Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2-4 Wetland Delineation Report October 21, 2021 MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC. Voyager Residential Development Wetland and Waterway Delineation Report PROJECT NUMBER: 174032 PROJECT CONTACT: Brian Sandefur EMAIL: brian.sandefur@powereng.com PHONE: 406-600-2286 POWER Engineers, Inc. Wetland and Waterway Delineation Report SLC 199-2447 174032 (2021-10-20) BS Wetland and Waterway Delineation Report PREPARED FOR: MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC. PREPARED BY: BRIAN SANDEFUR 406-600-2286 BRIAN.SANDEFUR@POWERENG.COM POWER Engineers, Inc. Wetland and Waterway Delineation Report PAGE i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY ....................................................................................................... 1 2.0 METHODS ...................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING DATA ...................................................................................................... 2 2.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION ................................................................................................................... 2 2.2.1 Soils ....................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2.2 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................. 3 2.2.3 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................. 3 2.2.4 Classification ......................................................................................................................... 4 2.2.5 Antecedent Precipitation ....................................................................................................... 4 3.0 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................ 4 3.1 DESKTOP ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................... 4 3.1.1 Topographic Map .................................................................................................................. 4 3.1.2 Aerial Map ............................................................................................................................ 5 3.1.3 Soils ....................................................................................................................................... 5 3.1.4 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................... 5 3.1.5 Waterways ............................................................................................................................. 5 3.1.6 GLWQD Wetlands ................................................................................................................ 5 3.1.7 Floodplains ............................................................................................................................ 5 3.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION ................................................................................................................... 6 3.2.1 Results ................................................................................................................................... 6 4.0 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 7 5.0 LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................................. 8 TABLES: TABLE 1 ON-SITE SOIL MAP UNITS ....................................................................................... 5 TABLE 2 SUMMARY DATA FOR WETLANDS ....................................................................... 6 FIGURES: FIGURE 1 TOPOGRAPHIC/VICINITY MAP ............................................................................. 10 FIGURE 2 2019 NAIP AERIAL IMAGERY MAP ...................................................................... 11 FIGURE 3 NRCS SOILS MAP ..................................................................................................... 12 FIGURE 4 NWI/HND MAP .......................................................................................................... 13 FIGURE 5 SURVEYED WETLAND/WATERWAY MAP ......................................................... 14 APPENDICES: APPENDIX A ANTECEDENT PRECIPITATION TOOL RESULTS APPENDIX B PHOTOGRAPHS APPENDIX C USACE WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEETS POWER Engineers, Inc. Wetland and Waterway Delineation Report PAGE ii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS APT Antecedent Precipitation Tool CWA Clean Water Act FAC Facultative FACU Facultative Upland FACW Facultative Wetland FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GLWQD Gallatin Local Water Quality District GPS Global Positioning System HGM Hydrogeomorphic NAIP National Agriculture Imagery Program NHD National Hydrography Dataset NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NWI National Wetland Inventory OBL Obligate Wetland POWER POWER Engineers, Inc. Project Voyager Residential Development Project SP Sampling Point UPL Upland USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers U.S.C. United States Code USDA United States Department of Agriculture USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey WOTUS Waters of the United States POWER Engineers, Inc. Wetland and Waterway Delineation Report PAGE 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION POWER Engineers, Inc. (POWER) was retained by Morrison-Maierle, Inc. to complete a delineation of potentially regulated wetlands and waterways (i.e., identifying boundaries of wetlands and waterways potentially regulated by the federal government [waters of the United States (WOTUS)]) within an approximate 14.4-acre site identified as the Voyager Residential Development Project (Project). The legal description of the Project area is the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 2, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. This report presents the professional opinion of POWER regarding the presence/absence of potentially regulated wetlands and waterways. The final determination of the limits and jurisdictional status of on-site wetlands and waterways is under the purview of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and may require an on-site inspection with the USACE. 1.1 Site Description The Project area consists of flat or undulating, undeveloped land. The site is bound by Tschache Lane to the south, 27th Avenue to the west, Baxter Apartments to the northwest, Baxter Lane to the north, BSC Condos to the northeast, and current residential land development to the east. The Project area corresponds to the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Northern Rocky Mountain Valleys Major Land Resource Area and consists of mowed grasslands and areas of shallow groundwater. Approximately 14.4 acres were investigated for the presence of wetlands and waterways associated with the Project area. A topographic map of the Project area is provided as Figure 1 and an aerial map as Figure 2. 1.2 Jurisdictional Authority The USACE has primacy over the regulation of federal jurisdictional waters under Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and federal jurisdictional waters under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Federal jurisdictional waters include navigable waters and all other waters that are regulated by the USACE, which together are referred to as “WOTUS”. Impacts to WOTUS are regulated by the USACE through Section 404 of the CWA (33 United States Code [U.S.C.] § 1344) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. § 403). In addition, prior to federal authorization for impacts to waters or wetlands, a water quality certification must first be obtained from the applicable state as defined in Section 401 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. § 1341). The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the USACE are in receipt of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona’s August 30, 2021 order vacating and remanding the Navigable Waters Protection Rule in the case of Pascua Yaqui Tribe v. USEPA. In light of this order, USACE and USEPA have halted implementation of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (implemented on April 21, 2020 under the Trump administration) and are interpreting WOTUS consistent with the pre-2015 regulations until further notice. Under the pre-2015 regulations (Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States), WOTUS include traditional navigable waters and their adjacent wetlands; non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent (tributaries that flow year round or have continuous flow at least seasonally [three months]); and wetlands that directly abut such tributaries (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 230.3(s)). The CWA jurisdiction also covers non-navigable tributaries and their adjacent wetlands that are not relatively permanent and wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting a relatively permanent non-navigable tributary when a fact-specific analysis determines that those waters have a significant nexus with traditional navigable waters. A significant nexus determination must be completed in order to prove whether or not a water feature in question has more POWER Engineers, Inc. Wetland and Waterway Delineation Report PAGE 2 than an insubstantial or speculative hydrological or ecological effect on the chemical, physical, and/or biological integrity of a downstream traditional navigable water (EPA 2008; USACE and EPA 2014). Under the above-mentioned guidance, the USACE generally will not assert jurisdiction over swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow), and ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water (EPA 2008). 2.0 METHODS 2.1 Analysis of Existing Data Prior to the commencement of the on-site field investigation, POWER reviewed available technical documents, databases, and maps to determine the potential extent of wetlands and waterways within the Project area. These data included: • United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Maps: Bozeman, Montana (USGS 1987). • United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) 2019 imagery (NAIP 2019). • Google Earth Aerial Imagery (1985-2021). • USDA NRCS’ Soil Survey Geographic database for Gallatin County Area, Montana (NRCS 2019). • United States. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Wetlands Mapper (USFWS 2021). • USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) mapper (USGS 2021). • Gallatin Local Water Quality District Wetland Inventory of Gallatin Valley (GLWQD 2004) • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year Floodplain maps (FEMA 2021). 2.2 Field Investigation This review focused on determining the presence of potentially jurisdictional wetlands or waterways within the limits of the Project area. Field surveys were conducted in accordance with the “Routine Onsite Determination Method” described in the USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (USACE 2010). Wetlands are defined as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated conditions. Under normal circumstances, three parameters must be present for an area to be considered a wetland: hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. The Project area was traversed evaluating vegetation, soils, and hydrology at sampling plots to determine the presence of wetland indicators for each parameter (hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydrology) according to methodologies outlined in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (USACE 2010). The boundaries of those areas determined to meet the three criteria were surveyed using a Trimble GeoXH global positioning system (GPS) unit with sub-meter accuracy. POWER Engineers, Inc. Wetland and Waterway Delineation Report PAGE 3 Waterways or open water areas within the Project area, if encountered, were examined for the presence/absence of an ordinary high-water mark as defined in 33 Code of Federal Regulations 328.3(e) and a defined bed and bank. Generally, if these characteristics were observed in a water body and a significant nexus was observed, it was determined to be a regulated waterway (i.e., WOTUS). If these characteristics were absent, a significant nexus to a WOTUS was not identified, or atypical circumstances existed, these areas were determined to be a swale, ditch, or other erosional feature, and likely not a CWA-regulated feature (i.e., not a WOTUS). Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow) and ditches excavated wholly in and draining only uplands that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water are generally non-jurisdictional features and not considered WOTUS (USEPA 2008). The field survey included the delineation of features considered to meet the requirements for wetlands or waterways. The specific methods for characterizing and evaluating vegetation, hydrology, and soils for determining the presence of jurisdictional areas are identified below. 2.2.1 Soils At the center of each data plot, the wetland scientist conducted borings with a hand-held auger to depths necessary to accurately determine a soil’s hydric status (typically 18 to 24 inches below ground surface). The information collected for each soil profile included soil horizons, depth, texture, color, and hydric soil characteristics including organic content, accumulation of sulfides, gley formation, redoximorphic concentrations and depletions, and the visually-detectable depletion of minerals such as iron and manganese. Colors of the soil matrix and concentrations/depletions were identified using Munsell Soil Color Charts (Munsell 2000). Hydric soil determinations were based on criteria established in the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), along with Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (NRCS 2010), and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (USACE 2010). 2.2.2 Vegetation Species abundance in both upland and wetland communities were visually estimated. Dominant trees and shrubs/saplings were recorded within a 30-foot and 15-foot radius, respectively, from the center of each documentation plot. Woody vines were recorded within a 30-foot radius of the plot. Dominant herbaceous vegetation was recorded within a five-foot radius of the plot. The indicator status of each species was identified using the National Wetland Plant List for the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (USACE 2018). The presence of hydrophytic vegetation within a representative plant community was positively identified if more than 50 percent of the dominant species within the community had an indicator status of Obligate Wetland (OBL), Facultative Wetland (FACW), or Facultative (FAC). This determination method is referred to as the dominance test. Dominant plant species are determined using the “50/20 rule” defined in the 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). If the plant community failed the dominance test, but indicators for hydric soils or wetland hydrology were present, the plant community was examined for additional hydrophytic vegetation indicators. These hydrophytic vegetation indicators are identified in the Regional Supplement and include the prevalence index, evidence of morphological adaptations for growth in a wetland, and problematic hydrophytic vegetation (USACE 2010). 2.2.3 Hydrology Site hydrology was evaluated during the field survey by initially observing whether the soil at the surface was inundated or saturated. If the ground surface was dry, the depth to freestanding groundwater or POWER Engineers, Inc. Wetland and Waterway Delineation Report PAGE 4 saturated soil was measured, and the presence or absence of other indicators of wetland hydrology (e.g., drift lines, water stained leaves) was noted. The wetland hydrology criterion was met if one or more primary or two or more secondary field indicators were present (Environmental Laboratory 1987). However, during the survey, those wetlands which lacked any hydrology indicators due to temporarily dry conditions, disturbance, or other factors and did not meet the 1987 USACE manual criteria were evaluated using criteria from the Regional Supplement (USACE 2010). 2.2.4 Classification In the field, wetlands and waterways were classified according to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al. 1979). The Cowardin classification is a taxonomic system that divides wetlands and deepwater habitats into five systems based on hydrologic factors (Marine, Estuarine, Riverine, Lacustrine, and Palustrine). Additionally, wetlands were classified based on hydrogeomorphic (HGM) system (Brinson 1993). This approach considers wetland function and places an emphasis on geomorphic and hydrologic attributes, rather than using a system that is limited to biotic characteristics. This system recognizes water inputs and outputs which drive wetlands systems. This classification system includes seven major HGM classes (riverine, depressional, slope, mineral soil flats, organic soil flats, estuarine fringe, and lacustrine fringe wetlands). 2.2.5 Antecedent Precipitation The Antecedent Precipitation Tool (APT) is a desktop tool developed by the USACE that is commonly used by the USACE and USEPA to support decisions as to whether field data collection and other site-specific observations occurred under normal climatic conditions. This tool streamlines the review of climatic data, which supports decision-making related to wetland delineations. The APT facilitates the comparison of antecedent or recent rainfall conditions for a given location to the range of normal rainfall conditions that occurred during the preceding 30 years. In addition to providing a standardized methodology to evaluate normal precipitation conditions (“precipitation normalcy”), the APT can also be used assess the presence of drought conditions, as well as the approximate dates of the wet and dry seasons for a given location. Results of the APT analysis for the latitude and longitude of the centroid location of the Project area are provided in Appendix A. Based on this analysis, “Normal Conditions” were present at the time of the October 8, 2021 field survey. 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Desktop Analysis The desktop analysis completed by POWER included soils, waterways, topographic, wetlands, and floodplain data to determine the potential presence of wetland/waterway features. The results of the desktop analysis are provided in the following sections. A topographic map (Figure 1), aerial map (Figure 2), NRCS soils map (Figure 3), and NWI/NHD water resources map (Figure 4) were all reviewed as part of the desktop analysis and have been included at the end of this report. Additionally, FEMA floodplain data were evaluated to identify potential wetlands and waterways. 3.1.1 Topographic Map According to the USGS topographic map (Figure 1), the Project area is a relatively flat, undeveloped area. Two intermittent stream channels are depicted on the topographic map outside of and to the west and east of the Project area. A review of the topographic map does not indicate that wetlands and waterways are present within the Project area. POWER Engineers, Inc. Wetland and Waterway Delineation Report PAGE 5 3.1.2 Aerial Map The aerial map (Figure 2) did not display direct evidence of aquatic features within the Project area. A review of the historic aerial imagery displayed an intermittent dark green signature along the eastern boundary of the site. In general, the aerial map did not provide evidence that wetlands are likely to be present within the Project. 3.1.3 Soils Soil map units and their associated hydric ratings are identified for the Project area in Table 1 (Figure 3). Three soil map units have been mapped across the site and are identified by NRCS as 50B–Blackdog silt loam; 64B–Straw loam; and 537A–Lamoose silt loam. These map units are generally comprised of alluvium and found along stream terraces. Lamoose silt loam is identified as hydric by NRCS. The other two soil map units are not identified as hydric. TABLE 1 ON-SITE SOIL MAP UNITS SOIL MAP UNIT NAME SOIL MAP UNIT CODE LANDFORM DRAINAGE CLASS HYDRIC RATING Blackdog silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 50B Stream terraces Well drained No Lamoose silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 537A Stream terraces Well drained Yes (95 percent of map unit hydric) Straw loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 64B Stream terraces Well drained No 3.1.4 Wetlands According to the NWI data and map (Figure 4), approximately 1.45 acres of mapped wetland are identified within the Project area. This resource includes one type of palustrine system specifically classified as: • Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Temporarily Flooded (PEM1A) NWI data are typically based on aerial photography interpretation and are not always ground-truthed. In general, the NWI wetland area corresponds to the wetland resource identified during the field survey. 3.1.5 Waterways USGS topographical mapping and NHD data were evaluated to identify potential waterway features within the Project area (Figure 1 and Figure 4, respectively). According to the USGS and NHD data, there are no mapped waterways within the Project area. 3.1.6 GLWQD Wetlands The GLWQD wetland spatial database was reviewed to identify potential wetland areas within the Project area. This database mapped approximately 2.2 acres of wet meadow habitat along the eastern boundary of the site and suggest the presence of wetlands within the Project area. 3.1.7 Floodplains FEMA floodplain data were evaluated to identify potential wetlands and waterways. No FEMA-designated floodplain areas were identified within or immediately adjacent to the Project area. POWER Engineers, Inc. Wetland and Waterway Delineation Report PAGE 6 3.2 Field Investigation A Professional Wetland Scientist with POWER completed an on-site field investigation on October 8, 2021 to identify wetlands/waterways associated with the Project area. The results of the investigation are discussed below. Photographs and associated field observations of the vegetation, hydrology, and soils of the delineated wetland/waterway features identified within the Project area are included as Appendix B. The location of wetland determination sampling points (SPs) and the extent of the wetland/waterway boundaries that were identified in the field are depicted on Figure 5. Completed USACE wetland determination data forms, for both upland and wetland areas, are provided in Appendix C. 3.2.1 Results Table 2 provides a summary of the wetland characteristics for the one feature delineated within the Project area. Details regarding observed wetland criteria are provided on the USACE wetland determination forms. One palustrine, emergent wetland (W-1) was delineated within the Project area totaling 0.51 acre. TABLE 2 SUMMARY DATA FOR WETLANDS WETLAND ID WETLAND TYPE1 WETLAND TYPE (HGM)2 JURISDICTIONAL STATUS3 SIZE (ACRES) LOCATION (LAT/LONG) Wetland 1 (W-1) PEM1A Palustrine Jurisdictional 0.51 45.697488 -111.070066 Total 0.51 Note: PEM1A = Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Temporarily Flooded 1 Cowardin et al. 1979 2 Brinson 1993 3 The determination of each wetland/waterway’s jurisdictional or connected status represents POWER’s professional opinion; the final determination of jurisdictional status is under the purview of the USACE. 1 Condition values range from 1 (dry), 2 (normal), and 3 (wet). 2 Total value ranges are drier than normal (6-9), normal (10-14), and wetter than normal (15-18). Wetland W-1 Wetland W-1 includes all wetland habitat surveyed within the Project area and includes approximately 0.51 acre of palustrine emergent wetland located along the eastern boundary of the site. This wetland was defined by a gradual topographic break and appeared to be sustained by shallow groundwater with supplemental hydrology draining via culvert from the south (Tschache Lane). The wetland hydrology indicators for W-1 included geomorphic position and a positive FAC-neutral test. Dominant hydrophytic vegetation observed within W-1 included Northwest Territory sedge (Carex utriculata, OBL) with lesser amounts of Nebraska sedge (Carex nebrascensis, OBL), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus, FACW), large-leaf avens (Geum macrophyllum, FAC), and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis, FAC). The hydrophytic vegetation indicators included a positive dominance test and prevalence index within the range indicating the presence of hydrophytic vegetation. Adjacent uplands were generally characterized by Kentucky bluegrass, Baltic rush, Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense, FAC), field pennycress (Thlaspi arvense, Upland [UPL]), large-leaf avens, tall hedge-mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum, Facultative Upland [FACU]), and common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale, FACU). The Project area had been mowed during the 2021 growing season. The hydric soil indicator for W-1 is redox dark surface based on observations of a low chroma soil layer (10YR 2/1, 0 to 8 inches) underlain by a 10YR 2/2 soil layer (8 to 16 inches) with five percent distinct redoximorphic concentrations (10YR 4/6) in the matrix. W-1 was POWER Engineers, Inc. Wetland and Waterway Delineation Report PAGE 7 preliminarily determined to be jurisdictional based on an observed hydrologic connection to an unnamed intermittent stream and eventually the East Gallatin River. 4.0 SUMMARY A routine wetland survey was completed on the approximate 14.4-acre Project area, located in Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. A total of 0.51 acre of aquatic habitat was identified and delineated within the Project survey area. Wetland W-1 was preliminarily determined to be jurisdictional based on an observed hydrologic connection to a WOTUS (East Gallatin River via unnamed intermittent stream). The preliminary wetland boundaries identified within the Project area, and their assessments, are based on POWER’s professional opinion. Any impacts to jurisdictional waters within the Project area may require authorization under Sections 404 and 401 of the CWA. Current regulations may require authorization of any impacts to these features from the USACE and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. POWER Engineers, Inc. Wetland and Waterway Delineation Report PAGE 8 5.0 LITERATURE CITED Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, USA. Technical Report WRP-DE-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Cowardin, L.M., F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 p. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 p., plus appendices. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2021. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Available online at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal. Accessed October 2021. Gallatin Local Water Quality District. 2004. Wetland and Riparian Resource Assessment of the Gallatin Valley and Bozeman Creek Watershed, Gallatin County, Montana. Prepared for Montana Department of Environmental Quality. Google Earth Imagery. 1985-2021. Munsell. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Macbeth Division of Kollmorgan Instruments. New Windsor, NY. National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP). 2019. ConUS Prime. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2021. Field Office Technical Guide. US Department of Agriculture. Climate Data for Gallatin County, Coop Station Bozeman Montana State University, Montana 241044. [cited 2021 Oct 14]. Available at: https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/#/details _____. 2019. Soil Survey Geographic database for Gallatin County Area, Montana. Online Linkage: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/ _____. 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States. A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2010. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2020. The Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States”. Federal Register. Volume 85, Number 77. _____. 2018. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.4. http://wetland-plants.usace.army.mil/ USACE Engineer Research and Development Center. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH. _____. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, Version 2.0. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, MS. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2014. Definition of ‘‘Waters of the United States’’ Under the Clean Water Act. POWER Engineers, Inc. Wetland and Waterway Delineation Report PAGE 9 Federal Register 79(76): 22188-22274. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-04-21/pdf/2014-07142.pdf. Accessed August 2020. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008. Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/upload/2008_12_3_wetlands_CWA_Jurisdictio n_Following_Rapanos120208.pdf. Accessed June 2020. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021. National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Mapper. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. Accessed October 2021. United States Geologic Survey (USGS). 2021. National Hydrography Dataset. Available online at http://nhd.usgs.gov/. Accessed October 2021. _____. 1987. 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Map. Bozeman, Montana. 2S 5E 1S 5E Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed MONTANAGallatin County Project Location 0 0.25 0.50.125 Miles Voyager Residential Project Figure 1:Topographic/Vicinity Map Legend Voyager Residential Project Area PLSS Township PLSS Section Ü Project Location TRADE WIND LN BAXTER LN TURBULENCE LN TSCHACHE LNTHOMASDRLEEWARD CTTEMPEST CTHEDGEROW CT N 27TH AVEBRISK CTN 27TH AVEMONTANAGallatin County Project Location 0 200 400100 Feet Voyager Residential Project Figure 2:2019 NAIP Aerial Imagery Map Legend Voyager Residential Project Area Ü 510B 50B 64B 64B 537A MONTANAGallatin County Project Location 0 200 400100 Feet Voyager Residential Project Figure 3:NRCS Soil Map Legend Voyager Residential Project Area NRCS Soils 50B - Blackdog silt loam, 0-4% slopes 510B - Meadowcreek loam, 0-4% slopes 537A - Lamoose silt loam, 0-2% slopes 64B - Straw loam, 0-4% slopes Ü PABFx PEM1A PEM1A PEM1A PEM1Cx PEM1Cx MONTANAGallatin County Project Location 0 200 400100 Feet Voyager Residential Project Figure 4:NWI/NHD Map Legend Voyager Residential Project AreaNWI Wetland Type Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Pond Ü !.!. SP1 SP2 W-1 MONTANAGallatin County Project Location 0 200 400100 Feet Voyager Residential Project Figure 5:Wetland/Waterway Map Legend Voyager Residential Project Area Wetland !.Sampling Points Ü POWER Engineers, Inc. Wetland and Waterway Delineation Report APPENDIX A APPENDIX A ANTECEDENT PRECIPITATION TOOL RESULTS Mar 2021 Apr 2021 May 2021 Jun 2021 Jul 2021 Aug 2021 Sep 2021 Oct 2021 Nov 2021 Dec 2021 Jan 2022 Feb 2022 0 1 2 3 4 Rainfall (Inches)2021-10-08 2021-09-082021-08-09 Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network Daily Total 30-Day Rolling Total 30-Year Normal Range 30 Days Ending 30th %ile (in)70th %ile (in)Observed (in)Wetness Condition Condition Value Month Weight Product 2021-10-08 1.035433 2.296457 0.53937 Dry 1 3 3 2021-09-08 0.699606 1.349606 1.850394 Wet 3 2 6 2021-08-09 0.673622 1.182677 1.858268 Wet 3 1 3 Result Normal Conditions - 12 Coordinates 45.697488, -111.070066 Observation Date 2021-10-08 Elevation (ft)4740.37 Drought Index (PDSI)Extreme drought (2021-09) WebWIMP H2O Balance Dry Season Weather Station Name Coordinates Elevation (ft)Distance (mi)Elevation Weighted Days Normal Days Antecedent BOZEMAN MONTANA STATE UNIV 45.6622, -111.0464 4913.058 2.693 172.688 1.677 11310 90 BOZEMAN 1.5 SSE 45.6578, -111.0272 4937.992 0.976 24.934 0.464 4 0 BOZEMAN 4.4 S 45.6138, -111.0566 5176.837 3.38 263.779 2.413 7 0 BOZEMAN 6 W EXP FARM 45.6728, -111.1547 4774.935 5.28 138.123 3.105 32 0 POWER Engineers, Inc. Wetland and Waterway Delineation Report APPENDIX B APPENDIX B PHOTOGRAPHS Photo 1: View southeast at SP1, wetland data point (W-1). Photo 2: View east at SP2, upland data point. POWER Engineers, Inc. Wetland and Waterway Delineation Report APPENDIX C APPENDIX C USACE WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEETS State: Lat: Long: Datum: Yes X No ,Soil Yes No ,Soil Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No ) 1. 2. 3. 4. ) 1. 2. 3.x 1 = 4.x 2 = 5.x 3 = x 4 = )x 5 = 1.(A) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.X 7.X 8. 9. 10. 11. ) 1. 2. NoX 100 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes Are Vegetation ,or Hydrology ,or Hydrology significantly disturbed? naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Project/Site: City/County: Bozeman, Gallatin Co. Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): MT Sampling Date: 10/08/2021 Sampling Point: Voyager Brian Sandefur, PWS Soil Map Unit Name: = Total Cover 10 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: Remarks: The NWPL 2018 wetland ratings were used. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Remarks: 30 ft. None Observed Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: Hydric Soil Present? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? SP1MMI Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?X No PEM1A537A - Lamoose silt loam, 0-2% slopes NWI classification: Section, Township, Range: Subregion (LRR): LRR E SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (If no, explain in Remarks.) 45.697882 WGS84 Sec. 2, T2S, R5E X This point was determined to be within a wetland due to the presence of all three wetland criteria. Tree Stratum (Plot size: VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Indicator Status 2 (B) OBLYes 15 ft. Total % Cover of: Dominance Test worksheet:Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? (A/B) (A)2None Observed = Total Cover 35 0 105 100.00% 15 30 50OBL species FACW species 0 0 FAC species Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? X No NoAre Vegetation No -111.070020 Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0-1 No No Swale X X Multiply by: None Observed 30 ft. 50 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Poa pratensis FACYes 1.85 = Total Cover Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0US Army Corps of Engineers Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 0 Carex utriculata FACU species UPL species No Geum macrophyllum FAC OBL No Column Totals: Prevalence Index = B/A = 100 Carex nebrascensis 40 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 No FACW WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index worksheet: 185 (B) 5 ft. = Total Cover 15Juncus balticus 25 A positive indication of hydrophytic vegetation was observed (>50% of dominant species indexed as OBL, FACW, or FAC). A positive indication of hydrophytic vegetation was observed (Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.0). %% 2/1 100 2/2 95 4/6 5 X Yes No X X Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No SP1Sampling Point: — 8-16 SOIL M 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Wetland Hydrology Present? Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) High Water Table (A2) X Depth (inches): X Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Iron Deposits (B5) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) X Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Other (Explain in Remarks) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3)Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Drainage Patterns (B10) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Type: Depth(inches): Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) X Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 4A, and 4B) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12)3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2 cm Muck (A10) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Redox Depressions (F8) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Hydric Soil Present? US Army Corps of Engineers A positive indication of hydric soil was observed. Saturation Present? Depth (inches): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? A positive indication of wetland hydrology was observed (at least two secondary indicators). Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Salt Crust (B11) Remarks: X MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Surface Water (A1) HYDROLOGY 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 10YR Type1 Texture Remarks 10YR Depth (inches) None Redox Features Silty Clay Loam — Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Depleted Matrix (F3) Silty Clay Loam Color (moist) 0-8 Color (moist) Loc 2 C Matrix Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 10YR State: Lat: Long: Datum: Yes X No ,Soil Yes No ,Soil Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No ) 1. 2. 3. 4. ) 1. 2. 3.x 1 = 4.x 2 = 5.x 3 = x 4 = )x 5 = 1.(A) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.X 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. ) 1. 2. No WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Voyager City/County: Bozeman, Gallatin Co. Sampling Date: 10/08/2021 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Valley floor Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 0-1 Subregion (LRR): LRR E 45.697894 -111.070106 WGS84 Applicant/Owner: MMI MT Sampling Point: SP2 Investigator(s): Brian Sandefur, PWS Section, Township, Range: Sec. 2, T2S, R5E Are Vegetation No No ,or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Soil Map Unit Name: 537A - Lamoose silt loam, 0-2% slopes NWI classification: PEM1a Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No No ,or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present?X Remarks: The NWPL 2018 wetland ratings were used. This point was determined not to be within a wetland due to the lack of hydric soils and wetland hydrology. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?X Hydric Soil Present?X Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Wetland Hydrology Present?X X VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft.Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:None Observed 1 (A) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:= Total Cover 100.00% (A/B) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:1 (B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft. None Observed Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: FAC species 80 240 = Total Cover FACU species 10 40 OBL species 00 FACW species 510 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft. UPL species 525 Poa pratensis 70 Yes FAC Column Totals:100 315 Thlaspi arvense 5No UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Geum macrophyllum 5 No FAC 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Sisymbrium altissimum 5 No FACU 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Taraxacum officinale 5 No FACU 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 (B) Juncus balticus 5 No FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.15 Cirsium arvense 5No FAC 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Yes X 100 = Total Cover 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft. None Observed Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? A positive indication of hydrophytic vegetation was observed (>50% of dominant species indexed as OBL, FACW, or FAC). Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0 %% 2/1 100 2/2 100 — 2/2 95 4/6 5 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 0-12 10YR None — SOIL Sampling Point:SP2 18-20 10YR 10YR C M Clay Loam — Loam 12-18 10YR None — — Clay Loam Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) Color (moist) Loc 2 Texture 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 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)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Type 1 Remarks Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Remarks: No positive indication of hydric soils was observed. Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? X 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) HYDROLOGY 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 Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 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) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?X Depth (inches): Water Table Present?X Depth (inches): Saturation Present?X Depth (inches): Remarks: No positive indication of wetland hydrology was observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0 Wetland Hydrology Present? X (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: