Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout029.01 Appendix CC - 404 Application JOINT APPLICATION FOR PROPOSED WORK IN MONTANA’S STREAMS, WETLANDS, FLOODPLAINS & OTHER WATER BODIES This is a standardized application to apply for one or all local, state, or federal permits listed below.  Refer to instructions to determine which permits apply and submit a signed application to each applicable agency.  Incomplete applications will result in the delay of the application process.  The applicant is responsible for obtaining all necessary permits and landowner permission before beginning work.  Other laws may apply. PERMIT AGENCY FILL OUT SECTIONS FEE X 310 Permit Local Conservation District A - E and G Inquire locally SPA 124 Permit Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks A - E and G No fee X 318 Authorization 401 Certification Department of Environmental Quality A - E and G $250 (318); $400 - $20,000 (401) Navigable Rivers Land Use License, Lease, or Easement Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Trust Lands Management Division A - E and G $50, plus additional fee X Section 404 Permit, Section 10 Permit U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) A - G F1-8 Varies ($0 - $100) Floodplain Permit Local Floodplain Administrator A - G Varies by city/county ($25 - $500+) A. APPLICANT INFORMATION APPLICANT NAME (person responsible for project): Connor Brown Has the landowner consented to this project? ☒ Yes ☐ No Mailing Address: 109 E. Oak St., Suite 2B, Bozeman, MT 59715 Physical Address: Same as above. Cellphone:406-599-6116 Home Phone: Click here to enter or N/A. E-Mail: cbrown@downingstre.com LANDOWNER NAME (if different from applicant): West University LLC Mailing Address: 109 Oak St., Suite 2B, Bozeman, MT 59715 Physical Address: Same as above. Cellphone: Click here to enter or N/A. Home Phone:Click here to enter or N/A. E-Mail:barry@cannerydistrict.com CONTRACTOR/COMPANY NAME (if applicable): Click here to enter name or N/A. PRIMARY CONTACT NAME: Click here to enter name Mailing Address: Click here to enter name or N/A. Physical Address: Click here to enter name or N/A. Cellphone:Click here to enter or N/A. Home Phone:Click here to enter or N/A. E-Mail:Click here to enter or N/A. Revised: 5/12/2021 310 Form 270 and Instructions may be downloaded from: http://dnrc.mt.gov/licenses-and- permits/stream-permitting CD/AGENCY USE ONLY Application # Click to enter text. Date Received Date Date Accepted Date Initials Initials Date FW: to FWP Date This space is for all Department of Transportation and SPA 124 permits (government projects). Project Name Click to enter text. Control Number Click to enter text. Contract Letting Date Date MEPA/NEPA Compliance ☐Yes ☐No If yes, #C5 of this application does not apply. B. PROJECT SITE INFORMATION 1. NAME OF STREAM or WATER BODY at project location Unnamed Tributary to the East Gallatin River Project Address/Location: NW corner of S 19th Ave and Stucky Rd Nearest Town Bozeman County Gallatin Geocode: 06-0798-14-4-02-20-0000 Choose.1/4 of the SE 1/4 of, Section 14 Township 2 South, Range 5 East Latitude 45.6598 Longitude -111.068 Refer to section B1 in the instructions. Please refer to the maps provided in Attachment A. 2. Is the proposed activity within SAGE GROUSE areas designated as general, connected, or core habitat? Yes ☐ No ☒ Attach consultation letter if required. Refer to section B2 in the instructions. 3. Is this a STATE NAVIGABLE WATERWAY? The state owns beds of certain navigable waterways. Yes ☐ No☒ If yes, send a copy of this application to the appropriate DNRC land office. Refer to section B3 in the instructions. 4. WHAT IS THE CURRENT CONDITION of the proposed project site? Describe the existing bank condition, bank slope, height, nearby structures, and wetlands. What vegetation is present? Refer to section B4 in the instructions. The Aaker project is roughly 95.6-acres in size and is currently comprised of cropped agricultural fields with three waterways that flow from south to north. Along its eastern side are commercial and residential developments. North, south and west of the project area agricultural fields remain in production. Onsite the western waterway is a straightened stream that has been degraded over the years from cattle use and trampling. The central and eastern waterways are irrigation ditches. All three waterways have emergent wetlands growing along their lengths dominated by species such as meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis) and northwest territory sedge (Carex utriculata). The wheat fields are fallow and so are currently dominated by weedy or annual species. No buildings are on the site. Site photographs are included in Attachment B and wetland delineation data forms are included in Attachment C. Groundwater levels on the site were monitored at 14 wells scattered around the project area from March 25, 2022 through July 6, 2022. A map showing the peak groundwater elevations for this time period and a cross-sectional view of the site’s current ground surface elevation as compared to the peak groundwater elevations are provided in Attachment E. As shown in the table below, the spring and early summer precipitation levels were 16% above average at the Montana State University weather station (Coop #241044) during this time period, indicating that the peak groundwater levels sampled represent conservative estimates of the peak groundwater levels found on the property. Table 1. Precipitation levels at Montana State University. MAR APR MAY JUN TOTAL Mean*0.45 0.58 0.8 0.82 2.65 2022 0.45 0.69 1.13 0.81 3.08 Difference 0 0.11 0.33 -0.01 0.43 *Based on 127 years of data. PRECIPITATION (in) C. PROPOSED PROJECT OR ACTIVITY INFORMATION 1. TYPE OF PROJECT (check all that apply) Refer to section C1 in the instructions. ☐ Agricultural and Irrigation Projects: Diversions, Headgates, Flumes, Riparian fencing, Ditches, etc. ☒ Buildings/Structures: Accessory Structures, Manufactured Homes, Residential or Commercial Buildings, etc. ☐ Channel/Bank Projects: Stabilization, Restoration, Alteration, Dredging, Fish Habitat, Vegetation or Tree Removal, or any other work that modifies existing channels or banks. ☒ Crossings/Roads: Bridge, Culvert, Fords, Road Work, Temporary Access, or any project that crosses over or under a stream or channel. ☐ Mining Projects: All mining related activity, including; Placer Mining, Aggregate Mining, etc. ☐ Recreation related Projects: Boat Ramps, Docks, Marinas, etc. ☐ Other Projects: Cistern, Debris Removal, Excavation/Pit/Pond, Placement of Fill, drilling or directional boring, Utilities, Wetland Alteration. Other project type not listed here ___________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ 2. IS THIS APPLICATION FOR an annual maintenance permit? ☐ Yes ☒ No (If yes attach annual plan of operation to this application) – Refer to section C2 in the instructions. 3. WHY IS THIS PROJECT NECESSARY? STATE THE PURPOSE OR GOAL of the proposed project. Refer to section C3 in the instructions. Bozeman was in the top 5 fastest growing micropolitan statistic areas for three years in a row prior to becoming a metropolitan statistical area after the 2020 census. Because of this it currently has a severe shortage of housing. This had led to massive spikes in home prices and rental costs, exacerbating the problem, and creating untenable conditions for low income and student residents. This project would create additional residential housing to help alleviate this problem. More in-depth information is included in the alternatives analysis provided in Attachment D. 4. PROVIDE A BRIEF DESCRIPTION of the proposed project plan and how it will be accomplished. Refer to section C4 in the instructions. The Aaker project proposes to develop up to 506 residential units in the northern half (27.5-acre) of the project area. The remaining 68.1 acres found south of Kagy Boulevard are not proposed for development at this time, though some activities related to the irrigation ditches are proposed and included in this permit application. Impacts to stream and wetlands would occur due to the construction of City required roads and trails for site access, as well as the filling and rerouting of irrigation ditches to restore hydrology to its historic locations on the property. Specific project elements include the extension of Kagy Boulevard, the widening of Kagy Boulevard, the installation of two pedestrian paths and bridges, the hydrologic restoration of two drainages through the rerouting of perennial water from artificial irrigation ditches to the historic natural drainages, and connecting to a sewer main located north of the project site on Lincoln St. The project is anticipated to permanently impact 0.75 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, 270 ft of stream channel, and 544 feet of irrigation ditch. The alternatives analysis provided in Attachment D describes efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S. (WOUS). Unavoidable impacts to WOUS would be offset through purchase of stream and wetland credits from a USACE authorized wetland mitigation bank. 5. WHAT OTHER ALTERNATIVES were considered to accomplish the stated purpose of the project? Why was the proposed alternative selected? Refer to section C5 in the instructions. The No Action and three Action Alternatives were considered. No viable properties were found that make the No Action Alternative both viable and comparable to the Aaker project. Simply not building would not achieve the project’s purpose or serve the need for more housing for the Bozeman community. For these reasons, the No Action Alternative is considered to be non-practicable. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are all considered practicable and will achieve the project’s intended purpose. Of the three action alternatives considered, Alternative 3 would result in the least amount of permanent, direct impact to waters of the U.S. See Attachment D for a more thorough review of the alternatives. 6. NATURAL RESOURCE BENEFITS OR POTENTIAL IMPACTS. Please complete the information below to the best of your ability. * Explain any temporary or permanent changes in erosion, sedimentation, turbidity, or increases of potential contaminants. What will be done to minimize those impacts? Erosion/sedimentation related impacts will be minimized by developing and implementing stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs) prior to initiating construction, and by conducting monitoring and adhering the standards required under the 318 turbidity waiver. The SWPPP will include both temporary and permanent best management practices such as silt fencing, compost socks, brush barriers, sediment wattles, berms, and reseeding. All disturbed uplands and wetland areas will be permanently stabilized by reseeding with native species immediately following construction. Where possible upland topsoil and wetland sod will be stripped and set aside for future use in revegetation efforts. These and other materials will be temporarily stockpiled in uplands to avoid further wetland impacts.  Will the project cause temporary or permanent impacts to fish and/or aquatic habitat? What will be done to protect the fisheries? It is generally understood that the stream/ditch channels in the project area are non-fish bearing streams. However, the installed box culvert at BB-01 will be will be set approximately 12 inches below the existing channel grade to accommodate 12 inches of native stream bottom material to be placed in the culvert. This should facilitate aquatic organism passage and minimize effects on the aquatic habitat.  What will be done to minimize temporary or permanent impacts to the floodplain, wetlands, or riparian habitat? The layout of the proposed project was carefully planned to avoid and minimize impacts to floodplain, wetland, and riparian habitats. Impacts to wetlands and waterways were avoided by siting roads and buildings in non-wetland areas, using bridges instead of culverts to span the stream channel at the two proposed pedestrian crossings. However, temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands are unavoidable due to City road requirements, including road placement, roadway and boulevard widths, the east-west site layout and how streams/wetlands generally drain from south to north in this area of the Gallatin valley. This is discussed in more detail in the alternatives analysis provided in Attachment D. Impacts will be further minimized to the maximum extent possible during construction by limiting vegetation clearing to only what is necessary. For example, temporary fencing will be installed along disturbance limits prior to construction to avoid unintended impacts to waters of the U.S. during construction. In addition, construction will be completed during the drier summer and fall months to reduce compaction and subsequent runoff, and standard BMPs will be used to capture and retain sediment onsite. Following construction, an appropriate seed mix will be spread and incorporated into the disturbed areas to stabilize and revegetate them.  What efforts will be made to decrease flooding potential upstream and downstream of project? Risk of flooding up or downstream of the Aaker project area is unlikely, and the construction of the proposed project will not increase flooding potential up or downstream of it. Equipment time for the box culvert installation will be minimal and upgradient and downgradient wetland or stream hydrology will not be compromised during construction. During construction, stormwater management controls (e.g., detention basins, infiltration strips, etc.) will be implemented to limit stormwater and snowmelt flows to historic conditions, and the stream and irrigation water in ditches will be either routed through pipes around work areas in order to maintain flow and minimize sedimentation, or prevented from entering work areas through the use of temporary barriers, such as sheet pile cofferdams or inflatable bladders. In the long term, this project will not increase the potential for flooding because adequate, permanent stormwater controls will be installed to ensure that site drainage conforms to City subdivision permanent stormwater design regulations and does not exceed historic drainage conditions.  Explain potential temporary or permanent changes to the water flow or to the bed and banks of the waterbody. What will be done to minimize those changes? During construction, water flow in West Fork Catron Creek (BB-01) and the East Fork Catron Creek (BB- 03) will be directed around the work areas in pipes. This will cause a temporary disruption of flow during construction at the site of the impact, but the installation of a box culvert at the Kagy extension crossing and a normal culvert where Kagy will be widened, will ensure that flow is not permanently disrupted. For the center ditch (Ditch-02), more permanent flow arising from groundwater interception by the ditch will be permanently directed into the western stream channel (BB-01). Placing this base flow water into West Catron Creek (BB-01) is preferable because it improves the year-round flow in this stream and provides additional hydrologic support to the wetlands adjacent to it.  How will existing vegetation be protected and its removal minimized? Explain how the site will be revegetated. Include weed control plans. At the Aaker project, the areas of disturbance will be kept to a minimum by limiting disturbed soil exposure to where it is necessary. Silt fencing will be placed along the disturbance limits to define/mark project boundaries. No equipment or fill or vegetation/disturbance will be allowed beyond the silt fence protecting wetlands. Soils will be stabilized with seeding or sod immediately following construction. Aaker will implement a revegetation plan including weed control, native seeding and post-construction monitoring until vegetation is re-established. Every effort will be made to ensure that disturbances will be minimal and result in minor short-term and long-term impacts. D. CONSTRUCTION DETAILS 1. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION DATES. Include a project timeline. Start date 5/1/2023 Finish date 9/1/2025 How long will it take to complete the project? 2 years Is any portion of the work already completed? ☐ Yes ☒ No (If yes, describe previously completed work.) Refer to section D1 in the instructions. PROJECT DIMENSIONS. Describe length and width of the project. Refer to section D2 in the instructions. As shown in the table below the project is anticipated to permanently impact 0.75 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, 270 ft of stream channel, and 544 feet of irrigation ditch. An estimated 0.36 acres of direct, temporary impacts to wetlands would occur during construction. Figures provided in Attachment A show detailed maps of wetlands within the project area and where impacts will occur. The Alternatives Analysis provided in Attachment D provides additional detail on impacts and impact avoidance and minimization. 2. EQUIPMENT. List all equipment that will be used for this project. How will the equipment be used on the bank and/or in the water? Note: All equipment used in the water must be clean, drained and dry. Refer to section D3 in the instructions. A variety of heavy earthmoving equipment will be used for construction, including tracked bulldozers and excavators, dump trucks, concrete trucks, graders, skid steers or Bobcats, hydroseeders, and ATVs. At the Aaker project area equipment proposed for the access path, road and building construction include a bull dozer for clearing and rough grading, a tracked excavator for excavation and fine grading, and a crane for the placement of culverts and pedestrian bridges. Material delivery trucks will be used to mobilize materials. A tracked grader, skid steer or bobcat will be used where smaller equipment is needed for material delivery, grading, contouring and clean up. Equipment will not enter adjacent wetlands outside of the designated impact areas. Will equipment from out of state be used? YES ☐ NO ☒ UNKNOWN ☐ Will the equipment cross west over the continental divide to the project site? YES ☒ NO ☒ UNKNOWN ☐ Will equipment enter the Flathead Basin? YES ☐ NO ☒ UNKNOWN ☐ 3. MATERIALS. Provide the total quantity and source of materials proposed to be used or removed. Note: This may be modified during the permitting process therefore it is recommended you do not purchase materials until all permits are issued. List soil/fill type, cubic yards and source, culvert size, rip-rap size, any other materials to be used or removed on the project. Refer to section D4 in the instructions. A total of 5029 cubic yards and 390 linear feet of material will be permanently placed in waters of the U.S. Temp Impacts Wetland Location Wetland (ac)Stream (ft)Ditch (ft)Wetland (ac) Kagy Blvd Extension (W-01, BB-01)0.44 150 0.05 Culvert Irrigation Ditch (W-02, Ditch-02)0.03 0 120 0 Kagy Blvd Widening (W-03, BB-03)0.07 120 0.02 Park Trails (W-01, BB-01)0.1 0 0.12 Fill Old Irrigation Ditch (W-04, Ditch-04)0.07 0 424 0 Wetland conversion to stream channel (W-01, W-03) 0.04 0 0.16 Sewer Main Crossing (W- 05)0 0 0.01 TOTAL 0.75 270 544 0.36 Permanent Impacts E. REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS 1. PLANS AND/OR DRAWINGS of the proposed project. Include:  Plan/Aerial view  an elevation or cross section view  dimensions of the project (height, width, depth in feet)  location of storage or stockpile materials dimensions and location of fill or excavation sites  drainage facilities  location of existing/proposed structures, such as buildings, utilities, roads, or bridges  an arrow indicating north  Site photos See Attachment A. 2. ATTACH A VICINITY MAP OR A SKETCH which includes: The water body where the project is located, roads, tributaries, other landmarks. Place an “X” on the project location. Provide written directions to the site. This is a plan view (looking at the project from above). See Attachment A. 3. ATTACH ANNUAL PLAN OF OPERATION if requesting a Maintenance 310 Permit. Not applicable. 4. ATTACH AQUATIC RESOURCE MAP. Document the location and boundary of all waters of the U.S. in the project vicinity, including wetlands and other special aquatic sites. Show the location of the ordinary high-water mark of streams or waterbodies. if requesting a Section 404 or Section 10 Permit. Ordinary high-water mark delineation included on plan or drawings and/or a separate wetland delineation. See Attachment A. Size and Type of Fill Material Cubic Yards/ Linear Feet Source Clean, native soil 4230 cy Onsite Road base 650 cy Local Gravel Pit 72" Open Bottom Box Culvert 150 lf Local Supplier 30" Concrete Arch Culvert 120 lf Local Supplier 24"Concrete Arch Culvert 120 lf Local Supplier Concrete sidewalk 54 cy Local Supplier Asphalt 95 cy Local Supplier 5029 cubic yards 390 linear feetTOTAL F. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (USACE) SECTION 404, SECTION 10 AND FLOODPLAIN PERMITS. Section F should only be filled out by those needing Section 404, Section 10, and/or Floodplain permits. Applicants applying for Section 404 and/or Section 10 permits complete F 1- 8. Applicants applying for Floodplain permits, complete all of Section F. Refer to section F in the instructions. FOR QUESTIONS RELATING TO SECTION F, QUESTIONS 1-8 PLEASE CONTACT THE USACE BY TELEPHONE AT 406- 441-1375 OR BY E-MAIL MONTANA.REG@USACE.ARMY.MIL. 1. Identify the specific Nationwide Permit(s) that you want to use to authorize the proposed activity. Refer to section F1 in the instructions. None. We are seeking an Individual Permit. 2. Provide the quantity of materials proposed to be used in waters of the United States. What is the length and width (or square footage or acreage) of impacts that are occurring within waters of the United States? How many cubic yards of fill material will be placed below the ordinary high-water mark, in a wetland, stream, or other waters of the United States? Note: Delineations are required of wetlands, other special aquatic sites, and other waters, such as lakes and ponds, and perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams, on the project site. Refer to section F2 in the instructions. As shown in the table below the project is anticipated to permanently impact 0.75 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, 270 ft of stream channel, and 544 feet of irrigation ditch. Temporary wetland impacts are estimated to be 0.36 acres. A total of 5029 cubic yards and 390 linear feet of material will be permanently placed in waters of the U.S. Temp Impacts Wetland Location Wetland (ac)Stream (ft)Ditch (ft)Wetland (ac) Kagy Blvd Extension (W-01, BB-01)0.44 150 0.05 Culvert Irrigation Ditch (W-02, Ditch-02)0.03 0 120 0 Kagy Blvd Widening (W-03, BB-03)0.07 120 0.02 Park Trails (W-01, BB-01)0.1 0 0.12 Fill Old Irrigation Ditch (W-04, Ditch-04)0.07 0 424 0 Wetland conversion to stream channel (W-01, W-03) 0.04 0 0.16 Sewer Main Crossing (W- 05)0 0 0.01 TOTAL 0.75 270 544 0.36 Permanent Impacts Figures provided in Attachment A show detailed maps of wetlands within the project area and where impacts will occur. 3. How will the proposed project avoid or minimize impacts to waters of the United States? Attach additional sheets if necessary. Refer to section F3 in the instructions. Please refer to the Alternatives Analysis provided in Attachment D for detailed information on impact avoidance and minimization. The layout of the proposed project was carefully planned to avoid impacts to the floodplain, wetlands, and riparian habitats. However, temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands and streams are unavoidable due to the requirements for supporting infrastructure (see Attachment D). Impacts will be minimized to the maximum extent possible by limiting vegetation clearing to only what is necessary, completing construction during the dry summer and fall months to reduce compaction and runoff and the use of standard BMPs. Following construction, an appropriate seed mix will be spread over disturbed areas. 4. Will the project impact greater than 0.10-acre of wetland and/or more than 300 linear feet of stream or other waters? If yes, describe how the applicant is going to compensate (mitigation bank, in-lieu fee program, or permittee responsible) for these unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States. Refer to section F4 in the instructions. The total permanent impact to jurisdictional wetlands is 0.75 acres, 270 ft of stream channel, and 544 feet of irrigation ditch. Compensation will be achieved through the purchase and withdrawal of 0.75 acres of wetland credit and 270 feet of stream (or as specified by the Corps) from a Corps approved mitigation bank. Temporary wetland impacts will be restored to original elevations and configuration, and revegetated with salvaged sod and topsoil, and a native wetland seed mix. 5. Is the activity proposed within any component of the National Wild and Scenic River System, or a river that has been officially designated by Congress as a “study river”? Refer to section F5 in the instructions. ☐ Yes ☒ No 6. Does this activity require permission from the USACE because it will alter or temporarily or permanently occupy or use a USACE authorized civil works project? (Examples include USACE owned levees, Fort Peck Dam, and others)? Refer to section F6 in the instructions. ☐ Yes ☒ No 7. List the ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES and CRITICAL HABITAT(s) that might be present in the project location. Refer to section F7 in the instructions. Size and Type of Fill Material Cubic Yards/ Linear Feet Source Clean, native soil 4230 cy Onsite Road base 650 cy Local Gravel Pit 72" Open Bottom Box Culvert 150 lf Local Supplier 30" Concrete Arch Culvert 120 lf Local Supplier 24"Concrete Arch Culvert 120 lf Local Supplier Concrete sidewalk 54 cy Local Supplier Asphalt 95 cy Local Supplier 5029 cubic yards 390 linear feetTOTAL The USFWS’ Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system (USFWS IPaC Project Code: 2022-0068560) indicates that two threatened, one candidate species and one proposed species for listing under the Endangered Species Act potentially occur in the project area. Threatened Species Canada Lynx The Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. No portion of the critical habitat occurs within the project area and no species occurrences have been reported. Lynx habitat is generally moist boreal coniferous forests that have cold, snowy winters and high densities of snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus). Due to high human activity and the general lack of suitable habitat, it is extremely unlikely that Canada lynx would use this area. The proposed activity will have ‘No effect’ on Canada lynx. Grizzly Bear The grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. There is no critical habitat designated for this species and there have been no species occurrences within the project area. In Montana, grizzly bear habitat is highly variable and includes meadows, seeps, riparian zones, mixed shrub fields, closed timber, open timber, side-hill parks, snow chutes, and alpine slab-rock habitats. Their diet also varies, with more than half from vegetation (e.g., grasses, fruit, bark, roots), along with carrion, fish, large and small mammals, insects, mushrooms, and garbage. The high level of human activity and the lack of suitable habitat make it unlikely that grizzly bears would frequent the area. For these reasons the proposed activity will have ‘No effect’ on grizzly bears. Candidate Species Monarch Butterfly Monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) migrate to the northern latitudes, such as Montana, to reproduce. During this time, they require a broad range of floral nectar resources to feed on and milkweed for reproduction. Often the co-occurrence of both food and reproductive resources occurs in riparian corridors. However, they are also found in a wide range of habitats such as agricultural fields, pasture, urban/residential, and roadsides. No milkweed has been observed onsite to date. Given the generalist nature of the monarch, the lack of milkweed in the project area, and the availability of habitat in the project vicinity and throughout its range in Montana, the project would have ‘No effect’ on the monarch butterfly. Proposed Species North American Wolverine The North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus) is limited to alpine and forested habitats at high elevations. In addition, wolverines rely on snow for long distance movements. Given the high level of human activity and the lack of suitable habitat it is highly unlikely that the wolverine would ever frequent the area. The proposed activity will have ‘No effect’ on the North American wolverine. 8. List any HISTORIC PROPERTY(S) that are listed, determined to be eligible or are potentially eligible (over 50 years old) for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.” Refer to section F8 in the instructions. Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. conducted a cultural resource inventory for the proposed Aaker development project in Gallatin County, Montana. One previously recorded cultural resource was updated. Two laterals or sub-laterals of the eligible Middle Creek Ditch flow through the project area. They are unnamed and their construction dates are unknown, although likely between 1890 and 1905. The ditch has previously been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A. Mapped in the 1961 county water survey, Lateral B is now abandoned and is therefore recommended to be a non-contributing element of the irrigation system. There will be no adverse effect to 24GA1349 by the proposed project. For the project, Metcalf recommends a finding of No Historic Properties Affected (800.4(d)(1)) for the project as defined at the time of survey. 9. List all applicable local, state, and federal permits and indicate whether they were issued, waived, denied, or pending. Note: All required local, state, and federal permits, or proof of waiver must be issued prior to the issuance of a floodplain permit. Refer to section F9 in the instructions. Wetland Review application (pending), City of Bozeman Subdivision Preliminary Plat (pending), City of Bozeman Infrastructure permit (pending), Individual Section 404 permit (pending), Montana 310 permit (pending), 318 turbidity waiver (pending) 10. List the NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF LANDOWNERS adjacent to the project site. This includes properties adjacent to and across from the project site. (Some floodplain communities require certified adjoining landowner lists). See Attachment G for a complete list of adjacent landowners. 11. Floodplain Map Number Click here to enter map number or N/A. Refer to section F11 in the instructions. 12. Does this project comply with local planning or zoning regulations? Refer to section F12 in the instructions. ☒ Yes ☐ No G. SIGNATURES/AUTHORIZATIONS Some agencies require original signatures. After completing the form, make the required number of copies and then sign each copy. Send the copies with original signatures and additional information required directly to each applicable agency. The statements contained in this application are true and correct. The applicant possess’ the authority to undertake the work described herein or is acting as the duly authorized agent of the landowner. The applicant understands that the granting of a permit does not include landowner permission to access land or construct a project. Inspections of the project site after notice by inspection authorities are hereby authorized. Refer to section G in the instructions. APPLICANT (Person responsible for project): LANDOWNER: Print Name: Click here to enter name. Print Name: Click here to enter name. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Signature of Applicant Date Signature of Landowner Date *CONTRACTOR’S PRIMARY CONTACT (if applicable): Print Name: Click here to enter name. ________________________________________ Signature of Contractor/Agent Date *Contact agency to determine if contractor signature is required. Aaker Project Attachments Attachment A Figures Attachment B Site Photographs Attachment C Wetland Determination Reports Attachment D Alternatives Analysis Attachment E 2022 Groundwater Data Attachment F Cultural Resources Documentation Attachment G List of Adjacent Landowners Attachment A – Figures Aaker Individual Permit Application West University LLC Bozeman, Montana December 2022 ® 0 2,4001,200Feet Legend Project_Area File: Location.mxd Aaker Subdivision Gallatin County, MT Prepared for: Stahly Engineering & Associates Location Map ^_ 14 13 23 24 11 1215 10 Vicinity Map Aaker Subdivision Prepared for: Stahly Engineering & Associates Gallatin County, Montana File: Vicnity.mxd ® 0 1,500750Feet Legend Project Area Public Land Survey System (PLSS) 2S 5E Kagy BoulevardSouth 19th AvenueStucky Road National WetlandInventory Map Aaker Subdivision Prepared for: Stahly Engineering & Associates Gallatin County, Montana File: NWI.mxd ® 0 1,300650Feet Legend Project Area National Wetland Inventory Freshwater Emergent Soils Map Aaker Subdivision Prepared for: Stahly Engineering & Associates Gallatin County, Montana File: Soils.mxd ® 0 500250Feet LegendProject AreaSoil Map Unit Symbol 510B: Meadowcreek loam, 0-4% slopes 542A: Blossberg loam, 0-2% 448A: Hyalite-Beaverton complex, moderately wet, 0-2% slopes457A: Turner loam, moderately wet, 0-2% slopes !A !A!A !A!A !A !A !A!A !A!A !A!A !A!A !A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A !A!A !A!A !A !A!A (Narrow fringe along ditch) W04/Ditch-04 W05 (BB01) (BB03) Ditch-02 W01 W01 W03 W02 SP-16uSP-16w SP-04u SP-15uSP-15w SP-14uSP-14w SP-13uSP-13w SP-12uSP-12w SP-11uSP-11w SP-10uSP-10w SP-09uSP-09w SP-08wSP-08u SP-07uSP-07wSP-06wSP-06u SP-05uSP-05w SP-04w SP-01w SP-02wSP-02u SP-03wSP-03u SP-01u Wetland Delineation MapAaker Subdivision Prepared for: Stahly Engineering & Associates Gallatin County, Montana File: Wetland Delineation Map.mxd ® 0 400200Feet Legend !A SamplePoints Channels Wetlands Project Area West Fork Catron Creek East Fork Catron Creek OHEOHEOHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHERETENTIONBASIN 1RETENTIONBASIN 3RETENTIONBASIN 4OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHE OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHE OHE OHE OHE OHE FUTUREDEVELOPMENT LOT63.68 ACBLOCK 1LOT 11.28 ACREMUZONINGBLOCK 3, LOT 31.21 ACREMU ZONINGBLOCK 2, LOT 14.30 ACREMU ZONINGBLOCK 1PARK8.84ACBLOCK 3, LOT 21.26 ACREMU ZONINGRET.BASIN2BLOCK 3, LOT 16.50 ACREMU ZONINGBIO-RETENTION 5ABIO-RETENTION 5BBB BB BBB8'8'8'COMMON OP E N S P A C E 2 ( 0 . 2 9 A C ) COMMON OPE N S P A C E 1 ( 0 . 2 3 A C )EXISTINGSTREAMEXISTINGCULVERT(TYP)PROPERTYBOUNDARY(TYP)PROPERTYBOUNDARY(TYP)PROPERTYBOUNDARY (TYP)EXISTINGSTREAMWETLANDEXTENTSEXISTINGSTREAMKAGY BLVDEXTENSIONPARKTRAILSCULVERTIRRIGATIONDITCHKAGY BLVDWIDENINGFILL OLDIRRIGATIONDITCHWETLANDEXTENTSEXISTINGSTREAMNEW STREAM CHANNELIN WETLANDWETLANDEXTENTSWETLANDEXTENTSWETLANDCONVERSIONTO STREAMUPSTREAM PERENNIALSTREAM FLOWS ANDFLOOD FLOWS RETURNEDTO ORIGINAL CHANNELNEW HEADGATEFOR DOWNSTREAMWATER USERSALTERNATIVE 1 -PIPE EXISTINGIRRIGATION DITCHTHROUGH PROPERTYPROPERTYBOUNDARY(TYP)PROPERTYBOUNDARY(TYP)NEW STREAMCHANNEL TOWETLANDWETLANDEXTENTSALTERNATIVE 2 -CULVERTS AT TRAILCROSSINGSALTERNATIVE 3 -BRIDGES AT TRAILCROSSINGSSEWER MAIN WETLANDCROSSING - TEMPORARYIMPACTSWetland LocationKagy Blvd. Extension0.440.070.070.57Fill Old Irrigation DitchKagy Blvd. WideningCulvert Irrigation Ditch0.10Park TrailsWetland (ac)Non-WetlandWaterway (lf)Alternative 10.04Wetand Conv. to StreamAlternative 2Alternative 315042412023184000.440.070.070.030.10Wetland (ac)Non-WetlandWaterway (lf)0.041504241201204000.440.070.070.030.10Wetland (ac)Non-WetlandWaterway (lf)0.0415042412012000Total1.2930520.758540.75814Delineated WetlandNon Wetland WaterwayLEGENDAlternative ComparisonAlternative 3Temporary Impacts0.36 acPROFESSIONALENGINEERS &SURVEYORSAAKER PHASE 1 SUBDIVISION STAHLYENGINEERING& ASSOCIATESWEST UNIVERSITY LLC BOZEMAN, MONTANAWL 1.0IMPACT AREASUMMARYMAP RETENTIONBASIN 3RETENTION BASIN 4BLOCK 1LOT 1REMU ZONINGBLOCK 1PARK8.84AC8'PROFESSIONALENGINEERS &SURVEYORSSTAHLYENGINEERING& ASSOCIATESWEST UNIVERSITY LLC BOZEMAN, MONTANAWL 1.1ENLARGEDIMPACT AREAPARK TRAILSAAKER PHASE 1 SUBDIVISION BLOCK 1LOT 11.28 ACREMUZONINGBLOCK 3, LOT 31.21 ACREMU ZONING8'PROFESSIONALENGINEERS &SURVEYORSSTAHLYENGINEERING& ASSOCIATESWEST UNIVERSITY LLC BOZEMAN, MONTANAWL 1.2ENLARGEDIMPACT AREAKAGY CROSSINGWEST DRAINAGEAAKER PHASE 1 SUBDIVISION ENTION 5ABIO-RETENTION 5BPROFESSIONALENGINEERS &SURVEYORSSTAHLYENGINEERING& ASSOCIATESWEST UNIVERSITY LLC BOZEMAN, MONTANAWL 1.3ENLARGEDIMPACT AREAKAGY CROSSINGEAST DRAINAGEAAKER PHASE 1 SUBDIVISION OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEPROFESSIONALENGINEERS &SURVEYORSSTAHLYENGINEERING& ASSOCIATESWEST UNIVERSITY LLC BOZEMAN, MONTANAWL 1.4ENLARGEDIMPACT AREAWEST DRAINAGERETURNAAKER PHASE 1 SUBDIVISION OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEPROFESSIONALENGINEERS &SURVEYORSSTAHLYENGINEERING& ASSOCIATESWEST UNIVERSITY LLC BOZEMAN, MONTANAWL 1.5ENLARGEDIMPACT AREAEAST DRAINAGERETURNAAKER PHASE 1 SUBDIVISION Attachment B – Site Photographs Aaker Individual Permit Application West University LLC Bozeman, Montana December 2022 Photo 1. Facing west at the proposed pedestrian bridge crossing (May 13, 2022). Photo 2. Facing north (downstream) at the proposed pedestrian bridge crossing (May 13, 2022). Photo 3. Facing south (upstream) at the proposed pedestrian bridge crossing. Photo 4. Facing east at the proposed crossing of Kagy Boulevard (May 13, 2022). Photo 5. Facing south at the proposed crossing at Kagy Boulevard (May 13, 2022). Photo 6. Facing north at the proposed crossing at Kagy Boulevard (May 13, 2022). Photo 7. Facing west at the area of proposed widening of the existing Kagy Boulevard (May 13, 2022). Photo 8. Facing south at the proposed widening area at the existing Kagy Boulevard (May 13, 2022). Photo 9. Facing south at the south end of the ditch under Stucky Road that is proposed to be placed into a culvert. (May 13, 2022). Photo 10. Facing north at the south end of the ditch under Stucky Road that is proposed to be placed into a culvert. (May 13, 2022). Photo 11. Facing north at a segment of the ditch proposed to be placed into a culvert north of Kagy Boulevard. (May 17, 2022). Photo 12. Facing south at a segment of the ditch proposed to be placed into a culvert north of Kagy Boulevard. (May 17, 2022). Photo 13. Facing north at the north end of the irrigation ditch proposed to be placed into a culvert (May 17, 2022). Photo 14. Facing south at the north end of the irrigation ditch proposed to be placed into a culvert (May 17, 2022). Attachment C – Wetland Determination Reports Aaker Individual Permit Application West University LLC Bozeman, Montana December 2022 ___________________________________________________________________________ ______ 1 Barry Brown West University District Project 113 E. Oak Street, Ste. 4A Bozeman, MT 59715 March 3, 2022 RE: West University District Project Aquatic Resources Delineation Summary _________________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION As requested, an aquatic resources delineation was conducted for the West University District future development site in Bozeman, Montana (SE¼ Section 14, T2S, R5E; Figures 1 and 1a). The property of interest is located along the west side of South 19th Avenue and north side of Stucky Road (45°39’32.20” N, -111°04’04.88” W). The site has been historically and is currently used for agricultural crop production and grazing. METHODS Wetlands were delineated by TerraQuatic, LLC and Sundog Ecological, Inc. using the 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (USACE 2010). The 2018 Wetland Ratings was used to determine vegetation indicator status ratings (USACE 2018). Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS 2021) soil data and Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP) wetland and riparian mapping data (2021) were reviewed prior to conducting field work. Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) functional assessments (Berglund and McEldowney 2008) were conducted on each aquatic resource system. Six official data points (DP) were established within each aquatic system. Vegetation, hydrology, and soil data were assessed at each of the official data points using USACE wetland determination data forms. Additional unofficial (30) data points were examined along all wetland boundaries to ensure the wetland-upland boundary was being closely followed. Data at unofficial points were not recorded but quickly assessed to enable rapid progression of boundary delineation. This rapid assessment method replaces the requirement for the establishment of time-consuming transects across a wetland expanse. In essence, the unofficial data points, if connected, would form a multitude of transects across the entire project site. This method of assessment has been trusted by the USACE given the TerraQuatic-Sundog Ecological delineation team experience of 25 and 12 years (respectively). The delineation map is included in Appendix A (Exhibit A). USACE data forms are included in Appendix B. Photographs are included in Appendix C and NRCS soil data and Montana Natural Heritage Program wetland and riparian mapping data are included in Appendix D. Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) functional assessments are enclosed in Appendix E. West University District Project Aquatic Resources Delineation Summary March 3, 2022 _________________________________________________________________________________ 2 Figure 1. West University District Project approximate aquatic resource investigation area (red polygon). Field data for the wetland delineation were collected on July 13, 2021 by Stahly engineering and Associates survey staff as directed by TerraQuatic, LLC. Data were collected using RTK GNSS measurement with a Trimble R8-model 4 receiver. Base station data were received via MTSU CORS radio correction. NAVD88 vertical datum were used. Staff checked into and out of project control points at both ends of the data collection. Data were processed in Trimble business center, verified for accuracy, and exported into AutoCAD drawings. N West University District Project Aquatic Resources Delineation Summary March 3, 2022 _________________________________________________________________________________ 3 RESULTS Three wetland (WL) systems (WL-1, 2, and 3) were delineated within the subject property (Appendix A, Exhibit A). All three systems include a nonwetland waterway (NWW) that appear to convey groundwater and Middle Creek Ditch irrigation water (NWW-1, 2, and 3). A man-made pond (0.28 acre) also occurs within the wetland-3 system. Wetland-1 (0.40 acre) is located along NWW-1 (2,360 LF). MNHP data identifies this channel as intermittent with origins close to Middle Creek Ditch. The outdated stream and ditch map (City of Bozeman 1993) indicates NWW-1 was considered a true ditch at that time. Because it appears the feature is a true irrigation ditch though it appears to flow through excavated ponds south of Stucky Road, the channel has been classified as intermittent. The dominant vegetation along the ditch is field meadow-foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis, FAC) with small areas of red-tinged bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus, OBL). The wetland classifies as partially excavated (x) palustrine emergent (PEMx, Cowardin et al 1979). Wetland-2 (3.13 acres) includes NWW-2 (1,620 LF), which appears to be the upper reach of the perennial East Fork of East Catron Creek. This channel also likely conveys irrigation water from Middle Creek Ditch. The wetland community is primarily comprised of field meadow-foxtail and includes spreading bent (Agrostis stolinifera, FAC), Nebraska sedge (Carex nebrascensis, OBL), and Baltic rush (Juncus balticus, FACW). The wetland classifies as palustrine emergent (PEM); the south reach of the ditch is excavated. Wetland-3 (7.82 acres) includes NWW-3 (2,490 LF), the perennial upper reach of the West Fork of East Catron Creek. This channel also likely conveys water from the Middle Creek Ditch system. The southwest end of the wetland includes an excavated pond within a cottonwood (Populus balsamifera, FAC) community. The dominant species within the wetland swale is field meadow-foxtail. The wetland classifies as PEM within the swale and includes a palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS) willow (Salix sp.) and dogwood (Cornus alba, FACW) community in the vicinity of the pond. Functional assessments were conducted for the three aquatic systems. The wetland-1/NWW-1 system qualifies as Category IV system, while the wetland-2/NWW-2 and wetland-3/NWW-3/pond systems qualify as Category III features (Appendix E). All wetland-channel systems would likely be considered jurisdictional by the USACE because of downstream connections to features that connect to the East Gallatin River. It is likely the Gallatin County Conservation District (CD) would require a permit to impact the bed or bank of the wetland- 3/NWW-3 system, however the CD should be contacted regarding official jurisdictional status of each channel. The City of Bozeman would likely require a 50-foot setback from the edge of wetlands-2 and 3. It is unknown if the City would require a setback along wetland-1 but given its hydrology is partially sourced by groundwater ponds south of Stucky Road, a 50-foot setback may also be required. West University District Project Aquatic Resources Delineation Summary March 3, 2022 _________________________________________________________________________________ 4 Any edits to the above report that result from new interpretation of the aquatic features or resulting from an expansion of the project area would require a report addendum. Please contact me with any questions or concerns at (406) 580-6993 or at lbacon@terraquaticllc.com. Sincerely, Lynn M. Bacon, Wetland Scientist TerraQuatic, LLC 1336 Cherry Drive Bozeman, MT 59715 (406) 580-6993 REFERENCES Berglund, J. and R. McEldowney. 2008. MDT Montana Wetland Assessment Method. Prepared for Montana Department of Transportation, Helena, Montana. Post, Buckley, Schuh, & Jernigan, Helena, Montana. 42pp. City of Bozeman. 1993. Streams and Ditches in the City of Bozeman, November 1993. Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP). 2021 Natural Heritage Map Viewer: http://mtnhp.org/mapviewer/?t=8, data retrieved July 2021. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2021. Soil Survey, Hydric Rating by Map Unit: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, Data retrieved July 2021. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J.S. Wakely, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2018. National Wetland Plant List - 2018, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, version 3.4. Engineer Research and Development Center Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH. APPENDIX A _____________________________________________________________________________________ EXHIBIT A: WEST UNIVERSITY DISTRICT AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION MAP _____________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX B __________________________________________________________________________________ USACE WETLAND DETERMINATION FORMS __________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX C _______________________________________________________________________________________ PHOTOGRAPHS _______________________________________________________________________________________ Photo 1. Wetland-1/NWW-1 system DP-1U (left blue/pink flags) and DP-1W (right); view north. Photo 2. Wetland-2/NWW-2 southeast excavated ditch adjacent to Stuckey Road; view north. Photo 3. Wetland-2/NWW-2 central area data point locations: DP-1U (left arrow) and DP-2W (right arrow); view north. Photo 4. Wetland-3/NWW-3 data point locations: DP-2W (left arrow) and DP-2U (right arrow); view west. Photo 5. Southwest end of wetland-3/NWW-3 system, man-made pond. APPENDIX D ________________________________________________________________________________ NRCS SOIL and MNHP WETLAND RIPARIAN MAPS ________________________________________________________________________________ NRCS data (2021); red polygon is approximate investigation boundary. MNHP wetland mapping data (2021); red polygon is approximate investigation boundary. APPENDIX E ________________________________________________________________________________ MDT FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENTS ________________________________________________________________________________ Technical Memorandum 1 DATE: November 22, 2022 TO: Connor Brown West University, LLC 109 E. Oak St., Suite 2B Bozeman, Montana 59715 FROM: Richard McEldowney, PWS Sr. Wetland Scientist Confluence Consulting, Inc. Bozeman, MT 59771 SUBJECT: Supplemental wetland data points at the Aaker Subdivision (formerly West University) West University LLC contracted Confluence Consulting, Inc. to supplement the wetland documentation for the Aaker Subdivision, located in south Bozeman, Montana. The project is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of South 19th Ave and Stucky Road (Figure 1). The geographic coordinates of the approximate project center are: 45.659874°, -111.068385°. Methods The project area had been recently delineated by TerraQuatic, with six data forms completed for the entire 95.4-acre project area. TerraQuatic had mapped 11.35 acres of wetlands. The data forms and wetland boundaries completed by TerraQuatic were reviewed by Confluence’s senior wetland scientist. During site visits that occurred in May and June 2022 a Confluence wetland scientist reviewed TerraQuatic’s wetland boundaries in the field and completed additional wetland determination data points at all potentially impacted areas. The additional sample points were collected in accordance with guidance provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (COE) Montana Regulatory Office, as well as from the COE’s Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), and the Regional Supplement to the COE Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (COE 2010). Technical Memorandum 2 Figure 1. Aaker subdivision project location. Bozeman, Montana. Technical Memorandum 3 Results Twenty-six additional sample points (13 wetland/upland pairs) were collected (Figure 2, Appendix A). The wetland and non-wetland waterway boundaries collected by TerraQuatic were reviewed and determined to be sufficient. No changes were made to the wetland or non-wetland waterway boundaries. As a result, no changes in wetland or non-wetland waterway acreages occurred. In Figure 2 wetland/upland paired sample points SP01, SP02, and SP03 were collected by TerraQuatic. Paired sample points SP04 through SP16 were collected by Confluence. The supplemental data forms are provided in Appendix A, and photos of each sample point are provided in Appendix B. It is important to note that the wetland numbering (W01, W02, W03, etc.), as shown in Figure 2, has been updated from the TerraQuatic report to make it more logical and to facilitate permitting. Table 1 provides a cross-reference for the wetland numbering. Table 1. Cross-reference table for Confluence and TerraQuatic wetland numbering. Confluence Wetland ID TerraQuatic Wetland ID Acres Brief Description Wetland 1 (W01) Wetland 3 7.82 Emergent wetland found along West Fork Catron Creek on west side of the property. Wetland 2 (W02) Wetland 1 0.40 Emergent wetland fringing the central ditch. Wetland 3 (W03) and Wetland 4 (W04) Wetland 2 3.13 Emergent wetland found along the East Fork Catron Creek on the east side of the property. Wetland 4 was separated from Wetland 3 because it is solely associated with an irrigation ditch at the southeast end of the wetland. Wetland 5 (W05) None 0.02 Located north of the project area in a roadside irrigation ditch on the south side of W. Lincoln St. where the new subdivision sewer line will connect to the City’s sewer main. All wetlands and non-wetland waterways mapped within the project area are preliminarily considered as jurisdictional. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers makes all final jurisdictional determinations for waters of the U.S. Technical Memorandum 4 Figure 2. Wetland delineation map, Aaker Subdivision, Bozeman, Montana. Technical Memorandum 5 Bibliography Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). 2013. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in Hydric Soils of the United States. Washington, DC. (Definition of hydric soils.) Lesica, P., M. Lavin, and P.F. Stickney. 2012. Manual of Montana Vascular Plants. BRIT Press. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2022. Soil Survey (SSURGO) Database for [Gallatin County Area, Montana]. Accessed in May and June 2022 from http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2018. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.2. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and J.F. Berkowitz (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. 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, prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 2020. The National Wetland Plant List version 3.5. http://wetland-plants.usace.army.mil/. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, (Version 2.0), prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS. Appendix A Supplemental Wetland Determination Data Forms Aaker Subdivision Bozeman, Montana SP04U West University Gallatin 5/11/2022 West University, LLC Montana R. McEldowney, W. Fouts 14 2S 5E 1 45.662084 -111.071013 NAD 83 Blossberg loam, 0-2 % slopes Upland sample point on bench near active channel in the northern end of Wetland 1. Bench convex LRR E Not Mapped S T R 30 15 5 30 Percent Bare Ground 0 Vegetation was not hydrophytic. 0 2 0 0 0 5 50 45 4.4 0 0 15 200 225 100 440 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plant Dominance Test worksheet Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = % (A/B) (B) (A) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is <= 3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in remarks or on separate sheet. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Indicators of hydric sil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic for #3, 4, 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes NO Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts - Version 2.0 Tree Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius)Absolute % Cover: Domiant Species? Indicator Status Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herbaceous Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) UPL45Bromus inermis FAC5Poa pratensis FACU50Taraxacum officinale SP04U No hydric soil indicators observed. The mixed color of second soil layer could potentially be indicative of historic tilling. 0-09 10YR 3/2 100 Clay 09-16+10YR 5/6 50 Silty Clay 09-16+10YR 2/1 50 Silty Clay No evidence of wetland hydrology observed. SP04W West University Gallatin 5/11/2022 West University, LLC Montana R. McEldowney, W. Fouts 14 2S 5E 1 45.662077 -111.071295 NAD 83 Blossberg loam, 0-2 % slopes PEM riverine wetland. Sample point located near active stream at northern end of Wetland 1. Channel (active)tussocks LRR E Not Mapped S T R 30 15 5 30 Percent Bare Ground Hydrophytic vegetation observed. 2 3 66.7 0 25 25 50 1 3.26733 0 50 75 200 5 101 330 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plant Dominance Test worksheet Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = % (A/B) (B) (A) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is <= 3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in remarks or on separate sheet. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Indicators of hydric sil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic for #3, 4, 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes NO Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts - Version 2.0 Tree Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius)Absolute % Cover: Domiant Species? Indicator Status Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herbaceous Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) FAC20Alopecurus pratensis FACW25Juncus balticus FAC5Poa pratensis FACU50Taraxacum officinale 1Unidentified grass SP04W Prominent redoximorphic concentrations observed along pore linings. 0-10 10YR 3/1 80 7.5YR 4/3 20 C PL Sandy Clay Oxidized rhizopheres 10-16+10YR 4/2 95 7.5YR 4/3 5 C PL Silty Clay 12 0 Evidence of hydrologic indicators observed included a high water table, saturated soils, oxidized rhizosheres along roots were observed, along with geomorphic position and a positive FAC-Neutral Test. SP05U West University Gallatin 5/11/2022 West University, LLC Montana R. McEldowney, W. Fouts 14 2S 5E 1 45.660281 -111.071409 NAD 83 Blossberg loam, 0-2 % slopes Upland sample point near active stream towards the center of the Wetland 1. Lowland flat LRR E PEMAd S T R 30 15 5 30 Percent Bare Ground 4 Bare ground was primarily coveref by leaf litter. 1 2 50 1 0 35 55 5 3.65625 1 0 105 220 25 96 351 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plant Dominance Test worksheet Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = % (A/B) (B) (A) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is <= 3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in remarks or on separate sheet. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Indicators of hydric sil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic for #3, 4, 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes NO Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts - Version 2.0 Tree Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius)Absolute % Cover: Domiant Species? Indicator Status Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herbaceous Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) FAC30Alopecurus pratensis UPL5Bromus inermis OBL1Carex nebrascensis FACU5Dactylis glomerata FAC5Poa pratensis FACU50Taraxacum officinale SP05U No hydric soil indicators observed. 0-07 7.5YR 3/1 100 Clay 07-14+10YR 4/3 100 Clay cobbly No evidence of wetland hydrology observed. SP05W West University Gallatin 5/11/2022 West University, LLC Montana R. McEldowney, W. Fouts 14 2S 5E 1 45.660283 -111.071331 NAD 83 Blossberg loam, 0-2 % slopes PEMAd riverine wetland. Sample point towards the center of the active stream in Wetland 1. Channel (active)convex LRR E PEMAd S T R 30 15 5 30 Percent Bare Ground 5 Bare ground metric was 100% covered by litter and moss, and the Prevalence Index was equal to 3.0. 1 2 50 15 0 54 30 0 3 15 0 162 120 0 99 297 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plant Dominance Test worksheet Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = % (A/B) (B) (A) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is <= 3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in remarks or on separate sheet. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Indicators of hydric sil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic for #3, 4, 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes NO Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts - Version 2.0 Tree Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius)Absolute % Cover: Domiant Species? Indicator Status Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herbaceous Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) FAC51Alopecurus pratensis OBL15Carex nebrascensis FAC1Poa pratensis FACU30Taraxacum officinale FAC2Trifolium repens SP05W Prominent redoximorphic concentrations common within the matrix. 0-14 10YR 2/2 95 7.5YR 5/6 5 C M Sandy Clay 14-16+10YR 5/3 75 7.5YR 4/6 25 C M Silty Clay 0.5 6 0 Evidence of hydrologic indicators observed included surface water, a high water table, and soil saturation were observed, along with geomorphic position. SP06U West University Gallatin 5/11/2022 West University, LLC Montana R. McEldowney, W. Fouts 14 2S 5E 1 45.65837 -111.07104 NAD 83 Blossberg loam, 0-2 % slopes Upland sample point located near the active stream towards the southern end of Wetland 1. Lowland convex LRR E PEMAd S T R 30 15 5 30 Percent Bare Ground 5 Bare ground was primarily covered with leaf litter. 0 1 0 3 0 17 70 5 3.77895 3 0 51 280 25 95 359 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plant Dominance Test worksheet Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = % (A/B) (B) (A) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is <= 3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in remarks or on separate sheet. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Indicators of hydric sil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic for #3, 4, 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes NO Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts - Version 2.0 Tree Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius)Absolute % Cover: Domiant Species? Indicator Status Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herbaceous Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) UPL5Bromus inermis OBL3Carex nebrascensis FACU2Dactylis glomerata FAC10Elymus repens FAC5Phleum pratense FACU68Taraxacum officinale FAC2Trifolium repens SP06U No hydric soil indicators observed. 0-07 10YR 4/2 100 Silty Clay 07-15+10YR 4/2 40 Sandy Clay 07-15+10YR 5/4 60 Sandy Clay 14 No evidence of hydrologic indicators observed. Observed depth to water table was 14 inches. SP06W West University Gallatin 5/11/2022 West University, LLC Montana R. McEldowney, W. Fouts 14 2S 5E 1 45.658368 -111.070919 NAD 83 Blossberg loam, 0-2 % slopes PEM riverine wetland. Sample point located near the active stream in the southern end Wetland 1. Channel (active)concave LRR E PEMAd S T R 30 15 5 30 Percent Bare Ground 2 Bare ground was primarily covered with leaf litter. 1 1 100 1 95 0 1 1 2.04082 1 190 0 4 5 98 200 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plant Dominance Test worksheet Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = % (A/B) (B) (A) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is <= 3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in remarks or on separate sheet. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Indicators of hydric sil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic for #3, 4, 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes NO Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts - Version 2.0 Tree Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius)Absolute % Cover: Domiant Species? Indicator Status Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herbaceous Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) OBL1Carex nebrascensis FACW90Carex praegracilis 1Geranium sp. FACW5Juncus balticus FACU1Taraxacum officinale SP06W Sulfidic odor present and prominent redoximorphic concentrations common within the matrix. 0-03 7.5YR 4/2 100 Peaty Muck 03-15+10YR 3/2 95 7.5YR 4/6 5 C PL Silty Clay H2S odor 0.5 12 0 Evidence of hydrologic indicators observed included surface water, a high-water table, soil saturation, hydrogen sulfide odor, and oxidized rhyzosheres on living roots, along with the geomorphic position and a positive FAC-Neutral test. SP07U West University Gallatin 5/11/2022 West University, LLC Montana R. McEldowney, W. Fouts 14 2S 5E 1 45.658404 -111.065715 NAD 83 Blossberg loam, 0-2 % slopes Upland sample point near the active stream towards the center of Wetland 3. Lowland flat LRR E Not Mapped S T R 30 15 5 30 Percent Bare Ground 7 Bare ground was primarily covered by leaf litter. The dominance test is positive at this point, which is likely due to the fact that the species in the community are facultative. 1 1 100 0 0 91 2 0 3.02151 0 0 273 8 0 93 281 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plant Dominance Test worksheet Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = % (A/B) (B) (A) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is <= 3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in remarks or on separate sheet. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Indicators of hydric sil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic for #3, 4, 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes NO Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts - Version 2.0 Tree Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius)Absolute % Cover: Domiant Species? Indicator Status Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herbaceous Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) FAC90Alopecurus pratensis FACU2Taraxacum officinale FAC1Trifolium repens SP07U No hydric soil indicators observed. Although redoximorphic features were noted in the soil profile, the chroma of the soil matrix is too bright for the soil to qualify as hydric. 0-08 10YR 2/1 100 Clay 08-16+10YR 4/3 90 7.5YR 5/6 10 C M Clay No evidence of wetland hydrology observed. SP07W West University Gallatin 5/11/2022 West University, LLC Montana R. McEldowney, W. Fouts 14 2S 5E 1 45.658421 -111.06581 NAD 83 Blossberg loam, 0-2 % slopes PEM riverine wetland. Sample point near the active stream towards the center of Wetland 3. Lowland flat LRR E Not Mapped S T R 30 15 5 30 Percent Bare Ground 3 Bare ground was primarily covered with leaf litter. 1 1 100 0 5 82 10 0 3.05155 0 10 246 40 0 97 296 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plant Dominance Test worksheet Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = % (A/B) (B) (A) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is <= 3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in remarks or on separate sheet. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Indicators of hydric sil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic for #3, 4, 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes NO Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts - Version 2.0 Tree Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius)Absolute % Cover: Domiant Species? Indicator Status Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herbaceous Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) FAC80Alopecurus pratensis FACW5Juncus balticus FACU10Taraxacum officinale FAC2Trifolium repens SP07W Prominent redoximorphic concentrations common along pore linings. 0-10 10YR 5/2 95 10YR 7/8 5 C PL Silty Clay 10-16+10YR 5/3 100 Silty Clay 12 7 Evidence of hydrologic indicators observed included a high water table, soil saturation, and oxidized rhyszoshperes on living roots, along with geomorphic position. SP08U West University Gallatin 5/13/2022 West University, LLC Montana R. McEldowney, W. Fouts 14 2S 5E 1 45.660165 -111.065298 NAD 83 Blossberg loam, 0-2 % slopes Upland sample point at north end of Wetland 3. Lowland flat LRR E Not Mapped S T R 30 15 5 30 Percent Bare Ground 10 Bare ground was primarily leaf litter. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 90 5 0 0 0 0 450 90 450 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plant Dominance Test worksheet Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = % (A/B) (B) (A) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is <= 3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in remarks or on separate sheet. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Indicators of hydric sil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic for #3, 4, 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes NO Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts - Version 2.0 Tree Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius)Absolute % Cover: Domiant Species? Indicator Status Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herbaceous Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) UPL90Bromus inermis SP08U No hydric soil indicators observed. 0-04 10YR 3/2 100 Silt Loam Fine roots 04-16+10YR 3/2 100 Silt Loam No evidence of wetland hydrology observed. SP08W West University Gallatin 5/13/2022 West University, LLC Montana R. McEldowney, W. Fouts 14 2S 5E 0 45.660136 -111.065314 NAD 83 Blossberg loam, 0-2 % slopes PEM riverine wetland. Sample point adjacent to Kagy Blvd. near the north end of Wetland 3. Floodplain flat LRR E Not Mapped S T R 30 15 5 30 Percent Bare Ground 58 Bare ground was primarily covered by leaf litter. 1 1 100 0 0 42 0 0 3 0 0 126 0 0 42 126 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plant Dominance Test worksheet Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = % (A/B) (B) (A) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is <= 3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in remarks or on separate sheet. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Indicators of hydric sil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic for #3, 4, 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes NO Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts - Version 2.0 Tree Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius)Absolute % Cover: Domiant Species? Indicator Status Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herbaceous Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) FAC35Alopecurus pratensis FAC2Cirsium arvense FAC5Poa pratensis SP08W Although no hydric soil indicators were observed during the site visit, wetland hydrology was present (high water table and soil saturation), the dominant vegetation was hydrophytic, and the wetland boundary was abrupt (1987 COE Wetland Delineation Manual). Evidence of disturbance due to construction/ditch maintenance is present at this point. 0-16+10YR 2/2 100 Silty Clay 8 0 Evidence of hydrologic indicators observed included a high water table and soil saturation, along with geomorphic position. SP09U West University Gallatin 5/13/2022 West University, LLC Montana R. McEldowney, W. Fouts 14 2S 5E 1 45.656668 -111.06522 NAD 83 Blossberg loam, 0-2 % slopes Upland sample point adjacent to Stucky Road at the southeastern end of Wetland 3. Flat convex LRR E Not Mapped S T R 30 15 5 30 Percent Bare Ground 39 Bare ground contributed 39% of plot cover, and was mostly made up of leaf litter. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 61 5 0 0 0 0 305 61 305 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plant Dominance Test worksheet Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = % (A/B) (B) (A) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is <= 3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in remarks or on separate sheet. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Indicators of hydric sil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic for #3, 4, 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes NO Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts - Version 2.0 Tree Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius)Absolute % Cover: Domiant Species? Indicator Status Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herbaceous Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) UPL60Bromus inermis 1Unidentified forb SP09U No hydric soil indicators observed. 0-04 10YR 3/2 100 Sandy Clay Loam Fine roots 04-16 10YR 3/2 100 Sandy Clay Loam Gravelly No evidence of wetland hydrology observed. SP09W West University Gallatin 5/13/2022 West University, LLC Montana R. McEldowney, W. Fouts 14 2S 5E 0 45.656679 -111.065259 NAD 83 Blossberg loam, 0-2 % slopes PEM riverine wetland. Sample point was located along ditch adjacent to Stucky Rd. at the southeastern end of Wetland 3. Lowland flat LRR E Not Mapped S T R 30 15 5 30 Percent Bare Ground 60 Bare ground in the plot was mostly covered with grass litter. 1 1 100 0 20 5 0 7 2.8125 0 40 15 0 35 32 90 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plant Dominance Test worksheet Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = % (A/B) (B) (A) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is <= 3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in remarks or on separate sheet. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Indicators of hydric sil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic for #3, 4, 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes NO Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts - Version 2.0 Tree Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius)Absolute % Cover: Domiant Species? Indicator Status Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herbaceous Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) NL5Carex sp. FAC5Cirsium arvense FACW20Phalaris arundinacea 2Unidentified forb SP09W Although no hydric soil indicators were observed during the site visit, wetland hydrology was present (high water table, surface water, and soil saturation), the dominant vegetation was hydrophytic, and the wetland boundary was abrupt (1987 COE Wetland Delineation Manual). 0-15 7.5YR 4/1 100 Clay Loam 15-16+7.5YR 4/1 100 Sandy Loam Extremely gravelly 6 0 Evidence of hydrologic indicators observed included surface water and soil saturation to surface, along with geomorphic position and a positive FAC-Neutral Test. The surface water was ponded into micro-depressions in the plot. SP10U West University Gallatin 5/13/2022 West University, LLC Montana R. McEldowney, W. Fouts 14 2S 5E 1 45.656664 -111.065736 NAD 83 Blossberg loam, 0-2 % slopes Upland sample point adjacent to Stucky Road at southern end of Wetland 3. Lowland flat LRR E Not Mapped S T R 30 15 5 30 Percent Bare Ground 20 Bare ground was primarily leaf litter. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 80 5 0 0 0 0 400 80 400 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plant Dominance Test worksheet Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = % (A/B) (B) (A) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is <= 3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in remarks or on separate sheet. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Indicators of hydric sil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic for #3, 4, 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes NO Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts - Version 2.0 Tree Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius)Absolute % Cover: Domiant Species? Indicator Status Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herbaceous Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) UPL80Bromus inermis SP10U No hydric soil indicators observed. 0-15 10YR 3/1 100 Clay 15+Cobble bottom 14 10 While there was soil saturation at 10 inches, this was likely due to recent rain events. No other evidence of wetland hydrology observed. The water table was observed at 14 inches below surface. SP10W West University Gallatin 5/13/2022 West University, LLC Montana R. McEldowney, W. Fouts 14 2S 5E 1 45.656717 -111.065736 NAD 83 Blossberg loam, 0-2 % slopes PEM riverine wetland. Sample point located in swale adjacent to Stucky Road at southern end of Wetland 3. Floodplain concave LRR E Not Mapped S T R 30 15 5 30 Percent Bare Ground 5 Bare ground was primarily covered with leaf litter. 1 1 100 0 5 89 1 0 2.95789 0 10 267 4 0 95 281 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plant Dominance Test worksheet Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = % (A/B) (B) (A) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is <= 3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in remarks or on separate sheet. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Indicators of hydric sil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic for #3, 4, 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes NO Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts - Version 2.0 Tree Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius)Absolute % Cover: Domiant Species? Indicator Status Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herbaceous Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) FAC73Alopecurus pratensis FAC1Cirsium arvense FAC15Elymus repens FACW5Phalaris arundinacea FACU1Taraxacum officinale SP10W Although no hydric soil indicators were observed, wetland hydrology was present (high water table, surface water, and soil saturation), the dominant vegetation was hydrophytic, and the wetland boundary was abrupt (1987 COE Wetland Delineation Manual). 0-13 10YR 3/1 100 Clay 13+Cobbles 2 2 0 Evidence of hydrologic indicators observed included surface water, high water table, saturated soils, along with geomorphic position. Standing water observed in low point of plot. SP11U West University Gallatin 5/13/2022 West University, LLC Montana R. McEldowney, W. Fouts 14 2S 5E 1 45.656817 -111.068478 NAD 83 Turner loam, moderately wet, 0-2 % slopes Upland sample point located on berm adjacent to active ditch near Stucky Rd on south end of Wetland 2. Flat flat LRR E Not Mapped S T R 30 15 5 30 Percent Bare Ground 20 Bare ground was primarily leaf litter. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 80 5 0 0 0 0 400 80 400 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plant Dominance Test worksheet Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = % (A/B) (B) (A) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is <= 3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in remarks or on separate sheet. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Indicators of hydric sil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic for #3, 4, 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes NO Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts - Version 2.0 Tree Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius)Absolute % Cover: Domiant Species? Indicator Status Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herbaceous Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) UPL80Bromus inermis SP11U No hydric soil indicators observed. 0-05 10YR 4/3 100 Sandy Loam Fine roots 05-16 10YR 4/3 100 Sandy Loam No evidence of wetland hydrology observed. SP11W West University Gallatin 5/13/2022 West University, LLC Montana R. McEldowney, W. Fouts 14 2S 5E 1 45.656795 -111.068424 NAD 83 Turner loam, moderately wet, 0-2% slopes PEM riverine wetland. Sample point located on a low bankfull bench adjacent to active ditch at southern end of Wetland 2. Lowland flat LRR E Not Mapped S T R 30 15 5 30 Percent Bare Ground 20 Bare ground was primarily covered by leaf litter. 1 1 100 0 80 0 0 0 2 0 160 0 0 0 80 160 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plant Dominance Test worksheet Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = % (A/B) (B) (A) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is <= 3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in remarks or on separate sheet. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Indicators of hydric sil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic for #3, 4, 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes NO Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts - Version 2.0 Tree Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius)Absolute % Cover: Domiant Species? Indicator Status Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herbaceous Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) FACW80Phalaris arundinacea SP11W Although no hydric soil indicators were observed during the site visit, wetland hydrology was present (high water table, surface water, and soil saturation), the dominant vegetation was hydrophytic, and the wetland boundary was abrupt (1987 COE Wetland Delineation Manual). 0-10 10YR 4/1 100 Silty Clay Loam 10-16+10YR 4/1 100 Silty Clay Loam Gravelly 1.5 10 0 Evidence of hydrologic indicators observed included surface water, high water table, and saturated soils, along with geomorphic position and a positive FAC-Neutral Test. SP12U West University Gallatin 5/13/2022 West University, LLC Montana R. McEldowney, W. Fouts 14 2S 5E 2 45.6567 -111.071281 NAD 83 Blossberg loam, 0-2 % slopes Upland sample point on road prism at southern end of Wetland 1. Lowland convex LRR E Not Mapped S T R 30 15 5 30 Percent Bare Ground 25 Bare gound was primarily covered by leaf litter. 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 70 4.86667 0 0 15 0 350 75 365 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plant Dominance Test worksheet Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = % (A/B) (B) (A) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is <= 3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in remarks or on separate sheet. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Indicators of hydric sil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic for #3, 4, 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes NO Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts - Version 2.0 Tree Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius)Absolute % Cover: Domiant Species? Indicator Status Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herbaceous Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) UPL70Bromus inermis FAC5Elymus repens SP12U No hydric soil indicators observed. 0-03 10YR 3/2 100 Sandy Loam Fine roots 03-16 10YR 3/2 100 Sandy Loam No evidence of wetland hydrology observed. SP12W West University Gallatin 5/13/2022 West University, LLC Montana R. McEldowney, W. Fouts 14 2S 5E 1 45.656719 -111.071286 NAD 83 Blossberg loam, 0-2 % slopes PEM riverine wetland. Sample point located in slough adjacent to Stucky Rd. at southern end of Wetland 1. Lowland flat LRR E PEMAd S T R 30 15 5 30 Percent Bare Ground 10 Bare ground was primarily covered by leaf litter. 3 3 100 40 40 10 0 0 1.66667 40 80 30 0 0 90 150 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plant Dominance Test worksheet Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = % (A/B) (B) (A) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is <= 3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in remarks or on separate sheet. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Indicators of hydric sil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic for #3, 4, 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes NO Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts - Version 2.0 Tree Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius)Absolute % Cover: Domiant Species? Indicator Status Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herbaceous Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) FAC10Alopecurus pratensis OBL40Carex utriculata FACW20Juncus balticus FACW20Phalaris arundinacea SP12W Prominent redoximorphic concentrations common within the depleted matrix. 0-07 10YR 4/1 100 Clay Loam 07-16 10YR 4/1 100 5YR 4/4 C M Sandy Clay 2 0 0 Hydrologic indicators observed included surface water and high water table, along with geomophic position and a positive FAC- Neutral Test. SP13U West University Gallatin 5/13/2022 West University, LLC Montana R. McEldowney, W. Fouts 14 2S 5E 1 45.656766 -111.072292 NAD 83 Meadowcreek loam, 0-4% slopes Upland sample point in a riparian area approximately 2' higher in elevation than SP13w at southern end of Wetland 1. Lowland undulating LRR E Not Mapped S T R 30 15 5 30 Percent Bare Ground 20 Bare ground was primarily covered by leaf litter. All plant species observed were FAC or FACU and the Prevalence Index was >3, suggesting the vegetation at this location, while qualifying as hydric via the dominance test, is only marginally so. 4 4 100 0 0 117 5 0 3.04098 0 0 351 20 0 122 371 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plant Dominance Test worksheet Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = % (A/B) (B) (A) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is <= 3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in remarks or on separate sheet. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Indicators of hydric sil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic for #3, 4, 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes NO Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts - Version 2.0 Tree Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius)Absolute % Cover: Domiant Species? Indicator Status Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herbaceous Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) FAC30Populus balsamifera FAC10Populus balsamifera FAC25Alopecurus pratensis FAC2Cirsium arvense FAC50Elymus repens FACU5Taraxacum officinale SP13U No hydric soil indicators observed. 0-07.5 10YR 3/2 100 Sandy Clay Loam 07.5-16+10YR 3/3 100 Sandy Clay Loam Gravelly No evidence of wetland hydrology observed. SP13W West University Gallatin 5/13/2022 West University, LLC Montana R. McEldowney, W. Fouts 14 2S 5E 1 45.65676 -111.072368 NAD 83 Meadowcreek loam, 0-4% slopes PFO riverine wetland. Sample point adjacent to Stucky Rd at southern end of Wetland 1. Lowland undulating LRR E Not Mapped S T R 30 15 5 30 Percent Bare Ground 0 Vegetation cover was dominated by two Facultative grass species and passed the Dominance test and Prevalence Index. 5 6 83.3 20 21 83 2 25 2.9404 20 42 249 8 125 151 444 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plant Dominance Test worksheet Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = % (A/B) (B) (A) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is <= 3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in remarks or on separate sheet. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Indicators of hydric sil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic for #3, 4, 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes NO Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts - Version 2.0 Tree Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius)Absolute % Cover: Domiant Species? Indicator Status Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herbaceous Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) FAC15Populus balsamifera NL25Salix fragilis FAC10Populus balsamifera FAC3Alopecurus pratensis OBL10Carex utriculata FACW1Epilobium ciliatum OBL10Nasturtium officinale FACW20Phalaris arundinacea FAC25Poa palustris FAC30Poa pratensis FACU2Taraxacum officinale SP13W Hydric soil indicator observed was Loamy Mucky Mineral. 0-04 10YR 3/2 100 Muck 04-16+10YR 4/2 100 Silt Loam High organic content 3 0 Hydrologic evidence included a high water table and soil saturation, along with geomorphic position. SP14U West University Gallatin 5/17/2022 West University, LLC Montana R. McEldowney 14 2S 5E 0 45.661612 -111.067483 NAD 83 Turner loam, moderately wet, 0-2 % slopes Upland sample point near active ditch near the northern end of Wetland 2. Lowland flat LRR E Not Mapped S T R 30 15 5 30 Percent Bare Ground 10 Bare ground was primarily covered by leaf litter. 0 1 0 0 0 0 10 80 4.88889 0 0 0 40 400 90 440 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plant Dominance Test worksheet Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = % (A/B) (B) (A) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is <= 3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in remarks or on separate sheet. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Indicators of hydric sil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic for #3, 4, 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes NO Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts - Version 2.0 Tree Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius)Absolute % Cover: Domiant Species? Indicator Status Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herbaceous Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) UPL80Bromus inermis FACU10Tanacetum vulgare SP14U No hydric soil indicators observed. 0-04 10YR 2/2 100 Clay Fine roots 04-16 10YR 2/2 100 Clay No evidence of wetland hydrology observed. SP14W West University Gallatin 5/17/2022 West University, LLC Montana R. McEldowney 14 2S 5E 0 45.6616 -111.067447 NAD 83 Turner loam, moderately wet, 0-2 % slopes PEM riverine wetland. Sample point located on the fringe of left bank of ditch to the south of Remington St. near the north end of Wetland 2. Flat flat LRR E Not Mapped S T R 30 15 5 30 Percent Bare Ground 10 Bare ground was primarily covered by leaf litter. 1 1 100 0 85 0 5 0 2.11111 0 170 0 20 0 90 190 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plant Dominance Test worksheet Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = % (A/B) (B) (A) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is <= 3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in remarks or on separate sheet. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Indicators of hydric sil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic for #3, 4, 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes NO Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts - Version 2.0 Tree Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius)Absolute % Cover: Domiant Species? Indicator Status Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herbaceous Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) FACW85Phalaris arundinacea FACU5Tanacetum vulgare SP14W Prominent redoximorphic concentrations common within the matrix. 0-10 10YR 2/2 100 Clay 10-16 10YR 4/2 90 7.5YR 4/6 10 C M, Silty Clay Oxidized rhizospheres (PL) 0 Evidence of wetland hydrology observed included soil saturation to surface and oxidized rhizosheres on living roots, along with geomorphic position and a positive FAC-neutral test. Water was observed flowing in the ditch. SP15U West University Gallatin 5/17/2022 West University, LLC Montana R. McEldowney 14 2S 5E 1 45.662433 -111.067216 NAD 83 Turner loam, moderately wet, 0-2 % slopes Upland sample point adjacent to parking lot, approximately 2' upgradient from SP15W and at the northern end of Wetland 2. Lowland flat LRR E Not Mapped S T R 30 15 5 30 Percent Bare Ground 9 Bare gound was primarily covered by leaf litter. 0 3 0 0 0 6 140 90 4.35593 0 0 18 560 450 236 1028 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plant Dominance Test worksheet Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = % (A/B) (B) (A) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is <= 3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in remarks or on separate sheet. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Indicators of hydric sil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic for #3, 4, 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes NO Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts - Version 2.0 Tree Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius)Absolute % Cover: Domiant Species? Indicator Status Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herbaceous Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) FACU80Populus tremuloides FACU60Populus tremuloides 5Unidentified shrub UPL85Bromus inermis FAC1Poa pratensis FAC5Trifolium repens SP15U No hydric soil indicators observed. 0-04 10YR 2/1 100 Clay Fine roots 04-13 10YR 2/1 100 13+Cobble bottom No indicators of wetland hydrology observed. SP15W West University Gallatin 5/17/2022 West University, LLC Montana R. McEldowney 14 2S 5E 1 45.662434 -111.067233 NAD 83 Turner loam, moderately wet, 0-2 % slopes PEM riverine wetland. Sample point adjacent to ditch next to to Remington St. at the northern end of Wetland 2. Lowland concave LRR E Not Mapped S T R 30 15 5 30 Percent Bare Ground 40 Bare ground was primarily covered by leaf litter. 1 2 50 10 50 0 25 0 2.47059 10 100 0 100 0 85 210 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plant Dominance Test worksheet Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = % (A/B) (B) (A) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is <= 3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in remarks or on separate sheet. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Indicators of hydric sil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic for #3, 4, 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes NO Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts - Version 2.0 Tree Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius)Absolute % Cover: Domiant Species? Indicator Status Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herbaceous Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) FACU25Populus tremuloides FACW50Phalaris arundinacea OBL10Scirpus microcarpus SP15W Although no hydric soil indicators were observed, wetland hydrology was present (soil saturation), the dominant vegetation passed the Prevalence Index with a value of 2.47, and the wetland boundary was abrupt (1987 COE Wetland Delineation Manual). The depleted matrix was located too far from the surface to meet requirements for the associated indicator. 0-14 10YR 3/2 100 Sandy Clay 14-16 10YR 3/2 100 Sandy Loam 16-20 10YR 5/1 90 10YR 5/8 10 C M Silty Clay 0 Evidence of wetland hydrology observed included soil saturation to surface, along with geomorphic position and a positive FAC- Neutral Test. Water was observed flowing in the ditch. SP16U West University Gallatin 10/5/2022 West University, LLC Montana R. McEldowney 14 2S 5E 0 45.663876 -111.070375 NAD 83 457A: Turner Loam, moderately wet, 0-2% slopes This point located on berm next to ditch on the south side of the project area. Flat flat LRR E Not mapped S T R 30 15 5 30 Percent Bare Ground 20 This sample point is dominated by upland vegetation. 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 75 4.875 0 0 15 0 375 80 390 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plant Dominance Test worksheet Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = % (A/B) (B) (A) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is <= 3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in remarks or on separate sheet. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Indicators of hydric sil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic for #3, 4, 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes NO Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts - Version 2.0 Tree Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius)Absolute % Cover: Domiant Species? Indicator Status Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herbaceous Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) UPL75Bromus inermis FAC5Cirsium arvense SP16U No hydric soil indicators observed. 0-16 10YR 3/1 100 Silt Loam No evidence of wetland hydrology observed. SP16W West University Gallatin 10/5/2022 West University, LLC Montana R. McEldowney 14 2S 5E 0 45.663909 -111.070368 NAD 83 457A: Turner Loam, moderately wet, 0-2% slopes This point located in a ditch. Ditch concave LRR E Not mapped S T R 30 15 5 30 Percent Bare Ground 10 A prevalence index below three and a positive dominance test indicate hydrophytic vegetation at this data point. 1 1 100 0 90 0 0 0 2 0 180 0 0 0 90 180 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plant Dominance Test worksheet Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = % (A/B) (B) (A) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is <= 3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in remarks or on separate sheet. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Indicators of hydric sil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic for #3, 4, 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes NO Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts - Version 2.0 Tree Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius)Absolute % Cover: Domiant Species? Indicator Status Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herbaceous Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) Plot size ( Foot Radius) FACW90Phalaris arundinacea SP16W Hydrogen sulfide odor indicates hydric soils in this profile. 0-16 10YR 3/1 100 Silt Loam 0 Saturation to the surface, a hydrogen sulfide odor, geomorphic position, and a positive FAC-neutral test indicate wetland hydrology at this data point. Appendix B Photographs Aaker Subdivision Bozeman, Montana Photo 1. Facing west at SP04w. (May 2022) Photo 2. Facing south at SP04u. (May 2022) Photo 3. Facing east at SP05w. (May 2022) Photo 4. Facing north at SP05u. (May 2022) Photo 5. Facing south at SP06w. (May 2022) Photo 6. Facing east at SP06u. (May 2022) Photo 7. Facing west at SP07w. (May 2022) Photo 8. Facing south at SP07u. (May 2022) Photo 9. Facing west at SP08w. (May 2022) Photo 10. Facing south at SP08u. (May 2022) Photo 11. Facing east at SP09w. (May 2022) Photo 12. Facing west at SP09u. (May 2022) Photo 13. Facing east at SP10w. (May 2022) Photo 14. Facing east at SP10u. (May 2022) Photo 15. Facing north at SP11w. (May 2022) Photo 16. Facing south at SP11u. (May 2022) Photo 17. Facing west at SP12w. (May 2022) Photo 18. Facing east at SP12u. (May 2022) Photo 19. Facing west at SP13w. (May 2022) Photo 20. Facing south at SP13u. (May 2022) Photo 21. Facing north at SP14w. (May 2022) Photo 22. Facing south at SP14u. (May 2022) Photo 23. Facing north at SP15w. (May 2022) Photo 24. Facing west at SP15u. (May 2022) Attachment D – Alternatives Analysis Aaker Individual Permit Application West University LLC Bozeman, Montana December 2022 1 Aaker Alternatives Analysis December 5, 2022 Project Need: The Aaker project seeks to address residential housing needs in the City of Bozeman. Bozeman occurs in Gallatin County, Montana. Population growth in Gallatin County has far exceeded population growth at the state or national levels. For example, according to U.S. Census Bureau data, between April 2010 and April 2020, Gallatin County grew by 32.9%, compared to a state growth rate of 9.6%, or a national growth rate of 7.4%. In fact, by 2050 the population of Gallatin County is expected to grow from what it is today, roughly 119,000, to about 173,000, an increase of 45.4%. This current and projected population growth has put strains on city and county infrastructure, including permanent and temporary residential housing. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the growth of Montana State University has been in lock-step with growth in Bozeman. In 2021 MSU welcomed 3,871 new students, the largest incoming class in its 128- year history. Overall enrollment at MSU was 16,841 students in 2021, its second largest ever, and this sort of enrollment is expected to continue. Project Purpose: The Aaker project is envisioned as a mixed-use, active residential community, which will capitalize on a variety of features to create an inclusive and diverse neighborhood, that also provides amenities and services to the surrounding neighborhoods. For example, pedestrian connectivity in this area of Bozeman is virtually nonexistent. The Aaker project will prioritize enhancing the connectivity between the residents and the amenities on site – as well as the surrounding properties and neighborhoods. The planned street network extensions will drastically increase the connectivity and walkability of the broader neighborhood, which ultimately will make commercial uses like restaurants, gyms and grocery stores more accessible for the community. The overall project area is 95.6 acres in size, though the primary focus of this analysis is from Kagy Boulevard northward. This area is 27.5-acres in size and will consist of 5 buildable lots (16.33 acres), 1 park (8.84 acres), and 2.33 acres of road right-of-way. The aim of the project is to provide up to 506 residential dwelling units within walking distance to MSU’s main campus. Alternatives Considered: Bozeman’s City Commissioners highly encourage developers to view land as a limited resource and prioritize developments within the following characteristics:  Proximity to existing infrastructure: Does the adjacent public right-of-way contain sufficient capacity of City infrastructure (water and sewer) and franchise utilities (electric, natural gas, data) to accommodate the development? 2  Located adjacent to large transportation networks: Does the project occur near a primary transportation arterail or collector? Will it expand the build out of vehicular, bike and pedestrian transportation infrastructure in accordance with the City of Bozeman’s Transportation Master Plan (TMP)?  Proximity to existing jobs and recreation: Does the project occur in proximity to existing jobs? The Aaker project meets all of the requirements outlined above, and it has received strong support from all City Commissioner in all public hearings and has not received any public comment opposed to the project, its vision or its location. In addition to these local regulatory requirements, the project must meet a density of up to 506 dwelling units in order for it to be viable to the owners. Table 1. Aaker Practicability Analysis, Bozeman, MT. Alternative Description Practicability Analysis No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative considers the possibility of constructing the same level of residential density, while achieving Bozeman’s regulatory requirements with fewer impacts to waters of the U.S. Wetlands and streams throughout the City of Bozeman generally drain from south to north. For this reason, any property of similar size, with the required infrastructure and dwelling density needs, contains waters of the U.S. and so projected impacts to waters of the U.S. would be similar in magnitude as those proposed under the action alternatives. Furthermore, a review of potential alternate properties in this area of south Bozeman shows that they do not have the same accessibility to City infrastructure or other utilities as the proposed site, and are not as accessible to the MSU’s campus to the east or Oracle’s campus to the south. For these reasons these alternate properties are considered to not be practicable. Not practicable. Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1 impacts to naturally occurring waters of the U.S. (WUS) would be avoided except at required road and path crossings and for some hydrologic restoration work. However, impacts at the road and path crossings are more than Alternatives 2 and 3. As with Alternatives 2 and 3, WUS impacts are expected at the two irrigation ditches found onsite.  Kagy Boulevard (including City required sidewalks and boulevards) would be extended across the property under all three alternatives. Per City requirements, 4:1 sideslopes would be used throughout the roadway extension. A projected roadway width of 150 ft. is anticipated. The sideslopes are a preferred location for utilities and so utilities would be installed on one or both of the sideslopes. The culvert under Kagy Boulevard would be a standard reinforced concrete box culvert (6’ wide x 5’ high). The bottom of the culvert would be filled with 1-foot of native streambed material to maintain aquatic organism connectivity through the culvert.  Kagy Boulevard widening – The existing Kagy Boulevard will be widened under all three alternatives in order to comply with City development requirements. Practicable, accomplishes the project purpose. 3 Alternative Description Practicability Analysis  Pedestrian east-west connectivity north of the Kagy Boulevard extension is optimized by developing two access paths across the western drainage, one in the middle and one at the north end. This will allow more options for pedestrians using the park. A 6 ft. wide gravel trail with a 30” reinforced concrete culvert is used at both locations.  The centrally located irrigation ditch (Ditch-02) and artificially supported wetland along its margins is culverted under Alternative 1. This conserves irrigation water, delivers it to downstream water right holders, reduces future maintenance needs and concerns about access for maintenance, and improves water quality by limiting pollutant laden runoff from entering the water.  As with Alternatives 2 and 3, water is returned to natural drainages from both irrigation ditches. o Center Ditch (Ditch-02): a headgate is installed to return perennial water (not irrigation water) to the west drainage via a culvert in the uplands that becomes a stream channel in the wetlands. This hydrologic restoration will be extremely beneficial to the larger wetland, but will necessitate conversion of emergent wetland to an open channel. o East Irrigation Ditch (Ditch-04): The existing irrigation ditch was constructed in an upland. Under Alternative 1 this ditch and its adjacent wetlands are filled in and water is rerouted to the original drainage to the west via a short open ditch. Water will be delivered to the edge of the wetland and then allowed to flow as sheet flow in the slough, so no impacts related to the construction of a channel are anticipated. Alternative 2 Under Alternative 2 impacts to naturally occurring waters of the U.S.(WUS) would be avoided except at required road and path crossings and for some hydrologic restoration work. Impacts are expected at the two irrigation ditches found onsite, though much reduced compared to Alternative 1.  As with Alternatives 1 and 3, Kagy Boulevard (including City required sidewalks and boulevards) would be extended across the property (see description under Alternative 1).  Kagy Boulevard widening – The existing Kagy Boulevard will be widened under all three alternatives in order to comply with City of Bozeman development requirements.  Proposed pedestrian east-west connectivity would be the same under Alternative 2 as proposed under Alternative 1.  As with Alternative 3, impacts to the central irrigation ditch (Ditch-02) and artificially supported wetland along its margins are largely avoided. The central ditch will be left open and untouched through the vast majority of its channel on the property.  Water is returned to natural drainages from both irrigation ditches. o Center Ditch (Ditch-02): a headgate is installed to return perennial water (not irrigation water) to the west drainage via a culvert in the uplands that becomes a stream channel in the wetlands. This hydrologic restoration will be extremely beneficial to the larger Practicable, accomplishes the project purpose. 4 Alternative Description Practicability Analysis wetland, but will necessitate conversion of emergent wetland to an open channel. o East Ditch (Ditch-04): The existing irrigation ditch was constructed in an upland. This ditch and its adjacent wetlands are filled in and water is rerouted to the original drainage to the west via a short open ditch. Water will be delivered to the edge of the wetland and then allowed to flow as sheet flow in the slough, so no impacts related to the construction of a channel are anticipated. Alternative 3 (Preferred) Under Alternative 3 impacts to naturally occurring waters of the U.S. (WUS) would be avoided except at required road and path crossings and for some hydrologic restoration work. Impacts at the road and path crossings are avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts are expected at the two irrigation ditches found onsite.  As with Alternatives 1 and 2, Kagy Boulevard (including City required sidewalks and boulevards) would be extended across the property (see description under Alternative 1).  Kagy Boulevard widening – The existing Kagy Boulevard will be widened under all three alternatives in order to comply with City development requirements.  Proposed pedestrian east-west connectivity would be the similar as Alternatives 1 and 2, but instead of culverts, a pedestrian bridge over the stream channel is proposed under Alternative 3.  As with Alternative 2, impacts to the central irrigation ditch (Ditch-02) and artificially supported wetland along its margins are largely avoided. . The central ditch will be left open and untouched through the vast majority of its channel on the property.  Water is returned to natural drainages from both irrigation ditches. o Center Ditch (Ditch-02): a headgate is installed to return perennial water (not irrigation water) to the west drainage via a culvert in the uplands that becomes a stream channel in the wetlands. This hydrologic restoration will be extremely beneficial to the larger wetland, but will necessitate conversion of emergent wetland to an open channel. o East Ditch (Ditch-04): The existing irrigation ditch was constructed in an upland. This ditch and its adjacent wetlands are filled in and water is rerouted to the original drainage to the west via an open ditch. East Irrigation Ditch: The existing irrigation ditch was constructed in an upland. Under Alternative 1 this ditch and its adjacent wetlands are filled in and water is rerouted to the original drainage to the west via a short open ditch. Water will be delivered to the edge of the wetland and then allowed to flow as sheet flow in the slough, so no impacts related to the construction of a channel are anticipated. Practicable, accomplishes the project purpose. 5 Table 2. Summary of projected wetland and stream impacts for the Aaker project. Bozeman, MT. Table 3. Aaker Alternatives Analysis Summary, Bozeman, MT. Environmental Factors Type of Impact No Action Alternative Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 (preferred) Practicability Determined from practicability analysis No Yes Yes Yes Stream Impact (ft) (quantitative) Culvert impacts from extension of Kagy and widening of Kagy None 310 310 270 Stream Function (qualitative) Describe the quality of stream(s) to be impacted None Low, Mod Low, Mod Low, Mod Wetland Impact (quantitative) Roadway construction, and irrigation ditch and sewer line infrastructure None 1.32 (perm.) 0.36 (temp.) 0.78 (perm.) 0.36 (temp.) 0.78 (perm.) 0.36 (temp.) Wetland Functions (qualitative) Quality of wetland(s) to be impacted None Low, Mod Low, Mod Low, Mod Other Waters Impact Not applicable None None None None Other Waters Functions Not applicable None None None None Irrigation Ditch Culvert impacts and irrigation ditch infrastructure None 2,742 544 544 Endangered Species Act (Section 7) Potential impacts to T&E species None None None None Cultural Resources (Section 106) Potential impacts to cultural resources Unknown None None None Temp Impacts Wetland Location Wetland (ac)Stream (ft)Wetland (ac)Stream (ft)Wetland (ac)Stream (ft)Wetland (ac)Stream (ft)Wetland (ac) Kagy Blvd Extension (W-01, BB-01)0 0 0.44 150 0.44 150 0.44 150 0.05 Culvert Irrigation Ditch (W-02, Ditch-02)0 0 0.57 2318 0.03 120 0.03 120 0 Kagy Blvd Widening (W-03, BB-03)0 0 0.07 120 0.07 120 0.07 120 0.02 Park Trails (W-01, BB-01)0 0 0.1 40 0.1 40 0.1 0 0.12 Fill Old Irrigation Ditch (W-04, Ditch-04)0 0 0.07 424 0.07 424 0.07 424 0 Wetland conversion to stream channel (W-01, W-03) 0 0 0.04 0 0.04 0 0.04 0 0.16 Sewer Main Crossing (W-05)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 1.29 3052 0.75 854 0.75 814 0.36 Alt. 3 (preferred)No Action Alt. 1 Alt. 2 6 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no additional residential housing for would be built because no alternative properties contain the same characteristics that make the Aaker property practicable. Consequently, no additional direct or indirect impacts would occur to wetlands and other waters for the U.S. Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would deliver all of the planned development, including up to 506 private residences, as well as the widening and extension of Kagy and provide two pedestrian crossings over wetland 1. An estimated 1.29 acres of permanent, direct wetland impact, primarily associated with the extension of Kagy over the western watercourse (W-01, BB-01)(0.44 ac) and the replacement of the central irrigation ditch (W-02, Ditch-02) with a culvert (0.57 ac), would occur under this alternative. The remaining 0.28 acres of direct, permanent wetland impacts would occur as a result of widening Kagy Boulevard where it crosses the eastern watercourse (W-03, BB-03) in the central portion of the site (0.07 ac), two pedestrian trails and culverts over wetlands in the northwest portion of the site (W-01, BB-01) (0.1 ac), the rerouting of an old ditch channel (W-04, Ditch-04)(0.07 ac), and conversion of wetlands to channel (W-01, W-03) (0.04 ac) to restore perennial water being carried by the current irrigation ditches to historic drainage/stream channel. An estimated 0.36 acres of direct, temporary impacts to wetlands would occur during construction of the Kagy Boulevard extension, the widening of Kagy Boulevard, the installation of two park trails and bridges, the construction of stream channels to carry water diverted from the irrigation ditches, and the connection of a sewer main to a City sewer line located on MSU’s property, north of the project area at W. Lincoln St. Permanent, direct stream impacts under Alternative 1 total roughly 310 linear feet and are caused by the extension of Kagy Boulevard (150 ft), the widening of Kagy (120 ft), and the installation of two trail crossings (40 ft). Direct, permanent impacts to irrigation ditches on the site are estimated to total 2,742 ft. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 provides all of the same development amenities as Alternative 1 with less overall wetland and stream impact. Alternative 2 provides for up to 506 private residences, the widening and extension of Kagy and provides two pedestrian crossings over W-01. The big difference between Alternative 1 and Alternatives 2 and 3 is that the majority of the central irrigation ditch (W-02, Ditch-02) would not be impacted. Unlike Alternative 1, this irrigation ditch would not be culverted for its entire length, just where needed at Kagy Boulevard. Temporary, direct impacts to wetlands under Alternative 2 would be the same as Alternatives 1 and 3. 7 Direct, permanent stream impacts under Alternative 2 are the same as those described for Alternative 1 and total 310 linear feet. Direct, permanent impacts to irrigation ditches on the site are less than Alternative 1 and are estimated to total 544 ft. Alternative 3 Like Alternative 2, Alternative 3 provides nearly all of the same development amenities as Alternative 1 with less overall wetland and stream impact. Alternative 3 provides for up to 506 private residences, the widening and extension of Kagy and provides two pedestrian crossings over W-01. The big difference between Alternative 1 and Alternatives 2 and 3 is that the majority of the central irrigation ditch (W-02, Ditch-02) would not be impacted. Unlike Alternative 1, this irrigation ditch would not be culverted for its entire length, just where needed at Kagy Boulevard. Temporary, direct impacts to wetlands under Alternative 3 would be the same as Alternatives 1 and 2. Permanent, direct stream impacts under Alternative 3 are minimized when compared to Alternatives 1 or 2, and total roughly 270 linear feet. Stream channel impacts (BB-01) at the two trail crossings are avoided through the use of steel bridges spanning the creek channel. Direct, permanent impacts to irrigation ditches on the site are the same as Alternative 2, but less than Alternative 1, and are estimated to total 544 ft. SUMMARY No viable properties were found that make the No Action Alternative both viable and comparable to the Aaker project. Simply not building would not achieve the project’s purpose or serve the need for more housing in the Bozeman community. For these reasons, the No Action Alternative is considered to be non-practicable. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are all considered practicable and will achieve the project’s intended purpose. Of the three action alternatives considered, Alternative 3 would result in the least amount of permanent, direct impact to waters of the U.S. Indirect impacts to waters of the U.S. are expected to be minimal and similar among the three action alternatives. Indirect impacts, such as sedimentation, and the establishment of noxious weeds will be minimized through the implementation of DEQ authorized stormwater pollution prevention plans and associated stormwater best management practices, and the ongoing implementation of a Gallatin County approved noxious weed control plan for the property. All three action alternatives would contribute to the cumulative impact of waters of the U.S. in the Upper Missouri watershed. Of the three action alternatives, Alternative 3 avoids and minimizes wetland impacts to the greatest degree and therefore would contribute the least amount of cumulative impact. 8 Finally, at the broader watershed scale, all three alternatives would offset the direct, permanent impacts to wetlands through the purchase of wetland and stream credits from a Corps approved mitigation bank. Direct temporary wetland impacts would be restored onsite to pre-impact elevations and configurations and revegetated with salvaged sod, and/or a native wetland seed mix. Based on this analysis, Alternative 3 has been identified as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA). Attachment E – 2022 Groundwater Data Aaker Individual Permit Application West University LLC Bozeman, Montana December 2022 FIGURECivil Engineering Geotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying 32 DISCOVERY DRIVE . BOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221 . FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.com WEST UNIVERSITY PROPERTY DEPTH TO PEAK GROUNDWATER MAP BOZEMAN, MONTANA 7 NTP-# MW-# ##' TP-1MW-13.44' TP-2 MW-2 3.62' TP-3 MW-3 1.36' TP-4 MW-4 2.39' TP-17 MW-11 0.00' TP-18MW-122.42' TP-15 MW-10 2.53' TP-20 MW-13 2.23'TP-7 MW-5 3.55' TP-8 MW-6 3.72' TP-9 MW-7 3.40' TP-13 MW-9 3.11' TP-11MW-82.69' TP-22 MW-14 3.32' 0+001+002+003+004+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+0014+16 0+001+002+003+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 12+83 0+001+002+003+004+005+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+0021+14 WEST FORKCATRON CREEKEAST FORKCATRON CREEKIRRIGATION DITCHCROSS-SECTION 1CROSS-SECTION 2CROSS-SECTION 3SITE PLAN1SHEET:AAKER SUBDIVISION GROUNDWATER BOZEMAN, MONTANA DRAWN BY: DESIGNED BY: REV.DATE DESCRIPTION BY APP'D CCI JOB NO.: FILE NAME:X:\PROJECT\WEST UNIVERSITY\CAD\ GROUNDWATER.DWGCHECKED BY: 1 2 DATE:RB --- RM 09/07/22 WUNV.001 --- ------ --------- ------SCALE IN FEET2000100100LEGENDEXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR (5')EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR (1')PROPERTY BOUNDARYGROUNDWATER CONTOUR (1')CROSS-SECTION ALIGNMENT Downstream489549004905491048954900490549100+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+506+006+507+007+508+008+509+009+5010+0010+5011+0011+5012+0012+5013+0013+5014+00WEST FORK CATRON CREEKIRRIGATION DITCHMiddle490549104915492049054910491549200+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+506+006+507+007+508+008+509+009+5010+0010+5011+0011+5012+0012+50WEST FORK CATRON CREEKIRRIGATION DITCHUpstream491049154920492549104915492049251+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+506+006+507+007+508+008+509+009+5010+0010+5011+0011+5012+0012+5013+0013+5014+0014+5015+0015+5016+0016+5017+0017+5018+0018+5019+0019+5020+0020+50WEST FORK CATRON CREEKIRRIGATION DITCHEAST FORK CATRON CREEKCROSSSECTIONS2SHEET:AAKER SUBDIVISION GROUNDWATER BOZEMAN, MONTANA DRAWN BY: DESIGNED BY: REV.DATE DESCRIPTION BY APP'D CCI JOB NO.: FILE NAME:X:\PROJECT\WEST UNIVERSITY\CAD\ GROUNDWATER.DWGCHECKED BY: 1 2 DATE:RB --- RM 09/07/22 WUNV.001 --- ------ --------- ------CROSS-SECTION 1 - NEAR NORTH PROPERTY BOUNDARY21VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 10'HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 100'CROSS-SECTION 2 - NEAR MIDDLE OF PROJECT AREA22VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 10'HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 100'CROSS-SECTION 3 - SOUTH OF KAGY BLVD.23VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 15'HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 150'LEGENDEXISTING GROUNDSEASONAL HIGH GROUND WATER SURFACE Attachment F – Cultural Resources Documentation Aaker Individual Permit Application West University LLC Bozeman, Montana December 2022 1 Rich McEldowney From:Murdo, Damon <dmurdo@mt.gov> Sent:Wednesday, July 13, 2022 4:11 PM To:Rich McEldowney Subject:RE: File Search Request - West University Attachments:2022071303.pdf; Reports.pdf; Sites.pdf July 13, 2022 Richard McEldowney Confluence Consulting PO Box 1130 Bozeman MT 59771-1133 RE: WEST UNIVERSITY RESIDIENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, BOZEMAN. SHPO Project #: 2022071303 Dear Mr. McEldowney: I have conducted a file search for the above-cited project located in Section 14, T2S R5E. According to our records there have been a few previously recorded sites within the designated search locale. In addition to the sites there have been a few previously conducted cultural resource inventories done in the areas. I’ve attached a list of these sites and reports. If you would like any further information regarding these sites or reports, you may contact me at the number listed below. It is SHPO’s position that any structure over fifty years of age is considered historic and is potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Site 24GA1349 is a portion of the historic Middle Creek Ditch, which is located within your proposed project area, and has previously been determined eligible. As long as there will be no disturbance to this ditch, or alteration to structures over fifty years of age, we feel that there is a low likelihood cultural properties will be impacted. We, therefore, feel that a recommendation for a cultural resource inventory is unwarranted at this time. However, should structures need to be altered or if cultural materials are inadvertently discovered during this project, we would ask that our office be contacted, and the site investigated. If you have any further questions or comments, you may contact me at (406) 444-7767 or by e-mail at dmurdo@mt.gov. I have attached an invoice for the file search. Thank you for consulting with us. Sincerely, Damon Murdo Cultural Records Manager State Historic Preservation Office File COE/2022 Township:2 S Range:5 E Section: 14 GREISER T. WEBER, ET AL. 11/1/2000 RESULTS OF A CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY FOR THE TOUCH AMERICA/AT & T FIBER OPTIC CABLE ROUTE BETWEEN BILLINGS AND LOOKOUT PASS IN MONTANA CRABS Document Number: ZZ 6 23275 Agency Document Number: Township:2 S Range:5 E Section: 14 MCDONALD ARCHITECTS JAMES R. 8/1/1984 BOZEMAN HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY CRABS Document Number: GA 6 25338 Agency Document Number: Township:2 S Range:5 E Section: 14 LAHREN LARRY A. 11/24/2003 CULTURAL RESOURCE EVALUATION OF THE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PARK SUBDIVISION, GALLATIN COUNTY MONTANA CRABS Document Number: GA 6 26442 Agency Document Number: Township:2 S Range:5 E Section: 14 LAHREN LARRY A. 9/24/2004 CULTURAL RESOURCE EVALUATIONS OF THE MITCHELL DEVELOPMENT GROUP PROPERTY IN GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA CRABS Document Number: GA 6 27193 Agency Document Number: 2004-90-140 Township:2 S Range:5 E Section: 14 DICKERSON KEN AND MARK HUFSTETLER 5/1/2011 COLLEGE STREET - MAIN TO SO 19TH AVE., BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA: CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY AND EVALUATION CRABS Document Number: GA 4 32805 Agency Document Number: STPU 1210(2) Township:2 S Range:5 E Section: 14 LAHREN LARRY A. 9/7/2004 CULTURAL RESOURCE EVALUATIONS OF THE MITCHELL DEVELOPMENT GROUP PROPERTY CRABS Document Number: GA 6 27182 Agency Document Number: 2004-90-140 STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE Montana Cultural Resource Database CRABS Township,Range,Section Results Report Date:7/13/2022 Page 1 of 1 A CLASS III CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY FOR THE AAKER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA Prepared by: Shelley L. Wells and Jennifer Borresen Lee Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. PO Box 1526 Bozeman, Montana ____________________________________________________ Jennifer B. Lee, Principal Investigator Metcalf Project No. 2022.MT.015 Prepared for: Confluence Consulting Inc. PO Box 1133 Bozeman, MT 59771 November 2022 This Document has Public Disclosure Restrictions This report contains archaeological resource information that is protected under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 as amended (16 U.S.C. 470hh(a)) and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (16 U.S.C. et. Seq.). Information in this report regarding the location and character of archaeological resources is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act and must be redacted prior to public release of the document (5 U.S.C 552 (b)(3); 43 CFR 7.18; 36 CFR 800.11 (c)). For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release Page | i ABSTRACT Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. was contracted by Confluence Consulting, Inc. to conduct a cultural resource inventory for the proposed Aaker development project in Gallatin County, Montana. The project is entirely on private land, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is the lead regulatory agency. A total of 95.5 acres were surveyed, and the area of potential effect is defined as the survey area. One previously recorded cultural resource was updated. Two laterals or sub- laterals of the eligible Middle Creek Ditch flow through the project area. They are unnamed and their construction dates are unknown, although likely between 1890 and 1905. The ditch has previously been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A. The proposed project will put the entire length of Lateral A, the westernmost ditch, in culvert. Additionally, a pipe will be installed at the southern end of the lateral to direct perennial flow into the slough/creek to the west, and a new headgate will be added there for downstream water users. As mapped in the 1961 county water survey, Lateral B is now abandoned and is therefore recommended to be a non-contributing element of the irrigation system. The proposed modifications will not adversely affect the aspects of the ditch that make it eligible for listing. Metcalf recommends a finding of No Historic Properties Affected (800.4(d)(1)) for the project as defined at the time of survey. For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release Page | ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................... I PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................. 1 ENVIRONMENT/SETTING ......................................................................................................... 1 HISTORIC OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................ 4 PREVIOUS WORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................... 8 FIELD METHODS ......................................................................................................................... 9 RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................. 10 24GA1349 (Middle Creek Ditch) ............................................................................................ 10 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................... 17 REFERENCES CITED ................................................................................................................. 18 APPENDIX A: CULTURAL RESOURCE LOCATION MAPS APPENDIX B: CULTURAL RESOURCE FORMS For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release Page | iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project location map (topographic), Aaker project. ........................................................ 2 Figure 2. Project location map (aerial), Aaker project.................................................................... 3 Figure 3. Aaker project area showing the five distinct fields in the survey area. ........................... 5 Figure 4. Project overview looking southeast from the northwest corner of the project area (Field 1) (Image 2068; 9/26/2022, SLW). .......................................................................................... 6 Figure 5. Project overview looking south from the northeast corner of Field 5; S. 19th Street is at left (Image 3263; 8/09/2022, JBL). ......................................................................................... 6 Figure 6. Project overview looking southwest from the northeast corner of Field 3 (Image 3265; 8/09/2022, JBL). ...................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 7. 1961 Gallatin County Water Resources map for T.2S R. 5E; yellow box in Section 14 is general the project area. ..................................................................................................... 10 Figure 8. 24GA1349, Lateral "A" segment depicted on aerial imagery. ...................................... 13 Figure 9. Site 24GA1349 (Middle Creek Ditch), Lateral A segment overview from Stucky Road, facing north (Image 3249; 8/9/2022, JBL). ........................................................................... 14 Figure 10. Site 24GA1349 (Middle Creek Ditch), Lateral A, main gate on Feature A01, facing northwest (Image #3248; 8/09/2022, JBL). ........................................................................... 14 Figure 11. 24GA1349, Lateral "B" segment depicted on aerial imagery. .................................... 15 Figure 12. Site 24GA1349 (Middle Creek Ditch), Lateral B segment overview from the south end, facing northeast (Image 3255; 8/9/2022, JBL). ............................................................. 16 Figure 13. Aerial image showing abandoned portion of Lateral "B" and diversion to natural drainage; project boundary shown in purple (imagery date: 2021, Google Earth). .............. 16 Figure 14. Site 24GA1349 (Middle Creek Ditch), Lateral B segment overview facing south with Feature B01 in foreground; S. 19th Avenue is at right (Image 3260; 8/9/2022, JBL). ......... 17 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Previous projects in the file search area, Aaker project. ................................................... 8 Table 2. Known cultural sites in the file search area, Aaker project. ............................................. 9 Page | 1 For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release PROJECT DESCRIPTION Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (Metcalf) was contracted by Confluence Consulting, Inc. (Confluence) to conduct a cultural resource inventory for the proposed Aaker development project in Gallatin County, Montana. Specifically, the project is on the northwest side of the intersection of S. 19th Avenue and Stucky Road in the SE¼ of Section 14, T.2S R.5E (Figures 1 and 2). The project is entirely on private land, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is the lead regulatory agency. A total of 95.5 acres were surveyed, and the area of potential effect (APE) is defined as the survey area. The purpose of this study is to facilitate project planning and the Corps’ compliance documentation with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended, and other applicable federal legislation and regulations. The goal of such studies is to identify, record, and evaluate cultural resources within the APE of the proposed project. When cultural resources are found, they are typically evaluated for eligibility on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and management recommendations are made, specifically regarding potential impacts to them by the proposed project. National Register evaluations are conducted following National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (National Park Service 1990, rev. 1995). All field work, data analysis, and reporting strictly follows the U.S. Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (National Park Service 1983) and the guidelines for consulting with the Montana State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) (SHPO 2022). Field work was conducted on August 9-10, 2022, by Metcalf archaeologists Jennifer B. Lee and Shelley Wells. Lee served as the Principal Investigator. Jesse Clark managed the project GIS data and produced maps. All project documentation is on file at Metcalf’s Bozeman office. ENVIRONMENT/SETTING The project is located at an elevation of approximately 4927 ft above sea level on the east side of the Gallatin Valley. The Bridger Mountain Range is to the northeast and the Gallatin Mountain Range is to the south. Spring Creek is approximately 1.6 miles to the east, and Aajker Creek is 2.3 miles west. South 19th Avenue bounds the project to the west, and Stucky Road is along its south side. The Bozeman Agricultural Research and Teaching Farm (BART Farm), formerly known as the Towne Farm, is immediately west of the project. Page | 2 For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release Figure 1. Project location map (topographic), Aaker project. Page | 3 For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release Figure 2. Project location map (aerial), Aaker project. Page | 4 For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release The project encompasses five undeveloped agricultural fields at the corner of S. 19th Street and Stucky Road (Figures 3-6). For ease of discussion, the project area has been divided into numbered fields (1-5, from west to east). Fields 2 and 3 are separated by a fence; Fields 3 and 4 are separated by a lateral ditch; and Fields 4 and 5 are separated by a fence. Fields 2 and 4 contain unnamed drainages of the East Gallatin River that had water at the time of survey; they appear to have been used as pasture in the past. Fields 3 and 4 have been recently (and likely historically) cultivated but were fallow at the time of survey. A grove of trees in the extreme southwest corner of the project, adjacent to the farm property, surrounds a man-made pond on the natural drainage that flows through the westernmost field in the project. Geologically, the project is predominantly on Quaternary-age, alluvial gravels and glacial-outwash (Vuke et al. 2007). Soils in Field 3 are classified as Turner silty loams which are generally well drained, while in fields 2 and 4 the soils are mostly Blossberg sub-irrigated grasslands and wet meadow (Soil Survey Staff 2022). Field 5 contains Hyalite and Beaverton soils that are well-drained upland grasslands. Historically, the area supported native vegetation belonging to the Foothill Grassland type, including wheatgrasses, fescues, and needle-and-thread (Payne 1973). Observed vegetation during the current survey included a mix of tall grasses and sedges; amaranth was the dominant plant in Field 3. Ground surface visibility was generally poor at 0-5 percent due to heavy vegetation except in Field 3 where it was about 50 percent. The project area has been moderately disturbed by previous activity, including past grazing and agriculture use. Built structures include the man-made pond in the southwest corner and two laterals of the Middle Creek Ditch that cross Fields 2 and 4, respectively. They are discussed in more detail below. Modern housing and commercial developments are to the northeast, and there is also recent development on the south side of Stucky Road and active construction occurring east of S. 19th Avenue. To the west are agricultural fields. HISTORIC OVERVIEW Given the project’s setting predominantly in grazing pastures and agricultural fields surrounded by historic and modern development, Metcalf did not anticipate encountering any precontact remains; however, it is acknowledged that the Gallatin Valley has been utilized by Native Americans for more than 10,000 years. For a more thorough precontact review of the area, the reader is referred to Napton (1966) and MacDonald (2014). Archaeological and historic records indicate that, historically, this part of the Gallatin Valley was not the permanent year-round home of any specific Native American group, but instead was utilized as a common and shared hunting ground by the Bannock, Shoshone, Crow, Flathead, Nez Perce, Kootenai, Pend Oreille, Assiniboine, Cree, and Gros Ventre, with some groups spending more time in the Valley than others (MacDonald 2014; Smith 1996). Page | 5 For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release Figure 3. Aaker project area showing the five distinct fields in the survey area. Page | 6 For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release Figure 4. Project overview looking southeast from the northwest corner of the project area (Field 1) (Image 2068; 9/26/2022, SLW). Figure 5. Project overview looking south from the northeast corner of Field 5; S. 19th Street is at left (Image 3263; 8/09/2022, JBL). Page | 7 For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release Figure 6. Project overview looking southwest from the northeast corner of Field 3 (Image 3265; 8/09/2022, JBL). The first well-documented presence of non-Native Americans in the general area occurred in 1805 with the arrival of the Corps of Discovery, led by Meriwether Lewis and William Clark. Trappers and fur traders followed soon after, and by the early 1860’s Montana was on the verge of expansion with the discovery of placer gold in Bannack and Virginia City (State Engineer’s Office 1953). The Bozeman area was first permanently inhabited sometime between 1862 and 1865, and then planned by John Bozeman, Daniel Rouse, and William Beall. In 1867, John Bozeman was allegedly murdered by a band of roaming Blackfeet warriors, which led to the establishment of Fort Ellis. Agriculture has always been an important part of the local economy. The county water resources survey identifies the Gallatin Valley as “one of the oldest and most productive agricultural regions in the state,” with principal crops remaining largely unchanged since 1880: winter wheat, spring wheat, alfalfa and grass hay, barley, oats, canning peas, and potatoes (State Engineer’s Office 1953:6, 12). Historically, canning peas were processed locally, as was flour and livestock feed. Adjacent to the project at its southwest corner (and currently part of the BART farm), the Stucky-Girven Farmstead was built between about 1890 and 1920 by the Gottlieb Stucky family, who homesteaded the land (Nunn 2014). To the south, James Brumfield had a ranch. Around the time of the initial development of Bozeman, the first irrigation ditches were constructed to support the production of agricultural crops. Relevant to the current project is the Middle Creek Ditch, which dates to 1871 and was incorporated under the Upper Middle Creek Supply Ditch Company in March 1886 (later the Middle Creek Ditch Company). The ditch Page | 8 For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release diverts water from Middle Creek (or Hyalite Creek) about 4 miles south of the project to irrigate over 2,700 acres, including the entirety of the project area. It may be the oldest mutual ditch company in southwestern Montana (Axline 2013). The arrival of the Northern Pacific Railroad in Bozeman in 1883 and the establishment of Montana State College in 1893 supported rapid growth through the early 20th century. The area south of Bozeman remained largely agricultural until the 1990s and 2000s. Since then, much of the farmland to the south and west of the University has been being actively developed for residential, commercial, and industrial use. PREVIOUS WORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW A files search was conducted on July 13, 2022 through the Montana SHPO to identify previous projects and known cultural resources in the vicinity of the project (SHPO Project #2022071303). The search was requested by Rich McEldowney at Confluence Consulting, and the results were provided to Metcalf staff. Metcalf subsequently ordered copies of relevant site forms and reports, as well as GIS data for the sites. The search encompassed the one legal section crossed by the project: Section 14, T.2S R.5E. The results indicated five previous projects have occurred in the search area (Table 1). One is a historic architecture survey conducted in the mid-1980s, one was associated with a highway improvement project in 2011, two were related to a development project in 2004, and one was a multi-county fiber optic project completed in 2000. None of the previous projects are mapped as overlapping the current project. Six cultural resources have been recorded in the search area (Table 2). They include an historic homestead, two canal/ditch systems, and three historic agricultural sites associated with Montana State College (now Montana State University). Two laterals of the eligible Middle Creek Ditch (24GA1349) cross the project area. Site 24GA1903 (BART Farm) is currently mapped as overlapping the western side of the project (Nunn 2014); however, according to the Table 1. Previous projects in the file search area, Aaker project. CRABS No. Title Author(s) Date GA 4 32805 College Street - Main to So 19th Ave., Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana: Cultural Resource Inventory and Evaluation Dickerson, Ken, and Mark Hufstetler 5/1/2011 GA 6 25338 Bozeman Historic Resource Survey James R. McDonald Architects 8/1/1984 GA 6 27182 Cultural Resource Evaluations of the Mitchell Development Group Property Lahren, Larry A. 9/7/2004 GA 6 27193 Cultural Resource Evaluations of the Mitchell Development Group Property in Gallatin County, Montana Lahren, Larry A. 9/24/2004 ZZ 6 23275 Results of a Cultural Resources Inventory for the Touch America/AT & T Fiber Optic Cable Route Between Billings and Lookout Pass in Montana Greiser T. Weber, et al. 11/1/2000 Page | 9 For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release Table 2. Known cultural sites in the file search area, Aaker project. Site No T/R/S Time Period / Site Type Owner NRHP Status 24GA0998 (Farmer’s Canal) 2S/5E/14 Historic Irrigation System Private Eligible 24GA1345 2S/5E/14 SE Historic Homestead/Farmstead Private Undetermined 24GA1349 (Middle Creek Ditch) 2S/5E/14 Historic Irrigation System Private Eligible 24GA1903 (Animal Sciences Farm; BART Farm) 2S/5E/14 Historic Agriculture Other Undetermined 24GA1993 (N.L. Towne Experimental Dairy Center) 2S/5E/14 NE Historic Agriculture State Owned Ineligible 24GA2011 (Miller Livestock Pavilion) 2S/5E/14 NW Historic Agriculture State Owned Eligible project proponent, the site boundary as depicted in the 24GA1903 site form does not represent the current or historic property lines in any recorded land surveys between the proposed project and the BART farm (email communication between J. Lee and Connor Brown, Downing Street Investments, 8/5/2022). As a result, the site was not updated for the current project and a site boundary correction is recommended. A review of the 1961 water resources survey for Gallatin County shows two laterals of the Middle Creek Ditch crossing the project (Figure 7; State Engineer’s Office 1953). Numerous other canals, ditches, and laterals associated with the Middle Creek Ditch Company, the West Gallatin Canal Company, and the Farmers Canal Company are in the vicinity. The 1869 General Land Office (GLO) survey plat for T.2S R.5E depicts the area as agricultural land and shows an unnamed road passing through the extreme southeast corner of Section 14 (BLM 2022). No other historic features are mapped. The SE¼ of Section 14, T.2S R.5E was patented to James W. Brumfield in December 1889 under the authority of the 1862 Homestead Act (BLM 2022; BLM Serial No. MTMTAA 042962). Brumfield came to Montana from Missouri in 1880 and built a home on a 160-acre ranch in 1881 (Fischer 1996a). It is unclear if his original 1881 ranch location was the same as his 1889 patent. The property was later sold to Nic Aakjer, who continued to use it for agricultural purposes until the late 1950s. Fischer (1996b) identifies one of the two laterals that flows through the project area (Lateral B) as the “Aakjer lateral.” FIELD METHODS Field work was conducted on August 9-10 and September 26, 2022, by Metcalf archaeologists Jennifer B. Lee and Shelley Wells. The weather at the time of survey was sunny and warm. The APE was surveyed via pedestrian transects spaced no more than 30 m apart when ground conditions allowed. Standard pedestrian transects were possible in fields 1, 3, and 5, but portions of fields 2 and 4 were inaccessible due to inundation and dense, chest-high grass. In Page | 10 For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release Figure 7. 1961 Gallatin County Water Resources map for T.2S R. 5E; yellow box in Section 14 is general the project area. areas that could be surveyed, special attention was paid to subsurface exposures like animal burrows, road cuts, and areas of erosion. GPS coordinates for the project and cultural resources therein were collected using a hand-held Trimble GeoXT6000 Series unit. Sites and isolated finds were defined following guidelines provided by SHPO (SHPO 2017). When cultural resources were encountered, they were recorded on the appropriate site or isolated find form. Site plan maps were created with the Trimble unit, and digital photographs of the project area and cultural resources were also taken. No cultural material was collected. RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS One previously recorded cultural resource was encountered during the survey. Cultural resource location maps are provided in Appendix A, and the site form is in Appendix B (under separate cover). 24GA1349 (MIDDLE CREEK DITCH) The ditch was formed in 1871 to divert water from the West Gallatin River and irrigate farms in the Middle Creek area (Axline 2013). The Upper Middle Creek Ditch Company incorporated in 1886 and was later absorbed by the Middle Creek Ditch Company in 1890 (Fischer 1996; State Engineer’s Office 1961: 42-43). Axline (2013) suggests the Middle Creek Page | 11 For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release Ditch Company may be the oldest mutual ditch company in southwest Montana. In 1952, the ditch carried water to 2,702 acres. This update documents previously unrecorded segments of two laterals or sub-laterals associated with the Middle Creek Ditch based on review of the county water resource survey map for T.2S R.5E and previous recordings. Both are open, unlined irrigation ditches that cross agricultural fields immediately north of Stucky Road and west of S. 19th Avenue They likely date between 1890 and 1905 based on tentative dates assigned to other Middle Creek Ditch laterals in the vicinity (e.g., Fandrich and Davidson 2015). For purposes of discussion, the laterals are referred to as Lateral “A” and Lateral “B.” Lateral “A”: This lateral segment flows north-northeast from Stucky Road through the center of the SE1/4 of Section 14 (Figures 8 and 9). A 2,501-ft-long (0.5 miles) by ca. 5-ft-wide segment was recorded. Its depth could not be determined due to water and heavy vegetation. Six features were recorded along the segment (FA01-06). FA01 is a concrete headgate at Stucky Road (Figure 10) In addition to the main gate, the headgate structure includes two side gates that distribute water laterally into the adjacent fields. FA02 is a crossing over the ditch via a culvert of unknown design (not visible). It is just north of FA01. FA03 is presumed to be a check/drop structure but was not visible and was identified by sound. FA04 is a crossing over the ditch via a metal culvert. FA05 is a concrete culvert under the western terminus of W. Kagy Blvd. FA06 is a crossing over the ditch via a culvert of unknown design (not visible) at the north end of the segment. Lateral “A” was filled with water and heavily overgrown with grasses and other riparian vegetation at the time of survey. Many of the features were identified by sound as they were not visible. Despite the thick vegetation at the time, this lateral is actively used. Lateral “B”: This lateral crosses Stucky Road east of Lateral A and flows north along the west side of S. 19th Avenue (Figures 11 and 12). On a previous recording of a different segment, it was referred to as the “Aakjer lateral” because it supplied landowner Nic Aakjer with water (Fischer 1996). A 1,365-ft-long segment was recorded from Stucky Road north to a fenceline that currently marks the property line for Crowley-Fleck PLLP law offices. The lateral segment was heavily overgrown with vegetation at the time of survey. In general, it is in poor condition and has been abandoned at its south end, where the banks are deflated. The northern portion, which is adjacent to 19th Street, is better defined and may be more actively managed as a roadside ditch for run-off. An informal “check dam” of unknown age and made from corrugated metal and supported by large cobbles has been placed along this portion of the segment (FB01). Lateral “B” appears largely abandoned and perhaps repurposed by MDT as a roadside ditch along S. 19th Avenue. The south end of the segment is deflated and trampled by livestock. At some point in the past, either naturally or intentionally, the lateral appears to have diverted to a natural drainage west of its original alignment (Figure 13). The north end, where the ditch parallels S. 19th Avenue, is better defined and contains an informal check dam (Figure 14). No Page | 12 For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release water was flowing at the time of survey but the ground along the south end of the segment was waterlogged. Two natural drainages are in the vicinity of the recorded lateral segments and were likely exploited in the past for agricultural purposes. As noted above, the easternmost drainage connects with Lateral “B” on aerial imagery but is depicted separately on the 1961 county water survey map (see Figure 7). The westernmost drainage is not associated with the recorded laterals. NRHP eligibility and Management Recommendations: The site has been previously determined NRHP eligible under Criterion A for its contribution to the agricultural development of the Gallatin Valley for over a century. Metcalf concurs with that eligibility recommendation but further recommends that the segment of Lateral B recorded here be considered non-contributing as it has been abandoned. Lateral A remains in use on the alignment depicted on the 1961 county water resources map. Page | 13 For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release Figure 8. 24GA1349, Lateral "A" segment depicted on aerial imagery. Page | 14 For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release Figure 9. Site 24GA1349 (Middle Creek Ditch), Lateral A segment overview from Stucky Road, facing north (Image 3249; 8/9/2022, JBL). Figure 10. Site 24GA1349 (Middle Creek Ditch), Lateral A, main gate on Feature A01, facing northwest (Image #3248; 8/09/2022, JBL). Page | 15 For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release Figure 11. 24GA1349, Lateral "B" segment depicted on aerial imagery. Page | 16 For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release Figure 12. Site 24GA1349 (Middle Creek Ditch), Lateral B segment overview from the south end, facing northeast (Image 3255; 8/9/2022, JBL). Figure 13. Aerial image showing abandoned portion of Lateral "B" and diversion to natural drainage; project boundary shown in purple (imagery date: 2021, Google Earth). Page | 17 For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release Figure 14. Site 24GA1349 (Middle Creek Ditch), Lateral B segment overview facing south with Feature B01 in foreground; S. 19th Avenue is at right (Image 3260; 8/9/2022, JBL). SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Metcalf was contracted by Confluence to conduct a cultural resource inventory for a proposed development project on the southwest side of Bozeman. A total of 95.5 acres was surveyed. One previously recorded cultural resource was updated. Two laterals or sub-laterals of the eligible Middle Creek Ditch flow through the project area. They are unnamed and their construction dates are unknown, although likely between 1890 and 1905. The ditch has previously been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A. The proposed project will put the entire length of Lateral A, the westernmost ditch, in culvert. Additionally, a pipe will be installed at the southern end of the lateral to direct perennial flow into the slough/creek to the west, and a new headgate will be added there for downstream water users. As mapped in the 1961 county water survey, Lateral B is now abandoned and is therefore recommended to be a non-contributing element of the irrigation system. The proposed modifications will not impact the aspects of the ditch that make it eligible for listing. Metcalf recommends a finding of no adverse effect to 24GA1349 by the proposed project. For the project, Metcalf recommends a finding of No Historic Properties Affected (800.4(d)(1)) for the project as defined at the time of survey. If there are any changes to the project plans, additional investigations may be needed prior to construction. If any previously unknown cultural materials are encountered during construction, it is recommended that work be halted, and a qualified archaeologist be contacted to evaluate the find. Page | 18 For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release REFERENCES CITED Axline, Jon 2013 Montana Historic Property Record for 24GA1349. Document on file with the Montana State Historic Preservation Office, Helena. Bureau of Land Management 2021 General Land Office Records. Electronic document, http://glorecords.blm.gov, accessed 8/5/2022. Fandrich, Blain, and Douglas Davidson 2015 Historic Irrigation Ditch Inventory for 24GA1349. Document on file with the Montana State Historic Preservation Office, Helena. Fischer, Bill 1996a Montana Historic Property Record for 24GA1345. Document on file at the Montana Historic Preservation Office, Helena. 1996b Historic Irrigation Ditch Inventory Form for 24GA1349. Document on file at the Montana Historic Preservation Office, Helena. MacDonald, Douglas H. 2014 Montana Before History: 11,000 Years of Hunter-Gatherers in the Rockies and Plains. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula, Montana. Napton, L. Kyle 1966 Canyon and Valley: Preliminary Archaeological Survey in the Gallatin Area. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Montana, Missoula. National Park Service 1983 Archeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines (as amended and annotated). National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1990 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Electronic document, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/ upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf, accessed 6/7/2021. Nunn, Jessie 2014 Montana Historic Property Record for 24GA1903. Document on file with the Montana State Historic Preservation Office, Helena. Page | 19 For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release Payne, Gene 1973 Vegetative Rangeland Types in Montana. Montana Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 671. Montana State University, Bozeman. Smith, Phyllis 1996 Bozeman and the Gallatin Valley: A History. Falcon Press Publishing, Helena. Soil Survey Staff 2021 Web Soil Survey. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agri- culture. Electronic document, http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/, accessed 6/7/2021. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) 2022 Guide to Consulting with Montana SHPO: The Four Steps. Electronic document, https://mhs.mt.gov/Shpo/Archaeology/ConsultingWith, accessed 8/5/2022. State Engineer’s Office 1953 Water Resources Survey, Gallatin County, Montana, Part I: History of Land and Water Use on Irrigated Areas, and Part II: Maps Showing the Irrigated Area in Gallatin County by Source of Supply, 1953. State Engineer’s Office, Helena, Montana. Electronic document, http://dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/water/water-rights/records-unit/survey-books, accessed 6/4/2021. Vuke, S. M., K.W. Porter, J. D. Lonn, and D. A. Lopez 2007 Geologic Map of Montana. Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Geologic Map 62-C, 73 p., 2 sheets, scale 1:500,000. Appendix | A For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release APPENDIX A: CULTURAL RESOURCE LOCATION MAPS Note: the 24GA1903 site boundary is incorrectly mapped as extending into the subject property (see Previous Work and Literature Review section of the report for more detail) Appendix | A For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release Appendix | A For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release Appendix | B For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release APPENDIX B: CULTURAL RESOURCE FORMS (under separate cover) Attachment G – List of Adjacent Landowners Aaker Individual Permit Application West University LLC Bozeman, Montana December 2022 SITE ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTIO OWNER NAME OWNER ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIPCODE Contigious 1 45 DISCOVERY DR GENESIS BUSINESS PARK SUB, S23, T02 S, R05 E, Lot 10A, ACRES 1.87, PLAT J-284-B GENESIS PARTNERS LLC 895 TECHNOLOGY BLVD STE 101 BOZEMAN MT 59718-6812 Adjoiner Not Contiguous 2 3625 S 19TH AVE S23, T02 S, R05 E, C.O.S. 1969, PARCEL 1, ACRES 17.01 GRACE BIBLE CHURCH LIMITED OF BOZEMAN 3625 S 19TH AVE BOZEMAN MT 59718-9108 Adjoiner Not Contiguous 3 5278 STUCKY RD S23, T02 S, R05 E, ACRES 20, W2NE4NW4 LESS RW HYALITE VILLAGE INVESTORS LLC PO BOX 908 SANTA FE NM 87504-0908 Adjoiner Not Contiguous 4 1753 SOUTH 22ND AVENUE KAGY CROSSROADS SUB, S14, T02 S, R05 E, BLOCK 1, Lot 1 & 6, PLAT J- 328-A The Annex Group 410 MASSACHUSETTS AVE STE 300 INDIANAPOLIS IN 46204-1600 Adjoiner Not Contiguous 5 40 ENTERPRISE BLVD GENESIS BUSINESS PARK SUB, S23, T02 S, R05 E, Lot 12A, ACRES 3.03, IN NE4, PLAT J-284-B GENESIS PARTNRS LLC 895 TECHNOLOGY BLVD STE 101 BOZEMAN MT 59718-6812 Adjoiner Not Contiguous 6 2211 REMINGTON WAY KAGY CROSSROADS SUB, S14, T02 S, R05 E, BLOCK 3, Lot 1, ACRES 2.788, PLAT J-328-A KAGY CROSSROADS LLC PO BOX 10504 BOZEMAN MT 59719-0504 Adjoiner Contiguous 7 5532 STUCKY RD S23, T02 S, R05 E, C.O.S. 2725, PARCEL 2, ACRES 23.8 BENNETT MARSHALL & C LUZANN 5532 STUCKY RD BOZEMAN MT 59718-9036 Adjoiner Not Contiguous 8 5515 STUCKY RD S14, T02 S, R05 E, C.O.S. 1245, PARCEL B, ACRES 21.416, LESS COS 1245A MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY MSU FACILITY SERVICES BOZEMAN MT 59717-2760 Adjoiner Contiguous 9 1815 S 19TH AVE KAGY CROSSROADS SUB, S14, T02 S, R05 E, BLOCK 1, Lot 4 - 5, ACRES 2.242, PLAT J-328-A LESS HWY RIGHT STOCKMAN BANK OF MONTANA PO BOX 250 MILES CITY MT 59301-0250 Adjoiner Not Contiguous 10 13 ENTERPRISE BLVD GENESIS BUSINESS PARK SUB, S23, T02 S, R05 E, Lot 18, (AGGREGATE LOTS 18 & 19 PLATS J-284B & J-284)SPIRE HOLDINGS LLC 626 E DAVIS ST BOZEMAN MT 59715-3716 Adjoiner Not Contiguous 11 1915 S 19TH AVE MINOR SUB 503, S14, T02 S, R05 E, Lot 3, ACRES 0.9023 19TH CAPITAL GROUP LLC 19 LARIAT LOOP BOZEMAN MT 59715-9200 Adjoiner Contiguous 12 5515 STUCKY RD S14, T02 S, R05 E, C.O.S. 2729, ACRES 82.614, EAST POR TRACT B IN SD 7C-08(RGG62458 IN SD 7R-41)MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY MSU FACILITY SERVICES BOZEMAN MT 59717-2760 Adjoiner Not Contiguous 13 5268 STUCKY RD S23, T02 S, R05 E, C.O.S. 2725, PARCEL 1, ACRES 0.312 BOZEMAN HAUS LLC 15267 SE RIVERSHORE DR VANCOUVER WA 98683-5371 Adjoiner Not Contiguous 14 2210 & 2220 REMINGTON WAY KAGY CROSSROADS SUB, S14, T02 S, R05 E, BLOCK 2, Lot 3, ACRES 1.868, PLAT J-328-A SPANISH PEAK APARTMENTS LLC 3424 E US HIGHWAY 12 HELENA MT 59601-9708 Adjoiner Contiguous 15 32 DISCOVERY DR GENESIS BUSINESS PARK SUB, S23, T02 S, R05 E, Lot 2, ACRES 0.9, PLAT J-284 ALLIED BUILDING LLC 32 DISCOVERY DR BOZEMAN MT 59718-6958 Adjoiner Not Contiguous 16 1871 S 22ND AVE UNIT A2-1 KAGY VILLAGE CONDO, S14, T02 S, R05 E, BUILDING A, UNIT A2-1 MONTANA MOVEMENT ARTS CENTER LLC PO BOX 786 BOZEMAN MT 59771-0786 Adjoiner Contiguous 17 1871 S 22ND AVE UNIT A1 KAGY VILLAGE CONDO, S14, T02 S, R05 E, BUILDING A, UNIT A1 SS INVESTMENTS LLC PO BOX 5005 BOZEMAN MT 59717-5005 Adjoiner Contiguous 18 1871 S 22ND AVE UNIT A3 KAGY VILLAGE CONDO, S14, T02 S, R05 E, BUILDING A, UNIT A3 D J WOODY PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 10842 BOZEMAN MT 59719-0842 Adjoiner Contiguous 19 1871 S 22ND AVE UNIT A2-2 KAGY VILLAGE CONDO, S14, T02 S, R05 E, BUILDING A, UNIT A2-2 DJ WOODY PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 10842 BOZEMAN MT 59719-0842 Adjoiner Contiguous 20 2251 W KAGY BLVD UNIT C2 KAGY VILLAGE CONDO, S14, T02 S, R05 E, BUILDING C, UNIT C2 PREGNANCY CARING CENTER OF GALLATIN VALLEY INC2251 W KAGY BLVD UNIT C2 BOZEMAN MT 59718-5939 Adjoiner Contiguous 21 1805 S 22ND AVE UNIT F1 KAGY VILLAGE CONDO, S14, T02 S, R05 E, UNIT F1 KROPP KAREN L REV LIV TR AGR DTD 12/6/12 134 E TOBIANO TRL BELGRADE MT 59714-9736 Adjoiner Contiguous 22 1825 S 22ND AVE UNIT F2 KAGY VILLAGE CONDO, S14, T02 S, R05 E, UNIT F2 KROPP KAREN L REV LIV TR AGR DTD 12/6/12 134 E TOBIANO TRL BELGRADE MT 59714-9736 Adjoiner Contiguous 23 2233 W KAGY BLVD B2 KAGY VILLAGE CONDO, S14, T02 S, R05 E, BUILDING B, UNIT B2 SHADETREE MT LLC 88 SADDLE CREEK RD BOZEMAN MT 59715-8101 Adjoiner Contiguous 24 2233 W KAGY BLVD UNIT B3 KAGY VILLAGE CONDO, S14, T02 S, R05 E, BUILDING B, UNIT B3 SHADETREE MT LLC 88 SADDLE CREEK RD BOZEMAN MT 59715-8101 Adjoiner Contiguous 25 2251 W KAGY BLVD UNIT C1 KAGY VILLAGE CONDO, S14, T02 S, R05 E, BUILDING C, UNIT C1 WENDELL DANIEL E & EVA M 1400 BOZEMAN TRAIL RD BOZEMAN MT 59715-6678 Adjoiner Contiguous 26 1819 S 22ND AVE UNIT D1 KAGY VILLAGE CONDO, S14, T02 S, R05 E, UNIT D1 400 MARION INC PO BOX 206 BOZEMAN MT 59771-0206 Adjoiner Contiguous 27 2233 W KAGY BLVD UNIT B1 KAGY VILLAGE CONDO, S14, T02 S, R05 E, BUILDING B, UNIT B1 SHADETREE MT LLC 88 SADDLE CREEK RD BOZEMAN MT 59715-8101 Adjoiner Contiguous 28 no addresses yet SOUTH UNIVERSITY DISTRICT PH 3, Block 1-3, Lot 1 MINOR SUB, S24, T02 S, R05 E, Lot 1, ACRES 16.05, PLAT J-605 RTR Holding II LLC 22 Turtle Rock Court Tibouron CA 94420 Adjoiner Not Contiguous N1 ADJOINERS LIST AAKER PROPERTY ANNEXATION & ZONE MAP AMENDMENT