HomeMy WebLinkAbout013 - Appendix L - Wetland Delineation
Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation
Prepared for:
Bridger Development Strategies LLC PO Box 10130 Bozeman, MT 59719
Prepared by:
Morrison-Maierle 2880 Technology Boulevard Bozeman, MT 59715
Date of Issue: June 11, 2024
Project Number 6475.007
i | Page
CONTENTS
1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 1
2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Purpose and Scope ..................................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Background Information .......................................................................................................................... 2
2.2.1 Aerial Imagery ......................................................................................................................................... 2
2.2.2 City of Bozeman Mapped Stormwater Infrastructure .............................................................. 2
2.2.3 Gallatin County Conservation District Correspondence .......................................................... 3
2.2.4 Site Visits ................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Objectives....................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.4 Site Description ............................................................................................................................................ 3
2.4.1 National Wetlands Inventory ............................................................................................................. 3
2.4.2 Streams & Topography........................................................................................................................ 4
2.4.3 Soils ............................................................................................................................................................. 4
2.4.4 Floodplains ............................................................................................................................................... 5
3 Methods .................................................................................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Sampling Protocol ...................................................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Wetland Indicators ..................................................................................................................................... 5
3.2.1 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................................ 5
3.2.2 Soil ............................................................................................................................................................... 5
3.2.3 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................................. 5
3.3 Delineation Procedure............................................................................................................................... 6
4 Results ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6
4.1 Wetland Types and Boundaries ............................................................................................................. 6
4.1.1 Wetland A ................................................................................................................................................. 6
4.1.2 Wetland B .................................................................................................................................................. 6
4.1.3 Unnamed Tributary ............................................................................................................................... 6
4.2 Upland Areas ................................................................................................................................................ 7
4.3 Data Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 7
4.3.1 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................................ 7
4.3.2 Soil ............................................................................................................................................................... 8
4.3.3 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................................. 8
5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................ 9
ii | Page
References....................................................................................................................................................................... 10
TABLES
Table 1. NRCS mapped soil units on the subject property ............................................................................. 4 Table 2. Wetland delineation data summary table ............................................................................................ 7 Table 3. Wetland and Waterways in the Project Area ....................................................................................... 9
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Figures
Appendix B: USACE Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix C: Site Photographs
Appendix D: Correspondence
Appendix E: NRCS Soil Report
Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation 6475.007
1 | Page
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Morrison-Maierle, Inc. delineated wetlands and other aquatic features on approximately 25.2 acres of land located northwest of the intersection of Blackwood Road and South 24th Avenue in Bozeman, MT. The property, within the Meadow Creek Subdivision, is described legally as:
S23, T02 S, R05 E, C.O.S. 2286, ACRES 25.22, SW4NE4 NW4SE4 LESS TRS, SW4SE4 & SE4SW4 COS 2286 LESS MEADOW CREEK SUB PH 1
A vicinity map of the investigation area is in Appendix A (Figure 1).
Prior to the field investigation, our environmental scientists review existing literature relevant to the project area, including historical aerial photography, topographic maps, and hydrologic data. Field delineation of wetlands and other aquatic features is based on identification of hydric soil conditions, wetland hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation. We evaluate the investigation area based on criteria set forth in the 2010 Regional Supplement to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USACE Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast (Version 2.0) (Environmental Laboratory 2010).
Based on the wetland delineation presented in this report and the data collected, it is Morrison-Maierle’s professional judgement that wetlands and waterways are present within the project area. The project area contains 1.63 acres of PEM1A wetland, 0.92 acres of PEM1SS, and approximately 2,519 linear feet of an unnamed tributary. Figures in Appendix A detail the investigation area and delineated features. Table 3 in Section 5 summarizes the wetlands and aquatic features delineated within the project area.
The USACE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are the final authority over the jurisdictional status of both wetlands and waters of the U.S. according to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The findings discussed in this report are solely the opinion of Morrison-Maierle and have not been verified by the regulatory government agencies.
Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation 6475.007
2 | Page
2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Purpose and Scope
Morrison-Maierle, Inc. completed a wetland delineation at the request of Bridger Development Strategies LLC of approximately 25.2 acres of land located northwest of the intersection of Blackwood Road and South 24th Avenue in Bozeman, MT. The property, within the Meadow Creek Subdivision, is described legally as:
S23, T02 S, R05 E, C.O.S. 2286, ACRES 25.22, SW4NE4 NW4SE4 LESS TRS, SW4SE4 & SE4SW4 COS 2286 LESS MEADOW CREEK SUB PH 1
2.2 Background Information
The subject property is surrounded by residential properties to the west, north, and east; agricultural fields border the property to the south. Three gravel roadways transect the property as seen in Figure 3 (Appendix A). These roads are closed to the public.
2.2.1 Aerial Imagery
Historic aerial imagery shows the waterway meandering through the subject property surrounded by unmown agricultural fields. Development of surrounding areas begins between 2005 and 2006 and rapidly progresses through present day. Google Earth Pro provides historical aerial imagery available for the years 1995, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2011, 2014, 2020, 2021, and 2023. A 2023 aerial map of the subject property is attached to this memo.
2.2.2 City of Bozeman Mapped Stormwater Infrastructure
The City of Bozeman (the city) maps the following features on the subject property:
Urban waterway (the waterway running through the property) *.
Five stormwater detention ponds.
Outfalls from each stormwater pond to the stream (five total).
Stormwater gravity mains connecting the detention ponds to their outfalls.
Two stormwater gravity mains connecting or culverting the stream across Blackwood Road to the south, and Kurk Drive to the north.
Stormwater inlets on South 23rd Avenue draining stormwater to one of the detention ponds on the property.
Stormwater inlets on Commonwealth Street and South 22nd Avenue draining stormwater to one of the detention ponds on the property.
*Furthermore, the cities’ geospatial data indicates that the waterway flowing northwards through the subject property eventually reaches Catron Creek (Bozeman GIS Open Data. 2024).
A map of city stormwater infrastructure on the subject property overlaid with the wetland delineation is provided in Appendix A (Figure 7). The city maintains a geographic information system (GIS) database of city infrastructure with an online mapping service. Morrison-Maierle accessed the GIS server on June 6, 2024 to identify stormwater infrastructure on the subject property (Bozeman GIS Open Data. 2024).
Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation 6475.007
3 | Page
2.2.3 Gallatin County Conservation District Correspondence
Correspondence between Morrison-Maierle and the Gallatin Conservation District on January 9, 2024 indicates the following:
Presence of active flow during non-irrigation season (December) implies the waterway is jurisdictional.
Impacting the waterway would require a 310 permit.
A copy of correspondence with the District is provided in Appendix D.
2.2.4 Site Visits
December 2023
Morrison-Maierle environmental scientists completed a preliminary evaluation of aquatic features on the subject property on December 8, 2023. The watercourse identified on both the USGS map and by the city demonstrates an active, northward flow during both the December field visits, indicating a stream rather than a ditch. Furthermore, no headgates were identified within the watercourse channel on the subject property.
A culvert facilitates the passage of the waterway beneath Kurk Drive, situated midway through the property. Observations of vegetation patterns and topography strongly suggest the presence of a wetland fringe alongside the waterway. We noted small clusters of cattails within landscape depressions. Additionally, a substantial depression located centrally within the subject property potentially retains water throughout the growing season. The western section of the property exhibits upland characteristics and likely does not contain wetlands.
June 2024
Morrison-Maierle completed a formal wetland delineation on June 4, 2024, the results of which are described in this report.
2.3 Objectives
The objective of this report is to document the presence and extent of aquatic features on the subject property.
2.4 Site Description
2.4.1 National Wetlands Inventory
National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) maps a linear R4SBA feature, the waterway, flowing through the subject property. This classification describes an intermittent stream with surface water present for “brief periods” during the growing season, but with a water table that is regularly below the ground surface (USFWS 2023). A NWI map of the subject property is attached to this memo (Figure 4a).
The USFWS maintains the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) database, a publicly available resource providing detailed information on the abundance, characteristics, and distribution of
Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation 6475.007
4 | Page
U.S. Wetlands. The NWI database is based on a model that predicts the presence of wetlands from various parameters and does not necessarily reflect ground conditions.
Montana Natural Heritage Program Wetland and Riparian Data (MNHP)
The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP) maps two wetland features on the subject property. A Rp1SS feature in the northern section, and PEMA feature in the south. The USACE defines these features as:
Rp1SS: Riparian scrub-shrub wetlands adjacent to rivers.
PEMA: Temporarily flooded depressions dominated by herbaceous vegetation.
A MNHP wetland map is attached to this memo (Figure 4b). The MNHP Wetland and Riparian Mapping Center provides a comprehensive statewide digital layer of wetlands and riparian areas within Montana's Spatial Data Infrastructure (MSDI). This mapping initiative adheres to USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) standards and incorporates descriptors to characterize hydrogeomorphic features, providing valuable information for wetland function identification. Like the NWI, the MNHP wetland layer is based on a model that predicts the presence of wetlands from various parameters and does not necessarily reflect ground conditions.
2.4.2 Streams & Topography
The Bozeman, MT 2020 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map depicts an intermittent stream flowing northwards through the property, terminating into the Farmer’s Canal approximately 1.6 miles to the north. This map shows the elevation of the subject property ranging between 4,980 and 5,040 feet above sea level (USGS 2020).
2.4.3 Soils
88% of the property contains up to 10% hydric soil components (NRCS 2024). Hydric soils, formed under “conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part” support hydrophytic plant growth and are one of three indicators of wetland areas (Federal Register, 1994). A 10% hydric soil rating suggests, but does not exclusively indicate, the presence of wetlands on the subject property.
The Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS) maps two soil units on the subject property. The Meadowcreek loam comprises 88% of the property; encompassing the remaining 12% of the property, the Turner loam possesses zero hydric components (NRCS 2023).
Table 1. NRCS mapped soil units on the subject property
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Hydric Rating Percent of Subject Property
510B Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 10 88% 457A Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes 0 12% Total 100%
A custom soil report and hydric rating by map unit for the investigation area, obtained from the NRCS Web Soil Survey, is provided in Appendix E. Figure 5 in Appendix A depicts mapped soil units in the investigation area.
Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation 6475.007
5 | Page
2.4.4 Floodplains
The subject property is not within the 100-year flood zone. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps the property on panel 30031C0814D with an effective date of September 1, 2011 and a Letter Of Map Revision (LOMR) 15-08-1248P became effective October 30, 2015.
3 METHODS
3.1 Sampling Protocol
This wetland delineation utilizes the methodology presented in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and subsequent modifications outlined in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast (Version 2.0) (Environmental Laboratory 2010). The methodology includes sampling procedures for vegetation, hydrology, and soil parameters.
3.2 Wetland Indicators
3.2.1 Vegetation
Vegetation at upland and wetland data points is classified based on wetland indicator status. The indicator status of vegetation was derived from the USACE 2020 National Wetlands Plant List (NWPL). Using the current plant list, vegetation cover qualified as hydrophytic where over 50% of the dominant plant species had an indicator status of obligate (OBL), facultative wet (FACW), and/or facultative (FAC). FAC plants, such as Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), are equally likely to occur in wetlands and non-wetlands. Vegetation cover was considered as upland where over 50% of the dominant plant species were classified as upland (UPL), and/or facultative upland (FACU). Plants observed within each data plot were identified using Montana Manual of Vascular Plants (Lesica 2012). Vegetation nomenclature follows USACE NWPL (2020) and Lesica (2012).
3.2.2 Soil
Wetlands must meet the qualifications of at least one hydric soil indicator or meet the definition of a hydric soil (a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (NRCS 2019a)). Soils at each data point were evaluated and described notating the depth, matrix color, mottle abundance and contrast (if present), texture, etc. (Environmental Laboratory, 1987 and 2010). Moist matrix color and moist mottle color of the soils were determined utilizing the Munsell Soil Color Chart (Kollmorgan Instruments Corporation, 2009).
3.2.3 Hydrology
Primary and secondary hydrologic indicators were assessed at each data point; one primary indicator or two secondary indicators are required to qualify the area as containing wetland hydrology. Examples of primary hydrology indicators are saturation within 12 inches of the ground surface, surface water, and water table within 12 inches of the ground surface. Examples
Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation 6475.007
6 | Page
of secondary hydrology indicators are FAC-neutral test and geomorphic position on the landscape.
3.3 Delineation Procedure
Upland data points (UDP) and wetland data points (WDP) are established as required during the field investigation. Vegetation, hydrology, and soils data is collected in the field according to protocols established by the USACE and recorded on USACE Wetland Determination Data Forms (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Photographs are taken at each data point. Data points and wetland boundaries, if present, are collected with a handheld GPS device with sub-meter accuracy and approved by a licensed surveyor. Data is postprocessed in ESRI ArcPro to analyze and create maps.
4 RESULTS
4.1 Wetland Types and Boundaries
Two wetlands and one waterway transect the subject property (Appendix A, Figure 6). Numerous City of Bozeman stormwater infrastructure components, including detention ponds and gravity mains are also present (Appendix A, Figure 7). See Section 2.2.2 for a discussion of mapped stormwater infrastructure on the property.
4.1.1 Wetland A
A loamy mucky mineral soil layer, saturation within the upper 12” of the soil profile, and hydrophytic vegetation predominantly classified as OBL species characterizes Wetland A. This freshwater emergent wetland fringes the waterway running north through the subject property. Wetland indicators generally faded away with proximity from the stream and are strongest in landscape depressions adjacent to the stream.
4.1.2 Wetland B
The presence of shrubs and trees distinguishes Wetland B from Wetland A; hydrology and hydric soil indicators are similar. This freshwater emergent scrub-shrub wetland follows the waterway on the northern section of the property.
4.1.3 Unnamed Tributary
The unnamed narrow (1-2 feet wide) waterway flowing through the subject property widens slightly in landscape depressions, and before and after culvert in/outlets. Northward flow leaves the subject property via a culvert underneath Parkway Avenue, emptying into a small pond/collection system. This waterway is determined as an “unnamed tributary” by the Gallatin Conservation District (Section 2.2.3).
Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation 6475.007
7 | Page
4.2 Upland Areas
Delineation of upland boundaries primarily followed changes in soil conditions, hydrology; and in some cases, shifts in topography. Many upland data points meet a hydrophytic vegetation indicator due to widespread FAC vegetation throughout the investigation area.
4.3 Data Summary
The vegetation, hydrology, and soil characteristics at each of the 15 data points were documented in the field and recorded on USACE Wetland Determination Data Forms for the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast (USACE 2020). Table 2 summarizes all data points. Appendix B contains the USACE data forms.
Table 2. Wetland delineation data summary table
Feature Data point Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicator(s) Hydric Soil Indicator(s) Hydrology Indicator(s)
Wetland A (PEM1A)
WDP1 Rapid test F1 A2, A3, D2*, D5* WDP2 Rapid test F1 B9, D2*, D5* WDP3 Rapid test A11 D2*, D5*, D6* WDP4 Rapid test F1 A2, A3, B9, D2*, D5*, D6* WDP6 Rapid test F1 A2, D2*, D5* UDP1 Dominance test is ≥50%, Prevalence index is ≤3.0 None D5*
UDP2 Dominance test is ≥50% None None UDP3 Dominance test is ≥50% None None UDP4 Dominance test is ≥50%, Prevalence index is ≤3.0 None D5*
UDP5 Dominance test is ≥50% None None UDP6 Dominance test is ≥50%, Prevalence index is ≤3.0 None D5*
UDP7 Dominance test is ≥50%, Prevalence index is ≤3.0 None D5*
UDP8 Dominance test is ≥50%, Prevalence index is ≤3.0 None D5*
UDP9 Dominance test is ≥50%, Prevalence index is ≤3.0 None D5*
Wetland B (PSS1) WDP5 Dominance test is ≥50%, Prevalence index is ≤3.0 F1 A2, A3, B9, D2*, D5*, D6*
UDP5 Dominance test is ≥50% None None *Secondary indicator.
4.3.1 Vegetation
Vegetation communities were evaluated and documented to delineate wetland and upland boundaries, where existing. The location of all data points is identified on Figure 6 (Appendix A).
5/6 wetland data points passed the rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation. The remaining wetland data point passed both the dominance and prevalence indices. Dominant wetland plant species include:
Baltic rush (Juncus balticus)
Broad leaf cattail (Typha latifolia)
Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea).
Soft stem bulrush (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontaini)
Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation 6475.007
8 | Page
Lesser amounts of Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), wild mint (Mentha arvensis), and field horsetail (Equisetum arvense) were also common. Trees and shrubs within Wetland B were primarily Bebb’s willow (Salix bebbiana) with lesser amounts of green alder (Alnus viridis).
4.3.2 Soil
Soils were analyzed in the field for texture and color using the Munsell Soil Color Charts (Munsell 2009). Use of hydric soil indicators is described in Section 3.2.2.
No hydric soil indicators were observed at upland data points. Upland soils exhibit Mollic epipedon characteristics common in agricultural fields in the Gallatin Valley. Soil colors are dark at 10YR 2/1 with granular structure, high organic matter, and primarily loamy textures from 0-16 inches. Many fine roots and few medium roots occupied the upper 3-6 inches of the profiles observed. Rounded rocks ranging from 1-6 inches in diameter were common after 14 inches.
Soils within Wetland A and Wetland B exhibited a thick mucky mineral layer in the upper 4-12 inches of the soil profile. This soil layer with fibrous material, greasy-feeling soil and organic matter, and thickness ≥4 inches starting within the upper 6 inches of the profile meets hydric soil indicator F1 (Environmental Laboratory, 1987 and 2010). Further from the stream, soils lacked a loamy mucky mineral layer, instead exhibiting dark surface soils above a depleted layer with redox concentrations beginning at 13 inches.
4.3.3 Hydrology
Upland areas exhibited no hydrology indicators (Table 2).
Wetland data points close to the stream showed saturated soils and a high water table. Further from the stream, a combination of secondary indicators of geomorphic position, FAC-neutral test, and in some cases raised ant mounds, met wetland hydrology requirements.
Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation 6475.007
9 | Page
5 CONCLUSION
Based on the wetland delineation presented in this report and the data collected, it is Morrison-Maierle’s professional judgement that wetlands and waterways exist within the project area. The project area contains 1.63 acres of PEM1A wetland, 0.92 acres of PEM1SS, and approximately 2,519 linear feet of an unnamed tributary. Figure 6 in Appendix A details the investigation area and delineated features. Table 3, summarizes the wetlands delineated within the project area.
Table 3. Wetland and Waterways in the Project Area
Feature ID Wetland Type
(Cowardin)
Wetland
Type (HGM) Acres* Linear Feet
Wetland A Freshwater emergent
wetland
PEM1A 1.63 -
Wetland B Freshwater emergent
scrub-shrub wetland
PSS1 0.92 -
Unnamed tributary Riverine Riverine - 2,519
Total waterway length: 2,519 feet**
Total wetland area: 2.55 acres*
*Wetland area is calculated as a whole and includes the area of the waterway, where present.
**Water lines were gathered in the field using a handheld GPS with sub-meter accuracy and subsequently postprocessed and refined in ArcPro. However, due to extensive tree cover in the northern section of the investigation area, these water lines may lack precision. For the most accurate bank lines and to assess any potential impacts accurately, we recommend obtaining a survey conducted by a licensed surveyor.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are the final authority over the jurisdictional status of both wetlands and waters of the U.S. per Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The findings discussed in this report are solely the opinion of Morrison-Maierle and have not been verified by the aforementioned regulatory government agencies.
Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation 6475.007
10 | Page
REFERENCES
Bozeman MT Geographic Information System (GIS) Open Data. 2024. Accessed June 2024.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
Environmental Laboratory. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corp of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast. (Version 2.0) U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory. Vicksburg, MS.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2023. FEMA Map Service Center. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search
Google Earth Pro. 2024. Retrieved January 2024.
Kollmorgan Instruments Corporation. 2009. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Macbeth Division, New Windsor, NY.
Lesica, P. 2012. Manual of Montana Vascular Plants. Brit Press. Fort Worth, Texas.
Montana Spatial Data Infrastructure (MSDI). 2021. Imagery. Natural Color and Infrared. Accessed June 2024. Available at https://msl.mt.gov/geoinfo/msdi/orthoimagery/
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2019. Hydric Soils Definition. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/use/hydric/?cid=nrcs142p2_053961
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2024. Web Soil Survey. Accessed June 2024. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2020. National Wetland Plant List 2020. http://wetland-plants.usace.army.mil/
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2018. Wetland Determination Data Sheet – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, Version 1.16. OBM Control # 0710-0024, Expires 11/30/2024. Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR335-15, paragraph 5-2a). ENG Forms 6116-6, July 2018.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2024. National Wetland Inventory Wetlands Mapper. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html
U.S. Geological Survey. 2020. Bozeman, Montana, 7.5-minute Series Topographic Quadrangle Map.
Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation 6475.007
11 | Page
APPENDIX A: FIGURES
NewHollandDrW Babcock St W Babcock St
Annie
S
t
N 17th AveW Villard St
N20th Ave
Bre e z e Ln
N15th AveOliver St BuckrakeAveN 10thAveN 11th AveWindwardAveHunte
r
sWayN 14thAveValley DrN 27th AveLily D r
Meriwether Ave
R os e S t N 19th AveN 19th AveW Oak StWOak St
Durston Rd
W Main St
Bozeman High
School &
Bridger
Alternative High
School
F armers'Canal
345
Enterprise BlvdS 11th Ave
W Koch St
W Graf St
Stucky Rd
Kurk Dr S15th Ave
W Lincoln St W Lincoln St
W Garfield St
W College St
S 11th AveW Kagy Blvd
S 19th AveW
M
a in
S tGallatin Valley
Mall
Montana State
University
M id dl e Cree k
D
it ch Goldenstein Ln
S 19th Ave
Meadow Creek
Meadow Creek
Park Shady Lane
Patterson EastGallatinRiver90
E
C
o
ttonwood St
W V
illard St LStE Lamme
S
t
W Beall St
W Babcock St
B
o
h
a
rt
L
n
N 9th Ave
W Olive St
W Curtiss St NBozemanAveNWillson AveFro
nt
St
E
M
e
ndenhall StW
M
e
n
d
e
nhall
S
tN 5th AveNBlackAveN Grand AveIda AvePlumAveN Tracy Ave
C
e
d
a
r
St
N Church AveN Wallace AveN RouseAveN 7th AveW Oak St
W Main St E
M
a
in StBozeman
BirdSpringsCreekFiggins CreekS TracyAveS 6th AveW Dickerson St
W Koch St
S3rdAveS 3rd AveS RouseAveS 7th AveW Alderson St
SourdoughRdS B
lack
Ave
W
S
t
o
r
y
S
t
Arnold St S GrandAveW
G
rant StS 5th AveFairwayDrE KagyBlvd
EKagy
B
l
v
d
W Kagy Blvd S WillsonAveHighlandBlvd
W College St
Sunset Hills
Cemetery
Valley View Golf
Club
Gallagator
Linear
Burke Park
Bozeman Health
Deaconess
Hosp
BozemanCreekGoldenstein Ln
Sourdough RdS3rd AveGardnerPark D
r
EGrafStSundance
Springs Park
PROJECT NO.VICINITY MAPDRAWN BY: FD
CHK'D BY: CP
APPR. BY: CP
DATE: 12/14/2023
N:\6475\007 - Meadow Creek\GIS\Meadow_Creek.aprx
MEADOW CREEK AQUATIC FEATURE REVIEW FIG.1
Legend
Subject Property ±
COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2023a
1 Engineering PlaceHelena, MT 59602
Phone: (406) 442-3050Fax: (406) 442-7862
0 1,600 3,200800
Feet
Subject Property
MONTANA
Middle Creek DitchBa
x
t
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
West Gallatin CanalMaynard Border DitchA
a
j
k
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
PROJECT NO.
10497.001TOPOGRAPHIC MAPDRAWN BY: FD
CHK'D BY: CP
APPR. BY: CP
DATE:6/15/2023
N:\6475\007 - Meadow Creek\GIS\Meadow_Creek.aprx
MEADOW CREEK AQUATIC FEATURE REVIEW FIG.2
Legend
Subject Property
National Hydrology Dataset Flowline
Connector
CanalDitch
StreamRiver
ArtificialPath ±
COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2023a
1 Engineering PlaceHelena, MT 59602
Phone: (406) 442-3050Fax: (406) 442-7862
0 1,600 3,200800
Feet
S26thAveGolden Sun Dr
S26th AveS 26th AveParkway Ave
Meadow Creek
Park
Last LoopDrParkwayAveLastLoopDrParkway AveBlackwood Rd
Last Loop D r
ParkwayAveS 22ndAveCommonwealth
S
t
S23rd AveS22nd AveKurk Dr S23rdAveLance
D
r
S 22nd Ave
Chipset StS 23rd Ave
Blackwood RdS23rd AveCommonwealth
S
t
Dennison
L
n
Jacobs St
PROJECT NO.
10497.0012023 AERIAL MAPDRAWN BY: FD
CHK'D BY: CP
APPR. BY: CP
DATE:6/15/2023
\\mmi\Share\Bozeman\Projects\6475\007 - Meadow Creek\GIS\Meadow_Creek.aprx
3100 WEST MAIN STREET PHASE 1 ESA FIG.3
Legend
Subject Property ±
COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2023a
1 Engineering PlaceHelena, MT 59602
Phone: (406) 442-3050Fax: (406) 442-7862
0 175 35087.5
Feet
Golden Sun D r
S 26thAveS26th Ave
Meah Ln S 26th AveGolden Sun DrEnterpriseBl
v
d
Parkway AveLastLoopDrParkway AveLast Loop DrParkwayAveBlackwood Rd
Last
L
oop D r
ParkwayAveMeadow Creek
Enterprise Blvd
S 24th AveS22nd AveS 24th AveKurk Dr S 22nd AveChipset St
Lance Dr
S 24th AveS22ndAveBlackwood RdS 24th AveCommonwealth St
PROJECT NO.NWI MAPDRAWN BY: FD
CHK'D BY: CP
APPR. BY: CP
DATE: 12/14/2023
N:\6475\007 - Meadow Creek\GIS\Meadow_Creek.aprx
MEADOW CREEK AQUATIC FEATURE REVIEW FIG.4a
±
COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2023a
1 Engineering PlaceHelena, MT 59602
Phone: (406) 442-3050Fax: (406) 442-7862
0 175 35087.5
Feet
Wetlands
Legend
Subject Property
Golden Sun D r
S 26th AveS26th Ave
Meah Ln S 26th AveGolden Sun DrEnterprise B
l
v
d
Parkway AveLast Loop DrParkway AveLast Loop DrParkwayAveBlackwood Rd
Last
L
oop D r
Parkway Ave
Meadow Creek
Enterprise Blvd
S 24th AveS 22nd AveS 24th Ave
Kurk Dr S 22nd AveChipset St
Lance Dr
S 24th AveS 22ndAveBlackwood RdS 24th Ave
Commonwealth St
PROJECT NO.MNHP WETLAND AND RIPARIAN MAPDRAWN BY: FD
CHK'D BY: CP
APPR. BY: CP
DATE: 12/14/2023
N:\6475\007 - Meadow Creek\GIS\Meadow_Creek.aprx
MEADOW CREEK AQUATIC FEATURE REVIEW FIG.4b
±
COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2023a
1 Engineering PlaceHelena, MT 59602
Phone: (406) 442-3050Fax: (406) 442-7862
0 175 35087.5
Feet
Legend
Subject Property
Farmed Wetland
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Freshwater Scrub-Shrub Wetland
Lake
Riparian Emergent
Riparian Forested
Riparian Scrub-Shrub
River
WDP5
WDP4
UDP8
UDP7
WDP6UDP6
UDP5
UDP4
UDP3
UDP2
UDP9
WDP3WDP2
WDP1
UDP1
PROJECT NO.
6475.007WETLAND DELINEATION MAPDRAWN BY: FD
CHK'D BY: CP
APPR. BY: CP
DATE: 6/6/2024
N:\6475\007 - Meadow Creek\GIS\Meadow_Creek.aprx
MEADOW CREEK AQUATIC FEATURE REVIEW FIG.5
±
COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2024a
2880 Technology Blvd. WBozeman, MT 529718
Phone: (406) 587-0721
0 150 30075
Feet
Legend
Subject Property
Waterway (2,519 ft)
Wetlands
Wetland A - PEM1A (1.63 acres)
Wetland B - PSS1 (0.92 acres)
Data Points
Upland
Wetland
0.92 acres of PSS1
wetland
0.48 acres of
PEM1A wetland
1.15 acres of
PEM1A wetland
WDP5
WDP4
UDP8
UDP7
WDP6UDP6
UDP5
UDP4
UDP3
UDP2UDP9
WDP3
WDP2
WDP1
UDP1
Legend
Subject Property
Waterway (2,519 ft)
Wetlands
Wetland A - PEM1A (1.63 acres)
Wetland B - PSS1 (0.92 acres)
City of Bozeman Urban Waterway
City of Bozeman Stormwater Infrastructure
Detention Pond
Inlet
Outlet Structure
Treatment Units
Outfall
Manhole
Curb Chase
Gravity Main
PROJECT NO.
6475.007
CITY OF BOZEMAN STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
AND WETLAND DELINEATION MAP
DRAWN BY: FD
CHK'D BY: CP
APPR. BY: CP
DATE: 6/6/2024
N:\6475\007 - Meadow Creek\GIS\Meadow_Creek.aprx
MEADOW CREEK AQUATIC FEATURE REVIEW FIG.6
±
COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2024a
2880 Technology Blvd. WBozeman, MT 529718
Phone: (406) 587-0721
0 175 35087.5
Feet
0.92 acres of PSS1
wetland
0.48 acres of
PEM1A wetland
1.15 acres of
PEM1A wetland
StormwaterStormwater ponds
drain to waterway
Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation 6475.007
12 | Page
APPENDIX B: USACE WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS
Applicant/Owner:State:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0
Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Yes X No
Yes No X Yes X
Yes No X
)
1.
2.(A)
3.
4.(B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B)
1.
2.
3.
4.x 1 =
5.x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
1.x 5 =
2.Column Totals:(A)(B)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.X
8.
9.
10.
11.
Woody Vine Stratum
1.
2.
Yes X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Tree Stratum
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?No
100
35 Yes
5m2
Remarks:
Indicator
Status
3
3
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
(Plot size:
Alopecurus pratensis
No
FAC
FACW
Herb Stratum
20 Yes
Phalaris arundinacea
10
0
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
5m2
naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
(Plot size:
Yes
Number of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
significantly disturbed?
Meets hydrophytic vegetation requirement due to predominantly FAC species, but not a wetland due to lack of hydric soil and hydrology indicators.
Remarks:
FACU species
FAC species
OBL species
UPL
2.80
0
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
0
5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting
=Total Cover
)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?No
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
(Plot size:
Lepidium campestre UPL
30
Total % Cover of:
=Total Cover
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0
Multiply by:
60
Prevalence Index = B/A =
65
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
UPL species
FACW species
Yes
Sampling Point:
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
06/04/24
Bridger Development
Faith Doty, Christy Pearcy
Creek side
Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County:
Carduus nutans
Meadowcreek loam PEM1A
5m2
NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Section 23, T2S, R5E
MT UDP1
Flat
Section, Township, Range:
100.0%
)
5m2 )
Prevalence Index worksheet:
195
30
Project/Site:Meadow Creek
NWI classification:
Dominant
Species?
NAD83
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Datum:
0
Sampling Date:
Poa pratensis
Cirsium arvense
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
(Plot size:
=Total Cover
5
No
FAC
45.642337 Long:-111.068802LRR E, MLRA 49
Meets dominance test and prevalence index due to facultative vegetation.
Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
0
Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Absolute
% Cover
25
280
5
100
=Total Cover
ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
%%Type1 Loc2
100
100
100
Type:
Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
X
Surface Water Present?Yes
Water Table Present?Yes
Saturation Present?Yes Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X
UDP1SOIL
Granular silt loam, many roots
Granular silt loam
Granular silt loam, compaction increase
Remarks
Loamy/Clayey
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Well-developed organic A horizon, no hydric soil indicators.
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
2-7
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Water Marks (B1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Salt Crust (B11)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2
Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Saturation (A3)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
(inches)Color (moist)
10YR 2/1
10YR 2/1
Color (moist)
0-2
Surface Water (A1)
Loamy/Clayey
10YR 2/1
Matrix
Texture
7-16 Loamy/Clayey
Redox FeaturesDepth
Remarks:
Field Observations:
(includes capillary fringe)
No hydrology indicators other than FAC-Neutral test.
No
No
No
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E)
Red Parent Material (F21)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic.
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Applicant/Owner:State:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):5
Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Yes X No
Yes No X Yes X
Yes No X
)
1.
2.(A)
3.
4.(B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B)
1.
2.
3.
4.x 1 =
5.x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
1.x 5 =
2.Column Totals:(A)(B)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.X
8.
9.
10.
11.
Woody Vine Stratum
1.
2.
Yes X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Tree Stratum
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?No
100
5 No
5m2
Remarks:
Indicator
Status
1
1
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
(Plot size:
Cirsium arvense
No
FACU
FAC
Herb Stratum
10 No
Poa pratensis
5
0
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
5m2
naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
(Plot size:
Yes
Number of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
significantly disturbed?
Meets hydrophytic vegetation requirement due to predominantly FAC species, but not a wetland due to lack of hydric soil and hydrology indicators.
Shows evidence of past disturbance, likely associated with nearby road/development. Fully vegetated.
Remarks:
FACU species
FAC species
OBL species
UPL
3.35
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
0
5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting
=Total Cover
)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?No
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
(Plot size:
0
Total % Cover of:
=Total Cover
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
20
Multiply by:
0
Prevalence Index = B/A =
80
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
UPL species
FACW species
Yes
Sampling Point:
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
06/04/24
Bridger Development
Faith Doty, Christy Pearcy
Upper stream terrace
Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County:
Descurainia pinnata
Meadowcreek loam PEM1A
5m2
NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Section 23, T2S, R5E
MT UDP2
Incline
Section, Township, Range:
100.0%
)
5m2 )
Prevalence Index worksheet:
240
70
Project/Site:Meadow Creek
NWI classification:
Dominant
Species?
NAD83
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Datum:
0
Sampling Date:
Carduus nutans
Taraxacum officinale
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
(Plot size:
=Total Cover
10
No
FAC
45.644046 Long:-111.068049LRR E, MLRA 49
Meets prevalence index due to facultative vegetation.
Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
5
Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Absolute
% Cover
75
335
15
100
=Total Cover
ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
%%Type1 Loc2
100
100
Type:
Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
Surface Water Present?Yes
Water Table Present?Yes
Saturation Present?Yes Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X
UDP1SOIL
Granular silt loam, many roots
Granular silt loam, rocks 1-3" diameter
Remarks
Loamy/Clayey
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
No hydric soil indicators.
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
2-16
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Water Marks (B1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Salt Crust (B11)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2
Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Saturation (A3)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
(inches)Color (moist)
10YR 2/1
10YR 2/1
Color (moist)
0-2
Surface Water (A1)
Loamy/Clayey
Matrix
Texture
Redox FeaturesDepth
Remarks:
Field Observations:
(includes capillary fringe)
No hydrology indicators.
No
No
No
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E)
Red Parent Material (F21)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic.
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Applicant/Owner:State:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):8
Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Yes X No
Yes No X Yes X
Yes No X
)
1.
2.(A)
3.
4.(B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B)
1.
2.
3.
4.x 1 =
5.x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
1.x 5 =
2.Column Totals:(A)(B)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.X
8.
9.
10.
11.
Woody Vine Stratum
1.
2.
Yes X
45.644395 Long:-111.068016LRR E, MLRA 49
Meets dominance index due to facultative vegetation.
Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
5
Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Absolute
% Cover
25
315
5
100
=Total Cover
Carduus nutans
Taraxacum officinale
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
(Plot size:
=Total Cover
5
No
FAC
75
Project/Site:Meadow Creek
NWI classification:
Dominant
Species?
NAD83
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Datum:
0
Sampling Date:
Descurainia pinnata
Meadowcreek loam None
5m2
NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Section 23, T2S, R5E
MT UDP3
Incline
Section, Township, Range:
100.0%
)
5m2 )
Prevalence Index worksheet:
270
Sampling Point:
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
06/04/24
Bridger Development
Faith Doty, Christy Pearcy
Upper stream terrace
Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County:
0
Total % Cover of:
=Total Cover
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
20
Multiply by:
0
Prevalence Index = B/A =
90
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
UPL species
FACW species
Yes
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
0
5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting
=Total Cover
)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?No
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
(Plot size:
Remarks:
FACU species
FAC species
OBL species
UPL
3.15
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
5m2
naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
(Plot size:
Yes
Number of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
significantly disturbed?
Meets hydrophytic vegetation requirement due to predominantly FAC species, but not a wetland due to lack of hydric soil and hydrology indicators.
Shows evidence of past disturbance, likely associated with nearby road/development. Fully vegetated.
Indicator
Status
1
1
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
(Plot size:
Cirsium arvense
No
FACU
FAC
Herb Stratum
15 No
Poa pratensis
5
0
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Tree Stratum
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?No
100
0
5m2
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
%%Type1 Loc2
100
100
Type:
Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
Surface Water Present?Yes
Water Table Present?Yes
Saturation Present?Yes Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X
2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic.
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E)
Red Parent Material (F21)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Field Observations:
(includes capillary fringe)
No hydrology indicators.
No
No
No
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Surface Water (A1)
Loamy/Clayey
Matrix
Texture
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches)Color (moist)
10YR 2/1
10YR 2/1
Color (moist)
0-2
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Water Marks (B1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Salt Crust (B11)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2
Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Saturation (A3)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
No hydric soil indicators.
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
2-16
UDP3SOIL
Granular silt loam, many roots
Granular silt loam, rocks 1-3" diameter
Remarks
Loamy/Clayey
ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Applicant/Owner:State:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):5
Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Yes X No
Yes No X Yes X
Yes No X
)
1.
2.(A)
3.
4.(B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B)
1.
2.
3.
4.x 1 =
5.x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
1.x 5 =
2.Column Totals:(A)(B)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.X
8.
9.
10.
11.
Woody Vine Stratum
1.
2.
Yes X
45.643287 Long:-111.068293LRR E, MLRA 49
Meets dominance index due to facultative vegetation.
Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
5
Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Absolute
% Cover
0
270
0
100
=Total Cover
Lactuca serriola
Alopecurus pratensis
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
(Plot size:
=Total Cover
5
Yes
FACW
35
Project/Site:Meadow Creek
NWI classification:
Dominant
Species?
NAD83
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Datum:
0
Sampling Date:
Cirsium arvense
Meadowcreek loam None
5m2
NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Section 23, T2S, R5E
MT UDP4
Incline
Section, Township, Range:
100.0%
)
5m2 )
Prevalence Index worksheet:
180
Sampling Point:
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
06/04/24
Bridger Development
Faith Doty, Christy Pearcy
Upper stream terrace
Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County:
35
Total % Cover of:
=Total Cover
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
20
Multiply by:
70
Prevalence Index = B/A =
60
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
UPL species
FACW species
Yes
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
0
5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting
=Total Cover
)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?No
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
(Plot size:
Remarks:
FACU species
FAC species
OBL species
FAC
2.70
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
5m2
naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
(Plot size:
Yes
Number of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
significantly disturbed?
Meets hydrophytic vegetation requirement due to predominantly FAC species, but not a wetland due to lack of hydric soil and hydrology indicators.
Shows evidence of past disturbance, likely associated with nearby road/development. Fully vegetated.
Indicator
Status
3
3
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
(Plot size:
Juncus balticus
No
FAC
FAC
Herb Stratum
35 Yes
Poa pratensis
20
0
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Tree Stratum
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?No
100
5 No
5m2
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
%%Type1 Loc2
100
100
100
100
Type:
Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
X
Surface Water Present?Yes
Water Table Present?Yes
Saturation Present?Yes Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X
2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic.
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E)
Red Parent Material (F21)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Field Observations:
(includes capillary fringe)
No hydrology indicators.
No
No
No
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Surface Water (A1)
Loamy/Clayey
10YR 2/1
Matrix
16-17 7.5R 4/6
Texture
12-16 Loamy/Clayey
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches)Color (moist)
10YR 2/1
10YR 2/1
Color (moist)
0-4
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Water Marks (B1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Salt Crust (B11)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2
Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Saturation (A3)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
No hydric soil indicators.
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
4-12
UDP4SOIL
Granular loam, many roots
Granular loam
Granular loam, large rounded rocks
Sandy silt loam, large rounded rocks
Remarks
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Applicant/Owner:State:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):5
Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Yes X No
Yes No X Yes X
Yes No X
)
1.
2.(A)
3.
4.(B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B)
1.
2.
3.
4.x 1 =
5.x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
1.x 5 =
2.Column Totals:(A)(B)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.X
8.
9.
10.
11.
Woody Vine Stratum
1.
2.
Yes X
45.646267 Long:-111.068251LRR E, MLRA 49
Meets dominance index due to facultative vegetation.
Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
5
Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Absolute
% Cover
150
365
30
100
=Total Cover
Lepidium campestre
Phleum pratense
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
(Plot size:
=Total Cover
5
Yes
UPL
40
Project/Site:Meadow Creek
NWI classification:
Dominant
Species?
NAD83
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Datum:
0
Sampling Date:
Lactuca serriola
Meadowcreek loam None
5m2
NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Section 23, T2S, R5E
MT UDP5
Incline
Section, Township, Range:
66.7%
)
5m2 )
Prevalence Index worksheet:
195
Sampling Point:
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
06/04/24
Bridger Development
Faith Doty, Christy Pearcy
Upper stream terrace
Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County:
0
Total % Cover of:
=Total Cover
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
20
Multiply by:
0
Prevalence Index = B/A =
65
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
UPL species
FACW species
Yes
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
0
5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting
=Total Cover
)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?No
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
(Plot size:
Remarks:
FACU species
FAC species
OBL species
FACU
3.65
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
5m2
naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
(Plot size:
Yes
Number of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
significantly disturbed?
Meets hydrophytic vegetation requirement due to predominantly FAC species, but not a wetland due to lack of hydric soil and hydrology indicators.
Indicator
Status
2
3
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
(Plot size:
Bromus inermis
No
FAC
FAC
Herb Stratum
25 Yes
Poa pratensis
25
0
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Tree Stratum
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?No
100
5 No
5m2
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
%%Type1 Loc2
100
100
Type:
Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
Surface Water Present?Yes
Water Table Present?Yes
Saturation Present?Yes Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X
2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic.
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E)
Red Parent Material (F21)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Field Observations:
(includes capillary fringe)
No hydrology indicators.
No
No
No
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Surface Water (A1)
Loamy/Clayey
Matrix
Texture
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches)Color (moist)
10YR 2/1
10YR 2/1
Color (moist)
0-4
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Water Marks (B1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Salt Crust (B11)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2
Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Saturation (A3)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
No hydric soil indicators.
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
4-16
UDP5SOIL
Granular loam, many roots
Granular loam
Remarks
Loamy/Clayey
ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Applicant/Owner:State:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):5
Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Yes X No
Yes No X Yes X
Yes No X
)
1.
2.(A)
3.
4.(B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B)
1.
2.
3.
4.x 1 =
5.x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
1.x 5 =
2.Column Totals:(A)(B)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.X
8.
9.
10.
11.
Woody Vine Stratum
1.
2.
Yes X
45.645447 Long:-111.068339LRR E, MLRA 49
Meets dominance and prevalance indicies due to facultative vegetation.
Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
0
Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Absolute
% Cover
75
260
15
100
=Total Cover
Cirsium arvense
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
(Plot size:
=Total Cover
0
No
UPL
70
Project/Site:Meadow Creek
NWI classification:
Dominant
Species?
NAD83
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Datum:
0
Sampling Date:
Taraxacum officinale
Meadowcreek loam None
5m2
NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Section 23, T2S, R5E
MT UDP6
Slight incline
Section, Township, Range:
100.0%
)
5m2 )
Prevalence Index worksheet:
45
Sampling Point:
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
06/04/24
Bridger Development
Faith Doty, Christy Pearcy
Upper stream terrace
Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County:
70
Total % Cover of:
=Total Cover
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0
Multiply by:
140
Prevalence Index = B/A =
15
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
UPL species
FACW species
Yes
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
0
5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting
=Total Cover
)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?No
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
(Plot size:
Remarks:
FACU species
FAC species
OBL species
FACU
2.60
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
5m2
naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
(Plot size:
Yes
Number of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
significantly disturbed?
Meets hydrophytic vegetation requirement due to predominantly FAC species; lack of hydric soil and wetland hydrolgoy indicates upland conditions.
Indicator
Status
1
1
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
(Plot size:
Descurainia pinnata
FAC
FACW
Herb Stratum
15 No
Juncus balticus
15
0
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Tree Stratum
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?No
100
5m2
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
%%Type1 Loc2
100
100
100
Type:
Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
X
Surface Water Present?Yes
Water Table Present?Yes
Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X
2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic.
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E)
Red Parent Material (F21)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
14
Field Observations:
(includes capillary fringe)
No hydrology indicators. Saturation is beneath 12" cutoff.
No
No
No
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Surface Water (A1)
Loamy/Clayey
10YR 3/1
Matrix
Texture
10-16 Loamy/Clayey
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches)Color (moist)
10YR 2/1
10YR 2/1
Color (moist)
0-4
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Water Marks (B1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Salt Crust (B11)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2
Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Saturation (A3)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
No hydric soil indicators.
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
4-10
UDP6SOIL
Granular loam, many roots
Granular loam
Blocky loam
Remarks
Loamy/Clayey
ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Applicant/Owner:State:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):5
Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Yes X No
Yes No X Yes X
Yes No X
)
1.
2.(A)
3.
4.(B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B)
1.
2.
3.
4.x 1 =
5.x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
1.x 5 =
2.Column Totals:(A)(B)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.X
8.
9.
10.
11.
Woody Vine Stratum
1.
2.
Yes X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Tree Stratum
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?No
100
5m2
Remarks:
Indicator
Status
1
1
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
(Plot size:
Descurainia pinnata
No
FAC
FACW
Herb Stratum
10 No
Juncus balticus
10
0
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
5m2
naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
(Plot size:
Yes
Number of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
significantly disturbed?
Meets hydrophytic vegetation requirement due to predominantly FAC species; lack of hydric soil and wetland hydrolgoy indicates upland conditions.
Remarks:
FACU species
FAC species
OBL species
FAC
2.50
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
0
5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting
=Total Cover
)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?No
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
(Plot size:
70
Total % Cover of:
=Total Cover
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0
Multiply by:
140
Prevalence Index = B/A =
20
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
UPL species
FACW species
Yes
Sampling Point:
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
06/04/24
Bridger Development
Faith Doty, Christy Pearcy
Upper stream terrace
Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County:
Poa pratensis
Meadowcreek loam None
5m2
NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Section 23, T2S, R5E
MT UDP7
Slight incline
Section, Township, Range:
100.0%
)
5m2 )
Prevalence Index worksheet:
60
70
Project/Site:Meadow Creek
NWI classification:
Dominant
Species?
NAD83
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Datum:
0
Sampling Date:
Cirsium arvense
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
(Plot size:
=Total Cover
10
No
UPL
45.644899 Long:-111.068559LRR E, MLRA 49
Meets hydrophytic vegetation tests due to facultative vegetation.
Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
0
Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Absolute
% Cover
50
250
10
100
=Total Cover
ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
%%Type1 Loc2
100
100
Type:
Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
X
Surface Water Present?Yes X
Water Table Present?Yes X
Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X
UDP7SOIL
Granular loam, many roots
Granular loam
Remarks
Loamy/Clayey
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
No hydric soil indicators.
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
4-16
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Water Marks (B1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Salt Crust (B11)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2
Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Saturation (A3)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
(inches)Color (moist)
10YR 2/1
10YR 2/1
Color (moist)
0-4
Surface Water (A1)
Loamy/Clayey
Matrix
Texture
Redox FeaturesDepth
Remarks:
Field Observations:
(includes capillary fringe)
No hydrology indicators other than FAC-Neutral test.
No
No
No
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E)
Red Parent Material (F21)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic.
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Applicant/Owner:State:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):5
Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Yes X No
Yes No X Yes X
Yes No X
)
1.
2.(A)
3.
4.(B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B)
1.
2.
3.
4.x 1 =
5.x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
1.x 5 =
2.Column Totals:(A)(B)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.X
8.
9.
10.
11.
Woody Vine Stratum
1.
2.
Yes X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Tree Stratum
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?No
100
5m2
Remarks:
Indicator
Status
2
2
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
(Plot size:
Bromus inermis
Yes
FAC
FACW
Herb Stratum
10 No
Juncus balticus
5
0
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
5m2
naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
(Plot size:
Yes
Number of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
significantly disturbed?
Meets hydrophytic vegetation requirement due to predominantly FAC species; lack of hydric soil and wetland hydrolgoy indicates upland conditions.
Remarks:
FACU species
FAC species
OBL species
FAC
2.75
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
0
5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting
=Total Cover
)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?No
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
(Plot size:
45
Total % Cover of:
=Total Cover
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0
Multiply by:
90
Prevalence Index = B/A =
45
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
UPL species
FACW species
Yes
Sampling Point:
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
06/04/24
Bridger Development
Faith Doty, Christy Pearcy
Upper stream terrace
Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County:
Poa pratensis
Meadowcreek loam None
5m2
NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Section 23, T2S, R5E
MT UDP8
Slight incline
Section, Township, Range:
100.0%
)
5m2 )
Prevalence Index worksheet:
135
45
Project/Site:Meadow Creek
NWI classification:
Dominant
Species?
NAD83
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Datum:
0
Sampling Date:
Cirsium arvense
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
(Plot size:
=Total Cover
40
No
UPL
45.643325 Long:-111.068388LRR E, MLRA 49
Meets hydrophytic vegetation test due to facultative vegetation.
Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
0
Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Absolute
% Cover
50
275
10
100
=Total Cover
ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
%%Type1 Loc2
100
100
100
Type:
Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
X
Surface Water Present?Yes X
Water Table Present?Yes X
Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X
UDP8SOIL
Granular loam, many roots
Granular loam, cobbles
Clay loam, large cobbles
Remarks
Loamy/Clayey
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
No hydric soil indicators.
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
4-14
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Water Marks (B1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Salt Crust (B11)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2
Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Saturation (A3)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
(inches)Color (moist)
10YR 2/1
10YR 2/1
Color (moist)
0-4
Surface Water (A1)
Loamy/Clayey
10YR 3/2
Matrix
Texture
14-16 Loamy/Clayey
Redox FeaturesDepth
Remarks:
Field Observations:
(includes capillary fringe)
No hydrology indicators other than FAC-Neutral test.
No
No
No
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E)
Red Parent Material (F21)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic.
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Applicant/Owner:State:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):5
Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Yes X No
Yes No X Yes X
Yes No X
)
1.
2.(A)
3.
4.(B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B)
1.
2.
3.
4.x 1 =
5.x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
1.x 5 =
2.Column Totals:(A)(B)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.X
8.
9.
10.
11.
Woody Vine Stratum
1.
2.
Yes X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Tree Stratum
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?No
100
5 No
5m2
Remarks:
Indicator
Status
2
2
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
(Plot size:
Juncus balticus
No
FAC
FAC
Herb Stratum
40 Yes
Poa pratensis
10
0
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
5m2
naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
(Plot size:
Yes
Number of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
significantly disturbed?
Meets hydrophytic vegetation requirement due to predominantly FAC species, but not a wetland due to lack of hydric soil and hydrology indicators.
Remarks:
FACU species
FAC species
OBL species
UPL
2.75
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
0
5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting
=Total Cover
)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?No
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
(Plot size:
40
Total % Cover of:
=Total Cover
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
20
Multiply by:
80
Prevalence Index = B/A =
50
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
UPL species
FACW species
Yes
Sampling Point:
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
06/04/24
Bridger Development
Faith Doty, Christy Pearcy
Upper stream terrace
Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County:
Descurainia pinnata
Meadowcreek loam None
5m2
NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Section 23, T2S, R5E
MT UDP9
Incline
Section, Township, Range:
100.0%
)
5m2 )
Prevalence Index worksheet:
150
40
Project/Site:Meadow Creek
NWI classification:
Dominant
Species?
NAD83
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Datum:
0
Sampling Date:
Taraxacum officinale
Cirsium arvense
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
(Plot size:
=Total Cover
5
No
FACW
45.644064 Long:-111.068228LRR E, MLRA 49
Meets prevalence index due to facultative vegetation.
Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
5
Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Absolute
% Cover
25
275
5
100
=Total Cover
ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
%%Type1 Loc2
100
100
100
50
50
Type:
Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
X
Surface Water Present?Yes
Water Table Present?Yes
Saturation Present?Yes Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X
UDP9SOIL
Granular loam, many roots
Sandy silt loam, small rocks
Sandy silt loam, large rocks
Mixed color layer, large rocks
Remarks
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
No hydric soil indicators.
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
4-11
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Water Marks (B1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Salt Crust (B11)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2
Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Saturation (A3)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
(inches)Color (moist)
10YR 2/1
10YR 2/1
Color (moist)
0-4
Surface Water (A1)
10YR 2/1
10YR 2/1
Matrix
13-16 10YR 3/2
Texture
11-13
Redox FeaturesDepth
Remarks:
Field Observations:
(includes capillary fringe)
No hydrology indicators other than FAC-neutral test.
No
No
No
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E)
Red Parent Material (F21)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic.
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Applicant/Owner:State:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0
Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Yes X No
Yes X No Yes X
Yes X No
)
1.
2.(A)
3.
4.(B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B)
1.
2.
3.
4.x 1 =
5.x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
1.x 5 =
2.Column Totals:(A)(B)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Woody Vine Stratum
1.
2.
Yes X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Tree Stratum
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?No
100
5 No
5m2
Remarks:
Indicator
Status
1
1
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
(Plot size:
Rumex occidentalis
Yes
OBL
FACW
Herb Stratum
0
Mentha arvensis
5
85
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
5m2
naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
(Plot size:
Yes
Number of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
significantly disturbed?
Wetland point on north side of property, near creek.
Remarks:
FACU species
FAC species
OBL species
OBL
1.30
5
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
0
5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting
=Total Cover
)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?No
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
(Plot size:
NoAlopecurus pratensis FAC
5
Total % Cover of:
=Total Cover
20
Multiply by:
10
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5
X 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
X 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
UPL species
FACW species
No
Sampling Point:
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
06/04/24
Bridger Development
Faith Doty, Christy Pearcy
Creek side
Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County:
Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani
Meadowcreek loam PEM1A
5m2
NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Section 23, T2S, R5E
MT WDP1
Flat
Section, Township, Range:
100.0%
)
5m2 )
Prevalence Index worksheet:
15
5
Project/Site:Meadow Creek
NWI classification:
Dominant
Species?
NAD84
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Datum:
85
Sampling Date:
Galium aparine
Potamogeton amplifolius
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
(Plot size:
=Total Cover
80
No
FACW
45.64236 Long:-111.068841LRR E, MLRA 49
Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
5
Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Absolute
% Cover
0
130
0
100
=Total Cover
ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
%%Type1 Loc2
100
100
100
X
Type:
Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
X
X
X
X
Surface Water Present?Yes X
Water Table Present?Yes X
Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No
WDP1SOIL
undcomposed organic matter & roots
faint H2S odor
Remarks
Mucky Loam/Clay
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
0-13" evidences thick layer of loamy-mucky mineral material, greasy-feeling, fibrous.
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
2-13
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Water Marks (B1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Salt Crust (B11)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2
Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Saturation (A3)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
(inches)Color (moist)
10YR 2/1
10YR 2/1
Color (moist)
0-2
Surface Water (A1)
Mucky Loam/Clay
10YR 2/1
Matrix
Texture
13-17 Loamy/Clayey
Redox FeaturesDepth
Remarks:
10
0
Field Observations:
(includes capillary fringe)
Sampling point approximately 2' from creek.
No
No
No
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E)
Red Parent Material (F21)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic.
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Applicant/Owner:State:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0
Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Yes X No
Yes X No Yes X
Yes X No
)
1.
2.(A)
3.
4.(B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B)
1.
2.
3.
4.x 1 =
5.x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
1.x 5 =
2.Column Totals:(A)(B)
3.
4.
5.
6.X
7.X
8.X
9.
10.
11.
Woody Vine Stratum
1.
2.
Yes X
45.644098 Long:-111.068365LRR E, MLRA 49
Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
5
Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Absolute
% Cover
0
155
0
100
=Total Cover
No FAC
FACW
Galium aparine
Potamogeton amplifolius
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
(Plot size:
=Total Cover
Juncus balticus
60
5
No
FACW
5
Project/Site:Meadow Creek
NWI classification:
Dominant
Species?
NAD84
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Datum:
65
Sampling Date:
Typha latifolia
Meadowcreek loam PEM1A
5m2
NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Section 23, T2S, R5E
MT WDP2
Flat
Section, Township, Range:
100.0%
)
5m2 )
Prevalence Index worksheet:
30
Sampling Point:
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
06/04/24
Bridger Development
Faith Doty, Christy Pearcy
Creek side
Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County:
20
Total % Cover of:
=Total Cover
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
20
Multiply by:
40
Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
UPL species
FACW species
No
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
0
5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting
=Total Cover
)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?No
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
(Plot size:
NoAlopecurus pratensis FAC
Remarks:
FACU species
FAC species
No
OBL species
OBL
0 FAC
1.55
5
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
10
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
5m2
naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
(Plot size:
Yes
Number of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
significantly disturbed?
Wetland point on east side of creek, within cattails.
Indicator
Status
1
1
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Cirsium arvense
(Plot size:
Rumex occidentalis
Yes
OBL
FACW
Herb Stratum
5 No
Mentha arvensis
5
65
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Tree Stratum
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?No
100
5 No
Urtica dioica
5m2
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
%%Type1 Loc2
100
100
100
X
Type:
Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
X
X
X
Surface Water Present?Yes X
Water Table Present?Yes X
Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No
2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic.
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E)
Red Parent Material (F21)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
10
0
Field Observations:
(includes capillary fringe)
Sampling point approximately 2' from creek; excavated beneath water level of creek. No water table observed in pit.
No
No
No
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Surface Water (A1)
Mucky Loam/Clay
10YR 2/1
Matrix
Texture
9-16 Loamy/Clayey
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches)Color (moist)
10YR 2/1
10YR 2/1
Color (moist)
0-4
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Water Marks (B1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Salt Crust (B11)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2
Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Saturation (A3)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
0-9" evidences thick layer of loamy-mucky mineral material, greasy-feeling, fibrous.
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
4-9
WDP2SOIL
undcomposed organic matter & roots
silty clay loam, mucky
rounded cobbles, silt loam
Remarks
Mucky Loam/Clay
ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Applicant/Owner:State:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0
Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Yes X No
Yes X No Yes X
Yes X No
)
1.
2.(A)
3.
4.(B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B)
1.
2.
3.
4.x 1 =
5.x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
1.x 5 =
2.Column Totals:(A)(B)
3.
4.
5.
6.X
7.X
8.X
9.
10.
11.
Woody Vine Stratum
1.
2.
Yes X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Tree Stratum
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?No
100
5m2
Remarks:
Indicator
Status
2
2
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
(Plot size:
Cirsium arvense
FAC
FACW
Herb Stratum
10 No
Juncus balticus
30
0
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
5m2
naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
(Plot size:
Yes
Number of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
significantly disturbed?
Wetland point on east side of creek outside of cattail in a Baltic rush dominated community, transitioning to upland to the east.
Remarks:
FACU species
FAC species
OBL species
FACU
2.40
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
0
5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting
=Total Cover
)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?No
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
(Plot size:
60
Total % Cover of:
=Total Cover
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0
Multiply by:
120
Prevalence Index = B/A =
40
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
UPL species
FACW species
Yes
Sampling Point:
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
06/04/24
Bridger Development
Faith Doty, Christy Pearcy
Creek side
Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County:
Taraxacum officinale
Meadowcreek loam PEM1A
5m2
NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Section 23, T2S, R5E
MT WDP3
Flat
Section, Township, Range:
100.0%
)
5m2 )
Prevalence Index worksheet:
120
60
Project/Site:Meadow Creek
NWI classification:
Dominant
Species?
NAD84
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Datum:
0
Sampling Date:
Poa pratensis
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
(Plot size:
=Total Cover
0
Yes
FAC
45.644079 Long:-111.068311LRR E, MLRA 49
Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
0
Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Absolute
% Cover
0
240
0
100
=Total Cover
ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
%%Type1 Loc2
100
100
100
20 70 D M
10 C M
X
Type:
Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
X
X
X
Surface Water Present?Yes X
Water Table Present?Yes X
Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No
WDP3SOIL
Loam, fine and medium roots
Sandy clay loam, small cobbles
Sandy clay loam, large cobbles
Sandy loam
Remarks
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
10YR 5/6
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Meets A11 requirements.
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
4-11
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Water Marks (B1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Salt Crust (B11)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2
Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Saturation (A3)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
(inches)Color (moist)
10YR 2/1
10YR 2/1
Color (moist)
10YR 4/2
0-4
Surface Water (A1)
Loamy/Clayey
10YR 2/1
Matrix
13-16 10YR 2/1
Texture
11-13 Loamy/Clayey
Redox FeaturesDepth
Remarks:
Field Observations:
(includes capillary fringe)
Lacking primary hydrology indicators
No
No
No
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E)
Red Parent Material (F21)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic.
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Applicant/Owner:State:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0
Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Yes X No
Yes X No Yes X
Yes X No
)
1.
2.(A)
3.
4.(B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B)
1.
2.
3.
4.x 1 =
5.x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
1.x 5 =
2.Column Totals:(A)(B)
3.
4.
5.
6.X
7.X
8.X
9.
10.
11.
Woody Vine Stratum
1.
2.
Yes X
45.646266 Long:-111.068362LRR E, MLRA 49
Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
0
Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Absolute
% Cover
0
140
0
100
=Total Cover
Carex nebrascensis
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
(Plot size:
=Total Cover
35
No
FACW
55
Project/Site:Meadow Creek
NWI classification:
Dominant
Species?
NAD84
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Datum:
60
Sampling Date:
Phalaris arundinacea
Meadowcreek Loam RP1SS
5m2
NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Section 23, T2S, R5E
MT WDP4
Flat
Section, Township, Range:
100.0%
)
5m2 )
Prevalence Index worksheet:
0
Sampling Point:
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
06/04/24
Bridger Development
Faith Doty, Christy Pearcy
Stream terrace
Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County:
40
Total % Cover of:
=Total Cover
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0
Multiply by:
80
Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
UPL species
FACW species
Yes
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
0
5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting
=Total Cover
)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?No
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
(Plot size:
Remarks:
FACU species
FAC species
OBL species
FACW
1.40
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
5m2
naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
(Plot size:
Yes
Number of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
significantly disturbed?
Emergent wetland fringe to shrub wetland along waterway.
Indicator
Status
2
2
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
(Plot size:
Mentha arvensis
Yes
OBL
OBL
Herb Stratum
5 No
Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani
5
60
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Tree Stratum
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?No
100
5m2
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
%%Type1 Loc2
100
100
100
X
Type:
Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
X
X
X
X
X
X
Surface Water Present?Yes X
Water Table Present?Yes X
Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes ####No ####
2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic.
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E)
Red Parent Material (F21)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
4
0
Field Observations:
(includes capillary fringe)
Stream nearby.
No
No
No
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Surface Water (A1)
Mucky Loam/Clay
10YR 2/1
Matrix
Texture
8-16 Loamy/Clayey
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches)Color (moist)
10YR 2/1
10YR 2/1
Color (moist)
0-6
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Water Marks (B1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Salt Crust (B11)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2
Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Saturation (A3)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Thick layer of mucky mineral loam, greasy-feeling, fibrous.
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
6-8
WDP4SOIL
loamy mucky mineral, undecomposed plant matter
mucky mineral loam
Clay loam
Remarks
Mucky Loam/Clay
ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Applicant/Owner:State:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0
Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Yes X No
Yes X No Yes X
Yes X No
)
1.
2.(A)
3.
4.(B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B)
1.
2.
3.
4.x 1 =
5.x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
1.x 5 =
2.Column Totals:(A)(B)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.X
8.X
9.
10.
11.
Woody Vine Stratum
1.
2.
Yes X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Tree Stratum
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?No
Yes
30
10 Yes
5m2
Remarks:
Indicator
Status
3
3
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
(Plot size:
Mentha arvensis
OBL
OBL
Herb Stratum
0
Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani
5
20
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
5m2
naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
(Plot size:
Yes
Number of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:FACW
significantly disturbed?
PSS1 wetland following stream
Remarks:
FACU species
FAC species
OBL species
FACW
1.90
5
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
0
5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting
=Total Cover
)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?No
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
(Plot size:
NoSchoenoplectus amplifolius OBL
70
Total % Cover of:
=Total Cover
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0
Multiply by:
140
Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
UPL species
FACW species
Yes
Sampling Point:
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
06/04/24
Bridger Development
Faith Doty, Christy Pearcy
Stream terrace
Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County:
Phalaris arundinacea
Meadowcreek Loam RP1SS
5m2
NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Section 23, T2S, R5E
MT WDP5
Flat
Section, Township, Range:
100.0%
)
5m2 )
Prevalence Index worksheet:
30
10
Project/Site:Meadow Creek
NWI classification:
Dominant
Species?
70
5
65
FACW
NAD84
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Datum:
20
Sampling Date:
Equisetum arvense
Carex nebrascensis
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
(Plot size:
Alnus viridis
Salix bebbiana
No
=Total Cover
0
No
FACW
45.646268 Long:-111.068411LRR E, MLRA 49
Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
0
Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Absolute
% Cover
0
190
0
100
=Total Cover
ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
%%Type1 Loc2
100
100
100
X
Type:
Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
X
X
X
X
X
X
Surface Water Present?Yes X
Water Table Present?Yes X
Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No
WDP5SOIL
loamy mucky mineral, undecomposed plant matter
mucky mineral loam
Sandy loam
Remarks
Mucky Loam/Clay
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Thick layer of mucky mineral loam, greasy-feeling, fibrous.
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
6-8
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Water Marks (B1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Salt Crust (B11)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2
Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Saturation (A3)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
(inches)Color (moist)
10YR 2/1
10YR 2/1
Color (moist)
0-6
Surface Water (A1)
Mucky Loam/Clay
10YR 2/1
Matrix
Texture
8-16 Loamy/Clayey
Redox FeaturesDepth
Remarks:
4
0
Field Observations:
(includes capillary fringe)
Stream aproximately 4' away.
No
No
No
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E)
Red Parent Material (F21)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic.
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Applicant/Owner:State:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0
Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Yes X No
Yes X No Yes X
Yes X No
)
1.
2.(A)
3.
4.(B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B)
1.
2.
3.
4.x 1 =
5.x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
1.x 5 =
2.Column Totals:(A)(B)
3.
4.
5.
6.X
7.X
8.X
9.
10.
11.
Woody Vine Stratum
1.
2.
Yes X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Tree Stratum
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?No
100
0
5m2
Remarks:
Indicator
Status
2
2
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
(Plot size:
Mentha arvensis
No
FACW
OBL
Herb Stratum
5 No
Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani
40
50
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
5m2
naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
(Plot size:
Yes
Number of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
significantly disturbed?
West side of creek, stream terrace slightly above culvert inlet.
Remarks:
FACU species
FAC species
OBL species
FAC
1.55
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
0
5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting
=Total Cover
)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?No
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
(Plot size:
45
Total % Cover of:
=Total Cover
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0
Multiply by:
90
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
UPL species
FACW species
Yes
Sampling Point:
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
06/04/24
Bridger Development
Faith Doty, Christy Pearcy
Stream terrace
Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County:
Equisetum arvense
Meadowcreek loam PEM1A
5m2
NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Section 23, T2S, R5E
MT WDP6
Flat
Section, Township, Range:
100.0%
)
5m2 )
Prevalence Index worksheet:
15
50
Project/Site:Meadow Creek
NWI classification:
Dominant
Species?
NAD84
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Datum:
50
Sampling Date:
Geum macrophyllum
Juncus balticus
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
(Plot size:
=Total Cover
5
Yes
FACW
45.645456 Long:-111.06825LRR E, MLRA 49
Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
0
Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Absolute
% Cover
0
155
0
100
=Total Cover
ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
%%Type1 Loc2
100
100
X
Type:
Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
X
X
X
Surface Water Present?Yes X
Water Table Present?Yes X
Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No
WDP6SOIL
Mucky mineral loam
Silt loam
Remarks
Loamy/Clayey
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
0-6" evidences layer of loamy-mucky mineral material, greasy-feeling, fibrous.
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
6-16
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Water Marks (B1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Salt Crust (B11)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2
Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Saturation (A3)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
(inches)Color (moist)
10YR 2/1
10YR 2/1
Color (moist)
0-6
Surface Water (A1)
Mucky Loam/Clay
Matrix
Texture
Redox FeaturesDepth
Remarks:
9
Field Observations:
(includes capillary fringe)
No
No
No
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E)
Red Parent Material (F21)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic.
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation 6475.007
13 | Page
APPENDIX C: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
N:\6475\007 - Meadow Creek\04 Design\Reports\Wetland Delineation\Field Data\Photos
Meadow Creek Wetland DelineationBozeman, Montana
Photo Date: June 4, 2024
Photo 1: WDP1 at the south end of the subject property, facing north.
Photo 2: View of loamy mucky mineral soil at WDP1.
N:\6475\007 - Meadow Creek\04 Design\Reports\Wetland Delineation\Field Data\Photos
Meadow Creek Wetland DelineationBozeman, Montana
Photo Date: June 4, 2024
Photo 3: WDP2 featuring typha latifolia, facing north.
Photo 4: Excavated soil pit at WDP2.
N:\6475\007 - Meadow Creek\04 Design\Reports\Wetland Delineation\Field Data\Photos
Meadow Creek Wetland DelineationBozeman, Montana
Photo Date: June 4, 2024
Photo 5: Vegetation at WDP3.
Photo 6 and Photo 7: Excavated soil pit at WDP3 featuring depletions and redox concentrations (left).
N:\6475\007 - Meadow Creek\04 Design\Reports\Wetland Delineation\Field Data\Photos
Meadow Creek Wetland DelineationBozeman, Montana
Photo Date: June 4, 2024
Photo 8: WDP6, facing west.
Photo 9: View of water exiting the property via a culvert at the north end of the property (December 2023).
N:\6475\007 - Meadow Creek\04 Design\Reports\Wetland Delineation\Field Data\Photos
Meadow Creek Wetland DelineationBozeman, Montana
Photo Date: June 4, 2024
Photo 10: UDP1.
Photo 11: View of excavated soil at UDP1.
N:\6475\007 - Meadow Creek\04 Design\Reports\Wetland Delineation\Field Data\Photos
Meadow Creek Wetland DelineationBozeman, Montana
Photo Date: June 4, 2024
Photo 12: UDP2.
Photo 13: View of soil pit at UDP2.
N:\6475\007 - Meadow Creek\04 Design\Reports\Wetland Delineation\Field Data\Photos
Meadow Creek Wetland DelineationBozeman, Montana
Photo Date: June 4, 2024
Photo 14: UDP3.
Photo 15: View of soil pit at UDP3.
N:\6475\007 - Meadow Creek\04 Design\Reports\Wetland Delineation\Field Data\Photos
Meadow Creek Wetland DelineationBozeman, Montana
Photo Date: June 4, 2024
Photo 16: UDP4.
Photo 17: UDP5.
N:\6475\007 - Meadow Creek\04 Design\Reports\Wetland Delineation\Field Data\Photos
Meadow Creek Wetland DelineationBozeman, Montana
Photo Date: June 4, 2024
Photo 18 and Photo 19: Excavated soil at UDP5 and UDP6 respectively.
Photo 20: UDP6.
N:\6475\007 - Meadow Creek\04 Design\Reports\Wetland Delineation\Field Data\Photos
Meadow Creek Wetland DelineationBozeman, Montana
Photo Date: June 4, 2024
Photo 21: UDP7.
Photo 22: Excavated soil at UDP7.
N:\6475\007 - Meadow Creek\04 Design\Reports\Wetland Delineation\Field Data\Photos
Meadow Creek Wetland DelineationBozeman, Montana
Photo Date: June 4, 2024
Photo 23: UDP8.
Photo 24: Excavated soil at UDP8.
N:\6475\007 - Meadow Creek\04 Design\Reports\Wetland Delineation\Field Data\Photos
Meadow Creek Wetland DelineationBozeman, Montana
Photo Date: June 4, 2024
Photo 25: UDP9.
Photo 26: Excavated soil at UDP9.
Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation 6475.007
14 | Page
APPENDIX D: CORRESPONDENCE
From:Becky Clements
To:Faith Doty
Subject:Re: Request for information - Meadow creek
Date:Monday, January 8, 2024 1:43:35 PM
Attachments:image001.pngimage002.png
***This message originated from an External Source.*** Please use proper judgment and caution
when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this message.
Hi Faith. Here's what the team had to say:
I think the best course of action here is to identify the creek as an "unnamed tributary". The factthat water was flowing there last week indicates that it is jurisdictional. If Faith/Morrison-Maiere have a development plan, then she should submit a 310 application.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Kindly,
Becky Clements
District Administrator
Gallatin Conservation District
406-282-4350
gallatincd.org
On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 11:23 AM Faith Doty <fdoty@m-m.net> wrote:
Hi Becky,
Have you or your team had a chance to review this?
Thank you,
Faith
Faith Doty
Environmental Scientist, Morrison-Maierle
+14069226772 direct | +14065895217 mobile
A 100% Employee-Owned Company
From: Faith Doty Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 11:56 AMTo: Becky Clements <becky@gallatincd.org>Subject: RE: Request for information - Meadow creek
I forgot to include this, if it’s helpful.
Faith DotyEnvironmental Scientist, Morrison-Maierle
+14069226772 direct | +14065895217 mobile
A 100% Employee-Owned Company
From: Faith Doty Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 11:02 AMTo: becky@gallatincd.orgCc: Christine A. Pearcy <cpearcy@m-m.net>Subject: Request for information - Meadow creek
Hi Becky,
Would you please verify the jurisdiction and identification of a water feature that passes
through the Meadow Creek development (see attached map)? The waterway enters the
property at 45.642101812127464, -111.06876072115588, near Blackwood Drive.
The waterway was flowing northwards when I visited the site last week. USGS maps the
feature as flowing into the Farmer’s canal, north of the property.
Let me know if you need any more information or a site visit. Thank you!
Faith
Faith Doty
Environmental Scientist, Morrison-Maierle
+14069226772 direct | +14065895217 mobile2880 Technology Blvd W, Bozeman, MT 59718
A 100% Employee-Owned Company
Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation 6475.007
15 | Page
APPENDIX E: NRCS SOIL REPORT
United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Gallatin County
Area, Montana
Meadow Creek
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
June 7, 2024
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.
They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information
about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for
many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban
planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.
Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste
disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand,
protect, or enhance the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose
special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil
properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.
The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of
soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for
identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area
planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some
cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/
portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering
applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center
(https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil
Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?
cid=nrcs142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as
septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to
basements or underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States
Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its
programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability,
and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion,
sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a
part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not
all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require
2
alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice
and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of
Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or
call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity
provider and employer.
3
Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................2
How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5
Soil Map..................................................................................................................8
Soil Map................................................................................................................9
Legend................................................................................................................10
Map Unit Legend................................................................................................11
Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11
Gallatin County Area, Montana.......................................................................13
457A—Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes.......................13
510B—Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes......................................14
Soil Information for All Uses...............................................................................16
Suitabilities and Limitations for Use....................................................................16
Land Classifications........................................................................................16
Hydric Rating by Map Unit (Meadow Creek)...............................................16
References............................................................................................................21
4
How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous
areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous
areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and
limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length,
and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and
native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil
profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The
profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the
soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is
devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other
biological activity.
Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource
areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that
share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water
resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey
areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.
The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that
is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the
area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind
of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and
miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific
segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they
were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict
with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a
specific location on the landscape.
Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their
characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil
scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only
a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented
by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to
verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.
Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They
noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock
fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them
to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their
properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).
Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil
characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for
comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic
classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character
of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil
5
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the
individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that
they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and
research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the
objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that
have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a
unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable
proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components
of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way
diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such
landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite
investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of
mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape,
and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the
soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at
specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller
number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.
These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color,
depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for
content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil
typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of
characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct
measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit
component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other
properties.
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally
are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists
interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed
characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the
soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through
observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.
Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new
interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other
sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of
specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management
are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same
kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on
such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over
long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example,
soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will
have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict
that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the
survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and
Custom Soil Resource Report
6
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings,
fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
Custom Soil Resource Report
7
Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of
soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.
8
9
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
505423050543205054410505450050545905054680505477050548605054950505423050543205054410505450050545905054680505477050548605054950494340 494430 494520 494610 494700 494790 494880
494340 494430 494520 494610 494700 494790 494880
45° 38' 54'' N 111° 4' 22'' W45° 38' 54'' N111° 3' 55'' W45° 38' 28'' N
111° 4' 22'' W45° 38' 28'' N
111° 3' 55'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84
0 150 300 600 900Feet
0 50 100 200 300Meters
Map Scale: 1:3,780 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area, Montana
Survey Area Data: Version 27, Aug 25, 2023
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 18, 2022—Aug
29, 2022
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Custom Soil Resource Report
10
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
457A Turner loam, moderately wet, 0
to 2 percent slopes
3.0 12.0%
510B Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4
percent slopes
22.3 88.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 25.3 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the
soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along
with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the
landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the
characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some
observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without
including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made
up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor
components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They
generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the
scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas
are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a
given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit
descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor
components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not
mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it
was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and
miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the
usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate
pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or
landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The
delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however,
Custom Soil Resource Report
11
onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous
areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.
Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil
properties and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major
horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness,
salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the
basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas
shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase
commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha
silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.
The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar
in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present
or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered
practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The
pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat
similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas
that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion
of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can
be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made
up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil
material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
Custom Soil Resource Report
12
Gallatin County Area, Montana
457A—Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 56tb
Elevation: 4,300 to 5,200 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F
Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Turner and similar soils:85 percent
Minor components:15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Turner
Setting
Landform:Stream terraces
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Parent material:Alluvium
Typical profile
A - 0 to 6 inches: loam
Bt - 6 to 12 inches: clay loam
Bk - 12 to 26 inches: clay loam
2C - 26 to 60 inches: very gravelly loamy sand
Properties and qualities
Slope:0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table:About 48 to 96 inches
Frequency of flooding:None
Frequency of ponding:None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent
Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: R044BB032MT - Loamy (Lo) LRU 01 Subset B
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Beaverton
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces
Custom Soil Resource Report
13
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Ecological site:R044BP818MT - Upland Grassland
Hydric soil rating: No
Meadowcreek
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Landform:Stream terraces
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Ecological site:R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland
Hydric soil rating: No
Turner
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Landform:Stream terraces
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Ecological site:R044BB032MT - Loamy (Lo) LRU 01 Subset B
Hydric soil rating: No
510B—Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 56vt
Elevation: 4,200 to 5,950 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F
Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Meadowcreek and similar soils:85 percent
Minor components:15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Meadowcreek
Setting
Landform:Stream terraces
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Parent material:Alluvium
Typical profile
A - 0 to 11 inches: loam
Bg - 11 to 25 inches: silt loam
2C - 25 to 60 inches: very gravelly sand
Properties and qualities
Slope:0 to 4 percent
Custom Soil Resource Report
14
Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Somewhat poorly drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table:About 24 to 42 inches
Frequency of flooding:None
Frequency of ponding:None
Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Blossberg
Percent of map unit:10 percent
Landform:Terraces
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Ecological site:R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Beaverton
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Ecological site:R044BP818MT - Upland Grassland
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
15
Soil Information for All Uses
Suitabilities and Limitations for Use
The Suitabilities and Limitations for Use section includes various soil interpretations
displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the
selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by
aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This
aggregation process is defined for each interpretation.
Land Classifications
Land Classifications are specified land use and management groupings that are
assigned to soil areas because combinations of soil have similar behavior for
specified practices. Most are based on soil properties and other factors that directly
influence the specific use of the soil. Example classifications include ecological site
classification, farmland classification, irrigated and nonirrigated land capability
classification, and hydric rating.
Hydric Rating by Map Unit (Meadow Creek)
This rating indicates the percentage of map units that meets the criteria for hydric
soils. Map units are composed of one or more map unit components or soil types,
each of which is rated as hydric soil or not hydric. Map units that are made up
dominantly of hydric soils may have small areas of minor nonhydric components in
the higher positions on the landform, and map units that are made up dominantly of
nonhydric soils may have small areas of minor hydric components in the lower
positions on the landform. Each map unit is rated based on its respective
components and the percentage of each component within the map unit.
The thematic map is color coded based on the composition of hydric components.
The five color classes are separated as 100 percent hydric components, 66 to 99
percent hydric components, 33 to 65 percent hydric components, 1 to 32 percent
hydric components, and less than one percent hydric components.
In Web Soil Survey, the Summary by Map Unit table that is displayed below the
map pane contains a column named 'Rating'. In this column the percentage of each
map unit that is classified as hydric is displayed.
16
Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils
(NTCHS) as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding
long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the
upper part (Federal Register, 1994). Under natural conditions, these soils are either
saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to support the
growth and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation.
The NTCHS definition identifies general soil properties that are associated with
wetness. In order to determine whether a specific soil is a hydric soil or nonhydric
soil, however, more specific information, such as information about the depth and
duration of the water table, is needed. Thus, criteria that identify those estimated
soil properties unique to hydric soils have been established (Federal Register,
2002). These criteria are used to identify map unit components that normally are
associated with wetlands. The criteria used are selected estimated soil properties
that are described in "Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 1999) and "Keys to Soil
Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 2006) and in the "Soil Survey Manual" (Soil Survey
Division Staff, 1993).
If soils are wet enough for a long enough period of time to be considered hydric,
they should exhibit certain properties that can be easily observed in the field. These
visible properties are indicators of hydric soils. The indicators used to make onsite
determinations of hydric soils are specified in "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the
United States" (Hurt and Vasilas, 2006).
References:
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric
soils in the United States.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18.
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for
making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation
Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436.
Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Custom Soil Resource Report
17
18
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map—Hydric Rating by Map Unit (Meadow Creek)505423050543205054410505450050545905054680505477050548605054950505423050543205054410505450050545905054680505477050548605054950494340 494430 494520 494610 494700 494790 494880
494340 494430 494520 494610 494700 494790 494880
45° 38' 54'' N 111° 4' 22'' W45° 38' 54'' N111° 3' 55'' W45° 38' 28'' N
111° 4' 22'' W45° 38' 28'' N
111° 3' 55'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84
0 150 300 600 900Feet
0 50 100 200 300Meters
Map Scale: 1:3,780 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
Hydric (100%)
Hydric (66 to 99%)
Hydric (33 to 65%)
Hydric (1 to 32%)
Not Hydric (0%)
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
Hydric (100%)
Hydric (66 to 99%)
Hydric (33 to 65%)
Hydric (1 to 32%)
Not Hydric (0%)
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
Hydric (100%)
Hydric (66 to 99%)
Hydric (33 to 65%)
Hydric (1 to 32%)
Not Hydric (0%)
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area, Montana
Survey Area Data: Version 27, Aug 25, 2023
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 18, 2022—Aug
29, 2022
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Custom Soil Resource Report
19
Table—Hydric Rating by Map Unit (Meadow Creek)
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
457A Turner loam, moderately
wet, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
0 3.0 12.0%
510B Meadowcreek loam, 0 to
4 percent slopes
10 22.3 88.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 25.3 100.0%
Rating Options—Hydric Rating by Map Unit (Meadow Creek)
Aggregation Method: Percent Present
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Lower
Custom Soil Resource Report
20
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling
and testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of
soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric
soils in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for
making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577
Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands
Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/
home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/
detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084
21
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States,
the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook
296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?
cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf
Custom Soil Resource Report
22