HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 - Design Report - S 19th Improvements - Pavement, Storm, Signal, Lighting MADISON
ENGINEERING
July 19, 2016
Mr. Shawn Kohtz, PE
City Engineering Project Engineer JUL 1
City of Bozeman Engineering Department
20 East Olive
Bozeman, MT 59715
RE: S. 19th Avenue Improvements
Design Plan Revisions
Dear Mr. Kohtz:
Please find attached Madison Engineering's revised design plans and appurtenant information for
the public infrastructure improvements for the S. 19th Avenue. We have attached the following
required items:
0 Response to Review Comments
• Geotechnical Investigation
• Stormwater Design Report
• Signal & Lighting Design
- Turn Bay Design Criteria& Figure
- Signal Design Figures & Calculations
- Lighting Calculations
• 318, 310, 404 Permits
• Design Plans for All Improvements, Four Sets of 24"06", One set of 11 N17"
• Electronic submittal of PDF's on a CD
Please review the attached information and provide comments at your convenience. If you have
any questions or need further information,please feel free to contact us at 586-0262.
Sincerely:
Brianna Baker, EI
Madison Engineering
Cc: Jay Smith, YTI
file
G:\MADISON ENGINEERING\PROJECTS\2015\15-123-YTI\Correspondence\S. 19th Ave City Re-
Submittal.doc
Response to Review Comments
Yellowstone Theological Institute
South 191h Avenue Improvements
Response to Review Comments
General
l. The final plans need to be stamped and signed by a Professional Engineer.
Response: The revised plans are stamped and signed by a Professional Engineer.
2. The written portion of the design report needs to be submitted. Only the calculation section
of the Design Report was received. The report shall also include a maintenance plan and
clearly indicate the maintenance responsibility of the proposed infrastructure (COB vs.
private) and schedules for maintenance. A plan delineating the proposed maintenance
responsibilities shall be included in the maintenance plan and reviewed by the COB
Engineering Department.
Response: A written portion of the design re ort is submitted with this revision
package,which includes a maintenance plan.
3. The previously approved Confluence Report recommends using the results of the rainfall
runoff method for design. This results in a flow of 27.6 cfs. The design calculations use the
results of the Regional Frequency Analysis. The calculations shall use the recommended
analysis or information and justification for not using the recommended analysis shall be
provided. The report also recommends a pipe slope of 0.0114 ft/ft while the plans have a 0.1
ft/ft slope. The approved slope should be used or information and justification for not using
the recommended slope shall be provided.
Response: The design calculations have been adjusted to use the resulting flow of 27.6
cfs from the Rainfall Ru 6ff method to size the culvert crossing at Graf Street. The
previous project propos d to relocate Mandeville Creek to the center of the property.
However the YTI pro' ct proposes to leave Mandeville Creek in its current location,so
only the capacity of the ditch needs to be taken into consideration as the land slopes
away from South 19th towards the center of the property. Any additional flow will
overtop the bank.
The Mannings Equation was used to analyze the culvert crossing at Graf Street,which
revealed a 24" equivalent culvert to have the capacity of 29.5 cfs. Due to the
importance of this crossing we increased the culvert size to an equivalent 36"diameter
culvert with a capacity of 87.0 cfs to ensure unobstructed flow. This culvert was
analyzed in HY-8 which showed that in a storm event larger than the 25-year occurs
and the flows are high enough to overtop the creek banks,they will flow over the bank
to the east through the lot south of Graf St without overtopping the road. See HY-8
calculations attached.
With regards to the slope of the waterway,the Confluence Report calculates the slope
of the same waterway but at a different location on the site, yielding different pipe
slopes. The proposed design pipe slopes are site-specific, resulting in varying slopes
along the waterway,specifically 0.017 ft/ft on Mandeville Creek and 0.017 ft/ft on the
Mandeville Creek"Arm".
4. Flow measurements justifying the design flow in the "Arm" Culvert should be provided
along with a full analysis of the pipe flow conditions. All information required in the COB
Design Standards Section V.0 shall be included.
i
Response: In order to determine the flow in the"Arm",we first analyzed the full flow
apacity of the channel using the Manning's Equation for a trapezoidal channel. The
capacity was determined to carry 14.1 cfs at full flow. Then,we utilized the original
design of 24" culvert into the Manning's equation for a circular channel, which
resulted in 16 cfs. To be conservative,we are proposing a 30" arch equivalent culvert
for the "Arm",which conveys at full flow 29 cfs.
Cheryl Boylan,the end water user, approved the installation of a 30" arch equivalent
culvert in the Mandeville Creek"Arm". She and her neighbors are granted 200 acre-
inch per year from this arm.
Please see attached storm water report narrative.
5. The Confluence Report indicates the 100-yr floodplain is maintained within the watercourse
setback. With new construction in the setbacks,will the proposed construction encroach on
the 100-yr floodplain?
jResponse: The Confluence Report was based on the relocated Mandeville Cre-1, _ The `y
-Y-Thproject proposes to leave-Mandeville,Creek in its current location. The`100-year
flood plain does not follow the existing Mandeville Creek alignment.
6. Traffic control plans shall be submitted and approved b the COB p pp y Engineering Department
prior to any construction. The COB Engineering Department, Montana Department of
Transportation, and emergency services (Fire and Police Department) shall be provided a
schedule and notified at least 48 hours prior to closure of any roadway.
esponse: This requirement is noted on Sheet C0.1 under Note 1 of the Traffic Control
Section.
7. Documentation of final and recorded right-of-way are required prior to plan and specification
approval.
esponse:We are in the process of subdivision review. A right-of-way will be recorded
with the filing of the final plat. If the road opens before final plat is recorded,we will
provide an easement.
8. A temporary easement is required for the temporary detention pond and will also need to be
recor "ed prior to plan and specification approval.
sponse: The temporary retention pond will be located on its own lot when the final
plat is filed. If the road opens before the final plat is filed,we will provide a temporary
easement for the pond.
9. A design report or geotechnical report is needed for the proposed road section. This report
should include information on site specific soil engineering properties and equivalent single
a le loads (ESALs).
Response: A geotechnical report with the required information is included in this
resubmittal.
10. Approved wetland and stream bank permits shall be provided to the COB Engineering
Department prior to any disturbance of these areas. Do the permits that were received with
the Graf Street improvements project cover this project as well? The plans indicate no
wetlands are to be disturbed; however, the plans show improvements to be placed in
wetlands.
espouse: The permits that were submitted with the Graf Street improvements project
cover this project as well. Copies are included in this submittal. There is minimal
wetland disturbance in this project,and the disturbed areas were mitigated for with the
permits submitted for Graf Street.
Plans
11. Sh bt CO.1 —Note 7 under Grading, Paving, and Drainage should note that an average of
9 /o is required with no test below 92%.
esponse: Note 7 on Sheet C0.1 has been updated as suggested.
12. Sheet,,C2.0—The northbound lane drop taper should be based on the COB Design Standards
Sec {on IV.E.7.
Yresponse:
The taper length is based on MDT standards. See Figure 28.4G of the MDT
ffic Manual, located in the Turn Bay Design Criteria & Figure Section of this
report.
13. Sheet C2.0—The termination of the pedestrian walk with 19t"Avenue shall be adjusted. The
sidewalk directs people across 19"'Avenue where there is no connector.
iponse: The sidewalk has been revised to terminate at the northern Yellowstone
es
Theological Institute property boundary. Signs warning of the dead end sidewalk are
provided on the Signage and Striping Plan, Sheet C2.6.
14. Sheet�°C2.1 —The extents of Graf street construction shall be noted.
esponse: The extents of the S. 19th Ave Widening have been noted on Sheet C2.1.
15. Sheet C2.2 — The taper starting at 25+07 should be based on the COB Design Standards
Section I'�.E.7.
R ponse: The taper length is based on MDT standards. See Figure 28AG of the MST
raffic Manual, located in the Turn Bay Design Criteria & Figure Section of this
report.
16. Sheet C2.2 —The retention pond bottom is below the creek bottom and in an area of high
ground water. The design report and plans need to address high ground water and infiltration
of ground water into the pond. The retention pond is 1.5 feet deep with 3.5 feet of free board
making it possible-for five feet of water to pond during a large storm. The design report and
plans need to address the soil's ability to percolate water or provide a spill way such that the
maximum water height in the pond is 1.5 feet. The pond depth may be as indicated if fenced
per COB Design Standards and Specifications Policy II.C.2.
Res ouse: The temporary retention pond is now above groundwater level.The pond is
' deep with a maximum freeboard of 1'. In a storm event larger than the design
capacity of the pond, the excess water will drain north into the existing ditch.
17. Sheet C2.6,�t'Existing signs should be noted on the Signage Plan.
Respo se. The existing signs are being replaced with new signage,and they have been
not on the Signage Plan & Striping Plan, Sheet C2.6.
18. Sheet C2.6—The turn symbols and turn lane stripe at station 16+11.03 should be moved 20
fe`t north to the approximate location of the existing arrows.
sponse: The turn lane symbols have been moved to the approximate location of the
existing arrows.
19. She t C2.6—The south bound turn lane shall be a consistent width.
R s use: The striping plan was adjusted so that all lanes are now consistent widths.
20. Sheet C2�' The south bound turn lane conflicts with the north bound interior through lane
at the G f Street Intersection.
R onset The lanes have been adjusted to eliminate this conflict.
21. Sheet C2 6—The city standard Principal Arterial has a seven foot bike/emergency parking
lane. is
lies use: The bike lane/emergency parking lane is seven feet from the outside of the
travel lane to face of the curb (7.5' from travel lane to TBC).
22. Sheet C2.!6—Provide calculations for turn bay lengths.
Response: MDT design criteria was used for the southbound left-turn bay on S. 19th
Avenue. A figure titled "S 19th Avenue at Graf SB Left-turn" is included in this
resubmittal and summarizes the criteria for the turn bay and taper calculations.
23. Sheet C2'.6—The lane width south of Graf Street shall conform with COB standards for an
arterialll(12-foot outer lane width).
response: The outer lane width is now 12 feet.
24. Sheet C2.6 - The dotted line extensions entering the northbound right turn bay are not
advisable and not consistent with typical markings in the area.
Response: The dotted line extensions have been removed from the plan.
25. Sheet C2.6—An analysis shall be provided of the need for a dedicated right turn bay from S.
19"' onto future Graf Street. That analysis shall be provided in the updated design report.
The traffic impact study for the Yellowstone Theological Institute was not clear on this item.
It appears that a right turn bay is needed similar to the intersection of 19"' and Kagy
Boulevard.
Response: Unlike the MDT warrants for right-turn lanes at un-signalized intersections,
there/nocific warrant values for a right-turn lane at a signalized intersection.
Rights are justified when capacity analysis indicates that a separate right-
turn d substantially enhance the intersections level of service or reduce
vehico improve safety. We have attached the design hour traffic volume
exhibacity calculations for the peak am and p design hour conditions that
were used for the signal design. The design hour volumes indicate that the northbound
through and right movements would operate at LOS "C" during the peak am and pm
design hours. The maximum queue in the northbound lanes would be approximately 6
vehicles in the peak pm hour and there are no planned accesses south of the
intersection that could be impacted by queued traffic in the northbound lanes. In
contra t;the Kagy Boulevard intersection was design to accommodate between 300 and
4 A ght turn vehicles during the peak hour. The Graf Street connection to S 11th
would not capture all of the MSU bound traffic because the travel times would be much
slower than using S 19th Ave.
26. Sheet C5.0 —;A four-foot shoulder is required for the transition per the COB Design
Standards Section IV.E.7.
Rfto Zse: A four foot shoulder has been provided.
27. Sheet C5.0;;,4he sidewalk shall be reinforced as required by the COB Design Standards.
Response: The sidewalk will be constructed per the City of Bozeman Standards.
P p Ty
28. Sheet C5.0-,ZA cross section shall be provided for every change in lane configuration.
Resp se: The necessary design information is provided in plan view.
29.)Shet C5.0 —Provide documentation that AASHTO or MDT clear zone requirements are
.
Response: According to the 2011 AASHTO Road side Design Guide, the clear zone
distance for a facility with a design speed of 55mph and ADT in excess of 6000 is
between 22' and 26' from the edge of traveled way. In curbed areas where the edge of
the traveled way is 7.5' from the top back of curb,the clear zone is a minimum of 14.5'
behind the curb. In non-curbed areas where there is a 5.5' asphalt shoulder and a 4'
gravel shoulder, the clear zone is a minimum of 12.5' beyond the gravel shoulder.
Objects located in curbed areas are a minimum of 3' behind the curb.
30. Electrical Sheets — The stationing for the electrical sheets do not match the civil sheets.
/esponse:
ning needs to be updated.
The stationing was not updated,however Madison Engineering will provide
aking for the project so the location of the proposed improvements will not be
confused.
31. Electrical Sheets—Provide lighting calculations for the proposed and future lightning.
Response: Marvin &Associates has provided S 19th Avenue illuminance calculations
for initial and future conditions. The initial conditions would only have lights on the
right side (east) of the roadway with a narrower street sections. The right side of the
road would have an illuminance of 0.6 foot-candles while the left side would have an
illuminance of 0.5 foot-candles. The future conditions would be on a full wide street
with poles staggered on both sides of the roadway. The entire roadway would have an
illuminance of 1.0 foot-candles and an average/minimum ration of 2.0:1.
32. Electrical Sheets—Graf Street was not reviewed.
Response: We acknowledge this comment.
33. Electrical Sheets—Provide details and plans for proposed traffic signals.
Response: Details and plans for the proposed traffic signals are provided in this
resubmittal.
Geotechnical Investigation
Civil Engineering • Land Surveying • Geotechnical Engineering • Construction Services
AM" WM
_ Corporate Office North Dakota Office
ALLIEf� 32 Discovery Drive 299 Prairie Drive
ENGINEERING ;f Bozeman,Montana 59718 P.O.Box 1251
SERVICES,INC. }� Ph: (406)582-0221
Stanley,North Dakota 58784
0"erseP(6)e0S Fax: (406)582-5770 Ph: (701)628-0221
June 29, 2016
Chris Budeski
Madison Engineering
895 Technology Blvd.,Suite 203
Bozeman, MT 59718
Re: Pavement Section Design Report
S. 19`h Ave.Widening—Bozeman,MT
Dear Mr. Budeski:
This letter and attachments serve as our pavement section design report for S. 191h Avenue widening
work that will be completed as part of the Yellowstone Theological Institute (YTI) project. The purpose
of this report is to back check the design pavement section that is shown on the plans to ensure that it is
sufficient for the site's subsurface conditions and projected traffic loading; and to provide any additional
pavement section recommendations if deemed necessary.
SITE LOCATION
The project site lies on the east side of S. 19th Ave. and extends from the south access into Grace Bible
Church to approximately 600 feet south of the Graf Street intersection. The project length is 2,600 If.
PROPOSED ROADWORK
The project will generally consist of constructing two new, northbound lanes to the east of the existing
road edge. The double lane configuration will taper back and connect to the existing single northbound
lane near Grace Bible Church and to the south of Graf Street. The width of the new improvements
varies due to the tapers, but it is nearly 30 feet wide along much of the project length. The south end of
the existing northbound lane will be re-striped and converted to a left turn lane onto Graf Street; while
the north part of the existing northbound lane will re-striped and serve as a protected gore area.
ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC
According to the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for the YTI project that was prepared and issued by Marvin &
Associates on September 30, 2015, the existing average weekday traffic (ADT) in 2015 on the section of
S. 19th Avenue between Stucky Road and Graf Street is 8,550. In talking with Mr. Marvin, the projected
ADT in 2036 is 17,600. This computes to an average ADT of 13,075 for the next 20 years. Directional
traffic is assumed to be split evenly resulting in an estimated 6,537 weekday trips in the north and south
directions. Mr. Marvin indicated 2% heavy truck traffic is a good estimate for this area of Bozeman.
www.alliedengineering.com
Chris Budeski Pavement Section Design Report
June 29,2016 S. 19`h Ave.Widening—Bozeman,MT
SUBGRADE CONDITIONS
The native soil profile along S. 19"' Avenue generally consists of about one-foot of organic topsoil that
overlies brown silt/clay. These fine-grained soils extend to depths of 3.0 to 5.0 feet and blanket alluvial
sandy gravel. The upper part of the silt/clay will be moist, but it will become very moist to overly moist
with increasing depth and within a foot or two of the native gravel surface. This soil summary is based
on our previous geotechnical work in the area, specifically for the proposed extension of Graf Street and
for the Genesis Business Park site development.
Based on the site location and the existing and proposed underground utility improvements in the north
bound ditch line along S. 19th Avenue, we do not expect that native, in-place soils will provide the
subgrade support for the new pavement section in very much of the area to be widened. Instead, the
west part of the section will be supported on the existing S. 191h Avenue roadbed/side slope materials,
the middle part of the section will be supported on trench backfill for the proposed sewer main, and the
east part of the section will be supported on trench backfill for the existing water main. Due to this
construction activity,subgrade soils will likely consist of some mixture of silt/clay and sandy gravel.
For the purpose of our pavement section evaluation, we assumed silt/clay subgrade soils, which results
in the use of a lower CBR value for pavement design. However in reality, some portion of the subgrade
will undoubtedly consist of a more gravelly material, whether it be silt/clay with intermixed gravel or
cleaner sandy gravel (assuming the lower parts of the water and sewer trenches were/will be backfilled
with silt/clay thereby leaving the alluvial sandy gravel for backfilling the upper portion of the trenches).
During installation of the sewer main on S. 19th Avenue, which will be occurring in the next few weeks,
we will observe the trench profile and verify the suspected subgrade conditions. Since we are assuming
the worst case condition for subgrade (pure silt/clay with no intermixed gravels), we do not expect that
any pavement section design modifications will be required based on our on-site observations.
DESIGN PAVEMENT SECTION
Provided in Table 1 is the design pavement section that is shown on Madison Engineering's construction
plans for the project. For the purpose of our evaluation,we identified this as Option 1.
Table 1. Pavement Section Design - S.19`h Ave. Widening - Option 1 - Stable Subgrade
COMPONENT COMPACTED THICKNESS(IN)
Asphalt Concrete: 5
Base Course Crushed(road mix)Gravel: 6
Sub-Base Course-Uncrushed Sandy(pitrun)Gravel: 18
---------------
8 oz. Non-Woven Geotextile Fabric (Mirafi 180N or Approved Equal): Yes
Stable Subgrade Soils (Less Topsoil): Compacted to 95%
TOTAL SECTION THICKNESS: 29
Note: 1) Option 1 is applicable for stable subgrade situations. We expect stable subgrade soils in most areas of the site.
2) For unstable areas that rut/pump/deflect,add Tensar TX-190L geogrid reinforcement above the non-woven fabric.
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 2
Chris Budeski Pavement Section Design Report
June 29,2016 S. 19`h Ave.Widening—Bozeman,MT
EVALUATION OF DESIGN PAVEMENT SECTION—OPTION 1
See our attached spreadsheet for our design calculations for the design pavement section (Option 1).
Based on our analysis,this section thickness will be suitable for a total traffic loading of 1,100,000 ESALs.
Our evaluation assumed a silt/clay subgrade with a CBR of 2.5, a 90% reliability level, the appropriate
structural coefficients for the asphalt, base course, and sub-base gravel layers (per MDT standards), and
a more conservative estimate for the drainage coefficients for the two gravel layers. An explanation of
our design input parameters is included at the end of this letter.
Based on the traffic projections, the northbound lane(s) will be impacted by an estimated average of
6,537 weekday trips over the next 20-year period. Of these trips, 98% is assumed to be lighter vehicles
(cars, vans, pickups, and buses), while 2% is assumed to be heavier trucks (delivery and gravel trucks).
This amounts to 6,406 lighter vehicles and 131 heavier trucks per day. Over a 20-year period,this week-
day traffic volume would total an estimated 33,311,200 lighter vehicles and 681,200 heavier trucks. For
the purpose of our analysis, we negated weekend traffic (on Saturday/Sunday) because it will primarily
consist of a smaller volume of lighter vehicles (with far fewer trucks). As shown below, the light vehicle
traffic is not a significant part of the ESAL calculation.
Provided below is a summary of our ESAL calculations. For more details, please refer to the attached
explanation of design input parameters:
• Lighter Vehicles: 33,311,200 @ 0.005 ESALs/trip= 166,556
• Heavy Trucks: 681,200 @ 1.4 ESALs/trip= 953,680
TOTAL ESALs: 1,120,236
Note: The 1.4 ESALs/trip for trucks is a high average. This ESAL value is more representative of semi-
trucks, gravel trucks, and garage trucks. Assuming a large number of trucks will be smaller and lighter
weight, delivery trucks,the actual average ESAL value per truck should be lower than 1.4.
Based on our ESAL estimates (compared to the 1,100,000 ESALs the pavement section is designed for),
the design pavement section (Option 1) will just meet the 20-year service life requirement for new
asphalt projects in Bozeman. As a result, this section will be suitable for use on this widening project
(especially given that the south end of 19`h Avenue will eventually have a final configuration of two
northbound and two southbound lanes thereby lessening the ESAL loading on each of the lanes).
However, as shown above, since the design ESAL and projected ESAL totals are essentially identical, the
design section does not contain much for conservancy from a traffic loading perspective. Depending on
the growth and land use on the south side of Bozeman, traffic loading could change considerably over
the next 20 years and may or may not exceed the projections.
For this reason, spMe onsider-a-ion_should be given to increasing either the base course gravel section
or- sub base..gravel--sectiomcomp-onen.ts_b-y a few incfies Each of these minor desigri_moclifications
_.
will result in a section that can withstand a higher ESAL loading that is on the order of 50% higher than
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 3
Chris Budeski Pavement Section Design Report
June 29,2016 S. 19`h Ave.Widening—Bozeman,MT
the 1,100,000 value. Design section Option 2 and Option 3 are equivalent sections and both could carry
1,600,000 ESALs. Option 2 includes increasing the base course thickness from 6 inches to 8 inches, while
Option 3 includes increasing the sub-base course thickness from 18 inches to 21 inches. According to as-
builts for the Meadow Creek Subdivision, the Option 2 section would match the pavement section that
was installed for the right turn lane at the S. 19'h Avenue and Graf Street intersection and for the road
widening that occurred south of this intersection.
PAVEMENT SECTION DESIGN—OPTION 2 AND 3
Provided in Table 2 and 3 (below)are the pavement section designs for Option 2 and 3. Our calculations
and an explanation of the design input parameters are attached at the end of this letter.
Table 2. Pavement Section Design — S,19"'Ave. Widening — Option 2 — Stable Subgrade
COMPONENT COMPACTED THICKNESS(IN)
Asphalt Concrete: 5
Base Course-Crushed(road mix)Gravel: 8
Sub-Base Course-Uncrushed Sandy(pitrun)Gravel: 18
8 oz.Non-Woven Geotextile Fabric (Mirafi 18ON or Approved Equal) Yes
Stable Subgrade Soils (Less Topsoil): Compacted to 95%
TOTAL SECTION THICKNESS: 31
Note: 1) Option 2 is applicable for stable subgrade situations. We expect stable subgrade soils in most areas of the site.
2) For unstable areas that rut/pump/deflect,add Tensar TX-190L geogrid reinforcement above the non-woven fabric.
Table 3. Pavement Section Design — S.19'h Ave. Widening — Option 3 — Stable Subgrade
COMPONENT COMPACTED THICKNESS(IN)
Asphalt Concrete: 5
Base Course-Crushed(road mix)Gravel: 6
Sub-Base Course-Uncrushed Sandy(pitrun)Gravel: 21
8 oz.Non-Woven Geotextile Fabric (Mirafi 18ON or Approved Equal): Yes
Stable Subgrade Soils (Less Topsoil): Compacted to 95%
TOTAL SECTION THICKNESS: 32
Note: 1) Option 3 is applicable for stable subgrade situations. We expect stable Subgrade soils in most areas of the site.
2) For unstable areas that rut/pump/deflect,add Tensar TX-190L geogrid reinforcement above the non-woven fabric.
CONCLUSIONS
Provided below is a summary of our analysis:
• The design pavement section that is shown on the project plans(5" asphalt, 6" base course, and
18" sub-base course) can handle 1,100,000 ESALs of traffic. This section is identified as Option 1
and assumes a CBR of 2.5 for silt/clay Subgrade soils.
-----------
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 4
Chris Budeski Pavement Section Design Report
June 29, 2016 S. 19`t'Ave.Widening—Bozeman, MT
• Based on traffic projections, the estimated ESAL loading that will impact the northbound section
of S. 191h Ave. between Stucky Road and Graf Street over the next 20 years is 1,120,236 ESALs.
The "driving factor" for this ESAL value is truck traffic. For this ESAL calculation, the percentage
of trucks(2%)and the number of ESALs/truck trip(1.4) are both conservative estimates.
• Based on the design ESALs and the projected ESALs being nearly identical, the design pavement
section (Option 1)is suitable for use on the project.
• As more development occurs on the east side of S. 19`h Avenue in the coming years, the double
northbound lane configuration will be expanded and be more continuous (up to the Kagy Blvd.
intersection). This will cause northbound traffic to be more evenly split between the two lanes,
which will lessen the ESAL impact on each of the lanes and extend the asphalt life.
• The most recent road improvements along S. 19`h Ave. occurred at and south of the Graf Street
intersection in the mid-2000's. This work, which was completed as part of the Meadow Creek
Subdivision, included the installation of a right turn lane and the construction of a second south-
bound lane to the south of the intersection. According to as-builts, the pavement section that
was used for these improvements included 5"asphalt, 8" base course, and 18"sub-base course.
• Two additional pavement section options (besides design Option 1) were evaluated as part of
our analysis. These included Option 2 (5" asphalt/8" base course/18"sub-base)and Option 3
(5" asphalt/6" base course/21" sub-base). Both of these sections are equivalent and are able
to handle up to 1,600,000 ESALs(which is a 50%increase above the Option 1 design section).
• Given that nearby areas of previous S. 19'h Avenue expansion work have utilized Option 2,some
consideration should be given to increasing the design section (Option 1) to either Option 2 or
Option 3 for this project. By doing this there would be more conservancy with regards to future
traffic loading; and the new section would be an equivalent to the section of S. 191h Avenue that
was most recently expanded. Based on our calculations, an increase in the pavement section
thickness to either Option 2 o 3 is not required,but it would be a good idea to at least consider.
If you have any questions about this report or need any other additional information, please give me a
call at 1-406-582-0221.
Sincerely, .•'0sTAA, .
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. • ' ' • . '"�
LEE SCOTT
Lee S. Evans, PE EVRNSCr
13 - 14420PE Lu ;
Geotechnical Engineer
0i9l. ENS
enc: Pavement Section Design for Option 1, 2, and 3 ...
Explanation of Pavement Section Design Input Parameters
Allied Engineering Services,Inc. Page 5
PAVEMENT SECTION DESIGN - S. 19th Ave. - Option 1
(Note: The Option 1 design is applicable for stable subgrade conditions(ie.dry, hard,compacted).
Project: S. 19th Ave. Widening- Bozeman, MTCAProject Number: 16-094 Date: June 29, 2016D Prepared By: Lee Evans EGINEERING
SERVICES,INC. o�J
5
Notes:
Diverse Pcol_"
1) Option 1 is the pavement section design as currently shown on the project plans.
2) See following pages for an Explanation of the Design Input Parameters.
DESIGN INPUT PARAMETERS
ESALs (total) 1,100,000
Subgrade CBR, (%) 2.50
Subgrade Resilient Modulus, MR (psi) 3,750
Reliability, R (%) 90
Standard Normal Deviate, ZR -1.282
Overall Standard Deviation, So 0.45
Initial Serviceability, p,, 4.2
Terminal Serviceability, pt 2.0 DESIGN EQUATION
Design Serviceability Loss, (PSI) 2.2
6.04139 = left side
Required Structural Number, RSN 4.25 6.0373 = right side
(Manipulate RSN such that the left and right side of equation match.)
Asphalt Concrete Layer Coefficient, al 0.41
Base Course Layer Structural Coefficient, az 0.14
Base Course Layer Drainage Coefficient, mz 0.90
Sub-Base Course Layer Structural Coefficient, a3 0.09
Sub-Base Course Layer Drainage Coefficient, m3 0.90
DESIGN PAVEMENT SECTION
Asphalt Concrete Thickness, Dl(in) 5.0
Granular Base Course Thickness, D2 (in) 6.0
Granular Sub-Base Course Thickness, D3 (in) 18.0
Calculated Structural Number, CSN 4.26
(Manipulate layer thicknesses such that CSN matches or exceeds RSN.)
Pavement Section Design: Page 1 of 1
PAVEMENT SECTION DESIGN - S. 19th Ave. - Option 2
(Note: The Option 2 design is applicable for stable subgrade conditions(ie.dry, hard,compacted).
Project: S. 19th Ave. Widening- Bozeman, MT
Project Number: 16-094 f
Date: June 29, 2016
ALLIED
Prepared By: Lee Evans ENGINEERING
SERVICES,INC. o�J
S
Important Notes:
/Verse pro�e��s
1) Option 2 includes increasing the design base course thickness from 6 to 8 inches.
2) See following pages for an Explanation of the Design Input Parameters.
DESIGN INPUT PARAMETERS
ESALs (total) 1,600,000
Subgrade CBR, (%) 2.50
Subgrade Resilient Modulus, MR (psi) 3,750
Reliability, R (%) 90
Standard Normal Deviate, ZR -1.282
Overall Standard Deviation, So 0.45
Initial Serviceability, po 4.2
Terminal Serviceability, pt 2.0 DESIGN EQUATION
Design Serviceability Loss, (PSI) 2.2
6.20412 =left side
Required Structural Number, RSN 4.49 6.2081 = right side
(Manipulate RSN such that the left and right side of equation match.)
Asphalt Concrete Layer Coefficient, al 0.41
Base Course Layer Structural Coefficient, az 0.14
Base Course Layer Drainage Coefficient, mZ 0.90
Sub-Base Course Layer Structural Coefficient, a3 0.09
Sub-Base Course Layer Drainage Coefficient, m3 0.90
DESIGN PAVEMENT SECTION
Asphalt Concrete Thickness, Dl(in) 5.0
Granular Base Course Thickness, DZ(in) 8.0
Granular Sub-Base Course Thickness, D3 (in) 18.0
Calculated Structural Number, CSN 4.52
(Manipulate layer thicknesses such that CSN matches or exceeds RSN.)
Pavement Section Design: Page 1 of 1
PAVEMENT SECTION DESIGN - S. 19th Ave. - Option 3
(Note: The Option 3 design is applicable for stable subgrade conditions (ie.dry,hard,compacted).
Project: S. 19th Ave. Widening- Bozeman, MT ''
Project Number: 16-094
Date: June 29, 2016 ALLIED c Prepared By: Lee Evans ENGINEERING
a
SERVICES,INC.
5
Important Notes:
04'..Probe-'
1) Option 3 includes increasing the design sub-base course thickness from 18 to 21 inches.
2) See following pages for an Explanation of the Design Input Parameters.
DESIGN INPUT PARAMETERS
ESALs (total) 1,600,000
Subgrade CBR, (%) 2.50
Subgrade Resilient Modulus, MR (psi) 3,750
Reliability, R (%) 90
Standard Normal Deviate, ZR -1.282
Overall Standard Deviation, So 0.45
Initial Serviceability, po 4.2
Terminal Serviceability, pt 2.0 DESIGN EQUATION
Design Serviceability Loss, (PSI) 2.2
6.20412 = left side
Required Structural Number, RSN 4.49 6.2081 = right side
(Manipulate RSN such that the left and right side of equation match.)
Asphalt Concrete Layer Coefficient, al 0.41
Base Course Layer Structural Coefficient, a2 0.14
Base Course Layer Drainage Coefficient, m2 0.90
Sub-Base Course Layer Structural Coefficient, a3 0.09
Sub-Base Course Layer Drainage Coefficient, m3 0.90
DESIGN PAVEMENT SECTION
Asphalt Concrete Thickness, Dl(in) 5.0
Granular Base Course Thickness, D2 (in) 6.0
Granular Sub-Base Course Thickness, D3 (in) 21.0
Calculated Structural Number, CSN 4.51
(Manipulate layer thicknesses such that CSN matches or exceeds RSN.)
Pavement Section Design: Page 1 of 1
PAVEMENT SECTION DESIGN - S. 191h Ave.
(EXPLANATION OF DESIGN INPUT PARAMETERS)
Design Life (yr): 20
ESALs (total): 1,100,000/1,600,000
Subgrade CBR, (%): 2.5
Subgrade Resilient Modulus, MR(psi): 3,750
Reliability, R(%): 90
Standard Normal Deviate, ZR: -1.282
Overall Standard Deviation, S°: 0.45
Initial Serviceability, p°: 4.2
Terminal Serviceability, pt: 2.0
Design Serviceability Loss, (PSI) 2.2
Asphalt Concrete Layer Coefficient, al: 0.41
Base Course Layer Structural Coefficient, a2: 0.14
Base Course Layer Drainage Coefficient, m2: 0.90
Sub-Base Course Layer Structural Coefficient, a3: 0.09
Sub-Base Course Layer Drainage Coefficient, m3: 0.90
Design Life: A design life of 20 years is typical for new asphalt projects in Bozeman.
ESALs (total): According to Table 18.12 in Reference 1, the estimated design Equivalent
18,000-lb Single Axle Load (ESAL) value for roadways subjected to light vehicle and
medium truck traffic ranges from 10,000 to 1,000,000. For roads with more traffic and
heavy trucks, the design ESALs will be in excess of 1,000,000. According to the Greater
Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update), S. 191h Avenue is functionally
classified as a "principal arterial` roadway.
In September 2015, Marvin & Associates (M&A) prepared a traffic impact study(TIS)for
the Yellowstone Theological Institute project. A condition of the proposed development
project is the widening of S. 19th Avenue along its east side from generally the south
access into the Grace Bible Church to a little south of the Graf Street intersection.
According to the M&A analysis, the average weekday traffic (ADT) in late 2015 on this
section of S. 19th Avenue is 8,550 (total for both directions). In a conversation with Mr.
Marvin, he stated that the projected ADT in 2036 is 17,600 and that 2% heavy truck
traffic is a good estimate.
Based on the above figures, the average weekday ADT over the next 20-year period will
be 13,075, with half of the traffic going in the northbound and southbound directions,
Explanation of Design Input Parameters: Page 1 of 4
respectively. Of the 6,537 weekday trips (in each direction), 98% (6,406) will be lighter
vehicles such cars, pickup trucks, vans, and school buses, while 2% (131) will be heavier
trucks such as delivery trucks, construction trucks, gravel trucks, and garbage trucks.
The lighter vehicles are classified as Class 1, 2, 3, and 4 vehicles and have equivalent
ESAL values of 0.001, 0.001, 0.007, and 0.257 per trip, respectively. The heavier trucks
will include Class 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 vehicles, which have equivalent ESAL values of 0.391,
0.609, 1.433, 1.462, and 1.419 per trip, respectively.
For the purpose of our ESAL calculations for this project, we assumed the following
items:
• The average ESAL per trip for lighter vehicles is 0.005.
• The average ESAL per trip for heavier trucks is 1.4. This value is likely a little on
the high side given that a portion of the trucks will be lighter, delivery trucks.
• As shown below, the primary vehicles that impact the ESAL projections are the
heavy trucks. Since weekend traffic is a combination of a smaller volume of
lighter vehicles and far fewer heavy trucks, we did not include weekend traffic in
our ESAL calculations (since it is not overly significant).
Based on an average weekday traffic loading of 6,406 lighter vehicles and 131 heavy
trucks per day over the next 20 years, this amounts to 33,311,200 lighter vehicles and
681,200 heavy trucks from 2016 to 2036. Using these traffic estimates and the average
ESALs/trip that are given above,the ESAL projection for the project site is as follows:
• Lighter Vehicles: 33,311,200 @ 0.005 ESALs/trip = 166,556
• Heavy Trucks: 681,200 @ 1.4 ESALs/trip = 953,680
TOTAL ESALs: 1,120,236
For our pavement section evaluation, we considered three options. Option 1 is the
design section as shown on the construction plans and consists of 5" asphalt, 6" base
course, and 18" sub-base. Option 2 was the same as Option 1, but the base course
thickness was increased from 6 to 8 inches. Option 3 was the same as Option 1, but the
sub-base thickness was increased from 18 to 21 inches. Based on our calculations,
which hold all of the design parameters the same except for the varying gravel section
thicknesses, the above options will be suitable for the following design ESALs:
• Option 1: 1,100,000 ESALs
• Option 2: 1,600,000 ESALs
• Option 3: 1,600,000 ESALs
Explanation of Design Input Parameters: Page 2 of 4
Suberade CBR: Very little of the road widening project area will overlie native,
undisturbed soils. The west part of the project width will be within the existing roadbed
embankment of S. 19`h Avenue, the middle part will overlie trench backfill for the new
sewer main, and the east part will overlie trench backfill for the existing water main.
Based on previous experience near the project site, the native soil profile in this area of
Bozeman consists of about 12 inches of topsoil, which overlies 2.0 to 4.0 feet of silt/clay.
Beginning at depths of 3.0 to 5.0 feet is the alluvial sandy gravel deposit that underlies
the entire Gallatin Valley.
Based on the above-construction activity, the soils at subgrade elevations will vary. In
some areas, they will consist of silt/clay, while in others they will be comprised of a
mixture of silt/clay and sandy gravel. Depending how the utility trenches were/will be
backfilled,the near surface soils in the trench excavations could be more gravelly.
For this project, we are assuming the worst case condition and that the subgrade will
predominately consist of silt/clay with very little to no intermixed gravels. Over the
years, we have conducted CBR tests on several samples of the Bozeman-area silt/clay
soils. Typically, the CBRs for these soils ranged from 2.0 to 3.0%. Based on our test
results, we selected a design CBR value of 2.5%.
Suberade Resilient Modulus: For fine-grained soils with a CBR of 10.0 or less, an
accepted correlation between CBR and resilient modulus is MR = 1500 x CBR. Based on
this equation,the design resilient modulus value shall be 3,750 psi.
Reliability: According to Table 2.2 in Reference 2, the recommended reliability level for
collector streets in urban settings ranges from 80 to 95 percent; while principal arterial
streets should be designed with a level of reliability between 80 and 99 percent. We
chose a design reliability level of 90 percent, which is in the middle of the recommended
range for principal arterials.
Standard Normal Deviate: According to Table 4.1 in Reference 2, a 90 percent reliability
value corresponds to a standard normal deviate of—1.282.
Overall Standard Deviation: According to Sections 2.1.3 and 4.3 in Reference 2, a
design value of 0.45 is recommended for flexible pavements.
Initial Serviceability: According to Section 2.2.1 in Reference 2, a design value of 4_2 is
recommended for flexible pavements.
Terminal Serviceability: According to Section 2.2.1 in Reference 2, a design value of 2.0
is suggested for roads that will be subjected to small traffic volumes; while a value of 2.5
or higher should be used when designing major highways. We selected a terminal
serviceability of 2_0.
Explanation of Design Input Parameters: Page 3 of 4
Design Serviceability Loss: This is the difference between the initial and terminal
serviceability. Therefore,the design value shall be 2_2.
Asphalt Concrete Laver Coefficient: According to the table with the revised surfacing
structural coefficients in Reference 4, a design value of 0.41 is recommended for all
asphalt plant mix grades. This value replaces the 0.33 asphalt coefficient that was
provided in Table 3-2 of Reference 3.
Base Course Laver Structural Coefficient: According to the table with the revised
surfacing structural coefficients in Reference 4, a design value of 0.14 is recommended
for new 1.5"-minus, crushed base course gravel. This value replaces the 0.12 crushed
gravel coefficient that was provided in Table 3-2 of Reference 3.
Base Course Laver Drainage Coefficient: According to Table 2.4 in Reference 2, a
coefficient of 0.80 to 1.00 should be used when fair to good drainage is anticipated
within the pavement structure. We assume good drainage for this project (ie. 1.00);
however, in order to be more conservative, a value of 0.90 was selected for the design.
Please be aware that a value of 0.90 is a valid assumption as long as the pavement
section will not be saturated by seasonal high groundwater.
Sub-Base Course Laver Structural Coefficient: We assume that imported, 6"-minus,
uncrushed sandy (pitrun) gravel will be placed for the sub-base section of the roads.
This is the standard product used in the Bozeman area for sub-base. According to
pavement design charts for gravelly soils, we estimated that 6"-minus pitrun will have a
CBR of between 15.0 and 20.0%, which correlates to a structural coefficient of 0.09.
Sub-Base Course Laver Drainage Coefficient: The drainage coefficients for sub-base
and base course layers are typically the same; therefore, we selected a value of 0.90 for
the design. See the base course layer drainage coefficient section for an explanation.
Reference List
1) Traffic and Highway Engineering; Nicholas J. Garber and Lester A. Hoel; 1988.
2) Design of Pavement Structures; AASHTO; 1993.
3) Pavement Design Manual; Montana Department of Transportation; 1991.
4) Pavement Design Memo; Montana Department of Transportation; May 11, 2006.
5) Geotechnical Manual; Montana Department of Transportation;July 2008.
Explanation of Design Input Parameters: Page 4 of 4
Stormwater Design Report
STORMWATER DESIGN REPORT
FOR: -
SOUTH 19TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS
BOZEMAN, MT
Prepared By:
MADISON
ENGINEERING
Madison Engineering
895 Technology Blvd Ste 203
Bozeman, MT 59718
(406) 586-0262
JULY 2016
SOUTH 19"' AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS
STORMWATER DESIGN REPORT
This design report will give an overview of the proposed stormwater system for the proposed S.
19th Avenue Improvements project, which entails widening the east side of S. 19th Avenue.
The widening will require multiple stormwater structures including one (1) temporary retention
pond with 15" storm drain pipe, one (1) double curb inlet, and two (2) culverts. The double curb
inlet is proposed to the south of the Future Arnold St. where the proposed curb and gutter end. It
will capture increased stormwater runoff and transport it to the newly graded retention pond
through storm drain piping. The two culverts will convey Mandeville Creek under Graf Street,
and convey an irrigation "arm" of Mandeville Creek under the proposed sidewalk.
The following references were used in the preparation of this report:
a. COB Design Standards and Specifications Policy,2004. Addendum#5
b. COB Modifications to Montana Public Works Standard Specifications(MPWSS)
c. Bozeman Stormwater Master Plan- 1982
A. Runoff Calculations
This project has one watershed (See sheet SD1.0) that extends south-north from Graf Street to
the northern portion of the property, and east-west from the edge of the widened S 19`h Ave to
the centerline of 19`h. The stormwater runoff will flow from the crown of S 191' Ave to curb and
gutter, which will direct it to the north where it will flow into the double curb inlet and then into
the retention pond.
B. Storm Drain Piping
Storm drain piping from the double curb inlet on S 19`h Ave to the pond was sized to carry the
25-year storm event peak runoff flow. The storm drain pipe is 15" and is directed into the
temporary retention pond discussed in Part D. The storm drain was sized using Manning's
Equation for circular channels to determine the pipes capacity to flow stormwater at specified
grades.
C. Culverts
Two (2) culverts are proposed, one in Mandeville Creek proper under the future Graf St, and one
north of Graf Street in the Mandeville Creek irrigation "Arm". The Mandeville Creek culvert
under Graf St has been sized as a 36" equivalent (26 5/8" x 43 3/4") RCP arch culvert. This
culvert was analyzed in HY-8, which shows that the bank will overflow at approximately 28.7
cfs. The flow in Mandeville Creek for a 25-year storm event is 27.6 cfs. When a stonn event
larger than a 25-year occurs and the flows are high enough to overtop the creek banks, they will
flow over the bank to the east through the lot south of Graf St without overtopping the road. See
HY-8 calculations attached.
The Mandeville Creek"Arm"has been sized a 30" equivalent (22 1/2" x 36 1/4") RCP arch pipe.
In order to analyze this culvert, the flows first needed to be approximated. Using Mannings
South 19th Avenue Improvements
Stormwater Design Report
Page 1 of 2
Equation for a trapezoidal channel, it was determined that at full flow the "arm"has a capacity of
14.1 cfs. Then, using the Mannings Equation for a circular channel, it was determined that a 30"
arch equivalent culvert was suitable, which has a 29 cfs capacity at full flow. Under the
assumption that approximately 50% of the flows from Mandeville Creek enter the "arm", we
used 50% of the Mandeville Creek 2-yr, 25-yr, and 100-yr to insert into HY-8 to analyze the
flow conditions at the "arm." It was determined that at 14.02 cfs the bank will be overtopped, in
which case it will flow to the north and be directed back into Mandeville Creek proper.
D. Stormwater Retention Pond
One (1) retention pond is proposed for this project, which was designed to handle the 10-year
storm event. This pond is considered temporary until the construction of the Yellowstone
Theological Institute when a permanent detention pond will replace the retention pond. The
pond is designed based only on the roadway area that drains to it. The retention pond is sized to
hold 3,124 cubic feet, which is sufficiently larger than its required retention of 2,918 cubic feet.
E. Gutter Flow and Curb Inlets
The curb and gutter extends north of Graf St to the northern YTI property boundary where the
future Arnold St will be. One double curb inlet is proposed in the gutter line on grade at the
termination of the curb and gutter. A 25-year storm event was used to calculate the runoff flows.
The curb and gutter have a capacity of 4.88 cfs, and the double curb inlet can intercept 5.26 cfs,
both of are able to accommodate the 3.24 cfs flow produced by a 25-year storm event.
Appendices
A. Runoff Calculations
B. Storm Drain Calculations
C. Culvert Calculations
D. Retention Pond Calculations
E. Gutter& Inlet Capacity Calculations
G. Sheet SD 1.0 Watershed Exhibit
H. Stormwater Maintenance Plan
South 19th Avenue Improvements
Stormwater Design Report
Page 2 of 2
Runoff Calculations
S. 19th Ave Roadway Improvements
Peak Q Values
Storm Information
Design Rainfall Freq. 10
OF coefficient a 0.64
OF coefficient b 0.00
OF coefficient n 0.65
Adjustment Factor, Cf: 1.1
Peak Q Values for Roadway
Total Area: 1.100 acres
C: 0.90
Average slope: 1.36 Percent
Travel Distance 1184 feet
Total tc: 6.39 minutes
intensity at t� 2.74 in/hr
peak runoff: 2.72 cfs
Q10 = 2.72 cfs
Q25 = 3.24 cfs
Q100 = 4.48 cfs
Page 1 of 1
S. 19th Ave Roadway Improvements
Peak Q Values
Storm Information
Design Rainfall Freq. 25
IDF coefficient a 0.78
OF coefficient b 0.00
OF coefficient n 0.64
Adjustment Factor, Cf-. 1.1
Peak Q Values for Roadway
Total Area: 1.100 acres
C: 0.90
Average slope: 1.36 Percent
Travel Distance 1184 feet
Total tc: 6.39 minutes
intensity at tr 3.27 in/hr
peak runoff: 3.24 cfs
Q10 = 2.72 cfs
Q25 = 3.24 cfs
Q100 = 4.48 cfs
Page 1 of 1
S. 19th Ave Roadway Improvements
Peak Q Values
Storm Information
Design Rainfall Freq. 100
OF coefficient a 1.01
OF coefficient b 0.00
OF coefficient n 0.67
Adjustment Factor, Cf: 1.1
Peak Q Values for Roadway
Total Area: 1.100 acres
C: 0.90
Average slope: 1.36 Percent
Travel Distance 1184 feet
Total t�: 6.39 minutes
intensity at tc 4.53 in/hr
peak runoff: 4.48 cfs
Q10 = 2.72 cfs
Q25 = 3.24 cfs
Q100 = 4.48 cfs
Page 1 of 1
Storm Drain Calculations
tT a N O M h N h M 00 M N (D O M tO 00 O O O 00 (D
Q1 a F O O O r r N N M M 'q Iq N LO LO W) LO (D (D LO U) q
ai O > O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O C II
00
LO
r N O -q N 00 M 00 N (D 0) N et 1` 00 O r N N N r 0 et
rr
O r N N M M 4 ¢t .4 LO LO LO N (D (D (G tD (D (D (O LO
W >
C OO T �--. O O r In 00 r I� V () V V N CO O r (O CO (O
d O (O N V m (O 4 m P- 00 N q (O LO o CO (+')
� O.a O (V LO r 0 (O M V O LO r- O Cl) � (NO O N O V- N
Q 30 0 ((D N N C) OD CN c7 00 0t 0 co� N Cj) 00 o M V V LO LID V
r
E
L
c- `YC° Lric�io_ I� 000_ o Qm q-- coo _ovMo (NoNM
O Z V O m m O N g r- O N LO r- m O O N m
LO Nv Lnr NNNNNmmmN
r
N
`� O O r M (D to M 00 M 00 M O) Lq r lD r LO 0) r N h
O O O O O O r r N N M M Lp N CL) CO (O f� h COi
d
c N
O L= O O N � r r O N 00 w M N r r N 1* M Ct W M
_ O � O O O O O r r N N M d' Lo (D r co M O N t7 r
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r r r r
0V1
LL
V
W
~ = •O CDCF O) M r N h N h M 0) (D M r O r LO lO lO r
$ O Co O r r N N M M st It LO (D r W M O N W N
A C�"' O O O O O o 0 0 06 0 0 0 0 0 0 c- r r N
r+
w m O 00 LO M N g w q N m w N O m w -'r O
O N) r OR O O r r N N N N N r r 0 0 CD r LO O
O O O O r r r r r r r r r r r r r O O O O
O
I—
V Q.
N O d' W N LO W r 'Kt I- M r M W O r N W W r (O r
T cc
N
� a
(Q 01 w+ O W O Q) (O r M 00 r q to M N -'T 00 N r M N to M
Q > '+ d O lO W M r M 't M r W M O N M 'q (D r 0) r M 0)
j E "' O O O O r T T r r r r N N N N N N N M M M
Do
r W a.
CY
II
Q O N CD N r r 00 CD [7 r 0 r 'IT N M W r W O M
O O O r r N r! M '7 LO (D (D r 00 0) 0) O r r N N
O O O CD O O O O O O O O CD O O O r r r r r
Q
LO N to 00 1-
r N 00 r O O
r r 0 0 0 0 0) 0) LO O N M V V cr lO to 07 M a) O M oD
N LO 0'O 0) D O M LO 1- 0) r (M LO r 0) r -4 co O M N
W O O r r r N N N N N M M M (1 M .4 4 L() Ln (D
Z
= II II
O'
W O O >1 O O M M W r W d' O (D M M LO r W d' O W M M LO
Q W U) 'O 'O O O r r N v) Cl d' LO LO O O r O7 00 0) O O r r N
X QI w O O O Cl O C. O O O O Co O O O O O r r r r r
U C -E 0) d II N 0)
a c E E 4 a �
U Q O O c u)
Mandeville Creek Culvert
Calculations
MANDEVILLE CREEK
CIRCULAR CHANNEL A 36"circular equivalent(26 5/8"x 43 314")is proposed
T for Mandeville Creek. The discharge in Mandeville
Manning's Eqn. Q_ 1.486 A R2t3 S72 Creek for a 25-year storm is 27.6 cfs. Please see
_ n _.,
attached memo for calculations.
0
Diameter,do(in)= 36 4-Enter Value
Diameter,do(ft)= 3 THETA
Units= 1.486
n= 0.013
Slope,S(ft/ft) 0.017
Wetted Hydraulic Hydraulic bection Energy,
Area,A Perimeter,P Radius,R Top Width, Depth,D Factor,Z Q(gpd-8 =Vz/2g
Depth,y(ft) Theta(rad) (ft2) (ft) (ft) T(ft) (ft) W12) Q(cfs) Q(gpm) hour day) V(ft/s) (ft)
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00
0.15 0.90 0.13 1.35 0.10 1.31 0.10 0.04 0.4 187.4 89963.3 3.2 0.16
0.30 1.29 0.37 1.93 0.19 1.80 0.20 0.17 1.8 814.9 391128.1 4.9 0.38
0.45 1.69 0.66 2.39 0.28 2.14 0.31 0.37 4.2 1897.2 910654.6 6.4 0.63
0.60 1.85 1.01 2.78 0.36 2.40 0.42 0.65 7.6 3417.9 1640573.8 7.6 0.89
0.75 2.09 1.38 3.14 0.44 2.60 0.53 1.01 11.9 5346.3 2566237.1 8.6 1.15
0.90 2.32 1.78 3.48 0.51 2.75 0.65 1.44 17.0 7643.2 3668730.1 9.5 1.42
1.06 2.53 2.20 3.80 0.58 2.86 0.77 1.94 22.9 10262.4 4925953.4 10.4 1.67
1.20 2.74 2.64 4.11 0.64 2.94 0.90 2.50 29.3 13152.5 6313178.1 11.1 1.91
1.35 2.94 3.09 4.41 0.70 2.98 1.03 3.14 36.2 16256.9 7803326.4 11.7 2.14
1.50 3.14 3.53 4.71 0.75 3.00 1.18 3.84 43.6 19514.7 9367073.1 12.3 2.35
1.65 3.34 3.98 5.01 0.79 2.98 1.33 4.60 50.9 22860.0 10972794.1 12.8 2.54
1.80 3.64 4.43 6.32 0.83 2.94 1.51 5.44 58.4 26221.6 12586352.5 13.2 2.70
1.95 3.76 4.86 5.63 0.86 2.86 1.70 6.34 65.8 29522.2 14170665.9 13.5 2.84
2.10 3.96 5.29 5.95 0.89 2.75 1.92 7.33 72.8 32676.9 15684932.6 13.8 2.95
2.25 4.19 5.69 6.28 0.91 2.60 2.19 8.41 79.3 35590.1 17083249.6 13.9 3.02
2.40 4.43 6.06 6.64 0.91 2.40 2,53 9.63 85.0 381%0 18312007.4 14.0 3.05
2.55 4.69 6.40 7.04 0.91 2.14 2.99 11.07 89.6 40217.5 19304421.5 14.0 3.04
2.70 5.00 6.70 7.49 0.89 1.80 3.72 12.93 92.7 41597.5 19966803.2 13.8 2.97
2.85 5.38 6.94 8.07 0.86 1.31 5.30 15.98 93.4 41937.7 20130112.5 13,5 2.82
3.00 6.28 7.07 9.42 0.75 0.00 1 87.0 39042.7 18740480.41 12.3 2.35
HY-8 Analysis Results
Crossing Summary Table
Culvert Crossing: Mandeville
Headwater Elevation Total Discharge(cfs) Culvert 2 Discharge Roadway Discharge Iterations
(ft) (cfs) (cfs)
980.44 13.40 13.40 0.00 1
980.65 16.09 16.09 0.00 1
980.86 18.78 18.78 0.00 1
981.06 21.47 21.47 0.00 1
981.26 24.16 24.16 0.00 1
981.46 26.85 26.85 0.00 1
981.51 27.60 27.60 0.00 1
981.75 32.23 30.69 1.50 6
981.84 34.92 31.86 3.04 5
981.92 37.61 32.89 4.71 5
981.99 40.30 33.83 6.44
981.60 8.72 28.72 0.00 Overtopping
Mandeville Creek "Arm" Culvert
Calculations
MANDEVILLE CREEK"ARM"
Trapezoidal Shaped Channel
This is used to determine how much water can
be conveyed by this channel.
Q = 1.486/n*A*RA12/3>*SA(1/2)
Units 1.486
Channel Dimension
z 2.8 SIDE SLOPE
b 1 BASE
y 1.20 DEPTH
Manning's Equation
Q 14.12 cfs
n 0.029 ft"
A 5.23 ft2
P 8.14 ft
R 0.64 ft
S 0.005 ft/ft
V 2.70 ft/s
�
43) ui
0
(D r
t,� cu "M
CN C 0 a
(> '2
1) C (L) 0
M (D 70
c 3: CL —70 -L)
a)
. . . . . . . . . . . CO .a) c a � N m m "I 't Lo W) gn W) w (6 C6 ci (i CO CC (,d 6
r-L co
a) a) �o
(1) a) cn M
0 0 C: 0 — a) (D a)
Ccc ca =) cu (D — -
= 70 " W 0 0 (0 m C)) C'4 LO r*- CO 00 " CO CO 'I: P'.� LO
CO cu 0 p L) E E co . . . N of,- 'IT 00 rl- CII 0 — N lq* 0 N
a) � — (D 0 m L" 0 1110- 0 0 — m N Lo m t- 0 m 0 ,T 0 N Zo
(n (D (n CL C 0 — "T 0 m w 0 v 0 Lo (D o — T N N — b —
o E CL o' .0 -0 o o "d, P- — co co N in N .T 0) r-_ CO — fl- t-- 00 0) M 0
D_ 0 > = — Cl C CO f LO CN �T 0 Cl (N 00) N M 0) CD M (O — V)
o " —co (D 0 c 0 Cl) Cl) C) lcr U') CN co �� (0 — (D ::� r- CN (0 — T 0 1— N
M �o co cl) (') CO — —
=3 CNI Cl) Cl)
CL CT C >
o ui m < (D a)
Cl .9
V 0 co E 00 [-- 0) _ (O Lo 0) q CN 0 LO C) CN CN
a) (D CL E
0) a) 0 CL 0 CL CD LO CO 0) (y) M co (0 —
(D J_- CL C� 0) M 0) (0 CO V u) (0 m co N , f_ co CN
> 0 E
C 0 0 C'4 r_ co m 00 't CN co CN 0 N v v co 10 1,
cu :3 r-- >„ N m ,zr U) (0 r- 00 0) — — — — — — —
LL CU '0 — -
— a) LO
0 A-- 7� N
:3 .2 L6 a) 0 2 (D
2 r- -Ln mx ra-)
a) > w q &a o r- w co Iq q Iq 01 (I cl o) ol 0! R
0 m Orrin
a c c 8 4 4 d ,: 0; t- w — A w co w 0 0)
m . (D NNNNMV) N
< < ocnMDU M
N
Iz 4- 0 0 T M r * — M CD a) M N Lo N () m N0
*3 0 a
CO
a) u� c) a) :t q cp cl
U.
<
cl U� �R ti OR a7 T N ',;t CO CO
----A--- o a) o p) c> i,- a) co Lo m o a) In oo a) i o a) o m o
O
cl M CO CO CO P.: f,: r,.: 1': 1'.: CO
CL
cc
< > m o r cn qi cl CO mr --t CR oi r :t 'R 0A c! to OR " P.: oR
w m v v of v to w w w w t,-
tj omcocooWITM0ItW1 W W I- LO to W CIJ
IS C� ci ci vi ,i6644444
M 00 M 0
0wwmmmoww
LC) OR q cl UA ti C) T M IR "': 0) r eg' CO q q
_j
w
z
z
w
aC U)
Cl LQ CR CR q c'! C! (q IR t": OR q c! U)
D a
0)
E E am m *E 0
B 5 5 c Fn
HY-8 Analysis Results
Crossing Summary Table
Culvert Crossing: Mandeville Arm
Headwater Elevation Total Discharge(cfs) Culvert 2 Discharge Roadway Discharge Iterations
(ft) (cfs) (cfs)
966.12 5.00 5.00 0.00 1
966.43 6.56 6.56 0.00 1
966.74 8.12 8.12 0.00 1
967.05 9.69 9.69 0.00 1
967.35 11.25 11.25 0.00 1
967.59 12.50 12.50 0.00 1
967.85 14.37 12.51 1.85 5
967.99 15.93 11.05 4.85
968.11 17.50 9.28 8.25
968.23 19.06 7.09 12.06 5
968.37 20.62 611 14.62 5
967.70 114.02 114.02 10.00 lovertopping
Retention Pond Calculations
S 19th AVE
TEMPORARY STORMWATER RETENTION BASIN CALCULATIONS
Calculation of Required Volume for Storm Detention Pond
(Reference: Bozeman Stormwater Master Plan-1982)
Design Rainfall Freq. 10 year(see page III-5 of master plan)
IDF coefficient a 0.64
IDF coefficient b
IDF coefficient n 0.65
Post-development Calculations
C
Areas(ft): open space 0.20
med.res. 0.35
dense res. 0.50
comm.neigh. 0.60
comm.down. 0.80
industrial 48,100 0.90 (asphalt)
Total: 48,100
total area: 1.10 acres
composite C: 0.90
Retention Pond Calculations
Q=CIA
C= 0.90 (post-development)
1= 0.41 in/hr(10-yr,2-hr storm)
A= 1.10 acres
Q= 0.41 cfs
required retention storage(ft)= 2,934 fe
design depth 1.50 feet
length/width ratio 1.00
pond dimensions assuming vertical side slopes
(actual pond footprint will be larger)
width 44
length 44
Volume held between contours:
Cumulative
Contour Area(ft) Delta V(ft) Volume(ft)
4962.00 1,495
4963.0 2,270 1,883 1,883
4963.5 2,695 1,241 3,124
Design storage at 1.5'depth(ft)= 3,124
Design Storage>Required Retention
Retention pond-10 yr.xls
OF Equations from Bozeman Stormwater Master Plan for City of Bozeman, March 1982
general equation: i = a/(b+D)"where D is duration in hours, i = intensity in inches/hour
Rainfall Frequency
(years) a b n
2 0.36 0.00 0.60
5 0.52 0.00 0.64
10 0.64 0.00 0.65
25 0.78 0.00 0.64
50 0.92 0.00 0.66
100 1.01 0.00 0.67
Duration (min) (hrs) 12-yr 15-yr 11O-yr 125-yr 150-yr 1100-yr
5 0.08 1.60 2.55 3.22 3.83 4.74 5.34
10 0.17 1.05 1.64 2.05 2.46 3.00 3.35
15 0.25 0.83 1.26 1.58 1.89 2.30 2.56
20 0.33 0.70 1.05 1.31 1.58 1.90 2.11
25 0.42 0.61 0.91 1.13 1.37 1.64 1.82
30 0.50 0.55 0.81 1.00 1.22 1.45 1.61
35 0.58 0.50 0.73 0.91 1.10 1.31 1.45
40 0.67 0.46 0.67 0.83 1.01 1.20 1.33
45 0.75 0.43 0.63 0.77 0.94 1.11 1.22
50 0.83 0.40 0.58 0.72 0.88 1.04 1.14
55 0.92 0.38 0.55 0.68 0.82 0.97 1.07
60 1.00 0.36 0.52 0.64 0.78 0.92 1.01
120 2.00 0.24 0.33 0.41 0.50 0.58 0.63
Gutter & Inlet Capacity Calculations
S. 19th Ave
Gutter Capacity Calculations
04.25.16
r vable Pavement Encroachment
Given: T= 9 feet(max per city)
T W= 1.5 feet
W--Ts Ts= 7.5 feet
SW= 0.08 ft/ft
Sx= 0.03 ft/ft
4• a= 0.96 inches
o. s. d= 3.24 inches
d n = 0.015
So= 0.0136 S. 19th Ave
S.
a
Sw/Sx= 2.67
T/W= 6
Capacity for Gutter
equations:
Q—Q, +QS Where:
QW =E Q Qs= Discharge within the Roadway
above the depressed section(cfs)
__ QS Qw= Discharge within the depressed
Q I—EO (gutter)section (cfs)
Cf= 0.56 for English units
oS =Cf_ SX3T53SO Sx= Pavement cross slope(ft/ft)
n Ts= Width of flow in the roadway above
depressed section
So= Gutter longitudinal slope(ft/ft)
Sw/SX Sw= Gutter depression cross slope(ft/ft)
E = l+ 8/3 T= Spread (ft/ft)
l+ Sw/SX —1
(T/W)—I W= Width of gutter depression (ft/ft)
Capacity solution
S. 19th Ave
So= 0.0136
Qs= 2.72 cfs
Eo= 0.44 cfs
Q= 4.88 cfs
Design Flow
Q10= 2.72 cfs
Q25= 3.24 cfs Design Flow<Capacity OK
Q100= 4.48 cfs
Summary
The gutter capacity is well above the calculated peak flows. Therefore,
the pavement encroachment will be less than the allowable(9-feet) by the City of Bozeman.
Page 1 of 1
S 19th Avenue-
Inlet Capacity Calculations ON GRADE
Gutter Section
Given: T= 9 feet
T W= 1.5 feet
w T9 Ts= 7.5 feet
Sw= 0.05 ft/ft
Sx= 0.03 ft/ft
o. a= 0.96 inches
o. s. d= 3.24 inches
d n= 0.015
So= 0.0136
s.
From Gutter Capacity
Inlet#1 Qw= 2.17 cfs
Qs= 2.72 cfs
Capacity for Inlets on Grade
Cross-sectional area of flow
A= 1.22 ft2
Gutter Velocity
V= 4.02 ft/sec
Fraction of side flow intercepted
Rs= 0.170
Total flow capacity intercepted by the inlet
Clint= 2.63 cfs
Qbybass= 2.26 cfs
Design Q
Q25= 3.24 cfs
Double Inlet proposed. Q_int=2.63cfs*2=5.26 cfs. Capacity OK.
Page 1 of 1
Watershed Exhibit
Q
}
m
Z
3
a
0
N
Z
O
SCAie
1 inch= 401-1
O
i (�I��I \�\\\\;\ \\\ I I � I I I ❑ I I Na�mb tt
I I I III I \\�\p\\\\\ \ \ L
!I IIIIIII \� 'RETENTION POND
DRAWN BY:RFC
REVIEWED BY:CCB
PROJECT ENGINEER:RFC
I a----STORM DRAIN PIPE � \
I ( DESIGNED BY: RFC
x—
STORM DRAIN INLE7.
%-X_.%_
t h�
_
^ .x i
10 x
.. ,.x� - .
�_---�._ I --d0--�0 d0'---d0— d0 d9--Q—'� -..',D--�0 dD--�d� d0- — —— — ——— — ——4 _ °
1 00---d0--_d0 d0— d �-�0 do
-—— ———— — —— — — — d 0
I
I I I
I1 4 P4 �q
III I I "I �
S 19th IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
I STORMNVATER DRAINAGE
ill II �
GENERAL NOTES: a
• MINI WATERSHED HAS A RUNOFFi
COEFFICIENT OF 0.90 F 4
° No
® x ° 717,
E
FSHEET S
1.0
S.19th.4VGNUE
ROADWAY
REVIEW SET PROJECT; 5-123
Ll"..
I'FORCONSFRCCfl05 3 DATE: 05.03.15
Stormwater Maintenance Plan
STORMWATER MAINTENANCE PLAN
Yellowstone Theological Institute
Project Name File No. 15-123
Owner's responsibility for routine inspection and maintenance
1. Keep the outlet and inlets of the facility free of leaves, rocks, and other debris.
2. The stone water facilities are to be mowed regularly. During the summer,
approximately once every two weeks, the grass is to be mowed and the cuttings are
to be promptly removed and disposed of. Unless visibly tainted, dispose of lawn
clippings in the same manner as yard waste. Otherwise, bag and take to a sanitary
landfill.
3. Remove sediment by hand with a flat bottom shovel during the summer months
whenever sediment covers vegetation. Have the grass cut short in that particular
location so that the bed can be made as level as possible.
5. Re-sod damaged or maintained areas immediately, or use grass plugs from the
adjacent up-slope area.
6. Inspect the facilities periodically, especially after heavy rains (preferably monthly
and after each storm that delivers 0.5 inches of rainfall).
7. Inspect flow control outlet semi-annually. Clean outlet when soil and vegetation
buildup interfere with flow introduction.
9. See that litter and other debris are removed in order to reduce the tendency to
channel when trash accumulates.
10. Owner to maintain and fund Operation and Maintenance of stormwater facilities.
Signed A041
e lowst e Theologic Instrute, C
GWADISON ENGINEERING\PROJECTS\2015\15-123-YTI\Application\Stormwater Maintenance\STORMWATER
MAINTENANCE PLAN.doc
Signal & Lighting Design
-AME�� MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N.Transtech Way Billings,MT 59102
Chris Budeski, P.E.
Madison Engineering
895 Technology Blvd, Suite 203
Bozeman, MT 59718
May 21, 2016
Re: Graf Street&South 19th Avenue Signal & Lighting Design
City of Bozeman Review
I Have attached additional information in response to the City of Bozeman's review of design plans
for the Graf Street & S 19th Avenue signal and street lighting. The following narratives explain the
design rational used:
➢ MDT design criteria should be used for the southbound left-turn bay on South 19th Avenue.
The attached figure summarizes the criteria and calculated bay and taper lengths according
to that criteria.
➢ Unlike the MDT warrants for right-turn lanes at un-signalized intersections, there are no
specific warrant values for a right-turn lane at a signalized intersection. Right-turn lanes are
justified when capacity analysis indicates that a separate right-turn lane would substantially
enhance the intersections level of service and or reduce vehicle queues to improve safety.
We have attached the design hour traffic volume exhibit and capacity calculations for the
peak am and pm design hour conditions that were used for the signal design. The design
hour volumes indicate that would only be between 60 and 65 vehicles turning right from the
northbound traffic movement or approximately one vehicle every 60 seconds. Capacity
calculations indicate that the northbound through and right movements would operate at
LOS"C"during the peak am and pm design hours. The maximum queue in the northbound
lanes would be approximately 6 vehicles in the peak pm hour and there are no planned
accesses south of the intersection that could be impacted by queued traffic in the northbound
lanes. In Contrast, the Kagy Boulevard intersection was designed to accommodate
between 300 and 400 right turning vehicles during the peak hour. The Graf Street
connection to S 11th would not capture all of the MSU bound traffic because the travel times
would be much slower than using S19th Avenue.
➢ We have provided S 19th Avenue illuminance calculations for initial and future conditions.
The initial conditions would only have lights on the east side (east) of the roadway with a
narrower street section. The right side of the road would have an illuminance of 0.6 foot-
candles while the left side would have an illuminance of 0.5 foot-candles. The future
conditions would be on a full wide street with poles staggered on both sides of the roadway.
The entire roadway would have an illuminance of 1.0 foot-candles and an average/minimum
ratio of 2.0:1.
Robert R. Marvin, P.E., P.T.O.E.
Mailing Address:P.O.Box 80785 Billings,MT 59108-0785 Phone: 406-655-4550 FAX: 406-655-4991
Page 1
Turn Bay Design Criteria & Figure
kO r
Vl r- .0
a n oo
IL i
h m
• E„
� cr ai
J
� � m
� a �
� F-
s Q � IN
CL
E vi cu
LM w O
s 40
°'
0 4�
o =
.s w >
a � a Q
E v
w •, C
a a V
a 414
.� r- COco
a
NOct 0
V N
c r
a N U. c N
c
V � O Im
IM.�
W
CL W a
G a ,0
�- o
• N � Y
Kagy Blvd
93% l
t
Ole
............... ............ .....
1 / } M
80,205 70 l 10 5 5 20 10 70
70 330 > 65� 5 45 12.
25�� / QM 10 a 275 -- �= 310 130 QM <� 240 " " +�+ ..
$raf30 ...__i051052020 20 20I Access Street
t ° l
/110 630 310 90 5 "' 30 15 130;
80 215 145 5 35 11.0 •
15 PM 15 165 PM <— 140 r 125 PM 100
r
30 45 so —, q / 5 15�q / p 47 15 • �., O
iL
35 415 65 50 5 5 10 10 10
r �
f
Year 2036 Traffic Projections
Signal Design Figures & Calculation
HCM Analysis Summary
S 19th&Graf Signal Graf Street/S. 19th Avenue Area Type:Non CBD
R Marvin 02/12/2016 Analysis Duration: 15 mins.
Peak AM 2036 Case: Graf& 19th AM
Lanes Geometry:Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet)
ApproachLane 2 Lane 3 Le 4 Lane 5 Lane 6
- ,�Outbound --Lane-l- an-
EB 2 1 L 12.0 TR 12.0
W
B 2 1 L i 12.0 TR 12.0
NB 3 2 L 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0
S13 1 3 2 L 12.0 i T 12.0 TR 12.0
East West North South
-------------
Data L T R L T R L T R L T R
Movement Volume(vph) 70 25 25 30 10 330 i 25 545 60 270 205 80
PHIF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 OM 0.85 0.85
%Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 4 2
Lane Groups L TR L TR L TR L TR
Arrival Type 3 3 L 3 3 3 3 3 J 3
RTOR Vol(vph) 5 100 5 40
Peds/Hour 5 5 5 5
Grade 0 0 0 0
Buses/Hour 0 0 0 0
-----------
Park-ers/Hour(Leftj Right)
Signal Settings:Actuated Operational Analysis Cycle Length: 80.0 Sec Lost Time Per Cycle:13.0 See
----------
Phase: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ped Only
EB LTP
WB LTP
NB L LTP
SB L LTP LTP
---------------- -------------------------
Green 18.0 8. 3.0 0 14� 0.O 24.0 0
1 Yellow! All Red 3.5 1.5 3.0 0,0 0 3.5 1.5
Capacity Analysis Results Approach:
----------- ......
Lane Ca v/s i g/C Lane V/c Delay Delay
Ratio Ratio Group Ratio LOB h LOS App......... Qroup, -(vp (seclyeh)
------- (sec/v,e
EB
L 155 0.119 0.225 L 0.529 29.0 C 27.4 C
TR 389 0.031 0.225 TR 0.136 24.8 C
WB;
L 301 0.026 1 0.225 L 0.116 24.7 C 38.3 D
TR 357 0.179 0,225 TR 0.793 39.9 D
NB Lper 321 0.000 0.300 25.9 C
Lpro 177 0.016 0.100 L 0.058 14.7 B
TR 1026 0.206 0.300 TR 0.688 26.3 C
S13 Lpq 129 0.000 0.363 9.0 A
553 0.180 0.313 L 0.466 7.7 A„L pro p
TR 1751 0,084 0.512 TR 0.164 10.4 B
Intersection:Delay=22.5sec/veh Int.LOS=C Xc=0.67 Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit--0.56
SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin&Associates Page 1
NETSIM Summary Results
S 19th&Graf Signal Graf Street/S. 19th Avenue
R Marvin 02/12/2016
Peak AM 2036 Case: Graf& l 9th AM
Queues Spillback in
Per Lane Average Worst Lane 205
Lane Avg/Max Speed (% of Peak 80 270
App Group (veh) (mph) Period)
14
EB ' L 2/ 3 6.3 0.0 '' ►
TR 1 / 1 17.7 0.0
330
10
All 10.8 0.0
`► — 3 0
WB ; L 0/ 1 6.7 0.0 ---- ---
TR 3 / 3 195 0.0 - -- A - - - -
70
25
All 18.4 0.0 25 -
NBA L 1 / 2 14.8 0.0
TR 6/ 8 11.2 0.0 +
25 ' 60
- ' 545
All 11.3 0.0 j
SB L 4/ 6 9.9 0.0 - -.
--
i 2 j 3 114
TR --2/ 4� 199 0.0
17 4 2 8 3 0! 14 3 0 23 4
All 16.0 0.0
I
Intersect. 13.8
SIG/Cinema v3.08 Page 2
Marvin&Associates
HCM Analysis Summary
S 19th&Graf Signal Graf Street/S. 19th Avenue Area Type:Non CBD
R Marvin 02/12/2016 Analysis Duration: 15 mins.
Peak PM 2036 Case: GRAF& 19TH PM
Lanes Geometry:Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet)
Approach Outbound Lane I Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6
EB 2 1 L 12.0 TR 12.0
1 WB 2 ] L 12.0 TR 12.0 _-..
NB 3 2 L 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0
SB 3 2 L 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0
East West North South
Data L T R L T R L T R L T R
Movement Volume(vph) 80 15 30 45 15 215 35 415 65 310 ! 630 110
PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 090 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 ' 0.90
%Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 4 2
Lane Groups L TR L TR L TR L TR
-__ p
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
------------
--- -
RTOR Vol(vph) 5 100 IS 40
Peds/Hour 5 5 5 5
%Grade 0 0 0 0
Buses/Hour 0 0 0 0
ParkerslHour(LeftlRight) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
_- -_
Signal Settings:Actuated Operational Analysis Cycle Length 80.0 Sec Lost Time Per Cycle 13.0 Sec
Phase: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ped Only
EB LTP
WB LTP
------- ----
NB L LTP
SB L LTP LTP
Green 18.0 1 8.0 14.0 24.0 0
Yellow All Red 3.5 1.5 3.0 i 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.5 1.5
-- - - -
Capacity Analysis Results Approach
Lane Cap v/s g/C Lane v/c Delay
LODelay
Grou -Ratio Rao Ratio se /veh) LOSp
EB
L 270 0.074 0.225 L 0.330 26.2 1 C 25.7 C
TR 378 0.027 0.225 TR 0.119 24.7 C
WB
L 303 0.037 0.225 L 0.165 25.0 C 26.3 C
* TR 362 0.090 0.225 TR 0.401 26.7 C
N13 Lper 200 0.000 0.300 22.7 C
Lpro 177 0.022 0100 L 0.103 14.8 B
-.. -
* TR 1024 0.152 0.300 TR 0.505 23.3 C
i -
r
SB Lper 204 0.000 0.363 10.6 B
_
* L ro 553 0.194 0.313 L 0,454 6.4 A
TR 1751 0.228 0.512 TR 0.444 12.4 B
Intersection:Delay= 16.4 sec/veh Int.LOS=B Xc 0.52 *Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit=0.44
SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin&Associates Page 1
NETSIM Summary Results
S 19th &Graf Signal Graf Street/S. 19th Avenue
R Marvin 02/12/2016
Peak PM 2036 Case: GRAF& 19TH PM
Queues Spillback in
Per Lane Average Worst Lane
630
Lane Avg/Max Speed (%of Peak
1 10 10
App Group (veh) (mph) Period)
EB L 2/ 3 6.2 0.0
TR 15.1
------- --- ----0.0
215
15
All 10.1 0.0
45
L 0/ 2 8.3 0.0
WB
- -----------
TR 6 18.1 0.0
A A
4i
80
15
All 1733 0.0 30
NB L I 1 12.5 0.0
A
TR 4/ 6 11.2 0.0
35 65
415
All 11.2 0.0
SB L 4/ 7 1 10.2 0.0
------------ �-----
2 3 4
TR 51 8 15.9 0.0
17 4 2 8 3 01: 14 3 O 23 4
4
-T
All 14.5 0.0
Intersect. 13.4
SIG/Cinema v3.08 Page 2
Marvin&Associates
Lighting Calculations
Visual Roadway Lighting Tool - S 19th N Graf Future 6/21/2016
Design Information `
Project Project Title
Number Project Number
Name Your Name
Company Your Company
Roadway Information '
Number Left Lanes 2
Left Lane Width 16 ft
Median Width 12 ft
Number Right Lanes 2
Right Lane Width 16 ft
Calculation Method IES R138-2000
Pavement Reflectance Asphalt-R3
Roadway Classification ' '
Pedestrian Conflict Low
Luminaire Information
Left Side Right Side
Label Road Focus Type 3S 180 I.Label Road Focus Type 3S 180 LED
Catalog Number RFL-180W80LED4K- Catalog Number RFL-180W80LED4K-
T-R3S T-R3S
Photometric File RFL-180W80LED4K- Photometric File RFL-180W80LED4K-
T-R3S T-R3S
(S1410232m).ies (S1410232m).ies
Lamp Lumens Absolute Lamp Lumens Absolute
Light Loss Factor 0.85 Light Loss Factor 0.86
Input Power 174 W Input Power 174 W
Tilt 0° Tilt 0°
Arm Length 10 ft Arm Length 10 ft
Mounting Height 40 ft Mounting Height 40 ft
Setback 4 ft Setback 4 ft
Quantity 3 Quantity 4
Calculation Results-Right Side
Luminance Illuminance
Average 0.7 cd/m2 Average 1.0 fc Lv Ratio 0.2
Max 1.3 cd/m2 Max 2.3 fc STV 2.6
Min 0.3 cd/m2 Min 0.5 fc Spacing 320 ft
Max/Min 4.3 Max/Min 4.6 Length 1000 ft
Avg/Min 2.3 Avg/Min 2.0 Quantity 7
Calculations are based on procedures established by the governing standards body or standard industry practice.Visual computes output performance based
n input data as provided by,and which is the sole responsibility of,the user.Acuity Brands Lighting,Inc.cannot be held responsible for the variations in actual
situations which can effect calculated output.
www.VisualLightingSoftware.com Type 3S 180w LED Roadfocus.RWT
Visual Roadway Lighting Tool -S 19th N Graf Future 6/21/2016
Design Information
Project Project Title
Number Project Number
Name Your Name
Company Your Company
Roadway Information '
Number Left Lanes 2
Left Lane Width 16 ft ' ' IN
Median Width 12 ft
Number Right Lanes 2
Right Lane Width 16 ft
Calculation Method IES RP8-2000
Pavement Reflectance Asphalt-R3
Roadway Classification Major
Pedestrian Conflict Low
Luminaire Information
Left Side Right Side
Label Road Focus Type 3S 180 LLabel Road Focus Type 3S 180 LED
Catalog Number RFL-180W80LED4K- Catalog Number RFL-180W80LED4K-
T-R3S T-R3S
Photometric File RFL-180W80LED4K- Photometric File RFL-180W80LED4K-
T-R3S T-R3S
(S1410232m).ies (S1410232m).ies
Lamp Lumens Absolute Lamp Lumens Absolute
Light Loss Factor 0.85 Light Loss Factor 0.85
Input Power 174 W Input Power 174 W
Tilt 0° Tilt 00
Arm Length 10 ft Arm Length 10 ft
Mounting Height 40 ft Mounting Height 40 ft
Setback 4 ft Setback 4 ft
Quantity 3 Quantity 4
Calculation Results-Left Side
Luminance Illuminance
Average 0.7 cd/m2 Average 1.0 fc Lv Ratio 0.2
Max 1.3 cd/m2 Max 2.3 fc STV 2.6
Min 0.3 cd/m2 Min 0.5 fc Spacing 320 ft
Max/Min 4.3 Max/Min 4.6 Length 1000 ft
Avg/Min 2.3 Avg/Min 2.0 Quantity 7
Calculations are based on procedures established by the governing standards body or standard industry practice.Visual computes output performance based
�n input data as provided by,and which is the sole responsibility of,the user.Acuity Brands Lighting,Inc.cannot be held responsible for the variations in actual
situations which can effect calculated output.
www.VisualLightingSoftware.com Type 3S 180w LED Roadfocus.RWT
Visual Roadway Lighting Tool - S 19th N Graf Initial 6/21/2016
Design Information a , • ,
Project Project Title
Number Project Number
Name Your Name
Company Your Company i
Roadway Information
Number Left Lanes 2 0
Left Lane Width 16 ft
Median Width 0 ft ,
Number Right Lanes 2
Right Lane Width 16 ft
Calculation Method IES RP8-2000 '
Pavement Reflectance Asphalt-R3
Roadway Classification Major
Pedestrian Conflict Low ,
Luminaire Information
Right Side
Label Road Focus Type 3S 180 LED
Catalog Number RFL-180W80LED4K-
T-R3S
Photometric File RFL-180W80LED4K-
T-R3S
(S1410232m).ies
Lamp Lumens Absolute
Light Loss Factor 0.86
Input Power 174 W
Tilt 0°
Arm Length 10 ft
Mounting Height 40 ft
Setback 4 ft
Quantity 4
Calculation Results-Right Side
Luminance Illuminance
Average 0.6 cd/ml Average 0.6 fc Lv Ratio 0.3
Max 1.2 cd/mz Max 2.3 fc STV 5.6
Min 0.1 cd/m2 Min 0.0 fc Spacing 320 ft
Max/Min 12.0 Max/Min -- Length 1000 ft
Avg/Min 6.0 Avg/Min -- Quantity 4
Calculations are based on procedures established by the governing standards body or standard industry practice.Visual computes output performance based
in input data as provided by,and which is the sole responsibility of,the user.Acuity Brands Lighting,Inc.cannot be held responsible for the variations in actual
'situations which can effect calculated output.
www.VisualLightingSoftware.com Type 3S 180w LED Initla Roadfocus.RWT
Visual Roadway Lighting Tool -S 19th N Graf Initial 6/21/2016
Design Information
Project Project Title ,
Number Project Number
Name Your Name
Company Your Company i
Roadway Information
Number Left Lanes 2 c
Left Lane Width 16 ft ' ' IN
Median Width 0 ft ,
Number Right Lanes 2
Right Lane Width 16 ft
Calculation Method IES RP8-2000 '
Pavement Reflectance Asphalt-R3
Roadway Classification Major
Pedestrian Conflict Low
Luminaire Information
Right Side
Label Road Focus Type 3S 180 LED
Catalog Number RFL-180W80LED4K-
T-R3S
Photometric File RFL-180W80LED4K-
T-R3S
(S1410232m).ies
Lamp Lumens Absolute
Light Loss Factor 0.85
Input Power 174 W
Tilt 0°
Arm Length 10 ft
Mounting Height 40 ft
Setback 4 ft
Quantity 4
Calculation Results -Left Side
Luminance Illuminance
Average 0.3 cd/ml Average 0.5 fc Lv Ratio 0.4
Max 0.6 cd/m2 Max 1.5 fc STV 4.7
Min 0.0 cd/m2 Min 0.0 fc Spacing 320 ft
Max/Min -- Max/Min -- Length 1000 ft
Avg/Min -- Avg/Min -- Quantity 4
Calculations are based on procedures established by the governing standards body or standard industry practice.Visual computes output performance based
,n input data as provided by,and which is the sole responsibility of,the user.Acuity Brands Lighting,Inc.cannot be held responsible for the variations in actual
situations which can effect calculated output.
www.VisualLightingSoftware.com Type 3S 180w LED Initla Roadfocus.RWT
Permits
Gallatin Est. 1949
Conservation
Development
- = Self Government
3/29/2016
***NOTICE OF APPROVAL FOR 310 PERMIT***
Yellowstone Theological Institute
PO Box 1347
Bozeman,MT 59741
RE: 310 Application GD-012-16 PERENNIAL STREAM: Mandeville Creek
Dear Mr Smith:
In the above-mentioned 310 Application you applied to do the following: Culvert Construction/Road Construction;
Commercial Structure;Other-Trail Construction;Placement of Fill/Removal of Ford
The purpose for your 310 Application was: Yellowstone Theological Institute intends to develop a multi-denominational
theological campus on 80 acres..,the City is requirin-that Graf Street be extended from S 19th to S 3rd as part of plat
approval.Impact 1=1271f-,65".x40"RCP,impact 2=5,If;24"RCP,
A Gallatin Conservation District representative and a representative from Montana Fish Wildlife&Parks inspected the
project site on 3/17/2016.Inspection continents,if any:
The Gallatin Conservation District Board of Supervisors reviewed the above-mentioned 310 Application at their monthly
board meeting on 3/24/2016.
Your project was Approved with Modifications.Modifications are:Provide dewatering plan(provide to CD office),backfill
similarly sized stream material during construction/assembly of culvert segments.
Supervisor's comments,if any:
Waiver of 15-day waiting period granted?False
Please note that your permit will expire on 3/24/2017.
This permit is only for the work specified above. If the scope of the work changes a new permit must be applied for. It is
required to have a copy of this permit on site.
A 310 permit does not give an individual permission to do a project-only to do the project in a specific manner once all
other permits are obtained. All individuals undertaking activities specified in a 310 permit are encouraged to obtain accurate
cost estimates for projects before starting any work.
I have enclosed two copies of Form 273(310 Permit)-one cop is's for your records and the second copy to be
returned-please mark the appropriate box,then sign,date,and return the form to this office
within 15 days. At the completion of your project please fill out the bottom portion of the
permit and return it to this office within 15 days of the completion of your project.
If we have not received the signed permit within the 15-day time period you will be found in violation of the 310 law and
your 310 permit will no longer be valid.
If you have any questions or comments please feel free to contact me at 282-4350 Ext 1.
Sincerely, _
Marcie Murnion DeBuff
District Administrator
Enclosures
Cc Vaughn Environmental,Barbara Vaughn,Bvauehn@oontana.com PO Box 569
— Manhattan,MT 59741
406-282-43.50
www.gallatincd.org
Foii 2"r3(Riw.071U11�31j
3�Q PERMIT Decision Date Application Number
STREAMBED AND LAND PRESERVATION ACE(310 Law)Supervisors'Decision — 1 3/24/2016 GD-012.16
Note: Landowner permission,easements or other federal,state,or local permits,licenses,special use permits,or authorizations may be required before construction
of the project. It is the duty of the holder of this permit to determine which are necessary and obtain them prior to construction of the project
Name of Applicant ( Business Name TAddress
Jay Smith Yellowston Theological Institute _ �PO Box 1347 _
Cit _ State Zips Name of Perennial Stream
Bozeman —�� MT 59741 Mandeville Creek --�
Section Township' Range Supervisor s Decision
24 _ 2S 5E Approved with Modifications
Proposed Abtivi
Culvert Construction/Road Construction/Commercial Structure/Other-Trait Construction/Placement of Fill/Removal of Ford.
Yellowstone Theological Institute intends to develop a multi-denominational theological campus on 80 acres...the City is requiring that
Graf Street be extended from S 19th to S 3rd as part of plat approval.Impact 1=127 If;65"x40"RCP,Impact 2=27 If;24"RCP.
Modifications : -
Provide dewatering plan(to CD office),backfill similarly sized stream material during_constructionlassembly of culvert segments.
Work may not commence on a project for False Waiver of 15- False Recurrent Permit Expiration Date Permit Transmittal Date
15 days after receipt of this decision day Waiting Permit —
unless district has checked the waiver Period 3/2412017 3125/2016
box.
r'
SUPERVISORS'SIGNATURES. , .
......................................(cut here)-----------------------------------------------------------
Applicant must sign and return this portion of the permit within 15 days of completion of all the above approved work.
® The work approved by this permit GD-012 6 has e.n it.
Signature of Applicant: �'~ 04 Date: I 1 q '
---------------------------------------(cut here)..............................---------.....------........
The applicant must agree to abide by the conditions of this permit by checking the appropriate box,signing below,and returning this form
to the district office within 15 days. GD-012-16
[] 1 hereby agree to proceed with the project in accordance with the approved application and will allow follow-up inspection.
❑ 1 understand the project as proposed h�ed y�e���ri�ai5ao Pt_66,
odifications.
❑ I hereby agree to proceed with fhe pro ect ctro d nde t`dhe mo Ai 6 ne`c n ir� and will allow follow-up inspection.
If the applicant disagrees with the supervisors'decision and wis ,es-to formally resolve the dispute, the applicant must check the box below, sign,
and return this form to the district within 5 working days.
❑ I disagree with th 6perviso 'decision and eby rpqoest ar ratioRj
Signature of Applicant: f ^Date: I—J�
Fo,rn 273(R(�v 0'iM 9i)
310 PERMIT Decision Date Application Number
STREAMBED AND LAND PRESERVATION ACE(310 Law)Sup 312412016 GD-01216
Note: Landowner permission,easements cr other federal,state,or local permits,licenses,special use permits,or authorizations may be required before construction
of the project. It is the duly of the holder of this permit to determine which are necessary and obtain them prior to construction of the project
Name Applicant Business of Name Address: _
� (
Jay Smith Yellowston Theological Institute PO Box 1347
City State Zi Name of Perennial Stream
Bozeman MT 59741 Mandeville Creek_
Section Township Range Supervisor's Decision
24 2S 5E Approved with Modifications
Proposed Activi
Culvert Construction/Road Construction/Commercial Structure/Other-Trail Construction/Placement of Fill/Removal of Ford.
Yellowstone Theological Institute intends to develop a multi-denominational theological campus on 80 acres...the City is requiring that
Graf Street be extended from S 19th to S 3rd as part of plat approval.Impact 1=127 If;65"x40"RCP,Impact 2=27 If;24"RCP.
Provide dewatering plan(to CD office),backfill similarly sized stream material during con structionlassembly of culvert segments.
Work may not commence on a project for False Waiver of 15- False Recurrent permit Expiration Date Permit Transmittal Date
15 days after receipt of this decision day Waiting Permit
unless district has checked the waiver Period 3/2412017 312512016
box.
»-`�:SUPERVISflRS';51GNATl7RESmom
--- --------------------------------------(cut here)-----------------------------------------------------------
Applicant must sign and return this portion of the permit within 15 days of completion of all the above approved work.
❑ The work approved by this permit G 6 s p prIeti
e it.
Signature of Applicant: Date:
21< ---------------------------------------(cut here)----------------------------------------------------------
The applicant must agree to abide by the conditions of this permit by checking the appropriate box,signing below,and returning this form
to the district office within 15 days. GD-012-16
❑ I hereby agree to proceed with the project in accordance with the approved application and will allow follow-up inspection.
❑ I understand the project as proposed h ee,�ie d I q u it appi(6a'o V, odifications.
1 hereby agree to proceed with the pro ectcc�o d n wif`�fh mo t tc b {as"cif snt'1ai ed ,and will allow follow-up inspection.
If the applicant disagrees with the supervisors'decision and wis es-to formally resolve the dispute, the applicant must check the box below, sign,
and return this form to the district within 5 working days.
❑ I disagree with the supervisors'decision and hereby request arbitration.
Signature of Applicant: Date:—�`�
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS,OMAHA DISTRICT
HELENA REGULATORY OFFICE
•' 10 WEST 15TH STREET,SUITE 2200
HELENA,MONTANA 59626
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
March 28, 2016
Regulatory Branch
Montana State Program
Corps No. NWO-2016-00336-MTH
Subject: Yellowstone Theological Institute - Graf Street Extension Work
Margaret Stewart
Yellowstone Theological Institute
PO Box 1347
Bozeman, Montana 59741
Dear Ms. Stewart:
We are responding to your request for Nationwide Permit (NWP) verification for the
above-mentioned project. The project is located on or near to Section 24, Township 2 S, Range
5 E, Principal Meridian, Latitude 45.6528138888889", Longitude-111.062702777778' in
Gallatin County, Montana.
Specifically, you requested authorization for the following work in waters of the U.S.:
Work Item Description
Impact 1 includes filling 1,648 square feet (sf) of wetland 1 with 146 cubic yards
a. (cy) of fill material. 127 linear feet (If)-(381 sf) of Mandeville Creek will be
temporarily impacted in the installation of a 65"/40" RCP arch pipe.
Impact 2 includes filling 1,275 (sf) of wetland 2 with 101 cy of fill material. 102 (if)
b. of Woward-Esgar Ditch will be temporarily impacted in the installation of a 24'
RCP arch pipe.
Impact 3 includes filling 490 (sf) of wetland 3 with 48 (cy) of fill material. 107 (If)
C. (381 SF) of an unnamed ditch will be temporarily impacted in the installation of a
22.5"/36.25" RCP arch pipe.
Impact 4 includes filling 2,405 (sf) of wetland 4 with 198 (cy) of fill material. 118 (If)
d. (234 sf) of Middle Creek Ditch will be temporarily impacted in the installation of a
22.5"/36.25" RCP arch pipe.
Impact 5 includes filling 2,289 (sf) of wetland 5 with 130.5 (Cy) of fill material. 120
e. (If) (127 sf) of Figgins Creek will be temporarily impacted in the installation of a
17713" RCP arch pi e.
f. Impact 6 includes fillip 200 sf of wetland 1 with 11 c of naive fill material.
Impact 7 includes filling 191 (sf) of wetland 1 with 11 (cy) of fill material. 27 (If) (82
g. sf) of Mandeville Creek will be temporarily impacted in the installation of a 24"
RCP arch pipe.
h. Impact 8 includes fillip 358 sf of wetland 1 with 82 c of native fill material.
i. Impact 9 includes fillip 1468 sf of wetland 1 with 20 c of native fill material.
Printed on 9
Recycled Paper
4 j
I
-2-
Under the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), DA permits are
required for the discharge of fill material into waters of the U.S. Waters of the U.S. include the
area below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of stream channels and lakes or ponds
connected to the tributary system, and wetlands adjacent to these waters. Isolated waters and
wetlands, as well as man-made channels and ditches, may be waters of the U.S. in certain
circumstances, which must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Based on the information provided, we have determined that the proposed work is
authorized by DA Nationwide Permit 39,found in the February 21, 2012 Federal Register(76
FR 9174), Reissuance of Nationwide Permits. Enclosed is a fact sheet that fully describes this
Nationwide Permit and lists the General and Regional Conditions that must be adhered to for
this authorization to remain valid-_Please.note_that_deviations.from_the original plans.an.d...._
specifications of your project could require additional authorization from this office.
In addition to conditions referenced above, the following special conditions apply:
Condition I Description
Compensatory mitigation will be required for the 0.25 acres of unavoidable
impacts to the wetlands adjacent to Mandeville Creek,Woward-Esgar Ditch,
Middle Creek Ditch, an unnamed ditch and Figgins Creek. It has been determined
that a practicable alternative to compensate for the aquatic resource functions that
will be lost as a result of the permitted activity is mitigation by a third party
provider. You have selected the Upper Missouri Mitigation Bank (SRI Missouri
Headwaters, LLC and Eco-Asset Management, LLC) as the party or parties
responsible for the implementation, performance, and long-term management of
the compensatory mitigation project (332.3[1][1]) and so the following specific
provisions apply:
1. Credits must be secured from a third party provider authorized by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide the mitigation;
1. 2. Credits must come from the same service area as the permitted
impacts, as specified in the authorized third party provider's mitigation strategy or
executed Banking Agreement; and
The applicant must use the authorized third party provider's-eredit-multipliers in
determining the amount of credits to be purchased (for Upper Missouri Mitigation
Bank the multipliers are the same as for the Omaha District) namely (i) released
credits are secured on a 1:1 ratio (1 impact debit to 1 mitigation credit), and (ii)
after-the-fact credits are secured on a 1:1.5 ratio. In this case 0.25 acres of
wetland mitigation credits will be required prior to working in Waters of the
U.S., but no later than May 1, 2017, provide this office with documentation of
completion of the transaction for securing credits. This can be a letter from the
third party provider stating its acceptance of responsibility for the specified
mitigation.
You are responsible for ensuring that all work is performed in accordance with the terms
and conditions of the NWP. If a contractor or other authorized representative will be conducting
work on your behalf it is strongly recommended that they be provided a copy of this letter and
the enclosed conditions. Failure to comply with the General and Regional Conditions of this
Printed on G
Recycled Paper
-3-
NWP, or the project-specific special conditions of this authorization, may result in the
suspension or revocation of your authorization and may be subject to appropriate enforcement
action.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) prepared the enclosed preliminary
jurisdictional determination (JD) for the project area. A preliminary JD is a written indication that
waterways and wetlands within your project area may be waters of the U.S. These waters are
treated as jurisdictional waters of the U.S. for the purposes of determining project impacts and
compensatory mitigation requirements. Preliminary JDs may not be appealed. If you believe
the preliminary JD is inaccurate, you may request this office complete an approved JD prior to
your commencement of any work in a water of the U.S. An approved JD is an appealable
official determination regarding the presence or absence of waters of the U.S. Completion of an
approved JD may require coordination with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). If
you believe the preliminary JD is accurate and do not want the Corps to complete an approved
JD, please sign the preliminary JD and return it to the letterhead address within two weeks.
The Montana Department of Environmental Quality has provided the enclosed CWA
Section 401 water quality certification for this NWP which includes General Conditions, all of
which must be complied with for that certification to remain valid. This does not eliminate the
need to obtain other permits that may be required by that agency.
This verification is valid until March 18, 2017, when the existing NWPs are scheduled to
be modified, reissued, or revoked. Furthermore, if you commence or are under contract to
commence this activity before the date that the relevant NWP is modified, reissued or revoked,
you will have twelve (12) months from the date of the modification, reissuance or revocation of
the NWP to complete the activity under the present terms and conditions unless discretionary
authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend, or revoke the
authorization in accordance with 33 CFR 330.4(e) and 33 CFR 330.5 (c) or (d). Project specific
conditions listed in this letter continue to remain in effect after the NWP verification expires,
unless the district engineer removes those conditions. Activities completed under the
authorization of an NWP which was in effect at the time the activity was completed continue to
be authorized by that NWP.
In compliance with General Condition 30, we have enclosed is a "compliance
certification"form, which must be signed and returned within 30 days of completion of the
project, including any required mitigation. Your signature on this form certifies that you have
completed the work in accordance with the terms and conditions of the NWP.
Please refer to identification number NWO-2016-00336-MTH in any correspondence
concerning this project. If you have any questions, please contact Jess Davies at 10 West 15th
Street, Suite 2200, Helena, Montana 59626, by email at Jess.J.Davies@usace.army.mil, or
telephone at 406-441-1365.
Sincerely,
r
Deborah Blank
Acting Montana State Program Manager
Printed on Recycled Paper
-4-
Enclosures:
Compliance Certification
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
NWP 39 Commercial and Institutional Developments - Fact Sheet with Regional Conditions
Montana DEQ CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification
cc:
Barbara Vaughn
Vaughn Environmental_Services
8353 Saddle Mountain Rd
Bozeman, Montana 59715
Eugene Graf III
BonTon Inc.
PO Box 10906
Bozeman, Montana 59719
Klein Gilhousen
599 High Tower Road
BOZEMAN, Montana 59718
Copy furnished, without enclosures via email:
Mr. David Patrick
Eco-Asset Management, LLC
dpatrick@eco-asset.com
Printed on Racy, Paper