The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About013 - 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 Morrison ■■ . � Maierle engineers surveyors planners scientists CONTENTS 1 Executive Summary...............................................................................................................................................1 2 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................................2 2.1 Purpose and Scope.....................................................................................................................................2 2.2 Background Information..........................................................................................................................2 2.2.1 Aeriallmagery.........................................................................................................................................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 i � P a g e �� Morrison � Maierle 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 ii � P a g e �� Morrison � Maierle Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation 6475.007 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 24t" Avenue in Bozeman, MT. The property, within the Meadow Creek Subdivision, is described legally as: 523, 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. 1 � P a g e �� Morrison � Maierle Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation 6475.007 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: 523, 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). 2 � P a g e �� Morrison � Maierle Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation 6475.007 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 3 � P a g e �� Morrison � Maierle /lea ree lanc elineation 6475.007 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: ■ Rp1 SS: 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 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. 4 � P a g e �� Morrison � Maierle Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation 6475.007 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 30031 C0814D 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 5 � P a g e �� Morrison � Maierle " " ' �w C� ' '"" �' ' C' '� �ea�� 6475.007 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). 6 � P a g e �� Morrison � Maierle 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 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 Ra id test F1 A2, D2*,D5* UDP1 Dominance test is >_50%, None D5� Prevalence index is <_3.0 UDP2 Dominance test is >_50% None None UDP3 Dominance test is >_50% None None Wetland A(PEM1A) UDP4 Dominance test is >_50%, None D5* Prevalence index is <_3.0 UDPS Dominance test is >_50% None None UDP6 Dominance test is >_50%, None D5* Prevalence index is <_3.0 UDP7 Dominance test is >_50%, None D5* Prevalence index is <_3.0 UDP8 Dominance test is >_50%, None D5� Prevalence index is <_3.0 UDP9 Dominance test is >_50%, None D5� Prevalence index is <_3.0 WDPS Dominance test is >_50%, F1 A2,A3, B9,D2*, D5*,D6* Wetland B(PSS7) Prevalence index is <_3.0 UDPS 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 ba(ticus) ■ Broad leaf cattail (Typha (atifo(ia) ■ Reed canarygrass (Pha(aris arundinacea). • Soft stem bulrush (Schoenop(ectus tabernaemontaini) � � P a g e �� Morrison � Maierle " " ' '� ek V�' �Jand � '�neation 64;� "", 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 (Sa(ix bebbiana) with lesser amounts of green alder (Afnus 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. 8 � P a g e �� Morrison � Maierle Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation 6475.007 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 WetlandA Freshwateremergent PEM1A 1.63 - wetland Wetland B Freshwater emergent PSS1 0.92 - scrub-shrub wetland Unnamed tributary Riverine Riverine - 2,519 Total waterway length: 2,519 feet** Total wetland area: 2.55 acres* *Wetfand area is ca(cufated as a whofe and inc(udes the area of the waterway, where present. **Water fines were gathered in the fiefd using a handhe(d GPS with sub-meter accuracy and subsequent(y postprocessed and refined in ArcPro. However, due to extensive tree cover in the northern section of the investigation area, these water fines may(ack precision. For the most accurate bank fines and to assess any potentiaf impacts accuratefy, we recommend obtaining a survey conducted by a (icensed 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. 9 � P a g e �� Morrison � Maierle Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation 6475.007 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. Munse((Soi( Co(or 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.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/use/hydric/?cid=nres142p2_05396 1 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. 10 � P a g e �� Morrison � Maierle Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation 6475.007 APPENDIX A: FIGURES 11 � P a g e �� Morrison � Maierle � , � � W Oak St = W Oak St s ��—J� Z ��L �' � L �� a � �� Z Z ; �� N Annie St � Z Subject Property � � n � > 5est I- I �� S r � D � m Z — Durston Rd ��-__ —_. � II II � I� MONTANA v ; W Villard St I)� � � � Bozeman High m V r � > � > a sonoo�& Q > L � Bridger -c t � - fD "' � Z o � Alternative High � rn r W Beall St � �� JI r�l II II r � = Z School Z Z �I z E Lllmme St �L u u��u �� 1 IW Mendenhall St I � �-V11-M�a i n-S t ------ ___—W-M a i n-S t-_--= B O Z@ 1'Yl a Il —I'E=M-a�i n,S t k St �� N Babcock St � W Babcock St �� ' I I o Ll�C7 DI��_ �U��u u I�J IJ� L W Olive St r �� n I O ��"�"�` W Curtiss St �1❑�e � �I� il /�nn�� ` I / nr�r I I /��rl� / II II I�� II�J� � r� � � / /r W Koch St ��" W Koch St '� I L / � "" " " / Ll ��LJ��LL W Story St �'J ��lu' in Valley � I� II� ��u� W Dickerson St II ] Sunset Hills I�a 5K' , �� °' �� W qlderson St II � ��I Cemetery � __�noD��- --- �a;�� — Q— — a �armers'Canal W College St = o� W College St - '� � I '� Gallagator y � a ;� � Linear � -' �� << _ � r = a d �p 3 � '6 1 = a — cq D > L ,.,,._..�._�� . ii � a � u�i /II J LJ Q��a M y y - ,n�� Burke Park a � � r Q � m s L rn � W Grant St d = y L,J i � a W Lincoln St °' I �� J- W 7 I 1 � o F � I I i i �� / � � c � � � �� I �� s �L � W Kagy Blvd � W Kagy Blvd � � �� 345 � �� a, ¢,� ', a' �� FKagY Blvd E KagY B/�a s C5 0 '� � � 1 I I �� y �\�� y m � �� Q � �� // � Valley View Golf � Arnold St Club N � � o c y 3 N m D � U � � � I �n�i � < � WG afSt y n r� aQ - ��1C-I � . � 00� � m � � �� .��n �� l uLJ C )r — 1 Meadow Creek Shady Lane � ` � Park ( J �� , a11�or ., Meadow Cr ek � I�I Sundance � � Springs Park O'� y �� > � a a „ � � � a M � L y � n� 3 � pitch Goldenstein Ln Goldenstein Ln � M dd�e Creek m m � Legend � 0 800 1,600 3,200 N � Subject Property ¢' Feet A L Patterson � 1 Engineering Place DRAWN BY:FD PROJECT NO. �� Morrison Helena,MTsssoz CHK'DBY CP VICINITY MAP � M a i e r I e Phone:(406)442-3050 APPR BY CP COPVRIGHTa�O�MORRI50N4 AER621NC.,2023 DATE:12/14/2023 MEADOW CREEKAQUATIC FEATURE REVIEW FIG.1 N:\6475\007-Meadow Creek\GIS\Meadow Creeka rx i �• ,-�tk ; . � ' � � � ., � ' � �7� ,� I 1 . t • , � � � � ►..-�-— � � � � I -_—- 1 .-__ a;:V: :_ '_��i � � � , , l, � -� .. , - � , � �,. m r �--. i .. . _ i i s� : }• ' - . ;; ;-d, _ 1_ .. , �.9t1� • � . ... _ • __ L - a,ws�o�► ,ea�o • 978 4 T' •� .� �• �.� � ; _� rti ,r - , 7� _ _ - �•► - -` `- --1 L . � � r - ----�r. . , . .- . •; • • - • . . � -- : �� . 'r I � 1 � - � � ., � ' I • � � I '!. I l7s7*�� , '� � ' _ . � • • : .}� � �,` i. l. , � • -- - ' � +- �f I � r_ � I \ . I I '`�►1;-�:'� ♦ 1 � � �� / •2�� j � � � r a � 7 � . ,�] � � � r---� --�� - , ` . � , • i i ' ,_k _ $ : �-- . � . �r � � . � # ., :, ` � � � • ' 'rip:l(�� . . � . � , n�: _: ccc - � --rt- - ' �»• ( • � Pai� � � ' ( - - A(A!N S /}e • r� .�, � ---"�- � , '7O�� T ' t • ••• . , i ��I. . . � L-- �� /�, �----- ��'� � '--_ � ��f•• �' . �- �'. - ��.�t--�� ,;-.—�i .;''�'��' �r-� _-:s � -- f _ .�__, _� -- - -I-� .,. Y.2 � -. � - �. � . + ��-- �!-M ' � � - - , � i: - _ --, .�__ ,r . :- -_. ::� _ - , � � �' � •� ; ; ; . � 1 i r� }� � � � • � I: . I "BQG�� .� � �; � � �I ' � L' I { • I I�.�{ . / 1 �.. � ;1 W l v � � l.r 1 7 ' �� ♦ • iM " __.l� �. _ , .r .. 1 �-� �' ,.`- ' =i• ` . I , T- st--a i- � '�. i � � �t �'•'�• ( ~' ' �• `^¢ ( -- - � . • � '�- , -=-_� e � • I - ' • �� ' � ,._'._ ' /� � ..... ' ` - ' ' � I I : �� . ,• I � . __ . . ' • 98 7 � ~ `� ' �t 't � - ` - - -- - - ' -��-= • � --- ..—_ -_ ' - �� -- , • .•�• ', ' 4d64� . , - - - , �~�� - .� ��' ' , __! � � � _, .«f��re, ./tI" � . N St elh+lvc*s�tv ' • r l , I �o�k � ' _ ;�`, � ��" -�-- � _ �,..,, � _— � , •� � .�''�-�-�- - \ . ' I I �1 ,.'� �, ;.�_ .- � ;� � � _ �� ' - - _:"' ' _ • -�•� : - .,r�• ^ � 1! � ::T �. � ' � ,� � ,, � � ~ 7 ��[ � , i ,. �- � I , � � � � '�, 1� .. , . � �; , i . 9:�'_�.: T . � - - � _ - - -- � � -- :,• " p " y�� i a , _ -- - - - - i� . :_�,_ � �•�::f;'`'��- ��, i � • . • �� v (O� �� , , . ;�• • �1 � I • I I • � � � �•' /' � ' •��, f • i I • � � �, ��.` I _ ; I � • • � � �•�1:' / I' _- I ( � +�. . � • � . � i. . • . I�J • ', � .• j :,� ' � ;,.�,�..�r 49L19Ti� � . _ - - '+ - - - •-- .. ' .:.- --�- - I � - �� } • , , _ ; ■' i � I � � L--+--=�, � � ;�, � � �493�T I •��'.I , 4.991 T, � � � � .� •� � �--- - -_-- --�—_ _ - - ,. : .� = ..�- ,. ��- �. � .• _ . � -_ � � `� i 't. . . �' i /�� i � •� �, ; , �, �� ' ,�. : � � . � � � ' � ''� � � .`4 �• .. r•------ �.r- - r � : .� -' . �1)- 1 I � � � I '• ' �, , �� . . , . � � ' " - � ,<_ - - — �t97G�.; -- �- -- . � z-Z70 - . . �; -, , �r: � � - , _ -� -— - - ' � ^� , � � Itj- -- - r- ro - , ..-------- ----1�5 . j.. C.� — ---'" � , � = i �_ - � � � , �---_ . . � , - , � �_�. �, � -- - -- - �� , ,__ . -� .. � � __ --_ � r � , __ � '�i: , � i ., - o , -��: _ .:",��9 T • . , , . �'I . . _ , - � " - -,,_ � SO/4 T �'; .�. . � _ _ , — . _ •y_ — _ � , , • �: • -i . �_ � �- �, • ".� . � _,. � � . . .-;. ,_ � • .: • ;'. I i � •�. - � . - - - � I '� � � , i i QM � � ' � _,�SOa� ,� � — — — — — � Sa59 T - ' � _ " : . � _ _ . e=�- ,� ', r--- j /�. . . � �' - I _ �I i . � �i• . y � � i I � � . - ' - ^ � -- �.- M� � � � d t� ---- • - - :T_ " — - , �J� --� Legend �-_ 0 Subject Property 1 `�t '�� National Hydrology Dataset Flowline � �� ' Connector Sng�T , •�5090T _ _ CanalDitch ;�•. • ' � � StreamRiver l � • 0 800 1,600 3,200 N - ArtificialPath � ' _ ,, �, , . Feet A o �— - � � - ' �- - - �r - '� � 2 — ' .iu 1 Engineering Place DRAWN BY:FD PROJECT NO. �� Morrison Helena,MT59602 CHK'DBY CP TOPOGRAPHIC MAP 10497.001 � M a i e r I e Phone:(406)442-3050 APPR BY CP COPVRIGHTa�O�MORRI50N4 AER621NC.,2023 DATE:6/15/2023 MEADOW CREEKAQUATIC FEATURE REVIEW FIG.2 N:\6475\007-Meadow Creek\GIS\Meadow Creeka rx � �� _ .o� - ti ! v � , 'f�`" ' O f IYCUW i. I: . `."' , �f' �� f _ �, , �.,�;� .1� � � �t �, ' . --. �,'i �� . �' ,v'�� ' � 1 � � . �, _ � � i ♦ !' ♦� 6 , L. . �-.�, • � :'I f� x =� ' f • ,/ /�I � � •( i. � ��' � � !� .�, . .f, �� .,t .��1,.� . ^Y� i ,QI.) ��• /L, � � aQ��Q' ' • ' vr'' ` ,�� ,� r� •� , • j./�. /�, �: ° � ,;, �; ' ,�. .,L ��, �. e � J w � • �_ , � , �� , - . k � _�� '` • . . _ _ � �•ylt.,' j ►�� ^ ArF_ ��:� -- _ - � � _" ! '�` . a�� `� � 4 � ,i' '�,, � l . j. '�� d� . . � ��>-'�=- . . g _ ,P:, �". �� ,_ ,� �.� �,� � � R�, � -- - « �� . r , � . y � . , � ; +�!'y+� � b • - J�� ' ,` �.: .. . . . ' ' r / y _'. ' - '_ �! �;',t�� f i � �� . . �' VL°AWAUI•.lil�'A�1l�C.AA1W Vl! . o Q �� E�� ` iy/ .. '� . r , , ��.�. Q �-•. i� ��,` ,��" r. .' a /'� � 'i� e � � ■ f ' �� .4.' • ► i r � ' �� , /r? , l.' � ` .�,` ' � � � .,��1 � �• f , ��, / � p � . � � r .� ` •,_.. .�' y:�, Q � -_---..-t-r.=.�:T-,--....... �'.o �� . '• �� •r � � ��- �:y,, �� .j� � � ,- _ - �� ` / � � << �� _1�� / a :� � ih;A��F� ..t.�_. ' ., I �R �,�� '�' � � ' ' Y f,, <:•��1 _ — �, � � �i, . "�i � � ` , � r!a � . � i . - .. ' - - 1�� ..�' ��.--- % y � ' �' , ' ' �r , 1 � * � � �e "-_ � ! � � ' s , w_ .T� � . -. - ' � � � ' . r , . .,/ . . . ': •1e� -L' _ • . -- � ,N - � .. �..�€ 1 +� �.. , �. �� i .. � ,�' � ,� � � � �1/ �� 'c _ _ � � � ' , <. '� � � r, �• ... i,��i- � �,�1.� � 'I Jr-� ! . � � . . 7: � � \ �;:,�� .. _ _ __a. . 1� ' �i y • <'�K�. � �, �— . ! .. � ��. �. '. ,�` ,. � , � f r �,�x ,,. �;,� � ''� w - GQ. . �• g /� C!� �i a � � �M� '� �- a � � i� `':; �• '�`�� ' _ . � - �r �, . -- — -�-�-�-�--� �--- � ,� � � �° 4 — � ��Q - - ' '� Q . � � _. �.- _ ----,..�.. ' - Q � ,� ,. , �� '4 � . F � ; • ��.�:,,: � ,� � ' � R�l r � J1. � � t- ' i � • ... " - �. _ , � . : �� .--: :F ►) �[ �_� + � � _ �� -�;_ I�T�� 1 , � � �-_ j. `•" � _ � • ' ' � ' .. ` � t 'T�. � 1 .�e i 1 i . � ��.. �• y • 1 ' w �, y �� . !' � �� v� +- .. � ..�.r�. .� l� ��'� � • 1 � � � . � I i � 1 ` � ��'t� _i � . �� _ ..• � � k�; � � � ! C �� _ ' ; ± . '1 .� _ '� ".�� - � v.S- - � -�t �' -i '. ��1,�� ' ' � � - . � . , - � - . S 3� - � �: �a: . '' i •l� S�:� er ��! _ r � . '� � � •� �_ - ' - �;��;{ i �� r� .�c:.a:r . I I�,��. ..� , � • t;��'+ „ �OO�P , - �' S . . �1, N 1 �.• �� + ��,. . �� ' �� ^ �, �� , ,'� �. �� I �� , T 4 � : - _ - = - � �-. � + � �� - . T�—�r..� �' � �_ I . �•- ' . - - Ty r ��-• ,.;�kpXy - �� a i '� ,. ., � . .� ...� � +� ��, - ""��-''-,` .. .. , �� . � -`•�i. . , ' =' ��- t�., �� _ � � ' '� _ - �� .� � « '- � .� ' ' ' ,� � _ � ; +�j. ' � i .- u T` c:, � ,'' Q�'� —. � ,� --, � � �,�, �.r �, - - � � ' � � . � k� � p �� - � �. a '� L ' �`. _ ,�I� ; ;'' � � �,j ,�{ � a +rr= �'r"R � � �".� _ , ��-r-- ; '.' `,a ' � .� 1 F � ;-� -. � � .�i. � ��y,�f . � � �� -�� , - (lf t �Q , �. �j , Q •� ,71i� ' � �J �� ' � � _� '' ....- .��i .-i �� . ' ' I �� '- � '��u ,h�;'' ;►A - • � � . ' _ - �- �- � ;��% � ',y .��, . - i � . � .� f, �,. +� �:� . + .'�, . , � . . � . ' . . . � ,� �i ��w F��!_� , �� • ''� � • ' -�,- . ��_ � — � z ' : _��1 - t � �.I' • '�� j.�.'•`� , .....� '' � � ` .� � 1. ' �_� �� T� I� 't" .'y7,"��t, i^•-, 1.;�, ,. . +� � : .�,��+ ' p,G�, ' �.. 4 � _ . , � _ � - '� s�.�. �i �� l� i' y �, � �`r .s''>YA �'a' I� �} '�— , t s: �_? `� '� � t , i I '�._. `: • . " I I ��_�J�. • -a� '.�'},•.' ' � . r , . , — . �y ,��. 1 � • t �� r1 � �� , i, ,�,Y'� '6 4--..- � y.� .� . � -. �.�.�. :io , ..., �.: _ .. � �i i�� Y T' ' A I'f � r. �.. • -� � o e e � � � i. I �. � IMI� ,�i,' .<% r.. - � ., � .< � ��` � , � � ' ' _i_, �� ,�t.� � ^ h �� . ' � , rM� � AF �. . : _ ��+ .� _ �w x t �`='' l ' �'e '' n �`JC.'�,'^- ►. -. _ J „�.�.� � s �--_��f�:s.:. 1� w � S! �n ��~,', c � � � � ._� �'• 'II� f�-'`. � — ��-'�'}� � ��„ � � — � . �� . � . .Y ',� . .. }� � � '., ��- � � • . ' 1 N . , • • . � ��• . � , I ' ` •�� . I . ��f. , .h.� /~�', ,` � �- . 1 �y �s'.J�'EL..JYQ'� . 1. J Y� .�. . I� ��' I � _ . __�� ' ll __-- j •7�S��f'. .. ... • , •• . -i'�Y� � � e� . . � ""_ Q .�0�0 , . • 1 �' ' T` � , 0 0 � � _' -_ _" -__ �� ^l.^ '.. _ . . , . . ' "_r� �._ ��„�� ^_ �__J-. __ � ' r� .� • �x. � � � C .w�'\�-�1s� �-_� ' �i�?'__ .�� _ -_ - i ..+ - y��L._ _ - j^�_._ _�.__�„�:_?�"s."at.. � ;, � � •��. � .�. . ' .�� :` _ _ :�� • Legend ' � �, , - '� 0 87.5 175 350 N � Subject Property � „ ,. '� � � .� 1�, Feet A � �'� �, .`�' ' •�� ' 1 Engineering Place DRAWN BY:FD PROJECT NO. �� Morrison Helena,MT59602 CHK'DBY CP 2023AERIALMAP 10497.001 � M a i e r I e Phone:(406)442-3050 APPR BY CP Fax:(406)442-7862 �oP�R��HT.�MORR�SON-MA�ER�E,�N�,Zoz3 DATE:6/15/2023 3100 WEST MAIN STREET PHASE 1 ESA FIG.3 \\mmi\Share\Bozeman\Pro ects\6475\007-Meadow Creek\GIS\Meadow Creek.a rx — y�` . .,f •. � �{. - � .c• . � .r.� m . �, , � . . ' � A� Y � y ,"II � .�., • ��, •` �;�� '",�,'` � � `�„ � ' ;i+ _ "' ��_ �' r' I.�M1 _ ` � , y i . :_-.,,..-,_,�. � � _"�` " � ► /�� , , _-:' :� ' at' ; _ . _ � , � � ` �. • � � k !� , ��.. : �a �� `, � tr `�; ' !` ,� �• �-- ,� � t. '' � --�. , '� •� '.^' , i r� — � = �. /, � f' � \ -f �� , "',�1 N '( ��''�, � ''�^, 4`" . o . �mm�lOQ , '�� , `A "��'! � � I : ' ':�' ��' �� • t � �. . ,—,�.� � � �IJ , � ' �� c � �_ . ; � ,� ,,�1 � '�4� I '-� J�"""+► ��i +•1�"r � �. • � • - � ,�,� � � �, . �. �� i, �:� y, . �� (� " - ,�` • l � ,, - � _ _ _ � �I , . - � _ . � �� : A'^ ' ..� \ . � ' -�_ � ' � . . . �.' ♦ . �� ` �� !� �. �i . ' . ' �,,,,�� '"� , j' Jr` � '�I. '`� . @.._ � ; , .r � � � s , _ , . r ,n� � I� - • �'� . . � � , ,! , � _ • • , - - _ .- -- -_ - g �� r. /�`` , ��,._� - -j Y � ,(� �( � LJIJV�:J ��► � L� ' �r.�� CT' � r., i - -'�:`' -.. ` =a.. �•_ 1.�- � • -- .' _ // ' ^ / r �i` , ,. i { ��. . :�� r_, ` r�., i nl Q , �f ,� :'. - � '�� p I p ' ..�, - � � i �- ,��. - � '� . � �� .. _ �� , 3� '-'�+a`�'��""."^ � -, � � ,:, � � . _ � �� i r �� . � C � � 'y - � � ,�� . � .:� � r w F � � � �� • � /� .�, � . �rli •,<` 1• p • � I , � - y _ _ _��- i �'� / �?F -- - _ _.�., r . , , . ,,, ` / �, • � . � + + �� : � �� ,� � �. . �s.� � __� �� , � � , �`��... . �y� ' 1 uf` � � i� . . �� , � � . � � r ._ ' . � , �� _.. ' _ '� �,Y , 1'_. . .�_ , . . � � •.�� . � , � < � s � '�} � _ f, a. ... �s+ ` � . � �. i.�!4.•i' �\, 1 � ,�� . "'�r'r �� • '�.r k A ' �� .� � � .��', � . _ , g � - ,� ;�� -, Q , p , g � `� Q � . � - � _-,� y � . -.� Q � � "�' „„!j_� , r �1� �� r �- ' � - . -' . ao^: � � � --- � � �.� - -- � 8 �c �j . � _. �. - �� - � � (!� � � ' :-��{ .>��► `` �A� ^. . _ . ► �a,,.{[�� , � 3' r .• ��.� �� r� � .i� � � (� Yy� � -� __ o` . � ��.. U � - � � �e� r � � . .. J .� .l�. ♦� � . � —� � '; %4: � ,�� l� �f �u.' ` j`.�A� , � � 1 _ 3� 'r ►� -• .�� , • ' - a � � � + ,`�•� � � � • ;� a� - � �� ,I ��' .��` ,�. ' � � . M� � '� , ,.� �_ _�.., ' ' �� ,y�.—� �a '`- ,�#T .� � ._ M +7I �' . ' M� ��`4!�—'�^ . , � ?'• _ p ' - � Y. �f �� a: . , h' .e�_ � !�� - �. - �N; � � �� ' � -. � .. '` �':,�_ .,, ;� � { �100 DD P : �w �.. �' �.' • � ' ', l � 'Y . -, � , a � : ,• � `' .�m _o� �....� � o ' '- � -'+� ^` ;�'� "� - - 1 � �� . - x 7 • -� . - ' = ' z �-r „ L ` � :. -'�,M . _ . '.,. . .: . r . .. -=�,�,_.�� !�; � �— � '�\ .,�y�� !� . -- � ', _ � , � ' , .� ;�r� �, ��T k Q . �, 1 �� , _ � _ �_ w��,'�n_� ,M � ` '.L.-� �, - - � I �— � � � } ' � —� Y •T i � ' ; _� . .• � . � �T ' �d , - �^��. "a�� •.d _ ._� , '- � .e� . —� �• a '� _- �[ ,�s� � • � � t! ' '.. ,• �. �. ..'� �—y Q ��_ , � .� � g � � t� o � +�. Q �� ; • v;�. ` - . t ;�, � � . �:L '.�. a ;,�_ � - � _ � , z s� , _ _ � ,,�� , � , —� , _ .`"'',s � Y�:� �' • �...,� � � - - ;�� . �= �... . �! 8 . , � '`-. ' � q ' � ti . . a � � �:�,, ' ' ',�:�, ` � � a 'p ��^� � •�A � • ' � + .. _ - � � ,� � �,y �,+� � 9�� s '' ' I . � . " � .� t.. � . . , � F +� j �� ,f � �� ;� ' �,y r �_ . 1" . r � �^ � t � ' � • I - -it • ` �'� 'r%» '��i � :� . �` . • ; c �, � �' �s � ', ��I �•� , ��, .. , .� �..jr• .�. � " . . , _� . � . ��'. �. � ` •��,I 1 J.a�__, ,F 'P _ _r �; . 4:•" . `r i � �R_ • i ` ' - �� - ,s�� ,F' �� _ '►�i ,j 4 � ' ' �- �`� � �. .. �a a_� �' • � " } � �,,� a o �� - �� I J� - t,r`. - �. _� , �� ' �► sE �' I ,» �� _ �� ' ,- g �. � . �; _ Legend �i Q , . �; � Q ��-_�., `'� -�x`:r;,�� . . 0 Subject Property ^ , , k � � .. �� , , . _ _ �. ._ : � •�'�4 ,,'ETL�.III, A •�• �� ' � , ' _ ■E .h_�._irl�l� n��l I.l.nt�r C��,-�r,, l � `2 �,• , . � � - i �' Q _�! - ,' �l , 1 !^' I �. �E�h_IJflll�J 1�,��'.�JI11Y 4��l�Jll�� . •� x ! ��. '� �� ' a ' . .} � ,� ' _ '. � �`s j� y �1 ) . .. . f � �f i�-.hr��ter Emergent�;�l�tl�ir I - � - '� � � ----- . . . . '�� . . . � - .�:_. �f i�.lYr,,terF��re°,t�lShnd., ,.. �i �� i Wetlands = ;-� - .�"'r- _ — _-- _ _ � - _� �, �f �� .li,;._d•:� f��rn1 _�„ � •> ..-�y�� rr�ia - '"�vt� �-?�,''�r_R. ,�,�r �� -.. __, -�-a . +•r..—:. -- ' --_ -�--. ' �L,_ih._ . , r � - � : - �,,�`'• .L N � �,^, f��i� � 0 87.5 175 350 ❑��r�,�, . �f r;�nn� �.. �,t��; ' ,....''a Feet A t, I i 1 Engineering Place DRAWN BY:FD NWI MAP PROJECT NO. �� Morrison Helena,MT59602 CHK'DBY: CP � M a i e r I e Phone:(406)442-3050 AppR BY CP COPVRIGHTa�O�MORRI50N4 AER621NC.,2023 DATE:12/14/2023 MEADOW CREEKAQUATIC FEATURE REVIEW FIG.4a N:\6475\007-Meadow Creek\GIS\Meadow Creeka rx —. . a • • {':.} � ` I "" r.� m �� . ' � .�+`� ��. ' '�I! ��• y,�. .,• 4`�� I �'?'�' ! , •!' _ +n �� .�'' r� I.I _ ' . ' , . , � 'i i � r , r � ! � �� . . y.".y..-•r�-. 6 /� - 1 /�� . - � _ � I , � �M1 .;^`"\—_� . . �_ ^__•' :i ' �, �. 1. _ . � � r . �, i • �- � k . , • �•.. i � t, I tr�' !� r�{ �►. �--- ' - ��t. f. ; '" « � , , �� _N, `, .�,.;F� i ,�^+ i f. o . ��il�°Q^ , '�� /�, `A :-c s� ` , � ' . � r� Y'�' � -� • ` ` �• , ■ ' ,,�1 � t4� —.�� ` �� i J . r y ' �. . . , ,- • P , �� ,J , � �r. • I '-� �"�'► i �.�� , , . ��:�, , ,�,, �,,� �,:, ,:; . � ,:; . �� ti - .� , - � _ _ I l � St, "� , _ • .- � . • •�� „ f� �> . � �� , � ' - � � ' r � � � ' . . - � . - , , ' �'',��,r � r � � � � � @'' . e ss - _ � � Y II - , r 7 ' � � ►' i - � ' . . - -- - - � ,. . . ' ` � ! � . . r. _ ... g ,�r � r� .� , � ' �„*-� - — — • � L� ' �r.'S� /� �(�' ' r = ��u��.uuCJl-i , '��` .-.. ` - =a" �, .. � • �� -- .' _.�� / � '' � �i` 11 , .' Q , ,f � • � � p p � .•:` �, ,��. ' �� . _ - -�^'r^^ �+� . _� � ,., � �, � - � .� �i r �� . � C � 'y - � � 1' ,�� _ �. . . � r F �, - � ,� .. . , •� � rli •,<` r � • A�y�� ` �a ' '' y - -T•- _. /' � � . '. /'�` -•�., r . a � + = �� ` � � `�'�' `'•,'��y• i�, . 1\ ��i i'� �� _ �� . , . �� ....�t�..' � ' �7r� '� '. •� � / . '1 <' �• �` � t - , , w �� ' { �; � � ♦� • I� !i � . .� . . �. /�� `. _ • .�� `_ � � � , • Q� � } �'� , � � fv ... ` . � _ II�1, . ' F,':�',.. •�� \� � ' ��+ � • . 7 1 s.�t, e 1 ' `� ' ,..�r.r, . 7r � ; A � j�,, _ • �� • �!r '° ' ' � •{�'�" � B . F :,_ , �� -, g , p , g � . a � - >�� . 1 =-,� ay � . -'s a � � ^n !�� , '"'��• �1� �� r � -. ' _�, � � '� - � w�—�� _'-- �' � � r c p . � _ �. - �� (J� � . �� A � � � �, r , � �;n '� t � � � ^ . . �. �� • �. r� � • 1� � � _� � ; � , g , _��, , �. � _ � � ,..,:. .� � , � . .. J � .�� ♦� ` . � —� • ; � ��„ �f � �.' ! , � j � j'. ,��. , .. ` 1 _ � . .±yl'` , � "'.• `�, ' ., '� — y J ' tiil�'�� I�' "J� ,� � r�ir ' �� ;� �_ � � � _ -� ' � ,� - - , �� ` ��, a . �� 1�s � � � ' � �� ! - ��`4�. ' .� ��' . _ , r? ' , !a'�a� � � �- � r � ' ' � '� { LOGlOO DD P ' � '� � �• ! �N� �� ' � •, �:�I-�� , .� �. - � � T �' • ,. �' � � j g - y.� �� +� -, �'�1 � , a , , :�.,,. , .a�m �a� �,,,.� , �_ --� , . •� �' � . :.� _ ° _ � i �' - � ' _� 14 �� u� T - �� = ',\ 1 ��_� , j, . ,� , i i � ��—��s ' '� �_ � ,u[ �' � . �� 7 . i_ -/.�'c'r` • . ., . ' . , ., � � .� � o '� h'� ' . � ' �.L • �r._ }; ,, ��T ' Q � Y ''=" . � ,�+� i` `�- ' x �.� � _ � � ' ,} _ ^ � �1 ' � � 1- . �1lil � '' - ; �.a��... �_� • i v (1�1 � _ _ o � •, ' " � , g . _ . V ' ' � �� o g � �:. Q �.� � �• '• Z �'', � � . �' �{ +�i�� +..�— � '�M. ;��3' •; _ " � � � ` �nr � `.'�"'!!.� �' .,��F - � � �= ��..i. � �... . - t ' � j(�;� ry�� 4 � C� _:r*� . . . . � � � Cl + �.(J { � �. G .. V ,p �^� � � `�t) '� � � � _ .. � - � ��7� F'} `_�� ' �/� , , . , 1 '��. :•`_ i . • � ' +� j �w. , \ � 'f � ;�; . �� • t` <�, r� �.�_ ' � - � � r: t � . ' .�+ + � � . i r ' I � a . r , I � ti� , ,:r -� , . . �. � � ��p � �. 1 ' l� / .,C • � ; . � '� � � l�: • ,� � .�1 .r'-R> �� i� � . '�'_ � .'�� . `� �y'��. ' �� . ,�I _ _ 'a s` '�'�- Y � , .n` �j*��-•I ��. r:� F`9t . sl�Y' � - �Q ' . ' —_.,,r � ' � �� N A �, �� _ , . . .. .� •-�' —— -- ,�� . �J . ! , �' - S�� ' �� , � �_ . ' y .�,��j �. � �. .� �r a_tr� r F�� - � �� , . -:.� ��,p �Q a o . 0�3 1 X;,,, � �' � Legend �`4 - �, i=-�; I � : .g �. � . �; _ 0 Subject Property � Q } . A - �I i�—�:` k}# _ ��,, ;�-r .F Farmed Wetland ' . ' �� a � ^ Freshwater Emergent Wetland �w �' � '�"'�, �� y. �_ � — _ — .� � ' =•� ', ;�-'. t ' i ' - Freshwater Forested Wetland , � � , t ` ��' p -�� - Freshwater Pond , �� ; �y' ..� �:- a ' � � , . . _ '#'�'w�� Freshwater Scrub-Shrub Wetland - ' �'� , � �' : ''- y�''�' ' ^ ��, � ' _� • - .. .�.�.._ Lake = . .�. . - . -�� — . . . p� --- -- . ��--�� — ��-_ - 4- , Riparian Emergent ,-�,�,,°�: �`� - �� _ -� Riparian Forested - , - '= � " � ` � N Riparian Scrub-Shrub �'' ` ' �,;` 0 87.5 175 350 ` River �". � � t; ' '� Feet A . t� 'Heena,MT56102e DRAWNBY:FD MNHPWETLANDANDRIPARIANMAP PROJECTNO. �� Morrison CHK'DBY: CP � M a i e r I e Phone:(406)442-3050 AppR BY CP COPVRIGHTa�O�MORRI50N4 AER621NC.,2023 DATE:12/14/2023 MEADOW CREEKAQUATIC FEATURE REVIEW FIG.4b N:\6475\007-Meadow Creek\GIS\Meadow Creeka rx � r. :� ;� .r+ ' /�� -- - � � �� % �. �', � , ,,,r_ ','. ,�..�►.�_ • �' , � �� ., f .__„r,' �,• � : .. � - i � ` • _-� .t ; 1;�;. - .. � - � � � � r� .� , ` � :� � 1 . � -� � • ' �► .. ' � . . . � � � ♦�' � `� . f . �` . � .� - -- . �� _ � `, �, j [ � � ^ 1 ' , ' ' , � �r �� . . �. � I � � . � � � � ,1 +• �', .� �� , • 1 ., ' a L - � � � " • 0.48 acres of �+� . _i_ 0.92 acres of PSS1 ! PEM1A wetland ;:�� wetland � r �I� ��' ' �, I �r � � �� y , � I �' , � ► � � r . WDPS : ,,...-.. i � . , . '� ' • � i �r WDP4 UDPS -`' �y •• �� ' • `. , �+� , . ► � � � � � 1: `' � :� 1 ' � " �• � : , �, �i � • � - ' ' . ��. ` y .... . -—� a�y � �. � �_a _ - _ —� ----- .•,. � � UDP6 WDP6 I � . �• _ . • `,. . � 4 � I t,�R �, . �. . � , � : �� . ' .- �� ` � � � I a. .. � , �' , . k , �' �.�. � UDP7 � ,`� � , * Y � J � � '. � • �� . .. • ' , � ]�� - L� �� _ . � �� Ilr ` � 1.15 acres of �~� PEM1A wetland • � , ' ; �� ► � UDP3 � r � i • * �f. , - J •� �. „ . . ,' w � � � � �i s � � . '�......_ - — � � � � - � �� WDP2 �� ! �^ r �t WDP3 � �� ', � �'' UDP2 1 � , . �� UDP9 ,, � ~ . � .. �l ' w r �.. �.; � ►� ,�- R.� � � _ �� "�"'�---' - � ..�� , 4 �� ' . �, • . .p t- � •�:�h r K� , _ � I -� . . �,- M . i � : T r �� `i�-�� ; � � � , , ' � : � « ' � � � � ' �.f � � � \. � . ' � � � �*y � • _ �, j �r � � � 1 t • � ''� • � '~ � � � UDP8 �T �� _. � �'!s,•. �1 ' - I i' _ UDP4 �� i r �T. ' �� . � %��t A , ,. � ��.s �� j`� � �•��• t ' 't Q�.r ' �j � ,I� i 1 � � ~ �' �� '.� � ,•� , ��''', � � J t ` , .. �, r.a�� ♦ y��i� /, �, � � , j . r ��ww . � „ r? � r. ,.r, �, ,.r t' ` ' �� '�S� , �� .� ' .-� . ��,' .�`�,_ . _ � , - � ,T _ .t , � .. .. '� v � ' _/ �;'. I ,. • '�� ,� _ �� Legend _�', . ., WDP1 t ' . '� . "'� 0 Subject Property . I i � . Waterway (2,519 ft) ` � UDP1 _ ' , � e,�r IJ� . Wetlands - . > '� : �l�•y-�=• �'' t , .; . ' - ' • ' � .^�:�w ., '�� .� Wetland A- PEM1A(1.63 acres) � : • ___, Wetland B - PSS1 (0.92 acres) Data Points o Upland �, . � 0 75 150 300 N • Wetland - ' - � , f�� Feet A ,,. .,. � �..,�; H 2880TechnologyBlvd.W DRAWN BY:FD WETLAND DELINEATION MAP P 6475.007 Morrison Bozeman,MT529718 CHK'DBY: CP � Maierle APPR BY CP COPVRI GHToO MORR�I 0)NSMA ERLEZ NC.,2024 DATE:6/6/2024 MEADOW CREEKAQUATIC FEATURE REVIEW FIG.5 N:\6475\007-Meadow Creek\GIS\Meadow Creeka rx i . � - � ; ■ � --_ --_ _.•■� ` ; : ' ' •, � ' ��r I , �� 1 ' / 1 � ��f � _• t �_ �'� � 1 ; � ` ; ', (�l' , � , . , � •i, ." rI �' ' r _ � ' � : =y • . .' � �. ��" �1 t -� _ e � � ;�N : � � � . '�• � � �_• ' .- • � . •�• ��- �� . ��. ��. „ � : �_ �,,� � _ _ . ■ . ,* .� .,� . --+/.�►,;' .:%r . ,�,y� �. .` � `� _ - � 'y=:�'•• r�� ' � �r� �� . �(� . ' • � � / � ' • � ^'• Rr�t . � • � y �� ti � � . � •� � ^ ,`!I. . _ � i I^" �,- ` - - - "�' ' ^ � � �r,. . ■ ^ . r` E � ,,� , � ' , r � � .� y � � �(� ' �, �� ' � �` , � � r` . �_ 'f' -... � ' . -.�� , j .--. •-.--�._..:__- - .�-�.r- R � � •� , . � .. • , � � � �' Stormwater ponds ' � ' r . � ( � ��• .� drain to waterwa c' • � ' � �' f''��,. 4 ;-y, s : Y 0.48 acres of . ; � . .� ! ,r f �``�+'r 1�.: PEM1Awetland -- - - -- - • j� _ - r � J � •1 � �... , � , / � �� r � � — � �� • � I J� I � . � ^ . , � 0.92 acres of PSS1 w�P5 V.�,�{ ^l • � �. ' ' wetland ' , � , Cr - � WDP4 UDP5 � . -' . , . . ► � � . � ' � , �" � • r�_ a �� .',Fi_�'�''j— _ :�, - . , ,� � �_ r , . :i' M.i` .i'��`�� } . '' �'• . - . I� � �, --- ...i, � � � . . , a . ' � , � • I � --- ' � .� 1 i I • �:, UDP6 WDP6 . s �• � � :� � • �. ' � ' ' � .- � c•-~ � _ �`// • � • 1 �,5 � �O�j:� r � � � A � I. � � . . �`'�� , �, " •1 � �� • � ;�� UDP7 : � �. _ a . ti. . ! f� � • r� ��' .�`^ ", . �y.,,,_f.� I� � � � �� . t f'r�, !�_ , � ' �" ' � . � 1.15 acres of ,.� . ' ' ' — - -=�e� � ��: • � t ,� , '. PEM1Awetland � �� - - ..�� ' � r r -� � , � � ��+ 'f �' UDP3 � � � � '* . � � - �—� — � t � � � �i • . - '•'Q w ..�,` — - - � �'. . � ' � S` �! ,� � ��— _ �j �'- � � WDP2 UDP9 � �I � '' , - �"_�_ �—� �. � . ' � UDP2 ( � � � �T t� � WDP3 ' •�� ` � '� . t +�� • � � �,� � � �• ��= -''�,-�% i . �� {y � '��,• � ' r � ' --- . , M�- . � " i :� � •� _ 3 - ,— � r . . ��•�;- ; �: . /' � . « . �1,_ r_ , �� r ` �� 0 �-e- ::.�' � � ,,J""'�. �I"� - �:�.... *�. "� :� � 7 � � -�. � � � 1..� � UDP8 . �^ f �c �- _` r — a /, y �..lrr ' UDP4 d1 ' f ,� � � �i Legend ,. -• �� r . � „�+� --�� ' ` '- ' :��. = F -. . ��` i �- ,� r• _ , � Subject Property ''� . � " � ' • '—� •-s_ -�' — Waterway (2,519 ft) �.�d,, ,� p: , ' � , � � -- ---� _. -. .� __ Wetlands - • ,� ,� �:��r� _'L'��: + �' �. �• "' .Z �� i WetlandA- PEM1A(1.63 acres) _. _ „ -'""�f �•Y : ��,,_j�-. . � �� I � �� Wetland B - PSS1 (0.92 acres) � �.�. "`''�� . � . _ . • �.1 � . j .. ., —� City of Bozeman Urban Waterway ,�. �� '• - � '�x ;'�.__ � � ` , City of Bozeman Stormwater Infrastructure + � WDP1 � — �.�- . --� = t . �. Detention Pond UDP1 ■ Inlet � , _ i Outlet Structure , �l , , ,,,_ ' F -- � —� Treatment Units •+ s Outfall . . - __. : - _ . � -- - - _..�-._.-"-�-.�_ • Manhole - � r.� - -- _-_ s� _ .._ ,�.�ti. .--"� -•�,� - ♦ Curb Chase ,'. ^ �� :r •..; • 0 + 87.5 175 350 N � .�. s-; �.� ;!:� � � +► Feet A Gravity Main j; ` ;�, � � ' �� A �• � . .^� . 2880TechnologyBlvd.W DRAWNBY:FD CITYOF BOZEMAN STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTNO. Morrison CHK'DBY: CP AND WETLAND DELINEATION MAP 6475.007 Bozeman,MT 529718 � Maierle APPR BY CP COPVRI GHToO MORR�I 0)NSMA ERLEZ NC.,2024 DATE:6/6/2024 MEADOW CREEKAQUATIC FEATURE REVIEW FIG.6 N:\6475\007-Meadow Creek\GIS\Meadow Creeka rx Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation 6475.007 APPENDIX B: USACE WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS 12 � P a g e �� Morrison � Maierle U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control#:0710-0024,Exp:11/30/2024 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET—Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast Region RequirementControlSymboIEXEMPT: See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority:AR 335-15,paragraph 5-2a) Project/Site: Meadow Creek City/County: Bozeman,Gallatin County Sampling Date: 06/04/24 Applicant/Owner: Bridger Development State: MT Sampling Point: UDP1 Investigator(s): Faith Doty,Christy Pearcy Section,Township, Range: Section 23,T2S, R5E Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Creek side Local relief(concave,convex, none): Flat Slope(%): 0 Subregion(LRR/MLRA): LRR E, MLRA 49 Lat: 45.642337 Long: -111.068802 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek loam NWI classification: PEM1A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil ,or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Remarks: Meets hydrophytic vegetation requirement due to predominantly FAC species, but not a wetland due to lack of hydric soil and hydrology indicators. VEGETATION —Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) %Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: �� Number of Dominant Species That 2. Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 3 (A) 3� Total Number of Dominant Species 4. Across All Strata: 3 (B) =Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100.0% (A/B) 1. 2. Prevalence Index worksheet: 3. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 4. OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 5. FACW species 30 x 2= 60 =Total Cover FAC species 65 x 3= 195 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) FACU species 0 x 4= 0 1. Phalaris arundinacea 30 Yes FACW UPL species 5 x 5= 25 2. Alopecurus pratensis 20 Yes FAC Column Totals: 100 (A) 280 (B) 3. Cirsium arvense 10 No FAC Prevalence Index =B/A= 2.80 4. Carduus nutans 5 No UPL 5. Poa pratensis 35 Yes FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 6. Lepidium campestre 0 UPL 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 8. 3-Prevalence Index is<_3.0' 9. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 10. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 11. 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 100 =Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2� Hydrophytic =Total Cover Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Present? Yes X No Remarks: Meets dominance test and prevalence index due to facultative vegetation. ENG FORM 6116-9,FEB 2024 Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: UDP1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-2 10YR 2/1 100 Loamy/Clayey Granular silt loam, many roots 2-7 10YR 2/1 100 Loamy/Clayey Granular silt loam 7-16 10YR 2/1 100 Loamy/Clayey Granular silt loam,compaction increase 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol(A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR A,E) Histic Epipedon(A2) Sandy Redox(S5) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR D) Black Histic(A3) Stripped Matrix(S6) Red Parent Material(F21) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) 1 cm Muck(A9)(LRR D,G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) Other(Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) Depleted Matrix(F3) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Redox Dark Surface(F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S2)(LRR G) Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: Well-developed organic A horizon, no hydric soil indicators. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required� Surface Water(A1) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2 High Water Table(A2) MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) 4A,and 4B) Saturation(A3) Salt Crust(B11) Drainage Patterns(B10) Water Marks(B1) Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(63) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) Geomorphic Position(D2) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Shallow Aquitard(D3) Iron Deposits(65) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Other(Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth(inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge, monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No hydrology indicators other than FAC-Neutral test. ENG FORM 6116-9,FEB 2024 Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control#:0710-0024,Exp:11/30/2024 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET—Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast Region RequirementControlSymboIEXEMPT: See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority:AR 335-15,paragraph 5-2a) Project/Site: Meadow Creek City/County: Bozeman,Gallatin County Sampling Date: 06/04/24 Applicant/Owner: Bridger Development State: MT Sampling Point: UDP2 Investigator(s): Faith Doty,Christy Pearcy Section,Township, Range: Section 23,T2S, R5E Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Upper stream terrace Local relief(concave,convex, none): Incline Slope(%): 5 Subregion(LRR/MLRA): LRR E, MLRA 49 Lat: 45.644046 Long: -111.068049 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek loam NWI classification: PEM1A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil ,or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Remarks: 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. VEGETATION —Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) %Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: �� Number of Dominant Species That 2. Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 3� Total Number of Dominant Species 4. Across All Strata: 1 (B) =Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100.0% (A/B) 1. 2. Prevalence Index worksheet: 3. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 4. OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 5. FACW species 0 x 2= 0 =Total Cover FAC species 80 x 3= 240 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) FACU species 5 x 4= 20 1. Poa pratensis 70 Yes FAC UPL species 15 x 5= 75 2. Cirsium arvense 10 No FAC Column Totals: 100 (A) 335 (B) 3. Taraxacum officinale 5 No FACU Prevalence Index =B/A= 3.35 4. Descurainia pinnata 10 No UPL 5. Carduus nutans 5 No UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 6. 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 8. 3-Prevalence Index is<_3.0' 9. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 10. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 11. 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 100 =Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2� Hydrophytic =Total Cover Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Present? Yes X No Remarks: Meets prevalence index due to facultative vegetation. ENG FORM 6116-9,FEB 2024 Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: UDP1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-2 10YR 2/1 100 Loamy/Clayey Granular silt loam, many roots 2-16 10YR 2/1 100 Loamy/Clayey Granular silt loam,rocks 1-3"diameter 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol(A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR A,E) Histic Epipedon(A2) Sandy Redox(S5) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR D) Black Histic(A3) Stripped Matrix(S6) Red Parent Material(F21) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) 1 cm Muck(A9)(LRR D,G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) Other(Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) Depleted Matrix(F3) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Redox Dark Surface(F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S2)(LRR G) Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: No hydric soil indicators. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required� Surface Water(A1) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2 High Water Table(A2) MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) 4A,and 4B) Saturation(A3) Salt Crust(B11) Drainage Patterns(B10) Water Marks(B1) Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(63) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) Geomorphic Position(D2) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Shallow Aquitard(D3) Iron Deposits(65) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Other(Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth(inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge, monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No hydrology indicators. ENG FORM 6116-9,FEB 2024 Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control#:0710-0024,Exp:11/30/2024 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET—Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast Region RequirementControlSymboIEXEMPT: See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority:AR 335-15,paragraph 5-2a) Project/Site: Meadow Creek City/County: Bozeman,Gallatin County Sampling Date: 06/04/24 Applicant/Owner: Bridger Development State: MT Sampling Point: UDP3 Investigator(s): Faith Doty,Christy Pearcy Section,Township, Range: Section 23,T2S, R5E Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Upper stream terrace Local relief(concave,convex, none): Incline Slope(%): 8 Subregion(LRR/MLRA): LRR E, MLRA 49 Lat: 45.644395 Long: -111.068016 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek loam NWI classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil ,or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Remarks: 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. VEGETATION —Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) %Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: �� Number of Dominant Species That 2. Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 3� Total Number of Dominant Species 4. Across All Strata: 1 (B) =Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100.0% (A/B) 1. 2. Prevalence Index worksheet: 3. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 4. OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 5. FACW species 0 x 2= 0 =Total Cover FAC species 90 x 3= 270 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) FACU species 5 x 4= 20 1. Poa pratensis 75 Yes FAC UPL species 5 x 5= 25 2. Cirsium arvense 15 No FAC Column Totals: 100 (A) 315 (B) 3. Taraxacum officinale 5 No FACU Prevalence Index =B/A= 3.15 4. Descurainia pinnata 5 No UPL 5. Carduus nutans 0 UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 6. 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 8. 3-Prevalence Index is<_3.0' 9. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 10. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 11. 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 100 =Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2� Hydrophytic =Total Cover Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Present? Yes X No Remarks: Meets dominance index due to facultative vegetation. ENG FORM 6116-9,FEB 2024 Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: UDP3 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-2 10YR 2/1 100 Loamy/Clayey Granular silt loam, many roots 2-16 10YR 2/1 100 Loamy/Clayey Granular silt loam,rocks 1-3"diameter 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol(A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR A,E) Histic Epipedon(A2) Sandy Redox(S5) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR D) Black Histic(A3) Stripped Matrix(S6) Red Parent Material(F21) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) 1 cm Muck(A9)(LRR D,G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) Other(Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) Depleted Matrix(F3) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Redox Dark Surface(F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S2)(LRR G) Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: No hydric soil indicators. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required� Surface Water(A1) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2 High Water Table(A2) MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) 4A,and 4B) Saturation(A3) Salt Crust(B11) Drainage Patterns(B10) Water Marks(B1) Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(63) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) Geomorphic Position(D2) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Shallow Aquitard(D3) Iron Deposits(65) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Other(Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth(inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge, monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No hydrology indicators. ENG FORM 6116-9,FEB 2024 Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control#:0710-0024,Exp:11/30/2024 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET—Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast Region RequirementControlSymboIEXEMPT: See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority:AR 335-15,paragraph 5-2a) Project/Site: Meadow Creek City/County: Bozeman,Gallatin County Sampling Date: 06/04/24 Applicant/Owner: Bridger Development State: MT Sampling Point: UDP4 Investigator(s): Faith Doty,Christy Pearcy Section,Township, Range: Section 23,T2S, R5E Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Upper stream terrace Local relief(concave,convex, none): Incline Slope(%): 5 Subregion(LRR/MLRA): LRR E, MLRA 49 Lat: 45.643287 Long: -111.068293 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek loam NWI classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil ,or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Remarks: 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. VEGETATION —Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) %Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: �� Number of Dominant Species That 2. Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 3 (A) 3� Total Number of Dominant Species 4. Across All Strata: 3 (B) =Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100.0% (A/B) 1. 2. Prevalence Index worksheet: 3. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 4. OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 5. FACW species 35 x 2= 70 =Total Cover FAC species 60 x 3= 180 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) FACU species 5 x 4= 20 1. Poa pratensis 35 Yes FAC UPL species 0 x 5= 0 2. Juncus balticus 35 Yes FACW Column Totals: 100 (A) 270 (B) 3. Alopecurus pratensis 20 Yes FAC Prevalence Index =B/A= 2.70 4. Cirsium arvense 5 No FAC 5. Lactuca serriola 5 No FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 6. 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 8. 3-Prevalence Index is<_3.0' 9. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 10. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 11. 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 100 =Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2� Hydrophytic =Total Cover Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Present? Yes X No Remarks: Meets dominance index due to facultative vegetation. ENG FORM 6116-9,FEB 2024 Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: UDP4 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 2/1 100 Loamy/Clayey Granular loam, many roots 4-12 10YR 2/1 100 Loamy/Clayey Granular loam 12-16 10YR 2/1 100 Loamy/Clayey Granular loam, large rounded rocks 16-17 7.5R 4/6 100 Loamy/Clayey Sandy silt loam, large rounded rocks 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol(A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR A,E) Histic Epipedon(A2) Sandy Redox(S5) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR D) Black Histic(A3) Stripped Matrix(S6) Red Parent Material(F21) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) 1 cm Muck(A9)(LRR D,G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) Other(Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) Depleted Matrix(F3) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Redox Dark Surface(F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S2)(LRR G) Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: No hydric soil indicators. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required� Surface Water(A1) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2 High Water Table(A2) MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) 4A,and 4B) Saturation(A3) Salt Crust(B11) Drainage Patterns(B10) Water Marks(B1) Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(63) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) Geomorphic Position(D2) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Shallow Aquitard(D3) Iron Deposits(65) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Other(Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth(inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge, monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No hydrology indicators. ENG FORM 6116-9,FEB 2024 Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control#:0710-0024,Exp:11/30/2024 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET—Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast Region RequirementControlSymboIEXEMPT: See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority:AR 335-15,paragraph 5-2a) Project/Site: Meadow Creek City/County: Bozeman,Gallatin County Sampling Date: 06/04/24 Applicant/Owner: Bridger Development State: MT Sampling Point: UDP5 Investigator(s): Faith Doty,Christy Pearcy Section,Township, Range: Section 23,T2S, R5E Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Upper stream terrace Local relief(concave,convex, none): Incline Slope(%): 5 Subregion(LRR/MLRA): LRR E, MLRA 49 Lat: 45.646267 Long: -111.068251 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek loam NWI classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil ,or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Remarks: Meets hydrophytic vegetation requirement due to predominantly FAC species, but not a wetland due to lack of hydric soil and hydrology indicators. VEGETATION —Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) %Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: �� Number of Dominant Species That 2. Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 3� Total Number of Dominant Species 4. Across All Strata: 3 (B) =Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 66.7% (A/B) 1. 2. Prevalence Index worksheet: 3. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 4. OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 5. FACW species 0 x 2= 0 =Total Cover FAC species 65 x 3= 195 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) FACU species 5 x 4= 20 1. Poa pratensis 40 Yes FAC UPL species 30 x 5= 150 2. Bromus inermis 25 Yes UPL Column Totals: 100 (A) 365 (B) 3. Phleum pratense 25 Yes FAC Prevalence Index =B/A= 3.65 4. Lactuca serriola 5 No FACU 5. Lepidium campestre 5 No UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 6. 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 8. 3-Prevalence Index is<_3.0' 9. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 10. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 11. 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 100 =Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2� Hydrophytic =Total Cover Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Present? Yes X No Remarks: Meets dominance index due to facultative vegetation. ENG FORM 6116-9,FEB 2024 Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: UDP5 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 2/1 100 Loamy/Clayey Granular loam, many roots 4-16 10YR 2/1 100 Loamy/Clayey Granular loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol(A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR A,E) Histic Epipedon(A2) Sandy Redox(S5) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR D) Black Histic(A3) Stripped Matrix(S6) Red Parent Material(F21) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) 1 cm Muck(A9)(LRR D,G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) Other(Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) Depleted Matrix(F3) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Redox Dark Surface(F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S2)(LRR G) Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: No hydric soil indicators. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required� Surface Water(A1) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2 High Water Table(A2) MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) 4A,and 4B) Saturation(A3) Salt Crust(B11) Drainage Patterns(B10) Water Marks(B1) Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(63) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) Geomorphic Position(D2) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Shallow Aquitard(D3) Iron Deposits(65) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Other(Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth(inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge, monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No hydrology indicators. ENG FORM 6116-9,FEB 2024 Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control#:0710-0024,Exp:11/30/2024 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET—Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast Region RequirementControlSymboIEXEMPT: See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority:AR 335-15,paragraph 5-2a) Project/Site: Meadow Creek City/County: Bozeman,Gallatin County Sampling Date: 06/04/24 Applicant/Owner: Bridger Development State: MT Sampling Point: UDP6 Investigator(s): Faith Doty,Christy Pearcy Section,Township, Range: Section 23,T2S, R5E Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Upper stream terrace Local relief(concave,convex, none): Slight incline Slope(%): 5 Subregion(LRR/MLRA): LRR E, MLRA 49 Lat: 45.645447 Long: -111.068339 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek loam NWI classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil ,or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Remarks: Meets hydrophytic vegetation requirement due to predominantly FAC species; lack of hydric soil and wetland hydrolgoy indicates upland conditions. VEGETATION —Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) %Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: �� Number of Dominant Species That 2. Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 3� Total Number of Dominant Species 4. Across All Strata: 1 (B) =Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100.0% (A/B) 1. 2. Prevalence Index worksheet: 3. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 4. OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 5. FACW species 70 x 2= 140 =Total Cover FAC species 15 x 3= 45 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) FACU species 0 x 4= 0 1. Juncus balticus 70 Yes FACW UPL species 15 x 5= 75 2. Descurainia pinnata 15 No UPL Column Totals: 100 (A) 260 (B) 3. Cirsium arvense 15 No FAC Prevalence Index =B/A= 2.60 4. Taraxacum officinale 0 FACU 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 6. 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 8. 3-Prevalence Index is<_3.0' 9. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 10. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 11. 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 100 =Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2� Hydrophytic =Total Cover Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Present? Yes X No Remarks: Meets dominance and prevalance indicies due to facultative vegetation. ENG FORM 6116-9,FEB 2024 Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: UDP6 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 2/1 100 Loamy/Clayey Granular loam, many roots 4-10 10YR 2/1 100 Loamy/Clayey Granular loam 10-16 10YR 3/1 100 Loamy/Clayey Blocky loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol(A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR A,E) Histic Epipedon(A2) Sandy Redox(S5) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR D) Black Histic(A3) Stripped Matrix(S6) Red Parent Material(F21) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) 1 cm Muck(A9)(LRR D,G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) Other(Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) Depleted Matrix(F3) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Redox Dark Surface(F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S2)(LRR G) Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: No hydric soil indicators. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required� Surface Water(A1) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2 High Water Table(A2) MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) 4A,and 4B) Saturation(A3) Salt Crust(B11) Drainage Patterns(B10) Water Marks(B1) Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(63) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) Geomorphic Position(D2) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Shallow Aquitard(D3) Iron Deposits(65) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Other(Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth(inches): Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 14 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge, monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No hydrology indicators.Saturation is beneath 12"cutoff. ENG FORM 6116-9,FEB 2024 Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control#:0710-0024,Exp:11/30/2024 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET—Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast Region RequirementControlSymboIEXEMPT: See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority:AR 335-15,paragraph 5-2a) Project/Site: Meadow Creek City/County: Bozeman,Gallatin County Sampling Date: 06/04/24 Applicant/Owner: Bridger Development State: MT Sampling Point: UDP7 Investigator(s): Faith Doty,Christy Pearcy Section,Township, Range: Section 23,T2S, R5E Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Upper stream terrace Local relief(concave,convex, none): Slight incline Slope(%): 5 Subregion(LRR/MLRA): LRR E, MLRA 49 Lat: 45.644899 Long: -111.068559 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek loam NWI classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil ,or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Remarks: Meets hydrophytic vegetation requirement due to predominantly FAC species; lack of hydric soil and wetland hydrolgoy indicates upland conditions. VEGETATION —Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) %Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: �� Number of Dominant Species That 2. Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 3� Total Number of Dominant Species 4. Across All Strata: 1 (B) =Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100.0% (A/B) 1. 2. Prevalence Index worksheet: 3. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 4. OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 5. FACW species 70 x 2= 140 =Total Cover FAC species 20 x 3= 60 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) FACU species 0 x 4= 0 1. Juncus balticus 70 Yes FACW UPL species 10 x 5= 50 2. Descurainia pinnata 10 No UPL Column Totals: 100 (A) 250 (B) 3. Cirsium arvense 10 No FAC Prevalence Index =B/A= 2.50 4. Poa pratensis 10 No FAC 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 6. 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 8. 3-Prevalence Index is<_3.0' 9. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 10. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 11. 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 100 =Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2� Hydrophytic =Total Cover Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Present? Yes X No Remarks: Meets hydrophytic vegetation tests due to facultative vegetation. ENG FORM 6116-9,FEB 2024 Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: UDP7 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 2/1 100 Loamy/Clayey Granular loam, many roots 4-16 10YR 2/1 100 Loamy/Clayey Granular loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol(A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR A,E) Histic Epipedon(A2) Sandy Redox(S5) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR D) Black Histic(A3) Stripped Matrix(S6) Red Parent Material(F21) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) 1 cm Muck(A9)(LRR D,G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) Other(Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) Depleted Matrix(F3) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Redox Dark Surface(F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S2)(LRR G) Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: No hydric soil indicators. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required� Surface Water(A1) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2 High Water Table(A2) MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) 4A,and 4B) Saturation(A3) Salt Crust(B11) Drainage Patterns(B10) Water Marks(B1) Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(63) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) Geomorphic Position(D2) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Shallow Aquitard(D3) Iron Deposits(65) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Other(Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge, monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No hydrology indicators other than FAC-Neutral test. ENG FORM 6116-9,FEB 2024 Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control#:0710-0024,Exp:11/30/2024 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET—Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast Region RequirementControlSymboIEXEMPT: See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority:AR 335-15,paragraph 5-2a) Project/Site: Meadow Creek City/County: Bozeman,Gallatin County Sampling Date: 06/04/24 Applicant/Owner: Bridger Development State: MT Sampling Point: UDP8 Investigator(s): Faith Doty,Christy Pearcy Section,Township, Range: Section 23,T2S, R5E Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Upper stream terrace Local relief(concave,convex, none): Slight incline Slope(%): 5 Subregion(LRR/MLRA): LRR E, MLRA 49 Lat: 45.643325 Long: -111.068388 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek loam NWI classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil ,or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Remarks: Meets hydrophytic vegetation requirement due to predominantly FAC species; lack of hydric soil and wetland hydrolgoy indicates upland conditions. VEGETATION —Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) %Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: �� Number of Dominant Species That 2. Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 3� Total Number of Dominant Species 4. Across All Strata: 2 (B) =Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100.0% (A/B) 1. 2. Prevalence Index worksheet: 3. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 4. OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 5. FACW species 45 x 2= 90 =Total Cover FAC species 45 x 3= 135 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) FACU species 0 x 4= 0 1. Juncus balticus 45 Yes FACW UPL species 10 x 5= 50 2. Bromus inermis 10 No UPL Column Totals: 100 (A) 275 (B) 3. Cirsium arvense 5 No FAC Prevalence Index =B/A= 2.75 4. Poa pratensis 40 Yes FAC 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 6. 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 8. 3-Prevalence Index is<_3.0' 9. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 10. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 11. 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 100 =Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2� Hydrophytic =Total Cover Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Present? Yes X No Remarks: Meets hydrophytic vegetation test due to facultative vegetation. ENG FORM 6116-9,FEB 2024 Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: UDP8 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 2/1 100 Loamy/Clayey Granular loam, many roots 4-14 10YR 2/1 100 Loamy/Clayey Granular loam,cobbles 14-16 10YR 3/2 100 Loamy/Clayey Clay loam, large cobbles 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol(A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR A,E) Histic Epipedon(A2) Sandy Redox(S5) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR D) Black Histic(A3) Stripped Matrix(S6) Red Parent Material(F21) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) 1 cm Muck(A9)(LRR D,G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) Other(Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) Depleted Matrix(F3) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Redox Dark Surface(F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S2)(LRR G) Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: No hydric soil indicators. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required� Surface Water(A1) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2 High Water Table(A2) MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) 4A,and 4B) Saturation(A3) Salt Crust(B11) Drainage Patterns(B10) Water Marks(B1) Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(63) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) Geomorphic Position(D2) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Shallow Aquitard(D3) Iron Deposits(65) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Other(Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge, monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No hydrology indicators other than FAC-Neutral test. ENG FORM 6116-9,FEB 2024 Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control#:0710-0024,Exp:11/30/2024 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET—Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast Region RequirementControlSymboIEXEMPT: See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority:AR 335-15,paragraph 5-2a) Project/Site: Meadow Creek City/County: Bozeman,Gallatin County Sampling Date: 06/04/24 Applicant/Owner: Bridger Development State: MT Sampling Point: UDP9 Investigator(s): Faith Doty,Christy Pearcy Section,Township, Range: Section 23,T2S, R5E Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Upper stream terrace Local relief(concave,convex, none): Incline Slope(%): 5 Subregion(LRR/MLRA): LRR E, MLRA 49 Lat: 45.644064 Long: -111.068228 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek loam NWI classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil ,or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Remarks: Meets hydrophytic vegetation requirement due to predominantly FAC species, but not a wetland due to lack of hydric soil and hydrology indicators. VEGETATION —Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) %Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: �� Number of Dominant Species That 2. Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 3� Total Number of Dominant Species 4. Across All Strata: 2 (B) =Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100.0% (A/B) 1. 2. Prevalence Index worksheet: 3. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 4. OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 5. FACW species 40 x 2= 80 =Total Cover FAC species 50 x 3= 150 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) FACU species 5 x 4= 20 1. Poa pratensis 40 Yes FAC UPL species 5 x 5= 25 2. Juncus balticus 40 Yes FACW Column Totals: 100 (A) 275 (B) 3. Cirsium arvense 10 No FAC Prevalence Index =B/A= 2.75 4. Descurainia pinnata 5 No UPL 5. Taraxacum officinale 5 No FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 6. 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 8. 3-Prevalence Index is<_3.0' 9. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 10. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 11. 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 100 =Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2� Hydrophytic =Total Cover Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Present? Yes X No Remarks: Meets prevalence index due to facultative vegetation. ENG FORM 6116-9,FEB 2024 Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: UDP9 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 2/1 100 Granular loam, many roots 4-11 10YR 2/1 100 Sandy silt loam,small rocks 11-13 10YR 2/1 100 Sandy silt loam, large rocks 13-16 10YR 3/2 50 Mixed color layer, large rocks 10YR 2/1 50 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol(A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR A,E) Histic Epipedon(A2) Sandy Redox(S5) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR D) Black Histic(A3) Stripped Matrix(S6) Red Parent Material(F21) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) 1 cm Muck(A9)(LRR D,G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) Other(Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) Depleted Matrix(F3) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Redox Dark Surface(F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S2)(LRR G) Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: No hydric soil indicators. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required� Surface Water(A1) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2 High Water Table(A2) MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) 4A,and 4B) Saturation(A3) Salt Crust(B11) Drainage Patterns(B10) Water Marks(B1) Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(63) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) Geomorphic Position(D2) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Shallow Aquitard(D3) Iron Deposits(65) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Other(Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth(inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge, monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No hydrology indicators other than FAC-neutral test. ENG FORM 6116-9,FEB 2024 Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control#:0710-0024,Exp:11/30/2024 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET—Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast Region RequirementControlSymboIEXEMPT: See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority:AR 335-15,paragraph 5-2a) Project/Site: Meadow Creek City/County: Bozeman,Gallatin County Sampling Date: 06/04/24 Applicant/Owner: Bridger Development State: MT Sampling Point: WDP1 Investigator(s): Faith Doty,Christy Pearcy Section,Township, Range: Section 23,T2S, R5E Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Creek side Local relief(concave,convex, none): Flat Slope(%): 0 Subregion(LRR/MLRA): LRR E, MLRA 49 Lat: 45.64236 Long: -111.068841 Datum: NAD84 Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek loam NWI classification: PEM1A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil ,or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks: Wetland point on north side of property, near creek. VEGETATION —Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) %Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: �� Number of Dominant Species That 2. Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 3� Total Number of Dominant Species 4. Across All Strata: 1 (B) =Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100.0% (A/B) 1. 2. Prevalence Index worksheet: 3. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 4. OBL species 85 x 1 = 85 5. FACW species 5 x 2= 10 =Total Cover FAC species 5 x 3= 15 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) FACU species 5 x 4= 20 1. Mentha arvensis 5 No FACW UPL species 0 x 5= 0 2. Rumex occidentalis 0 FACW Column Totals: 100 (A) 130 (B) 3. Potamogeton amplifolius 5 No OBL Prevalence Index =B/A= 1.30 4. Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani 80 Yes OBL 5. Galium aparine 5 No FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 6. Alopecurus pratensis 5 No FAC X 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 8. X 3-Prevalence Index is<_3.0' 9. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 10. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 11. 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 100 =Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2� Hydrophytic =Total Cover Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Present? Yes X No Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9,FEB 2024 Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WDP1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-2 10YR 2/1 100 Mucky Loam/Clay undcomposed organic matter&roots 2-13 10YR 2/1 100 Mucky Loam/Clay faint H2S odor 13-17 10YR 2/1 100 Loamy/Clayey 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol(A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR A,E) Histic Epipedon(A2) Sandy Redox(S5) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR D) Black Histic(A3) Stripped Matrix(S6) Red Parent Material(F21) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) X Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) 1 cm Muck(A9)(LRR D,G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) Other(Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) Depleted Matrix(F3) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Redox Dark Surface(F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S2)(LRR G) Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: 0-13"evidences thick layer of loamy-mucky mineral material,greasy-feeling,fibrous. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required� Surface Water(A1) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2 X High Water Table(A2) MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) 4A,and 4B) X Saturation(A3) Salt Crust(B11) Drainage Patterns(B10) Water Marks(B1) Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(63) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) X Geomorphic Position(D2) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Shallow Aquitard(D3) Iron Deposits(65) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Other(Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 10 Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge, monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Sampling point approximately 2'from creek. ENG FORM 6116-9,FEB 2024 Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control#:0710-0024,Exp:11/30/2024 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET—Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast Region RequirementControlSymboIEXEMPT: See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority:AR 335-15,paragraph 5-2a) Project/Site: Meadow Creek City/County: Bozeman,Gallatin County Sampling Date: 06/04/24 Applicant/Owner: Bridger Development State: MT Sampling Point: WDP2 Investigator(s): Faith Doty,Christy Pearcy Section,Township, Range: Section 23,T2S, R5E Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Creek side Local relief(concave,convex, none): Flat Slope(%): 0 Subregion(LRR/MLRA): LRR E, MLRA 49 Lat: 45.644098 Long: -111.068365 Datum: NAD84 Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek loam NWI classification: PEM1A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil ,or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks: Wetland point on east side of creek,within cattails. VEGETATION —Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) %Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: �� Number of Dominant Species That 2. Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 3� Total Number of Dominant Species 4. Across All Strata: 1 (B) =Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100.0% (A/B) 1. 2. Prevalence Index worksheet: 3. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 4. OBL species 65 x 1 = 65 5. FACW species 20 x 2= 40 =Total Cover FAC species 10 x 3= 30 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) FACU species 5 x 4= 20 1. Mentha arvensis 5 No FACW UPL species 0 x 5= 0 2. Rumex occidentalis 5 No FACW Column Totals: 100 (A) 155 (B) 3. Potamogeton amplifolius 5 No OBL Prevalence Index =B/A= 1.55 4. Typha latifolia 60 Yes OBL 5. Galium aparine 5 No FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 6. Alopecurus pratensis 5 No FAC X 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7. Cirsium arvense 5 No FAC X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 8. Juncus balticus 10 No FACW X 3-Prevalence Index is<_3.0' 9. Urtica dioica 0 FAC 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 10. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 11. 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 100 =Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2� Hydrophytic =Total Cover Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Present? Yes X No Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9,FEB 2024 Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WDP2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 2/1 100 Mucky Loam/Clay undcomposed organic matter&roots 4-9 10YR 2/1 100 Mucky Loam/Clay silty clay loam, mucky 9-16 10YR 2/1 100 Loamy/Clayey rounded cobbles,silt loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol(A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR A,E) Histic Epipedon(A2) Sandy Redox(S5) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR D) Black Histic(A3) Stripped Matrix(S6) Red Parent Material(F21) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) X Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) 1 cm Muck(A9)(LRR D,G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) Other(Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) Depleted Matrix(F3) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Redox Dark Surface(F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S2)(LRR G) Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: 0-9"evidences thick layer of loamy-mucky mineral material,greasy-feeling,fibrous. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required� Surface Water(A1) X Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2 High Water Table(A2) MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) 4A,and 4B) Saturation(A3) Salt Crust(B11) Drainage Patterns(B10) Water Marks(B1) Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(63) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) X Geomorphic Position(D2) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Shallow Aquitard(D3) Iron Deposits(65) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Other(Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 10 Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge, monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Sampling point approximately 2'from creek;excavated beneath water level of creek. No water table observed in pit. ENG FORM 6116-9,FEB 2024 Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control#:0710-0024,Exp:11/30/2024 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET—Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast Region RequirementControlSymboIEXEMPT: See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority:AR 335-15,paragraph 5-2a) Project/Site: Meadow Creek City/County: Bozeman,Gallatin County Sampling Date: 06/04/24 Applicant/Owner: Bridger Development State: MT Sampling Point: WDP3 Investigator(s): Faith Doty,Christy Pearcy Section,Township, Range: Section 23,T2S, R5E Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Creek side Local relief(concave,convex, none): Flat Slope(%): 0 Subregion(LRR/MLRA): LRR E, MLRA 49 Lat: 45.644079 Long: -111.068311 Datum: NAD84 Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek loam NWI classification: PEM1A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil ,or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks: Wetland point on east side of creek outside of cattail in a Baltic rush dominated community,transitioning to upland to the east. VEGETATION —Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) %Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: �� Number of Dominant Species That 2. Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 3� Total Number of Dominant Species 4. Across All Strata: 2 (B) =Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100.0% (A/B) 1. 2. Prevalence Index worksheet: 3. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 4. OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 5. FACW species 60 x 2= 120 =Total Cover FAC species 40 x 3= 120 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) FACU species 0 x 4= 0 1. Juncus balticus 60 Yes FACW UPL species 0 x 5= 0 2. Cirsium arvense 10 No FAC Column Totals: 100 (A) 240 (B) 3. Poa pratensis 30 Yes FAC Prevalence Index =B/A= 2.40 4. Taraxacum officinale 0 FACU 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 6. X 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 8. X 3-Prevalence Index is<_3.0' 9. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 10. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 11. 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 100 =Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2� Hydrophytic =Total Cover Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Present? Yes X No Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9,FEB 2024 Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WDP3 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 2/1 100 Loamy/Clayey Loam,fine and medium roots 4-11 10YR 2/1 100 Loamy/Clayey Sandy clay loam,small cobbles 11-13 10YR 2/1 100 Loamy/Clayey Sandy clay loam, large cobbles 13-16 10YR 2/1 20 10YR 4/2 70 D M Loamy/Clayey Sandy loam 10YR 5/6 10 C M 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol(A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR A,E) Histic Epipedon(A2) Sandy Redox(S5) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR D) Black Histic(A3) Stripped Matrix(S6) Red Parent Material(F21) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) 1 cm Muck(A9)(LRR D,G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) Other(Explain in Remarks) X Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) Depleted Matrix(F3) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Redox Dark Surface(F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S2)(LRR G) Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: Meets A11 requirements. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required� Surface Water(A1) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2 High Water Table(A2) MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) 4A,and 4B) Saturation(A3) Salt Crust(B11) Drainage Patterns(B10) Water Marks(B1) Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(63) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) X Geomorphic Position(D2) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Shallow Aquitard(D3) Iron Deposits(65) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) X Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Other(Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge, monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Lacking primary hydrology indicators ENG FORM 6116-9,FEB 2024 Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control#:0710-0024,Exp:11/30/2024 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET—Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast Region RequirementControlSymboIEXEMPT: See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority:AR 335-15,paragraph 5-2a) Project/Site: Meadow Creek City/County: Bozeman,Gallatin County Sampling Date: 06/04/24 Applicant/Owner: Bridger Development State: MT Sampling Point: WDP4 Investigator(s): Faith Doty,Christy Pearcy Section,Township, Range: Section 23,T2S, R5E Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Stream terrace Local relief(concave,convex, none): Flat Slope(%): 0 Subregion(LRR/MLRA): LRR E, MLRA 49 Lat: 45.646266 Long: -111.068362 Datum: NAD84 Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek Loam NWI classification: RP1SS Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil ,or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks: Emergent wetland fringe to shrub wetland along waterway. VEGETATION —Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) %Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: �� Number of Dominant Species That 2. Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 3� Total Number of Dominant Species 4. Across All Strata: 2 (B) =Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100.0% (A/B) 1. 2. Prevalence Index worksheet: 3. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 4. OBL species 60 x 1 = 60 5. FACW species 40 x 2= 80 =Total Cover FAC species 0 x 3= 0 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) FACU species 0 x 4= 0 1. Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani 55 Yes OBL UPL species 0 x 5= 0 2. Mentha arvensis 5 No FACW Column Totals: 100 (A) 140 (B) 3. Carex nebrascensis 5 No OBL Prevalence Index =B/A= 1.40 4. Phalaris arundinacea 35 Yes FACW 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 6. X 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 8. X 3-Prevalence Index is<_3.0' 9. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 10. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 11. 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 100 =Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2� Hydrophytic =Total Cover Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Present? Yes X No Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9,FEB 2024 Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WDP4 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-6 10YR 2/1 100 MuCky L08fT1/CIBy loamy mucky mineral,undecomposed plant matter 6-8 10YR 2/1 100 Mucky Loam/Clay mucky mineral loam 8-16 10YR 2/1 100 Loamy/Clayey Clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol(A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR A,E) Histic Epipedon(A2) Sandy Redox(S5) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR D) Black Histic(A3) Stripped Matrix(S6) Red Parent Material(F21) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) X Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) 1 cm Muck(A9)(LRR D,G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) Other(Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) Depleted Matrix(F3) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Redox Dark Surface(F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S2)(LRR G) Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: Thick layer of mucky mineral loam,greasy-feeling,fibrous. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required� Surface Water(A1) X Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2 X High Water Table(A2) MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) 4A,and 4B) X Saturation(A3) Salt Crust(B11) Drainage Patterns(B10) Water Marks(B1) Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(63) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) X Geomorphic Position(D2) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Shallow Aquitard(D3) Iron Deposits(65) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) X Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Other(Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 4 Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes #### No #### (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge, monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Stream nearby. ENG FORM 6116-9,FEB 2024 Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control#:0710-0024,Exp:11/30/2024 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET—Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast Region RequirementControlSymboIEXEMPT: See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority:AR 335-15,paragraph 5-2a) Project/Site: Meadow Creek City/County: Bozeman,Gallatin County Sampling Date: 06/04/24 Applicant/Owner: Bridger Development State: MT Sampling Point: WDP5 Investigator(s): Faith Doty,Christy Pearcy Section,Township, Range: Section 23,T2S, R5E Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Stream terrace Local relief(concave,convex, none): Flat Slope(%): 0 Subregion(LRR/MLRA): LRR E, MLRA 49 Lat: 45.646268 Long: -111.068411 Datum: NAD84 Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek Loam NWI classification: RP1SS Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil ,or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks: PSS1 wetland following stream VEGETATION —Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) %Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Alnus viridis 5 No FACW Number of Dominant Species That 2. Salix bebbiana 65 Yes FACW Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 3 (A) 3� Total Number of Dominant Species 4. Across All Strata: 3 (B) 70 =Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100.0% (A/B) 1. 2. Prevalence Index worksheet: 3. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 4. OBL species 20 x 1 = 20 5. FACW species 70 x 2= 140 =Total Cover FAC species 10 x 3= 30 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) FACU species 0 x 4= 0 1. Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani 10 Yes OBL UPL species 0 x 5= 0 2. Mentha arvensis 0 FACW Column Totals: 100 (A) 190 (B) 3. Carex nebrascensis 5 No OBL Prevalence Index =B/A= 1.90 4. Phalaris arundinacea 0 FACW 5. Equisetum arvense 10 Yes FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 6. Schoenoplectus amplifolius 5 No OBL 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 8. X 3-Prevalence Index is<_3.0' 9. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 10. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 11. 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 30 =Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2� Hydrophytic =Total Cover Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Present? Yes X No Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9,FEB 2024 Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WDP5 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-6 10YR 2/1 100 MuCky L08fT1/CIBy loamy mucky mineral,undecomposed plant matter 6-8 10YR 2/1 100 Mucky Loam/Clay mucky mineral loam 8-16 10YR 2/1 100 Loamy/Clayey Sandy loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol(A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR A,E) Histic Epipedon(A2) Sandy Redox(S5) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR D) Black Histic(A3) Stripped Matrix(S6) Red Parent Material(F21) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) X Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) 1 cm Muck(A9)(LRR D,G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) Other(Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) Depleted Matrix(F3) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Redox Dark Surface(F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S2)(LRR G) Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: Thick layer of mucky mineral loam,greasy-feeling,fibrous. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required� Surface Water(A1) X Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2 X High Water Table(A2) MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) 4A,and 4B) X Saturation(A3) Salt Crust(B11) Drainage Patterns(B10) Water Marks(B1) Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(63) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) X Geomorphic Position(D2) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Shallow Aquitard(D3) Iron Deposits(65) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) X Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Other(Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 4 Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge, monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Stream aproximately 4'away. ENG FORM 6116-9,FEB 2024 Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control#:0710-0024,Exp:11/30/2024 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET—Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast Region RequirementControlSymboIEXEMPT: See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority:AR 335-15,paragraph 5-2a) Project/Site: Meadow Creek City/County: Bozeman,Gallatin County Sampling Date: 06/04/24 Applicant/Owner: Bridger Development State: MT Sampling Point: WDP6 Investigator(s): Faith Doty,Christy Pearcy Section,Township, Range: Section 23,T2S, R5E Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Stream terrace Local relief(concave,convex, none): Flat Slope(%): 0 Subregion(LRR/MLRA): LRR E, MLRA 49 Lat: 45.645456 Long: -111.06825 Datum: NAD84 Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek loam NWI classification: PEM1A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil ,or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks: West side of creek,stream terrace slightly above culvert inlet. VEGETATION —Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) %Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: �� Number of Dominant Species That 2. Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 3� Total Number of Dominant Species 4. Across All Strata: 2 (B) =Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100.0% (A/B) 1. 2. Prevalence Index worksheet: 3. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 4. OBL species 50 x 1 = 50 5. FACW species 45 x 2= 90 =Total Cover FAC species 5 x 3= 15 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) FACU species 0 x 4= 0 1. Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani 50 Yes OBL UPL species 0 x 5= 0 2. Mentha arvensis 5 No FACW Column Totals: 100 (A) 155 (B) 3. Juncus balticus 40 Yes FACW Prevalence Index =B/A= 1.55 4. Equisetum arvense 5 No FAC 5. Geum macrophyllum 0 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 6. X 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 8. X 3-Prevalence Index is<_3.0' 9. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 10. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 11. 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 100 =Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5m2 ) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2� Hydrophytic =Total Cover Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Present? Yes X No Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9,FEB 2024 Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WDP6 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-6 10YR 2/1 100 Mucky Loam/Clay Mucky mineral loam 6-16 10YR 2/1 100 Loamy/Clayey Silt loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol(A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR A,E) Histic Epipedon(A2) Sandy Redox(S5) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR D) Black Histic(A3) Stripped Matrix(S6) Red Parent Material(F21) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) X Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) 1 cm Muck(A9)(LRR D,G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) Other(Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) Depleted Matrix(F3) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Redox Dark Surface(F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S2)(LRR G) Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: 0-6"evidences layer of loamy-mucky mineral material,greasy-feeling,fibrous. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required� Surface Water(A1) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2 X High Water Table(A2) MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) 4A,and 4B) Saturation(A3) Salt Crust(B11) Drainage Patterns(B10) Water Marks(B1) Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(63) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) X Geomorphic Position(D2) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Shallow Aquitard(D3) Iron Deposits(65) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Other(Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 9 Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge, monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9,FEB 2024 Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation 6475.007 APPENDIX C: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS 13 � P a g e �� Morrison � Maierle •;'Tr--._a�.� �„'`� �lti•'a'AY.'Se7�. ,� �... �,. n��n f,_ t:�. n� :;rf�a�� ,,,,., - �: � �a'�i� �`��1{yy,�� L � � �r,�.;> M� �ti:w� ��TV�#�i�� Kr � �; e� . 1 ♦ t�,� � cr;.. � t . ' r '� ' � "'�� s�4.�� /F/F J� � ��- � -r�' • `��` ��`�r, �� '�r,e T'�r ��a f��,.('��+l+4 r/+ '��t'�r � � ��. y��,a �� ., �'�';p° > � .�, ��:��a"�.,r.�� ,y��F��' r x� �4"`�, .k�� . "@ +�f 1F �.q�� LF �A � �i�� ,.',�': �Y} � �� },: �� , @� � �.q��1t��i_a�� ,;,�� •,� ,�,,�v+�� .t �:a s �r�.,i: t, � �� ' h{ei �i e\e� �. e f1�Z� �.w ._\ � � A :, yv �y rti {� t�s.;.�' t Y 1 ,r�/1+JZ , _ . . ba �I/-t��'�,��' � ` � V .R �+ / � / 4.� ' a v6a'i . . . � l~ J`� �y�A�1r�IY/fF ♦ �� i ` � �.. � ! w� : - IY�� N1�3�\. i� �a � '„ I "e fr� �� V�� i� I - ;�C � a. ��'� .�., ^ y ae�f, 1 � � �' d�C'Ci '�X � ��.`. y +` 5,� .� n.,�.� � �p r � , �� ;y�� e1� ?f� ��:` �°� `�.,�� `.... fs�,y�� .t �.,.� .A y� �+� �!'1��( � �j �� s�",' ;+�. y r-w'4 1 � P �itM �T-°T -a., . �- ,u . a,I �� .�^y '�i �i 7�3 i, � J ' � � `' '-�,a. ��i �-`7F�� ?��`1(r� �/.��'_ `i y� ,p v ,�V�'i ,r( .� �rw,�,^ '\��b-�..�Y lV.� 1!i '11 � . �"`� . .. �/,'r�` i.��a!'v �a�� r' { .r-G T \fR�`i- „�t. 1��ia'��I=�•� �.i J� +r_ '�,�; "s w►.�4,\ � 1.� y o�� '�` :�(� 3 !.K /. °�a ,`��a��`��y �1,`�'A "•��s7 ��t��'tl\��Y �t �i��" rY'�.ki �� /�- �� 1�'.�E�1 �y � � � � �°�. � !� � , (� -;�a�d�f�.'�� i� A1��,'.��T�S1��'�b�.i �a�. -��..��_-f� �I ��> r. ��.:� .a .1�.�+, Photo 1: WDP1 at the south end of the subject property, facing north. ��`��'�P�, 4 .7►� i -i� �� i� �� a � � � `� �r�� v1 iia:t. �a� �,.� 1 i� F s�r i, �`o,l"� , i tQ•� � �.� ��.�..:�� . . _ �1 � �i�� -;��i��Y1 �► i :. �,'�l�y116(}' ,, �'s , � � � !,�y ��V.I � „� ��Q �, . �� .�� '.NZ?\ �� `Jr+l� � . -' �i).;��. ? c'� 6 ��a.t � ��;� ��V; o `�! � • p ,, �� t�h r;� �;1 ? � ��/ , ��t�E�;1� '�e4e `� Y�. J`��R: � �.'•i�. adt�`�� ._;�•', ayE' ►y �� ,I� ��F� ; .�' `� �,� `� ..•,�° `+� �' � ��4 P\ ,�/t`, 'f � � ��' �'� V� 1-� � 1, i �67 ��F \`• ' -s� -.� a t��'� �'��'o ,i". , ;-�t�z��`„�`,'�'�li',��.�� t ��`.�: 1 a� � �} A 'Z 1 �._ � 1? ,ri �' !,�'��6',+ l"'. -, a '�`;wtr"�', is-" (. ..F„ � . . ..�jw. .-. � ,v - �'�, ,,�5 •.�'f: �y,�." :T,.� i ~�.t:��.�,:,`..�` ��k�.�. _ ,;�_� A . . 'i Y�".�T-• "� ir�'�r_.^^�{'w,`'< :� "`"t ' :.:. `^� '�" iC�,��`�: '�f�`s�, �'` `- s r .�'� �, \�� ` �f,�� * , � , r `� ,. y y�r�C ' `�� .�L�+N1 `T'•M �' ��x R 5�� ..�.. 4a�_ ,j 7� R ,�!rk.w��v>, C�� ..?'�T'"��l's —_ i�. a Z��/�� w� �':%. N: `'vt� .��'itl ,. ��` "_ _. . �v ��j ��. �� y,�'' Di •r.+�r , � f� + : ��%`1��,�'G�t"' �gI b`��-'�°'�'"�`;��y� 's � ` .r` '"�� `�i, ��'..,a:.. • � .: I�'" � .., %�'S A/ �� '� �1i'-�'ite • �tis, !r�,� , ��► �� 1 G � C`!�,fe r i ' �� 1'{\ .,r r,'y �� +�G � � I�`�'a+ •�',!o,� � _ �' I�� ,��'is ��wl� �.� �fj^iC �I'F �`�{,_' y�-V!.: �i.i��i .a. '�' � � ` y h� �1�.� � ,��2`^►� ��+��y� �� +6 ''�'( � �;� '�!`�� s'`�l %�s�rf�� .` s_ �.�+,� N 7� �l!�^r � a i21��'`�r`9 e :i � r ,�,�; �y a � } . lr&d :. F�. °� ��-d I �� - !': r'�� II�.� ^�. I �s��A ��:t�e{? i � � ;�• �IT `�i �j �'�� *� '_ ' `�� .�,+��'r� � f1��,q ��'1�s �, _ B�1F♦ �� ' r. k .s- . �� ' � ► .r��r ��':vy •�.�'°,,�,,� '��(��'t�1�!�'��p �Cy" ._ --�da'1 n�.:.�� ./�� r N - � ♦. `d7'�'�`�`�1'1N .�. ;�',.1�,��/Ai�� r � .`-, �, �w-.,► z, t. t' ;�e 9 /..�►• - l o �`�G i. . �/��I �� V.� � �Q%- , +A.e�-s ,Y.;: y ` •.c: � ,.�a•� `�s: ,� a Photo 2: View of loamy mucky mineral soil at WDP1. Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation Bozeman, Montana Photo Date:June 4,2024 N\fi475\007-MeadowCreek\04 Design\Reports\Wetland Del'ineation\Field Data\Photos _ , r'- ._��.��f �:��. 3� . . �� ,i„ � 4 w �Y A'� '�'��^f'a.x.`_' .T.�.:. . '�'�' . Jro�'��'��C�'�11�t1 8}'�� C"+F �,P,uy,, ,;�4 �' , � "w^�,.� r .:a � �'.�iM� :�� • ,.�' � � �,� �.�,,. � a' ��3�{��. ti �� v�' . :a � �- i � I 4n d� f �!'a}�,I �'- t �.: �I y�':� a�� ;' � .� '+n""C,x'� � �J� N��`�Y �,;i� 1�' J yg�� . . �'?. � f� (�rm � ,�; a� � - n, ; *v� ;r � � , e �, i'�3�,_� � � �a ��' y �� t �I�E�� lyf��•��l *Y�S-t�� °�('��=� A� - r .- � �� _a�• � ° i�! r ' b 1 ��r^�-" R�'��s`: f �,�r�l�r��, ��r 6i�� .- '��N �h( � � � � , ! � �y .-, � �'�� d�4��}C�i`' �e, ,��,�7� �': �,t' „, s � �', $1F��.�„','�:��t,; . ' _.w'��i�r,��, 'i� �,� '� ��'�r'��ma� ��tl i 9n�� 1 � �P J`4~ `-�� a- �� a�� / ;�� ' 1 ��' ��"=_�Si �� 'd +� �K`�0 �' ; \ v' �' �� . �'��r��: t a� �f� +�� '� � �'�f � � :.,�y��a 11� �>�� ,�'.` ��Ma�. - � � ��. ` W� + �,;;r` . \ . �\i ' �� 7i� a�•s� 5�Fp�, '�--: � .� s x x;, �e � 1 �7 ; � . d' 'ay ars r , ��1 � 1=. '� `,\ �� i � � �,�.y �a '�•1��f�1. r�� r'�p �'y�'. � ,�. �� t.�7� � -� ��y �� R; _ i 7 ��+ �� '_ � - I� y✓ � 1 � . tf. . ,.�, �. .�}a 1/ 1��1-.K �.,��', ,, , 1 ; � . ��.� .�,��,,� �;� �f `• ' �.� � �� r.� �'� �y��`a ' `i('ra � � � � K�,�J�s `'`� �, ' ,:�'�"a�;',� :a, , �µ{Y 1 `��,� �'+� . 4� . �� 'i�'� Fs�.� .'� !°< ��,'l r��, ' �I► i�1''�� '��'�� Photo 3: WDP2 featuring typha (atifo(ia, facing north. M �` �� ary'>i� trt�. � i I�� ,ll�'. � I �i��', � ' r ��N � r �� , � ,�4;t..''.. "��' ,'+��,�..�t �) , +C��*!� '� �� I a ,� �N�� ' i� i �;l �'i��dP�l , �� A� '( �� i�J � i'i. �� 4 1'R }'�b�t, ri " ��'�� '1 �f� �I �� i� ( � �i , c `' � r� '" t�"1 q� �.r � '' � i , � � � '�,� ' _,/��f ��1 I � � �1�. 1 1'��,'�' b /��' , �/ , �7 r � � -.�. ♦�m �� i� �kH�. a .�� ,�� v.81 �i .�/ �:Yr .i� .� .��J �B! / / < � !f'�� tl a t `, ti �: Y � � Y j l i �Y� k +r • — I��a°i i �,� � �,1,�, t � w '� vld �'a �•� �;�y� s��d �i deJ .vy� . �� z�. ,i t � �N V�fe�� ' (Fl�� ! �t�j��vl��/ � ��'a ' �+' �.3��PC :. �'�a��l i��`�� i �s�!�.i/ r �^i � �'.',, ��`:.— �- ��'�`.�r a:. E� �i,��. ,a� �.:1.� ��'s a� w��.� w ;$" n�,. � r � '� � -.�P�,!S .,/fA �I��' � s.: �` � � �� ?' /, ` /e.y'C`/�y � r 1. �Y� � �" - �"6' �}�.� .�.-tr��t '��i:� T �+ R�... ,,��/' . �". ' -a r` _sd�� .r .,1 ' . � "`,.r�,+�`�: 'i'�ic�. ' ,k �3 '� s��'� :y:�c ./; �� f ' ' :+, .� � ` !' �i �"=� i /, ; ��_y .# � �� , � �� ILrA W �. � � � N�� .r�� '��.,'�4��M"� '�¢►+�r _,, � / }j�j}'� +y��I 's �- ` " �. �/ Yy�11�i' �y .• ,C . . .�.�,�y �� i �� "'F � +`�� s�I��=7� '�' . � .. � n�� r �:¢:r/ .L ! �� R��I� . .�� .� �' ., . �'�' ,��„ , �. r r � � r ,�,� M � � , , s m,< j'jz'� /�"y��: '� �. o� � ,� �:: �,.�� r, � r��-�� -�. � ��. � �> ]+�/�' � ��4� K�'' � . �y/ •� '�` ��;.J'.l '� '�� -�r� �-.T° i!...�� C y�' �l:s'uan fls-.�� //, b��'R vf1')', �ry� ,t~ .��e'�� Tr£'��1{? '!:.��;'. � � ,N '� ' '��r �e� :c1. �� `61�'i � �.,P �ci_ �x � �.�� '.f:��iy�i1.��J�^� Y��,., ,I��Jy� .�� ,..;�r..� Photo 4: Excavated soil pit at WDP2. Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation Bozeman, Montana Photo Date:June 4,2024 N\fi475\007-MeadowCreek\04 Design\Reports\Wetland Del'ineation\Field Data\Photos L�,�;(�l^^' . ' � - ��n ,� �� '�`,�i�i%r-!�, ' •� �e ��RF � } q,,. , ,�a y i i �, � �, �. �� ' 'R��t.> �� Irl�^:t�l� ' � „ l . M'�i � , v i,� '� �� I �.�� F ; , ,��,r�' � �� „ 1�� e�'a�� r ,i� ,� . �� ' � � �'� ,� ,r��M� ' "� � .r �� ,,��'6�r�"� � �'4�� R��t f Y �� f � (.i S y'� �r ��1� ��P�; f . � ,` �� \�f,; 1�� 7 1 �'�S� ti ' ' �1m t E�, �.Ey t�� r +11,, � l I�V� 3 .!'Yj��'��x A � . � 1,� r'i;� '� .�' ��ir `�A ��,[ i , p .'� ��pl f� ��p �1 k� p -�Sdi� �. :�.d �� `,i:� �": ,j a ..: i �iF i p �' � �� ; i :�i: .� �� i u3! �i�f�! , . .'� ' ��e � �: *� ,��,�� , R -�; �A�a1 � � '' �.��r::. F ��p SS � : 4 ,f� : f�7 I I !) rr`s .' '�r, ` i ,' �;� � g3l � �j < �3 y f��'�i.��jf 3�' �,' i 5 � y . df .v;. � 'f7+��11G�/�st� �y r �'` r��, $ a � � , � . M sr !'� y r l,w��{�e a �!d,' i i ��, z r �.�v`! � x'�g es4F� w 9�° �' �'` r %��'��i r.is��'� a' �,' r+' �'r ', y�/ � �� .�. �s��s�t� ' �'�";� � ,; `�J7 � � �'� � .f ✓� , l ''-�''. 9.�a f� 1 �' �� {�� -- < < � j S � ki,y��dn(y �,'�l��'/ �rt��ksb y {,'y'( 4�.4 r ��f'r�vry i ,�( �3if�1/ - i� i7i �) .��"y711 1air� p �'ti��,�1 Jp.`-•_ '-a�.��h��''C�l`I,l `a4VR,,.m R�' '�J��I�� ..'� � ��e��,��1�'h��rt�i,' ��i�,t��.a�a�. Photo 5: Vegetation at WDP3. ;r: - � y� � ,� � r� . -� - � � 1��,: rS�� , ; � � � . �_ �� E A l��p�� j �j • � ay .�. � � " j an��' �� -• � � ... � � �`�'^ rs r n-• `�t ��" �� ? '�,, � '` � f �`°�� _ �"� . .,,�j� �r .•''' . �. ' .c " � �: �-. ..� 'r� �` �� .. ;� � � '" ��, . ' .� �•�� : �' �� ' � sr `""F ��;� "4: • .. ��.,• `c _ _ � �— a5 �� ;� ' �� .�� . �ti `• i4 b�'�'� � ��Z ,f � `r' F /+'."� L./��'�r't, i �� /� �� vq �^�^ �..� N � !�' f.�^ !.� ' `�'i.`� _ �,'�l`: f � ��"rFj�. i� �.: k( '`v j'* � ,�y ,R 4r: -f ,� '�'4 ,f �C�� ` t � � .:�- �+- ( '. � _ �i'4_.� �• X{ � ,�,� � � � � � ' � ! � � a� � ;t��. ��. `, �✓;�. • _ r -,� e� e r �' . y.�. � L:� � ( + ��r` � � � . -„z _�li v �'w `u � � • . ��.ti�, r.A. r Ar�,''�-E'j.� �`d �r'.: . }� . 1 - '� � � ;A—„� ,�� i rh*. . :�� .4 _ p� �R e{� �` ,� .,1�w ' �.r � . a . �' � __ a, �!� � � s`—* -�v+y� `�• ��ac � �M --s�� f 4� �� d, �'�'�� -�� - � � � _ �y �-��" ,� " . _. ,.:;; " �-�.•r;n � o� ,��i �::f �" - ';• � + y� �'' � '� C�i Photo 6 and Photo 7: Excavated soil pit at WDP3 featuring depletions and redox concentrations (left). Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation Bozeman, Montana Photo Date:June 4,2024 N\fi475\007-MeadowCreek\04 Design\Reports\Wetland Del'ineation\Field Data\Photos �_� � �_ � - � � � , , ,._ .,-� � �_� ,�. - - ' .`�r '.'" ..�, •'EII1� lt1A��iiri�! �� _ - .c , '� - .'- �- .` � ' 1► +l�....,,, `s .. Y 71r._�..r- �++ y,� 'O _� . y "�• .�.+. , "�al�J/�"'��aei+'N ��R'�n'��%� �,o:a � � rM��''�Y .6"s .� � y+*FyA�} � ��s }��^�i: M4 � � ` � 1 ��!� w 1 ��,.�T�Y��:�•�� .+PY � S i�f -. Y � Mr. W! . ' a� ) i ,,y� ,� h p �' �� ' �� b�.`9 �'�. �i'�^' '� �._k.;Y'�'pa 4r.�� a r a� �.A .�tr4fti � ' . A, • -- a '1 � '��,�, 4 .v� .cq �� l�,�i �t' ��1v. � n��V, >��,�� .�: .x.'._ � �� A�'�. � ��n �h��4�t1+� 775� :�lµ �r�-�V ,�i�b� �; ��,, i .. �. ,�� Uf � .�t . `, �Y� 4'�"i �; � '{�a.µ L��i "�1E f:f K�'.h �} d�' '�Y'� >�� .�,� � t t^��R.��,� ��u: � 1�,� 44�y � ��.,;: la -� � ��. ; .s �E ��°� , 4 �yj.•r TY ��5� il j5� �y��'°�'�, vT' , �►`` d 1ya � ;�a� yA �k��ofi��'. Y.k a � - 'Si' J� s 4�.��t .. � �- ii.n �p, �� a•�' i � w +�. 7 F � �: ` y� 'r� �,"'�� i �, f,l�.� �:�: ; y .i�� ,�j ��'-4.tirir ` n M1�{ -�.,.. � Y �4r �R.'ii�y� 'K�G` s��9�5s�+�'�= � �y ! ��\i � :�`KrRt i �r � 9as �' ,L ,��w Y kJ�i�/� R"�'',� � � �, '�e .tcn. �.a ::: 1g �'�0,. ,,,�4 'i �' �, a ��ir h 0 ��r� '�j r �� 'i'4IW, r��';.� t'� ,RK.1t,,.,t� �'�G#� � R Photo 8: WDP6, facing west. �� ` �.� `�� :; /� ° _ %` �f� �b�S q !� a�lY s�': :f. `,,�7r� -� ,"- ' .�,� -: �:�^-a,� M.� �.��'� �+� . �'_ . _ ��r.. :.._ _a o: �� i - � . . :��'S . . . `� .. ; ��y; =,�. ,. . � � �`.a,'2'�� " a��'!:i'�y`�'�` i . i ..r �" a �P� � r '� � ' ��`'� � ' �..� '�:;,`�� - � �y' ,�%�, �� a � �.�� + � , �' � _,�. J ,� d FJ�, t �'R;r. �� : rp t i l , R, . � � � ;•E 1�,4?�� `�`-� �� * ar•�� -,� � "° " •f,,,_��, � � � �d'�� M3� �h 9 ' •. ) � � g- b2 ��.�. � • 4�; y'(rl^�� 17i, . �� . �d � f^'�' 1/� > ; . �5 YFC.��:. �`.,�{q� 1 5.��; . . ��•.� �, .. ��1 > >� �, _'� ty/ �� .�` 1�. { j Y.�hL f� . . V ��, J wY _ <�� )Oy�.. E'�' .; '� - i � . . ... ��X . . ��- � �J��r `� ��t� �y ,;i �" s��a �.+�! �a � , � �Ir � � : `,,,� �� ,��t.�s � oy ��ti '� I ' �1� � . � . � u. a '�tj0 r-�'y y� �� ti � r�i�'; � v �� -+� ��r.>,... i�+1 � .e.s.��o��- � a� �': ``, ;'�' .j%'i�� i. � ��y+�,�e'� '"(p .�'.•. ''�r :fs,�ij'j/lA�� _V�,V, k�� ' ��„- yn �� yt>+•� ` ,,' ' ,!'/ '� r.,� ��` . f�_4.s. �^�,i� c�y. -� ` ��: a'►� ..�i�� •', . _ . r ,:3' �_ - � . � A ` ... i � � �, !� n;:; �"� o�J'�i��'�• � � s - ,y ,+�y�`�; y-- �`� �� ._ - a r io'�i �,�M' 'z. �� 1W+� i�a a "`a' - Photo 9: View of water exiting the property via a culvert at the north end of the property (December 2023). Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation Bozeman, Montana Photo Date:June 4,2024 N\fi475\007-MeadowCreek\04 Design\Reports\Wetland Del'ineation\Field Data\Photos �� .. �''y�, �•"�'!i"'"'�;'K+' �` _ =�;�, ,-� _��r- : �� - - .-�`-- ,,,,s_-a�ta �.�. .. • s4yy� � �� w�K�:4 M►w'R'.. ,a �'" a, a4 � �^RF�:p 1 �" f'r'u � ��' �a� .� 1''t, �«�7;��f.r ,,v. , �,:.,1 "T«y�,..�: � '�:,� ,r1;,.�� S �`.RYw`'.1�,4,�a��,;�� e. ; � � * 'ui'k A�,r::�,� � < � T . � _ � . .. � }.,:� �,.Y � �` ^ �:_. `�t� �.�1 y�.'�1', Y . s 1 , 3 � �' � � � � '.�n.�'� l i.r� ��ro�'� �.IF� . � 1:;'v �..:, �' I" ;�.,� { _ ...tix� - . - oG. �( C . '�-�, , ��A'�: .. . - � ;fi�� , ?��i ' � � �"� r � �.�:� ; y '` E8'��j;�yp t z `� � \ w� � �..,Y,s. 'CPy;. y1'�� .. j M� .� ��x � -t� �n`!ii-E. ��y�. � � �� .,�� :• 1#i n � �� ti '.� � �py� �C�� )� �# � J ' � '� t{ �� ,.. - � � ¢��; �� a . ,, _ .'. � �A � �,� � � �.. w � �i .� i � � �, 1' r t i>q'�u, � r.. � +� � ,a,� li��- � 4 + /�u b r s��,i �.h � ; i�b�� .. �'� .� �j�,b 5� �., r • .�� t�.�� 7:� ' : � 'a � . .; t' . . I t�� '-� `'�r y �';,,. ^� � �4 � „� fi��t �, . , � �� N� r �i �.,�, �e a � a� �W 2a �' , r� F `'� 1 qA�._.�' f�"'�ro �`� !i� �� " i .,.4 �� ,. � 7� .�� F d�r, .Q(�If fti�Y�i� �� s Q� �3 �� l NR� .�� n �I '`'I 1 "� � �.".�.', ,'� Photo 10: UDP1. . �: ; � � ,i , Rr >- s: . 4 �M ,�` .�t / , >"'�y' � `.I 1 i' � r�i �� ' r ' . _'k ..��'� _�F�'`� y 1 ' Y� . :: r,- � �:e s'�f �f' <` 71'i�� -� _' i O',. �,;.., yr r �� i1� � ' �' , 1':✓� 40� ��> � � �r, aT. iV �� "✓ � � A� -. � � +-" ,.-- { �,��, � �, � � � r �,,MY*�'�s� �s f � �� t- _ :�r� e 21 a . � /''r'f� . ° 'r �+ , �6 �P . ,+� �..�� C ��// W y l,� � /{ ��t _� � �� t c^� l��b ,�.. �',•m` � � '�'/"%��J t �•*. �� , �. ;� T .a��L;y'�` � ,3i a. � a .�, �j� , ��, ,, �� '.� a �r�''�1�,��'��-�� L"tffi t , �� +� . •�� L x � � i��I �� 1 �i 4f�� :�� ,.. / •.�� ) J Y� : � k ;� / .�� , :.��'� t� ' R . . er - 1 ' � �;� �j'i tS� .� � � �� $ �� ' � � ' ., .�� y ��6 �.4 � .�� * i �' �' f 9�t' '$ . �'?��'k�� _ \� ' � � � �� _ s.. �' �-lyy,4`!MP� 't`a.!'S.�+ � ►t� ti�� - ��' "��s �' � �"'��P � - ,= ;, �.. ?�. ' f �' ° � i .��;� ,� � ..'C"�.�`� '`, ' � .�,�:, , ��' ��` � � '� ' � � � � � �`��- ��+ r= • ' t�w' �� - `�°r .. �'P ` � f or 'l:-,ai'!r��. �,�`d�;�i � t ' ` T�. S '�,T, ; I in,�:� a�:,'i. �� V7F � �'�M _ ! ��; . �t +� r'�s� e, �� ' �, > � o' - �� ,� ��` 1 � �r � ��' ��i _ � 5 M.' � l ��, , �,� � ,.;�P' �I, �,� �( '�� k �"� ; 'P,.s r� ft� �,�; �. � �..i`� � ti'�' � �� p r.M � ��. �'�f��r�y,� I' i� _��;�A� �� `�, o I� " , ti p, �i�`�,� '� ,� � � , --_ Photo 11: View of excavated soil at UDP1. Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation Bozeman, Montana Photo Date:June 4,2024 N\fi475\007-MeadowCreek\04 Design\Reports\Wetland Del'ineation\Field Data\Photos 4� �� R — - � ,, � `� �� '�'r�� . ,�� . ��.-�_�� . ,�.��. -+� _ � � � � � � .�: � �� - `�' r s � � � Y � � � � , i �� a 1 � „` ,��kT r r-�:' e��rl ,��f ��' �.��y_.�i�f R'��, ��ri.��, i�i 1°�k%� �� ,' ��'+a5p�� ` +..r � �„r i" ,`��j� � � r�.> �/tiM Y � i'r'}`N,s�,�" a.+i�s f�'�+� a a - � . , �� Jfr j ' � t �s r �� '! �2I�J�.� ��... �F b �' � ' � 1� a .. v . f �' " f• r ��X � .��w � � l ?fll '�b�t+ ' �,,��Jl�k� j� �'j�e � ,� � , � ��' �� ( � Ia � ;�'�� f` � ,c av�}'� t ` y,.' '.t.�4'r�J,,4 '+��. ,.[ � 1 ( T f�, � SM 51.il� �f '�� '1 f f � � � �'N y, fl/ �. I� 6`, ,: i � r a � i , �! `� ' ' r l e � .f ! � y�, R �;� J 4�/�,f 1f j� � .,.��°F� . �n s,{,.`�, �.� j � ��i/�, Y ��r�k° 3i ��! �� 4i.'� �� r��'�� 1 , �^ ��., r f ..w ''t � �. � it� �� . .. a .�,�1fiQ ' � '_ t -'r � � �� .I .,��x� 3 �y � i�e A 4 t� .1 i��i� _. ✓i �7 ' dr � ?y(�� n � � . ry w�'' (Y� �� 1�i" ' � +d�t�j��+°�'� t� r 3��j��' +r� 1�t {a"a�i � �'�, � �1��, �� r �4� � �`t� �ti v.. ; ��, 9 ,�� K ��3+` : ,� . � � ��.��.. ��t�°�t ` �jp I�fi�� 1��j�,�'1 �� .�� t n 4 , 5 .,.VS � � ` � � �`, f �' '�._ �� 4 iby�' $_ � r.o ��_ w��; ! 'y �"},f7 :i , ' e � t� �.� � , '*f: a1' R+'�l. ��'R �J� ae � � a.� �r � �:� � � ��"� �. p � r ��'1' /' rw , � f a'.Jlt � � }i ��'�� -.-� s� ��qr1 h ' ' �1��r�r� � �� ,� t�'� E '• ��W�Yf �� 7M� s i� `� � � 1 1°��f.� ;l � �� " � iD�_.� 1 i y �w�j 1 ��° .� �(��,��y �'� a" � �' ��;•'� ��y"��ts,�" ��'r�;.�''aa,�s �� r""��; 'y,�� ,f� w , 7 �La ��t „ .4- 1�t '% .�,o, t�i.G't# e,�s Photo 12: UDP2. ^ . �T { ��,�as.:� °� ,.'' •• �. . . y, , 1,: ��. - ` av ` � �{ a h ' '�r�1�F4��F'�4�; t , _ �. a F'., h.� '- . `�'�-.c ;i i'. � J=, ��F �iY,.`��r;� .l'.� ��` '_ �f��.""y!�' '�{..- ,��•� � Qp_ e�'-. .� ^�i f r,.�y y�t� '�� ;J�'��t ,� 4 � , {[i � _ �— ,, � ft �\ **e �,��• '�'_ � —� 7F��iw+: �,.al��_,{ � .�4 �et�,!' �� . � _k r.v :� 1�- i�:7i,�►yL� - i 4��„_.., �.-. � . ' " ��e . s' ��e� ��w� � .� � ...'� � _� .•t'�r, ".�.�A - �� - � �'Z�`� ��'�� . �. 4 � :�:. . ' �.1,�a'y��,.�` '�,,�� is` ��,��.V�. �' ��.>:- � M , . , � b �: �•• y.e. 1 �:� �,y��. ' - � + d�f �,�': • ..+ci� o i:�� v�,�4'►.' !, �=� .i+� , �� '-2•+ �t�;�.�1 �.�e � �•.��FJ°t� z.� � ",� � ��.�• 'R�E�,{'^ �� \�r� _ `�� n•�116�J1Pa� '��y !�'�' �a 'p+��Y �� a .� ��9 31�.�r�, ��`?��fs �.;v ;� ��II M � ��"�:� '�1��1�� `,�""►, �a t � , } ;� -� - ,�, �, �� '.�� , ��. M �,F�� r � ,"9r��• , , ` '''• ' �0' 'sn i � -�i � �•�! '�� : � * ,�� s:�� ' ��',, !�`-� .�� ,. ,�� ,V�• ��. _, . ' �� • : 'w��;'."+�.;j;i �� • . � ,��a+Vy, � '� 4� n �..- . -. , l�:� 'st'uJ�/ , -. - �.°�'- �`+�`'�� .f.�tle � � ` ' � � �'�' 4!� cJ..�r. % ��. �' -4 ►� .�/��`,_3w,�'�• �.,�� ,,�..,_�: :� .�fl �,.,,�.,. - -•,�i:,�"�""�Y�� .��''�, �� -7�� :;�, :_ , ~� J% 'r- \�►�``,'�`' :V�,J'� �-,r� -...'r� .i J�-. �! .��: .♦ • +� .�/� / � � Photo 13: View of soil pit at UDP2. Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation Bozeman, Montana Photo Date:June 4,2024 N\fi475\007-MeadowCreek\04 Design\Reports\Wetland Del'ineation\Field Data\Photos � � � �. ��' „ , �' ��'� " - � ��J�-�� ..,�. -��... ` �.��1��.��'�: , . ._ �- . - , ;.- -+a �+.:- ' ��I�'�'t�,�''"' ,. ' .. . �a�' � ' ., � •,�•> i�:� �1 �.! i _a� �.:`fi M �I� '��'! ��tl�l' �t�..,�3i ��9W,�t't ��`l�4^ G� i ti �y, � �� ,� .2 F , ��;Fy��`��' + S�11,�?t',��W a � g�",� ��1� ��.. a��' � �� F I �si ! R�1 � i��+ � �ti �a i��f 5p4� �a ,� �� °� � 4 i i i � � � �'!� r �� , $�+�,r ii� � � �'.1. � ', k ay�� r la� i,��,� y�� i„ �� ;� 4 \ ' ' �' �^�� '� _ 1� ��?'�� {�;�"�.�1N. 5 � � � 1 �`Nt� � � ,i��`a��r� �� . s �S��k��.� a� .� �}�lyi i ��'-�� 6 i� �:. � � . � °' �'��, t�� ± �� Y � 5 � �� 1 � � �� r��'�¢K�� ' � �� 1 � a`1 a , S� �,��4L'��1�' �0'� "' �ti�> �° G '1P� SWd�'�; ''i�r t � , 1 p �� f� � �w p, �+��< ' � ��,,q `�.n� �,��; , � `��f.�,� ,�, ,; � �� ; « ,i n f " a�+i�, � C �� ', r .�,.� c ''��"�, x ��,�V ��i y �d � ''`•�' ��.1�� r � a,�$.� x � � r M�� V� ��"., � '�t�y�6r � �4} i �� :� �� y 3 �Y � �i � � •�r , . a �.. Y�yi � 4 d 1�;y�� i �'� f,� �y,i 9: � s � ; 1 i�... �� ,b � � i�t �i�A�� . f i' � �' �c� g ,�,v �y r. � �. � �S� ,�, �.. �ir i A�� s,�� , ' �'ef �� ' �* �" k � '� j r ; .� ky ,� y vl ` �� i �` �� v 1p� � �� ir � }� �4 f�� t �r - `'�� v � � r " �� '� ,ti� � ` n�},C.��+ ��4� ��f/p iFyyy� t. )� y � �N��j, ��...��Y� '� '��.� I .., y��(t ,��y,.�.i,_ ��1�.�Y�1�.',L`11.t7;l�j.'6Yt�' :S�F��.t"1"�NI.��I;� '�1.�� v e ��+ �.�a,��}!i1 H�r.F�.`t�. �1!�.�i4�3i Photo 14: UDP3. � p ��r( ,� � '�. � '��'� ��1�1'aR��'1,i1�49�� . �;��k'R'�,''. �7� ,� �Ic. , i d.`��t � �r� i � ��. . � �,�I��J r�, � "u.�,�� 7 ' � �p I l 1 t � � ��,�� Y� �If�^�I�111^6� . . 1 l�+lrl�+l��i � 9 x . . '��. l�}P��rWv Y � �ii��C �' .�,i� '�. 1��'�b+1Yi � RfY� i � rn,y��; �'� � ({ .�_ � � I .: q �� t"��+ �. � ,� � ' w g�� '�9 \�iy�''��ti ' �� ' A�,;Y�4 � i ,�'�i��R��'��' f+�� i�I��.'� �`y�� °a '.t� � NA n, , ��' I �'�'��'� � � � �`�W�� ?4 �t ��`�� ' �' � � � �� +' .�i�P��. . _. . ` P i��YIA'�t�d� )','�� , � � � ��i�,x � �� a � �� `�;?� ' ' `' � i�� ;:� .5�.�'. , =, .�� 'c�� ',� � �c ��`iwr � � � ` �r , , f . r ri ,�h� , As�r` ",��.,. a , !� �1 ,; �i � �y� �{�r��.�� ,�v) ��,�,�y�. ��1� � �,' )�, �� .1 p�k-�� 1�� +AT�� "e �,��A' �s'�f"��"� ,�/l;� ✓�u:. r y�� / ��' h P.. ��rq��'A �� . . .1,.5', 1A��4F�;9� I i A� , � �At " �`'� �l� 1 '� � v '' � �� ' � ;q� �� v �3 , � l�;I i N ,l � °` � , _ ' �, )��A ; �� rf ��.� � �-Jr :i Y d ,y e h.. � � 4 )'bx '� � 4 ti h � � � �i � 1 v -�.� ��A� �` tl�� G �-�► yi � .��: �� , 11� � �. . xM i+� �, 4 � F � ; �,�E�e..��R � � ��,s 9 �`' '''=��'r ��%r,.i �r �", s, � e,- .;�� s. i �a; . , ', ,' /�' 1h �1 ( �� ''''' �`-x L�'�yy',� � �', I�' s,�, "� < x;s ' +' �4 � ,. -�ypr z "c:.. . j. �� s� ;, ,� t - P��. ✓:.�i�� . �� ,�� .Y F. ✓ �.. "j)/�,n ' +r R43 n � �; '�:� r r!Fj .i�� r!u'\ r �i. Photo 15: View of soil pit at UDP3. Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation Bozeman, Montana Photo Date:June 4,2024 N\fi475\007-MeadowCreek\04 Design\Reports\Wetland Del'ineation\Field Data\Photos O� � �,� � L�Q � �,� _ � ��. � �� i� ��^---- � �`r _�� . u' "�I��"� �� ,F:,;' Hrr��A'1�_.__ �� ' ' ,. t� lk�w, 1� �� . • . . � � � ' . _ . ati'�'a ^.�,,;�',":. i � �" `' t t� - � ,� ' �,�i, �� ,� � � Wl+ � `• �t�iai i�,��y��!'�� f�.;4� ti r 1 ti"�'� �;, , � . �,.;. i � � � ,u i ��s + �j ,� J. � �i �l' �.�( i. t 1 y@ :� � Mh� �� - '.i '� � �� i., t � . . � ,.� 1 � � i 9':. 7 9 s . . . � 4`� ). �1 �,� J �� ' � +�� •� � � i t �.�'� � ,s, .. i � � r t ��- 1 � ;,� f ; . `Ma� ��.. y�,�� 1$ ' �' � 1! a �,� � � J< '� � A � ''1�. �j . ��4f�, �- �. 1 ��M 1� �k � � T ` ��W �� 1 1 �a.. ��q �"i L .!,i ��h � r � F"ii k� v A � Ev�q ! `��'�1i ,. �i�� ' k ��' ?�ai bti� �y�r� � � a �, w �, � C� ac�a�r� ��r ' %t>` '� � 1'� ' �x �� u�� 1^ �y i ,M,.;,s i'" �^a��9t� t .s �' r w '�,y�3 �� 6 a � ' t � �iy' � r� ,�� f E .� C�' �`} 4'J.� t y �c �i � 1''� �.1 {�� . �'r;� r.'4�'�t'�S!' O��i�iptt",�y��3 t T Ay�`+��9��111'�]{ `�2� �1,'i„�ef; �'� � .. :.��:. �x"�'� 1 � f �R' �� y � � Y �� a 4 � � y�� f�� .A"'� t �, �. t�y' t r� ti G� ��. �c ,IG: �r� i x�.:� 'u�. ��i\�ty� y� 7, �` � I l5"6� vt e r��k1� ,� r ��e��{ �.�y}� �fli ��i a -��.� .1 � t �o�'� S��`C,A��4 y� 1 f � l � 1 r� 1. � � 7 �� a�'�91'[ ` � �"��r t �r��,�� -t; ��kl i1 �S e�� L 1 s� a Q�f � Jb� �F� S�� 1 � x"h `?,1� ,. 1 p„� 11�^ � � . � �:�1 y F�� ,� ' S�3 � � +�;1 � � ! 7 - w ,t�yj�\ �^ 1.� �� +.\ �y�,i� h� ��y �.�f�t i 1,re�';�'� a' '6� e�rT,}��h,� �'��' ��` ��..k j� � x ` - 3�j i� , `�� , ' � f .4; F e' >X} ,}',�''�'` � � ,"' �' i,, �3., 1��.�, �'� 4 t�%, �) 1.� v .,., +,�� (��q'� ��, 2 ri �y� ._�i �� ,� � � t Z r.�w� os �' � '�,� ''�� ' �I�AJ.�,�.A��4f, ti'..F��., 1r. ,��4� � —�'- �e �if� ��".;l��t�1�. ti` �.�i_ �i.i•� Photo 16: UDP4. . �'J1111l1i11 I�l�� -n�nwrr+ ��,a.�+ .iy�.t�:�... . �,,,rlN�,r�r..: :,,af.'�t- ..a.Anr � � . . . , . � .. . ^�, �. ��' . . ,,.*. ,.� , ��,�,'�r i � nJ ;� r�iu � � .� . � - " �- ��._ rs . z �'� „', �3 r� �"°"i.;�. F ` �u � y y "� . C r �r q�� (,,� ,lI yy .y � { -��. ��iP F q � r` ' r7 C"/'[�!''T� � S� A' . lK�,.; f _ 7'i r3?l� �`' 11'�'� . •o c : �1 �!i �� , »� � r y , tt tr� - " ;i�� . _ ,yo �'l '�f S ( y.�.; � . . . � . J y.� � :a f `s i i . y ��,, , -.. ,y,y��:9 b,.yC� .:a P r �' .,� ¢ i ° � a 'b f_ � ��6�''�. 3'� w�';a� ' .^-�" �s ; � a.�i w a t�y., y@ �7 S li�r �1 �� '4 ✓ -� wv �, �A s'��4sr., '�yi'��`" ,: .� 4 �Y P ' � �,.. � s i� 1 , it , �r� ,, ��..� � ��: �^�S ,. ��.' " £ � :� � Y�f�+i � � �-, ��iy�..liM i.,�� '+ . � 5 �I �.i� ' 1 .1 / � � Y �'�d +G�I� �, �s:y '" l 1 (�IV � 1�I ' � i�� F .et �Q`� ��,1q�� h r ; ars♦ =`'� , �w�� M1 � ;;3 �...,� ' *R�/� :�IJ �� ,:'c "Te i�� .�, i � Ya�7 ,'��+� . r�� ,� �"� -� � �� .,� 'y��.1,e �."tl�{l�4� �� . �y . - y r�.'tr5.� a 6 ,�n . . q A'� �� q'v � � °� '* � . Y i 3!�'s.�°�'L.��l�, �1 ., y �� ,�''�; � 1" � -� r I� ,� ��,✓:.. 4 � .( r •. � '� � I 1� C l'i�' RY , . . � '� �.:` �' � '°::� t �ib'(� . . '�'�` . . �'� -�r�.`��'.`.' '��x, '�+ .�-�.'1� d1! ��.YR _ . . . Photo 17: UDPS. Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation Bozeman, Montana Photo Date:June 4,2024 N\fi475\007-MeadowCreek\04 Design\Reports\Wetland Del'ineation\Field Data\Photos e� � �i��' ��°7/", � '', � / ,` �G} , , � ��I �'�"r� y ��°; , \,y� a a�.: ' .� i?� .'�i . R �� 1 i� ,q�� , �. �ya My ,i► F _ _ �,4Y•,,d'��°lA/F '� 11.R', ,�„i� � �'' _ � �'� } ".� s '�� `,�� .,� e _ �-S.. ' �. � �.� �"�`�i �, ��,i �� o��' C .,;4 2 e�t t v7`�� '; '�� •• R.:,, ''�! 'd3t �;�cr��>,�'-��p n sr ,�,�V , . a � , � : "� �r,�''+� � p - , 'rp � r P �1' _ �� '� �• "'_- �L `� i�' .. � ,. � �4. �; ��t, w.� �� `�_ � � E.; .p '1�'S:�r '� �' 2 �, t t� r �- -a �'- a�`'� � "C � ¢ �-, , ;� �1�� z. �t�;; �� ' �,s,� '��-, + i � � �yy . - �� Y� tl � Yy �•� �{�.N r y �� ~ .., y ..,... .�1 V'�+�'.,-r i IS�� .�� ' ��a� '�n �'�� „-�.i ��•�� a�� r��t s �'�� y k-� . :ib1n.��. y" � 1 Iallii� 't.Rp� _e-4� .'� l d'3�!Z .,� � �✓WT�. f' i�� :��m � � X t ','�� ,a�,�iq � ��;', ' ;`�� .�' - �0it � t�x-�y j, � ��r�11, �� «�:``,: � ,..,�¢� � ;:- ��. ,�_j 4 ��..� �E ..� p y�' .t��' �� '�� L sa'� s t !(� �1� r ,' .3i..��'e a In ?�! � ."�� Y .,f N�+ '} kS J :,ii� .�R� � �'V 1: 1#��' '�f. � �� o{ �1 f�3 fA � - ��1. b Y' � `�� _ � � ' � , ��'d�� '��;�'.� '`_ t'-.' - . .� - t; `�Z ��Sy � S �'�� ,r ` � ��A.+d y� ; � i� �y��+��Y��`��y��', r. , �Fy7` �. ��:: _ ° `. �s ; �q * i�, 'y ��. "�►'�� " .� C � _ n t�� '9 �,,� � '' e`�� ti,�,Cs�z I � 6 a. �� '�..:a� 1P I16 � ' �� a � ' '8)�' y`,D�� = ,� ��_�i��'��, �. , �' �. � �•\4 �'. ��,��I��.� ��Ir �� '�3 ��:� � �y��e/ �.. �a`_�� ,'.�� c l�, t � ` '�b �y �� a ��•.- `,ia�q�� y�b,,, ` �.�.. M ��1v6.;7Ao.QA.. �i .w. �_�. Photo 18 and Photo 19: Excavated soil at UDPS and UDP6 respectively. s�;: ,„�' ��,d''��.�"= .�a��,�` .�'"� Y,'�-��P. �- '4"�� T:r�� :r,, .. ,.... s; ` � ,-`': w r�: ��.� :._e "'�;�., �� _ + `,{s 1 l, ' '� ' 'R�.,. � � . �. . ��{ � y ,i i � . � - S�t' .< �t.� S . , . � jC1`'V . \.,j'. , ,.. � - ..��i ��. i � , Photo 20: UDP6. Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation Bozeman, Montana Photo Date:June 4,2024 N\fi475\007-MeadowCreek\04 Design\Reports\Wetland Del'ineation\Field Data\Photos � � �_ � - _�!� -,�{�� .��, . - _. , � � ,v'M` ,��,��, � '�`��, r, "�"r� ,a�+�, l� 'r y '' �. �,' '�r'' ' f .t �; ;� � N �..i�' y :�d �,��-,c�_4� � i .y=.: � �� y ,�'� �..r�J"r`!P'i r . d er�, i�; 1Mr.�� Ia ° R*^�t � i. . : y� y �'�� . �� rA��d� �F i �,�4�t� Y�� ' ��.•�f'� � ��+� �_ � � �x a'FA �4 1._ �� "&.;. � ,.��t ��°�4� h,. � k' � h ti { ni: �1� ��i� ,� M1 R k �ys, C`,4 5 iY �i !�� r'�� ,��17Et�t.�:��p��"�,� ,� +,�� .+�i�r� ..�'4 R ��lytr ��i f'�u �"iR3�' ''_, � a E��,�. . 4 J 1 � / �r'��r'- � rr ! R,'1'�'.! ' .. . '.ti.' iC,r°1 . .�l.�li, 'A 1 �. � , � �', I',� s � � ' ' t , - �.�,�'� �. �� ef c, � � �� t . 'n �� ,�, � �� ..� �/ J�,�+ �% -Y � ,. , . �y�� : :. .��. � ��p ��a1��t� �� ;� � ��a . ,��1 "��!��'rYYp`"g� i i fi��ry�.��,�Cgyb,r�.,�u O�l' �y�,yj�, �3 � �- � p > dFt� or�,i a. C �,�i'e+R' � !p'� �1�,�AR [,r,�3p' ��4� e o �;�� 4�,1,.r Y H i �` +��j, ry�q, '"�,�4"`i,�'�,�'� C�, �� y ��i. �..�"�ri.��5,i.a zf •me�+, �7 . .:F't,�i :��7i�it4 Ata'_.��:a.:��_�Aa�'i'��L�y�vs'�i1�� Photo 21: UDP7. � ��,.�� ii.f�� / / �J ,.' / p,.% � i �:9 �i��.,�/�ff�" `�'c �'�: . � .�:.1 \ q.,� , - / � .f; �% / �%/ �/�/iJ Y%�� .�� o+� .x � � ��1 1 �+pA �� %�� ♦a�9� � �i�/ �3.." i,/ �;., �'�� °� ��. � � d;�, ,�.., I��, �j. � _' / ,: V`1)e6..��,��` ,��N Q 11��1 � �.I��C�S.,f µ��s��a?��PJ �� d� 6��✓��.� �,l� � ��` �;. f /1) fN ,t . ,� ��:� � �� T e�E�� >s��:; ..�, � \ .0 t . � -i � ' �-:�� . :^ � �� j., 'c ° `�x > • �Y�i . �y d vF� y� �IJ�. +_sJ� / � a,� ' td ♦�s �� \�� -` �� _ ` .:��r-�.._�` :S"�-,#--�5` ..�i�!� . � ��t, ,.�. .-_� .s, � �` ,�I -�L'��y�S a'��a � �.s ��_n. � \ _ r�F�gO,�r rs�-�. `�V k. �� .�' �, .'ri ,�s- ' � ��x •. _.. '`��.iL ' hf FA` �t' . �s'!. .r �a ♦ ' g i .-_.: - �� ..;°` 1 .9 / .��i��i',�. "�oa -.�„s�_. { i � ; �.�� _ �ti EY :4�.. � II' _ ' '� � t�,.�y fi:.4 — �F'�7 ♦`�'_�1• i.i� � � t'+}� d p�f �' w! . � �� v ¢Ei. �.' ',� ! ..f �� M�� ': ! ' ' ' ` y,� ~ ,( �' _ .. =\r�YL��r-� . ��" f 2�f. ��Y � ( �... ., � y� ' _ �. � ' � i C` 'aYl�� t' _.= Zh v'a:' J� ��"� � - - a �"��i ..� -. � ..: ' t��:. � " . � ,. „ � .� ,�,�� F1 s�� q� ��.i ''��f v �s� � _�\ �r�,.�� r,,. �� ,, �. �s.,ii'!i`f " ` �� \� '�6''�r.,�`�' � � '� - r-i,�;�r�� ; + �;,,�z �E �� ' � �r,'�r'�� i .� � . ,'v�,� b „ F,E' i + � � •� i- < ,,1,'i`�t" ;;J+k� �-. 1��,�7� -� � • , • a z� 1 ,I 1� � S� 1`�� 1.. 'ry '.` o S � . ��r+-�`,.+ �• �r�� . �t�' c ' ,�f - � �! ;:+'1�f �Yf�� _ "-; �''' � s /.�� h v i' r�i •R � . s -�(`,ty '�'�r� �r� \ •>> _ - -+•g�'"l' o� ��,, ��'�.A ,:r . ` _ Z � �►� - �i'1 �{�✓T " .�,r" "� .�� `.�tl �. �..� • r A; ,ts _ Photo 22: Excavated soil at UDP7. Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation Bozeman, Montana Photo Date:June 4,2024 N\fi475\007-MeadowCreek\04 Design\Reports\Wetland Del'ineation\Field Data\Photos � �"— w - ��" _ '�" - � _ �--��,�[ i ��,;' 3��'_ .. ..r Photo 23: UDP8. : F� . � 1�� ..,�,. . �j \r�'��l' . ' r � .: �"� � ��`�t�� ,,�I ��. : �i� �� I �'"�� 1�R1� ." �. � ��,��6�, �h�f'�� :��` a��' � � '► I'��y�� '3'`-v N i v\ �� a ,:, ;�4�j�i -�t�.��✓��.`.,��' .a '�� r. . � t �� ' � ��Q��S 'Ta �:� ' 1 i i(�Ly � �r.�s�� x "` ,r <i�-- r' ,;:��\1,��\I�� ` �i�� ti\'\`�,�` - i. _i��. ��+-��- -��'"e '" ;11��,p►� '�'�!��'.,��_�.. . _-_ , ,-� ��`,� , �,�I,�-;< �.AyA ,:1= ; � : ��: ` � ,,�� = -� � a t .. � ` - : �j�' �y�.,��''"'.! r r'�;w � �°� �1.� � �l '��`• �..s �+,� � �•v,r a ;: �a�� a .�- .��'��•1 f a .n ��—�,r� �; ��i� �-3' v }. t��:'�� tilf � ` ��,: ak t��!`� .0 ��'�i A�a' y ' A i -. r� �. zd �r. `r`,� �,� 1 �i� z Y@ � rt' ',� !�� ;� � �� 1�� .j��'� �� Z'�: �` � ..(�. ,�,�l:i ,� 7' L�I `� �-r�� +'��+;, f '�r �/ �i'�, ,� �� .,;. ,j��:. � �.:* t: ^ `�!"'� ►�k+ � \5r �i,� ,�� . � ,, t.� S t�� ` �'.?�q9� �.-, Jf+ � �, �"��i�'�, '�q�a.� �— '� . f� i � r � 1 � �..�M�r�L f 'i,fz' �c syy �t r.,,�/1"'f� � ~` :.�',� �,,ix t� > � .�� ' .'R£ :.vG'v2 V"p�•e�� `\ A ' !, ��f 4 T i` �"l. +J 1�. ,�l }A).p}t+ � a . : � ` � ;�►.��__� � + �''` ? -,,'' . ��t�,��::,w� �e', �,Ee _ • �� ,�•, �.+ � '�{�1� �' ��.4�b�� ,�..�,�'�•\ I , i��!`. � � - - �j � v,, ` , _ p ti ... - ; F�4s7fy� ' l!:v G.�� ;', G\0 Q� . : -. _ I�%,i ��q)�� r '��e�a ..�[F e � .� v., � ;�. � \ 11 �! ..e^ '- . m �� , � � �`t/r t .:+��1 �._ "_a � � 1 M, '"�lr y J•y ,. 'A�` �vs:_ 111 •t / � _ .,, � ��.�� _st`' ,i ,s_ Photo 24: Excavated soil at UDP8. Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation Bozeman, Montana Photo Date:June 4,2024 N\fi475\007-MeadowCreek\04 Design\Reports\Wetland Del'ineation\Field Data\Photos f � `— �: ��--��n�� ,��,� � .��.---,�-- _ _ . - ..�, � . rr � �( ��."' .,.Yd�Y�k �.�, � „x ' ( `�� ;. � . f'[{ ✓�'�' y J'r M6 t �N � i ''�,r�� t It4;��lY A� q� �M,� ' . ,��,'�+�',�"�(�� 4� �, ��;�,�1'��I� . f""�� ,i��a• �^'. � , �' � "",�'� '1't � !� � 11� r-�ii �� P, ��r�� `y /�1�• ' �� . � � � � r �� ,:��;� ��-�' �� { r,�� Y:a �Ar'��fS�� ,�` t��''I; � d� . . 1 � # _ ? . � S2 1 .Jy' �:��e ��fJ� "�� i s m"�I�! �'I �s��,. d�.�yel�� i �. d� 7� �, + �.. ' ' {1 }� � I x; � . i � , � .; a'. ' ` ..�i , a '• �,��;;� ��t��a� r 6��'' �e��r,`�• �� .J��.,�. �.; �� 9`,: ;� y . ,-�. �, .; qi f�u} ,. r�Fi,�.kar�� f'��. p� � ,, y�� _ r� ,� �~i �. 1��,0+ ;� { ♦. .°�. F i,.i ' i 7 �r� � . 2 5�,� ��i�'v{ ;y s ,� �a 5 t��+,� � � �p . 4 y � Y`i `it �` �� 6� ��'•'�� a� ��`: ti :. . if ��:;P " �ds t ` �s� � C��. p ' • ,�a�. f' >��1 '�4t " ^� s 'Nj1{r, 1 , r .,., .. r .�4 . ;!� Y ^�.�r �' L ;� � . �� S'• q�he� 2��"r qi�l';��. �r l� �ren�. � �„�� aY��^"Y� : � �� rs I�'y. _ i s � ip , ti ��, w - 1 i -a r : Y��f"�z��P6. ,-v y,�n, � � � A� ��'� �$ •i I5$� - > .: ��l �K� ..p�� i� 'a s e , : v r. �� q f I �,�?�. y p� �1�� m:'Y� r��a S'��. 4 3��,�� 34�-,2 ��+ .� yL�i� � ° ty�-..if !� ��. � 4 ♦ � ,t �}� �y /� � t* h ��!,.. �rr.�k 3 vR,�k�,� 'rPi ,.f i�'�!'� Ji l-. :�;k o-'�,.�'� ,f'.S�'. r.�Z,. Photo 25: UDP9. �:�� ,� t '� � ; . ,,` . • �,'�'�'� � �K � �y J /�' s , , � t��'R�eo�.aG .�. x(*1 � I rT '� .ry • ? \ i P :,� ��+ *��f' ;3�et ��`i�', � .�� , � y. �. _ . �' � ��t�t�� a� . t ;ryy�r� ,a�� ,�. ._ 1��'._ ..y ' v�"+a � � � � ' '"'y . � 4��vf'� Y� �', .t,? � _ . `` �r ' � '"t Y, - — t �; a 6 � � \ �� r � \ P ' .. �1� 1 'tiY\'�L.t �� -� !�xn �.� { V1` � 9 i �, �,��;t' � , � ,, v'L - i'�',y � d �! �,�,' e 11 �3� f �f� f � -�a?� � � '�}� �{ f.��1�� Wf�i�� 'y�j a�`' �f.�3" =-+iv. ."� -� -'=1. ,e��.; � -.'� �� _ � � 3�. .P4E . c r :' nild- ' . .-r � :i��+�'�if�k`t- i — � , � �"s� �qy�,� ��'9 :: � ��,.a��er ''�a�,. ,��*a �. � .�,��I, ,�>�►., �r �.!.. � � � l . �`, � A .l � t � � _�ry --.� t��. iC� ; � q �4 �`x- 1�� . � 7 "4 � `' � : y, _ �!�i, a`k,.: . y,� t -� �,. 'F� �r.v >�'' Sy� _�� >. �t��ii"��0 � ��.� _ � � �- . �m �� i .. � y � •� .,�w +�_� � ' y�.Z ..,a q -..a�� ...A;` 'C _�`a ��,} \ ` -r,q ��, ,.��. z� �c �� e� ';�y�� . �- } . "'k `'' � ' � n'L ��A��' 1-� �`°k` _.. ��\ t �i ti 'C 'F ;: .-.t, � 4.;`! �Ys .f'� ��``C,'.\�L � +l 4�„ ,_� � s'�1 �"�, ��^ � �.} ��z t�i\ : ,R\�9�. cc�. �. °I .. + ,' �"�, 1 � �' 4 ' !� ,, kV s ' Ri` 4 �! J .:y�� +`t�.R: rl�,l��.h�h 1'. y^-*� ��.� � f i C � _ G 3 F ��`�� . �\,i� i �� ..e�� f 9'r:� �ill� �� ''.�'k� G :2�� '�. � ,O � �' ,� �� .��v, � f .^� .` �' �/ �„ -.:✓:� .!~ t � ✓ `�, -�%�F N " °�i ,..�.�. .I9- .,.�X�:. �4 Photo 26: Excavated soil at UDP9. Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation Bozeman, Montana Photo Date:June 4,2024 N\fi475\007-MeadowCreek\04 Design\Reports\Wetland Del'ineation\Field Data\Photos Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation 6475.007 APPENDIX D: CORRESPONDENCE 14 � P a g e �� Morrison � Maierle From: Becky Clements To: Faith Do Subject: Re: Request for information-Meadow creek Date: Monday,January 8,2024 1:43:35 PM Attachments: imaae001.ona i mage002.�ng ***This message originated from an External Source.*** Please use properjudgment 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 fact that 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, ��;�y (�Qey��•�i District Administrator Gallatin Conservation District gallatincd.org On Tue,Jan 2, 2024 at 11:23 AM Faith Dory<fdot�(a�,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 AM To: Becky Clements<beck�(a��allatincd.org> Subject: RE: Request for information- Meadow creek I forgot to include this, if it's helpful. Faith Doty � Environmental Scientist, Morrison-Maierle +14069226772 direct � +14065895217 mobile A 100%Employee-Owned Company From: Faith Doty Sent: Thursday,December 14, 2023 11:02 AM To: beckv(a��allatincd.org Cc: Christine A. Pearcy<cnearcv(a�.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 � L Environmental Scientist, Morrison-Maierle +14069226772 direct � +14065895217 mobile 2880 Technology Blvd W, Bozeman, MT 59718 A 100%Employee-Owned Company Meadow Creek Wetland Delineation 6475.007 APPENDIX E: NRCS SOIL REPORT 15 � P a g e �� Morrison � Maierle �JSpa United States A productofthe National Custom Soil Resource � Department of Cooperative Soil Survey, Agriculture a joint effort of the United Report for n I n�� States Department of I V K Agriculture and other G a I I at i n C o u n ty Federal agencies, State Natural agencies including the Resources Agricultural Experiment Are a, M o n ta n a Conservation Stations, and local Service participants Meadow Creek s�. , .{ , , Y" . !� VIR�'. �.•,. .�._C . . � � - _ . , Y . • � ai 'w'ru'!• - � , ' r:. � � � _,. � - „ � . `�''� � � , ,�, _ _ _ . �. ' -'�.. , �� .� , � r , ; �� : � . .; ' - • �- - � . - �' .t-1�?•' - '� �• •. • ♦ •' . - � � 1 � , y _ , � � � �t ., � I ,,. � 'I r� � , � I . . • _� , r ;�; ', � l �' �• � � �;� .t� �_ •, - . � .. � : * , - . �, . ' i� ,� ....� �r �,� • y ,. + ` ,.r ;. '� . �� • � t� _ , . - - � � �� . `� � �. � � . '� � � � � �r � F's � � r. � - - - - ��' . , . � ' ,�-��`, ' �� :� J J � • �. '�Ir. .T� ` . . _.. . _ . ��a�� .��i .- , - .� — _ � -______.-_ � � , . 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.nres.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nres/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=nres)or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nres142p2_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 SoilMap.................................................................................................................. 8 SoilMap................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 MapUnit Legend................................................................................................ 11 MapUnit 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 Custom Soil Resource Report 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 ineasurements 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 6 Custom Soil Resource Report identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. 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 Custom Soil Resource Report � Soil Map ,--�� v - 494.'�40 4944.'i0 494520 49A610 494700 494790 49AI880 45°38�54"N r � � I I , �. � 1 � ; � I � +� � 45°3S'S4"N `� ��..��. _��-� ♦ M� i �' � (i �; �P/* `;� t �` �— � � y i �t" 1 ,� � � _ '.� ' �•t �► —� 1 �.�� ' �•� �7 - -:� � . �, `� � , �., - ' - 1 � � � + � �� ._ i..�` - . ,`''� ' - .' ``� . � _ . "Y J •� �� 'r'.. ♦ _ _ �� - � � _ -- ti� - ;- � . �%: ��" �� 'r ,�� . � � �! , � ' � � �"r� , � t 4� , � � `,; �- �a'�- � ; . ` ��t ` �• �� . �GJ �! .� ,�. � �. � - � � � � � � - � '� .� � �- 4�-- � � � I� ' � �.� .. � �1. �. �� T �� ; �_ __._ � _ . .. �' � _ '�' � . ��; ��- _ � � � , s 4 �' ��.�'�'�". i'� < r �= "�' "- - - �_ - . + - ,!�►�� --- -� "- - - d`' � ' -� �� .�� , � j : � f � '��- - ._-''= � ' i ( . I t _ ,. �� 1 1 � f�� — ,y ;c.,.t�, � w�' � �''`•�, I� I � �-. ; x � t-�� 1 = ,; '� , � -, . ;�� - � . ��' ' �� : _ �aco � : — . . __ ._� � '� ; _ ;� .,_ :+.i . , , -� �,---- ` .� _� � *'`, i�r r � ; +, � , � :; � - - � 1 � ,. � . _ i ' . , F, , ' r L � `y -� �_� ,;. .� ,�l , , ^• _ � S '� � � �-. . T'.. �, ' ' . � " '; x_ , �. �. �ir. �� ., ��y �,� � tI � — - ... �yn�' `?, ' � : Z � � � .�,.}�, ,. M o_1 `�'�� _ � � .� . � � � . o � � � � �r � ,; .r ,: �Q �: '� � i � � �r � , -- - -- ---- ;.,,� f '` _ _ ,- , u .s „ .� + �(-- :" "5:`.''., . i �I l 'i, rY. • .:r:� � � ' � . � � � , � � � ,y:�; �� . � - _ R � � ,��'� .� -,�- _ _:;�:. - , . G, � '�� . '� .,..,�,� �,, � .�._ �.,,� _ - - - -- ._ ._____ __ � _ �-- - :�- -� __ �- �-_-,.�.� �— . Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. � —� 45°38'28"N �- I I I I I I I 45°3S'28"N 494.'i40 494430 494520 49A610 494700 491790 49A8E0 � � a Map Scale:1:3,780 if printed on A portrait(8.5"x 11")sheet. M � N Meters � 0 50 100 200 300 � � 0 150 300 600 900 Map projectlon:Web Mercator Comer coordinates:WGS84 Edge tics:UTM Zone 12N WGS84 9 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest(Aoq : Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at Area of Interest(AOI) 1:24,000. Stony Spat Soils Very Stony Spot Soii nnap Unit Poiygons Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Wet Spot .,,s Soil Map Unit Lines Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause other misunderstandin of the detail of ma in and accurac of soil 0 Soil Map Unit Points 9 pp 9 Y . Special Line Features line placement.The maps do not show the small areas of Special Point Features contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed U Blowout Water Features sCale. Streams and Canals ' ` Borrow Pit � � Transportation Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map # Clay Spot ,+. Rails measurements. Closed Depression ti Interstate Highways Gravel Pit Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service US Routes Web Soil Survey URL: Gravelly Spot Major Roads Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857) . Landfill Local Roads Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator Lava Flow gackground projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area.A projection that preserves area,such as the _ Marsh or swamp � Aeriai Photography Albers equal-area conic projection,should be used if more Mine or cluarry accurate calculations of distance or area are required. Miscellaneous Water This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as Perenniai water of the version date(s)listed below. Rock Outcrop Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area,Montana Saline Spot Survey Area Data: Version 27,Aug 25,2023 Sandy Spot Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales = Severely Eroded Spot 1:50,000 or larger. Sinkhole Date(s)aerial images were photographed: Aug 18,2022—Aug Slide or Slip 29�2�22 ,�� Sodic Spot 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. 10 Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 457A Turner loam, moderately wet,0 3.0 12.0% to 2 percent slopes 510B Meadowcreek loam,0 to 4 22.3 88.0% percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest I 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, 11 Custom Soil Resource Report 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. 12 Custom Soil Resource Report 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-s/ope 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 supp/y, 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 13 Custom Soil Resource Report Down-slope shape: Linear Across-s/ope 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-s/ope 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-s/ope 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 14 Custom Soil Resource Report 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-s/ope 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-s/ope shape: Linear Ecological site: R044BP818MT- Upland Grassland Hydric soil rating: No 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 Custom Soil Resource Report 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. 17 Custom Soil Resource Report � Map—Hydric Rating by Map Unit (Meadow Creek) ,--�� v - 494.'�40 4944.'i0 494520 49A610 494700 494790 49AI880 45°38�54"N r � � I I , �. � 1 � ; � I � +� � 45°3S'S4"N `� ��..��. _��-� ♦ M� i �' � (i �; �P/* `;� t �` � � � y i �t � �� ` � - ':� _ - ' '•t �► —� � .��+� ' , �.� '_� - -:1 � . �, `� � ">` ''F - ' - � - ' i� 1` '- ` .''�,�+ �..;:�', � . _ . :�...,, � '� "�� 'r•; ��;�` -� � �_v - - �r , � 1 �_ ; ,, � ti, v_ ;- �-.� . - �� , �° �� !� �:r� , ti , i �� _ ,�i�•. �� .� ; , ,-; � `t . . •- �r� � �. ,,- ,.., � ! j�' r� �'�; ,i/ ! .� ,�.�._. � _ . _ � � ' ' � ( � � " ' � � � � �- 4�--- , > > �. i � :.� .. � ��. � � � �. . ,� T �;. , _ � �._ '�' � . � - � ��r .. � S 4� �:' ��,'�, ` . � i'� < r a'i - - '�`' • � - _ - . + - ,!�►�� _� ' - _- d`"'� � ' -� }�- .�� , � j � ,��- �;: ;� . ;�" ^i ( ; . _ �- . �� , , � ' ., ' . �: � ' . .. �' , 1 � f� ; - � :-rt_.' s- '::;�.' �� - —� ;, x `� 1 I i � — � �� i �� p�-� � _ —�_ —- �— 1 ; � .� -.� �` � ,r --�Y! � ♦. - _ r J - � , . .♦ ,1 F. � r c � "gl � � � � ' �� '� � �� f � �_ �-. , �.. � : � �. � - sir. d. ' �, '� ?t- . �- r' - i ., , . � — - �. ��, ' ' . ^. t � '� I � .r�' '� � o ,. _ � j � � � • o �-1 � - -� ; � � , �� ;.� f � _ _u .� � .� ---- � + � � y '+, ♦ � � R� .y'�+ ,� _ � 1 -- ~ �- ,��'. t -� i , �- i�`� .- i� .,�,�,,► �, � � �i. _ ._� ___�� - - - -- ._ .__.___ _.._ � — , s ♦ . �-,:.,�� _ k �— . Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. � —� 45°38'28"N �— I I I I I I I 45°3S'28"N 494.'i40 494430 494520 49A610 494700 491790 49A8E0 � � a Map Scale:1:3,780 if printed on A portrait(8.5"x 11")sheet. M � N Meters � 0 50 100 200 300 � � 0 150 300 600 900 Map projectlon:Web Mercator Comer coortlinates:WGS84 Edge tics:UTM Zone 12N WGS84 18 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest(Aol) Transportation The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at Area of Interest(AOI) � Rails 1:24,000. Soils ti Interstate Highways Soil Rating Polygons Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. US Routes � Hydric(100%) Major Roads Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause 0 Hydric(66 to 99%) misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil Local Roads line placement.The maps do not show the small areas of � Hydric(33 to 65%) Background contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed � Hydric(1 to 32%) � Aerial Photography sCale. � Not Hydric(0%) 0 Not rated or not available Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Soil Rating Lines � Hydric(100%) Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: ,y Hydric(66 to 99%) Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857) . � Hydric(33 to 65%) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator . r Hydric(1 to 32%) projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts ,.�y Not Hydric(0%) distance and area.A projection that preserves area,such as the Albers equal-area conic projection,should be used if more . . Not rated or not available accurate calculations of distance or area are required. Soil Rating Points � Hydric(100%) This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s)listed below. 0 Hydric(66 to 99%) � Hydric(33 to 65%) Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area,Montana Survey Area Data: Version 27,Aug 25,2023 � Hydric(1 to 32%) � Not Hydric(0%) Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. � Not rated or not available Water Features Date(s)aerial images were photographed: Aug 18,2022—Aug Streams and Canals 29'2�22 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. 19 Custom Soil Resource Report 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 0 3.0 12.0% wet,0 to 2 percent slopes 510B Meadowcreek loam,0 to 10 22.3 88.0% 4 percent slopes 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 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.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_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.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_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.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nres142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 21 Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nres142p2_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.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/? cid=nres142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nres.usda.gov/I nternet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nres142p2_052290.pdf 22