450.450.500.50Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Pre-Development Basin AHyd. No. 1 -- 2 YearHyd No. 1 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 2Pre-Development Basin B Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.039 cfs Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 0.15 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 21 cuft Drainage area = 0.120 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.2 Intensity = 1.624 in/hr Tc by User = 9.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 1.0 x TcTarget Q =n/a Est. Req'd Storage =n/a50.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.20.30.3Q (cfs)0.000.000.010.010.020.020.030.030.040.040.050.050.060.060.070.070.080.080.090.090.100.10Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Pre-Development Basin BHyd. No. 2 -- 2 YearHyd No. 2 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 3Pre-Development Basin C Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.074 cfs Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 0.38 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 103 cuft Drainage area = 0.360 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.226 Intensity = 0.916 in/hr Tc by User = 23.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 1.0 x TcTarget Q =n/a Est. Req'd Storage =n/a6000000000000000111111111Q (cfs)0.000.000.010.010.020.020.030.030.040.040.050.050.060.060.070.070.080.080.090.090.100.10Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Pre-Development Basin CHyd. No. 3 -- 2 YearHyd No. 3 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 4Post Development Basin 1 Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.258 cfs Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 0.40 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 497 cuft Drainage area = 1.440 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.252 Intensity = 0.710 in/hr Tc by TR55 = 24.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 1.3 x TcTarget Q =0.090 cfs Est. Req'd Storage =343 cuft70.00.20.30.50.70.81.0Q (cfs)0.000.000.050.050.100.100.150.150.200.200.250.250.300.300.350.350.400.400.450.450.500.50Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Post Development Basin 1Hyd. No. 4 -- 2 YearHyd No. 4Mod. Rational Est. Storage = 343 cuft Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 5Post-Development Basin 2 Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.103 cfs Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 0.08 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 105 cuft Drainage area = 0.120 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.76 Intensity = 1.125 in/hr Tc by User = 5.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 3.4 x TcTarget Q =0.090 cfs Est. Req'd Storage =44 cuft80.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.20.30.30.30.4Q (cfs)0.000.000.050.050.100.100.150.150.200.200.250.250.300.300.350.350.400.400.450.450.500.50Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Post-Development Basin 2Hyd. No. 5 -- 2 YearHyd No. 5Mod. Rational Est. Storage = 44 cuft Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 6Post-Development Basin 3 Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.237 cfs Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 0.20 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 171 cuft Drainage area = 0.360 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.472 Intensity = 1.395 in/hr Tc by User = 12.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 1.0 x TcTarget Q =n/a Est. Req'd Storage =n/a90.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.20.30.30.30.40.4Q (cfs)0.000.000.050.050.100.100.150.150.200.200.250.250.300.300.350.350.400.400.450.450.500.50Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Post-Development Basin 3Hyd. No. 6 -- 2 YearHyd No. 6 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 7Combined PondsHydrograph type = Reservoir (Interconnected) Peak discharg e = 0.053 cfs Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 1.02 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 596 cuftUpper Pond Lower PondPond name = 24-Inch Pond name = 15-Inch Inflow hyd. = 4 - Post Development Basin 1 Other Inflo w hyd. = 5 - Post-DeveloMax. Elevation = 4822.17 ft Max. Elevation = 4819.06 ftMax. Storage = 390 cuft Max. Storage = 100 cuftInterconnected Pond Routing. Storage Indication method used.100.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.0Q (cfs)0.000.000.050.050.100.100.150.150.200.200.250.250.300.300.350.350.400.400.450.450.500.50Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Combined PondsHyd. No. 7 -- 2 YearHyd No. 7Hyd No. 4Total storage used = 491 cuftOutflow Pond 1Hyd No. 5Inflow Pond 2 Pond Report11Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Pond No. 1 - 24-InchPond DataUG Chambers -Invert elev. = 4821.28 ft, Rise x Span = 2.00 x 2.00 ft, Barrel Len = 76.80 ft, No. Barrels = 6, Slope = 0.69%, Headers = NoStage / Storage TableStage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sqft) Incr. Storage (cuft) Total storage (cuft)0.00 4821.28 n/a 0 00.25 4821.53 n/a 18 180.51 4821.79 n/a 96 1140.76 4822.04 n/a 171 2851.01 4822.29 n/a 212 4971.26 4822.54 n/a 228 7241.52 4822.80 n/a 228 9521.77 4823.05 n/a 211 1,1632.02 4823.30 n/a 171 1,3342.28 4823.56 n/a 96 1,4302.53 4823.81 n/a 18 1,448Culvert / Orifice Structures Weir Structures[A] [B] [C] [PrfRsr] [A] [B] [C] [D]Rise (in)= 1.20 2.60 3.10 0.00Span (in)= 1.20 2.60 3.10 0.00No. Barrels= 1 1 1 0Invert El. (ft)= 4821.28 4822.03 4823.28 0.00Length (ft)= 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Slope (%)= 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/aN-Value= .013 .013 .013 n/aOrifice Coeff.= 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60Multi-Stage= n/a No No NoCrest Len (ft)Inactive 0.00 0.00 0.00Crest El. (ft)= 4823.80 0.00 0.00 0.00Weir Coeff.= 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33Weir Type= 1 --- --- ---Multi-Stage= Yes No No NoExfil.(in/hr)= 0.000 (by Wet area)TW Elev. (ft)= 0.00Note: Culvert/Orifice outflows are analyzed under inlet (ic) and outlet (oc) control. Weir risers checked for orif ice conditions (ic) and submergence (s).Stage / Storage / Discharge TableStage Storage Elevation Clv A Clv B Clv C PrfRsr Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil User Totalft cuft ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs0.00 0 4821.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- 0.0000.25 18 4821.53 0.02 ic 0.00 0.00 --- 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- 0.0170.51 114 4821.79 0.03 ic 0.00 0.00 --- 0.00 --- --- --- --- ---0.0260.76 285 4822.04 0.03 ic 0.00 ic 0.00 --- 0.00 --- --- --- ------ 0.0321.01 497 4822.29 0.04 ic 0.07 ic 0.00 --- 0.00 --- --- --- ------ 0.1071.26 724 4822.54 0.04 ic 0.11 ic 0.00 --- 0.00 --- --- --- ------ 0.1551.52 952 4822.80 0.05 ic 0.14 ic 0.00 --- 0.00 --- --- --- ------ 0.1901.77 1,163 4823.05 0.05 ic 0.17 ic 0.00 --- 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- 0.2192.02 1,334 4823.30 0.05 ic 0.19 ic 0.00 ic --- 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- 0.2462.28 1,430 4823.56 0.06 ic 0.21 ic 0.10 ic --- 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- 0.3652.53 1,448 4823.81 0.06 ic 0.23 ic 0.16 ic --- 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- 0.449 Pond Report12Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Pond No. 2 - 15-InchPond DataUG Chambers -Invert elev. = 4817.81 ft, Rise x Span = 1.25 x 1.25 ft, Barrel Len = 84.00 ft, No. Barrels = 4, Slope = 2.51%, Headers = NoStage / Storage TableStage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sqft) Incr. Storage (cuft) Total storage (cuft)0.00 4817.81 n/a 0 00.34 4818.15 n/a 15 150.67 4818.48 n/a 23 381.01 4818.82 n/a 22 591.34 4819.15 n/a 58 1171.68 4819.49 n/a 89 2062.02 4819.83 n/a 89 2962.35 4820.16 n/a 58 3532.69 4820.50 n/a 22 3753.02 4820.83 n/a 23 3983.36 4821.17 n/a 15 412Culvert / Orifice Structures Weir Structures[A] [B] [C] [PrfRsr] [A] [B] [C] [D]Rise (in)= 0.70 1.90 1.70 0.00Span (in)= 0.70 1.90 1.70 0.00No. Barrels= 1 1 1 0Invert El. (ft)= 4817.81 4818.81 4819.31 0.00Length (ft)= 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Slope (%)= 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/aN-Value= .013 .013 .013 n/aOrifice Coeff.= 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60Multi-Stage= n/a No No NoCrest Len (ft)= 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Crest El. (ft)= 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Weir Coeff.= 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33Weir Type= --- --- --- ---Multi-Stage= No No No NoExfil.(in/hr)= 0.000 (by Wet area)TW Elev. (ft)= 0.00Note: Culvert/Orifice outflows are analyzed under inlet (ic) and outlet (oc) control. Weir risers checked for orif ice conditions (ic) and submergence (s).Stage / Storage / Discharge TableStage Storage Elevation Clv A Clv B Clv C PrfRsr Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil User Totalft cuft ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs0.00 0 4817.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.0000.34 15 4818.15 0.01 ic 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.0070.67 38 4818.48 0.01 ic 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.0101.01 59 4818.82 0.01 ic 0.00 ic 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.0131.34 117 4819.15 0.01 ic 0.05 ic 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.0631.68 206 4819.49 0.02 ic 0.07 ic 0.02 ic --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.1152.02 296 4819.83 0.02 ic 0.09 ic 0.05 ic --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.1602.35 353 4820.16 0.02 ic 0.11 ic 0.07 ic --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.1942.69 375 4820.50 0.02 ic 0.12 ic 0.08 ic --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.2213.02 398 4820.83 0.02 ic 0.13 ic 0.09 ic --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.2463.36 412 4821.17 0.02 ic 0.14 ic 0.10 ic --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.268 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 8Combined Pre-DevelopmentHydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 0.283 cfs Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 0.40 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 429 cuft Inflow hyds. = 1, 2, 3 Contrib. drain. area = 1.920 ac130000000000000001111111111Q (cfs)0.000.000.050.050.100.100.150.150.200.200.250.250.300.300.350.350.400.400.450.450.500.50Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Combined Pre-DevelopmentHyd. No. 8 -- 2 YearHyd No. 8Hyd No. 1Hyd No. 2Hyd No. 3 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 9Post-Development Runoff Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 0.250 cfs Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 0.20 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 767 cuft Inflow hyds. = 6, 7 Contrib. drain. area = 0.360 ac140.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.0Q (cfs)0.000.000.050.050.100.100.150.150.200.200.250.250.300.300.350.350.400.400.450.450.500.50Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Post-Development RunoffHyd. No. 9 -- 2 YearHyd No. 9Hyd No. 6Hyd No. 7 Hydrograph Summary Report15Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Hyd. Inflow Maximum TotalHydrographNo. type flow interval Peak volume hyd(s) elevation strge used Description(origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cuft) (ft) (cuft)1 Mod. Rational 0.319 1 24 460 ------ ------ ------ Pre-Development Basin A2 Mod. Rational 0.059 1 9 32 ------ ------ ------ Pre-Development Basin B3 Mod. Rational 0.112 1 23 155 ------ ------ ------ Pre-Development Basin C4 Mod. Rational 0.333 1 24 781 ------ ------ ------ Post Development Basin 15 Mod. Rational 0.191 1 5 138 ------ ------ ------ Post-Development Basin 26 Mod. Rational 0.357 1 12 257 ------ ------ ------ Post-Development Basin 37 Reservoir(i) 0.095 1 75 912 4, 5 4822.37 749 Combined Ponds8 Combine 0.426 1 24 646 1, 2, 3, ------ ------ Combined Pre-Development9 Combine 0.412 1 12 1,169 6, 7, ------ ------ Post-Development Runoff250389.01_Hydraflow_08112026.gpw Return Period: 5 Year Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 1Pre-Development Basin A Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.319 cfs Storm frequency = 5 yrs Time to peak = 0.40 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 460 cuft Drainage area = 1.440 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.166 Intensity = 1.335 in/hr Tc by TR55 = 24.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 1.0 x TcTarget Q =n/a Est. Req'd Storage =n/a160000000000000001111111111Q (cfs)0.000.000.050.050.100.100.150.150.200.200.250.250.300.300.350.350.400.400.450.450.500.50Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Pre-Development Basin AHyd. No. 1 -- 5 YearHyd No. 1 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 2Pre-Development Basin B Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.059 cfs Storm frequency = 5 yrs Time to peak = 0.15 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 32 cuft Drainage area = 0.120 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.2 Intensity = 2.449 in/hr Tc by User = 9.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 1.0 x TcTarget Q =n/a Est. Req'd Storage =n/a170.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.20.30.3Q (cfs)0.000.000.010.010.020.020.030.030.040.040.050.050.060.060.070.070.080.080.090.090.100.10Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Pre-Development Basin BHyd. No. 2 -- 5 YearHyd No. 2 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 3Pre-Development Basin C Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.112 cfs Storm frequency = 5 yrs Time to peak = 0.38 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 155 cuft Drainage area = 0.360 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.226 Intensity = 1.377 in/hr Tc by User = 23.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 1.0 x TcTarget Q =n/a Est. Req'd Storage =n/a18000000000000000111111111Q (cfs)0.000.000.050.050.100.100.150.150.200.200.250.250.300.300.350.350.400.400.450.450.500.50Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Pre-Development Basin CHyd. No. 3 -- 5 YearHyd No. 3 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 4Post Development Basin 1 Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.333 cfs Storm frequency = 5 yrs Time to peak = 0.40 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 781 cuft Drainage area = 1.440 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.252 Intensity = 0.916 in/hr Tc by TR55 = 24.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 1.6 x TcTarget Q =0.130 cfs Est. Req'd Storage =530 cuft190.00.20.30.50.70.81.01.2Q (cfs)0.000.000.050.050.100.100.150.150.200.200.250.250.300.300.350.350.400.400.450.450.500.50Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Post Development Basin 1Hyd. No. 4 -- 5 YearHyd No. 4Mod. Rational Est. Storage = 530 cuft Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 5Post-Development Basin 2 Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.191 cfs Storm frequency = 5 yrs Time to peak = 0.08 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 138 cuft Drainage area = 0.120 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.76 Intensity = 2.093 in/hr Tc by User = 5.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 2.4 x TcTarget Q =0.130 cfs Est. Req'd Storage =70 cuft200.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.20.30.3Q (cfs)0.000.000.050.050.100.100.150.150.200.200.250.250.300.300.350.350.400.400.450.450.500.50Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Post-Development Basin 2Hyd. No. 5 -- 5 YearHyd No. 5Mod. Rational Est. Storage = 70 cuft Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 6Post-Development Basin 3 Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.357 cfs Storm frequency = 5 yrs Time to peak = 0.20 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 257 cuft Drainage area = 0.360 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.472 Intensity = 2.098 in/hr Tc by User = 12.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 1.0 x TcTarget Q =n/a Est. Req'd Storage =n/a210.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.20.30.30.30.40.4Q (cfs)0.000.000.050.050.100.100.150.150.200.200.250.250.300.300.350.350.400.400.450.450.500.50Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Post-Development Basin 3Hyd. No. 6 -- 5 YearHyd No. 6 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 7Combined PondsHydrograph type = Reservoir (Interconnected) Peak discharg e = 0.095 cfs Storm frequency = 5 yrs Time to peak = 1.25 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 912 cuftUpper Pond Lower PondPond name = 24-Inch Pond name = 15-Inch Inflow hyd. = 4 - Post Development Basin 1 Other Inflo w hyd. = 5 - Post-DeveloMax. Elevation = 4822.37 ft Max. Elevation = 4819.40 ftMax. Storage = 566 cuft Max. Storage = 183 cuftInterconnected Pond Routing. Storage Indication method used.220.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.0Q (cfs)0.000.000.050.050.100.100.150.150.200.200.250.250.300.300.350.350.400.400.450.450.500.50Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Combined PondsHyd. No. 7 -- 5 YearHyd No. 7Hyd No. 4Total storage used = 749 cuftOutflow Pond 1Hyd No. 5Inflow Pond 2 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 8Combined Pre-DevelopmentHydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 0.426 cfs Storm frequency = 5 yrs Time to peak = 0.40 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 646 cuft Inflow hyds. = 1, 2, 3 Contrib. drain. area = 1.920 ac230000000000000001111111111Q (cfs)0.000.000.050.050.100.100.150.150.200.200.250.250.300.300.350.350.400.400.450.450.500.50Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Combined Pre-DevelopmentHyd. No. 8 -- 5 YearHyd No. 8Hyd No. 1Hyd No. 2Hyd No. 3 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 9Post-Development Runoff Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 0.412 cfs Storm frequency = 5 yrs Time to peak = 0.20 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 1,169 cuft Inflow hyds. = 6, 7 Contrib. drain. area = 0.360 ac240.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.0Q (cfs)0.000.000.050.050.100.100.150.150.200.200.250.250.300.300.350.350.400.400.450.450.500.50Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Post-Development RunoffHyd. No. 9 -- 5 YearHyd No. 9Hyd No. 6Hyd No. 7 Hydrograph Summary Report25Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Hyd. Inflow Maximum TotalHydrographNo. type flow interval Peak volume hyd(s) elevation strge used Description(origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cuft) (ft) (cuft)1 Mod. Rational 0.389 1 24 560 ------ ------ ------ Pre-Development Basin A2 Mod. Rational 0.072 1 9 39 ------ ------ ------ Pre-Development Basin B3 Mod. Rational 0.136 1 23 188 ------ ------ ------ Pre-Development Basin C4 Mod. Rational 0.407 1 24 956 ------ ------ ------ Post Development Basin 15 Mod. Rational 0.233 1 5 168 ------ ------ ------ Post-Development Basin 26 Mod. Rational 0.434 1 12 313 ------ ------ ------ Post-Development Basin 37 Reservoir(i) 0.122 1 75 1,118 4, 5 4822.51 905 Combined Ponds8 Combine 0.520 1 24 787 1, 2, 3, ------ ------ Combined Pre-Development9 Combine 0.501 1 12 1,430 6, 7, ------ ------ Post-Development Runoff250389.01_Hydraflow_08112026.gpw Return Period: 10 Year Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 1Pre-Development Basin A Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.389 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 0.40 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 560 cuft Drainage area = 1.440 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.166 Intensity = 1.627 in/hr Tc by TR55 = 24.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 1.0 x TcTarget Q =n/a Est. Req'd Storage =n/a260000000000000001111111111Q (cfs)0.000.000.050.050.100.100.150.150.200.200.250.250.300.300.350.350.400.400.450.450.500.50Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Pre-Development Basin AHyd. No. 1 -- 10 YearHyd No. 1 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 2Pre-Development Basin B Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.072 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 0.15 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 39 cuft Drainage area = 0.120 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.2 Intensity = 2.988 in/hr Tc by User = 9.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 1.0 x TcTarget Q =n/a Est. Req'd Storage =n/a270.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.20.30.3Q (cfs)0.000.000.010.010.020.020.030.030.040.040.050.050.060.060.070.070.080.080.090.090.100.10Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Pre-Development Basin BHyd. No. 2 -- 10 YearHyd No. 2 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 3Pre-Development Basin C Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.136 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 0.38 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 188 cuft Drainage area = 0.360 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.226 Intensity = 1.678 in/hr Tc by User = 23.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 1.0 x TcTarget Q =n/a Est. Req'd Storage =n/a28000000000000000111111111Q (cfs)0.000.000.050.050.100.100.150.150.200.200.250.250.300.300.350.350.400.400.450.450.500.50Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Pre-Development Basin CHyd. No. 3 -- 10 YearHyd No. 3 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 4Post Development Basin 1 Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.407 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 0.40 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 956 cuft Drainage area = 1.440 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.252 Intensity = 1.123 in/hr Tc by TR55 = 24.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 1.6 x TcTarget Q =0.160 cfs Est. Req'd Storage =648 cuft290.00.20.30.50.70.81.01.2Q (cfs)0.000.000.050.050.100.100.150.150.200.200.250.250.300.300.350.350.400.400.450.450.500.50Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Post Development Basin 1Hyd. No. 4 -- 10 YearHyd No. 4Mod. Rational Est. Storage = 648 cuft Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 5Post-Development Basin 2 Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.233 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 0.08 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 168 cuft Drainage area = 0.120 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.76 Intensity = 2.550 in/hr Tc by User = 5.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 2.4 x TcTarget Q =0.160 cfs Est. Req'd Storage =84 cuft300.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.20.30.3Q (cfs)0.000.000.050.050.100.100.150.150.200.200.250.250.300.300.350.350.400.400.450.450.500.50Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Post-Development Basin 2Hyd. No. 5 -- 10 YearHyd No. 5Mod. Rational Est. Storage = 84 cuft Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 6Post-Development Basin 3 Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.434 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 0.20 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 313 cuft Drainage area = 0.360 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.472 Intensity = 2.556 in/hr Tc by User = 12.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 1.0 x TcTarget Q =n/a Est. Req'd Storage =n/a310.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.20.30.30.30.40.4Q (cfs)0.000.000.050.050.100.100.150.150.200.200.250.250.300.300.350.350.400.400.450.450.500.50Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Post-Development Basin 3Hyd. No. 6 -- 10 YearHyd No. 6 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 7Combined PondsHydrograph type = Reservoir (Interconnected) Peak discharg e = 0.122 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 1.25 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 1,118 cuftUpper Pond Lower PondPond name = 24-Inch Pond name = 15-Inch Inflow hyd. = 4 - Post Development Basin 1 Other Inflo w hyd. = 5 - Post-DeveloMax. Elevation = 4822.51 ft Max. Elevation = 4819.53 ftMax. Storage = 688 cuft Max. Storage = 217 cuftInterconnected Pond Routing. Storage Indication method used.320.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.0Q (cfs)0.000.000.050.050.100.100.150.150.200.200.250.250.300.300.350.350.400.400.450.450.500.50Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Combined PondsHyd. No. 7 -- 10 YearHyd No. 7Hyd No. 4Total storage used = 905 cuftOutflow Pond 1Hyd No. 5Inflow Pond 2 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 8Combined Pre-DevelopmentHydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 0.520 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 0.40 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 787 cuft Inflow hyds. = 1, 2, 3 Contrib. drain. area = 1.920 ac330000000000000001111111111Q (cfs)0.000.000.100.100.200.200.300.300.400.400.500.500.600.600.700.700.800.800.900.901.001.00Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Combined Pre-DevelopmentHyd. No. 8 -- 10 YearHyd No. 8Hyd No. 1Hyd No. 2Hyd No. 3 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 9Post-Development Runoff Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 0.501 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 0.20 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 1,430 cuft Inflow hyds. = 6, 7 Contrib. drain. area = 0.360 ac340.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.0Q (cfs)0.000.000.100.100.200.200.300.300.400.400.500.500.600.600.700.700.800.800.900.901.001.00Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Post-Development RunoffHyd. No. 9 -- 10 YearHyd No. 9Hyd No. 6Hyd No. 7 Hydrograph Summary Report35Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Hyd. Inflow Maximum TotalHydrographNo. type flow interval Peak volume hyd(s) elevation strge used Description(origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cuft) (ft) (cuft)1 Mod. Rational 0.527 1 24 759 ------ ------ ------ Pre-Development Basin A2 Mod. Rational 0.097 1 9 52 ------ ------ ------ Pre-Development Basin B3 Mod. Rational 0.185 1 23 255 ------ ------ ------ Pre-Development Basin C4 Mod. Rational 0.531 1 24 1,307 ------ ------ ------ Post Development Basin 15 Mod. Rational 0.315 1 5 228 ------ ------ ------ Post-Development Basin 26 Mod. Rational 0.589 1 12 424 ------ ------ ------ Post-Development Basin 37 Reservoir(i) 0.156 1 81 1,529 4, 5 4822.78 1,221 Combined Ponds8 Combine 0.704 1 24 1,067 1, 2, 3, ------ ------ Combined Pre-Development9 Combine 0.670 1 12 1,953 6, 7, ------ ------ Post-Development Runoff250389.01_Hydraflow_08112026.gpw Return Period: 25 Year Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 1Pre-Development Basin A Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.527 cfs Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 0.40 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 759 cuft Drainage area = 1.440 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.166 Intensity = 2.206 in/hr Tc by TR55 = 24.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 1.0 x TcTarget Q =n/a Est. Req'd Storage =n/a360000000000000001111111111Q (cfs)0.000.000.100.100.200.200.300.300.400.400.500.500.600.600.700.700.800.800.900.901.001.00Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Pre-Development Basin AHyd. No. 1 -- 25 YearHyd No. 1 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 2Pre-Development Basin B Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.097 cfs Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 0.15 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 52 cuft Drainage area = 0.120 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.2 Intensity = 4.049 in/hr Tc by User = 9.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 1.0 x TcTarget Q =n/a Est. Req'd Storage =n/a370.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.20.30.3Q (cfs)0.000.000.010.010.020.020.030.030.040.040.050.050.060.060.070.070.080.080.090.090.100.10Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Pre-Development Basin BHyd. No. 2 -- 25 YearHyd No. 2 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 3Pre-Development Basin C Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.185 cfs Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 0.38 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 255 cuft Drainage area = 0.360 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.226 Intensity = 2.275 in/hr Tc by User = 23.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 1.0 x TcTarget Q =n/a Est. Req'd Storage =n/a38000000000000000111111111Q (cfs)0.000.000.050.050.100.100.150.150.200.200.250.250.300.300.350.350.400.400.450.450.500.50Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Pre-Development Basin CHyd. No. 3 -- 25 YearHyd No. 3 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 4Post Development Basin 1 Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.531 cfs Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 0.40 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 1,307 cuft Drainage area = 1.440 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.252 Intensity = 1.463 in/hr Tc by TR55 = 24.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 1.7 x TcTarget Q =0.220 cfs Est. Req'd Storage =870 cuft390.00.20.30.50.70.81.01.2Q (cfs)0.000.000.100.100.200.200.300.300.400.400.500.500.600.600.700.700.800.800.900.901.001.00Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Post Development Basin 1Hyd. No. 4 -- 25 YearHyd No. 4Mod. Rational Est. Storage = 870 cuft Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 5Post-Development Basin 2 Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.315 cfs Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 0.08 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 228 cuft Drainage area = 0.120 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.76 Intensity = 3.457 in/hr Tc by User = 5.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 2.4 x TcTarget Q =0.220 cfs Est. Req'd Storage =113 cuft400.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.20.30.3Q (cfs)0.000.000.050.050.100.100.150.150.200.200.250.250.300.300.350.350.400.400.450.450.500.50Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Post-Development Basin 2Hyd. No. 5 -- 25 YearHyd No. 5Mod. Rational Est. Storage = 113 cuft Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 6Post-Development Basin 3 Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.589 cfs Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 0.20 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 424 cuft Drainage area = 0.360 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.472 Intensity = 3.465 in/hr Tc by User = 12.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 1.0 x TcTarget Q =n/a Est. Req'd Storage =n/a410.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.20.30.30.30.40.4Q (cfs)0.000.000.100.100.200.200.300.300.400.400.500.500.600.600.700.700.800.800.900.901.001.00Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Post-Development Basin 3Hyd. No. 6 -- 25 YearHyd No. 6 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 7Combined PondsHydrograph type = Reservoir (Interconnected) Peak discharg e = 0.156 cfs Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 1.35 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 1,529 cuftUpper Pond Lower PondPond name = 24-Inch Pond name = 15-Inch Inflow hyd. = 4 - Post Development Basin 1 Other Inflo w hyd. = 5 - Post-DeveloMax. Elevation = 4822.78 ft Max. Elevation = 4819.78 ftMax. Storage = 937 cuft Max. Storage = 284 cuftInterconnected Pond Routing. Storage Indication method used.420.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.0Q (cfs)0.000.000.100.100.200.200.300.300.400.400.500.500.600.600.700.700.800.800.900.901.001.00Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Combined PondsHyd. No. 7 -- 25 YearHyd No. 7Hyd No. 4Total storage used = 1,221 cuftOutflow Pond 1Hyd No. 5Inflow Pond 2 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 8Combined Pre-DevelopmentHydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 0.704 cfs Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 0.40 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 1,067 cuft Inflow hyds. = 1, 2, 3 Contrib. drain. area = 1.920 ac430000000000000001111111111Q (cfs)0.000.000.100.100.200.200.300.300.400.400.500.500.600.600.700.700.800.800.900.901.001.00Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Combined Pre-DevelopmentHyd. No. 8 -- 25 YearHyd No. 8Hyd No. 1Hyd No. 2Hyd No. 3 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 9Post-Development Runoff Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 0.670 cfs Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 0.20 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 1,953 cuft Inflow hyds. = 6, 7 Contrib. drain. area = 0.360 ac440.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.0Q (cfs)0.000.000.100.100.200.200.300.300.400.400.500.500.600.600.700.700.800.800.900.901.001.00Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Post-Development RunoffHyd. No. 9 -- 25 YearHyd No. 9Hyd No. 6Hyd No. 7 Hydrograph Summary Report45Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Hyd. Inflow Maximum TotalHydrographNo. type flow interval Peak volume hyd(s) elevation strge used Description(origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cuft) (ft) (cuft)1 Mod. Rational 0.657 1 24 947 ------ ------ ------ Pre-Development Basin A2 Mod. Rational 0.121 1 9 65 ------ ------ ------ Pre-Development Basin B3 Mod. Rational 0.231 1 23 318 ------ ------ ------ Pre-Development Basin C4 Mod. Rational 0.659 1 24 1,623 ------ ------ ------ Post Development Basin 15 Mod. Rational 0.318 1 5 325 ------ ------ ------ Post-Development Basin 26 Mod. Rational 0.734 1 12 529 ------ ------ ------ Post-Development Basin 37 Reservoir(i) 0.189 1 80 1,942 4, 5 4823.07 1,521 Combined Ponds8 Combine 0.878 1 24 1,330 1, 2, 3, ------ ------ Combined Pre-Development9 Combine 0.816 1 12 2,471 6, 7, ------ ------ Post-Development Runoff250389.01_Hydraflow_08112026.gpw Return Period: 50 Year Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 1Pre-Development Basin A Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.657 cfs Storm frequency = 50 yrs Time to peak = 0.40 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 947 cuft Drainage area = 1.440 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.166 Intensity = 2.750 in/hr Tc by TR55 = 24.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 1.0 x TcTarget Q =n/a Est. Req'd Storage =n/a460000000000000001111111111Q (cfs)0.000.000.100.100.200.200.300.300.400.400.500.500.600.600.700.700.800.800.900.901.001.00Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Pre-Development Basin AHyd. No. 1 -- 50 YearHyd No. 1 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 2Pre-Development Basin B Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.121 cfs Storm frequency = 50 yrs Time to peak = 0.15 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 65 cuft Drainage area = 0.120 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.2 Intensity = 5.045 in/hr Tc by User = 9.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 1.0 x TcTarget Q =n/a Est. Req'd Storage =n/a470.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.20.30.3Q (cfs)0.000.000.050.050.100.100.150.150.200.200.250.250.300.300.350.350.400.400.450.450.500.50Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Pre-Development Basin BHyd. No. 2 -- 50 YearHyd No. 2 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 3Pre-Development Basin C Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.231 cfs Storm frequency = 50 yrs Time to peak = 0.38 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 318 cuft Drainage area = 0.360 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.226 Intensity = 2.836 in/hr Tc by User = 23.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 1.0 x TcTarget Q =n/a Est. Req'd Storage =n/a48000000000000000111111111Q (cfs)0.000.000.050.050.100.100.150.150.200.200.250.250.300.300.350.350.400.400.450.450.500.50Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Pre-Development Basin CHyd. No. 3 -- 50 YearHyd No. 3 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 4Post Development Basin 1 Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.659 cfs Storm frequency = 50 yrs Time to peak = 0.40 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 1,623 cuft Drainage area = 1.440 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.252 Intensity = 1.816 in/hr Tc by TR55 = 24.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 1.7 x TcTarget Q =0.280 cfs Est. Req'd Storage =1,069 cuft490.00.20.30.50.70.81.01.2Q (cfs)0.000.000.100.100.200.200.300.300.400.400.500.500.600.600.700.700.800.800.900.901.001.00Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Post Development Basin 1Hyd. No. 4 -- 50 YearHyd No. 4Mod. Rational Est. Storage = 1,069 cuft Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 5Post-Development Basin 2 Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.318 cfs Storm frequency = 50 yrs Time to peak = 0.08 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 325 cuft Drainage area = 0.120 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.76 Intensity = 3.483 in/hr Tc by User = 5.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 3.4 x TcTarget Q =0.280 cfs Est. Req'd Storage =136 cuft500.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.20.30.30.30.4Q (cfs)0.000.000.050.050.100.100.150.150.200.200.250.250.300.300.350.350.400.400.450.450.500.50Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Post-Development Basin 2Hyd. No. 5 -- 50 YearHyd No. 5Mod. Rational Est. Storage = 136 cuft Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 6Post-Development Basin 3 Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.734 cfs Storm frequency = 50 yrs Time to peak = 0.20 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 529 cuft Drainage area = 0.360 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.472 Intensity = 4.321 in/hr Tc by User = 12.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 1.0 x TcTarget Q =n/a Est. Req'd Storage =n/a510.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.20.30.30.30.40.4Q (cfs)0.000.000.100.100.200.200.300.300.400.400.500.500.600.600.700.700.800.800.900.901.001.00Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Post-Development Basin 3Hyd. No. 6 -- 50 YearHyd No. 6 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 7Combined PondsHydrograph type = Reservoir (Interconnected) Peak discharg e = 0.189 cfs Storm frequency = 50 yrs Time to peak = 1.33 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 1,942 cuftUpper Pond Lower PondPond name = 24-Inch Pond name = 15-Inch Inflow hyd. = 4 - Post Development Basin 1 Other Inflo w hyd. = 5 - Post-DeveloMax. Elevation = 4823.07 ft Max. Elevation = 4820.11 ftMax. Storage = 1,176 cuft Max. Storage = 344 cuftInterconnected Pond Routing. Storage Indication method used.520.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.0Q (cfs)0.000.000.100.100.200.200.300.300.400.400.500.500.600.600.700.700.800.800.900.901.001.00Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Combined PondsHyd. No. 7 -- 50 YearHyd No. 7Hyd No. 4Total storage used = 1,521 cuftOutflow Pond 1Hyd No. 5Inflow Pond 2 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 8Combined Pre-DevelopmentHydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 0.878 cfs Storm frequency = 50 yrs Time to peak = 0.40 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 1,330 cuft Inflow hyds. = 1, 2, 3 Contrib. drain. area = 1.920 ac530000000000000001111111111Q (cfs)0.000.000.100.100.200.200.300.300.400.400.500.500.600.600.700.700.800.800.900.901.001.00Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Combined Pre-DevelopmentHyd. No. 8 -- 50 YearHyd No. 8Hyd No. 1Hyd No. 2Hyd No. 3 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 9Post-Development Runoff Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 0.816 cfs Storm frequency = 50 yrs Time to peak = 0.20 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 2,471 cuft Inflow hyds. = 6, 7 Contrib. drain. area = 0.360 ac540.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.0Q (cfs)0.000.000.100.100.200.200.300.300.400.400.500.500.600.600.700.700.800.800.900.901.001.00Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Post-Development RunoffHyd. No. 9 -- 50 YearHyd No. 9Hyd No. 6Hyd No. 7 Hydrograph Summary Report55Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Hyd. Inflow Maximum TotalHydrographNo. type flow interval Peak volume hyd(s) elevation strge used Description(origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cuft) (ft) (cuft)1 Mod. Rational 0.768 1 24 1,105 ------ ------ ------ Pre-Development Basin A2 Mod. Rational 0.141 1 9 76 ------ ------ ------ Pre-Development Basin B3 Mod. Rational 0.269 1 23 372 ------ ------ ------ Pre-Development Basin C4 Mod. Rational 0.775 1 24 1,908 ------ ------ ------ Post Development Basin 15 Mod. Rational 0.458 1 5 331 ------ ------ ------ Post-Development Basin 26 Mod. Rational 0.855 1 12 615 ------ ------ ------ Post-Development Basin 37 Reservoir(i) 0.229 1 71 2,233 4, 5 4823.43 1,763 Combined Ponds8 Combine 1.025 1 24 1,553 1, 2, 3, ------ ------ Combined Pre-Development9 Combine 0.987 1 12 2,848 6, 7, ------ ------ Post-Development Runoff250389.01_Hydraflow_08112026.gpw Return Period: 100 Year Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 1Pre-Development Basin A Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.768 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 0.40 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 1,105 cuft Drainage area = 1.440 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.166 Intensity = 3.211 in/hr Tc by TR55 = 24.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 1.0 x TcTarget Q =n/a Est. Req'd Storage =n/a560000000000000001111111111Q (cfs)0.000.000.100.100.200.200.300.300.400.400.500.500.600.600.700.700.800.800.900.901.001.00Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Pre-Development Basin AHyd. No. 1 -- 100 YearHyd No. 1 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 2Pre-Development Basin B Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.141 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 0.15 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 76 cuft Drainage area = 0.120 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.2 Intensity = 5.876 in/hr Tc by User = 9.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 1.0 x TcTarget Q =n/a Est. Req'd Storage =n/a570.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.20.30.3Q (cfs)0.000.000.050.050.100.100.150.150.200.200.250.250.300.300.350.350.400.400.450.450.500.50Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Pre-Development Basin BHyd. No. 2 -- 100 YearHyd No. 2 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 3Pre-Development Basin C Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.269 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 0.38 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 372 cuft Drainage area = 0.360 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.226 Intensity = 3.310 in/hr Tc by User = 23.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 1.0 x TcTarget Q =n/a Est. Req'd Storage =n/a58000000000000000111111111Q (cfs)0.000.000.050.050.100.100.150.150.200.200.250.250.300.300.350.350.400.400.450.450.500.50Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Pre-Development Basin CHyd. No. 3 -- 100 YearHyd No. 3 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 4Post Development Basin 1 Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.775 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 0.40 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 1,908 cuft Drainage area = 1.440 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.252 Intensity = 2.136 in/hr Tc by TR55 = 24.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 1.7 x TcTarget Q =0.320 cfs Est. Req'd Storage =1,272 cuft590.00.20.30.50.70.81.01.2Q (cfs)0.000.000.100.100.200.200.300.300.400.400.500.500.600.600.700.700.800.800.900.901.001.00Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Post Development Basin 1Hyd. No. 4 -- 100 YearHyd No. 4Mod. Rational Est. Storage = 1,272 cuft Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 5Post-Development Basin 2 Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.458 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 0.08 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 331 cuft Drainage area = 0.120 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.76 Intensity = 5.019 in/hr Tc by User = 5.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 2.4 x TcTarget Q =0.320 cfs Est. Req'd Storage =164 cuft600.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.20.30.3Q (cfs)0.000.000.050.050.100.100.150.150.200.200.250.250.300.300.350.350.400.400.450.450.500.50Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Post-Development Basin 2Hyd. No. 5 -- 100 YearHyd No. 5Mod. Rational Est. Storage = 164 cuft Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 6Post-Development Basin 3 Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 0.855 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 0.20 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 615 cuft Drainage area = 0.360 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.472 Intensity = 5.031 in/hr Tc by User = 12.00 minIDF Curve = IDF_BOZEMAN_Rational.IDF Storm duration = 1.0 x TcTarget Q =n/a Est. Req'd Storage =n/a610.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.20.30.30.30.40.4Q (cfs)0.000.000.100.100.200.200.300.300.400.400.500.500.600.600.700.700.800.800.900.901.001.00Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Post-Development Basin 3Hyd. No. 6 -- 100 YearHyd No. 6 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 7Combined PondsHydrograph type = Reservoir (Interconnected) Peak discharg e = 0.229 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 1.18 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 2,233 cuftUpper Pond Lower PondPond name = 24-Inch Pond name = 15-Inch Inflow hyd. = 4 - Post Development Basin 1 Other Inflo w hyd. = 5 - Post-DeveloMax. Elevation = 4823.43 ft Max. Elevation = 4820.59 ftMax. Storage = 1,381 cuft Max. Storage = 381 cuftInterconnected Pond Routing. Storage Indication method used.620.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.0Q (cfs)0.000.000.100.100.200.200.300.300.400.400.500.500.600.600.700.700.800.800.900.901.001.00Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Combined PondsHyd. No. 7 -- 100 YearHyd No. 7Hyd No. 4Total storage used = 1,763 cuftOutflow Pond 1Hyd No. 5Inflow Pond 2 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 8Combined Pre-DevelopmentHydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 1.025 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 0.40 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 1,553 cuft Inflow hyds. = 1, 2, 3 Contrib. drain. area = 1.920 ac630000000000000001111111111Q (cfs)0.000.001.001.002.002.00Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Combined Pre-DevelopmentHyd. No. 8 -- 100 YearHyd No. 8Hyd No. 1Hyd No. 2Hyd No. 3 Hydrograph ReportHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2026 Thursday, 08 / 13 / 2026Hyd. No. 9Post-Development Runoff Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 0.987 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 0.20 hrs Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 2,848 cuft Inflow hyds. = 6, 7 Contrib. drain. area = 0.360 ac640.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.0Q (cfs)0.000.000.100.100.200.200.300.300.400.400.500.500.600.600.700.700.800.800.900.901.001.00Q (cfs)Time (hrs)Post-Development RunoffHyd. No. 9 -- 100 YearHyd No. 9Hyd No. 6Hyd No. 7 BARDO BOZEMAN Project # 250389.01/.02 APPENDIX C HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS HAGGERTY MULTI-FAMILY Hydraulic Analysis Report Project Data Project Title: Designer: Project Date: Thursday, July 30, 2026 Project Units: U.S. Customary Units Notes: Curb and Gutter Analysis: SDI 1 Notes: Southernmost Inlet Gutter Input Parameters Longitudinal Slope of Road: 0.0000 ft/ft Cross-Slope of Pavement: 0.0300 ft/ft Uniform Gutter Geometry Manning's n: 0.0160 Gutter Width: 3.0000 ft Gutter Result Parameters Design Flow: 0.9400 cfs Gutter Result Parameters Width of Spread: 4.0409 ft Gutter Depression: 0.0000 in Area of Flow: 0.2449 ft^2 Eo (Gutter Flow to Total Flow): 0.9733 Gutter Depth at Curb: 1.4547 in Inlet Input Parameters Inlet Location: Inlet on Grade Inlet Type: Grate Grate Type: Curved vane Grate Width: 2.0000 ft Grate Length: 2.0000 ft Local Depression: 0.0000 in Inlet Result Parameters Intercepted Flow: 0.7468 cfs Bypass Flow: 0.1932 cfs Approach Velocity: 3.8378 ft/s Splash-over Velocity: 5.9184 ft/s Efficiency: 0.7945 Curb and Gutter Analysis: Structure 1 Inlet Notes: Structure from 24” Pipe System to 15” Pipe System Gutter Input Parameters Longitudinal Slope of Road: 0.0000 ft/ft Cross-Slope of Pavement: 0.0300 ft/ft Uniform Gutter Geometry Manning's n: 0.0160 Gutter Width: 3.0000 ft Gutter Result Parameters Width of Spread: 2.4702 ft Gutter Result Parameters Design Flow: 0.2530 cfs Gutter Depression: 0.0000 in Area of Flow: 0.0915 ft^2 Eo (Gutter Flow to Total Flow): 1.0000 Gutter Depth at Curb: 0.8893 in Inlet Input Parameters Inlet Location: Inlet on Grade Inlet Type: Grate Grate Type: Curved vane Grate Width: 2.0000 ft Grate Length: 2.0000 ft Local Depression: 0.0000 in Inlet Result Parameters Intercepted Flow: 0.1773 cfs Bypass Flow: 0.0757 cfs Approach Velocity: 2.7643 ft/s Splash-over Velocity: 5.9184 ft/s Efficiency: 0.7007 Curb and Gutter Analysis: Structure 2 Inlet Notes: Structure from 15” Pipe System to CDS Unit Gutter Input Parameters Longitudinal Slope of Road: 0.0000 ft/ft Cross-Slope of Pavement: 0.0300 ft/ft Uniform Gutter Geometry Manning's n: 0.0160 Gutter Width: 3.0000 ft Gutter Result Parameters Width of Spread: 2.5473 ft Gutter Result Parameters Design Flow: 0.2360 cfs Gutter Depression: 0.0000 in Area of Flow: 0.0973 ft^2 Eo (Gutter Flow to Total Flow): 1.0000 Gutter Depth at Curb: 0.9170 in Inlet Input Parameters Inlet Location: Inlet on Grade Inlet Type: Grate Grate Type: Curved vane Grate Width: 2.0000 ft Grate Length: 2.0000 ft Local Depression: 0.0000 in Inlet Result Parameters Intercepted Flow: 0.1746 cfs Bypass Flow: 0.0614 cfs Approach Velocity: 2.4247 ft/s Splash-over Velocity: 5.9184 ft/s Efficiency: 0.7397 Channel Analysis: 8" Pipe Full Flow Notes: Pipe from trench drain to Structure 2 Input Parameters Channel Type: Circular Pipe Diameter 0.67 ft Longitudinal Slope: 0.0600 ft/ft Manning's n: 0.0130 Depth 0.6660 ft Result Parameters Flow 2.9973 cfs Area of Flow 0.3490 ft^2 Wetted Perimeter 2.0542 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1699 ft Average Velocity 8.5887 ft/s Top Width 0.0400 ft Froude Number: 0.5123 Critical Depth 0.6579 ft Critical Velocity 8.6100 ft/s Critical Slope: 0.0561 ft/ft Critical Top Width 0.15 ft Calculated Max Shear Stress 2.4935 lb/ft^2 Calculated Avg Shear Stress 0.6361 lb/ft^2 Channel Analysis: 24" Pipe Full Flow Notes: Input Parameters Channel Type: Circular Pipe Diameter 2.00 ft Longitudinal Slope: 0.0063 ft/ft Manning's n: 0.0130 Depth 2.0000 ft Result Parameters Flow 17.9560 cfs Area of Flow 3.1416 ft^2 Wetted Perimeter 6.2832 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.5000 ft Average Velocity 5.7156 ft/s Top Width 0.0000 ft Froude Number: 0.0000 Critical Depth 1.5264 ft Critical Velocity 6.9795 ft/s Critical Slope: 0.0073 ft/ft Critical Top Width 1.70 ft Calculated Max Shear Stress 0.7862 lb/ft^2 Calculated Avg Shear Stress 0.1966 lb/ft^2 Channel Analysis: 15" Pipe Full Flow Notes: Input Parameters Channel Type: Circular Pipe Diameter 1.25 ft Longitudinal Slope: 0.0245 ft/ft Manning's n: 0.0130 Depth 1.2500 ft Result Parameters Flow 10.1112 cfs Area of Flow 1.2272 ft^2 Wetted Perimeter 3.9270 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.3125 ft Average Velocity 8.2393 ft/s Top Width 0.0000 ft Froude Number: 0.0000 Critical Depth 1.1865 ft Critical Velocity 8.4000 ft/s Critical Slope: 0.0212 ft/ft Critical Top Width 0.55 ft Calculated Max Shear Stress 1.9110 lb/ft^2 Calculated Avg Shear Stress 0.4778 lb/ft^2 Channel Analysis: 12" Pipe Full Flow Notes: Input Parameters Channel Type: Circular Pipe Diameter 1.00 ft Longitudinal Slope: 0.0620 ft/ft Manning's n: 0.0150 Depth 1.0000 ft Result Parameters Flow 7.6885 cfs Area of Flow 0.7854 ft^2 Wetted Perimeter 3.1416 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.2500 ft Average Velocity 9.7893 ft/s Top Width 0.0000 ft Froude Number: 0.0000 Critical Depth 0.9827 ft Critical Velocity 9.8271 ft/s Critical Slope: 0.0559 ft/ft Critical Top Width 0.26 ft Calculated Max Shear Stress 3.8688 lb/ft^2 Calculated Avg Shear Stress 0.9672 lb/ft^2 Channel Analysis: 6" Pipe Full Flow Notes: Input Parameters Channel Type: Circular Pipe Diameter 0.50 ft Longitudinal Slope: 0.1300 ft/ft Manning's n: 0.0130 Depth 0.5000 ft Result Parameters Flow 2.0231 cfs Area of Flow 0.1963 ft^2 Wetted Perimeter 1.5708 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1250 ft Average Velocity 10.3036 ft/s Top Width 0.0000 ft Froude Number: 0.0000 Critical Depth 0.4982 ft Critical Velocity 10.3072 ft/s Critical Slope: 0.1236 ft/ft Critical Top Width 0.06 ft Calculated Max Shear Stress 4.0560 lb/ft^2 Calculated Avg Shear Stress 1.0140 lb/ft^2 Channel Analysis: 8" Pipe Expected Flow Notes: Bypass from SDI 1 and 2 inlet/overflow structures expected to end up in trench drain/8” pipe Input Parameters Channel Type: Circular Pipe Diameter 0.67 ft Longitudinal Slope: 0.0600 ft/ft Manning's n: 0.0130 Flow 0.0810 cfs Result Parameters Depth 0.0758 ft Area of Flow 0.0219 ft^2 Wetted Perimeter 0.4587 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.0478 ft Average Velocity 3.6909 ft/s Top Width 0.4233 ft Froude Number: 2.8567 Critical Depth 0.1292 ft Critical Velocity 1.7047 ft/s Critical Slope: 0.0067 ft/ft Critical Top Width 0.53 ft Calculated Max Shear Stress 0.2840 lb/ft^2 Calculated Avg Shear Stress 0.1791 lb/ft^2 Channel Analysis: 6" Pipe Expected Flow Notes: Expected roof drain flow from 464 sq. feet of roof area. (Maximum area draining to one roof drain) Input Parameters Channel Type: Circular Pipe Diameter 0.50 ft Longitudinal Slope: 0.1300 ft/ft Manning's n: 0.0130 Flow 0.0600 cfs Result Parameters Depth 0.0591 ft Area of Flow 0.0131 ft^2 Wetted Perimeter 0.3510 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.0372 ft Average Velocity 4.5932 ft/s Top Width 0.3229 ft Froude Number: 4.0244 Critical Depth 0.1201 ft Critical Velocity 1.6535 ft/s Critical Slope: 0.0071 ft/ft Critical Top Width 0.43 ft Calculated Max Shear Stress 0.4796 lb/ft^2 Calculated Avg Shear Stress 0.3019 lb/ft^2 HAGGERTY MULTI-FAMILY Project # 250389.01/.02 APPENDIX D GROUNDWATER MOUNDING CALCULATIONS EAST STRIP GROUNDWATER MOUNDING CALCULATIONS (TP-1) use consistent units (e.g. feet & days or inches & hours)Conversion Table Input Values inch/hour feet/day 0.1200R Recharge (infiltration) rate (feet/day)0.67 1.33 0.080 Sy Specific yield, Sy (dimensionless, between 0 and 1) 1.20K Horizontal hydraulic conductivity, Kh (feet/day)*2.00 4.00 0.500x 1/2 length of basin (x direction, in feet) 24.000y 1/2 width of basin (y direction, in feet)hours days 3.000t duration of infiltration period (days)36 1.50 2.000 hi(0)initial thickness of saturated zone (feet) 2.250 h(max)maximum thickness of saturated zone (beneath center of basin at end of infiltration period) 0.250 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 0.2500 0.021 20 0.002 40 0.002 50 0.002 60 0.002 70 0.002 80 0.002 90 0.002 100 0.002 120 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-0.0500.0000.0500.1000.1500.2000.2500.3000 20 40 60 80 100 120 140Groundwater Mounding, in feet07/17/2026 LMJ/RPE EAST GROUNDWATER MOUNDING CALCULATIONS (BH2) use consistent units (e.g. feet & days or inches & hours)Conversion Table Input Values inch/hour feet/day 0.1200R Recharge (infiltration) rate (feet/day)0.67 1.33 0.100 Sy Specific yield, Sy (dimensionless, between 0 and 1) 1.20K Horizontal hydraulic conductivity, Kh (feet/day)*2.00 4.00 1.500x 1/2 length of basin (x direction, in feet) 40.500y 1/2 width of basin (y direction, in feet)hours days 3.000t duration of infiltration period (days)36 1.50 1.700 hi(0)initial thickness of saturated zone (feet) 2.359 h(max)maximum thickness of saturated zone (beneath center of basin at end of infiltration period) 0.659 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 0.6590 0.029 20 0.001 40 0.001 50 0.001 60 0.001 70 0.001 80 0.001 90 0.001 100 0.001 120 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-0.1000.0000.1000.2000.3000.4000.5000.6000.7000 20 40 60 80 100 120 140Groundwater Mounding, in feet07/17/2026 LMJ/RPE WEST GROUNDWATER MOUNDING CALCULATIONS TP-1 use consistent units (e.g. feet & days or inches & hours)Conversion Table Input Values inch/hour feet/day 0.1200R Recharge (infiltration) rate (feet/day)0.67 1.33 0.100 Sy Specific yield, Sy (dimensionless, between 0 and 1) 1.20K Horizontal hydraulic conductivity, Kh (feet/day)*2.00 4.00 0.500x 1/2 length of basin (x direction, in feet) 37.400y 1/2 width of basin (y direction, in feet)hours days 3.000t duration of infiltration period (days)36 1.50 2.000 hi(0)initial thickness of saturated zone (feet) 2.227 h(max)maximum thickness of saturated zone (beneath center of basin at end of infiltration period) 0.227 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 0.2270 0.013 20 0.001 40 0.001 50 0.001 60 0.001 70 0.001 80 0.001 90 0.001 100 0.001 120 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-0.0500.0000.0500.1000.1500.2000.2500 20 40 60 80 100 120 140Groundwater Mounding, in feet07/17/2026 LMJ/RPE WEST GROUNDWATER MOUNDING CALCULATIONS (BH-2) use consistent units (e.g. feet & days or inches & hours)Conversion Table Input Values inch/hour feet/day 0.1200R Recharge (infiltration) rate (feet/day)0.67 1.33 0.100 Sy Specific yield, Sy (dimensionless, between 0 and 1) 1.20K Horizontal hydraulic conductivity, Kh (feet/day)*2.00 4.00 0.500x 1/2 length of basin (x direction, in feet) 37.400y 1/2 width of basin (y direction, in feet)hours days 3.000t duration of infiltration period (days)36 1.50 1.700 hi(0)initial thickness of saturated zone (feet) 1.944 h(max)maximum thickness of saturated zone (beneath center of basin at end of infiltration period) 0.244 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 0.2440 0.010 20 0.001 40 0.001 50 0.001 60 0.001 70 0.001 80 0.001 90 0.001 100 0.001 120 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-0.0500.0000.0500.1000.1500.2000.2500.3000 20 40 60 80 100 120 140Groundwater Mounding, in feet07/17/2026 LMJ/RPE Project # 250389.01/.02 APPENDIX E O&M PLAN HAGGERTY MULTI-FAMILY July 2026 Project No. 250389.02 STORM DRAINAGE FACILITY MAINTENANCE PLAN HAGGERTY MULTI-FAMILY BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715 OVERVIEW NARRATIVE The purpose of this maintenance plan is to outline the necessary details related to ownership, responsibility, and cleaning schedule for the storm drainage facilities for Haggerty Multi-Family. This plan has been completed in accordance with City of Bozeman Design and Construction Standards, dated October 2024. The site stormwater improvements have been designed with the intent to meet the current City of Bozeman drainage regulations for the entire site to the extent feasible. Specific site information and criteria are described below: OWNERSHIP OF FACILITIES Haggerty Infill LLC Haggerty Infill LLC will own all stormwater facilities which includes trench drains, inlets, a hydrodynamic separator, and piping within the site boundary. A separate owner acknowledgement of maintenance requirements form has been signed by the property owner and is included as part of the overall stormwater report. INSPECTION THRESHOLDS FOR CLEANING Trench Drains/Inlets/Piping If sediment fills 60 percent of the sump or comes within 6 inches of a pipe, clean sump with a vacuum. Hydrodynamic Separator The CDS system should be cleaned when the level of sediment has reached 75% of capacity in the isolated sump or when an appreciable level of sediment/trash has accumulated. CLEANING Trench Drains/Inlets/Storm Piping Flush storm piping with water from the upstream side of the system using the available cleanouts. To clean grate of structure, remove and dispose of debris clogging the grate. To clean the structure and sump, use vacuum to remove sediment and debris. Hydrodynamic Separator Cleaning of a CDS system should be done during dry weather conditions when no flow is entering the system. The use of a vacuum truck is the most effective and convenient method of removing pollutants from the system. Remove manhole covers and insert vacuum hose into the sump. The system should be completely drained down and the sump fully evacuated of sediment. The area outside the screen should also be cleaned out if pollutant build-up exists in this area. INSPECTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE Trench Drains/Inlets/Storm Piping • Inspection: Every 6 months and after storm events larger than 0.5 inches of precipitation. • Maintenance: Clean grate of structure and vacuum sediment and debris out of the sump every year or as needed based on inspection. The maintenance cost is approximately $500 per inlet to vacuum the sump and flush the piping. • Design Life/Replacement Schedule: 50 years Hydrodynamic Separator • Inspection: Every 6 months and after storm events larger than 0.5 inches of precipitation. • Maintenance: Clean the CDS system and vacuum sediment and debris out of the sump as needed based on inspection. • Design Life/Replacement Schedule: 50 years July 2026 Project No. 250389.01/.02 FINANCIAL PLAN HAGGERTY MULTI-FAMILY BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715 OVERVIEW NARRATIVE The purpose of this financial plan is to establish funding mechanism for the continued operation, inspection, maintenance, and repair, and replacement of the permanent stormwater management facilities constructed as part of the Haggerty Multi-Family project. Funding Mechanism The City of Bozeman shall provide funding through its annual operating budget and Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Estimated Design Life Facility Component Service Life Storm Drain Pipe 50 Years Concrete Inlet and Outlet Structures 50 Years Trench Drain 50 Years Hydrodynamic Separator 50 Years Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs Maintenance Activity Estimated Annual Cost Routine Inspections $200 Post-Storm Inspections $250 Cleaning Inlet and Outlet Structures $250 Hydrodynamic Separator Maintenance $350 Storm Drain Pipe Flushing $250 Minor Repairs and Contingency $500 The estimated annual operation and maintenance cost of the facilities is estimated to be nearly: $1,800 Estimated Replacement Costs (2026 Dollars) Component Estimated Cost Storm Drain Pipe $99,720 Inlet and Outlet Structures $11,000 Hydrodynamic Separator $30,000 Trench Drain $500 Site Restoration and Miscellaneous $10,000 The total current replacement cost is estimated to be nearly: $151,220 Inflation Assumptions Future replacement costs were estimated assuming: • Planning horizon: 50 years • Average annual construction cost inflation: 2.5% An estimated future replacement cost will be nearly: $519,760 Future Cost=Current Cost x (1+i)n = $151,220 x (1.025)50 Annual Replacement Reserve To provide funding for future replacement of the stormwater infrastructure, the Owner should budget an average annual replacement reserve of approximately: $10,395. Annualized Cost = Future Cost/Service Life = $519,760/50 Recommended Annual Funding Operation and Maintenance: $1,800 Replacement Reserve: $10,395 Total Annual Funding Recommendation: $12,195 CDS® Inspection and Maintenance Guide ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS Maintenance The CDS system should be inspected at regular intervals and maintained when necessary to ensure optimum performance. The rate at which the system collects pollutants will depend more heavily on site activities than the size of the unit. For example, unstable soils or heavy winter sanding will cause the grit chamber to fill more quickly but regular sweeping of paved surfaces will slow accumulation. Inspection Inspection is the key to effective maintenance and is easily performed. Pollutant transport and deposition may vary from year to year and regular inspections will help ensure that the system is cleaned out at the appropriate time. At a minimum, inspections should be performed twice per year (e.g. spring and fall) however more frequent inspections may be necessary in climates where winter sanding operations may lead to rapid accumulations, or in equipment washdown areas. Installations should also be inspected more frequently where excessive amounts of trash are expected. The visual inspection should ascertain that the system components are in working order and that there are no blockages or obstructions in the inlet and separation screen. The inspection should also quantify the accumulation of hydrocarbons, trash, and sediment in the system. Measuring pollutant accumulation can be done with a calibrated dipstick, tape measure or other measuring instrument. If absorbent material is used for enhanced removal of hydrocarbons, the level of discoloration of the sorbent material should also be identified during inspection. It is useful and often required as part of an operating permit to keep a record of each inspection. A simple form for doing so is provided. Access to the CDS unit is typically achieved through two manhole access covers. One opening allows for inspection and cleanout of the separation chamber (cylinder and screen) and isolated sump. The other allows for inspection and cleanout of sediment captured and retained outside the screen. For deep units, a single manhole access point would allows both sump cleanout and access outside the screen. The CDS system should be cleaned when the level of sediment has reached 75% of capacity in the isolated sump or when an appreciable level of hydrocarbons and trash has accumulated. If absorbent material is used, it should be replaced when significant discoloration has occurred. Performance will not be impacted until 100% of the sump capacity is exceeded however it is recommended that the system be cleaned prior to that for easier removal of sediment. The level of sediment is easily determined by measuring from finished grade down to the top of the sediment pile. To avoid underestimating the level of sediment in the chamber, the measuring device must be lowered to the top of the sediment pile carefully. Particles at the top of the pile typically offer less resistance to the end of the rod than consolidated particles toward the bottom of the pile. Once this measurement is recorded, it should be compared to the as-built drawing for the unit to determine weather the height of the sediment pile off the bottom of the sump floor exceeds 75% of the total height of isolated sump. Cleaning Cleaning of a CDS systems should be done during dry weather conditions when no flow is entering the system. The use of a vacuum truck is generally the most effective and convenient method of removing pollutants from the system. Simply remove the manhole covers and insert the vacuum hose into the sump. The system should be completely drained down and the sump fully evacuated of sediment. The area outside the screen should also be cleaned out if pollutant build-up exists in this area. In installations where the risk of petroleum spills is small, liquid contaminants may not accumulate as quickly as sediment. However, the system should be cleaned out immediately in the event of an oil or gasoline spill should be cleaned out immediately. Motor oil and other hydrocarbons that accumulate on a more routine basis should be removed when an appreciable layer has been captured. To remove these pollutants, it may be preferable to use absorbent pads since they are usually less expensive to dispose than the oil/water emulsion that may be created by vacuuming the oily layer. Trash and debris can be netted out to separate it from the other pollutants. The screen should be power washed to ensure it is free of trash and debris. Manhole covers should be securely seated following cleaning activities to prevent leakage of runoff into the system from above and also to ensure that proper safety precautions have been followed. Confined space entry procedures need to be followed if physical access is required. Disposal of all material removed from the CDS system should be done in accordance with local regulations. In many jurisdictions, disposal of the sediments may be handled in the same manner as the disposal of sediments removed from catch basins or deep sump manholes. Table 1: CDS Maintenance Indicators and Sediment Storage Capacities 800.925.5240www.ContechES.com Support• Drawings and specifications are available at www.contechstormwater.com. • Site-specific design support is available from our engineers. ©2017 Contech Engineered Solutions LLC, a QUIKRETE Company Contech Engineered Solutions LLC provides site solutions for the civil engineering industry. Contech’s portfolio includes bridges, drainage, sanitary sewer, stormwater, earth stabilization and wastewater treament products. For information, visit www.ContechES.com or call 800.338.1122 NOTHING IN THIS CATALOG SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS AN EXPRESSED WARRANTY OR AN IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. SEE THE CONTECH STANDARD CONDITION OF SALES (VIEWABLE AT WWW.CONTECHES.COM/COS) FOR MORE INFORMATION. The product(s) described may be protected by one or more of the following US patents: 5,322,629; 5,624,576; 5,707,527; 5,759,415; 5,788,848; 5,985,157; 6,027,639; 6,350,374; 6,406,218; 6,641,720; 6,511,595; 6,649,048; 6,991,114; 6,998,038; 7,186,058; 7,296,692; 7,297,266; 7,517,450 related foreign patents or other patents pending. ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS CDS Model Diameter Distance from Water Surface to Top of Sediment Pile Sediment Storage Capacity ft m ft m y3 m3 CDS1515 3 0.9 3.0 0.9 0.5 0.4 CDS2015 4 1.2 3.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 CDS2015 5 1.3 3.0 0.9 1.3 1.0 CDS2020 5 1.3 3.5 1.1 1.3 1.0 CDS2025 5 1.3 4.0 1.2 1.3 1.0 CDS3020 6 1.8 4.0 1.2 2.1 1.6 CDS3025 6 1.8 4.0 1.2 2.1 1.6 CDS3030 6 1.8 4.6 1.4 2.1 1.6 CDS3035 6 1.8 5.0 1.5 2.1 1.6 CDS4030 8 2.4 4.6 1.4 5.6 4.3 CDS4040 8 2.4 5.7 1.7 5.6 4.3 CDS4045 8 2.4 6.2 1.9 5.6 4.3 CDS5640 10 3.0 6.3 1.9 8.7 6.7 CDS5653 10 3.0 7.7 2.3 8.7 6.7 CDS5668 10 3.0 9.3 2.8 8.7 6.7 CDS5678 10 3.0 10.3 3.1 8.7 6.7 CDS Inspection & Maintenance Log CDS Model: Location: Water Floatable Describe Maintenance Date depth to Layer Maintenance Personnel Comments sediment1 Thickness2 Performed —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 1. The water depth to sediment is determined by taking two measurements with a stadia rod: one measurement from the manhole opening to the top of the sediment pile and the other from the manhole opening to the water surface. If the difference between these measurements is less than the values listed in table 1 the system should be cleaned out. Note: to avoid underestimating the volume of sediment in the chamber, the measuring device must be carefully lowered to the top of the sediment pile. 2. For optimum performance, the system should be cleaned out when the floating hydrocarbon layer accumulates to an appreciable thickness. In the event of an oil spill, the system should be cleaned immediately.CDS Maintenance Guide - 7/18 (PDF) Stormwater Facility Inspection Form Project # 250389.01/.02 APPENDIX F GEOTECHNICAL REPORT HAGGERTY MULTI-FAMILY UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT 219 Haggerty Lane (406) 582 -022132 Discovery Dr, Bozeman, MT 59718 www.alliedengineering.com January 2026 Bozeman, Montana Civil • Geotechnical • Water Resources • Land Surveying • Construction Services Corporate Office 32 Discovery Dr. Bozeman, MT 59718 Ph: (406) 582-0221 www.alliedengineering.com SAM UEI: LYARYWD1YSZ1 CAGE: IGHU7 January 21, 2026 Haggerty Infill LLC c/o: Jackson Bruff 402 E. Main Street, Suite 3 Bozeman, MT 59715 Email: jsbruff@gmail.com RE: Updated Geotechnical Report for 219 Haggerty Lane Bozeman, Montana Dear Mr. Bruff: Enclosed please find our updated geotechnical report for 219 Haggerty Lane, located east of downtown Bozeman, Montana. As per our scope of work, this report presents our geotechnical assessment of the project site and provides recommendations pertaining to foundation design, seismic site classification, allowable bearing and lateral earth pressures, estimated foundation settlements, wall backfill materials and compaction recommendations, foundation-related fill materials, utilities, surface and subsurface drainage, asphalt pavement section materials and design thickness, and general site earthwork. This report was prepared for use by all associated parties during the planning, design, and construction phases of this project. It is important that the Design Team and all Contractors involved with site work are provided with copies of this report, so they are informed of the site conditions found at our exploration locations and our geotechnical and construction recommendations. We appreciate the opportunity to perform these services. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Craig Madson, PE Jessi Ellingsen, EI President / Geotechnical Engineer Geotechnical Engineer enc: Updated Geotechnical Report P:\2022\22-097 219 Haggerty Lane Geotechnical Investigation and Report\05 Design\Geotech\Rewrite - December 2025\Report\22-097 - Cover Letter.docx i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................... i INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 1 SCOPE OF WORK ........................................................................................................................................... 1 GEOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 EXPLORATIONS AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 2 Subsurface Explorations ........................................................................................................................... 2 Subsurface Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 3 Groundwater Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 3 Laboratory Testing .................................................................................................................................... 4 FOUNDATION, SLAB, AND DRAINAGE RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 4 Seismic Design Factors.............................................................................................................................. 4 Foundation Design .................................................................................................................................... 4 Foundation Support .................................................................................................................................. 4 Design Bearing Pressures ......................................................................................................................... 5 Interior Concrete Slabs ............................................................................................................................. 5 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction Under Slabs ............................................................................................ 6 Lateral Earth Pressures ............................................................................................................................. 6 Foundation Wall Backfill ........................................................................................................................... 6 Subsurface Drainage ................................................................................................................................. 7 Vapor Barrier and Damp-Proofing ............................................................................................................ 7 Surface Drainage Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 7 Exterior Concrete Slabs ............................................................................................................................ 7 FOUNDATION-RELATED FILL MATERIAL RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 8 Excavated Foundation Soils ...................................................................................................................... 8 Sandy (Pit Run) Gravel .............................................................................................................................. 8 Crushed (Road Mix) Gravel ....................................................................................................................... 8 Clean Crushed Rock .................................................................................................................................. 8 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION ........................................................................................................... 8 PAVEMENT SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 9 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 10 Topsoil Stripping and Re-Use .................................................................................................................. 10 Moisture Sensitivity of Fine-Grained Soils .............................................................................................. 10 Support of Utility Lines ........................................................................................................................... 10 Trench Backfill ........................................................................................................................................ 10 Cold/Winter Weather Construction ....................................................................................................... 11 ii Sediment Control .................................................................................................................................... 11 AESI FUTURE INVOLVEMENT ...................................................................................................................... 11 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 11 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 13 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION • List of Tables o Table 1. Compaction Recommendations (Application vs. Percent Compaction) o Table 2. Recommended Pavement Section • List of Figures o Figure 1 – Vicinity Map o Figure 2 – Quadrangle Map o Figure 3 – Test Pit and Borehole Location Map o Figure 4 – Geology Map o Figure 5 – Groundwater Map o Figure 6 – Foundation Detail • List of Appendices o Appendix A – Borehole and Test Pit Logs o Appendix B – Laboratory Testing Results o Appendix C – Limitations of Your Geotechnical Report www.alliedengineering.com INTRODUCTION This report and attachments provide our geotechnical recommendations for the future development proposed at 219 Haggerty Lane on the east side of Bozeman, Montana. The information contained herein is based on an investigation of the property’s topographical and subsurface conditions, a review of geologic maps and literature for the project area, and our experience with other similar developments in the area. The purpose of this report is to provide a description of the site’s soil and groundwater conditions as well as recommendations for the design and construction of future developments proposed for the property. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The 0.468-acre, rectangular-shaped property is located on the southwest side of Haggerty Lane approximately 0.12 miles south of the intersection with East Main Street. The property is situated in the Southwest One-Quarter of Section 8, Township 2 South, Range 6 East, Principal Meridian Montana, Gallatin County, Montana. See Figures 1 and 2 for site location maps. The lot is currently undeveloped with grades dropping to the northeast at approximately five percent. The property is bound to the northwest by a commercial office building, the northeast by Haggerty Lane, the southeast by a commercial condominium building, and the southwest by the City of Bozeman Softball Complex. Site vegetation consists primarily of native grasses with a few large trees near the southeast corner of the property. We originally completed a geotechnical report for this property (for a different client) in July 2022 when the proposed improvements included a single 5-story building. Two 30-foot boreholes were completed as part of the original investigation. We understand that plans for development on the property have since changed, necessitating a rewrite of the previous report that is tailored toward the new development. Based on the latest plans, the proposed improvements now include two 3-story townhouse buildings supported by slab-on-grade foundations. One additional test pit was completed on the northeast side of the property as part of the additional investigation (see Figure 3 for details). A monitor well was installed to a depth of 9.0 feet in the test pit to allow for future groundwater monitoring. SCOPE OF WORK Our Scope of Services for this project included: Review of previous geotechnical work, geology maps, site plans, and other site information. Completion of one additional test pit within the proposed development site. The locations of all subsurface explorations (including the previous 2 boreholes) are provided in Figure 3. Installation of one monitoring well to allow for future groundwater monitoring (by Sanbell). Laboratory testing of select samples from the test pit exploration. Foundation support recommendations and allowable bearing criteria. Associated anticipated settlements. Haggerty Infill LLC January 21, 2026 Updated Geotechnical Report – 219 Haggerty Lane Project No. 22-097.01 32 Discovery Drive . Bozeman, Montana 59718 . Ph: (406) 582-0221 . Fax: (406) 582-5770 Page 2 Minimum foundation depth for frost protection. Lateral earth pressures for cantilevered and braced wall conditions. Site-specific seismic classification. Surface and subsurface drainage recommendations. Backfill material and compaction recommendations. Asphalt pavement section materials and design thickness. Interior/exterior slab support. General site earthwork, utilities, and construction recommendations. The results of the above scope of work are summarized in this geotechnical report. The purpose of the report is to inform the Owner, Builder, Engineer, and Architect of the subsurface conditions encountered in our explorations; and to present geotechnical recommendations for consideration and implementation during the planning, design, and construction of the proposed improvements. GEOLOGY The geologic map for the area prepared by Lonn and English in 2002 indicates the site is underlain at depth by the Sixmile Creek Formation, gravelly facies (Tscg). An excerpt of this mapping is provided on Figure 4. Tscg can be described as, “predominantly light brown to light gray, poorly stratified, poorly sorted tuffaceous siltstone containing 10 to 50 percent fluvial channel conglomerates”. Generally, this material is overlain by younger fluvial deposits consisting of layers of silt, clay, sand, and some gravel. EXPLORATIONS AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface Explorations Subsurface conditions were investigated on June 27 and 28, 2022 and December 16, 2025, under the directions of Jessi Ellingsen, EI, a staff geotechnical engineer with Allied Engineering Services. Two boreholes were originally completed on the property using a Mobile B-61 truck mounted drill rig provided by O’Keefe Drilling of Butte, Montana. One additional test pit exploration was completed in December of 2025 using a CAT 305 Mini Excavator provided by ND Sitework. The boreholes and test pit were spatially situated across the lot to provide coverage of the proposed improvements. During drilling, soil and subsurface moisture conditions were visually characterized, measured, and logged using split-spoon samples taken at regular intervals. Blow counts noted on the borehole logs attached consist of the blows required to drive a 2-inch O.D. split spoon sampler in three, 6-inch increments using a 140-pound hammer dropped 30 inches. The final 12 inches of driving are added together and recorded as the blow counts (N). The blow counts are used to evaluate the consistency, density, and shear strength of the soil. Blow counts of more than 50 in any 6-inch increment is deemed as sampler refusal. All blow counts provided on the logs are uncorrected for overburden pressures. During the test pit excavation, the relative densities of the exposed soil profiles were estimated based on the ease or difficulty of digging, probing of the test pit walls, and the overall stability of the completed excavations. Copies of our borehole and test pit logs are provided in Appendix A. The logs provide assorted field information, such as soil depths and descriptions, groundwater conditions, relative density data, and a sketch of the soil stratigraphy. Please be aware that the detail provided in the logs cannot be summarized in a paragraph; therefore, it is important to review the logs in conjunction with this report. Haggerty Infill LLC January 21, 2026 Updated Geotechnical Report – 219 Haggerty Lane Project No. 22-097.01 32 Discovery Drive . Bozeman, Montana 59718 . Ph: (406) 582-0221 . Fax: (406) 582-5770 Page 3 Following completion of the fieldwork, the borehole and test pit locations were backfilled and cleaned up to the extent possible. Each was staked with a wooden lath that identified it accordingly. Subsurface Conditions Soil conditions across the site generally consist of organic topsoil overlying variable, alternating Tertiary- aged layers of sandy silt/clay, sand, and clayey gravel. In the boreholes completed back in 2022, we encountered approximately 2.0 feet of topsoil overlying stiff to hard, brown, moist, sandy clay. The sandy clay deposits extended to depths of 4.0 to 9.0 feet and were underlain by medium dense to dense, brown, wet, clayey gravel with sand and abundant 1.5-inch minus rock fragments. The wet clayey gravel extended to depths of 12.0 to 14.0 feet. Below the wet clayey gravel in BH-1, we encountered wet clayey sand that extended from 14.0 to 19.0 feet. This clayey sand layer was not present in BH-2. Below the wet, clayey gravel and/or wet clayey sand (beginning at depths of 12.0 to 19.0 feet) soil conditions transitioned to stiff to hard, brown, moist, sandy clay. Atterberg Limits testing of the sandy clay from BH-2 showed that it was marginally fat. The sandy clay extended to the bottom of both boreholes at a depth of 31.0 feet. No random fill was encountered in the borehole explorations (located in the center of the lot). In the test pit exploration completed near the front edge of the lot (adjacent Haggerty Lane), we encountered 0.5 feet of topsoil overlying dark brown, very stiff, sandy clay with scattered 8-inch-minus gravels and cobbles. It appeared this layer of mixed clay with gravel may be random fill from previous construction of Haggerty Lane. Below the fill (from 2.5 to 3.5 feet), we found a 1.0-foot-thick layer of loose, rusty brown, very moist, clean sand. At 3.5 feet in depth, the material transitioned to medium dense, very moist to wet, clayey sandy gravel with abundant 8-inch-minus sub-rounded cobbles and scattered 18-inch boulders. We encountered a perched water table in this gravel layer (from 5.0 to 7.0 feet). At 7.0 feet, soil conditions transitioned to stiff, brown, very moist, silty sandy clay. This clay layer appears to be creating the perched water table in the overlying gravel layer. The silty sandy clay extended to the bottom of the test pit at 9.0 feet. Any random fill that is encountered during construction should be removed from under the building foundation footprint and in all exterior areas that will receive asphalt surfacing, concrete slabs, or embankment fill in order to avoid undesirable settlements. Groundwater Conditions At the time of our original explorations in late June 2022, a perched groundwater table was encountered from 11.0 to 19.0 feet in BH-1 and 10.3 to 12.0 feet in BH-2. When we dug the test pit on the lower side of the lot in mid-December 2025, we found the perched water table from 5.0 to 7.0 feet. We suspect the perched water table sits on or within the native clayey gravel and native clayey sand layers and is underlain by less pervious sandy clay. Note that groundwater levels in the valley are generally highest in the late spring to early summer (following the spring melt) and can also rise during irrigation season in July, August, and September. At this site, we suspect perched groundwater zones exist throughout the year but may become more prevalent during the melt. Haggerty Infill LLC January 21, 2026 Updated Geotechnical Report – 219 Haggerty Lane Project No. 22-097.01 32 Discovery Drive . Bozeman, Montana 59718 . Ph: (406) 582-0221 . Fax: (406) 582-5770 Page 4 Laboratory Testing Sack samples were taken from the explorations for moisture content testing and Atterberg Limit testing, (in accordance with ASTM D2216 and ASTM D4318, respectively). All laboratory results are provided in Appendix B. Four Atterberg Limit tests were performed on select sack samples (BH-1 from 4.0 to 6.0 feet, BH-1 from 7.0 to 9.0 feet, BH-2 from 12.0 to 14.0 feet, and TP-1 at 8.0 feet). The testing indicated that the upper sandy clay (above the clayey gravel layer) is a lean clay while the deeper sandy clay (below the clayey gravel layer) is more plastic with one sample testing as marginally fat. Fat clays can be problematic due to the potential for shrink and swell with moisture changes which can impact overlying foundations and slabs. In this case, given the depth to the fat clay (about 12 feet), and its already elevated moisture content, we do not anticipate issues. FOUNDATION, SLAB, AND DRAINAGE RECOMMENDATIONS Seismic Design Factors Bozeman lies within a seismically sensitive area and as a result, the buildings will need to be structurally designed according to the appropriate earthquake loading parameters. Based on our on-site explorations and knowledge of the underlying geology, the seismic site class for this project should be Site Class D if using ASCE 7-16 for design or the Default Site Class if using ASCE 7-22 for design. Site-specific seismic loading and response spectrum parameters can be obtained from a web-based platform provided by the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program. The link to the web page is as follows: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/ where the user is directed to three different interfaces that can be used to obtain seismic information. The user will need to specify the design code reference document (ASCE 7-16 or ASCE 7-22), site soil classification (see above), risk category, and site location using GPS coordinates. Please recognize that the site soil classification varies based on the design code reference document being used (ASCE 7-16 or ASCE 7-22). Foundation Design We understand the buildings will be supported on traditional slab-on-grade foundations with frost walls and footings. Due to the dropping grade across the lot, it is possible the south end of the structure may be partially buried. Any random fill is that is encountered should be removed from under building foundation footprints and in all exterior areas that will receive asphalt surfacing or concrete slabs in order to avoid undesirable settlements. For frost protection, the bottom of exterior footings should bear at least 4.0 feet below the lowest adjacent exterior finished grade. Foundation Support As noted earlier, we encountered some variability in the soils found at the site, which can lead to the potential for some non-uniform settlements under typical foundation loads, particularly under multi- story structures. For this reason, we recommend mass over-excavating and supporting the foundations on a 3.0-foot-thick section of geogrid-reinforced, compacted structural fill. This will provide a uniform bearing surface and help distribute the load under foundations which should consequently minimize the risk of differential settlement. Haggerty Infill LLC January 21, 2026 Updated Geotechnical Report – 219 Haggerty Lane Project No. 22-097.01 32 Discovery Drive . Bozeman, Montana 59718 . Ph: (406) 582-0221 . Fax: (406) 582-5770 Page 5 The over-excavation should extend outward from the edge of footings a minimum of 3.0 feet to ensure proper load transfer. It should also encompass exterior elements such as staircases, roof overhangs, patios, etc. Prior to the placement of structural fill, the native subgrade should be compacted to a dense, unyielding condition and covered with an 8-ounce nonwoven geotextile fabric (e.g., Mirafi 180N). Any soft and/or wet spots identified in the subgrade should be completely removed and replaced with compacted granular structural fill. We ask that we be involved with the foundation excavation to view the subgrade soils prior to placing fabric, geogrid, and structural fill. The 3.0-foot section of structural fill should be reinforced with three layers of geogrid (Tensar HX5.5) at 12-inch vertical spacings. The first layer of geogrid should be placed directly on top of the nonwoven fabric followed by the first 12 inches of compacted structural fill (1.5-inch-minus crushed road mix gravel). Overlap all geogrid seams by a minimum of 2.0 feet and zip-tie or wire-tie together. Structural fill within the geogrid-reinforced section under foundations should consist exclusively of 1.5- inch-minus crushed road mix gravel to ensure proper interlock with the grid. If additional structural fill is needed below the geogrid-reinforced section to build up to footing grade, it may consist of 3-inch-minus pit run gravel. The additional structural fill (if needed) does not require geogrid-reinforcement. Structural fill should be placed in thin horizontal lifts and compacted to at least 98 percent of its Standard Proctor density per ASTM D698. Please refer to Figure 6 for a detail showing our foundation recommendations. Note that it may also be possible to chase the material directly from under footings rather than excavating the entirety of the building footprint. In that case, we recommend extending the horizontal extents of the over-excavation to 3.0 feet beyond edge of footing (all sides) as measured at the bottom of the over-excavation. However, depending on the number of interior footings, this may not be a cost effective option. This might also be a good reason to consider utilizing a crawlspace foundation, which would eliminate the cost of bringing structural fill up throughout the interior footprint of the building. Design Bearing Pressures An appropriate bearing pressure for design assuming our recommendations are followed is 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). Total settlements are estimated to be under one inch with minimal differential settlements, assuming continuous strip footings that are 3.0 feet wide or less. Allowable bearing pressures during earthquakes may be increased by 50 percent. Interior Concrete Slabs The interior slab of the building(s) shall be underlain by at least 6 inches of clean crushed rock overlying granular structural fill used to build up from the geogrid-reinforced section at footing grade. If footings are chased individually, we recommend a minimum of 6 inches of crushed drainage rock and 12 inches of structural fill under lightly loaded interior slabs. Structural fill under the interior of the building should be placed in thin uniform lifts and compacted to at least 98 percent of its Standard Proctor Density. Clean crushed rock should be vibratory compacted to a dense, unyielding condition using a large roller. Haggerty Infill LLC January 21, 2026 Updated Geotechnical Report – 219 Haggerty Lane Project No. 22-097.01 32 Discovery Drive . Bozeman, Montana 59718 . Ph: (406) 582-0221 . Fax: (406) 582-5770 Page 6 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction Under Slabs Assuming our interior slab support recommendations are followed, the subgrade reaction modulus (k) can be assumed to be 200 pounds per cubic inch (pci). This design value assumes the slab will be underlain by at least 6 inches of clean crushed rock overlying compacted granular structural fill as noted above. Lateral Earth Pressures All foundation walls that will be fixed at the top prior to the placement of backfill should be designed for an “at rest” equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). In contrast, cantilevered retaining walls may be designed for a lower, “active” equivalent fluid pressure of 45 pcf, provided either some slight outward rotation of the wall is acceptable upon backfilling, or the wall is constructed in such a way that accommodates the expected rotation. These “at rest” and “active” design values are only applicable for walls that will have backfill slopes of less than ten percent and will not be externally loaded by surface pressures applied above and/or behind the wall. These lateral earth pressures also assume proper subsurface drainage provisions (e.g., footing drains) are installed to prevent the development of hydrostatic pressures (for any retaining wall applications or buried portions of the foundation wall). Lateral forces from wind, earthquakes, and earth pressures on the opposite side of the structure will be resisted by passive earth pressure against the buried portion of the foundation wall and by friction at the bottom of the footing. Passive earth pressures in compacted backfill should be assumed to have an equivalent fluid pressure of 280 pcf, while a coefficient of friction of 0.35 should be used between cast- in-place concrete and the granular structural fill. Actual footing loads (not factored or allowable loads) should be used for calculating frictional resistance to sliding along the base of the footing. Please be aware that the friction coefficient has no built-in factor of safety; therefore, an appropriate safety factor should be selected and used in all subsequent calculations for each load case. The lateral earth pressures summarized above are for static conditions and should be factored accordingly to represent seismic conditions. We recommend adding an additional 15 pcf of equivalent fluid pressure to the static “active” and “at-rest” cases to represent the seismic component. The seismic component of the lateral earth pressure may be assumed to be an inverted triangular pressure distribution with the resultant located at one third H from the top of the wall where H is the height of the wall. Foundation Wall Backfill Exterior wall backfill can consist of any excavated foundation soil, other than topsoil, provided it is not overly moist, highly plastic, or too rocky in composition. Interior foundation wall backfill should consist exclusively of import structural fill. The native soils may require drying to re-use as exterior backfill. All select backfill materials should be placed in multiple thin lifts and properly compacted to the appropriate design specification. Exterior wall backfill should be compacted to 95 percent of its Standard Proctor Density, while structural fill placed under footings and in the interior of the building should be compacted to 98 percent of ASTM D698. Foundation walls intended to be braced should not be backfilled until the bracing (such as floor joists) is in place to prevent unintended rotation/deflection of the wall. To prevent damaging foundation walls during the backfilling process, only hand-operated compaction equipment is recommended within 3.0 feet of walls that are not buried on both sides. To Haggerty Infill LLC January 21, 2026 Updated Geotechnical Report – 219 Haggerty Lane Project No. 22-097.01 32 Discovery Drive . Bozeman, Montana 59718 . Ph: (406) 582-0221 . Fax: (406) 582-5770 Page 7 minimize the potential for future settlement problems, the level of care (with respect to the selection of dry backfill materials and the compactive effort that is used) should be increased significantly in those areas that will receive concrete/asphalt surfacing or that will support a retaining wall. Finally, the re-use of topsoil as backfill should be limited to the uppermost four to six inches in landscaped areas. Subsurface Drainage For slab-on-grade foundations, perimeter footing drains are not necessary unless the exterior grade will extend above the top of slab (for example, if there was a buried parking garage). However, footing drains should be installed behind crawlspace and basement walls. Footing drains should consist of 4-inch perforated PE pipe bedded in crushed rock and completely wrapped in a nonwoven drainage fabric (e.g., Mirafi 180N or equivalent). These drains should either daylight to the ground surface or be routed to a sump with a pump. Vapor Barrier and Damp-Proofing To control moisture vapor, we recommend installing a heavy-duty vapor barrier directly under interior slabs. We recommend a vapor barrier with a water vapor transmission rate of 0.006 or lower as established by ASTM E96, such as a Stego 15-mil Vapor Barrier. The vapor barrier should be installed as per the manufacturer recommendations and ASTM E1643, ensuring it is properly attached to footings/walls and sealed at the seams. Buried foundation walls should be damp-proofed with an acceptable commercial product as per the requirements of the International Building Code (IBC 2024). Basement walls should be waterproofed. Surface Drainage Recommendations No water should be allowed to accumulate against or flow along any exposed foundation walls. Concrete or asphalt surfacing that abuts the foundation should be designed with a minimum grade of 2 percent away from the structure, and adjacent landscaped areas should have a slope of at least 5 percent within 10 feet of the wall (see the IBC building codes). To further reduce the potential for moisture infiltration along foundation walls, backfill materials should be well-compacted and the upper 4 to 6 inches of backfill should consist of low permeability topsoil. Except for the locations that will be surfaced by concrete or asphalt, finished grades next to foundation walls should be set no less than 6 inches below the top of the sill plate. We suggest caution in utilizing retention ponds intended to infiltrate storm drainage. The native soils are not conducive to infiltration. If a retention pond with infiltration is used, we suggest an overflow to route excess stormwater that cannot infiltrate. Exterior Concrete Slabs Lightly loaded exterior concrete slabs should be supported by a minimum of 6 inches of clean crushed rock overlying 6 inches of granular structural fill. Depending on site grading, the gravel section will either bear on non-organic, native soils or on embankment fill material that is placed above the stripped subgrade surface to raise design elevations. Traffic loaded exterior slabs should be underlain by a minimum of 6 inches of clean crushed rock and 18 inches of granular structural fill placed over non-organic, compacted/unyielding subgrade. Haggerty Infill LLC January 21, 2026 Updated Geotechnical Report – 219 Haggerty Lane Project No. 22-097.01 32 Discovery Drive . Bozeman, Montana 59718 . Ph: (406) 582-0221 . Fax: (406) 582-5770 Page 8 Prior to placing any embankment fill or structural fill, both of which must be adequately compacted, the subgrade surface should be proof-rolled to confirm its stability. If any soft or wet areas are identified, they should be over-excavated and replaced with compacted structural fill. FOUNDATION-RELATED FILL MATERIAL RECOMMENDATIONS Excavated Foundation Soils All topsoil should be stripped and stockpiled for re-use during site reclamation. On-site soils suitable for re-use as site fill or backfill should be separated from wet, rocky, or otherwise unsuitable soils during excavation. The suitability of the non-organic excavated soils will depend on their rockiness, plasticity, natural moisture content, and ability to be re-compacted. The driest soils containing an even mixture of soil matrix and smaller rock fragments should be selected for use as compacted fill, while the wettest and rockiest soils should either be hauled off-site or used for general site grading in non-critical locations. Depending on the time of year, some of the native soil that is excavated may be wet of optimum and will require drying prior to re-use. This may necessitate the import of dry fill material if work is conducted during the wet or winter season when drying is not an option. Sandy (Pit Run) Gravel Sandy (pit run) gravel is a granular structural fill alternative for placement under exterior slabs, pavements, and behind foundation walls. This material shall be non-plastic, well-graded, mixture of clean sand and gravel with 100 percent of its fragments passing a 3-inch screen and less than 10 percent of its particles (by weight) finer than the No. 200 sieve. In addition to these material and gradation recommendations, it should meet all other applicable specifications as presented in Section 02234 of the Montana Public Works Standard Specifications (MPWSS) for uncrushed, sub-base course gravel. Crushed (Road Mix) Gravel Crushed (road mix) gravel is another granular structural fill alternative for placement under and/or behind footings, slabs, and walls. This material shall be non-plastic, well-graded, mixture of clean sand and gravel that is processed (crushed) such that 100 percent of its fragments pass a 1.5-inch screen and less than 5 percent of its particles (by weight) are finer than the No. 200 sieve. In addition, it should meet all other specifications as presented in Section 02235 of the MPWSS for crushed, base course gravel. Note that only 1.5-inch-minus crushed road mix gravel should be used within the geogrid reinforced section to ensure proper interlock. Clean Crushed Rock The primary uses for clean crushed rock include placement under concrete slabs and behind foundation/retaining walls for drainage-related purposes. Crushed rock shall consist of a clean assortment of angular fragments with 100 percent passing a one-inch screen and less than 1 percent (by weight) finer than the No. 100 sieve. Over 50 percent of the rock particles must have fractured faces. FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION All fill materials should be placed in multiple thin, uniform, horizontal lifts and compacted to an unyielding condition. The “loose” thickness of each layer of fill prior to compaction should not exceed 9 inches for self-propelled rollers, 6 inches for remote-controlled trench rollers, and 4 inches for plate compactors. The moisture content of any fill material to be compacted should be within 2 percent of its optimum value. Haggerty Infill LLC January 21, 2026 Updated Geotechnical Report – 219 Haggerty Lane Project No. 22-097.01 32 Discovery Drive . Bozeman, Montana 59718 . Ph: (406) 582-0221 . Fax: (406) 582-5770 Page 9 Special attention must be paid to the proper compaction of structural fill materials along the edges and in the corners of the foundation excavation. These areas are usually “tight and confined” and, as a result, cannot be adequately compacted with large equipment. There are two options available for dealing with this issue. Either small compactors must be used that are able to “hug” the side of the excavation or the limits of the excavation must be increased such that compaction of the entire minimum width of structural fill can be achieved with larger equipment. Table 1 provides our compaction recommendations for general site applications. These recommendations apply to all fill materials and are presented as a percentage of the maximum dry density of the material being placed as defined by ASTM D698. A common misconception is that clean crushed rock does not require compaction. However, this material does require compaction with a vibratory plate or smooth drum roller. Table 1. Compaction Recommendations (Application vs. Percent Compaction) APPLICATION PERCENT COMPACTION Structural Fill Under Footings and Interior Slabs 98 Structural Fill Used for Interior Foundation Wall Backfill 98 Exterior Foundation Wall Backfill and Retaining Wall Backfill 95 Structural and Embankment Fill Under Exterior Slabs and Pavements 95 Trench Backfill under Paved Areas and Concrete Slabs 95 Asphalt Pavement (Rice Density) 93 Trench Backfill and Site Grading in Non-Critical, Landscaped Areas 92 Clean Crushed Rock N/A - Vibratory Compaction PAVEMENT SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS Assuming the subgrade soil is dry and stable (i.e., the upper 8 inches of native soil can be compacted to 95 percent of ASTM D698), we recommend the pavement section outlined in Table 2. Please recognize that this section is only applicable to stable subgrade conditions (no rutting, deflecting, etc). If the subgrade is wet of optimum, it will need to be scarified, dried, and re-worked to achieve adequate compaction to a stable condition prior to placing sub-base gravel. Soft spots should be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill. Fabric shall be added if widespread soft conditions are found as approved by the Engineer. Table 2. Recommended Pavement Section MATERIAL COMPACTED THICKNESS (IN) Asphalt 3 Base Course Gravel 6 Sub-Base Course Gravel 15 315 lb. Woven Geotextile Fabric (Mirafi 600X) Only if Subgrade Conditions are Soft Stable Subgrade Soils (Less Topsoil) Upper 8 inches compacted to 95% TOTAL SECTION DESIGN THICKNESS 24 Should widespread moderately unstable subgrade conditions (minor rutting and deflecting, very moist Haggerty Infill LLC January 21, 2026 Updated Geotechnical Report – 219 Haggerty Lane Project No. 22-097.01 32 Discovery Drive . Bozeman, Montana 59718 . Ph: (406) 582-0221 . Fax: (406) 582-5770 Page 10 subgrade, etc.) be found across the site, we should be notified so that we can analyze the situation and modify our recommendations if needed. We suggest incorporating a bid item within the contract documents in the event unstable subgrade conditions are encountered. We should be retained during the construction of parking areas to evaluate the severity of any unstable conditions encountered and the use of higher strength fabrics or increasing the sub-base section. The sub-base and base course materials that comprise the granular parts of the pavement section shall consist of 3-inch-minus uncrushed sandy (pit run) gravel and 1.5-inch-minus crushed (road mix) gravel, respectively. Both gravel courses shall meet the material and gradation specifications presented in MPWSS, Sections 02234 and 02235. Under normal circumstances, the gravel products should be placed in lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness (depending on the size of the compactor) and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as defined in ASTM D698. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS Topsoil Stripping and Re-Use The site is generally covered by 0.5 to 2.0 feet of organic silt/clay topsoil. All organic soils must be adequately stripped from within the building foundation footprints and in all exterior areas that will receive asphalt surfacing, concrete slabs, or embankment fills. Final site grading (in landscape areas) and the reclamation of the disturbed construction areas are the only recommended re-uses of this organic material. Moisture Sensitivity of Fine-Grained Soils The fine-grained soils (silt/clay) that underlie the site are moisture-sensitive materials that can be problematic during construction. Some drying and re-working of the material may be required to enable the soils to be workable and suitable for earthwork construction. Assuming the materials can be properly dried, these soils should be workable and suitable for earthwork construction. However, with only minor increases in moisture content, compaction of these soils can be difficult until they are adequately dried. The air drying of fine-grained soils requires time, warm weather, and often scarification. For this reason, exposed soils should be protected against precipitation and infiltration. Excavated and fill surfaces should never be left in a rough condition with undrained depressions. In addition to becoming hard to compact in wet conditions, fine-grained soils are susceptible to erosion and frost heave. Support of Utility Lines Exterior utility lines (water, sewer, and dry utilities) may require Type 2 bedding for support. We recommend a bid item be included in case Type 2 bedding is deemed necessary by the Engineer. We suggest proper bedding of all utilities following the specifications found in the Montana Public Works Standard Specifications. Trench Backfill Trench backfill can consist of any native material (except materials containing significant organics) that is not overly wet or rocky. Due to the presence of perched groundwater tables in places, we recommend that a bid item be included that allows the import of backfill material where needed. We recommend that trench backfill be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of ASTM D698 under pavement/slab areas and 92 percent in landscaped areas. Haggerty Infill LLC January 21, 2026 Updated Geotechnical Report – 219 Haggerty Lane Project No. 22-097.01 32 Discovery Drive . Bozeman, Montana 59718 . Ph: (406) 582-0221 . Fax: (406) 582-5770 Page 11 Cold/Winter Weather Construction If earthwork construction will occur during the cold/winter weather season, the Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to prevent the soils from freezing and/or from being contaminated with snow. Exposed subgrade and fill materials (under footings, slabs, walls, and pavements) should be adequately covered with concrete insulation blankets to prevent frost penetration and to protect them from snow. All soils that are used for fill under/around foundation components or pavements and slabs should be relatively dry, free of intermixed snow and frozen clods, and must not be placed when it is snowing. Fill materials or foundations should not be placed over frozen soils, which may be in a “frost-heaved condition”, or over layers of snow. When earthwork proceeds during non-optimal times of the year, we recommend that it be performed expeditiously to minimize the amount of time that the foundation excavation is open and exposed to the elements. In addition, positive drainage must be established away from the excavation to prevent the entry of surface water runoff and the saturation of the underlying soils. Please be aware that carelessness with respect to any of the above-referenced items can potentially lead to foundation settlement problems in the spring when the frost thaws and/or the snow melts. Finally, cold weather concrete practices and methods should be implemented when conditions dictate. Sediment Control Prior to beginning any earthwork construction at the site, adequate sediment control measures must be in place to prevent disturbed soils/sediment from being carried down slope and off the site via surface water runoff. According to Montana State Law, all surface waters must be fully protected from the introduction of sediment by construction-related activities. Sediment protection barriers will need to be placed at all established drainages, waterways, ponds, wetlands, storm water catch basins, etc., that lie within or adjacent to the project area. In addition to protecting these elements, we also believe it is a responsible practice to install a continuous barrier along the down slope side of the construction limits, especially on sloping sites. This minimal level of effort will help keep disturbed soils as close to the source area as possible and prevent them from being washed off the property. AESI FUTURE INVOLVEMENT We suggest that we be retained during design and construction to ensure that the recommendations provided herein are properly implemented. We ask that we be allowed to view the foundation excavation prior to placing fabric, geogrid, and structural fill. LIMITATIONS This report provides our geotechnical-related recommendations for 219 Haggerty Lane located in Bozeman, Montana. Please be advised that this report is only applicable for the above-referenced project and shall not be used for other nearby projects. Since geotechnical-related conditions can change in a short distance, we recommend that all properties be evaluated on a site-specific basis. The recommendations presented herein are primarily based on observation and evaluation of the site’s surface and subsurface conditions, along with review and interpretation of geologic maps, and previous engineering experience within the project area. If during earthwork construction, soil and groundwater conditions are found to be inconsistent with those described in the report, we should be advised immediately so the situation can be analyzed, and recommendations can be modified as needed. Haggerty Infill LLC January 21, 2026 Updated Geotechnical Report – 219 Haggerty Lane Project No. 22-097.01 32 Discovery Drive . Bozeman, Montana 59718 . Ph: (406) 582-0221 . Fax: (406) 582-5770 Page 12 Please be aware that our work does not constitute a guarantee against geotechnical issues arising from a multitude of potential issues ranging from poorly performed earthwork to the presence of soil conditions that were not observed or interpreted by our explorations or research. All individuals associated with this project should consult this report during the planning, design, and construction of the site improvements. It should be made available to other parties for information on factual data only and not as a warranty of actual subsurface conditions such as those interpreted herein. We appreciate the opportunity to perform our geotechnical services. Please call if you have questions. Sincerely, Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Craig Madson, PE President / Geotechnical Engineer Jessi Ellingsen, EI Geotechnical Engineer Haggerty Infill LLC January 21, 2026 Updated Geotechnical Report – 219 Haggerty Lane Project No. 22-097.01 32 Discovery Drive . Bozeman, Montana 59718 . Ph: (406) 582-0221 . Fax: (406) 582-5770 Page 13 REFERENCES 1. American Society of Civil Engineers, 2016. “Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures” ASCE/SEI 7-16. 2. American Society of Civil Engineers, 2022. “Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures” ASCE/SEI 7-22. 3. American Society of Testing and Materials, 2024. “Standard Practice for Selection, Design, Installation, and Inspection of Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs” ASTM E1643. 4. American Society of Testing and Materials, 2021. “Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort (12,400 ft-lb)” ASTM D698. 5. American Society of Testing and Materials, 2019. “Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass” ASTM D2216. 6. American Society of Testing and Materials, 2018. “Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils” ASTM D4318. 7. American Society of Testing and Materials, 2017. “Standard Test Methods for Water Vapor Transmission of Materials” ASTM E96. 8. International Code Council, 2024. “International Building Code”. 9. Lonn, J. and English, A., 2002. “Preliminary Geologic Map of the Eastern Part of the Gallatin Valley Montana”, MBMG Open-File Report 457. 10. Montana Contractors Association, April 2021. “Montana Public Works Standard Specifications” Seventh Edition. 11. Slagle, S.E., 1995. “Geohydrologic Conditions and Land Use in the Gallatin Valley, Southwestern Montana, 1992-93”, USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4034. P:\2022\22-097 219 Haggerty Lane Geotechnical Investigation and Report\05 Design\Geotech\Rewrite - December 2025\Report\22-097.01 - 219 Haggerty Lane - Geotechnical Report.docx LIST OF FIGURES FFiigguurree 11 –– VViicciinniittyy MMaapp FFiigguurree 22 –– QQuuaaddrraannggllee MMaapp FFiigguurree 33 –– TTeesstt PPiitt && BBoorreehhoollee LLooccaattiioonn MMaapp FFiigguurree 44 –– GGeeoollooggyy MMaapp FFiigguurree 55 –– GGrroouunnddwwaatteerr MMaapp FFiigguurree 66 –– FFoouunnddaattiioonn DDeettaaiill FIGURECivil Engineering Geotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying 32 DISCOVERY DRIVE . BOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221 . FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.com 219 HAGGERTY LANE VICINITY MAP BOZEMAN, MONTANA 1 N FIGURECivil Engineering Geotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying 32 DISCOVERY DRIVE . BOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221 . FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.com 219 HAGGERTY LANE QUADRANGLE MAP BOZEMAN, MONTANA 2 N FIGURECivil Engineering Geotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying 32 DISCOVERY DRIVE . BOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221 . FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.com 219 HAGGERTY LANE TEST PIT & BOREHOLE LOCATION MAP BOZEMAN, MONTANA 3 BH-2 BH-1 N LEGEND TP-1 MW-1 FIGURECivil Engineering Geotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying 32 DISCOVERY DRIVE . BOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221 . FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.com 219 HAGGERTY LANE GEOLOGY MAP BOZEMAN, MONTANA 4 N LEGEND FIGURECivil Engineering Geotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying 32 DISCOVERY DRIVE . BOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221 . FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.com 219 HAGGERTY LANE GROUNDWATER MAP BOZEMAN, MONTANA 5 N 3.0' MIN4.0' MINNATIVE SUBGRADE3.0' MIN6" MIN6" MIN12" SPACING BETWEEN LAYERS OF GEOGRIDCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.com219 HAGGERTY LANEFOUNDATION DETAILBOZEMAN, MONTANAFIG. 6219 HAGGERTY LANENOT TO SCALE LIST OF APPENDICES AAppppeennddiixx AA –– BBoorreehhoollee aanndd TTeesstt PPiitt LLooggss AAppppeennddiixx BB –– LLaabboorraattoorryy TTeessttiinngg RReessuullttss AAppppeennddiixx CC –– LLiimmiittaattiioonnss ooff YYoouurr GGeeootteecchhnniiccaall RReeppoorrtt APPENDIX A BBoorreehhoollee aanndd TTeesstt PPiitt LLooggss DEPTH (FT)GEOLOGYLOGDESCRIPTIONOF MATERIALS SAMPLESN(UNCOR)BLOWS/FTMOISTURECONTENTOTHER FIELD ORSAMPLEINFORMATION 2.0 32 DISCOVERY DRIVE BOZEMAN, MT 59718 FAX (406) 582-5770 PHONE (406) 582-0221 LOG OF BORING PROJECT: 219 Haggerty Lane JOB #: 22-097 DATE: 06/27/22 PAGE: 1 OF 1 LOCATION: 45.67596, -111.01615 ELEVATION: N/A DEPTH: 31.0'GW: 11.0' DRILL TYPE: Hollow Stem Auger FIELD ENGINEER: JGE/ZWL BORING: BH-1 DRILLER: Bridger with O'Keefe CASING/HAMMER/SAMPLER: 8"/4.25"/140#SSS {0.0' - 2.0'}: TopsoilStiff; dark brown; clayey SILT with organicsand roots; moist. {2.0' - 9.0'}: Sandy ClayStiff to hard; brown; sandy lean CLAY;moist. ·Traces of cream/gray present from 2.0'to 4.0'. ·Occasional 1"-minus sub-rounded rockfrom 7.0' to 9.0'. {9.0' - 14.0'}: Clayey GravelMedium dense to dense; brown with tracesof red and yellow; clayey GRAVEL withsand; wet. ·Primarily 1.5"-minus sub-angular rockfragments. ·Groundwater encountered at 11.0'. ·Perched water table from approximately11.0' to 19.0'. {14.0' - 19.0'}: Clayey SandStiff; brown; clayey SAND; wet. ·50/50 mix of sand and clay. ·Located within the perched water table. {19.0' - 31.0'}: Sandy ClayVery stiff to hard; brown; sandy CLAY;moist. ·Below the perched water table. S1-A @0.0'-2.0'18.1%GENERAL NOTES:1. Grinding at 9.0'.2. Groundwater encountered at11.0'.3. Perched water table fromapproximately 11.0' - 19.0'.4. Composite A taken from 0.0' -31.0'. ·SSS - 2.0'' O.D. Split SpoonSample ·The beginning and endingdepths of the individual soillayers are approximate. End of Boring 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 28.0 30.0 32.0 S1-B @2.0'-4.0'21.0% S1-C @4.0'-6.0'19.3% Geotechnical EngineeringLand SurveyingCivil Engineering S1-D @7.0'-9.0'17.1% S1-E @9.0'-11.0'14.2% S1-F @12.0'-14.0'16.3% S1-G @14.0'-16.0'34.5% S1-H @19.0'-21.0'25.9% S1-I @24.0'-26.0'23.6% S1-J @29.0'-31.0'26.8% 5/5/5(10) 4/6/9(15) 5/13/21(34) 7/6/11(17) 15/16/13(29) 15/19/16(35) 4/5/7(12) 7/12/15(27) 11/32/49(81) 9/14/19(33) LAB TESTING RESULTS: Atterberg Limits from 4.0' to 6.0'PL = 19.7, LL = 26.8, PI = 7.0Soil Classification = CL (Lean Clay) Atterberg Limits from 7.0' to 9.0'PL = 17.1, LL = 34.6, PI = 17.5Soil Classification = CL (Lean Clay) S2-B @2.0'-4.0'25.6% S2-C @4.0'-6.0'8.9% Geotechnical EngineeringLand SurveyingCivil Engineering S2-D @7.0'-9.0'14.7% S2-E @9.0'-11.0'16.0% S2-F @12.0'-14.0'35.6% S2-G @14.0'-16.0'25.8% S2-H @19.0'-21.0'33.7% S2-I @24.0'-26.0'40.5% S2-J @29.0'-31.0'31.7%DEPTH (FT)GEOLOGYLOGDESCRIPTIONOF MATERIALS SAMPLESN(UNCOR)BLOWS/FTMOISTURECONTENTOTHER FIELD ORSAMPLEINFORMATION 2.0 32 DISCOVERY DRIVE BOZEMAN, MT 59718 FAX (406) 582-5770 PHONE (406) 582-0221 LOG OF BORING PROJECT: 219 Haggerty Lane JOB #: 22-097 DATE: 06/28/22 PAGE: 1 OF 1 LOCATION: 45.67613, -111.01605 ELEVATION: N/A DEPTH: 31.0'GW: 10.3' DRILL TYPE: Hollow Stem Auger FIELD ENGINEER: JGE BORING: BH-2 DRILLER: Bridger with O'Keefe CASING/HAMMER/SAMPLER: 8"/4.25"/140#SSS {0.0' - 2.0'}: TopsoilMedium stiff; dark brown; clayey SILT withorganics and roots; moist. {2.0' - 4.0'}: Sandy ClayStiff; brown; sandy CLAY; moist. {4.0' - 12.0'}: Clayey GravelMedium dense to dense; brown with tracesof red and yellow; clayey GRAVEL withsand; moist to wet. ·Minor clay content from 4.0' to 6.0'. ·Very clayey from 6.0' to 12.0'. ·Primarily 1.5"-minus sub-angular rockfragments. ·Groundwater encountered at 10.3'. ·Perched water table from approximately10.3' to 12.0'. {12.0' - 31.0'}: Sandy ClayStiff to hard; brown; sandy fat CLAY; moistto very moist. ·Below the perched water table. S2-A @0.0'-2.0'20.0%General Notes:1. Grinding at 10.0'.2. Groundwater encountered at10.3'.3. Perched water table fromapproximately 10.3' - 12.0'.4. Composite B taken from 0.0' -31.0'.5. Shelby Tube taken from 14.0' -15.0'. ·SSS - 2.0'' O.D. Split SpoonSample ·The beginning and endingdepths of the individual soillayers are approximate. End of Boring 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 28.0 30.0 32.0 3/3/5(8) 3/4/6(10) 17/22/10(32) 9/24/17(41) 12/8/6(14) 2/4/8(12) 5/9/13(22) 7/13/15(28) 6/11/15(26) 9/15/18(33) LAB TESTING RESULTS: Atterberg Limits from 12.0' to 14.0'PL = 25.4, LL = 50.9, PI = 25.5Soil Classification = CH (Fat Clay) DEPTH (FT) SAMPLES % WATER CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringWater Resource EngineeringLand Surveying32 Discovery DriveBozeman, MT 59718Phone (406) 582-0221Fax (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.com424681053451108642LAB TESTING RESULTS:Atterberg Limits at 8.0'PL = 26.1, LL = 46.2, PI = 20.2Soil Classification = CL (Lean Clay)2Surface Elevation: ~4,823'Backhoe Type: CAT 305 E2 Mini Exc.Job Number: 22-097.01Total Depth: 9.0'Groundwater Depth: 5.0'Backhoe Operator: Nick (ND Sitework)Logged By: JGE (AESI)Project: 219 Haggerty LaneDate: December 16, 20253{0.0' - 0.5'}: Organic Topsoil:Soft; dark brown; organic sandy SILT/CLAYwith roots and occasional gravels; moist.·Roots to ±18".{0.5' - 2.5'}: Clay with Gravel (Fill?):Very stiff; dark brown; sandy CLAY withscattered sub-rounded 8"-minus cobbles; moist.·May be fill.·Material contains some organics.·Pocket Pen @ 1.0' = 2.25 to 2.75 tsf.{2.5' - 3.5'}: Sand:Loose; rusty brown with abundant rust-coloredmottling; clean medium-grain SAND; very moist.·Caves easily when prodded.{3.5' - 7.0'}: Clayey Sandy Gravel:Medium dense; brown; clayey sandy GRAVELwith abundant 8"-minus sub-rounded cobblesand scattered 18" boulders; very moist to wet.·Clayier with depth (first foot is fairly clean).·Wetter with depth.·GW encountered at 5.0'.·Significant seepage entering at 6.0'.·Perched water table from 5.0' to 7.0'.·Some caving in this layer.{7.0' - 9.0'}: Silty Sandy Clay:Stiff; brown; silty sandy CLAY; very moist.·Pocket Pen at 8.0' = 1.0 - 1.5 tsf.·GW is flowing on top of this layer (perchedwater table).12Horizontal Distance in FeetTest Pit Designation: TP-1 Location:Front of Lot;See Test Pit Location Map;45.67625, -111.01587S1-A@1.5'20.6%S1-B@3.0'12.9%S1-C@4.0'14.1%S1-D@8.0'31.3%Perched water table from 5.0' to 7.0'GENERAL NOTES:1. MW-1 installed to a depth of 9.0'.2. TP-1 was located on the low side ofthe lot (adjacent to Haggerty Lane). APPENDIX B LLaabboorraattoorryy TTeessttiinngg RReessuullttss MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATION (ASTM D-2216) Project: 219 Haggerty Lane Project Number: 22-097Sample Identification: See Below Soil Classification: Varies Date Sampled: 6/27/2022 and 6/28/2022 Date Tested: 6/30/2022 and 7/5/2022 Tested By: JGE Sample Identification:S1-A S1-B S1-C S1-D S1-E S1-F S1-G S1-H S1-I S1-J Exploration Location:BH-1 BH-1 BH-1 BH-1 BH-1 BH-1 BH-1 BH-1 BH-1 BH-1 Sample Depth (ft):0.0 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 6.0 7.0 - 9.0 9.0 - 11.0 12.0 - 14.0 14.0 - 16.0 19.0 - 21.0 24.0 - 26.0 29.0 - 31.0 Container Number:EE U HH Y M P GG S Q AA Weight of Container:48.87 51.12 48.27 50.87 50.61 49.25 48.25 50.45 50.91 49.00 Container + Wet Soil:200.77 181.70 146.32 141.12 134.16 111.42 103.03 190.15 175.82 163.37 Container + Dry Soil:177.52 159.00 130.48 127.92 123.77 102.69 88.97 161.38 152.00 139.17 Weight of Water:23.25 22.70 15.84 13.20 10.39 8.73 14.06 28.77 23.82 24.20 Weight of Dry Soil:128.65 107.88 82.21 77.05 73.16 53.44 40.72 110.93 101.09 90.17 Moisture Content:18.1%21.0%19.3%17.1%14.2%16.3%34.5%25.9%23.6%26.8% Sample Identification:S2-A S2-B S2-C S2-D S2-E S2-F S2-G S2-H S2-I S2-J Exploration Location:BH-2 BH-2 BH-2 BH-2 BH-2 BH-2 BH-2 BH-2 BH-2 BH-2 Sample Depth (ft):0.0 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 6.0 7.0 - 9.0 9.0 - 11.0 12.0 - 14.0 14.0 - 16.0 19.0 - 21.0 24.0 - 26.0 29.0 - 31.0 Container Number:B LL UU F NN E L OO H TT Weight of Container:31.57 31.06 30.98 31.72 30.89 31.64 31.71 31.10 31.58 30.91 Container + Wet Soil:88.82 86.13 110.29 123.32 148.23 94.67 99.47 116.82 97.97 113.82 Container + Dry Soil:79.29 74.89 103.79 111.58 132.01 78.13 85.56 95.19 78.82 93.86 Weight of Water:9.53 11.24 6.50 11.74 16.22 16.54 13.91 21.63 19.15 19.96 Weight of Dry Soil:47.72 43.83 72.81 79.86 101.12 46.49 53.85 64.09 47.24 62.95 Moisture Content:20.0%25.6%8.9%14.7%16.0%35.6%25.8%33.7%40.5%31.7% Reviewed By: 32 Discovery DriveBozeman, MT 59718 Phone (406) 582-0221 Fax (406) 582-5770 MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATION (ASTM D2216)Project: 219 Haggerty Lane Project Number: 22‐097.01Sample Identification: See BelowSoil Classification: Varies Date Sampled: 12/16/2025 Date Tested: 12/16/2025 Tested By: JGE Sample Identification: S1‐AS1‐BS1‐CS1‐D Exploration Location: TP‐1TP‐1TP‐1TP‐1 Sample Depth (ft):1.5 3.0 4.0 8.0 Container Number:R ZZ BB GG Weight of Container: 50.50 49.38 48.29 48.18 Container + Wet Soil: 299.17 339.70 352.70 267.47 Container + Dry Soil: 256.61 306.59 314.99 215.22 Weight of Water:42.56 33.11 37.71 52.25 Weight of Dry Soil: 206.11 257.21 266.70 167.04 Moisture Content: 20.6% 12.9% 14.1% 31.3% Sample Identification: Exploration Location: Sample Depth (ft): Container Number: Weight of Container: Container + Wet Soil: Container + Dry Soil: Weight of Water: Weight of Dry Soil: Moisture Content: Reviewed By:32 Discovery DriveBozeman, MT 59718Phone (406) 582‐0221Fax (406) 582‐5770 ATTERBERG LIMITS DETERMINATION (ASTM D-4318) Project: 219 Haggerty LaneProject Number: 22-097Sample Identification: S1-C from 4.0' - 6.0' Soil Classification: Lean CLAY (CL) Date Sampled: June 27, 2022 Date Tested: July 6, 2022Tested By: Zach Liley Test Results Plastic Limit:19.7 Liquid Limit:26.8 Plasticity Index:7.0 Reviewed By:_________________ A-Line CL ML or OL CH MH or OH CL-ML ML 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Plasticity IndexLiquid Limit PLASTICITY CHART 32 Discovery Drive Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone (406) 582-0221 Fax (406) 582-5770 ATTERBERG LIMITS DETERMINATION (ASTM D-4318) Project: 219 Haggerty LaneProject Number: 22-097Sample Identification: S1-D from 7.0' - 9.0' Soil Classification: Lean CLAY (CL) Date Sampled: June 27, 2022 Date Tested: July 6, 2022Tested By: Zach Liley Test Results Plastic Limit:17.1 Liquid Limit:34.6 Plasticity Index:17.5 Reviewed By:_________________ A-Line CL ML or OL CH MH or OH CL-ML ML 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Plasticity IndexLiquid Limit PLASTICITY CHART 32 Discovery Drive Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone (406) 582-0221 Fax (406) 582-5770 ATTERBERG LIMITS DETERMINATION (ASTM D-4318) Project: 219 Haggerty LaneProject Number: 22-097Sample Identification: S2-F from 12.0' - 14.0' Soil Classification: Fat CLAY (CH) Date Sampled: June 28, 2022 Date Tested: July 6, 2022Tested By: Zach Liley Test Results Plastic Limit:25.4 Liquid Limit:50.9 Plasticity Index:25.5 Reviewed By:_________________ A-Line CL ML or OL CH MH or OH CL-ML ML 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Plasticity IndexLiquid Limit PLASTICITY CHART 32 Discovery Drive Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone (406) 582-0221 Fax (406) 582-5770 ATTERBERG LIMITS DETERMINATION (ASTM D4318) Project: 219 Haggerty Lane Project Number: 22-097.01 Sample Identification: S1-D at 8.0' Soil Classification: Lean Clay (CL) Date Sampled: 12/16/2025 Date Tested: 1/14/2026Tested By: JSH Test Results Plastic Limit:26.1 Liquid Limit:46.2 Plasticity Index:20.2 Reviewed By:_________________ A-Line CL ML or OL CH MH or OH CL-ML ML 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Plasticity IndexLiquid Limit PLASTICITY CHART 32 Discovery Drive Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone (406) 582-0221 Fax (406) 582-5770 APPENDIX C LLiimmiittaattiioonnss ooff YYoouurr GGeeootteecchhnniiccaall RReeppoorrtt LIMITATIONS OF YOUR GEOTECHNICAL REPORT GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS ARE PROJECT AND CLIENT SPECIFIC Geotechnical investigations, analyses, and recommendations are project and client specific. Each project and each client have individual criterion for risk, purpose, and cost of evaluation that are considered in the development of scope of geotechnical investigations, analyses and recommendations. For example, slight changes to building types or use may alter the applicability of a particular foundation type, as can a particular client’s aversion or acceptance of risk. Also, additional risk is often created by scope‐of service limitations imposed by the client and a report prepared for a particular client (say a construction contractor) may not be applicable or adequate for another client (say an architect, owner, or developer for example), and vice‐versa. No one should apply a geotechnical report for any purpose other than that originally contemplated without first conferring with the consulting geotechnical engineer. Geotechnical reports should be made available to contractors and professionals for information on factual data only and not as a warranty of subsurface conditions, such as those interpreted in the exploration logs and discussed in the report. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE Geotechnical conditions may be affected as a result of natural processes or human activity. Geotechnical reports are based on conditions that existed at the time of subsurface exploration. Construction operations such as cuts, fills, or drains in the vicinity of the site and natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations may affect subsurface conditions and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical report. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING IS NOT AN EXACT SCIENCE The site exploration and sampling process interprets subsurface conditions using drill action, soil sampling, resistance to excavation, and other subjective observations at discrete points on the surface and in the subsurface. The data is then interpreted by the engineer, who applies professional judgment to render an opinion about over‐all subsurface conditions. Actual conditions in areas not sampled or observed may differ from those predicted in your report. Retaining your consultant to advise you during the design process, review plans and specifications, and then to observe subsurface construction operations can minimize the risks associated with the uncertainties associated with such interpretations. The conclusions described in your geotechnical report are preliminary because they must be based on the assumption that conditions revealed through selective exploration and sampling are indicative of actual Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582‐0221 Page 2 Final explorations logs developed by the consultant are based upon interpretation of field logs (assembled by site personnel), field test results, and laboratory and/or office evaluation of field samples and data. Only final exploration logs and data are customarily included in geotechnical reports. These final logs should not be redrawn for inclusion in Architectural or other design drawings, because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process. To reduce the likelihood of exploration log misinterpretation, contractors should be given ready access to the complete geotechnical report and should be advised of its limitations and purpose. While a contractor may gain important knowledge from a report prepared for another party, the contractor should discuss the report with Allied Engineering and perform the additional or alternative work believed necessary to obtain the data specifically appropriate for construction cost estimating purposes. OWNERSHIP OF RISK AND STANDARD OF CARE Because geotechnical engineering is much less exact than other design disciplines, there is more risk associated with geotechnical parameters than with most other design issues. Given the hidden and variable character of natural soils and geologic hazards, this risk is impossible to eliminate with any amount of study and exploration. Appropriate geotechnical exploration, analysis, and recommendations can identify and reduce these risks. However, assuming an appropriate geotechnical evaluation, the remaining risk of unknown soil conditions and other geo‐hazards typically belongs to the owner of a project unless specifically transferred to another party such as a contractor, insurance company, or engineer. The geotechnical engineer’s duty is to provide professional services in accordance with their stated scope and consistent with the standard of practice at the present time and in the subject geographic area. It is not to provide insurance against geo‐hazards or unanticipated soil conditions. The conclusions and recommendations expressed in this report are opinions based our professional judgment and the project parameters as relayed by the client. The conclusions and recommendations assume that site conditions are not substantially different than those exposed by the explorations. If during construction, subsurface conditions different from those encountered in the explorations are observed or appear to be present, Allied Engineering should be advised at once such that we may review those conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. RETENTION OF SOIL SAMPLES Allied Engineering will typically retain soil samples for one month after issuing the geotechnical report. If you would like to hold the samples for a longer period of time, you should make specific arrangements to have the samples held longer or arrange to take charge of the samples yourself. conditions throughout a site. A more complete view of subsurface conditions is often revealed during earthwork; therefore, you should retain your consultant to observe earthwork to confirm conditions and/or to provide revised recommendations if necessary. Allied Engineering cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of the report’s recommendations if another party is retained to observe construction. EXPLORATIONS LOGS SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT