Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout17546 Appendices DESIGN REPORT WATER & SEWER MANAGEMENT HOOVER WAY SUBDIVISION Prepared for: HRDC 32 South Tracy Avenue; Bozeman, MT 59715 Prepared by: C&H Engineering and Surveying, Inc. 1091 Stoneridge Drive, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 587-1115 Project Number: 161004 March 2017 Design Report - Page 2 of 7 INTRODUCTION The proposed Hoover Way Subdivision is a 28-lot affordable housing subdivision located on a 2.72-acre parcel near Hoover Way and Sartain Street in the City of Bozeman. This project will require connection to existing City of Bozeman water and sanitary sewer system. WATER SYSTEM LAYOUT The current water main in the area that will be utilized for the Hoover Way Subdivision is the 8- inch ductile iron pipe (DIP) located in Sartain Street. The proposed 8-inch DIP for the subdivision will connect to the existing main in the intersection of Sartain Street and Hoover Way and the existing 8” water main stub at the existing western terminus of Georgia Marie Lane. The main will run north under the proposed Hoover Way and terminate at the north property line with a cap to allow for future connection. The main will have a tee installed at the intersection of Georgia Marie Lane and this main will run east to connect to the existing stub installed with Baxter Square Subdivision, Phase 3. Blow off valves will be installed per City of Bozeman detail 02660-7 at the north dead-end of the main. A WaterCAD analysis is enclosed (Appendix A) analyzing all mains installed with this project. The connection to the existing system is modeled as a pump with characteristics matching data measured by the City of Bozeman Water Department. WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM SIZING Input Data Average Daily Residential Usage = 170 gallons per capita per day Average Population Density = 2.11 persons/dwelling unit Minimum Fire Hydrant Flow = 1,500 gpm Residual Pressure Required = 20 psi for Fire Flow Average Day Demand (Peaking Factor = 1) Maximum Day Demand (Peaking Factor = 2.3) Maximum Hour Demand (Peaking Factor = 3.0) Design Report - Page 3 of 7 Water Demands (28 dwelling units) Average Day Demand = 28 d.u. x 2.11 persons/d.u. x 170 gpcpd = 10,044 gpd = 6.97 gpm Maximum Day Demand = 6.98 gpm x 2.3 = 16.04 gpm Peak Hour Demand = 6.98 gpm x 3.0 = 20.92 gpm Available Pressure: 8-inch main in Baxter/Buckrake: Hydrant #1960 Static = 90 psi Residual = 88 psi Hydrant # 1961 Pitot = 75 psi Flow Rate = 1455 gpm HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS A water distribution model was created using WaterCAD Version 6.5 for demand forecasting and describing domestic and fire protection requirements. In order to model the system, each junction node of the water distribution system was assessed a demand based on its service area. The table shown below quantifies the demands placed at the junction nodes and calculates the demands for Average Day, Maximum Day and Peak Hour within the subdivision. The peaking factor for each case is 1, 2.3 and 3.0 respectively. JUNCTION NODE # OF LOTS AVG. DAY GPM MAX. DAY GPM PEAK HOUR GPM J-15 10 2.49 5.73 7.47 J-17 0 0 0 0 J-18 6 1.49 3.44 4.48 J-19 12 2.99 6.88 8.97 Total 28 6.97 16.04 20.92 Measurements obtained by the City of Bozeman Water Department indicate a static pressure of 90 psi and a residual pressure of 88 psi at hydrant #1960 (Appendix A). Flow rate and pitot pressure were obtained from fire hydrant #1961 located near hydrant 1960. Measurements obtained by the City of Bozeman Water Department indicate a flow rate of 1455 gpm and a pitot pressure of 75 Design Report - Page 4 of 7 psi at hydrant 1961 (Appendix A). This flow/pressure information was used to develop relationships between static head and flow at the tie in point. his relationship was used in the model by simulation of a pump at the connection point. The pump is connected to a reservoir which acts as a source of water. The elevation of the reservoir is fixed at the elevation of the pump, which is also equivalent to the elevation of the tie in point. The reservoir does not create any head on the system; the head is generated entirely by the pumps. The input data and the pump curves are included in Appendix A. DISTRIBUTION MAIN The proposed 8-inch DIP water mains provide adequate capacity to serve the subdivision under the Peak Hour Demand condition. The flows and pressures within the system for the Peak Hour Demands were generated with the WaterCAD program and can be found in Appendix A. The capacity of the system to meet fire flow requirements was tested by running a steady state fire flow analysis for all junctions at fire hydrant locations. The model shows that all hydrant junctions satisfy fire flow constraints (residual pressure > 20 psi, flow rate > 1500 gpm), while providing service to lots at peak hour. The results of the analysis at peak hourly flow are given in Appendix A. SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM An 8-inch PVC sanitary sewer line will be installed in Hoover Way and Georgia Marie Lane and will flow south to connect with the existing 8-inch main located in Sartain Street. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS The flow rates used herein are according to the City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy (DSSP) dated March, 2004. The peaking factor for the design area is determined by figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula. An 8-inch main is used because that is the minimum diameter allowed within the City of Bozeman. Design Report - Page 5 of 7 Using the city average of 2.11 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated. Connection: Equivalent Population = (2.11 persons/dwelling unit)(28 units) = 59 persons Harmon Formula: Peaking Factor = (18 + P0.5)/(4 + P0.5) where: P = Population in thousands Peaking Factor = (18 + 0.0590.5)/(4 + 0.0590.5) Peaking Factor = 4.30 Assumed infiltration rate = 150 gallons/acre/day = 150 (2.72 acres) = 408 gal/day The peak flow rate is calculated by multiplying the City's design generation rate of 89 gallons per capita per day by the population, multiplying by the peaking factor, and adding the infiltration rate: Peak Flow Rate = 89 gpcpd (59 persons) (4.30) + 408 gpd = 22,987 gpd = 15.96 gpm = 0.0351 cfs The capacity of an 8-inch main is checked using Manning’s Equation: Qfull = (1.486/0.013)AR2/3S1/2 For an 8-inch PVC main: Manning's n = 0.013 for PVC Pipe Minimum Slope = 0.004 ft/ft A = area = (3.14/4)d 2 = (3.14/4)(8/12)2 = 0.34907 ft2 P = perimeter = 2(3.14)r = 2(3.14)(4/12) = 2.0944 ft R = hydraulic radius = A/P = 0.34907/2.0944 = 0.16667 ft R2/3 = 0.30105 ft S = 0.004 ft/ft S1/2 = 0.0632 ft/ft Qfull = (1.486/0.013)(0.34907)(0.30105)(0.0632) = 0.7592 cfs Design Report - Page 6 of 7 Connection: Q/Qfull = 0.0280 /0.7592 = 0.0368 or 3.68% Based on these calculations, an 8-inch sewer line has adequate capacity to carry the design flows for the subdivision. Wastewater from the proposed subdivision will flow to the existing main in Thomas Drive which connects to the Figure 4-8 of the Cattail Creek Interceptor. Figure 4-8 of the 2014 Wastewater Facility Plan for the City of Bozeman indicates that sanitary sewer mains downstream of the proposed subdivision are flowing at less than 50% of capacity (maximum d/D) with the exception of the trunk main directly before the Wastewater Treatment Plant which is flowing between 50% and 75% full (maximum d/D). Design Report - Page 7 of 7 APPENDIX A WATERCAD MODEL Calculation Results Summary Title: Baxter Square Subdivision, Phase 3 g:\...\design reports\baxterwatercad.wcd 03/15/17 03:19:48 PM C & H Engineering & Surveying, Inc. © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Project Engineer: Matt Hausauer WaterCAD v6.5 [6.5120] Page 1 of 1 Scenario: Peak Hour [Analysis Started] Wed Mar 15 15:15:07 2017 [Fire Flow] Failed to Converge ....... 0 Satisfied Constraints .... 6 Failed Constraints ....... 0 Total Nodes Computed ..... 6 [Steady State] 0:00:00 Balanced after 2 trials; relative flow change = 0.000172 Flow Summary Flow Supplied 20.92 gpm Flow Demanded 20.92 gpm Flow Stored 0.00 gpm 0:00:00 Reservoir R-2 is emptying [Analysis Ended] Wed Mar 15 15:15:07 2017 Scenario Summary Report Scenario: Peak Hour Title: Baxter Square Subdivision, Phase 3 g:\...\design reports\baxterwatercad.wcd 03/15/17 03:20:41 PM C & H Engineering & Surveying, Inc. © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Project Engineer: Matt Hausauer WaterCAD v6.5 [6.5120] Page 1 of 1 Scenario Summary Active Topology Alternative Base-Active Topology Physical Alternative Base-Physical Demand Alternative Base-Demand Initial Settings Alternative Base-Initial Settings Operational Alternative Base-Operational Age Alternative Base-Age Alternative Constituent Alternative Base-Constituent Trace Alternative Base-Trace Alternative Fire Flow Alternative Base-Fire Flow Capital Cost Alternative Base-Capital Cost Energy Cost Alternative Base-Energy Cost User Data Alternative Base-User Data Hydraulic Analysis Summary Analysis Steady State Friction MethodHazen-Williams Formula Accuracy 0.001000 Trials 40 Quality Analysis Summary Analysis Constituent Quality Time Step N/A hr Age Tolerance 0.01 hr Constituent Tolerance 0.01 mg/l Trace Tolerance 1.0 % Global Adjustments Demand Operation <None> Roughness Operation <None> Demand 0.00 Roughness 0.00 Scenario: Peak Hour Fire Flow Analysis Fire Flow Report Title: Baxter Square Subdivision, Phase 3 g:\...\design reports\baxterwatercad.wcd 03/15/17 03:21:49 PM C & H Engineering & Surveying, Inc. © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Project Engineer: Matt Hausauer WaterCAD v6.5 [6.5120] Page 1 of 2 Label Fire Flow Iterations Fire Flow Balanced? Satisfies Fire Flow Constraints? Needed Fire Flow (gpm) Available Fire Flow (gpm) Total Flow Needed (gpm) Total Flow Available (gpm) Residual Pressure (psi) Calculated Residual Pressure (psi) Minimum Zone Pressure (psi) HYDRANT 16 true true 1,500.00 4,591.66 1,500.00 4,591.66 20.00 20.00 20.00 J-14 1 true true 1,500.00 5,000.00 1,500.00 5,000.00 20.00 70.07 20.00 J-15 14 true true 1,500.00 4,693.66 1,507.47 4,701.13 20.00 24.33 20.00 J-17 16 true true 1,500.00 4,647.84 1,500.00 4,647.84 20.00 20.00 20.00 J-18 12 true true 1,500.00 4,157.47 1,504.48 4,161.95 20.00 20.00 20.00 J-19 15 true true 1,500.00 3,925.69 1,508.97 3,934.66 20.00 20.00 20.00 Scenario: Peak Hour Fire Flow Analysis Fire Flow Report Title: Baxter Square Subdivision, Phase 3 g:\...\design reports\baxterwatercad.wcd 03/15/17 03:21:49 PM C & H Engineering & Surveying, Inc. © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Project Engineer: Matt Hausauer WaterCAD v6.5 [6.5120] Page 2 of 2 Calculated Minimum Zone Pressure (psi) Minimum Zone Junction 26.99 J-15 67.25 HYDRANT 20.00 HYDRANT 20.00 J-18 33.30 J-17 38.81 HYDRANT Scenario: Peak Hour Fire Flow Analysis Junction Report Title: Baxter Square Subdivision, Phase 3 g:\...\design reports\baxterwatercad.wcd 03/15/17 03:22:51 PM C & H Engineering & Surveying, Inc. © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Project Engineer: Matt Hausauer WaterCAD v6.5 [6.5120] Page 1 of 1 Label Elevation (ft) Type Base Flow (gpm) Pattern Demand (Calculated) (gpm) Calculated Hydraulic Grade (ft) Pressure (psi) HYDRANT 4,702.50 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 4,903.69 87.04 J-14 4,696.00 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 4,903.69 89.86 J-15 4,692.50 Demand 7.47 Fixed 7.47 4,903.69 91.37 J-17 4,692.00 Demand 0.00 Fixed 0.00 4,903.68 91.59 J-18 4,692.00 Demand 4.48 Fixed 4.48 4,903.68 91.59 J-19 4,691.00 Demand 8.97 Fixed 8.97 4,903.68 92.02 Scenario: Peak Hour Fire Flow Analysis Pipe Report Title: Baxter Square Subdivision, Phase 3 g:\...\design reports\baxterwatercad.wcd 03/15/17 03:23:49 PM C & H Engineering & Surveying, Inc. © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Project Engineer: Matt Hausauer WaterCAD v6.5 [6.5120] Page 1 of 2 Label Length (ft) Diameter (in) Material Hazen- Williams C Check Valve? Minor Loss Coefficient Control Status Discharge (gpm) Upstream Structure Hydraulic Grade (ft) Downstream Structure Hydraulic Grade (ft) P-13 354.00 8.0 Ductile Iron 130.0 false 0.00 Open 20.92 4,903.69 4,903.69 P-14 20.00 8.0 Ductile Iron 130.0 false 0.00 Open 0.00 4,903.69 4,903.69 P-15 42.00 8.0 Ductile Iron 130.0 false 0.00 Open 13.45 4,903.69 4,903.68 P-16 120.00 8.0 Ductile Iron 130.0 false 0.00 Open 4.48 4,903.68 4,903.68 P-17 196.00 8.0 Ductile Iron 130.0 false 0.00 Open 8.97 4,903.68 4,903.68 P-18 1.00 48.0 PVC 150.0 false 0.00 Open 20.92 4,903.69 4,903.69 P-19 1.00 48.0 PVC 150.0 false 0.00 Open 20.92 4,696.00 4,696.00 Scenario: Peak Hour Fire Flow Analysis Pipe Report Title: Baxter Square Subdivision, Phase 3 g:\...\design reports\baxterwatercad.wcd 03/15/17 03:23:49 PM C & H Engineering & Surveying, Inc. © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Project Engineer: Matt Hausauer WaterCAD v6.5 [6.5120] Page 2 of 2 Pressure Pipe Headloss (ft) Headloss Gradient (ft/1000ft) 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Scenario: Peak Hour Fire Flow Analysis Pump Report Title: Baxter Square Subdivision, Phase 3 g:\...\design reports\baxterwatercad.wcd 03/15/17 03:24:53 PM C & H Engineering & Surveying, Inc. © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Project Engineer: Matt Hausauer WaterCAD v6.5 [6.5120] Page 1 of 1 Label Elevation (ft) Control Status Intake Pump Grade (ft) Discharge Pump Grade (ft) Discharge (gpm) Pump Head (ft) Calculated Water Power (Hp) PMP-2 4,696.00 On 4,696.00 4,903.69 20.92 207.69 1.10 DESIGN REPORT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT HOOVER WAY SUBDIVISION Prepared for: HRDC 32 South Tracy Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715 Prepared by: C&H Engineering and Surveying, Inc. 1091 Stoneridge Drive, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 587-1115 Project Number: 161004 November 2017 INTRODUCTION The proposed Hoover Way Subdivision is a 27-lot affordable housing subdivision located on a 2.72-acre parcel near Hoover Way and Sartain Street in the City of Bozeman. A combination of site grading, curb and gutter, storm inlets, piping, and on-site retention via underground retention chambers will be used to manage stormwater runoff on the site. All stormwater inlets must be fitted with an oil and debris stop to eliminate oil and sediment from runoff. Supporting stormwater calculations are attached to this report. INFILTRATION CHAMBERS The subdivision will utilize underground stormwater retention chambers for stormwater management. The retention chambers are sized to the City of Bozeman Design Standards to retain the entire volume of a 10-year, 2-hour storm event. The subdivision was split into four primary drainage basins as shown on the attached Drainage Area Exhibit. Drainage Areas 1 and 2 consist of the north half of the proposed Hoover Way Subdivision and stormwater from these drainage areas flows to the Contech Underground Storage Chambers #1. Drainage Area 1 includes all of Georgia Marie Lane, and all of blocks 2 and 3, and the east half of Hoover Way north of the storm inlets at station 3+70.93. Drainage Area 2 includes all of block 1 and the west half of Hoover Way north of the storm inlets at station 3+70.93. The runoff volume from Drainage Areas 1 and 2 during a 10-year 2-hour storm is 2,529 ft3. The Contech Underground Storm Chambers #1 has a total volume of 2,817 ft3. Drainage Areas 3 and 4 consist of the south half of the proposed Hoover Way Subdivision and stormwater from these drainage areas flows to the Contech Underground Storage Chambers #2. Drainage Area 2 consists of all of block 1 and the west half of Hoover Way south of the storm inlets located at station 3+70.93, and the north half of Sartain Street from the proposed Hoover Way/Sartain Street intersection to the west dead end barricade. Drainage Area 4 consists of the east half of Hoover Way south of the storm inlets located at station 3+70.93 and the north half of Sartain Street from the existing Renee Way/Sartain Street intersection to the proposed Hoover Way/Sartain Street intersection. The runoff volume from Drainage Areas 3 and 4 during a 10-year 2-hour storm is 2,401 ft3. The Contech Underground Storm Chambers #2 has a total volume of 2,715 ft3. The Contech Infiltration System is a method for storing stormwater runoff in an underground infiltration system. Each system consists of 24” diameter Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP). The structural backfill for each system consists of a stone porosity of 40%, 12 inches of width at the ends and sides, 12 inches of space between pipes, and 6 inches above and below the pipes. Drainage Area 1 will require an infiltration system that consists of six barrels of pipe, each barrel being 79 feet long. Each barrel includes 4 sections of CMP connected via a coupling band. The total pipe storage associated with this system is 1,542 ft3, and 1,275 ft3 coming from the structural backfill storage. The total footprint for this system is 1,577 ft2. Drainage Area 2 will require an infiltration system that consists of six barrels of pipe, each barrel being 76 feet long. Each barrel includes 4 sections of CMP connected via a coupling band. The total pipe storage associated with this system is 1,485 ft3, and 1,229 ft3 coming from the structural backfill storage. The total footprint for this system is 1,520 ft2. APPENDIX A DRAINAGE AREA MAP APPENDIX B SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS DRAINAGE AREA #1 1. Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way Component Width C ROW Hardscape 41 0.95 ROW Landscape 19 0.2 Weighted C Factor = 0.71 2. Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor Contributing Area C Area (ft 2 )C * Area Composite ROW 0.71 16455 11724 Dense Residential 0.5 28442 14221 OS 0.2 5016 1003 Total 49913 26948 A = Area (acres)1.15 C = Weighted C Factor 0.54 3. Calculate Tc (Time to Concentration) Tc Overland Flow Tc = 1.87 (1.1-CCf)D1/2/S1/3 Storm S = Slope of Basin (%) 2.12 Return (yrs)Cf C = Rational Method Runoff Coefficient 0.35 2 to 10 1 Cf = Frequency Adjustment Factor 1.1 11 to 25 1.1 D = Length of Basin (ft) 118 26 to 50 1.2 51 to 100 1.25 Tc Overland Flow (minutes)11.33 Tc Gutter Flow Tc = L/V/60 V = (1.486/n)R2/3 S1/2 n = Mannings Coefficient 0.013 R = Hydraulic Radius A/P (ft)0.13 (0.15' below top of curb) S = slope (ft/ft)1.10% L = length of gutter (ft)280 V = mean velocity (ft/s)3.14 Tc Gutter Flow (minutes) =1.49 Tc Total =12.82 4. Calculate Flow (Rational Formula) Q = CIA C = Weighted C Factor 0.54 (calculated above) I = 0.78 Tc-0.64 (in/hr)2.09 (25-yr storm) A = area (acres) 1.15 (calculated above) Q = REQUIRED GUTTER CAPACITY (cfs) 1.30 (assuming no carry flow) PROVIDED GUTTER CAPACITY 1. Calculate Gutter Capacity @ 0.15' Below Top of Curb Q = (1.486/n)AR2/3 S1/2 n = Mannings Coefficient 0.013 A = Area (ft2)1.24 (0.15' below top of curb) P = Wetted perimeter (ft) 9.23 (0.15' below top of curb) R = Hydraulic Radius A/P (ft) 0.13 (0.15' below top of curb) S = slope (ft/ft) 1.10% Q = PROVIDED GUTTER CAPACITY (cfs) 3.89 DRAINAGE AREA #2 1. Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way Component Width C ROW Hardscape 41 0.95 ROW Landscape 19 0.2 Weighted C Factor = 0.71 2. Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor Contributing Area C Area (ft 2 )C * Area Composite ROW 0.71 5514 3929 Dense Residential 0.5 10000 5000 OS 0.2 7220 1444 Total 22735 10373 A = Area (acres)0.52 C = Weighted C Factor 0.46 3. Calculate Tc (Time to Concentration) Tc Overland Flow Tc = 1.87 (1.1-CCf)D1/2/S1/3 Storm S = Slope of Basin (%) 1.84 Return (yrs)Cf C = Rational Method Runoff Coefficient 0.35 2 to 10 1 Cf = Frequency Adjustment Factor 1.1 11 to 25 1.1 D = Length of Basin (ft) 133 26 to 50 1.2 51 to 100 1.25 Tc Overland Flow (minutes)12.60 Tc Gutter Flow Tc = L/V/60 V = (1.486/n)R2/3 S1/2 n = Mannings Coefficient 0.013 R = Hydraulic Radius A/P (ft)0.13 (0.15' below top of curb) S = slope (ft/ft)1.85% L = length of gutter (ft)106 V = mean velocity (ft/s)4.08 Tc Gutter Flow (minutes) =0.43 Tc Total =13.03 4. Calculate Flow (Rational Formula) Q = CIA C = Weighted C Factor 0.46 (calculated above) I = 0.78 Tc-0.64 (in/hr)2.07 (25-yr storm) A = area (acres) 0.52 (calculated above) Q = REQUIRED GUTTER CAPACITY (cfs) 0.49 (assuming no carry flow) PROVIDED GUTTER CAPACITY 1. Calculate Gutter Capacity @ 0.15' Below Top of Curb Q = (1.486/n)AR2/3 S1/2 n = Mannings Coefficient 0.013 A = Area (ft2)1.24 (0.15' below top of curb) P = Wetted perimeter (ft) 9.23 (0.15' below top of curb) R = Hydraulic Radius A/P (ft) 0.13 (0.15' below top of curb) S = slope (ft/ft) 1.85% Q = PROVIDED GUTTER CAPACITY (cfs) 5.06 DRAINAGE AREA #3 1. Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way Component Width C ROW Hardscape 41 0.95 ROW Landscape 19 0.2 Weighted C Factor = 0.71 2. Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor Contributing Area C Area (ft 2 )C * Area Composite ROW 0.71 11579 8250 Dense Residential 0.5 20001 10000 OS 0.2 7147 1429 Total 38726 19679 A = Area (acres)0.89 C = Weighted C Factor 0.51 3. Calculate Tc (Time to Concentration) Tc Overland Flow Tc = 1.87 (1.1-CCf)D1/2/S1/3 Storm S = Slope of Basin (%) 3.21 Return (yrs)Cf C = Rational Method Runoff Coefficient 0.35 2 to 10 1 Cf = Frequency Adjustment Factor 1.1 11 to 25 1.1 D = Length of Basin (ft) 119 26 to 50 1.2 51 to 100 1.25 Tc Overland Flow (minutes)9.87 Tc Gutter Flow Tc = L/V/60 V = (1.486/n)R2/3 S1/2 n = Mannings Coefficient 0.013 R = Hydraulic Radius A/P (ft)0.13 (0.15' below top of curb) S = slope (ft/ft)1.21% L = length of gutter (ft)259 V = mean velocity (ft/s)3.30 Tc Gutter Flow (minutes) =1.31 Tc Total =11.18 4. Calculate Flow (Rational Formula) Q = CIA C = Weighted C Factor 0.51 (calculated above) I = 0.78 Tc-0.64 (in/hr)2.29 (25-yr storm) A = area (acres) 0.89 (calculated above) Q = REQUIRED GUTTER CAPACITY (cfs) 1.03 (assuming no carry flow) PROVIDED GUTTER CAPACITY 1. Calculate Gutter Capacity @ 0.15' Below Top of Curb Q = (1.486/n)AR2/3 S1/2 n = Mannings Coefficient 0.013 A = Area (ft2)1.24 (0.15' below top of curb) P = Wetted perimeter (ft) 9.23 (0.15' below top of curb) R = Hydraulic Radius A/P (ft) 0.13 (0.15' below top of curb) S = slope (ft/ft) 1.21% Q = PROVIDED GUTTER CAPACITY (cfs) 4.09 DRAINAGE AREA #4 1. Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way Component Width C ROW Hardscape 41 0.95 ROW Landscape 19 0.2 Weighted C Factor = 0.71 2. Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor Contributing Area C Area (ft 2 )C * Area Composite ROW 0.71 21779 15518 Dense Residential 0.5 0 0 OS 0.2 1144 229 Total 22924 15747 A = Area (acres)0.53 C = Weighted C Factor 0.69 3. Calculate Tc (Time to Concentration) Tc Overland Flow Tc = 1.87 (1.1-CCf)D1/2/S1/3 Storm S = Slope of Basin (%) 1.38 Return (yrs)Cf C = Rational Method Runoff Coefficient 0.35 2 to 10 1 Cf = Frequency Adjustment Factor 1.1 11 to 25 1.1 D = Length of Basin (ft) 0 26 to 50 1.2 51 to 100 1.25 Tc Overland Flow (minutes)0.00 Tc Gutter Flow Tc = L/V/60 V = (1.486/n)R2/3 S1/2 n = Mannings Coefficient 0.013 R = Hydraulic Radius A/P (ft)0.13 (0.15' below top of curb) S = slope (ft/ft)0.89% L = length of gutter (ft)733 V = mean velocity (ft/s)2.82 Tc Gutter Flow (minutes) =4.33 Tc Total =4.33 4. Calculate Flow (Rational Formula) Q = CIA C = Weighted C Factor 0.69 (calculated above) I = 0.78 Tc-0.64 (in/hr)4.20 (25-yr storm) A = area (acres) 0.53 (calculated above) Q = REQUIRED GUTTER CAPACITY (cfs) 1.52 (assuming no carry flow) PROVIDED GUTTER CAPACITY 1. Calculate Gutter Capacity @ 0.15' Below Top of Curb Q = (1.486/n)AR2/3 S1/2 n = Mannings Coefficient 0.013 A = Area (ft2)1.24 (0.15' below top of curb) P = Wetted perimeter (ft) 9.23 (0.15' below top of curb) R = Hydraulic Radius A/P (ft) 0.13 (0.15' below top of curb) S = slope (ft/ft) 0.89% Q = PROVIDED GUTTER CAPACITY (cfs) 3.50 CONTECH UNDERGROUND STORM CHAMBERS #1 REQUIRED VOLUME 1. Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor Contributing Area C Area (ft 2)C * Area Composite ROW 0.71 21969 15653 Dense Residential 0.5 38442 19221 OS 0.2 12236 2447 Total 72648 37321 C=Weighted C Factor 0.51 2. Calculate Required Volume Q = CIA V=7200Q C = Weighted C Factor 0.51 I = intensity (in/hr) 0.41 (10 yr, 2hr storm) A = Area (acres) 1.67 Q = runoff (cfs) 0.35 V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3)2529 PROVIDED VOLUME (ft3)2,817 CONTECH UNDERGROUND STORM CHAMBERS #2 REQUIRED VOLUME 1. Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor Contributing Area C Area (ft 2)C * Area Composite ROW 0.71 33358 23768 Dense Residential 0.5 20001 10000 OS 0.2 8291 1658 Total 61650 35426 C=Weighted C Factor 0.57 2. Calculate Required Volume Q = CIA V=7200Q C = Weighted C Factor 0.57 I = intensity (in/hr) 0.41 (10 yr, 2hr storm) A = Area (acres) 1.42 Q = runoff (cfs) 0.33 V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3)2401 PROVIDED VOLUME (ft3)2,715 INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES The Property Owners Association shall be responsible for the maintenance of the stormwater drainage facilities within Block 2 of Ferguson Farm Subdivision. Storm Water Facilities: 1. Drainage swales slope toward retention and detention ponds to collect storm water runoff and channel it to the retention or detention pond. 2. Retention Ponds collect storm water runoff and store the water until it evaporates and/or infiltrates into the ground. 3. Detention ponds collect storm water runoff while allowing some water to drain to another location. 4. Culverts are pipes which channel storm water from ditches or swales under roads. 5. Pipe Networks convey storm water to different discharge locations underground. 6. Inlets are facilities where storm water runoff enters a pipe network. Inlets include storm water manholes and drains. 7. Catch Basins are sumps typically located directly below storm water inlets and allow sediment to settle before storm water enters the pipe network. 8. Outlets are points where storm water exits a pipe network. 9. Drywells are underground storm water collection facilities that collect and temporarily store runoff from roof tops and landscaped areas before allowing storm water to infiltrate into the ground. Post Construction Inspection: 1. Observe drain time in retention ponds for a storm event after completion of the facility to confirm that the desired drain time has been obtained. If excessively slow infiltration rates are observed then excavate a minimum 5 ft by 5 ft drain to native gravels (or native well-draining material) and backfill with well-draining material (pit-run). 2. Observe that drywells, catch basins, and outlet structures are clear of any material or obstructions in the drainage slots. Inspect these structures to insure proper drainage following a storm event. Immediately identify and remove objects responsible for clogging if not draining properly. Semi-Annual Inspection: 1. Check retention ponds and dry wells three days following a storm event exceeding ¼ inch of precipitation. Failure for water to percolate within this time period indicates clogging or poor-draining soils. Clear any clogs and replace any poor-draining soils with well-draining gravely soils. 2. Check for grass clippings, litter, and debris in drainage swales, catch basins, dry wells, culverts and retention ponds. Flush and/or vacuum drywells or storm water pipes if excessive material is observed in the facilities. Standard Maintenance: 1. Remove sediment and oil/grease from retention ponds and detention 2. Inspect and remove debris from drainage swales, catch basins, dry wells, and retention ponds. Use a vacuum truck to clean catch basins and dry wells. 3. Monitor health of vegetation and revegetate as necessary to maintain full vegetative cover. 4. Inspect for the following issues: differential accumulation of sediment, drain time, signs of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination (odors, oil sheen in pond water), standing water, trash and debris. Sediment accumulation: In most cases, sediment from a retention pond does not contain toxins at levels posing a hazardous concern. However, sediments should be tested for toxicants in compliance with current disposal requirements and if land uses in the drainage area include commercial or industrial zones, or if visual or olfactory indications of pollution are noticed. Sediments containing high levels of pollutants should be disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations and the potential sources of contamination should be investigated and contamination practices terminated. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT #161004 – BAXTER SQUARE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4, BOZEMAN, MONTANA i Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... …1 2.0 PROPOSED STRUCTURE ........................................................................................... 1 3.0 INVESTIGATION ......................................................................................................... 1 3.1 Field Investigation ................................................................................................... 1 3.2 Laboratory Analysis ................................................................................................. 2 4.0 SITE EVALUATION ..................................................................................................... 2 4.1 Site Description ....................................................................................................... 2 4.2 Subsurface Soils and Conditions .............................................................................. 2 4.3 NRCS Soils Survey .................................................................................................. 4 4.4 Geologic Setting ...................................................................................................... 4 4.5 Seismicity ................................................................................................................ 5 4.5.1 Liquefaction ................................................................................................. 5 4.5.2 Peak Ground Acceleration ............................................................................ 6 4.6 Groundwater ........................................................................................................... 6 5.0 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 6 5.1 Allowable Bearing Capacity .................................................................................... 6 5.2 Settlement ................................................................................................................ 7 5.2.1 Collapse Potential ......................................................................................... 8 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 8 6.1 Foundation ............................................................................................................... 8 6.2 Foundation Excavation ............................................................................................ 9 6.3 Structural Fill ........................................................................................................... 9 6.4 Foundation Wall Backfill ....................................................................................... 10 6.5 Interior Slabs-On-Grade ......................................................................................... 10 6.6 Exterior Slabs-On-Grade ........................................................................................ 11 6.7 Asphalt Paving Improvements ............................................................................... 11 6.8 Site Grading ........................................................................................................... 12 6.9 Underground Utilities ............................................................................................ 12 6.10 Construction Administration .................................................................................. 13 7.0 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................... 13 8.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................... 14 9.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 14 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT #161004 – BAXTER SQUARE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4, BOZEMAN, MONTANA ii List of Appendices Appendix A – USGS Topographic Map .................................................................................. A-1 Appendix B – Test Pit Location Map ...................................................................................... A-2 Appendix C – NRCS Web Soil Survey Map ............................................................................ A-3 Appendix D – Geology Maps .................................................................................................. A-4 Appendix E – Test Pit Logs ..................................................................................................... A-5 Appendix F – Report Limitations ............................................................................................ A-6 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT #161004 – BAXTER SQUARE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 1 1.0 Introduction C&H Engineering and Surveying Inc., (C&H Engineering) has conducted a geotechnical investigation for the Hoover Way Subdivision. The project area is found in the Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 5 East, in Bozeman, Montana. The site location is shown on a United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle map in Appendix A, “USGS Topographic Map.” The scope of services was to conduct a site investigation, evaluate the site, and provide a geotechnical investigation report. The report documents the sites’ soil and groundwater conditions, subsurface soil properties, and provides foundation design and construction recommendations for residential structures to be constructed within the subdivision. 2.0 Proposed Construction Hoover Way Subdivision will have a total of 27 lots. A total of 25 of the lots will be for townhomes. The subdivision has a total area of 2.7214 acres. Site development for each lot has been assumed to consist of the excavation for the foundation elements, installation of exterior concrete slabs, and also the installation of either rigid or flexible driveway pavements. It has been assumed that each residence will be constructed with either a slab-on-grade with frost walls foundation or a crawl space foundation. Basement foundations are not recommended due to the potential for seasonally high groundwater elevations across the subdivision. It is also assumed that each structure will have an attached garage that will be constructed with a slab-on-grade with frost walls foundation. It has been assumed that each structure will be constructed utilizing typical wood framing. It has also been assumed that the foundation footings for each structure will not be subjected to unusual loading conditions such as eccentric loads. Eccentric loading of foundation footings will reduce the soils allowable bearing capacity and could possibly result in additional settlement. If any of the foundation footings will be eccentrically loaded please contact this office so we can appropriately revise our allowable bearing capacity and settlement estimates. 3.0 Investigation The investigation is separated into two parts; the field investigation and the laboratory analysis. While the scope of this project focuses more on the field investigation, we feel it is important to spend time verifying our field observations and conducting tests that will aid in the geotechnical analysis. 3.1 Field Investigation On January 10, 2017 a site visit was made to the subject property to conduct a subsurface soils investigation and to observe ground features. The subsurface conditions were investigated across the subject property under the direction of Michael J. Welch, P.E., a professional geotechnical engineer with C&H Engineering. The subsurface soils investigation consisted of examining 5 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT #161004 – BAXTER SQUARE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 2 test pit excavations. The exploratory test pits were excavated with John Deere 410G Backhoe provided by Val Mencas Excavation, LLC. The test pit locations were chosen based on site topography, accessibility, the location of underground utilities, and the proposed layout of Hoover Way Subdivision. The soil profiles revealed by the excavations were logged and visually classified according to ASTM D 2488, which utilizes the nomenclature of the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Representative samples of each soil layer were collected from the trench sidewalls at varying depths for further classification in the lab. The relative density of each soil layer was estimated based on the amount of effort required to excavate the material, probing of the excavation sidewalls with a rock hammer, and the overall stability of the excavation. Penetration tests were also performed with a static cone penetrometer on fine grained soils. Any evidence of seepage or other groundwater conditions were also noted. The locations of the test pits (TP) are shown on the Test Pit Location Map included in Appendix B. The subsurface soil conditions encountered in the test pits are described briefly in Section 4.2 and in more detail in Appendix E, “Test Pit Logs.” 3.2 Laboratory Analysis The representative soil samples collected from the excavation sidewalls during the field investigation were labeled, stored in a sealed container, and transported to the C&H Engineering soils laboratory. While each soil interval was visually classified during the field investigation, the classifications were verified and further refined in the laboratory using the following procedures:  Visual-Manual Procedure (ASTM D2488)  Amount of Material in Soils Finer than the No. 200 Sieve (ASTM D1140) 4.0 Site Evaluation The site evaluation is based on both the field investigation and research of the sites’ surface geology, soil survey information, and seismic history. 4.1 Site Description Hoover Way Subdivision has a total area of 2.7214 acres and will consist of 27 residential lots, 25 of which will be for townhomes. The subdivision is bordered by residential properties to the north, east and west. Sartain Street borders the subdivision to the South. The subject property is currently separated into two separate drainage areas due to an elevated area that traverses the property from east to west. This elevated area used to contain railroad tracks at some time in the past. The area to the south of the old railroad tracks has had a significant amount of fill brought to the site and end dumped. A large pond is also located directly to the east of the fill piles and appears to slightly encroach on the proposed subdivision. No other significant geological or topographical features are present. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT #161004 – BAXTER SQUARE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 3 4.2 Subsurface Soils and Conditions The following paragraphs briefly summarize the subsurface soils and conditions observed in the 5 test pits excavated for the field investigation. Please refer to Appendix E, “Test Pit Logs” for more detailed descriptions and to the Test Pit Location map in Appendix B for the test pit locations. The first soil horizon encountered in TP-1 and TP-2 was undocumented fill. It should be noted that a significant amount of fill has been brought to the site and end dumped in the vicinity of TP-1 and TP-2. The test pits were excavated in accessible areas that appeared to have relatively a small amount of fill placed across them. The undocumented fill was a mixture of organics, silt, clay, sand, cobbles, gravels, and woody debris, and was present to a depth of 0.9 feet below grounds surface (bgs) in both TP-1 and TP-2. This material must be removed from beneath all foundation elements, interior and exterior slabs as well as beneath all asphalt paving. This material may be stockpiled onsite and used for final site grading purposes. The first soil horizon encountered in TP-3, TP-4 and TP-5 and the second soil horizon encountered in TP-1 and TP-2 was an Organic Soil of low plasticity (OL). This material was black in color, moist, and very soft. This material was encountered to depths of approximately 1.3 to 2.5 feet below grounds surface (bgs). Organic soils are highly compressible and are not suitable for foundation support. This material must also be removed from beneath all interior and exterior slabs as well as beneath all asphalt paving. This material may be stockpiled onsite and used for final site grading purposes. Underlying the Organic Soil of Low Plasticity in each of the excavations was a Lean Clay with Sand (CL), which was encountered to depths ranging from 4.0 feet bgs to 6.5 feet bgs. This material was light brown in color to gleyed, very soft, and composed of approximately 75 to 95 percent clayey fines with medium to low plasticity and no dilatancy, and 5 to 25 percent fine to medium grained sand. This material was found to be in a very soft condition and is not suitable for foundation support. Perched water layers were also encountered at various depths within this layer in each of the exploratory excavations. Following the Lean Clay with Sand, Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand and Cobbles (GP), known locally as "pit-run" gravel, was encountered to the end of each excavation. Groundwater was present within this interval in each of the exploratory excavations. Once the water table was encountered the excavation did not continue due to caving of the excavation side walls. Based on the subsurface investigation it is anticipated that Lean Clay with Sand will be present at the desired footing elevation for each of the residential structures. A settlement analysis indicates that the Lean Clay with Sand could settle in excess of 3 inches under the anticipated loading conditions. This amount of settlement can cause significant structural damage to any wood- framed structure, therefore, it is recommended that the Lean Clay with Sand be removed from beneath all foundation footings. Also, the perched water layers encountered within the Lean Clay with Sand make any structure constructed over this material highly susceptible to differential settlement, further warranting removing this material from beneath all foundation footings. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT #161004 – BAXTER SQUARE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 4 It is our recommendation that the excavation for each structures’ foundation continue down to the Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand and Cobbles and structural fill be placed and compacted to achieve the desired bottom of footing elevation. It should be noted that in order to implement the required subgrade improvements dewatering will be necessary. A dewatering plan is beyond the scope of this report and is the responsibility of the excavating contractor. 4.3 Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (WSS) provides soil data and information produced by the National Cooperative Soil Survey. The NRCS has determined the physical characteristics and engineering properties, among other data, of near surface soils across the United States. These data are reviewed against our observations and analysis of the subsurface soils encountered during the field investigation to determine if a correlation is present. If a strong correlation is determined, it is very likely that other engineering properties or characteristics described by the NRCS regarding the soils present on the subject property are accurate as well. It should be noted that the NRCS typically only describes the soils located within 5 feet of the surface. NRCS Soil Survey information of the area was taken from the NRCS WSS, Version 2.0. For more information please visit the NRCS Web Soil Survey on the World Wide Web, at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. The NRCS Soils Survey identifies two soil types near the subject property. The soil types are 50B – Blackdog Silt Loam and 510B – Meadowcreek Loam. The NRCS describes these soils types as calcareous loess (50B) and alluvium (510B). The soils encountered in all five excavations correlate best with the NRCS description of the Meadowcreek Loam. All soils encountered, with the exception of the organic soil and the undocumented fill, appeared to be alluvial in origin. It should be noted that the NRCS indicates that groundwater for this soil type is located at depths ranging from 24 inches to 42 inches below the grounds surface. 4.4 Geologic Setting The following paragraphs discuss the geologic setting in the direct vicinity of the subject property. The geologic setting is determined from a review of surface geology maps and reports published by the United States Geological Survey and others that contain the subject property. This information is especially helpful in determining any geologic hazards that may be present in the immediate area (such as landslide deposits) and what types of soil and rock may be present in the area. Additional information regarding the parent material and depositional environment of a given soil type can also sometimes be obtained or inferred from these maps and reports. The local surface geology in the direct vicinity of the subject property was determined from the USGS Geologic Map of the Bozeman 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle. Please refer to Appendix D, “USGS Geologic Map” for a complete geologic description and map. The USGS Geological Map identifies one geologic formation mapped across the subject property. This geological GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT #161004 – BAXTER SQUARE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 5 formation is named Qabo, braid plain alluvium, older. For a narrative description of this formation see the USGS Geologic Map of the Bozeman 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle in Appendix D. The 5 test pits excavated for the field investigation correlate well with the USGS descriptions of the braid plain alluvium, older. All soils encountered, with the exception of the organic soil, appeared to be alluvial in origin. 4.5 Seismicity The Bozeman area is located in an earthquake zone known as the intermountain seismic belt, which is a zone of earthquake activity that extends from northwest Montana to southern Arizona. In general, this zone is expected to experience moderately frequent, potentially damaging earthquakes. With that in mind, it is important that the structure be designed to withstand horizontal seismic accelerations that may be induced by such an earthquake, as is required by the International Building Code. Horizontal ground acceleration is discussed further below in Section 4.5.3. The USGS and Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (MBMG) have compiled a map of Quaternary Class A faults and earthquake epicenters in western Montana; a Class A fault is one that is associated with at least one large magnitude earthquake within the last 1.6 million years. The earthquake epicenters shown on the map (yellow circles) are associated with earthquakes of magnitude 2.5 or greater, with stars indicating epicenters of earthquakes with a magnitude greater than 5.5. A review of this map indicated that there are 4 Class A faults located within 15 miles of the subject property and 13 earthquake epicenters have been recorded within 12 miles of the subject property. The four faults mapped near the subject property are the Central Park Fault, Bridger Fault, Elk Creek Fault, and the Gallatin Range Fault. Each of these faults is described as a normal fault, indicating that one side of the fault will move downward into the earth relative the other side during an earthquake. The Central Park Fault is located approximately 9.5 miles northwest of the subject property and runs east to west through the middle of the Gallatin Valley. The Bridger Fault is located approximately 5 miles northeast of the subject property and runs along the western side of the Bridger Mountains. The Gallatin Range fault is located approximately 9 miles south of the subject property and runs along the northern border of the Gallatin Range. The Elk Creek Fault is located approximately 16.5 miles west-southwest of the subject property and extends from Goose Creek (southwest of Gallatin Gateway) to approximately 13.8 miles northwest of where Norris Road crosses the Madison River. See the Quaternary Fault and Seismicity Map of Western Montana in Appendix D for more information regarding the location of these faults and nearby earthquake epicenters. 4.5.1 Liquefaction In general terms, liquefaction is defined as the condition when saturated, loose, fine sand-type soils lose their support capabilities due to the development of excessive pore water pressure, which can develop during a seismic event. Loose silty sandy soils, if located below the groundwater table, have the potential to liquefy during a major seismic event. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT #161004 – BAXTER SQUARE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 6 Our subsurface investigation did not encounter any loose sand horizons within the depth of excavation. It is our opinion that the potential for differential settlement resulting from liquefaction during a moderate seismic event is low. 4.5.2 Peak Ground Acceleration The response of the earth’s crust to an earthquake (peak ground acceleration) depends primarily on the surficial geology present at a given location. The USGS has produced hazard mapping to assist in determining the horizontal ground acceleration at specific points across the United States during various magnitude earthquakes. The USGS has estimated the peak horizontal ground acceleration for the subject property during an earthquake with a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years to be 0.1562g (15.62 percent the acceleration of gravity) (USGS, 2002). In other words, an event of this nature could occur on average every 500 years. Please note that this ground motion value is calculated for firm rock and may differ with different soil types. The different soils may amplify or de-amplify the peak ground acceleration depending on their physical properties; for example, a clayey soil would amplify the intensity of the peak ground acceleration determined for the subject property. Structural design of each structure needs to comply with Section 1613 of the 2012 International Building Code (IBC). Based on the criteria in Section 1613.3.2 of the 2012 IBC, the Site Class is D. 4.6 Groundwater Groundwater was encountered in each of the five excavations, at depths varying from 5.1 feet bgs to 6.5 feet bgs. Evidence of seasonally high groundwater, such as mottling, gleyed soils, lack of calcium carbonate deposits, and termination of roots, were observed starting at depths ranging from 2.3 feet bgs to 3.9 feet bgs. Because of the potential for seasonally high groundwater across the subdivision, basement foundations are not recommended. Also, if crawl space foundation are utilized it is recommended that the bottom of footing elevation be located no deeper than 2.5 feet below existing grade. 5.0 Geotechnical Analysis The geotechnical analysis takes into account the field investigation and site evaluation to make engineering recommendations pertaining to bearing capacity, lateral pressures, settlement, and slope stability. 5.1 Allowable Bearing Capacity The allowable bearing capacity of a soil is defined as the maximum pressure that can be permitted on a foundation soil, giving consideration to all pertinent factors (such as settlement GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT #161004 – BAXTER SQUARE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 7 and seismic considerations), with adequate safety against rupture of the soil mass or movement of the foundation of such magnitude that the structure is impaired. The allowable bearing capacity is determined from the geotechnical analysis, the field investigation, available soil and geology information, and our experience in the project area. Based on the site investigation and the assumption that all recommendations made in this report will be property implemented, it is recommended that all foundation footings be dimensioned for an allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). The allowable bearing capacity may be increased by one third for short term loading conditions such as those from wind or seismic forces. 5.2 Settlement While the soil at the site may be able to physically support the footings, it is also important to analyze the possible settlement of the structure. In many cases, settlement determines the allowable bearing capacity. When a soil deposit is loaded by a structure, deformations within the soil deposit will occur. The total vertical deformation of the soil at the surface is called total settlement. Total settlement is made up of two components: elastic settlement and consolidation settlement. Elastic settlement is the result of soil particles rearranging themselves into a denser configuration due to a load being imposed on them and usually occurs during the construction process and shortly after. Consolidation settlement occurs more slowly and over time as water within the pore spaces of a soil are forced out and the soil compresses as the stress from the load is transferred from the water molecules to the soil particles. Consolidation settlement is more of a concern with fine- grained soils with low permeability and high in-situ moisture contents. The degree of settlement is a function of the type of bearing material, the bearing pressure of the foundation elements, local groundwater conditions, and in some cases determines the allowable bearing capacity for a structures’ footings. In addition to analyzing total settlement, the potential for differential settlement must also be considered. Differential settlement occurs in soils that are not homogeneous over the length of the foundation or in situations where the foundation rests on cut and fill surfaces. If the foundation rests on structural fill overlaying properly prepared soils with rock, differential settlement is expected to be well within tolerable limits. Areas that have significantly more fill under the foundation footings (four feet of more) create greater potential for differential settlement. In these cases the structural fill must be installed properly and tested frequently. Compaction efforts and structural fill consistence are vital in minimizing differential settlement. For this project it is not anticipated that significant quantities of structural fill will be required. A settlement analysis based on conservative soil parameter estimates, the allowable bearing capacity recommended in Section 5.1, and the assumption that all recommendations made in this report are properly adhered to, indicates the total and differential settlement are expected to be ½-inch or less. Structures of the type assumed can generally tolerate this amount of movement, however, these values should be checked by a structural engineer to verify that they are GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT #161004 – BAXTER SQUARE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 8 acceptable. Please note that the settlement estimates are based on loads originating from the proposed structure. If additional loads are introduced, such as the placement of large quantities of fill, our office should be contacted to re-evaluate the settlement estimates. 5.2.1 Collapse Potential Collapsible soils are soils that compact and collapse after wetting. The soil particles are originally loosely packed and barely touch each other before moisture infiltrates into the soil. As water infiltrates into the soil it reduces the friction between the soil particles and allows them to slip past each other and become more tightly packed, often resulting in a radical reduction in volume; this radical reduction in volume can occur without any additional loading of the soil. Another term for collapsible soils is "hydrocompactive soils" because they compact after water is added. The amount of collapse depends on how loosely the particles are packed originally and the thickness of the soil layer susceptible to collapse. Soils with dry densities of less than 80 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), generally silts deposited by the wind, are considered to be susceptible to collapse. Soils with dry unit weights greater than 90 pcf are not considered susceptible to collapse. Using this correlation it is our opinion that the proposed structure is not at risk of sustaining damage due to collapsible soils. 6.0 Recommendations The following recommendations are given as guidance to assure for a safe and effective foundation for the proposed structure. These recommendations are determined by the geotechnical analysis, code requirements, our experience, and local construction practices. 6.1 Foundation Based on the site evaluation and geotechnical analysis it will be acceptable for the foundation elements to consist of typical strip and column footings with either crawl space or slab-on-grade with stem wall foundations. Basement foundations are not recommended. Please find the following as general recommendations for all foundation elements:  In order to keep the footing out of the active frost zone it is recommended that the bottom of all footing elevations be a minimum of 48 inches below finished grade.  All foundation footings shall bear on properly compacted structural fill overlying Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand and Cobbles.  If crawl space construction is utilized, the bottom of footing elevation shall be no deeper than 2.5 feet below existing grade.  It is recommended that typical strip footings have a minimum width of 16 inches and GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT #161004 – BAXTER SQUARE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 9 column footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches, provided the allowable soil bearing capacity is not exceeded. 6.2 Foundation Excavation In general, the excavation for the foundation must be level and uniform and continue down to the Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand and Cobbles. If any boulders are encountered, they will need to be removed and backfilled with structural fill. The excavation width must extend a minimum of one footing width from the outer edges of the footings or to a distance equal to ½ the height of the required structural fill. For example, if 4 feet of structural fill is required beneath a 1.5 foot wide footing, the excavation width must be at a minimum 5.5 feet wide (2 feet + 2 feet + 1.5 feet). Once the excavation is complete the native subgrade must be proof rolled until it no longer yields with each pass. Once proof rolled, the required structural fill may be placed and compacted. The subgrade must be kept dry throughout construction. At no time should surface water runoff be allowed to flow into and accumulate within the excavation for the foundation elements. If necessary, a swale or berm should be temporarily constructed to reroute all surface water runoff away from the excavation. Excavation should not proceed during large precipitation events. If the subgrade does become excessively moist or saturated, construction should not proceed until C&H Engineering has inspected the subgrade and determined it has sufficiently dried. If any of the foundation footings are found to be located on a test pit, the area will need to be excavated down to the full depth of the test pit and structural fill be placed and compacted in lifts to bring the area back up to the desired grade. 6.3 Structural Fill Structural fill is defined as all fill that will ultimately be subjected to structural loadings, such as those imposed by footings, floor slabs, pavements, etc.. Structural fill will need to be imported where it is required. Imported structural fill is recommended to be a well graded gravel with sand that contains less than 20 percent of material that will pass a No. 200 sieve and that has a maximum particle size of 3 inches. Also, the fraction of material passing the No. 40 sieve shall have a liquid limit not exceeding 25 and a plasticity index not exceeding 6, and the gravel and sand particles need to be made up of durable rock materials that will not degrade due to moisture or compaction effort; no shale or mudstone fragments should be present. Structural fill must be placed in lifts no greater than 12 inches (uncompacted thickness) and be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 97 percent of its maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D698. Typically the structural fill must be moisture conditioned to within + 2 percent of the materials optimum moisture content to achieve the required density. It is recommended that the structural fill be compacted with a large vibrating smooth drum roller. Please note that if a moisture-density relationship test (commonly referred to as a proctor) needs to be performed for a proposed structural fill material to determine its maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D698, a sample of the material must be delivered to this office a minimum of three full working days prior to beginning placement of the structural fill. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT #161004 – BAXTER SQUARE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 10 Achieving proper compaction is imperative, as it will insure no additional settlement of the structure occurs. Therefore, it is required that C&H Engineering verifies proper compaction of all structural fill lifts. 6.4 Foundation Wall Backfill The onsite granular soils are suitable for use as foundation wall backfill. Foundation wall backfill shall be placed in uniform lifts and be compacted to an unyielding condition. The foundation wall backfill will need to be compacted with either walk behind compaction equipment or hand operated compaction equipment in order to avoid damaging the foundation walls. If walk behind compaction equipment is used lifts should not exceed 8-inches (loose thickness) and if hand operated compaction equipment is used lifts should not exceed 4-inches (loose thickness). A 6 to 12 inch cap of low permeability topsoil should be placed, compacted, and appropriately graded above the approved foundation wall backfill on the outside of the foundation wall. This will effectively cap the backfill and redirect surface water away from the structure. Please note, if the foundation wall backfill is not compacted properly it will settle and positive drainage away from the foundation will not be maintained. 6.5 Interior Slabs-on-Grade In preparation for any interior slabs-on-grade, the excavation must continue through any overlying topsoil to a minimum of 6 inches below the proposed bottom of slab elevation. If required, structural fill can then be placed and compacted to 6 inches below the bottom of slab elevation. For all interior concrete slabs-on-grade, preventative measures must be taken to stop moisture from migrating upwards through the slab. Moisture that migrates upwards through the concrete slab can damage floor coverings such as carpet, hardwood and vinyl, in addition to causing musty odors and mildew growth. Moisture barriers will need to be installed to prevent water vapor migration and capillary rise through the concrete slab. Capillarity is the result of the liquid property known as surface tension, which arises from an imbalance of cohesive and adhesive forces near the interface between different materials. With regards to soils, surface tension arises at the interface between groundwater and the mineral grains and air of a soil. The height of capillary rise within a given soil is controlled by the size of the pores between the soil particles and not the size of the soil particles directly. Soils that have small pore spaces experience a higher magnitude of capillary rise than soils with large pore spaces. Typically soils composed of smaller particles (such as silt and clay) have smaller pore spaces. In order to prevent capillary rise through the concrete slab-on-grade it is recommended that 6 inches of ¾-inch washed rock (containing less than 10 percent fines) be placed and compacted once the excavation for the slab is complete. The washed rock has large pore spaces between soil particles and will act as a capillary break, preventing groundwater from migrating upwards towards the bottom of the slab. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT #161004 – BAXTER SQUARE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 11 Water vapor is currently understood to act in accordance with the observed physical laws of gases, which state that the water vapor will travel from an area of higher concentration to that of a lower concentration until equilibrium is achieved. Because Earth contains large quantities of liquid water, water vapor is ubiquitous in Earth’s atmosphere, and, as a result, also in soils located above the water table (referred to as the vadose zone). Typically the concentration of water vapor in the vadose zone is greater than that inside the residence. This concentration difference results in an upward migration of water vapor from the vadose zone through the concrete slab-on-grade and into the building. In order to prevent this upward migration of water vapor through the slab, it is recommended that a vapor barrier (such as a 6-mil visqueen moisture barrier) be installed. The vapor barrier should be pulled up at the sides and secured to the foundation wall or footing. Care must be taken during and after the installation of the vapor barrier to avoid puncturing the material, and all joints are to be sealed per the manufactures recommendations. Once the excavation for the interior slab-on-grade is completed as described in the first paragraph of this section, and the moisture barriers have been properly installed, it will be acceptable to form and cast the steel reinforced concrete slab. It is recommended that interior concrete slabs-on-grade have a minimum thickness of 4 inches, except garage slabs have a recommended minimum thickness of 6 inches. 6.6 Exterior Slabs-on-Grade For exterior areas to be paved with concrete slabs, it is recommended that, at a minimum, the topsoil and any organics be removed. The subgrade soils then need to be compacted to an unyielding condition. Then for non-vehicular traffic areas, a minimum of 6 inches of ¾-inch minus rock needs to be placed, and 4 inches of 4000 pounds per square inch concrete placed over the ¾-inch minus rock. For areas with vehicular traffic, a minimum of 9 inches of ¾-inch minus rock should be placed, followed by 6 inches of 4000 pounds per square inch concrete. Exterior slabs that will be located adjacent to the foundation walls need to slope away from the structure at a minimum grade of 2 percent and should not be physically connected to the foundation walls. If they are connected, any movement of the exterior slab will be transmitted to the foundation wall, which may result in damage to the structure. 6.7 Asphalt Paving Improvements For areas to be paved with asphalt, it is recommended that, as a minimum, the topsoil and any organics be removed. The native subgrade then needs to be rolled at ± 2 percent of its optimum moisture content to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D698. Next a woven geotextile (such as Mirifi 500X) needs to be placed followed by a 12-inch thick layer of compacted 6-inch minus gravel (sub-base layer), followed by a 3-inch layer of compacted 1-inch minus road mix (base layer). Both gravel courses must be compacted at ± 3 percent of their optimum moisture content to a minimum of 95 percent of their maximum dry density. A 3-inch thick layer of asphalt pavement can then be placed and compacted over this cross-section. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT #161004 – BAXTER SQUARE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 12 It is recommended that following compaction of the native subgrade, a loaded dump truck or other heavy piece of equipment be driven over it to determine the stability of the subgrade. If any isolated soft spots are found, these areas should be sub-excavated and replaced with compacted fill. If widespread unstable conditions are present (i.e. significant rutting or pumping is observed) the sub-base component of the road section will need to be increased and a woven geotextile may also be required, especially if moisture related issues are the cause of the instability. If asphalt paving is to be placed on foundation wall backfill, the backfill must be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D698. It is recommended the backfill be placed in uniform lifts and compacted as described in Section 6.4. 6.8 Site Grading Surface water should not be allowed to accumulate and infiltrate the soil near the foundation. Proper site grading will ensure surface water runoff is directed away from the foundation elements and will aid in the mitigation of excessive settlement. Please find the following as general site grading recommendations:  Finished grade must slope away from the building a minimum of 5 percent within the first 10 feet, in order to quickly drain ground surface and roof runoff away from the foundation walls. Please note that in order to maintain this slope; it is imperative that any backfill placed against the foundation walls be compacted properly. If the backfill is not compacted properly, it will settle and positive drainage away from the structure will not be maintained.  Permanent sprinkler heads for lawn care should be located a sufficient distance from the structure to prevent water from draining toward the foundation or saturating the soils adjacent to the foundation.  Rain gutter down spouts are to be placed in such a manner that surface water runoff drains away from the structure.  All roads, walkways, and architectural land features must properly drain away from all structures. 6.9 Underground Utilities We recommended specifying non corrosive materials or providing corrosion protection unless additional tests are performed to verify the onsite soils are not corrosive. It is recommended that ¾-inch minus gravel be used as a bedding material. The bedding material should be thoroughly compacted around all utility pipes. Trench backfill shall be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density in landscaped areas and a minimum of 97 percents of its maximum dry density beneath foundation footings. Backfilling around and above utilities should meet the requirements of Montana Public Works Standard Specifications. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT #161004 – BAXTER SQUARE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 13 6.10 Construction Administration The foundation is a vital element of a structure; it transfers all of the structures dead and live loads to the native soil. It is imperative that the recommendations made in this report are properly adhered to. A representative from C&H Engineering should observe the construction of any foundation or drainage elements recommended in this report and should verify proper compaction has been achieved in all structural fill lifts. The recommendations made in this report are contingent upon our involvement. If the soils encountered during the excavation differ than those described in this report or any unusual conditions are encountered, our office should be contacted immediately to examine the conditions and re-evaluate our recommendations. If construction and site grading take place during cold weather, it is recommended that approved winter construction practices be observed. All snow and ice shall be removed from cut and fill areas prior to site grading taking place. No fill should be placed on soils that are frozen or contain frozen material. No frozen soils can be used as fill under any circumstances. Please note that not following the preceding recommendations may potentially result in foundation settlement issues in the spring when the frost thaws and the snow melts. Additionally, Concrete should not be placed on frozen soils and should meet the temperature requirements of ASTM C 94. Any concrete placed during cold weather conditions shall be protected from freezing until the necessary compressive strength has been attained. Once the footings are placed, frost shall not be permitted to extend below the foundation footings, as this could heave and crack the foundation footings and/or foundation walls. It is the responsibility of the contractor to provide a safe working environment with regards to excavations on the site. All excavations should be sloped or shored in the interest of safety and in accordance with local and federal regulations, including the excavation and trench safety standards provided by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). According to OSHA regulations (29 CFR 1926 Subpart P Appendix A) the subsurface soils encountered in the test pit excavations can be generally classified as Type C. For Type C soils, OSHA regulations state that cut slopes shall be no steeper than 1.5H:1V for excavations less than 20 feet deep. A trench box may also be used, provided the system extends at least 18 inches above the top of the trench walls. Please understand the preceding OSHA soil classification is provided for planning purposes only and the actual classification of the onsite soils will need to be determined by the contractor onsite during excavation. 7.0 Conclusions The soils present at the site will be adequate to support the anticipated loads from the residential structures, provided the recommendations made in this report are properly followed. Please find the following recommendations as particularly crucial:  All foundation footings shall bear on properly compacted structural fill overlying the Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand and Cobbles.  If crawl space construction is utilized, the bottom of footing elevation shall be no deeper GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT #161004 – BAXTER SQUARE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 14 than 2.5 feet below existing grade.  It is recommended that typical strip footings for this structure have a minimum width of 16 inches and column footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches, provided the allowable soil bearing capacity is not exceeded.  All site grading and drainage recommendations must be properly implemented.  Basement foundations are not recommended. 8.0 Report Limitations This report is for the exclusive use of Intrinsik Architecture and their authorized agents. In the absence of our written approval, we make no representation and assume no responsibility to other parties regarding the use of this report. The recommendations made in this report are based upon data obtained from test pits excavated at the locations indicated on the attached Test Pit Location Map. It is not uncommon that variations will occur between these locations, the nature and extent of which will not become evident until additional exploration or construction is conducted. These variations may result in additional construction costs, and it is suggested that a contingency be provided for this purpose. If the soils encountered during the excavation differ than those described in this report or any unusual conditions are encountered, our office should be contacted immediately to examine the conditions and re-evaluate our recommendations if necessary. This report is applicable to the subject property only and is not applicable to other construction sites. Under no circumstances shall a portion of this report be removed or be used independently of the rest of the document, this report is applicable as a full document only. The preparation of this report has been performed in a manner that is consistent with the level and care currently practiced by professionals in this area under similar budget and time restraints. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Please review Appendix F, “Report Limitations.” This Appendix has been prepared to relay the risks associated with this report 9.0 References Das, Braja M., “Principles of Foundation Engineering” 5th ed., Pacific Grove, CA, Brooks/Cole- Thompson Learning, 2004. Day, Robert W., “Foundation Engineering Handbook,” McGraw-Hill, 2006. International Code Council, Inc., “2009 International Building Code (IBC),” International Code Council, Inc., 2009. Kehew, Alan, “Geology for Engineers and Environmental Scientists,” 3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 2006. Das, Braja M., “Principles of Geotechnical Engineering,” 3rd ed., Boston, MA, PWS Publishing Company, 1994. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT #161004 – BAXTER SQUARE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 15 Vuke, Susan M., Lonn, Jeffrey D., Berg, Richard B., and Schmidt, Christopher J, “Geologic Map of the Bozeman 30' x 60' Quadrangle, Southwestern Montana,” USGS and Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Open File Report MBMG 648, 2014. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT #161004 – BAXTER SQUARE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4, BOZEMAN, MONTANA Appendix A USGS Topographic Map GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT #161004 – BAXTER SQUARE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4, BOZEMAN, MONTANA Appendix B Test Pit Location Map GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT #161004 – BAXTER SQUARE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4, BOZEMAN, MONTANA Appendix C NRCS Web Soil Survey Map (APPROXIMATE)(APPROXIMATE)LEGENDBlackdog Silt Loam described as calcareous loess with a typical soil profile of silt loam (0-10 inches), silty clay loam (10-19 inches) and siltloam (19-60 Inches). Depth to groundwater greater than 80 inches.Meadowcreek Loam described as alluvium with a typical soil profile of loam (0-11 inches), silt loam (11-25 Inches), and very gravelly sand(26-60 inches) . Depth to groundwater listed as 24 to 42 inches.Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service, "Web Soil Survey - Version 17," December 10, 2013, United States Department of Agriculture, <http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/>Aerial Photo Date = July 28, 2011 - August 19, 2011 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT #161004 – BAXTER SQUARE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4, BOZEMAN, MONTANA Appendix D Geology Maps (APPROXIMATE)(APPROXIMATE)LEGENDBraid plain alluvium, older than Qab (Pleistocene)Rounded to well-rounded, dominantly cobble gravel with clasts as large as boulders, and sand, silt, and clay; mostly composed of clasts of Archean metamorphic rock, anddark-colored volcanic rock, with subordinate Paleozoic limestone and Proterozoic Belt rocks. Clast lithologies in general order of decreasing abundance include Precambrianmetamorphic rocks, mafic volcanic rocks, dacite(?) porphyry, quartzite, sandstone, limestone, and chert. A well in this unit indicates a thickness of 9 m (30 ft) of alluviumoverlying Tertiary deposits.Alluvial-fan deposit, older than Qaf (Pleistocene)Light brown, gray, and locally reddish gray, angular and subangular, locally derived gravel in a coarse sand and granule matrix. Clast size ranges from pebble to smallboulder. Fan morphology dissected. Maximum thickness probably about 45 m (150 ft).Source: Vuke, Susan M., Lonn, Jeffrey D., Berg, Richard B., & Schmidt, Christopher J., "Geologic Map of the Bozeman 30' x 60' Quadrangle, Southwestern Montana," MBMG, Open File Report 648, 2014.Braid Plain Alluvium, OlderApproximate Site LocationAlluvial Fan Deposit, Older (APPROXIMATE)(APPROXIMATE)LEGENDSource: Stickney, Michael C., Holler, Kathleen M., Machette Michael N., "Quaternary Faults and Seismicity in Western Montana ," MBMG, Special Publication No. 114, 2000.Class A Faults are associated with at least 1 large magnitude earthquake within the last 1.6 million years. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT #161004 – BAXTER SQUARE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4, BOZEMAN, MONTANA Appendix E Test Pit Logs TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT LOG GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT #161004 – BAXTER SQUARE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4, BOZEMAN, MONTANA Appendix F Report Limitations GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT #161004 – BAXTER SQUARE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4, BOZEMAN, MONTANA Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use This appendix has been prepared to help the client understand the risks associated with the use of this report and provide guidelines on the proper use of this report. This report was prepared to be used exclusively by Intrinsik Architecture and their authorized agents for residential improvements to be constructed within the Baxter Square Subdivision Phase 4 in Bozeman, Montana. All of the work was performed in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices used by geotechnical engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. This report should not be used by anyone it was not prepared for, or for uses it was not intended for. Field investigations and preparation of this report was conducted in accordance with a specific set of requirements set out by the client, which may not satisfy the requirements of others. This report should not be used for nearby sites or for structures on the same site that differ from the structures that were proposed at the time this report was prepared. Any changes in the structures (type, orientation, size, elevation, etc.) proposed for this site must be discussed with our company for this report to be valid. Our services consist of professional opinions based on subsurface exploration at specific points, surface observation of the site, and the review of available published data. These data are then extrapolated by geologists and geotechnical engineers to give an opinion of the overall subsurface conditions. Based on the subsurface conditions that are thought to occur at the site, we evaluate how those conditions would respond to the construction that is proposed, and give recommendations on foundation design and subgrade improvement. Our subsurface exploration is limited to visual observation of the materials uncovered in an open test pit dug by an excavator. Soil testing was minimal in this investigation so conservative soil parameters have been estimated for bearing capacity and potential settlement from visual observation of the soil. Sampling and testing necessary for a local and global slope stability analysis have also not been completed for this site. Catastrophic events and other structures can contribute to the global stability of a slope, and have not been analyzed. If a more in depth subsurface investigation is desired, please contact our office to discuss your options. It is important to note that subsurface exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions only at specific points under the conditions present at the time of exploration. Because of this, actual conditions may differ from those inferred to exist. The transitions between materials observed may be much more gradual or abrupt than inferred and subsurface materials may be uncovered during construction that were not thought to occur when the initial subsurface investigation was carried out. Conditions at the site can also change with time due to natural processes and construction practices on the site or on adjacent sites. With these limitations in mind, it is recommended that our services be retained for observation of the materials encountered during construction and that we are informed of any changes that occur on the site and any unexpected conditions that are encountered. This report is only a preliminary recommendation, which may change if unexpected conditions are encountered during construction. We cannot be held responsible for damages due to constructing on a site with conditions that are different from conditions thought to occur from our investigation. The only way to verify if the conditions encountered during construction are the same as expected in our report is to have us inspect the subgrade materials during construction. We cannot be held responsible for constructing on materials that we have not seen in person. The scope of our investigation did not include an environmental assessment for determining the presence or absence of hazardous or toxic materials on the site. If information regarding the potential presence of hazardous materials on the site is desired, please contact us to discuss your options for obtaining this information. This report is valid as a complete document only. No portion of this report should be transmitted to other parties as an incomplete document. Misinterpretation of portions of this report (i.e. test pit logs) is possible when this information is transmitted to others without the supporting information presented in other portions of the report. If any questions arise with regards to any aspects of this report, please contact us at your convenience to avoid misinterpretation. Costly mistakes due to misinterpretation of geotechnical reports can usually be avoided by a quick phone call. City of Bozeman Planning and Zoning Office 20 East Olive Street, No. 202 Bozeman, MT 59715 Re: 404 Permit Status for HRDC - Hoover Way Subdivision August 18, 2017 Dear Sir or Madam: The Hoover Way Subdivision parcel owned by the Human Resource Development Council (HRDC) is situated within the previously platted boundaries for the Baxter Square Subdivision PUD located in the E ½ of the SW ¼ of Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 5 East, Gallatin County, Montana. A field investigation to identify waters of the United States (WUS) on the subject parcel as required by the 404 permit system administered by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was completed by Vaughn Environmental Services, Inc. (VES) on May 11 and 12, 2017. The Baxter Square PUD was previously permitted under 404 Permit Reference Number 2003-90-818. Wetlands identified in 2003 for the Baxter Square PUD included Cattail Creek and depression wetlands that had formed on the north and south sides of a railroad berm that bisects the property. The 2003 permit authorized the filling of the depression wetlands located on either side of the railroad grade. A 0.3-acre shallow water depression wetland was constructed south of the berm in 2004 to mitigate for project impacts. The permit file was closed by the USACE in January 2010 after the project had successfully met the permit conditions. However, the permit expired before the land north of Sartain Street had been developed and before the depression wetlands along the railroad grade had been filled, necessitating the acquisition of a new 404 permit in 2017. Results of the current WUS investigation including wetlands are summarized in the enclosed Water of the US Delineation Report dated May 31, 2017. The report documents the project background, methodology used to identify project WUS, and findings of the field investigation. The May 2017 Wetland Delineation Report will be submitted to the USACE as supporting documentation for the 404 Joint Application for Proposed Work in Montana’s Streams, Wetlands, Floodplains, and Other Water Bodies and City plat approval process. Cumulative impacts to WUS associated with the Hoover Way Subdivision will total less than 0.5 acres meeting the 404 Nationwide Permit guidelines. Project development will not affect the bed or bank of any perennial stream, precluding the need for a 310 permit administered by the Gallatin Conservation District. Compensatory mitigation for project impacts to WUS will be purchased from a mitigation bank approved by the USACE for the Upper Missouri watershed. Please contact my office at 406 581-0655 or at bvaughn@montana.com if you have questions or require additional information. Thank you. Sincerely, Barbara Vaughn Environmental Engineer, MS WATERS OF THE US DELINEATION REPORT HOOVER WAY SUBDIVISION BOZEMAN, MONTANA May 31, 2017 Prepared for: Human Resource Development Council 32 South Tracy Bozeman, MT 59715 Prepared by: TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................... 1 1.1 Site Waterways .................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Climate ................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 WETLAND DELINEATION METHODS .................................................................... 6 2.1 Methods ................................................................................................................ 6 2.2 Technical Criteria .................................................................................................. 6 3.0 WETLAND DELINEATION RESULTS ..................................................................... 9 3.1 NRCS Soil Survey Results ..................................................................................... 9 3.2 W-1 – Open Depression Wetland, Emergent ......................................................... 9 3.3 W-2 – Open Depression Wetland, Emergent ....................................................... 11 4.0 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 12 5.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 13 FIGURE 1.0 - USGS 7.5’ Bozeman Quadrangle Topographic Map .................................... 3 FIGURE 2.0 - Aerial Photograph showing the study area ................................................... 4 FIGURE 2.0 - NWI Map of Hoover Way Subdivision........................................................... 5 TABLE 1.0 - Summary of Attributes for WUS delineated on Property ........................... 12 APPENDIX A - Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms APPENDIX B - Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Survey APPENDIX C - Photo Log APPENDIX D - Wetland Exhibit, Sheet T1- Waters of the US Delineation Report – Hoover Way Subdivision - HRDC 1 1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND The field investigation to identify waters of the United States (WUS) associated with permitting the development of Hoover Subdivision located in Bozeman, Montana, was completed by Vaughn Environmental Services, Inc. (VES) on May 11 and 12, 2017. The proposed Hoover Subdivision is located on the boundary of the existing Baxter Square Subdivision, which was previously permitted by the US Army Corps of Engineers under Permit Reference Number 2003- 90-818. The Hoover Subdivision parcel was part of the 2003 Baxter Creek Subdivision City of Bozeman plat submittal and 404 permit. The Human Resource Development Council (HRDC) currently owns the north parcel targeted for development of affordable housing. The land is located within the southeast quarter, southwest quarter, of Sec 35, Township 1 South, Range 5 East, Gallatin County (Figure 1.0 – USGS 7.5’ Bozeman Quadrangle Topographic Map and Figure 2.0 – Aerial Photograph). Historic wetlands in the area are shown on the National Wetland Inventory map (Figure 3.0). This Waters of the US Delineation Report documents the project background, methodology used to identify project WUS, and findings of the field investigation. Wetlands identified in 2003 for the Baxter Square Subdivision included Cattail Creek and depression wetlands that had formed on the north and south sides of the railroad berm. As part of the 2003 Mitigation Plan, the depression wetland on the south side of the berm was expanded to create a large wetland depression with one to two feet of water. Impacts to the depression wetlands located at the base of swales on both sides of the berms were included in the 2003, 404 permit. The boundaries of the wetland constructed for mitigation in 2004 were included in 2017 within wetland one (W-1). The 2017 Wetland 2 (W-2) encompassed the historic depression wetland located north of the berm (2003 W-3). Six Wetland Determination Data Forms (SP-1 to SP-6) recording data collected on the site wetlands are included in Appendix A. Soil mapping information for the project is included in Appendix B and photos of the site are included in Appendix C. The Wetland Exhibit on Sheet T1 in Appendix D shows the boundaries of W-1 and W-2 and the soil test pit locations delineated in 2017. It also defines the 2003 wetland boundaries for the swales north and south of the railroad berm (2003, W-2 and W-3). The Wetland Delineation Report will be submitted to the USACE and the City of Bozeman as supporting documentation for the 404 Joint Application for Proposed Work in Montana’s Streams, Wetlands, Floodplains, and Other Water Bodies and City plat approval process. The land was historically used for irrigated crops and rangeland. The land at the north boundary is still used for agricultural purposes. Baxter Square Subdivision is located south of the proposed project. Single-family ranches are located west and east of the project. The area is mapped within the Meadowcreek loam (510B), classified as floodplain, floodplain steps, drainageways, and stream terraces found on 0 to 4 percent slopes (Appendix B - USDA/NRCS 2015). 1.1 SITE WATERWAYS Cattail Creek is located west of the project area (Figure 1.0 and Figure 2.0). The creek originates from a spring approximately one-quarter mile south of Durston Road. The Gallatin County Conservation District classifies the creek as a perennial stream. The creek flows across the west boundary of Baxter Square Subdivision outside the Hoover Subdivision boundaries. There are no other streams within the Hoover Subdivision parcel. The surface water in wetlands W-1 and W-2 flows west on both sides of the berm beyond the west property boundary. The surface water discharges to Cattail Creek, which ultimately discharges to the East Gallatin River, a water of the US. Waters of the US Delineation Report – Hoover Way Subdivision - HRDC 2 1.2 CLIMATE The Bozeman area climate generally resembles that of a middle latitude steppe, with relatively long cold winters and short cool summers (Pac 1991). The region comprises a mountain complex within the steppe region, resulting in orographic effects that produce a local, cooler and wetter climate. Peak runoff generally occurs during the spring from snowmelt and combined snowmelt/rainfall events. These events produce relatively long periods of runoff. Summer thunderstorms also contribute to peak runoff although they are generally short in duration. The annual pattern of precipitation typically results in increasing precipitation from March to a peak in June, a decline through mid summer, another increase in late August to a second, smaller peak in September, followed by a general decline to the yearly low in February (Pac et al 1993). The annual temperature regime of the study area is generally characterized by significant seasonal variations. Winters are typically long and cold with subfreezing average temperatures from November to March. Average annual precipitation ranges from 13 inches per year at the lower elevations to 50 inches per year at the higher elevations in the Bridger Range north of Bozeman (NRCS 1972). Although the average annual precipitation is low enough to classify most of the area as semi-arid, about 70 percent of the annual total precipitation normally falls during the April to September growing season. Elevations in the study area range from 4,720 feet to 4,715 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The closest meteorological station to the study area is Montana State University located approximately 2.2 miles south of the project at 4,860 feet amsl. Records from 1961 to 1990 indicate that the average annual precipitation is 19.25 inches with an average total snowfall of 92.1 inches. The mean temperature range is 39 to 45 degrees Fahrenheit (USDA 1990) and the mean annual precipitation rate for the predominant soil series, the Meadowcreek loam (510B), is 10 to 19 inches. Waters of the US Delineation Report – Hoover Way Subdivision - HRDC 3 Figure 1.0 USGS 7.5 minute Bozeman Quadrangle Topographic Map showing the proposed location of Hoover Way Subdivision. Waters of the US Delineation Report – Hoover Way Subdivision - HRDC 4 Figure 2.0 Aerial photograph of the proposed location of Hoover Way Subdivision. Waters of the US Delineation Report – Hoover Subdivision - HRDC 5 Hoover Subdivision U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team, wetlands_team@fws.gov Wetlands Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Lake Other Riverine May 17, 2017 0 0.15 0.30.075 mi 0 0.25 0.50.125 km 1:9,634 This page was produced by the NWI mapper National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. Figure 3.0 National Wetland Inventory Map of project area. Waters of the US Delineation Report – Hoover Way Subdivision - HRDC 6 2.0 WETLAND DELINEATION METHODS 2.1 METHODS Waters of the US, specifically W-1 and W-2, were identified on May 11 and 12, 2017, using methodology developed by the USACE and other federal agencies for implementation of Section 404 of the CWA. Delineation procedures involved a review of existing site-specific information and completion of an onsite field investigation based on guidelines for the Routine Determination Method presented in the Field Guide for Wetland Delineation (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (USACE 2010). The field investigation was completed for the landowners and the City of Bozeman to identify the location, extent, and characteristics of jurisdictional WUS within the study area boundaries for compliance with United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulations. The USACE requires a permit for the discharge of fill material into WUS in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA 1986). A Supreme Court 2001 decision in the case of the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County versus US Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) limited the federal authority under the Clean Water act to regulate certain isolated wetlands. In light of the Court’s decision, WUS as it applies to the jurisdictional limits of the authority of the USACE 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. The jurisdictional status of wetlands depends on the presence or absence of a connection and/or proximity (meaning bordering, contiguous, or neighboring) to waters of the US. The Routine Level-2 Onsite Determination Method employs primarily qualitative procedures. Sample plots (approximately a 15-foot radius) are established within potential wetlands based on changes in plant communities, plant diversity, topography, and soil type. Data points are generally located parallel to watercourses, perpendicular to the apparent groundwater hydraulic gradient, and/or along topographical breaks. Vegetation composition, hydrology, and soil characteristics are assessed at each data collection point. If all three parameters exhibit positive wetland indictors, the area represented by the sample plot is classified as wetland. If any one of the parameters does not display a positive indicator, the area is classified as a non-wetland or upland unless the wetland is atypical or problematic. The jurisdictional authority of the USACE over wetlands identified in the field depends on the presence or absence of a surface water connection and/or proximity to waters of the US. Six Wetland Determination Data Forms recording data collected on three paired wetland and upland test pits on W-1 and W-2 are included in Appendix A. The test pit locations are shown on Sheet T1 in Appendix D. 2.2 TECHNICAL CRITERIA A wetland must meet three technical criteria for it to be categorized as jurisdictional. The USACE (259 Federal Register 853532) and the Environmental Protection Agency (47 FR 31810) jointly define wetlands as “areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.” The following conditions must be present for an area to be considered a jurisdictional wetland. 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation: Defined as plant species normally or commonly adapted to saturation of sufficient duration to cause anaerobic conditions in the root zone. Waters of the US Delineation Report – Hoover Way Subdivision - HRDC 7 2. Wetland Hydrology: Defined as hydrology supported by sources of water that result in saturated, flooded, or ponded soil conditions. 3. Hydric Soils: Defined as soil that forms under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (59 Fed. Reg. 35680, 7/13/94). Hydrophytic Vegetation Plants must be physiologically or morphologically adapted to saturated or anaerobic soil conditions to grow in wetlands. The USACE and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have determined the estimated probability of finding representative wetland species within specified areas under natural conditions. Accordingly, plants may be categorized as obligate (OBL), facultative wetland (FACW), facultative (FAC), facultative upland (FACU), or upland (UPL) in decreasing order of moisture dependence or tolerance. Obligate species occur greater than 99 percent of the time in a wetland. Facultative wetland species have a 67 to 99 percent probability of occurring in a wetland. Facultative species exhibit a 34 to 67 percent probability of occurring in a wetland. Facultative upland species have a 67 to 99 percent probability of occurring in a non-wetland and upland species have a greater than 99 percent probability of occurring in a non-wetland. Species with an indicator status of OBL, FACW, or FAC are considered hydrophytic. Vegetation indicator status for this investigation was derived from the National Wetland Plant List for the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Lichvar and Kartesz 2014). Taxonomic references included Dorn 1984, Hitchcock 1971, Lackschewitz 1991, and Lesica and Husby 2001. The name and indicator status of individual species within each vegetation stratum was recorded on the data form in descending order of abundance (Appendix A). Under the dominance test introduced in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (USACE 2010), a sample plot is classified as having wetland vegetation if the cumulative total of the estimated percent cover for the dominant hydrophytic species exceeds 50 percent and 50 percent or greater of the dominant species have a hydrophytic indicator status. The Regional Supplement also introduced the Prevalence Index, Morphological Adaptations, and Wetland Non-Vascular plants as indicators of hydrophytic vegetation only when indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology are also present. Either direct observations of inundation or well data showing a free water surface at depths less than 12 inches continuously for more than 5 percent of the growing season have been used nationally to distinguish active wetland hydrology. Surface water, groundwater, direct precipitation, and/or snowmelt may contribute to wetland hydrology. Field observations were used to determine existing wetland hydrology. A positive indication of wetland hydrology requires either one primary indicator or two or more secondary indicators. The Regional Supplement for the Western Mountains area lists the primary indicators as surface water, high water table, saturation, water marks, sediment deposits, drift deposits, algal mat or crust, iron deposits, surface soil cracks, inundation visible on aerial imagery, sparsely vegetated concave surface, water stained leaves, salt crust, aquatic invertebrates, hydrogen sulfide odor, oxidized rhizospheres along living roots, presence of reduced iron, recent iron reduction in tilled soils, and stunted or stressed plants. Secondary indicators include water-stained leaves, drainage patterns, dry-season water table, saturation visible on aerial imagery, geomorphic position, shallow aquitard, FAC-neutral test, raised ant mounds, and frost-heave hummocks. Waters of the US Delineation Report – Hoover Way Subdivision - HRDC 8 Hydric Soils Soil is considered saturated when the capillary fringe occurs within a major portion of the root zone (within 12 inches of the surface). The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS), has compiled a list of hydric soils in the United States. The list identifies soil series mapped by the NRCS that meet the hydric criteria. Upland (non- wetland) soils may have inclusions of hydric soils that may not be demarcated on NRCS maps. Field examination of site-specific soil characteristics is necessary to confirm the presence of hydric soils. The profile description presented on the data form reflects site soil conditions as determined from soil pits, not the NRCS designation. The NRCS soil survey information reviewed for the project area is included in Appendix B. Hydric soils exhibit certain physical characteristics that can be observed visually. These characteristics, or indicators, include high organic matter content (histic epipedons), accumulation of sulfidic material, gley formation (greenish or bluish gray color), redoximorphic features (mottling), and low soil chromas (dark soil colors – soil chroma). Organic matter content is estimated visually and texturally; redoximorphic features are identified visually; sulfidic material is identified by the odor of sulfide gases; and soil colors are determined using a Munsell soil color chart (Munsell 1988). The colorimetric determination is to be made immediately below the “A” horizon or 10 inches whichever is less. The Regional Supplement for Western Mountains introduced new classifications for hydric soil indicators based on the soil type (organic, muck or mineral), soil matrix, and type of redoximorphic features such as concentrations, depletions, reduced matrix, or covered or coated sand grains. The full description of each category is included in Chapter Three of the Regional Supplement for the Western Mountains area. Wetland soils can be assumed to be present in any plant community where all the dominant species have an indicator status of OBL or FACW, and the wetland boundary is abrupt (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Wetland Hydrology Technical criteria for wetland hydrology guidelines have been established as “permanent or periodic inundation, or soil saturation within 12 inches of the ground surface for a significant period (usually 14 days or more or 12.5 percent of the growing season) during the growing season” (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The minimum duration required for soil saturation is five percent of the growing season in consecutive days. Inundation or saturation for periods less than 5 percent of the growing season is evidence of non-wetland conditions. Systems with continuous inundation or saturation between 5 and 12.5 percent of the growing season may or may not be jurisdictional wetlands based on other criteria. The growing season is defined for purposes of this report as the number of days where there is a 50 percent probability that the minimum daily temperature is greater than or equal to 28° Fahrenheit (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The Bozeman growing season extends from May 5 to October 1 according to the WETS Bozeman Climate data. Approximately 19 days of saturation would meet the wetland hydrology criterion for a specific wetland. Waters of the US Delineation Report – Hoover Way Subdivision - HRDC 9 3.0 WETLAND DELINEATION RESULTS The field investigation to identify waters of the United States (WUS) within the area proposed for development of Hoover Subdivision located on Baxter Lane was completed by VES on May 11 and 12, 2017. Two depression wetlands (W-1) and (W-2) were delineated within the property boundaries. The wetlands are separated by a railroad berm. The surface water in both wetlands continues to flow west across the property boundary. There is a downgradient surface water connection to Cattail Creek, which discharges to the East Gallatin River. The findings of the wetland delineation investigation are detailed in the following sections. Six Wetland Determination Data Forms recording data collected on W-1 (SP-1 through SP-4) and W-2 (SP-5 and SP-6) are included in Appendix A. Wetlands 1 and 2 (W-1 and W-2) are classified as open depression wetland systems, primarily sourced by groundwater, based on the Smith Hydrogeomorphic System (Smith et al 1995). The wetlands are classified as palustrine emergent wetlands with less than 30 percent of a scrub-shrub overstory under the Cowardin classification system (Cowardin 1979). The depression wetlands are permanently flooded, classified as WUS by virtue of the down gradient surface water connection to Cattail Creek, a perennial stream. The NRCS soil survey results for the project site are summarized in Section 3.1. The characteristics of the project WUS are described in Section 3.2 and Section 3.3. The Wetland Determination Data forms are included in Appendix A and the NRCS soil map and soil descriptions are included in Appendix B. Photographs of the site WUS are included in Appendix C. Appendix D contains the Wetland Exhibit and Topographic Map that show the wetland boundaries and soil test pit locations. 3.1 NRCS SOIL SURVEY RESULTS The web soil survey for Gallatin County (USDA/NRCS 2017) maps W-1 and W-2 within the Meadowcreek loam (510B) map unit found on 0 to 4 percent slopes (Appendix B). The Meadowcreek series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained, soils that formed in alluvium. The series are found on flood plains, flood-plain steps, drainageways, and stream terraces. The series is taxonomically classified as a fine-loamy over sandy or sandy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid Fluvaquentic Haplustolls. The soil series is hydric by virtue of the suborder. 3.2 W-1 – OPEN DEPRESSION WETLAND, EMERGENT VEGETATION Wetland 1 (W-1) encompasses a large shallow water depression wetland constructed for mitigation in 2004. The mitigation wetland was constructed to include the historic depression wetland that had formed in the swale on the south side of a railroad berm. Surface water from the wetland discharges offsite across the west boundary to Cattail Creek. A mature woody overstory has established on the south and north sides of the railroad berms. Numerous trees and shrubs were planted in 2004 around the mitigation wetland. Four test pits (SP-1 through SP-4) were excavated on the side slopes of the depression wetland to define the wetland/upland boundary. Test pit SP-1 was located within two feet of the water’s edge on the south side of the open water depression. Test pit SP-2 was located in upland three feet upslope of SP-1. Test pit SP-3 was located in wetland at the edge of ponded surface water on the east side of W-1. Test pit SP-4 was located in upland four feet upslope of SP-3. Waters of the US Delineation Report – Hoover Way Subdivision - HRDC 10 Vegetation The vegetation dominating wetland data collection point SP-1 included tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia caespitosa – FACW), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus – FACW), and beaked sedge (Carex utriculata – OBL). Black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera – FAC), quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides – FACU), gray willow (Salix bebbiana – FACW), and yellow willow (Salix lutea – OBL) dominated the woody overstory. Eighty-six percent of the dominant species were hydrophytic meeting the dominance test. Data collection point SP-2 exhibited a greater dominance of smooth brome (Bromus inermis – UPL), common chokecherry (Prunus virginiana – FACU), and Saskatoon service berry (Amelanchier alnifolia – FACU). The vegetation cover did not meet the dominance or prevalence tests for wetland vegetation. Wetland test pit SP-3 was dominated by common cattail (Typha latifolia – OBL), beaked sedge, tufted hairgrass, Baltic rush, gray willow, and Wood’s rose. Eighty-three percent of the dominant species were hydrophytic, which meets the dominance test for hydrophytic vegetation. The vegetation cover at SP-4 was dominated by the same species as SP-3 although at a lower percent cover. The cover was 83 percent hydrophytic, meeting the wetland vegetation dominance test. Soil The soil profile at SP-1 revealed a dark grayish brown (10 YR 4/2) clay loam from 0 to 4 inches below the ground surface (bgs) with a high percentage of roots. The profile exhibited a dark gray (10 YR 4/1) clay loam with 25 percent yellowish brown (10 YR 5/6) redoximorphic features from 4 to 16 inches bgs. The depleted matrix provided an indication of a hydric soil. The soil profile in SP-2 revealed a very dark brown (10 YR 2/2) silt loam with a slight clay content from 1 to 14 inches bgs No redox features were observed at SP-2. The soil profile did not meet the hydric soil criteria. The profile at test pit SP-3 revealed a dark grayish brown (10 YR 4/2) clay loam from 0 to 4 inches below the ground surface (bgs) with a high rock content. The profile exhibited a dark gray (10 YR 4/1) clay loam with 30 percent yellowish brown (10 YR 5/6) redoximorphic features from 4 to 13 inches bgs. The depleted matrix provided an indication of a hydric soil. Test pit SP-4 exhibited a very dark brown (10 YR 2/2) silt loam from 1 to 10 inches bgs. The clay content of the soil increased from 10 to 12 inches. No redox features were observed. Hydrology The soil in SP-1 was saturated at 3 inches bgs. The test pit was located 24 inches from the water’s edge in the open water pond and 10 inches above the water level. No wetland hydrological indicators were observed at SP-2. Test pit SP-3 was saturated to the ground surface. Geomorphic position and saturation visible on aerial imagery were secondary indicators of wetland hydrology. There were no indicators of wetland hydrology at SP-4. Waters of the US Delineation Report – Hoover Way Subdivision - HRDC 11 3.2 W-2 – OPEN DEPRESSION WETLAND, EMERGENT VEGETATION Paired test pits SP-5 (upland) and SP-6 (wetland) were located at the east end of the depression wetland swale that forms on the north side of the railroad berm. The west end of W-2 encompasses a palustrine meadow that continues north across the property boundary. The meadow is part of a historic freshwater emergent wetland identified on the NWI map (Figure 3.0). This wetland has decreased in areal extent over the last 10 years. Vegetation The vegetation cover at SP-5 was dominated by smooth brome, gypsy flower (Cynoglossum offinale – FACU), common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus – FACU), and western water hemlock (Cicuta douglasii – OBL). The data collection point did not meet the dominance or prevalence tests for hydrophytic vegetation. Smooth brome, gray willow, and yellow willow dominated the cover at SP-6. Nebraska sedge (Carex nebrascensis – OBL) and Baltic rush were also observed within the data collection point. The vegetation cover met the dominance test for hydrophytic vegetation. Additional species noted in the cover of W-2 were leafy tussock sedge (Carex aquatilis – OBL), field horsetail (Equisetum arvense – FAC), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea – FACW), bluejoint reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis – FACW), field meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis – FAC), red-oser dogwood (Cornus alba – FACW), and common chokecherry (Prunus virginiana – FACU). Soil The profile in SP-5 revealed a very dark brown (10 YR 2/2) silt loam from 1 to 10 inches bgs. The profile from 10 to 14 inches exhibited a dark grayish brown (10 YR 4/2) clay loam without redoximorphic features. Test pit SP-6 exhibited a very dark brown (10 YR 2/2) silt clay loam from 1 to 8 inches. The profile from 8 to 12 inches bgs displayed a dark gray (10 YR 4/1) clay loam with 15 percent yellowish brown redox concentrations in the matrix, meeting the criteria for a depleted matrix. Hydrology Test pit SP-5 exhibited a single secondary indicator of wetland hydrology, geomorphic position. Test pit SP-6 was saturated to the ground surface. Ponded surface water was observed adjacent to SP-6. Two secondary indicators were also noted at SP-6, geomorphic position and saturation visible on aerial imagery. Waters of the US Delineation Report – Hoover Way Subdivision - HRDC 12 4.0 SUMMARY Wetlands 1 and 2 (W-1 and W-2) are classified as open depression wetland systems, primarily sourced by groundwater, based on the Smith Hydrogeomorphic System (Smith et al 1995). The wetlands are classified as palustrine emergent wetlands with less than 30 percent of a scrub-shrub overstory under the Cowardin classification system (Cowardin 1979). This report will be submitted to the USACE with the 310/404 joint permit application. Table 1.0 Summary of Attributes for WUS delineated on Property. Wetland Designation Hydrogeomorphic Class (Smith) Jurisdictional Status Areal Extent W-1 Shallow Water Pond and Swale Open Depression Jurisdictional 0.7812 acres W-2 Swale and Meadow Open Depression Jurisdictional 0.3758 acres Waters of the US Delineation Report – Hoover Way Subdivision - HRDC 13 5.0 REFERENCES Clean Water Act, Section 404. 1986. Federal Register - Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers. Cowardin, Lewis M., Virginia Carter, Francis C. Golet, and Edward T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS- 79/31. Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Services, USDI, Washington, DC. Dorn, R.D. 1984. Vascular Plants of Montana. Mountain West Publishing, Wyoming. Environmental Laboratory 1987. “Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual,” Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksbrug, Miss. Hitchcock, A.S. 1971. Manual of the Grasses of the United States, Volume One and Two. Dover Publications, New York. Lackschewitz, K. 1991. Vascular Plants of West-Central Montana – Identification Guidebook. General Technical Report –277. Intermountain Research Station. USDA, Forest Service. Missoula, MT. Lichvar , Robert W. and John T. Kartesz. 2012. North American Digital Flora. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.0. USACE. Engineer Research and Development Center. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover NH and BONAP, Chapel Hill. NC. Lesica, P., P. Husby. 2001. Field Guide to Montana’s Wetland Vascular Plants. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Bozeman, MT Munsell. 1988. Soil Color Charts. New Windsor, New York. Smith, R.D., A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, and M.M. Brinson. 1995. An approach for assessing wetland functions using hydrogeomorphic classification, reference wetlands, and functional indices. Wetland Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-9. US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service 1990, WETS Climate Summary Data US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service 1987. Hydric Soils of the US. In cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. Washington DC. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to theCorps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: WesternMountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S.Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3.Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and DevelopmentCenter. WEBSITES: USDA/NRCS Web Soil Survey, Gallatin County, accessed May 2017: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ US Fish and Wildlife Service, accessed May 2017 https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html APPENDIX A WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS Waters of the US Delineation Report – Hoover Way Subdivision WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –––– Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast RegionWestern Mountains, Valleys, and Coast RegionWestern Mountains, Valleys, and Coast RegionWestern Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Hoover Subdivision _______ City/County: Bozeman, MT, Gallatin County ________ ________ Sampling Date: ____ May 11-12,2017 ____ Applicant/Owner: ___ HRDC __________ State: MT _________ _________________ Sampling Point: ____ SP-1, wet,open water pond, 24” from water, 10” above Investigator(s): _____ Barbara Vaughn ___ _________________ Section, Township, Range: SE ¼ ,SW ¼ Sec 35, T1S, R5E ____ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): wetland depression _________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): _____ pond slope ________ Slope (%) 5% _ Subregion (LLR): E _______________ Lat:” 45.70269 _____ Long:-111.07562 ___ ________ Datum: NAD83 ____________ _________________ Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek loam 0% to 4 % (510B) ___ _________________ NWI classification: __ freshwater emergent _________________ Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X ____ ________ No ______ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _____ , Soil ____________ , or Hydrology _____ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X _______ No __________ Are Vegetation _____ , Soil ____________ , or Hydrology _____ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDISUMMARY OF FINDISUMMARY OF FINDISUMMARY OF FINDINGS NGS NGS NGS –––– Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X _____ No ________ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X _____ No ________ within a Wetland? Yes X _____ No ________ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X _____ No ________ Remarks: Depression wetland constructed in 2005. Extended existing wetlands located north and south of railroad berm. W-1 encompasses constructed pond and existing swale that extends west past property boundary. VEGETATION VEGETATION VEGETATION VEGETATION –––– Use scientific names oUse scientific names oUse scientific names oUse scientific names of plantsf plantsf plantsf plants Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:_____15”__________) % Cover Species? Status 1. Populus balsamifera _______________________ 35 ____ yes ____ FAC ____ 2. Populus tremuloides _______________________ 10 ____ yes ____ FACU __ 3. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 4. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 45 _____ =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:____15’________) 1. Salix bebbiana ____________________________ 15 _____ yes ____ FACW __ 2. Salix lutea _______________________________ 5 ______ yes ____ OBL ____ 3. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 4. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 5. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 20 _____ =Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size:_______15 radius________) 1. Deschampsia caespitosa ____________________ 45 _____ yes ____ FACW __ 2. Juncus balticus ___________________________ 15 _____ yes ____ FACW __ 3. Carex utriculata __________________________ 15 _____ yes ____ OBL ____ 4. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 5 _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 6. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 7. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 8. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 9. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 10. _______________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 11. _______________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 75 _____ =Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:_______________) 1. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 2. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 140 ____ =Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum______0_____ Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Final Version Dominance Test Dominance Test Dominance Test Dominance Test worksheet:worksheet:worksheet:worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, OR FAC: 6 ____________ (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 7 ____________ (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, OR FAC: 86 ___________ (A/B) Prevalance Index worksheet:Prevalance Index worksheet:Prevalance Index worksheet:Prevalance Index worksheet: ________ Total % Cover of:_________ _ Multiply by: OBL species _____________ x 1 = ____________ FACW species _____________ x 2 = ____________ FAC species _____________ x 3 = ____________ FACU species _____________ x 4 = ____________ UPL species _____________ x 5 = ____________ Column Totals: _____________ (A) (B) Prevalance Index = B/A = ________________ Hyrdophytic Vegetation Indicators:Hyrdophytic Vegetation Indicators:Hyrdophytic Vegetation Indicators:Hyrdophytic Vegetation Indicators: X ___ Dominance Test is >50% ____ Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 ____ Morphological Adaptions¹ (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ____ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants¹ ____ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes XYes XYes XYes X NoNoNoNo SOILSOILSOILSOIL Sampling Point: __SP-1_____________ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirProfile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirProfile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirProfile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)m the absence of indicators.)m the absence of indicators.)m the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrlx Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks 1-4 _______ 10YR 4/2 _______ 100 _______ _________________ __________ __________ __________ clay loam, ____ roots _________ 4-16 ______ 10YR 4/1 _______ 75 ________ 10YR 5/6 _________ 25 ________ C _________ M_________ clay loam ____ _____________ __________ ______________ __________ _________________ __________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ __________ ______________ __________ _________________ __________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ __________ ______________ __________ _________________ __________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ __________ ______________ __________ _________________ __________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ __________ ______________ __________ _________________ __________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoilsIndicators for Problematic Hydric SoilsIndicators for Problematic Hydric SoilsIndicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :::: ____ Histosol (A1) ____ Sandy Redox (S5) ____ 2 cm Muck (A10) ____ Histic Epipedon (A2) ____ Stripped Matrix (S6) ____ Red Parent Material (TF2) ____ Black Histic (A3) ____ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ____ Other (Explain in Remarks) ____ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ____ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ____ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) X ____ Depleted Matrix (F3) ____ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ____ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ____ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ____ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present _____Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ____Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematicRestrictive Layer (if present): Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: ____________________________________________________ Depth (inches): _____________________________________________ Remarks: HYDROLOGYHYDROLOGYHYDROLOGYHYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ____ Surface Water (A1) ____ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA(except MLRA(except MLRA(except MLRA ____ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1,2,(MLRA 1,2,(MLRA 1,2,(MLRA 1,2, ____ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)1, 2, 4A, and 4B)1, 2, 4A, and 4B)1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)4A, and 4B)4A, and 4B)4A, and 4B) X __ Saturation (A3) ____ Salt Crust (B11) X ____ Drainage Patterns (B10) ____ Water Marks (B1) ____ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ____ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ____ Sediment Deposits (B2) ____ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) X ____ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ____ Drift Deposits (B3) ____ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ____ Geomorphic Position (D2) ____ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ____ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ____ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ____ Iron Deposits (B5) ____ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ____ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ____ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ____ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ____ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ____ Inundation Visible or Aerial Imagery (B7) ____ Other (Explain in Remarks) ____ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) _____Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ______ No X ____ Depth (inches): ________________ Water Table Present? Yes ______ No X ____ Depth (inches): ________________ Saturation Present? Yes X ___ No _____ Depth (inches): 3 ______________ (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Ponded surface water in depression 1 to 2 feet deep. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Final Version Hyric Soil Present?Hyric Soil Present?Hyric Soil Present?Hyric Soil Present? Yes XYes XYes XYes X NoNoNoNo Wetland Hydrology PresentWetland Hydrology PresentWetland Hydrology PresentWetland Hydrology Present Yes XYes XYes XYes X ____________________ No No No No ________________________________ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –––– Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast RegionWestern Mountains, Valleys, and Coast RegionWestern Mountains, Valleys, and Coast RegionWestern Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Hoover Subdivision _______ City/County: Bozeman, MT, Gallatin County ________ ________ Sampling Date: ____ May 11-12,2017 ____ Applicant/Owner: ___ HRDC __________ State: MT _________ _________________ Sampling Point: ____ SP-2, upl, upslope 3’ from SP-1 Investigator(s): _____ Barbara Vaughn ___ _________________ Section, Township, Range: SE ¼ ,SW ¼ Sec 35, T1S, R5E ____ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): wetland depression _________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): _____ pond slope ________ Slope (%) 5% _ Subregion (LLR): E _______________ Lat:” 45.70266 _____ Long: -111.07565 ___ ________ Datum: NAD83 ____________ _________________ Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek loam 0% to 4 % (510B) ___ _________________ NWI classification: __ freshwater emergent _________________ Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X ____ ________ No ______ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _____ , Soil ____________ , or Hydrology _____ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X _______ No __________ Are Vegetation _____ , Soil ____________ , or Hydrology _____ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SUMMARY OF FINDINGS –––– Attach site maAttach site maAttach site maAttach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.p showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.p showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.p showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ________ No X ______ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ________ No X ______ within a Wetland? Yes _______ No X _____ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ________ No X ______ Remarks: Depression wetland constructed in 2005. Extended existing wetlands located north and south of railroad berm. W-1 encompasses constructed pond and existing swale that extends west past property boundary. VEGETATION VEGETATION VEGETATION VEGETATION –––– Use scientific names of plantsUse scientific names of plantsUse scientific names of plantsUse scientific names of plants Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:_____15”__________) % Cover Species? Status 1. Populus balsamifera _______________________ 35 ____ yes ____ FAC ____ 2. Populus tremuloides _______________________ 10 ____ yes ____ FACU __ 3. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 4. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 45 _____ =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:____15’________) 1. Salix bebbiana ____________________________ 15 _____ yes ____ FACW __ 2. Salix lutea _______________________________ 5 ______ yes ____ OBL ____ 3. Prunus virginiana _________________________ 15 _____ yes ____ FACU __ 4. Amelanchier alnifolia _______________________ 10 _____ yes ____ FACU __ 5. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 45 _____ =Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size:_______15 radius________) 1. Bromus inermis ___________________________ 35 _____ yes ____ UPL ____ 2. Deschampsia caespitosa ____________________ 25 _____ yes ____ FACW __ 3. Carex utriculata __________________________ 10 _____ no ____ OBL ____ 4. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 5 _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 6. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 7. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 8. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 9. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 10. _______________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 11. _______________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 70 _____ =Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:_______________) 1. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 2. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 160 ____ =Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum______0_____ Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Final Version Dominance TestDominance TestDominance TestDominance Test worksheet:worksheet:worksheet:worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, OR FAC: 4 ____________ (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 8 ____________ (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, OR FAC: 50 ___________ (A/B) Prevalance Index worksheet:Prevalance Index worksheet:Prevalance Index worksheet:Prevalance Index worksheet: ________ Total % Cover of:_________ _ Multiply by: OBL species 10 ___________ x 1 = 20 __________ FACW species 40 ___________ x 2 = 80 __________ FAC species 35 ___________ x 3 = 105 _________ FACU species 70 ___________ x 4 = 280 _________ UPL species _____________ x 5 = ____________ Column Totals: 155 __________ (A) 485 (B) Prevalance Index = B/A = ___485/155=3.13_____________ Hyrdophytic VegetatiHyrdophytic VegetatiHyrdophytic VegetatiHyrdophytic Vegetation Indicators:on Indicators:on Indicators:on Indicators: ____ Dominance Test is >50% ____ Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 ____ Morphological Adaptions¹ (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ____ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants¹ ____ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. HydroHydroHydroHydrophytic Vegetation Present?phytic Vegetation Present?phytic Vegetation Present?phytic Vegetation Present? Yes Yes Yes Yes NoNoNoNo XXXX SOILSOILSOILSOIL Sampling Point: __SP-2_____________ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed toProfile Description: (Describe to the depth needed toProfile Description: (Describe to the depth needed toProfile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrlx Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks 1-14 ______ 10YR 2/2 _______ 100 _______ _________________ __________ __________ __________ silt loam _____ minor clay content __________ ______________ __________ _________________ __________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ __________ ______________ __________ _________________ __________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ __________ ______________ __________ _________________ __________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ __________ ______________ __________ _________________ __________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ __________ ______________ __________ _________________ __________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ __________ ______________ __________ _________________ __________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoilsIndicators for Problematic Hydric SoilsIndicators for Problematic Hydric SoilsIndicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :::: ____ Histosol (A1) ____ Sandy Redox (S5) ____ 2 cm Muck (A10) ____ Histic Epipedon (A2) ____ Stripped Matrix (S6) ____ Red Parent Material (TF2) ____ Black Histic (A3) ____ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ____ Other (Explain in Remarks) ____ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ____ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ____ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ____ Depleted Matrix (F3) ____ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ____ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ____ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ____ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present _____Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ____Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematicRestrictive Layer (if present): Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: ____________________________________________________ Depth (inches): _____________________________________________ Remarks: HYDROLOGYHYDROLOGYHYDROLOGYHYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ____ Surface Water (A1) ____ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA(except MLRA(except MLRA(except MLRA ____ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1,2,(MLRA 1,2,(MLRA 1,2,(MLRA 1,2, ____ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)1, 2, 4A, and 4B)1, 2, 4A, and 4B)1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)4A, and 4B)4A, and 4B)4A, and 4B) ____ Saturation (A3) ____ Salt Crust (B11) ____ Drainage Patterns (B10) ____ Water Marks (B1) ____ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ____ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ____ Sediment Deposits (B2) ____ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ____ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ____ Drift Deposits (B3) ____ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ____ Geomorphic Position (D2) ____ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ____ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ____ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ____ Iron Deposits (B5) ____ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ____ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ____ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ____ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ____ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ____ Inundation Visible or Aerial Imagery (B7) ____ Other (Explain in Remarks) ____ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) _____Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ______ No X ____ Depth (inches): ________________ Water Table Present? Yes ______ No X ____ Depth (inches): ________________ Saturation Present? Yes ______ No X ____ Depth (inches): ________________ (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Ponded surface water in depression 1 to 2 feet deep. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Final Version HHHHyric Soil Present?yric Soil Present?yric Soil Present?yric Soil Present? Yes Yes Yes Yes NoNoNoNo XXXX WWWWetland Hydrology Presentetland Hydrology Presentetland Hydrology Presentetland Hydrology Present Yes Yes Yes Yes ________________________ No No No No XXXX ________________________ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –––– Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast RegionWestern Mountains, Valleys, and Coast RegionWestern Mountains, Valleys, and Coast RegionWestern Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Hoover Subdivision _______ City/County: Bozeman, MT, Gallatin County ________ ________ Sampling Date: ____ May 11-12,2017 ____ Applicant/Owner: ___ HRDC __________ State: MT _________ _________________ Sampling Point: ____ SP-3, wet, southeast edge of W-1 Investigator(s): _____ Barbara Vaughn ___ _________________ Section, Township, Range: SE ¼ ,SW ¼ Sec 35, T1S, R5E ____ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): depression wetland ________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): _____ concave __________ Slope (%) 5% _ Subregion (LLR): E _______________ Lat:” 45.70298 _____ _________________ Long: ___ -111.07513 ________________ Datum: NAD83 ____ ____________ Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek loam 0% to 4 % (510B) ___ _________________ NWI classification: freshwater emergent, persistent, temporary flooded _________ Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X ____ ________ No ______ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _____ , Soil ____________ , or Hydrology _____ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X _______ No __________ Are Vegetation _____ , Soil ____________ , or Hydrology _____ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARYSUMMARYSUMMARYSUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF FINDINGS OF FINDINGS OF FINDINGS –––– Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X _____ No ________ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X _____ No ________ within a Wetland? Yes X _____ No ________ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X _____ No ________ Remarks: Depression wetland constructed in 2005. Wetland W-1 encompasses constructed pond, constructed palustrine meadow, and existing swale with surface water that discharges west past property boundary to Cattail Creek. VEGETATION VEGETATION VEGETATION VEGETATION –––– Use sUse sUse sUse scientific names of plantscientific names of plantscientific names of plantscientific names of plants Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:_____15”__________) % Cover Species? Status 1. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 2. ________________________________________ ______ ______ ________ 3. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 4. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ _______ =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:____15’________) 1. Salix bebbiana ____________________________ 5 ______ yes ____ FACW __ 2 Rosa woodsii _____________________________ 3 ______ yes ____ FACU __ 3. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 4. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 5. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 8 ______ =Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size:_______15 radius________) 1. Typha latifolia ____________________________ 35 _____ yes ____ OBL ____ 2. Carex utriculata __________________________ 30 _____ yes ____ OBL ____ 3. Deschampia caespitosa _____________________ 25 _____ yes ____ FACW __ 4. Juncus balticus ___________________________ 20 _____ yes ____ FACW __ 5 Carex nebrascensis ________________________ 10 _____ no ____ OBL ____ 6. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 7. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 8. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 9. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 10. _______________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 11. _______________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 120 ____ =Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:_______________) 1. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 2. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 128 ____ =Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum______0_____ Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Final Version DoDoDoDominance Test worksheet:minance Test worksheet:minance Test worksheet:minance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, OR FAC: 5 ____________ (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 6 ____________ (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, OR FAC: 83 ___________ (A/B) Prevalance Index worksheet:Prevalance Index worksheet:Prevalance Index worksheet:Prevalance Index worksheet: ________ Total % Cover of:_________ _ Multiply by: OBL species _____________ x 1 = ____________ FACW species _____________ x 2 = ____________ FAC species _____________ x 3 = ____________ FACU species _____________ x 4 = ____________ UPL species _____________ x 5 = ____________ Column Totals: _____________ (A) (B) Prevalance Index = B/A = ________________ Hyrdophytic Vegetation Indicators:Hyrdophytic Vegetation Indicators:Hyrdophytic Vegetation Indicators:Hyrdophytic Vegetation Indicators: X ___ Dominance Test is >50% ____ Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 ____ Morphological Adaptions¹ (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ____ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants¹ ____ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes XYes XYes XYes X NoNoNoNo SOILSOILSOILSOIL Sampling Point: __SP-3_____________ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator orProfile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator orProfile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator orProfile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)confirm the absence of indicators.)confirm the absence of indicators.)confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrlx Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks 1-4 _______ 10YR 4/2 _______ 100 _______ _________________ __________ __________ __________ clay loam, ___ rock __________ 4-13 ______ 10YR 4/1 _______ 70 ________ 10YR 5/6 _________ 30 ________ C _________ M_________ clay loam ____ _____________ __________ ______________ __________ _________________ __________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ __________ ______________ __________ _________________ __________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ __________ ______________ __________ _________________ __________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ __________ ______________ __________ _________________ __________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ __________ ______________ __________ _________________ __________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoilsIndicators for Problematic Hydric SoilsIndicators for Problematic Hydric SoilsIndicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :::: ____ Histosol (A1) ____ Sandy Redox (S5) ____ 2 cm Muck (A10) ____ Histic Epipedon (A2) ____ Stripped Matrix (S6) ____ Red Parent Material (TF2) ____ Black Histic (A3) ____ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ____ Other (Explain in Remarks) ____ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ____ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ____ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) X ____ Depleted Matrix (F3) ____ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ____ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ____ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ____ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present _____Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ____Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematicRestrictive Layer (if present): Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: ____________________________________________________ Depth (inches): _____________________________________________ Remarks: HYDROLOGYHYDROLOGYHYDROLOGYHYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ____ Surface Water (A1) ____ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA(except MLRA(except MLRA(except MLRA ____ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1,2,(MLRA 1,2,(MLRA 1,2,(MLRA 1,2, ____ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)1, 2, 4A, and 4B)1, 2, 4A, and 4B)1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)4A, and 4B)4A, and 4B)4A, and 4B) X __ Saturation (A3) ____ Salt Crust (B11) ____ Drainage Patterns (B10) ____ Water Marks (B1) ____ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ____ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ____ Sediment Deposits (B2) ____ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) X ____ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ____ Drift Deposits (B3) ____ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) X ____ Geomorphic Position (D2) ____ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ____ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ____ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ____ Iron Deposits (B5) ____ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ____ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ____ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ____ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ____ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ____ Inundation Visible or Aerial Imagery (B7) ____ Other (Explain in Remarks) ____ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) _____Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ______ No X ____ Depth (inches): ________________ Water Table Present? Yes ______ No X ____ Depth (inches): ________________ Saturation Present? Yes X ___ No _____ Depth (inches): ground surface ____ (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Ponded surface water in center of depression. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Final Version Hyric Soil Present?Hyric Soil Present?Hyric Soil Present?Hyric Soil Present? Yes XYes XYes XYes X NoNoNoNo Wetland Hydrology PresentWetland Hydrology PresentWetland Hydrology PresentWetland Hydrology Present Yes XYes XYes XYes X ____________________ No No No No ________________________________ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –––– Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast RegionWestern Mountains, Valleys, and Coast RegionWestern Mountains, Valleys, and Coast RegionWestern Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Hoover Subdivision _______ City/County: Bozeman, MT, Gallatin County ________ ________ Sampling Date: ____ May 11-12,2017 ____ Applicant/Owner: ___ HRDC __________ State: MT _________ _________________ Sampling Point: ____ SP-4, upl, upslope 3’ from SP-3 Investigator(s): _____ Barbara Vaughn ___ _________________ Section, Township, Range: SE ¼ ,SW ¼ Sec 35, T1S, R5E ____ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): wetland depression _________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): _____ pond slope ________ Slope (%) 5% _ Subregion (LLR): E _______________ Lat:” 45.70296 _____ _________________ Long: ___ -111.07507 ________________ Datum: NAD83 ____ ____________ Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek loam 0% to 4 % (510B) ___ _________________ NWI classification: __ freshwater emergent, persistent, temporary flooded _______ Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X ____ ________ No ______ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _____ , Soil ____________ , or Hydrology _____ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X _______ No __________ Are Vegetation _____ , Soil ____________ , or Hydrology _____ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARSUMMARSUMMARSUMMARY OF FINDINGS Y OF FINDINGS Y OF FINDINGS Y OF FINDINGS –––– Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X ______ No _______ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ________ No X ______ within a Wetland? Yes _______ No X _____ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ________ No X ______ Remarks: Mitigation depression wetland constructed in 2005. Extended existing wetlands located north and south of railroad berm. W-1 encompasses constructed pond and existing swale that extends west past property boundary. VEGETATION VEGETATION VEGETATION VEGETATION –––– UseUseUseUse scientific names of plantsscientific names of plantsscientific names of plantsscientific names of plants Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:_____15”__________) % Cover Species? Status 1. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 2. ________________________________________ ______ ______ ________ 3. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 4. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ _______ =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:____15’________) 1. Salix bebbiana ____________________________ 5 ______ yes ____ FACW __ 2. Rosa woodsii _____________________________ 3 ______ yes ____ FACU __ 3. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 4. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 5. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 8 ______ =Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size:_______15 radius________) 1. Typha latifolia ____________________________ 30 _____ yes ____ OBL ____ 2. Carex utriculata __________________________ 25 _____ yes ____ OBL ____ 3. Deschampsia caepitosa _____________________ 25 _____ yes ____ FACW __ 4. Juncus balticus ___________________________ 20 _____ yes ____ FACW __ 5 Carex nebrascensis ________________________ 10 _____ no ____ OBL ____ 6. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 7. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 8. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 9. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 10. _______________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 11. _______________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 110 ____ =Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:_______________) 1. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 2. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 118 ____ =Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum______0_____ Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Final Version Dominance Test worksDominance Test worksDominance Test worksDominance Test worksheet:heet:heet:heet: Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, OR FAC: 5 ____________ (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 6 ____________ (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, OR FAC: 83 ___________ (A/B) Prevalance Index worksheet:Prevalance Index worksheet:Prevalance Index worksheet:Prevalance Index worksheet: ________ Total % Cover of:_________ _ Multiply by: OBL species _____________ x 1 = ____________ FACW species _____________ x 2 = ____________ FAC species _____________ x 3 = ____________ FACU species _____________ x 4 = ____________ UPL species _____________ x 5 = ____________ Column Totals: _____________ (A) (B) Prevalance Index = B/A = ________________ Hyrdophytic Vegetation Indicators:Hyrdophytic Vegetation Indicators:Hyrdophytic Vegetation Indicators:Hyrdophytic Vegetation Indicators: X ___ Dominance Test is >50% ____ Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 ____ Morphological Adaptions¹ (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ____ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants¹ ____ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. HydroHydroHydroHydrophytic Vegetation Present?phytic Vegetation Present?phytic Vegetation Present?phytic Vegetation Present? Yes Yes Yes Yes XXXX NoNoNoNo SOILSOILSOILSOIL Sampling Point: __SP-4_____________ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicatorProfile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicatorProfile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicatorProfile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)or confirm the absence of indicators.)or confirm the absence of indicators.)or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrlx Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks 1-10 ______ 10YR 2/2 _______ 100 _______ _________________ __________ __________ __________ silt loam _____ 10-12 _____ 10 YR 2/2 ______ 100 _______ _________________ __________ __________ __________ silt loam _____ more clay______ __________ ______________ __________ _________________ __________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ __________ ______________ __________ _________________ __________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ __________ ______________ __________ _________________ __________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ __________ ______________ __________ _________________ __________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ __________ ______________ __________ _________________ __________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoilsIndicators for Problematic Hydric SoilsIndicators for Problematic Hydric SoilsIndicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :::: ____ Histosol (A1) ____ Sandy Redox (S5) ____ 2 cm Muck (A10) ____ Histic Epipedon (A2) ____ Stripped Matrix (S6) ____ Red Parent Material (TF2) ____ Black Histic (A3) ____ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ____ Other (Explain in Remarks) ____ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ____ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ____ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ____ Depleted Matrix (F3) ____ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ____ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ____ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ____ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present _____Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ____Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematicRestrictive Layer (if present): Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: ____________________________________________________ Depth (inches): _____________________________________________ Remarks: HYDROLOGYHYDROLOGYHYDROLOGYHYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ____ Surface Water (A1) ____ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA(except MLRA(except MLRA(except MLRA ____ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1,2,(MLRA 1,2,(MLRA 1,2,(MLRA 1,2, ____ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)1, 2, 4A, and 4B)1, 2, 4A, and 4B)1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)4A, and 4B)4A, and 4B)4A, and 4B) ____ Saturation (A3) ____ Salt Crust (B11) ____ Drainage Patterns (B10) ____ Water Marks (B1) ____ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ____ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ____ Sediment Deposits (B2) ____ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ____ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ____ Drift Deposits (B3) ____ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ____ Geomorphic Position (D2) ____ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ____ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ____ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ____ Iron Deposits (B5) ____ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ____ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ____ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ____ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ____ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ____ Inundation Visible or Aerial Imagery (B7) ____ Other (Explain in Remarks) ____ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) _____Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ______ No X ____ Depth (inches): ________________ Water Table Present? Yes ______ No X ____ Depth (inches): ________________ Saturation Present? Yes ______ No X ____ Depth (inches): ________________ (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Ponded surface water in depression 1 to 2 feet deep. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Final Version HHHHyric Soil Present?yric Soil Present?yric Soil Present?yric Soil Present? Yes Yes Yes Yes NoNoNoNo XXXX WWWWetland Hydrology Presentetland Hydrology Presentetland Hydrology Presentetland Hydrology Present Yes Yes Yes Yes ________________________ No No No No XXXX ________________________ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –––– Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast RegionWestern Mountains, Valleys, and Coast RegionWestern Mountains, Valleys, and Coast RegionWestern Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Hoover Subdivision _______ City/County: Bozeman, MT, Gallatin County ________ ________ Sampling Date: ____ May 11-12,2017 ____ Applicant/Owner: ___ HRDC __________ State: MT _________ _________________ Sampling Point: ____ SP-5, upl, W-2 N of berm Investigator(s): _____ Barbara Vaughn ___ _________________ Section, Township, Range: SE ¼ ,SW ¼ Sec 35, T1S, R5E ____ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): wetland swale _____________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): _____ swale ____________ Slope (%) 5% _ Subregion (LLR): E _______________ Lat:” 45.70328 _____ _________________ Long: -111.07508 ___ ________________ Datum: NAD83 ____ ____________ Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek loam 0% to 4 % (510B) ___ _________________ NWI classification: __ freshwater emergent, persistent, temporary flooded _______ Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X ____ ________ No ______ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _____ , Soil ____________ , or Hydrology _____ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X _______ No __________ Are Vegetation _____ , Soil ____________ , or Hydrology _____ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SUMMARY OF FINDINGS –––– Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes _______ No X ______ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ________ No X ______ within a Wetland? Yes _______ No X _____ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ________ No X ______ Remarks: W-2 located north of berm. Surface waters accumulates in depression at base of berm. Wetland fringe on W-2 extends 50 feet north at west end of swale to north fence boundary. Part of large historic palustrine wetland that continues north. VEGETVEGETVEGETVEGETATION ATION ATION ATION –––– Use scientific names of plantsUse scientific names of plantsUse scientific names of plantsUse scientific names of plants Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:_____15”__________) % Cover Species? Status 1. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 2. ________________________________________ ______ ______ ________ 3. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 4. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ _______ =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:____15’________) 1. Symphoricarpos alba ______________________ 40 _____ yes ____ FACU __ 2. Cicuta douglasii __________________________ 10 _____ yes ____ OBL ____ 3. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 4. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 5. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 50 _____ =Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size:_______15 radius________) 1. Bromus inermis ___________________________ 60 _____ yes ____ FACU __ 2. Cynoglossum officinale _____________________ 10 _____ no ____ FACU __ 3. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 4. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 5 _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 6. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 7. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 8. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 9. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 10. _______________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 11. _______________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 70 _____ =Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:_______________) 1. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 2. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 120 ____ =Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum______0_____ Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Final Version Dominance Test worksheet:Dominance Test worksheet:Dominance Test worksheet:Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, OR FAC: 1 ____________ (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 ____________ (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, OR FAC: 33 ___________ (A/B) Prevalance Index worksheet:Prevalance Index worksheet:Prevalance Index worksheet:Prevalance Index worksheet: ________ Total % Cover of:_________ _ Multiply by: OBL species 10 ___________ x 1 = 10 __________ FACW species _____________ x 2 = ____________ FAC species _____________ x 3 = ____________ FACU species 110 __________ x 4 = 440 _________ UPL species _____________ x 5 = ____________ Column Totals: 120 __________ (A) 450(B) Prevalance Index = B/A = ___3.75_____________ Hyrdophytic Vegetation Indicators:Hyrdophytic Vegetation Indicators:Hyrdophytic Vegetation Indicators:Hyrdophytic Vegetation Indicators: ____ Dominance Test is >50% ____ Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 ____ Morphological Adaptions¹ (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ____ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants¹ ____ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Yes Yes Yes No XNo XNo XNo X SOILSOILSOILSOIL Sampling Point: __SP-5_____________ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrlx Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks 1-10 ______ 10YR 2/2 _______ 100 _______ _________________ __________ __________ __________ silt loam _____ _____________ 10-14 _____ 10 YR 4/2 ______ 100 _______ _________________ __________ __________ __________ clay loam ____ _____________ __________ ______________ __________ _________________ __________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ __________ ______________ __________ _________________ __________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ __________ ______________ __________ _________________ __________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ __________ ______________ __________ _________________ __________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ __________ ______________ __________ _________________ __________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) InHydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) InHydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) InHydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soilsdicators for Problematic Hydric Soilsdicators for Problematic Hydric Soilsdicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :::: ____ Histosol (A1) ____ Sandy Redox (S5) ____ 2 cm Muck (A10) ____ Histic Epipedon (A2) ____ Stripped Matrix (S6) ____ Red Parent Material (TF2) ____ Black Histic (A3) ____ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ____ Other (Explain in Remarks) ____ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ____ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ____ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ____ Depleted Matrix (F3) ____ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ____ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ____ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ____ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present _____Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ____Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematicRestrictive Layer (if present): Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: ____________________________________________________ Depth (inches): _____________________________________________ Remarks: no redox features HYDROLOGYHYDROLOGYHYDROLOGYHYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ____ Surface Water (A1) ____ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA(except MLRA(except MLRA(except MLRA ____ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1,2,(MLRA 1,2,(MLRA 1,2,(MLRA 1,2, ____ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)1, 2, 4A, and 4B)1, 2, 4A, and 4B)1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, a4A, a4A, a4A, and 4B)nd 4B)nd 4B)nd 4B) ____ Saturation (A3) ____ Salt Crust (B11) ____ Drainage Patterns (B10) ____ Water Marks (B1) ____ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ____ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ____ Sediment Deposits (B2) ____ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ____ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ____ Drift Deposits (B3) ____ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) X ____ Geomorphic Position (D2) ____ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ____ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ____ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ____ Iron Deposits (B5) ____ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ____ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ____ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ____ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ____ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ____ Inundation Visible or Aerial Imagery (B7) ____ Other (Explain in Remarks) ____ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) _____Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ______ No X ____ Depth (inches): ________________ Water Table Present? Yes ______ No X ____ Depth (inches): ________________ Saturation Present? Yes ______ No X ____ Depth (inches): ________________ (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Ponded surface water in depression 1 to 2 feet deep. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Final Version Hyric Soil Present?Hyric Soil Present?Hyric Soil Present?Hyric Soil Present? Yes Yes Yes Yes No XNo XNo XNo X Wetland Hydrology PresentWetland Hydrology PresentWetland Hydrology PresentWetland Hydrology Present Yes Yes Yes Yes ________________________ No XNo XNo XNo X ________________________ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –––– Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast RegionWestern Mountains, Valleys, and Coast RegionWestern Mountains, Valleys, and Coast RegionWestern Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Hoover Subdivision _______ City/County: Bozeman, MT, Gallatin County ________ ________ Sampling Date: ____ May 11-12,2017 ____ Applicant/Owner: ___ HRDC __________ State: MT _________ _________________ Sampling Point: ____ SP-6, wet, W-2 N of berm, west of SP-5 Investigator(s): _____ Barbara Vaughn ___ _________________ Section, Township, Range: SE ¼ ,SW ¼ Sec 35, T1S, R5E ____ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): wetland swale _____________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): _____ swale ____________ Slope (%) 5% _ Subregion (LLR): E _______________ Lat:” 45.70330 _____ _________________ Long: -111.07517 ___ ________________ Datum: NAD83 ____ ____________ Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek loam 0% to 4 % (510B) ___ _________________ NWI classification: __ freshwater emergent, persistent, temporary flooded _______ Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X ____ ________ No ______ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _____ , Soil ____________ , or Hydrology _____ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X _______ No __________ Are Vegetation _____ , Soil ____________ , or Hydrology _____ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARYSUMMARYSUMMARYSUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF FINDINGS OF FINDINGS OF FINDINGS –––– Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X _____ No _______ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X _____ No _______ within a Wetland? Yes X _____ No _______ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X _____ No _______ Remarks: W-2 located north of berm. Surface waters accumulates in depression at base of berm. Wetland fringe on W-2 extends 50 feet north at west end of swale to north fence boundary. Part of large historic palustrine wetland that continues north. VEGETATION VEGETATION VEGETATION VEGETATION –––– Use scientific names of plantsUse scientific names of plantsUse scientific names of plantsUse scientific names of plants Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:_____15”__________) % Cover Species? Status 1. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 2. ________________________________________ ______ ______ ________ 3. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 4. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ _______ =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:____15’________) 1. Salix bebbiana ____________________________ 10 _____ yes ____ FACW __ 2. Salix lutea _______________________________ 5 ______ yes ____ OBL ____ 3. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 4. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 5. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 15 _____ =Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size:_______15 radius________) 1. Bromus inermis ___________________________ 60 _____ yes ____ FACU __ 2. Carex nebrascensis ________________________ 15 _____ no ____ OBL ____ 3. Juncus balticus ____________________________ 10 _____ no ____ FACW __ 4. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 5 _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 6. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 7. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 8. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 9. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 10. _______________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 11. _______________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 85 _____ =Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:_______________) 1. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 2. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 100 ____ =Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum______0_____ Remarks: Additional species: Carex aqualtilis, Carex utriculata, Cornus alba, Equisetum arvense, Phalaris arundinacea, Calamagrostis canadensis, Alopecurus pratensis, Prunus virginiana US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Final Version Dominance Test worksheet:Dominance Test worksheet:Dominance Test worksheet:Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, OR FAC: 2 ____________ (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 ____________ (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, OR FAC: 67 ___________ (A/B) Prevalance Index worksheet:Prevalance Index worksheet:Prevalance Index worksheet:Prevalance Index worksheet: ________ Total % Cover of:_________ _ Multiply by: OBL species _____________ x 1 = ____________ FACW species _____________ x 2 = ____________ FAC species _____________ x 3 = ____________ FACU species _____________ x 4 = ____________ UPL species _____________ x 5 = ____________ Column Totals: _____________ (A) (B) Prevalance Index = B/A = ________________ Hyrdophytic Vegetation Indicators:Hyrdophytic Vegetation Indicators:Hyrdophytic Vegetation Indicators:Hyrdophytic Vegetation Indicators: X ___ Dominance Test is >50% ____ Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 ____ Morphological Adaptions¹ (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ____ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants¹ ____ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Yes Yes Yes XXXX No No No No SOILSOILSOILSOIL Sampling Point: __SP-6_____________ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrlx Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks 1-8 _______ 10YR 2/2 _______ 100 _______ _________________ __________ __________ __________ silt clay loam _ _____________ 8-12 ______ 10 YR 4/1 ______ 85 ________ 10 YR 5/6 ________ 15 ________ C _________ M_________ clay loam ____ _____________ __________ ______________ __________ _________________ __________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ __________ ______________ __________ _________________ __________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ __________ ______________ __________ _________________ __________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ __________ ______________ __________ _________________ __________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ __________ ______________ __________ _________________ __________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) InHydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) InHydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) InHydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soilsdicators for Problematic Hydric Soilsdicators for Problematic Hydric Soilsdicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :::: ____ Histosol (A1) ____ Sandy Redox (S5) ____ 2 cm Muck (A10) ____ Histic Epipedon (A2) ____ Stripped Matrix (S6) ____ Red Parent Material (TF2) ____ Black Histic (A3) ____ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ____ Other (Explain in Remarks) ____ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ____ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ____ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) X ____ Depleted Matrix (F3) ____ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ____ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ____ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ____ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present _____Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ____Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematicRestrictive Layer (if present): Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: ____________________________________________________ Depth (inches): _____________________________________________ Remarks: HYDROLOGYHYDROLOGYHYDROLOGYHYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ____ Surface Water (A1) ____ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA(except MLRA(except MLRA(except MLRA ____ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1,2,(MLRA 1,2,(MLRA 1,2,(MLRA 1,2, ____ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)1, 2, 4A, and 4B)1, 2, 4A, and 4B)1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)4A, and 4B)4A, and 4B)4A, and 4B) X __ Saturation (A3) ____ Salt Crust (B11) ____ Drainage Patterns (B10) ____ Water Marks (B1) ____ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ____ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ____ Sediment Deposits (B2) ____ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) X ____ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ____ Drift Deposits (B3) ____ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) X ____ Geomorphic Position (D2) ____ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ____ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ____ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ____ Iron Deposits (B5) ____ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ____ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ____ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ____ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ____ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ____ Inundation Visible or Aerial Imagery (B7) ____ Other (Explain in Remarks) ____ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) _____Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ______ No X ____ Depth (inches): ________________ Water Table Present? Yes ______ No X ____ Depth (inches): ________________ Saturation Present? Yes X ____ No ______ Depth (inches): ground surface ____ (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Ponded surface water in base of swale 2 to 6 inches deep. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Final Version Hyric Soil Present?Hyric Soil Present?Hyric Soil Present?Hyric Soil Present? Yes Yes Yes Yes XXXX No No No No Wetland Hydrology PresentWetland Hydrology PresentWetland Hydrology PresentWetland Hydrology Present Yes Yes Yes Yes XXXX ____________________ No No No No ________________________________ APPENDIX B NRCS SOIL SURVEY Waters of the US Delineation Report – Hoover Way Subdivision Soil Map—Gallatin County Area, Montana(Hoover Subdivision - HRDC) Natural ResourcesConservation Service Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey 5/15/2017Page 1 of 350609805061010506104050610705061100506113050611605060980506101050610405061070506110050611305061160494020494050494080494110494140494170494200494230494260494290 494020 494050 494080 494110 494140 494170 494200 494230 494260 494290 45° 42' 14'' N 111° 4' 37'' W45° 42' 14'' N111° 4' 23'' W45° 42' 8'' N 111° 4' 37'' W45° 42' 8'' N 111° 4' 23'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84050100200300Feet0204080120MetersMap Scale: 1:1,370 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Figure 4.0 Soil map showing depression wetlands on Hoover Way Subdivision parcel. LOCATION MEADOWCREEK MT Established Series Rev. DES-WDB-JCK 05/2013 MEADOWCREEK SERIES The Meadowcreek series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in alluvium. They are on flood plains, flood-plain steps, drainageways, and stream terraces. Slopes are 0 to 4 percent. Mean annual precipitation is about 305 mm, and mean annual air temperature is about 6 degrees C. TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine-loamy over sandy or sandy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid Fluvaquentic Haplustolls TYPICAL PEDON: Meadowcreek loam, cultivated (colors are for dry soil unless otherwise noted). Ap--0 to 13 cm; grayish brown (10YR 5/2) loam, very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) moist; weak fine and medium subangular blocky structure; slightly hard, friable, moderately sticky and slightly plastic; many very fine roots; strongly effervescent; moderately alkaline (pH 8.0); abrupt smooth boundary. (10 to 18 cm thick) A1--13 to 25 cm; grayish brown (10YR 5/2) loam, very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) moist; weak medium prismatic structure parting to weak fine and medium subangular blocky; slightly hard, friable, moderately sticky and slightly plastic; common very fine roots; many fine tubular and interstitial pores; strongly effervescent; moderately alkaline (pH 8.0); clear smooth boundary. (8 to 20 cm thick) A2--25 to 38 cm; gray (10YR 5/1) silt loam, very dark gray (10YR 3/1) moist; weak medium prismatic structure; slightly hard, friable, moderately sticky and slightly plastic; common very fine roots; many very fine tubular and interstitial pores; slightly alkaline (pH 7.4); clear smooth boundary. (0 to 15 cm thick) Bg1--38 to 69 cm; light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) loam, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) moist; few fine distinct brown (7.5YR 5/3) moist redox concentrations; weak coarse prismatic structure; few thin very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) moist, layers of soil; slightly hard, friable, moderately sticky and slightly plastic; common very fine roots; many very fine tubular and interstitial pores; neutral (pH 7.0); gradual smooth boundary. (13 to 38 cm thick) Bg2--69 to 79 cm; gray (10YR 6/1) sandy loam, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) moist; common fine distinct brown (7.5YR 5/4) moist redox concentrations; weak coarse prismatic structure; slightly hard, friable, nonsticky and moderately plastic; common very fine roots; many very fine tubular and interstitial pores; 5 percent gravel; neutral (pH 7.2); clear smooth boundary. (0 to 12 cm thick) 2C--79 to 152 cm; varigated colors, very gravelly sand; single grain; loose, nonsticky and nonplastic; few very fine roots; 55 percent gravel; neutral (pH 7.2). TYPE LOCATION: Lewis and Clark County, Montana; 396 meters south and 610 meters east of the NW corner of sec. 8, T. 10 N., R. 3 W. Latitude is 46 degrees, 30 minutes, 35 seconds; longitude is 112 degrees, 00 minutes, 47 seconds. RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Soil temperature - 5.5 to 8.3 degrees C Mollic epipedon thickness - 25 to 38 cm Depth to lithologic discontinuity - 50 to 100 cm Depth to seasonal high water table - 60 to 100 cm A horizons Hue: 10YR or 2.5Y Value: 4 or 5 dry; 2 or 3 moist Chroma: 1 or 2 Texture: loam, silt loam, clay loam, or silty clay loam with thin strata of sandy loam or sandy clay loam Clay content: 18 to 35 percent Rock fragments: 0 to 15 percent--0 to 10 percent gravel; 0 to 5 percent cobbles Electrical conductivity: 0 to 8 mmhos/cm Calcium carbonate equivalent: 0 to 10 percent Reaction: pH 6.6 to 8.4 Bg horizons Hue: 10YR, 2.5Y or 5Y Value: 5 or 6 dry; 3 or 4 moist Chroma: 1, 2, or 3 Texture: loam, sandy loam, sandy clay loam, or silt loam, with some thin strata of fine sandy loam Clay content: 18 to 25 percent Rock fragments: 0 to 5 percent gravel Electrical conductivity: 0 to 4 mmhos/cm Calcium carbonate equivalent: 0 to 10 percent Reaction: pH 6.1 to 8.4 2C horizon Texture: sand, coarse sand or loamy sand Clay content: 0 to 10 percent Rock fragments: 35 to 75 percent--35 to 70 percent gravel; 0 to 15 percent cobbles and stones Reaction: pH 6.1 to 8.4 COMPETING SERIES: There are no competing series. GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: Landform - flood plains, flood-plain steps, drainageways, and stream terraces Elevation - 1,067 to 1,890 meters Slope - 0 to 4 percent Parent material - alluvium Climate - long, cold winters; moist springs; warm, dry summers Mean annual precipitation - 254 to 483 mm Mean annual air temperature - 3.9 to 7.2 degrees C Frost-free period - 70 to 130 days GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: None listed. DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Somewhat poorly drained; moderate over very rapid permeability. USE AND VEGETATION: Meadowcreek soils are used mainly for irrigated crops. Some small areas are used for rangeland. Potential native vegetation is mainly western wheatgrass, slender wheatgrass, tall reedgrass, basin wildrye, prairie cordgrass, tufted hairgrass, sedges, and forbs. DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: Meadowcreek soils are of moderate extent in western Montana. MLRAs - 43B, 44B, 46, 58A. MLRA SOIL SURVEY REGIONAL OFFICE (MO) RESPONSIBLE: Bozeman, Montana SERIES ESTABLISHED: Choteau-Conrad Area, parts of Teton and Pondera Counties, Montana, 1991; proposed in Lewis and Clark County, Montana, 1979. REMARKS: Diagnostic horizons and features recognized in this pedon are: Mollic epipedon - from 0 to 38 cm (Ap, A1, and A2 horizons) Redox concentrations - 38 to 79 cm (Bg1 and Bg2 horizons) Lithologic discontinuity - at 79 cm (2C horizon) Particle-size control section - from 25 to 100 cm (A2, Bg1, Bg2, and part of the 2C horizons) Meadowcreek soils have a frigid temperature regime, an ustic moisture regime and an aquic moisture subclass. Redox depletions were not recorded at the type location in 1979. The need for documentation in support of the Fluvaquentic subgroup is recognized and should be investigated. ADDITIONAL DATA: Soil interpretation record - MT0407 National Cooperative Soil Survey U.S.A. APPENDIX C PHOTO LOG Waters of the US Delineation Report – Hoover Way Subdivision Photo 1. The photo is looking at SP-1 near the south edge of W-1, the open water pond constructed for mitigation. Photo 2. The view is looking northwest at SP-2 upslope from SP-1 near the edge of W-1. Photo 3. Photo shows W-1 looking northwest toward swale extending from open water pond. Photo 4. Photo shows W-1 looking west at SP-3. This area was expanded during mitigation construction from historic wetland located on south side of berm. Photo 5. The view is looking at SP-3 and SP-4 located on northeast side of W-1 Photo 6. The view is looking west at SP-5 and the edge of W-2, the swale that forms at the north side of the railroad berm. Photo 7. The photo is taken looking west at SP-6 located at the east side of W-2. Photo 8. The view is looking west at W-2. Photo 9. The photo is looking northwest at the palustrine meadow that extends from W-2. Appendix D WETLAND EXHIBIT Waters of the US Delineation Report – Hoover Way Subdivision Δ Δ INCHES1824303642485460728496108120EQUIVALENTSIZEINCHES546277 1/287 1/896 7/8106 1/213 1/21822 1/226 5/831 5/1636404518305390540044003510241513051065875690600445315170LBS.Arch pipe is manufactured with a tongue and groove joint to standard or special strengths in accordance withASTM Specifications C506. Flexible compounds may be used for joint sealant.13211.451.799.166.081.825.634.617.714.31.66.48.84.42.8WATERSQ. FT.AREARISE65138154168 3/410212288732236 1/451 1/843 3/428 1/2INCHESSPAN58 1/2INCHES59101011785 1/262 1/244 1/23 1/2WALL T4 1/2RISE1"1"TSPANTYPICAL CROSS SECTIONTWT./FT. Hoover Way Preliminary Traffic Report             Bozeman, Montana  Abelin Traffic Services                      1                          March, 2017  Hoover Way Residential Development Preliminary Traffic Report Bozeman, Montana A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This document studies the possible effect on the surrounding road system from a proposed 2.7- acre residential development located north of Baxter Lane in Bozeman, Montana. The study area selected for this project includes Baxter Lane between Davis Lane and North 19th Avenue. This traffic report is preliminary and is based on available data only. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed development property currently consists of a 2.7-acre parcel of undeveloped land located north of Sartain Street and west of Thomas Drive (North 27th Avenue). The site is located north of the Baxter Square subdivision. Adjacent Roadways Baxter Lane is an east/west minor arterial route that extends across the northern section of Bozeman. The road provides access to a variety of commercial and residential areas. The road has a varying cross-section with a mix of urban and rural road designs, bike lanes, and some on-street parking. The posted speed limit is 40 MPH. Traffic data available from the Montana DOT indicates that the road currently carries 9,400 VPD west of North 19th Avenue. Davis Lane is a north/south minor arterial route that extends through the western section of Bozeman. North of Baxter Lane the road has a rural cross-section and a 35 MPH speed limit. South of Baxter Lane Davis Lane has been improved to include a divided five-lane urban cross section. The intersection of Baxter Lane and Davis Lane is currently a four-way STOP controlled intersection. Traffic data available from the Montana DOT indicates that the road currently carries 5,200 VPD north of Baxter Lane and 5,800 VPD south of Baxter Lane. Thomas Drive/ North 27th Avenue is a north/south collector route that provides access to the residential and commercial areas west of north 19th Avenue. Between Sartain Street and Baxter Lane, half of the road has been improved to City of Bozeman standards for divided collector roadways. South of Baxter Lane the road has been completed with full center medians and bike lanes. Existing Level of Service Based on the City of Bozeman Subdivision Regulations, the developers must study all effected Hoover Way Preliminary Traffic Report             Bozeman, Montana  Abelin Traffic Services                      2                          March, 2017  intersections within ½ mile of the proposed development, which includes the intersections of Baxter Lane with Davis Lane, Thomas Drive, and 19th Avenue. Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) obtained traffic data from the 2016 Bozeman TMP. The data includes the existing Level of Service (LOS) calculations and peak-hour intersection volumes at Baxter Lane/Davis Lane and Baxter Lane/North 19th Avenue collected in 2015. Table 1 shows the existing LOS for the AM and PM peak hours at the study intersections without the traffic from the proposed development. The table shows that the intersection of Baxter Lane & Davis Lane is currently operating at LOS F & D during the peak hours. The only way to correct this issue would be with the installation of a traffic signal or roundabout. The intersection of Baxter Lane with North 19th Avenue is currently operating within acceptable limits and has additional reserve capacity. Table 1 – 2015 Level of Service Summary* AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Delay (Sec.) LOS Delay (Sec.) LOS Baxter Lane & Davis Lane 54.6 F 24.0 C Baxter Lane & North 19th Avenue 32.8 D 24.5 C *Source: 2016 Bozeman TMP C. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The development currently under consideration for this site includes 2.7 acres of land located north of Sartain Street which would be developed into an affordable housing residential development. The property would include four single family homes and 24 townhouse units on separated lots. Access to the Hoover Way residential development would be provided by a connection through Sartain Street to Thomas Drive. It is likely that some traffic from the Hoover Way development will use Buchrake Avenue to the south to access Baxter Lane. However, for the purposes of this study is was assumed that all traffic from the development will use Thomas Drive. It is anticipated that the project would begin construction in the fall of 2017 with full build-out by 2018. D. TRIP GENERATION AND ASSIGNMENT ATS performed a trip generation analysis to determine the anticipated future traffic volumes from the proposed developments using the trip generation rates contained in Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers, Ninth Edition). These rates are the national standard and are based on the most current information available to planners. A vehicle “trip” is defined as any trip that either begins or ends at the development site. ATS determined that the critical traffic impacts on the intersections and roadways would occur during the weekday morning and evening peak hours. According to the ITE trip generation rates, at full build-out the development would produce 14 AM peak hour trips, 16 PM peak hour trips, and 177 daily trips. See Table 2 for detailed trip generation information. Hoover Way Preliminary Traffic Report             Bozeman, Montana  Abelin Traffic Services                      3                          March, 2017  Table 2 - Trip Generation Rates Land Use Units AM Peak Hour Trip Ends per Unit Total AM Peak Hour Trip Ends PM Peak Hour Trip Ends per Unit Total PM Peak Hour Trip Ends Weekday Trip Ends per Unit Total Weekday Trip Ends Townhouse 24 0.44 11 0.52 12 5.81 139 Single Family 4 0.75 3 1 4 9.52 38 28 14 16 177 E. TRIP DISTRIBUTION The traffic distribution and assignment for the proposed subdivisions was based upon the existing ADT volumes along the adjacent roadways and peak-hour intersection turning volumes. Traffic is expected to distribute onto the surrounding road network as shown on Figure 1. Figure 1 – Trip Distribution F. TRAFFIC IMPACTS OUTSIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT Projected Level of Service The Hoover Way residential development will produce relatively low traffic volumes compared to the existing traffic volumes in this area. Based on the current traffic volumes within the study area it is estimated that the Hoover Way development will increase traffic volumes at the adjacent intersections by only 0.2% to 0.4%. This increase in traffic volumes will not impact the operations of these intersections in any way. It should be noted that there is currently no traffic volume information for the intersection of Thomas Drive and Baxter Lane, which would likely see a slightly higher proportionate increase in traffic volumes with the Hoover Way development. It is Hoover Way Development 8% 8% 12% 2% Baxter Lane 20% 30% 20% North 19th Davis Lane Thomas Drive Hoover Way Preliminary Traffic Report             Bozeman, Montana  Abelin Traffic Services                      4                          March, 2017  not expected that the traffic from the Hoover Way development will have a major impact at this location, but it may be of value to document the existing traffic conditions at this location and determine if any existing capacity related issues may exist. Traffic volumes at the intersection of Buchrake Avenue with Baxter Lane could be reviewed if requested by the City. The existing capacity and LOS problem at the intersection of Baxter Lane and Davis Lane will be address by City of Bozeman project CTSM-12 which includes the installation of a traffic signal and related intersection geometric improvements. Future Level of Service The Bozeman TMP projects high levels of growth in this area over the next 25 years and recommends a variety of roadway improvements to address roadway capacity needs. The TMP indicates that traffic volumes on Baxter Lane will increase to 16,000 VPD by 2040. Traffic volumes on Davis Lane will increase to 5,000 VPD and volumes on 27th Avenue will increase to 4,000 VPD. In order to address these increases in traffic the TMP recommends improving Davis Street north of Baxter to a five-lane minor arterial cross-section (MSN-11), improving North 27th Avenue to a three-lane collector north of Baxter Lane (MSN-7), and improving Baxter lane to a three-lane arterial roadway west of north 19th avenue (MSN-40). It is not known when these planned road improvements will be implemented. These improvements will improve roadway operations throughout this section of Bozeman through 2040. It is likely that the intersection of North 27th Avenue with Baxter Lane will eventually require higher levels of traffic control, but this improvement will be tied to the future development within this area. It would be of value to evaluate the existing traffic volumes along North 27th Avenue (Thomas Drive) to determine when this section of road may require expansion to the recommended three-lane collector design. 1091 Stoneridge Drive • Bozeman, Montana • Phone (406) 587-1115 • Fax (406) 587-9768 www.chengineers.com • E-Mail: info@chengineers.com Civil/Structural Engineering and Surveying August 18, 2017 Dr. Craig Woolard, P.E. City of Bozeman Engineering Department 20 E. Olive Bozeman, MT 59718 RE: Hoover Way Subdivision - Waiver Request – Intersection Level of Service Dear Mr. Woolard: A waiver is requested from Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) Section 38.24.060.B.4 for the Baxter Lane and Davis Lane intersection for the Hoover Way affordable housing subdivision. The referenced code section requires that all intersections with arterial and collector streets operate at a minimum level of service (LOS) “C” for the design period of the development, which is a minimum of 15 years following application approval. This intersection is currently operating at a LOS of “F” for the AM Peak Hour and LOS of “D” for the PM Peak Hour conditions. The above-referenced section allows the review authority to grant a waiver from a LOS of less than “C” if it is determined that: 1. Granting of a waiver from the level of service for the intersection would not be contrary to public health and safety and is in the public interest. The proposed development will have minimal effects to this intersection. The subject intersection is currently a 4-way stop and is scheduled to be improved to reduce traffic delays at the intersection. 2. Improvements to the intersection to raise the overall level of service to a “C” or better are currently scheduled for commencement of construction within three years as shown on the most recently adopted transportation capital improvement plan. This intersection is on the Capital Improvement Plan and is scheduled for fiscal year 2020. 3. All right-of-way necessary for the required intersection improvements have been obtained by the City or the Montana Department of Transportation. All right-of-way and right-of-way easements necessary for the required intersection improvements have been obtained. Civil/Structural Engineering and Surveying 4. The commission has approved a financing plan for the intersection improvements. It is our understanding that the commission has approved a financing plan for these intersection improvements. If you require any further information, please give me a call. Sincerely, Matt Hausauer, P.E. CC: Shawn Kohtz, P.E. Chris Saunders G:\C&H\16\161004\TRAFFIC\WAIVER REQUEST_INTERSECTION LOS.DOC