Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAurora-StormWaterReport STORM WATER DESIGN REPORT FOR MSU INNOVATION CAMPUS UPDATED FOR INNOVATION AVENUE & AURORA SITE DEVELOPMENT BOZEMAN GALLATIN COUNTY MONTANA Prepared By: Morrison-Maierle, Inc. 2880 Technology Blvd. West P.O. Box 1113 Bozeman, Montana 59771-1113 Engineer: Cooper Krause, P.E. Date: March 25, 2022 File: 5755.007 Innovation Avenue and Aurora Site Development STORM WATER DESIGN REPORT _______________________________________________________________________Page 2 of 7 MSU Innovation Campus – Storm Water Design Report- Updated for Innovation Ave and Table of Contents 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3 2 Proposed Development ....................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Project Location and Description .................................................................................. 3 2.2 Development Horizon .................................................................................................. 3 3 Existing Area Conditions ..................................................................................................... 3 3.1 Existing Land Cover and Slopes .................................................................................. 3 3.2 NRCS Soils .................................................................................................................. 4 3.3 Site Groundwater Levels .............................................................................................. 4 3.4 Existing Drainage Features .......................................................................................... 4 4 Major Drainage Basins ........................................................................................................ 4 5 Methodologies .................................................................................................................... 5 5.1 Design Methodology .................................................................................................... 5 5.2 Design Storm Analyses ................................................................................................ 5 5.3 Storm Drain Piping ....................................................................................................... 5 5.4 Storm Water Retention Facilities .................................................................................. 5 6 Culvert design ..................................................................................................................... 6 7 Maintenance ....................................................................................................................... 6 List of Exhibits Exhibit A Vicinity Map Exhibit B Existing Site Topography Exhibit C Post-Development Drainage Basins List of Appendices Appendix A NRCS Soil Report Appendix B Groundwater Data Appendix C Storm Water Calculations Appendix D Operation and Maintenance Manual _______________________________________________________________________Page 3 of 7 MSU Innovation Campus – Storm Water Design Report- Updated for Innovation Ave and 1 INTRODUCTION This report provides updated hydrologic and hydraulic calculations for development of the Montana State University Innovation Campus (MSUIC) within the City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. A previous Master Plan and Storm Drainage Report was approved in 2017. This current design has altered the grades and drainage plan enough to warrant an updated storm water report. A previous report was completed for the Technology Boulevard infrastructure in 2021. This report is updated based on the current design of Innovation Avenue and the development of the Aurora technologies site. The project is located on Tract C-1A of the Amended Plat of West College Minor Subdivision No. 195. The eastern portion of the site has already been developed. This report will generally detail the storm water plan for the area west of the unnamed tributary of Catron Creek. The information contained in this report summarizes the basis of design for necessary storm drainage improvements. The methodology and analysis procedures utilized in the design of the subdivision storm water management improvements are based on the standards found in the City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy with Addendum Numbers 1 thru 6, dated May 1, 2017 (City of Bozeman Public Works Department – Engineering Division). 2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 2.1 Project Location and Description The following is the legal description for the property: Tract C-1A of the Amended Plat of West College Minor Subdivision No. 195 located in the Northwest 1/4 and Northeast 1/4, Section 14, Township 2 South, Range 5 East Principal Meridian, Gallatin County, Montana. The MSUIC development is a proposed 42-acre development zoned BP (Business Park) located between W. College Street and W. Garfield Street and between the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision and Advanced Technology Park. Approximately 3.5 acres on the eastern edge of the property has already been developed, including about 375 feet of Technology Boulevard and one building site plan. This report does not affect any of the public or private improvements already in place. 2.2 Development Horizon Public infrastructure associated with Technology Boulevard is scheduled to being in the early spring of 2022. A separate building site is also scheduled to begin concurrent construction in early 2022. S.27th Avenue will be designed and constructed as needed for site plan development. 3 EXISTING AREA CONDITIONS 3.1 Existing Land Cover and Slopes The existing property is primarily vacant agricultural land. The existing slopes range from 0% to 4%, generally draining from south to north. An unnamed tributary of Catron Creek flows through the eastern portion of the property. Morrison-Maierle performed an updated wetland delineation _______________________________________________________________________Page 4 of 7 MSU Innovation Campus – Storm Water Design Report- Updated for Innovation Ave and in July of 2021. A few old building foundations exist near the center of the property. These buildings were originally used by the Montana State University Agriculture Department but have since been mostly removed. The remaining concrete foundations must be demolished prior to construction of the proposed public utilities and roadway. 3.2 NRCS Soils Data on existing site soils is provided in the Gallatin County Area, Montana Soil Survey dated August 17, 2021 through Web Soil Survey (WSS) operated by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). According to information obtained from WSS, the development contains three soil types –Turner Loam, Meadowcreek loam and Blossberg loam. See Appendix A for the complete Soil Resource Report. 3.3 Site Groundwater Levels Groundwater levels beneath the proposed development experience seasonal variations but are generally quite high. Morrison-Maierle monitored 9 wells across the site in 2018 and again in 2021. Due to draught conditions in 2021, only data from 2018 was used to determine seasonal high ground water levels across the site. High groundwater levels range from 3ft below existing grade to over 8ft. See Appendix B for complete groundwater details. 3.4 Existing Drainage Features Runoff on this site generally flows from south to north. The western half flows into College street where it is picked up by inlets and conveyed in the piped section of Farmers Canal. The eastern half flows into the unnamed tributary of Catron Creek and conveyed under College Street through two culverts. 4 MAJOR DRAINAGE BASINS Runoff from all public rights-of-way (ROW) and all development south of Technology Boulevard will be collected and treated. A portion of the private lot area north of Technology Boulevard will have to collect and treat storm water on-site and must be designed as part of the site plan process. The site is divided into two separate post-development drainage basins. This design extends 10 feet beyond the ROW to ensure all improvements have capacity for future development that may drain towards the roadways. See Exhibit C for details of each basin and pond locations. Drainage Basin Updates Based on Current Design (March, 2022) Since the previous report was submitted for the Technology Boulevard infrastructure, the grading and drainage plans for two building sites on the campus have been developed and altered the drainage basins. In the original report, a portion of the Industry Bozeman site was included in the East basin. This site was designed by others with a detention basin on-site capable of treating the entire site. Second, a portion of the Aurora site has been designed to runoff into Innovation Avenue. This change makes the East drainage basin 0.29 acres larger and the West drainage basin 1.91 acres smaller. There is still a portion of future site development north of Technology Boulevard that will need to treat storm water runoff on-site. See Exhibit C for updated basin areas. Both ponds have been designed with excess volume to _______________________________________________________________________Page 5 of 7 MSU Innovation Campus – Storm Water Design Report- Updated for Innovation Ave and allow for future flexibility, therefore no modifications are needed to the ponds as submitted with the Technology Boulevard infrastructure. Aurora Site The proposed Aurora site is graded to generally direct runoff to the north. The western portion of the site will drain to the west pond north of Technology Boulevard. Runoff will have to be conveyed through the future building site to the north. In order to provide a comprehensive storm water solution that works for both sites, runoff from the aurora parking lot will temporarily be stored in a retention pond just north of the parking lot. Runoff will be conveyed to the temporary pond through storm drain inlets and piping, and an overland swale. 5 METHODOLOGIES This section documents the methodologies and assumptions used to conduct the storm water runoff analyses for the proposed development. Drainage plan methodologies and analyses are based on the City of Bozeman’s Design Standards and Specifications Policy. 5.1 Design Methodology The storm water management system for the proposed development utilizes a system of curb, gutter, inlets, piping, and retention basins to collect, convey, and treat storm water runoff. Summaries of runoff estimates, inlet and piping capacities, and retention volumes are provided in the sections that follow. 5.2 Design Storm Analyses Storm water runoff analyses were performed using the Rational Method. The analyses included evaluations of the 10-year, 2-hour design storm for sizing of retention facilities and the 25-year design storm interval for inlet and piping system design. Calculations were performed using Hydraflow Express and Excel spreadsheets. Detailed calculations are provided in Appendix D. 5.3 Storm Drain Piping The storm drain piping system for the proposed development is designed to have maximum reliability of operation, minimal maintenance requirements, and to ensure that inlets function to their design capacities while meeting necessary area drainage requirements. The 25-year design storm has been selected as the basis for design for these conveyance facilities as that is the City of Bozeman requirement from the Design Standards and Specifications Policy (Standards). Inlets are designed at all low points in the curb line. No on-grade inlets are required to limit gutter flow depths. Runoff from the future extension of Innovation Avenue (formerly 27th Avenue) can flow to the inlets at the intersection of Technology Blvd without exceeding gutter flow depths. 5.4 Storm Water Retention Facilities Pond capacities are designed to store runoff from a 10-year 2-hour event. Two separate retention ponds are designed to capture runoff from the proposed development. A pond in the northwest corner of the property is designed to capture runoff from the west half of Technology Blvd and all of the future site development west of S. 27th Ave. and south of Technology Blvd. an overflow structure is proposed to connect to the existing Farmers Canal, though final _______________________________________________________________________Page 6 of 7 MSU Innovation Campus – Storm Water Design Report- Updated for Innovation Ave and coordination with the irrigation authority is still in progress. If an agreement cannot be reached, an overflow swale shall be used to convey storm water north into College Street. A second pond is designed in the northeast corner of the site. The east pond will collect all runoff from 27th Ave., the eastern portion of Technology Blvd, all of the future site development west of 27th Ave. and south of Technology Blvd. A portion of the future site development north of Technology Blvd can also be stored in the east pond. The east bank of the pond will serve as emergency overflow for storm events that produce runoff in excess of the 10-year 2-hour storm. This overflow will flow directly into the creek across the native vegetation along the banks. See Exhibit C for basin details, storm drain layout and pond locations. See the table below for basin areas, storage volumes, and pond elevations. Exhibit C is provided to illustrate major drainage basins, sub-basins, and designated treatment facilities. Storm ponds were designed with the bottom pond elevations above the seasonal high ground water level. High groundwater elevations are based on data collected at monitoring wells for the project. Table 1: Updated Drainage Basin Data Table 2: Previous Drainage Data (for reference only) 6 CULVERT DESIGN An unnamed tributary of Catron Creek crosses under Technology Boulevard as it flows from south to north through the site. A drainage report prepared by Morrison Maierle in 2004 for the construction of Garfield Street estimated the 25-year and 100-year flowrates of this stream/ ditch to be 89.9cfs and 114 cfs, respectively. A 3’ x 5’ concrete box culvert is proposed for this location and can convey the 100-yr flood without overtopping Technology Blvd. Hydraulic calculations are attached in Appendix D. 7 MAINTENANCE Storm drain inlets, catch basins, and piping shall be inspected at least once per year and following large storm events. Any necessary repair or maintenance should be prioritized and scheduled through the spring, summer, and fall. These items may include inspecting for any damage, removing blockages, cleaning and flushing the length of pipes, establishing vegetation on bare slopes at or near inlets, and sediment removal. Basin Area (ac) Weighted C Factor Min. Required Retention Vol (cf) First 1/2" Storage Vol (cf) Design Pond Volume (cf) Design Pond Bottom Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water Elevation West 11.71 0.79 27145 16536 38390 4865.5 4860.50 East 7.33 0.61 13104 7081 24850 4861.75 4859.00 _______________________________________________________________________Page 7 of 7 MSU Innovation Campus – Storm Water Design Report- Updated for Innovation Ave and Maintenance of retention basins is essential. General objectives of maintenance are to prevent clogging, standing water and the growth of weeds and wetland plants. This requires frequent unclogging of the outlets, inlets, and mowing. Removal of sediment with heavy equipment may also be necessary in 10 to 20 years. An Operation and Maintenance Manual is included in Appendix D. EXHIBITS DRAWN BY: BC CHK'D BY: BC APPR. BY: CP DATE: MT COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2021N:\5755\005 - Innovation Campus CDs\GIS\Exhibits\Fig 1_Vicinity.mxd FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 5755.005 1 1055 Mount AveMissoula, MT 59801 Phone: (406) 542-8880 8/2/2021 ±0 1 20.5 Miles Legend Project Area INNOVATION CAMPUS WETLAND DELINATION INNOVATION CAMPUSBOZEMAN, MONTANAT02S R05E SEC 14GALLATIN COUNTY VICINITY MAPBOZEMAN TV E EE I P PBP BTV BTV D D D WSOSD SD SDSDSDPROPOSED LEASE AREA4.896 ACRES 4875 48754870 4870 4865 4865 FIGURE NUMBER © PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY: DSGN. BY: APPR. BY: DATE: COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC.,2021 N:\5755\005 - Innovation Campus CDs\ACAD\Exhibits\Predevelopment Basin.dwg Plotted by cooper krause on Sep/3/2021 engineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle 2880 Technology Blvd West Bozeman, MT 59718 406.587.0721 www.m-m.net 5755.005 EX-B CPK BOZEMAN MONTANA EXISTING SITE TOPOGRAPHY CPK MSU INNOVATION CAMPUS 08/2021 70 1400 SCALE IN FEET EXISTING DETENTION POND TECHNOLOG Y B L V D W. GARFIELD ST. W. COLLEGE ST. EXISTING ARL SITE AND PHASE 1 INFRASTRUCTURE EXISTING FARMERS CANAL UNNAMED TRIBUTARYOF CATRON CREEKEXISTING COLLEGE STREET INLETS DRAIN TO FARMERS CANAL PROPERTY LINE (TYP.) PROPOSED LEASE AREA4.896 ACRES >>>>>>>>>>>I D D D SD SD SDSDSD15SD 18SD 18SD18SDD D >>>>FIGURE NUMBER © PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY: DSGN. BY: APPR. BY: DATE: COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC.,2022 N:\5755\007-InnovationAve\ACAD\Exhibits\Stormwater Basins.dwg Plotted by cooper krause on Mar/22/2022 engineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle 2880 Technology Blvd West Bozeman, MT 59718 406.587.0721 www.m-m.net 5755.007 EX-C CPK BOZEMAN MONTANA POST-DEVELOPMENT STORM WATER BASINS UPDATED FOR INNOVATION AVE AND AURORA SITE CPK MSU INNOVATION CAMPUS 03/2022 70 1400 SCALE IN FEET EXISTING DETENTION POND WEST BASIN AREA = 11.70 ACRES EAST BASIN AREA = 7.33 ACRES INNOVATION AVE SUB-BASIN TECHNOLOG Y B L V D INNOVATION AVEW. GARFIELD ST. W. COLLEGE ST. EXISTING ARL SITE WEST RETENTION POND DESIGN VOL = 38,390 CF POND BOTTOM = 4865.50 10-YR WSEL = 4867.00 SIDE SLOPES = VARIES, 5:1 MAX EAST RETENTION POND DESIGN VOL = 17,300 CF POND BOTTOM = 4861.75 10-YR WSEL = 4863.00 SIDE SLOPES = 5:1 FUTURE SITE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA WILL HAVE TO DESIGN A SEPARATE STORM WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM OVERFLOW SWALE TO COLLEGE STREET UNNAMED TRIBUTARYOF CATRON CREEKOVERFLOW TO CREEK PROPOSED AURORA SITE PROPOSED INDUSTRY SITE (DESIGNED BY OTHERS WITH ON-SITE DETENTION BASINS) FUTURE SITE DEVELOPMENT FUTURE SITE DEVELOPMENTTEMPORARY RETENTION POND POND FOR AURORA RUNOFF NOTE: RUNOFF FROM PROPOSED AURORA SITE WILL BE DIRECTED TO A TEMPORARY RETENTION POND. THE FINAL RUNOFF PATH WILL BE DEVELOPED WITH THE FUTURE SITE TO THE NORTH IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE STORM WATER SOLUTION THAT WORKS FOR BOTH DEVELOPMENT SITES. FUTURE SITE DEVELOPMENT SUB-BASIN E.1 SUB-BASIN W.1 MW OHPOHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP TPBFBFBF>>>>>>>>>>>>12SD 1 5 S D 15SD 15SD 15SD 15SD 15SD FIGURE NUMBER © PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY: DSGN. BY: APPR. BY: DATE: COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC.,2022 N:\5755\008-Aurora\ACAD\Exhibits\Aurora-StormBasins.dwg Plotted by cooper krause on Mar/24/2022 engineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle 2880 Technology Blvd West Bozeman, MT 59718 406.587.0721 www.m-m.net 5755.008 EX C.1 CPK BOZEMAN MONTANA STORM WATER BASINS CPK MSU INNOVATION CAMPUS AURORA TECHNOLOGIES SITE MEE 03/2022 30 600 SCALE IN FEET W. GARFIELD STREET INNOVATION AVE ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION ROOF-WEST AREA= 23,301 SF ROOF-EAST AREA= 28,841 SF TEMPORARY RETENTION POND MIN. REQUIRED VOLUME = 6636 CF MAX DEPTH = 1.5FT SIDE SLOPES = 4:1 MAX BASIN: AURORA-1 AREA = 2.92 ACRES BASIN: AURORA-2 AREA = 0.31 ACRES DRAINAGE SWALE TO TEMPORARY POND BASIN: AURORA-3 AREA = 1.05 ACRES AURORA-3 DRAINS TO MSU INNOVATION CAMPUS EAST POND AURORA-1 AND AURORA-2 DRAIN TO MSU INNOVATION CAMPUS WEST POND APPENDIX A NRCS Soils Report United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Gallatin County Area, Montana MSU Innovation Campus Natural Resources Conservation Service August 17, 2021 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Gallatin County Area, Montana.......................................................................13 457A—Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes.......................13 510B—Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes......................................14 542A—Blossberg loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes............................................15 References............................................................................................................17 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report 6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Custom Soil Resource Report 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 505711050571905057270505735050574305057510505711050571905057270505735050574305057510494110 494190 494270 494350 494430 494510 494590 494670 494750 494830 494110 494190 494270 494350 494430 494510 494590 494670 494750 494830 45° 40' 17'' N 111° 4' 32'' W45° 40' 17'' N111° 3' 58'' W45° 40' 1'' N 111° 4' 32'' W45° 40' 1'' N 111° 3' 58'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84 0 150 300 600 900 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 Meters Map Scale: 1:3,390 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area, Montana Survey Area Data: Version 24, Jun 4, 2020 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 3, 2009—Sep 1, 2016 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 10 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 457A Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes 33.4 75.8% 510B Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 1.2 2.8% 542A Blossberg loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 9.5 21.4% Totals for Area of Interest 44.1 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or Custom Soil Resource Report 11 landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 12 Gallatin County Area, Montana 457A—Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56tb Elevation: 4,300 to 5,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Turner and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Turner Setting Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 6 inches: loam Bt - 6 to 12 inches: clay loam Bk - 12 to 26 inches: clay loam 2C - 26 to 60 inches: very gravelly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 48 to 96 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R044BB032MT - Loamy (Lo) LRU 44B-B Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Meadowcreek Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Stream terraces Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044XS359MT - Subirrigated (Sb) 15-19" p.z. Hydric soil rating: No Beaverton Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044XS354MT - Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 15-19" p.z. Hydric soil rating: No Turner Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044XS355MT - Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. Hydric soil rating: No 510B—Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56vt Elevation: 4,200 to 5,950 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Meadowcreek and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Meadowcreek Setting Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 11 inches: loam Bg - 11 to 25 inches: silt loam 2C - 25 to 60 inches: very gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 4 percent Custom Soil Resource Report 14 Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 24 to 42 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R044BY150MT - Subirrigated (Sb) LRU 44B-Y Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Blossberg Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044XS365MT - Wet Meadow (WM) 15-19" p.z. Hydric soil rating: Yes Beaverton Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044XS354MT - Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 15-19" p.z. Hydric soil rating: No 542A—Blossberg loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56wx Elevation: 4,200 to 5,550 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance Map Unit Composition Blossberg and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Custom Soil Resource Report 15 Description of Blossberg Setting Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 15 inches: loam Bg - 15 to 24 inches: sandy clay loam 2C - 24 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly loamy coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.20 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 12 to 24 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D Ecological site: R044BY181MT - Wet Meadow (WM) LRU 44B-Y Hydric soil rating: Yes Minor Components Bonebasin Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044XS365MT - Wet Meadow (WM) 15-19" p.z. Hydric soil rating: Yes Meadowcreek Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044XS359MT - Subirrigated (Sb) 15-19" p.z. Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 16 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 17 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report 18 APPENDIX B Groundwater Data 48754 8 7 5 48704875488048 74 4 8 7 3 487648754870487012365987415SD15SD15SD18SD18SD18SD18 S D 18S D 18S D 18S D 18S D SD SD DDDSD BFBFBFBFBFBFBFBFBFBFBFBFNGNGNGNGNGNGNGMWTTTFFFFFFTVISSSTTMWMWBP BPBTVBTVBTVBTVBTVBPBF BF BFBF SMWNGSMWBFBF BF BF BF BFBFBFBFBFBF BF BF BFBFBFBFW SOWSONGNGTP TPTPTPTPTPTP BFBFSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD SD PROPOSED LEASE AREA4.896 ACRES FIGURE NUMBER©PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:DSGN. BY:APPR. BY:DATE:COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC.,2021N:\5755\005 - Innovation Campus CDs\ACAD\Exhibits\Monitoring Well Exhibit.dwg Plotted by cooper krause on Sep/2/2021engineers surveyors planners scientistsMorrisonMaierle2880 Technology Blvd WestBozeman, MT 59718406.587.0721www.m-m.net5755.005 AMSU INNOVATION CAMPUSBOZEMANMONTANAGROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLSCPKCPKMEE08/2021700SCALE IN FEETX= MONITORING WELLNOTE: CELLS THAT HAVE A VALUE OF "-" MEANS THAT NO WATER WAS PRESENT WITHIN THE MONITORING WELL AT THE TIME OF MEASUREMENT.VALUE IN EACH CELL IS THE MEASUREMENT FROM THE GROUND LEVEL AT EACH MONITORING WELL TO THE STATIC WATER LEVEL IN EACH WELL.140W GARFIELD ST. APPENDIX C Stormwater Calculations Updated to Include Aurora Site and exclude any runnoff from Industry Basin:West Total Lot Area=463891 sf i=0.41 in/hr Impervious 80% Landscaped 20% Area (sf)C A x C Tech Blvd 46000 0.64 29440 N.27th 0 0.56 0 Impervious Lot 371112.8 0.95 352557.2 Landscaped Lot 92778.2 0.2 18555.64 Total Area=11.71 acres C'=0.785566 Q=3.77 cfs Min. Retention Vol=27145 cf Total Impervious Area=396873 sf Frist 1/2-inch 16536 cf Basin:East Total Lot Area=137490.5 sf i=0.41 in/hr Impervious 80% Landscaped 20% Area (sf)C A x C Tech Blvd 47445 0.64 30364.8 N.27th 72589.5 0.56 40650.12 Impervious Lot 109992.4 0.95 104492.8 Landscaped Lot 27498.1 0.2 5499.62 trail/ pond 61801 0.2 12360.2 Total Area=7.33 acres C'=0.61 Q=1.82 cfs Min. Retention Vol=13104 cf 485.3424 Total Impervious Area=169953 sf Frist 1/2-inch 7081 cf Estimated future use: Estimated future use: Hydrology Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Tuesday, Mar 22 2022 Sub-Basin: Innovation Ave+Aurora Hydrograph type = Rational Peak discharge (cfs) = 3.243 Storm frequency (yrs) = 25 Time interval (min) = 1 Drainage area (ac) = 2.520 Runoff coeff. (C) = 0.65 Rainfall Inten (in/hr) = 1.980 Tc by TR55 (min) = 14 IDF Curve = COB IDF.IDF Rec limb factor = 1.00 Hydrograph Volume = 2,724 (cuft); 0.063 (acft) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Q (cfs) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 Q (cfs) Time (min) Runoff Hydrograph 25-yr frequency Runoff Hyd - Qp = 3.24 (cfs) TR55 Tc Worksheet Hydraflow Express by Intelisolve Rational Sub-Basin: Innovation Ave+Aurora Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.025 0.011 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 50.0 300.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. ((in)) = 1.20 1.20 0.00 Land slope (%) = 2.00 2.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 2.19 + 4.76 + 0.00 = 6.96 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 650.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope (%) = 1.50 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Unpaved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 1.98 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 5.48 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 5.48 Channel Flow X sectional flow area ((sqft)) = 0.75 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter ((ft)) = 2.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope (%) = 1.50 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.016 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 5.91 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 725.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 2.0439670.00+ 0 + 0 = 2.04 Total Travel Time, Tc .............................................................................. 14.00 min Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Tuesday, Mar 22 2022 Innovation Ave Pipe Capacity (with Aurora) Circular Diameter (ft) = 1.25 Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00 Slope (%) = 0.50 N-Value = 0.011 Calculations Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 3.24 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.70 Q (cfs) = 3.240 Area (sqft) = 0.71 Velocity (ft/s) = 4.56 Wetted Perim (ft) = 2.12 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.73 Top Width (ft) = 1.24 EGL (ft) = 1.02 0 1 2 3 Elev (ft)Section 99.50 100.00 100.50 101.00 101.50 102.00 Reach (ft) Hydrology Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Tuesday, Mar 22 2022 Sub-Basin E.1 Hydrograph type = Rational Peak discharge (cfs) = 6.529 Storm frequency (yrs) = 25 Time interval (min) = 1 Drainage area (ac) = 5.920 Runoff coeff. (C) = 0.7 Rainfall Inten (in/hr) = 1.576 Tc by FAA (min) = 20 IDF Curve = COB IDF.IDF Rec limb factor = 1.00 Hydrograph Volume = 7,835 (cuft); 0.180 (acft) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Q (cfs) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 Q (cfs) Time (min) Runoff Hydrograph 25-yr frequency Runoff Hyd - Qp = 6.53 (cfs) FAA Formula Tc Worksheet Tc = 1.8(1.1 - C) x Flow length^0.5 / Watercourse slope^0.333 Hydraflow Express by Intelisolve Rational Sub-Basin E.1 Description Flow length (ft) = 750.00 Watercourse slope (%) = 1.00 Runoff coefficient (C) = 0.70 Time of Conc. (min) = 20 Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Tuesday, Mar 22 2022 Sub-Basin E.1: Pipe Capacity Circular Diameter (ft) = 1.50 Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00 Slope (%) = 0.50 N-Value = 0.011 Calculations Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 6.53 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.97 Q (cfs) = 6.530 Area (sqft) = 1.21 Velocity (ft/s) = 5.40 Wetted Perim (ft) = 2.80 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.99 Top Width (ft) = 1.43 EGL (ft) = 1.42 0 1 2 3 Elev (ft)Section 99.50 100.00 100.50 101.00 101.50 102.00 Reach (ft) Hydrology Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Tuesday, Mar 22 2022 Sub-Basin W.1 Hydrograph type = Rational Peak discharge (cfs) = 12.82 Storm frequency (yrs) = 25 Time interval (min) = 1 Drainage area (ac) = 9.040 Runoff coeff. (C) = 0.78 Rainfall Inten (in/hr) = 1.817 Tc by FAA (min) = 16 IDF Curve = COB IDF.IDF Rec limb factor = 1.00 Hydrograph Volume = 12,303 (cuft); 0.282 (acft) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Q (cfs) 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 6.00 6.00 8.00 8.00 10.00 10.00 12.00 12.00 14.00 14.00 Q (cfs) Time (min) Runoff Hydrograph 25-yr frequency Runoff Hyd - Qp = 12.82 (cfs) FAA Formula Tc Worksheet Tc = 1.8(1.1 - C) x Flow length^0.5 / Watercourse slope^0.333 Hydraflow Express by Intelisolve Rational Sub-Basin W.1 Description Flow length (ft) = 800.00 Watercourse slope (%) = 1.00 Runoff coefficient (C) = 0.78 Time of Conc. (min) = 16 Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Tuesday, Mar 22 2022 Sub-Basin W.1: Pipe Capacity Circular Diameter (ft) = 1.75 Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00 Slope (%) = 0.50 N-Value = 0.011 Calculations Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 12.82 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 1.39 Q (cfs) = 12.82 Area (sqft) = 2.05 Velocity (ft/s) = 6.24 Wetted Perim (ft) = 3.86 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 1.34 Top Width (ft) = 1.41 EGL (ft) = 2.00 0 1 2 3 Elev (ft)Section 99.50 100.00 100.50 101.00 101.50 102.00 Reach (ft) Hydrology Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Thursday, Mar 24 2022 Sub-Basin: Aurora-1 Hydrograph type = Rational Peak discharge (cfs) = 5.906 Storm frequency (yrs) = 25 Time interval (min) = 1 Drainage area (ac) = 2.920 Runoff coeff. (C) = 0.77 Rainfall Inten (in/hr) = 2.627 Tc by FAA (min) = 9 IDF Curve = COB IDF.IDF Rec limb factor = 1.00 Hydrograph Volume = 3,189 (cuft); 0.073 (acft) 0 5 10 15 20 Q (cfs) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 Q (cfs) Time (min) Runoff Hydrograph 25-yr frequency Runoff Hyd - Qp = 5.91 (cfs) FAA Formula Tc Worksheet Tc = 1.8(1.1 - C) x Flow length^0.5 / Watercourse slope^0.333 Hydraflow Express by Intelisolve Rational Sub-Basin: Aurora-1 Description Flow length (ft) = 345.00 Watercourse slope (%) = 2.00 Runoff coefficient (C) = 0.77 Time of Conc. (min) = 9 Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Thursday, Mar 24 2022 Pipe Capacity: Aurora-1 Circular Diameter (ft) = 1.25 Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00 Slope (%) = 0.60 N-Value = 0.011 Calculations Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 5.91 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 1.03 Q (cfs) = 5.910 Area (sqft) = 1.08 Velocity (ft/s) = 5.45 Wetted Perim (ft) = 2.85 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.99 Top Width (ft) = 0.95 EGL (ft) = 1.49 0 1 2 3 Elev (ft)Section 99.50 100.00 100.50 101.00 101.50 102.00 Reach (ft) in == ft in == ft in == ft in == ft in == ft % == ft/ft % == ft/ft in = ft in = ft in = ft in = ft Modified Manning's Formula: where QG =Gutter Capacity (cfs) z = Transverse Slope (Horizontal Distance for One Foot of Rise in ft/ft) n = Manning's Roughness Coefficient S = Longitudinal Slope (ft/ft) Y = Depth of Flow (ft) ft/ft % = ft/ft in = ft ft3/sec (cfs) ft/ft % = ft/ft in = ft cfs ft/ft % = ft/ft in = ft cfs QG = Q1 + Q2 - Q3 cfs Theoretical Carrying Capacity from Modified Manning's Formula: cfs % = ft/ft Allowable Gutter Capacity Reduction Factor, F: For SFL < 0.40%SFL is below the minimum allowable street grade. 0.40% ≤ SFL < 0.60%F = 150 SFL - 0.10, where SFL is in ft/ft 0.60% ≤ SFL ≤ 2.15%F = 0.80 2.15% < SFL ≤ 14.00%F = -175.61 SFL3 + 102.12 SFL2 - 18.135 SFL + 1.1649, where SFL is in ft/ft QA = F (QG) cfsCalculated Allowable Gutter Carrying Capacity, QA:1.60 Calculate Allowable Gutter Carrying Capacity (QA) Longitudinal Slope of Gutter,SFL:0.50 0.0050 Calculated Gutter Capacity Reduction Factor, F: 0.65 Calculated Theoretical Gutter Carrying Capacity, QG:2.46 CALCULATE ALLOWABLE GUTTER CARRYING CAPACITY QG = Q1 + Q2 - Q3 =2.46 Calculated Flow Within Gutter and Pavement Overlap Area, Q3:0.70 Calculate Theoretical Gutter Carrying Capacity (QG) Longitudinal Slope, S3 = SFL:0.50 0.0050 Depth of Flow, Y3 = Y1:2.70 0.23 1.61 Calculate Flow Within Gutter and Pavement Overlap Area (Q3) Manning's Roughness Coefficient, n:0.016 Transverse Slope, z3 = z2:15.00 Depth of Flow, Y2 = YD-MAX:3.70 0.31 Calculated Flow in Gutter with Overlap of Pavement Encroachment, Q2: Transverse Slope, z2 = WFL-G / yG:15.00 Longitudinal Slope, S2 = SFL:0.50 0.0050 2.70 0.23 Calculated Flow Across Pavement Encroachment, Q1:1.54 Calculate Flow In Gutter with Overlap of Pavement Encroachment (Q2) Manning's Roughness Coefficient, n:0.016 Calculate Flow Across Pavement Encroachment (Q1) Manning's Roughness Coefficient, n: Transverse Slope, z1 = 1/SP: Longitudinal Slope, S1 = SFL: Depth of Flow, Y1 = yEP: 0.016 33.33 0.50 0.0050 90.00 7.50 CALCULATE THEORETICAL GUTTER CARRYING CAPACITY 0.081.00Calculated Depth of Gutter from Edge of Pavement to Flowline, yG: Calculated Depth of Flow at Edge of Pavement, yEP: Calculated Width of Gutter, WFL-G:15.00 1.25 2.70 0.23 Calculated Width of Flow Across Pavement Surface, WFL-P: 0.50 0.0050 Maximum Allowable Depth of Flow in Gutter, YD-MAX:3.70 0.31 Slope of Gutter Flowline in Flow Direction, SFL: 5.50 0.46 4.50 0.38 24.00 2.00 DETERMINATION OF ALLOWABLE PAVEMENT ENCROACHMENT Slope of Pavement Transverse to Flow Direction, SP: Width of Curb Head, WCH: Total Width of Curb and Gutter, WCG: Height of Vertical Curb Above Edge of Pavement, YP: Height of Vertical Curb Above Gutter Flowline, YFL: 9.00 0.75 3.00 0.0300 Site:Analyst: Client:Big Sky QF Date Performed:Tuesday, August 31, 2021 MSU Innovation Campus Theoretical Gutter Carrying Capacity Project Description:MSU Innovation Campus | Storm Water Gutter Carrying Capacity Analyses Location:Gallatin County, Bozeman, Montana MMI Project No.:5755.005 0.56 // N:\5755\005 - Innovation Campus CDs\04 Design\Calcs\Stormwater\Preliminary_Calcs.xlsx Page 1 of 1 Printed: 8/31/2021 - 2:01 PM APPENDIX D Operation and Maintenance Manual Storm Water Management System Operation & Maintenance Manual MSU Innovation Campus, Bozeman, Montana Prepared For: Big Sky QF, LLC 75 Holly Hill Lane, Suite 305 Greenwich, CT 06830 Prepared By: 2880 Technology Blvd. W. • PO Box 1113 • Bozeman, MT 59771 (406) 587-0721 • www.m-m.net MSU Innovation Campus Storm Water Operation & Maintenance Manual 1 Site Data Location: MSU Innovation Campus Responsible Party for Maintenance: Charter Realty and Development is designated as the owner’s representative. The owner's representative shall be required to keep a log of all required inspections and maintenance required. The log shall be made available to the City of Bozeman Public Works Department for review as requested. Charter Realty and Development 222 E. Main Street- Suite 105 Bozeman, MT 59715 Phone: (406) 219-0838 Land Use & Site Area: Technology Boulevard extends through MSU Innovation Campus, on Tract C-1A of the Amended Plat of West College Minor Subdivision #195, T2S, R5E, Section 14, in Bozeman, Montana (current zoning BP – Business Park). Generally, the property is bordered by Garfield Street to the south, Research Drive to the east, wetlands to the west, and future parking and building to the north. Storm Water Management Systems: The storm water management system for Technology Blvd is to include a system of storm drainage inlets, piping, and surface storm water retention systems. Descriptions of additional development storm water provisions are provided in the following sections. Inspection & Maintenance Storm water facilities and permanent Best Management Practices (BMPs) must be inspected in accordance with this document. All documentation on scheduled inspections, times of inspections, maintenance completed, remedial actions taken to make repairs, and any modifications or reconstruction of the storm system shall be maintained on-site. MSU Innovation Campus Storm Water Operation & Maintenance Manual 2 Disposal of the accumulated sediment must be in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal guidelines and regulations. If any drainage structure or outfall indicates the presence of petroleum, the petroleum material shall be removed and disposed of immediately in accordance with applicable regulations. Pavement Sweeping & Vacuuming: All paved areas shall be swept twice a year, scheduled in spring and fall. Inlets & Catch Basins All inlets and catch basins shall be inspected to ensure they have adequate sump capacity, hoods are in place, frames and grates are not damaged, and internal concrete and grout is intact. ❑ Inspect catch basins four times per year and following large storm events. ❑ Clean sump annually or whenever basin sump becomes filled with sediment to half its depth (1’-0”). If inspection indicates the presence of petroleum, the petroleum material shall be removed and disposed of immediately in accordance with applicable regulations. Storm Drain Manholes & Overflow Control Structures All storm drain manholes and overflow control structures shall be inspected to ensure manhole frames and covers are not damaged, inlet and outlet pipes are draining freely, and internal manhole concrete and grout is intact. ❑ Inspect structures annually and following large storm events. ❑ Clean structures as field determined. If inspection indicates the presence of petroleum, the petroleum material shall be removed and disposed of immediately in accordance with applicable regulations. Piping All storm drain piping shall be inspected for any damage and/or blockages. ❑ Inspect piping annually and following large storm events. ❑ Length of pipes should be cleaned and flushed as field determined. Surface Retention System: Maintenance of the surface retention basin is also essential. General objectives of maintenance are to prevent clogging, standing water and the growth of weeds and wetland plants. This requires frequent MSU Innovation Campus Storm Water Operation & Maintenance Manual 3 unclogging of the outlets, inlets, and mowing. Cleaning out sediment with earth-moving equipment may also be necessary in 10 to 20 years. ❑ Inspect surface every three (3) months and following large storm events. ❑ Remove any accumulated trash. ❑ Sediment removal is to be provided as required. More frequent sediment removal via hand tools may reduce or eliminate the need for earth-moving equipment for sediment removal at a later date. If inspection indicates the presence of petroleum, the petroleum material shall be removed and disposed of immediately in accordance with applicable regulations. Housekeeping Operations Good housekeeping and material management reduces the risk of spills or other accidental exposure of materials and substances to storm water runoff. ❑ All materials stored on-site must be stored in a neat, orderly manner in their appropriate containers and, if possible, under a roof or other enclosure. ❑ Products shall be kept in their original containers with the original manufacturer’s label. ❑ Substances should not be mixed with one another unless recommended by the manufacturer. ❑ Whenever possible, all of a product will be used up before disposing of a container. ❑ Original materials labels and material safety data sheets (MSDS) shall be kept by the Owner. ❑ Petroleum products: ▪ All on-site vehicles and parking areas shall be monitored weekly for leaks and spills. Spills shall be cleaned immediately. ▪ Petroleum products shall be stored under cover and shall be in tightly sealed containers that are clearly labeled. ❑ Fertilizers: ▪ Fertilizers shall only be used in the minimum amounts as recommended by the manufacturer. ▪ The contents of any unused fertilizer shall be transferred to a clearly labeled, sealable plastic bin to avoid spillage. ❑ Paints solvents. ▪ All paints and solvents shall be stored in original manufacturer’s containers in a covered location. ▪ The use of paints and solvents shall, whenever possible, be limited to service or storage bays. Where not possible, the work area shall be protected with impermeable drop clothes or tarps. At no point shall material be used in parking or access ways that are tributaries to the drainage system. MSU Innovation Campus Storm Water Operation & Maintenance Manual 4 Spill Control Practices ❑ Manufacturer's recommended methods shall be clearly posted for spill clean-up and hotel personnel shall be made aware of the procedures and the locations of cleanup information and supplies. ❑ Material and equipment necessary for spill clean-up will be kept on-site in a designated material storage area. Equipment will include, but not be limited to, brooms, dust pans, mops, rags, gloves, goggles, absorbent materials, sand, sawdust, and plastic & metal trash containers specifically kept and labeled for this purpose. ❑ All spills must be cleaned-up immediately after discovery. ❑ Spills of toxic or hazardous material must be reported to the appropriate state, local, or federal agency, as required by-law. Winter Maintenance Activities ❑ Snow plowing operations shall stockpile snow, ice and accumulated materials in areas where snow melt will flow into the on-site drainage systems, including drainage basins. ❑ During winter conditions sand use site-wide shall be applied to the minimum extent possible to maintain safe conditions and limit accumulations within the permeable concrete paver blocks. ❑ The usage of sodium chloride or chloride containing materials for snow and ice removal is not recommended so as to avoid the introduction of salts to the storm water management system. Repair Procedures ❑ Grass Swales, Dense Weeds or Sparse Grass Cover ▪ Re-seed or sod the area, but first determine and address the source of the problem. Expand irrigation coverage, add soil amendments, fertilize, etc., as needed to improve growth media and grass health. ❑ Grass Swales, Areas of Ponding ▪ Cut sod and re-grade the area for consistent downgradient slope along the swale. Then re-seed or sod the area of disturbance. ❑ Pipe Outlet Ditch, Excessive Sediment Accumulation ▪ Cut sod, remove sediment, and re-grade the area to a consistent downgradient slope along the outlet ditch or swale. Extend the re-grading as far as needed to provide positive drainage. Then re-seed or sod the area of disturbance. ❑ Pipe Outlet Ditch, Erosion ▪ It is recommended to hire a Professional Engineer to address this issue. Another option is to cut sod and re- grade the area, install a permanent, non-degradable turf reinforcement mat (TRM) per the manufacturer’s recommendations, and re-seed the area of disturbance through the TRM per the manufacturer’s recommendations. Emergency Contacts PLEASE CALL 9-1-1 FOR ALL POTENTIAL EMERGENCIES City of Bozeman Fire Department: (406) 582-2350 City of Bozeman Police Department: (406) 582-2000