Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
045 SRX-II Wetland Delineation Report 2024
October 18, 2024 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Attn: Jennifer Bergner Delivered via email: jennifer.l.bergner@usace.army.mil RE: 2024 Wetland Delineation Update for South Range Crossing II (SRX-II), Bozeman, Montana Dear Ms. Bergner: Morrison-Maierle, Inc. conducted an updated wetland delineation for SRX-II, a 35-acre property located northeast of South 19th Avenue and East Graf Street in Bozeman, MT. This update follows your request on July 25, 2024 and incorporates new field data collected in 2024. The updated delineation reflects changes in wetland extent and continued artificial hydrology inputs since the 2023 delineation. Additionally, Crowley Fleck PLLP provided a legal and regulatory framework discussion. Please find the updated wetland delineation report attached, along with supporting maps and data records. We appreciate your continued review of this project and are available for any questions or to coordinate a site visit if needed. You can reach me directly at (406) 922-6846 or at cpearcy@m-m.net. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Morrison-Maierle, Inc. _____________________________ Christine Pearcy Environmental Scientist CC: Parker Lange, Providence Development Faith Doty, Morrison-Maierle Lara Guercio, Crowley Fleck South Range Crossing II (SRX-II) Gallatin County, Montana Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update Prepared for: SRX LL LLC 1450 Twin Lakes Ave, Suite 201 Bozeman, MT 59718 Prepared by: Morrison-Maierle 2880 Technology Boulevard Bozeman, MT 59715 & Crowley Fleck PLLP 1915 S 19th Ave. Bozeman, MT 59718 Date of Issue: October 18, 2024 i | Page CONTENTS 1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 3 2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Purpose and Scope ..................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Background Information .......................................................................................................................... 5 2.2.1 Aerial Imagery ......................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2.2 2015 Delineation Report ..................................................................................................................... 6 2.2.3 City of Bozeman Mapped Stormwater Infrastructure .............................................................. 7 2.2.4 Engineered Swale ................................................................................................................................... 7 2.2.5 Site Visits ................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Objectives.................................................................................................................................................... 10 2.4 Site Description ......................................................................................................................................... 10 2.4.1 National Wetlands Inventory .......................................................................................................... 10 2.4.2 Streams & Topography..................................................................................................................... 10 2.4.3 Soils .......................................................................................................................................................... 11 2.4.4 Floodplains ............................................................................................................................................ 11 2.4.5 Hydroperiod .......................................................................................................................................... 11 3 Methods ................................................................................................................................................................. 12 3.1 Sampling Protocol ................................................................................................................................... 12 3.2 Wetland Indicators .................................................................................................................................. 12 3.2.1 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................. 12 3.2.2 Soil ............................................................................................................................................................ 12 3.2.3 Hydrology .............................................................................................................................................. 12 3.3 Delineation Procedure............................................................................................................................ 13 3.3.1 Problematic Conditions .................................................................................................................... 13 4 Results ..................................................................................................................................................................... 14 4.1 Wetland Types and Boundaries .......................................................................................................... 14 4.1.1 Wetland A .............................................................................................................................................. 14 4.1.2 Man-made eastern channel ............................................................................................................ 15 4.1.3 Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of Irrigation Ditches and Mandeville Creek ..... 16 4.1.4 Stormwater Pond ................................................................................................................................ 16 4.2 Upland Areas ............................................................................................................................................. 16 4.3 Data Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 16 ii | Page 4.3.2 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................. 19 4.3.3 Soil ............................................................................................................................................................ 19 4.3.4 Hydrology .............................................................................................................................................. 19 4.4 Wetland Functional Assessment ........................................................................................................ 19 4.5 Legal and Regulatory Framework ...................................................................................................... 20 5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................. 26 6 References ............................................................................................................................................................. 27 TABLES Table 1. NRCS mapped soil units on the subject property .......................................................................... 11 Table 2. Wetland A Cowardin classification. ...................................................................................................... 14 Table 3. Wetland delineation data summary table ......................................................................................... 18 Table 4. Wetland and Waterways within the Investigation Area ............................................................... 26 APPENDICES Appendix A: Figures Appendix B: USACE Wetland Determination Data Forms Appendix C: Site Photographs Appendix D: MDT Wetland Assessment Appendix E: 2015 Vaughn Environmental Services Wetland Delineation Report and Madison Engineering Plan Set of Graf Street Roadway Improvements Appendix F: Select Historic Aerial Imagery (Google Earth and EDR) SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 3 | Page 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Morrison-Maierle, Inc. delineated wetlands and other aquatic features on approximately 35 acres of agricultural land located northeast of the intersection of South 19th Avenue and East Graf Street in Bozeman, MT. A vicinity map of the investigation area is in Appendix A (Figure 1). Prior to the field investigation, our environmental scientists reviewed existing literature relevant to the project area, including a 2015 delineation report of the subject property, 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). An increase in wetland area was observed from the initial 2015 delineation report (completed by a different firm) to the subsequent 2023 and 2024 delineation efforts by Morrison-Maierle Inc. The installation of a stormwater pond and drainage swale in 2017 has greatly altered the hydrology of the SRX-II property since the original delineation report authored in 2015. These man-made features have contributed to a nearly 650% increase in wetlands mapped on this property since the original delineation in 2015. Based on the wetland delineation presented in this report and the data collected in 2024, it is Morrison-Maierle’s professional judgement that wetlands and waterways are present within the project area. The project area contains 5.1 acres of PEM1E/PEM1Ef/PEM1r wetland complex. Figures in Appendix A detail the investigation area and delineated features. Table 4 in Section 5 summarizes the wetlands and aquatic features delineated within the project area. In Montana, due to ongoing litigation, the jurisdictional reach of “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS, including for wetlands) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is presently being interpreted by USACE and EPA consistent with their pre-2015 WOTUS regulations and in conformance with the 2023 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Sackett v. Env't Prot. Agency (143 S. Ct. 1322). Under this legal and regulatory framework, as further reviewed in Section 4.5 of this report, with specific respect to SRX II’s property, the temporary stormwater pond and the engineered drainage swale (both excavated in dry uplands); man-made eastern channel/abandoned irrigation ditch (also constructed in dry uplands); and the artificially irrigated and expanded wetlands that subsequent formed and are now associated with these man-made features, should not be considered WOTUS or subject to the CWA’s jurisdiction. 1 Morrison-Maierle’s updated 2024 wetland delineation report and other site-specific documents (including historical aerial imagery, which are attached to this report for USACE’s review and reference) support and clearly show that the wetlands located on SRX II’s property, as first delineated on-site in 2015, have artificially and exponentially expanded (over 650% from 2015-2024) following the 2017 installation of the City of Bozeman’s adjacent Graf Street infrastructure improvements and associated storm/wastewater treatment system (WTS) (including portions on SRX II’s property within a storm drain easement), in response to and under the influence of 1 This paragraph and the following 2 paragraph are authored by SRX-II’s legal counsel, Lara Guercio at Crowley Fleck. SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 4 | Page artificial irrigation and additional hydrology—here introduced from the municipal WTS and its stormwater drainage on-site. In sum, it remains our legal position, as previously outlined in the 2023 Pre-App Submittal provided to USACE in Dec. 2023, that the expanded areas of delineated wetlands on the SRX-II property—which were significantly (greater than 6x increase in size) and artificially enlarged between 2017 and 2024 by additional stormwater drainage and artificial hydrology introduced by the City’s adjacent roadway improvements and WTS installed in 2017, are non-jurisdictional under the Agencies’ applicable pre-2015 WOTUS regulations, as informed and legally controlled by SCOTUS’s decision in Sackett. The WTS installed on-site (including the stormwater pond and drainage swale) were engineered to direct stormwater north across the SRX-II property and into existing naturally occurring wetlands. However, this WTS and resulting artificially irrigated wetland areas lack the required relative permanence and continuous surface water connection to WOTUS; as such, they are clearly not WOTUS “in their own right”, as required by Sackett for the CWA’s jurisdiction. These artificially enlarged and irrigated wetlands have been heavily influenced by the largely unchecked WTS stormwater drainage and will likely revert back to dry uplands, following the cessation of stormwater drainage through SRX-II’s property. As such, CWA 404 jurisdiction should not be applied to these artificially enlarged wetland areas, which presently exhibit wetland characteristics primarily due to artificial man-induced hydrology. The USACE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are the final administrative authority for the jurisdictional status of both wetlands and waters of the U.S. according to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), interpreted in conformance with the controlling legal test for CWA jurisdiction established by the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in its 2023 majority decision in Sackett v. EPA (143 S. Ct. 1322). The findings discussed in this report are solely the opinion of Morrison-Maierle and have not been verified by the regulatory government agencies. SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 5 | Page 2 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Purpose and Scope Morrison-Maierle conducted a wetland delineation at the request of SRX-II LLC of approximately 35 acres of land located northeast of the intersection of South 19th Avenue and East Graf Street in Bozeman, MT. The legal description of the property is: Minor Sub 494, S24, T02S, R05E, Block 1, Lots 1-4 2.2 Background Information The investigation area, formerly the proposed site of the Yellowstone Theological Institute, historically housed a farmhouse with outbuildings, and cultivated agricultural fields. Structure removal occurred between 2014 and 2020 during a period of heavy growth in Bozeman (Google Earth 2024). This section discusses the following background information: historic aerial imagery, past wetland delineations, municipal stormwater infrastructure records, and site visits by Morrison-Maierle environmental scientists. 2.2.1 Aerial Imagery Historic aerial imagery of this location is available from Google Earth for years 1985, 1995, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2011, 2014, 2020, 2021, 2023, and 2024 (Google Earth 2024). Additional imagery from Environmental Data Resources (EDR) is available for 2015 and 2019 (EDR 2024). Traces of a narrow channel flows in a northeast direction from Middle Creek Ditch through the subject property up until 2005. Farming of the subject property for hay and cereal crop production occurred throughout the period of record. The aerial imagery also indicates that several areas within the investigation area were not farmed, indicating that these areas were too wet to support conventional agriculture practices. A chronology of available aerial imagery is provided in Appendix F. Between 2014 and 2020, the present-day roundabout on Graf Street, immediately south of the subject property was installed. The 2020 imagery depicts a stormwater pipe/drain (installed on May 1, 2017, as further detailed below in Section 2.2.3) north of the roundabout, creating a narrow, ponded area. Water drains from this ponded area north, creating a riparian-type vegetation pattern. 2021 aerial imagery available through the Montana Spatial Data Infrastructure (MSDI) shows a concrete flared end section/outfall structure at the beginning of this ponded area. Gravel/rock has been placed approximately 85 feet beneath this outfall, facilitating the pond formation. These areas generally correspond with wetlands delineated by Morrison-Maierle. Aerial imagery taken in June 2023 and July 2024 clearly demonstrates the effect of altered hydrology on the subject property leading to expanded wetland area (Appendix F). The ponded area is enlarged and banked on all edges. In June 2023, flow of surface water exits the stormwater pond, flowing north towards the center of the investigation area. Pockets of surface water pool behind and between the soil stockpiles and in shallow landform depressions. Soil saturation is evident by a) darker areas on the aerial imagery b) correspondence with field-verified depressions and c) correspondence with field-verified high-water table. However, as noted below in Section 2.2.5.5, in August and September field visits, no surface water connection SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 6 | Page between the stormwater pond and Mandeville Creek to the north (outside of the investigation area) was observed. 2.2.2 2015 Delineation Report Vaughn Environmental Services delineated four wetlands (approximately 0.76 acres) within and around the investigation area in 2015 (prior to installation of the Graf Street improvements and associated temporary stormwater system on the subject property). Two delineated wetlands were associated with the stream/ditch on the western edge of the investigation area, and the disused irrigation ditch lateral (currently a stormwater facility) on the eastern edge. The other two wetlands were in the northern area of the subject property, as seen on Figure 1 and the 2014 aerial imagery (Appendix F). Note that the north arrow on Vaughn’s map is inaccurate. Figure 1 The Vaughn Environmental report contains the following discussion of waterways on the property: “Mandeville Creek parallels the west property boundary and South 19th Street for 2660 feet from south to north. The creek channel was straightened historically to allow for crop cultivation. The creek arises from a spring located south of Patterson Road approximately 1.25 miles south of the project. The channel is identified on the GCD [Gallatin Conservation District] map as a perennial stream. A majority of the surface SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 7 | Page water flow in the creek is diverted east to an irrigation ditch that parallels the north property boundary. A portion of the flow is maintained in the straight channel that flows north along South 19th. Water in the east/west irrigation ditch located at the north boundary is diverted north towards Kagy Boulevard. Surface water is discharged to an open water segment of Mandeville Creek located north of Kagy. The water is piped underground for several hundred feet on the Montana State University campus north of Lincoln Street. The water surfaces in two open channel segments located on campus south of College Avenue. The flow is piped underground north of College Avenue until it surfaces again at the Bozeman High School campus on Main Street. The creek ultimately discharges to the East Gallatin River north of Interstate 90. The Woward-Esgar Ditch parallels the east property boundary. The ditch was dry during the investigation. There was no apparent surface water connection upgradient of the ditch at the southeast property corner. The channel cross-section was well-vegetated with herbaceous species. No OHWM [ordinary high-water mark] was visible on the banks of the ditch at the north property boundary. The south end of the ditch terminates at a recently paved street located in a new development south of Alder Creek Road. The ditch was relocated east of the road and outside the subject property. The relocated ditch is sparsely vegetated with invasive species.” The 2015 wetland memo is provided in Appendix E. Morrison-Maierle digitized the 2015 wetland boundaries with ESRI® software to produce Figure 8 in Appendix A. 2.2.3 City of Bozeman Mapped Stormwater Infrastructure An 18-inch diameter, 155.6-foot, PVC pipe installed May 1, 2017 drains stormwater onto the subject property, immediately north of the roundabout on Graf Street (Appendix A) (City of Bozeman GIS 2023). This pipe leads to the concrete stormwater outfall observed on the 2021 aerial imagery. The pipe ties in with Gravity Main ID M.H09.0051_M.H0.00050 and discharges stormwater. Additionally, the easternmost ditch within the investigation area is now solely used to convey stormwater from the Blackwood Grove subdivision. City of Bozeman Wetland regulations state in Section 38.610.010 that “provisions contained in these regulations do not apply to wetlands created by a wholly manmade water source used for irrigation purposes or stormwater control.” Page 83 of the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual details the following guidance: If hydrophytic vegetation is being maintained only because of man-induced wetland hydrology that would no longer exist if the activity were to be terminated, the area should not be considered a wetland. The City of Bozeman maintains a geographic information system (GIS) database and an online Infrastructure Viewer mapper. Morrison-Maierle utilized the online mapper and stormwater and downloaded water distribution utility data on January 23, 2023. 2.2.4 Engineered Swale Engineered stormwater plans dated between 2015 and 2017 from Madison Engineering show design of the current stormwater pond, pipe infrastructure from Graf Street, and outfall leading to a swale which discharges to the wetland delineated in 2015 by Vaughn Environmental Services (Section 2.2.2). A copy of the design plan set for the pond and swale is provided in Appendix E. SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 8 | Page The 2015 wetland delineation confirms that this stormwater infrastructure was installed in an upland area. The designed swale, combined with the property’s natural slope, directs stormwater into the northeast quadrant of the site. This engineered stormwater pond and swale are directly aligned with the increase of the wetland area observed in 2023 and 2024. 2.2.5 Site Visits 2.2.5.1 December 7, 2022 During an investigation of an adjacent property, Morrison-Maierle scientists and engineers met with the Gallatin Conservation District on December 7, 2022. During this meeting, it was determined that Middle Creek Ditch, which flows south to north on the western edge of the subject property, is classified as a stream/ditch. This feature is also referred to as Mandeville Creek by other sources (Section 2.2.2). 2.2.5.2 May 2023 Two Morrison-Maierle environmental scientists assessed the subject property for wetlands in May and August of 2023. The preliminary site visit in May yielded the following observations: Recent snowmelt and rain contributed to increased stormwater runoff onto the subject property. Stormwater infrastructure is introducing water/hydrology to the investigation area at the north-center outfall, pooling behind a rock check dam, before flowing northwards. Two large weedy-vegetated soil stockpiles are acting as a topographic trap of surface water, slowing flow and pooling water behind and between the stockpiles. Most of the central and northern areas of the property were saturated and/or inundated with 1-2 inches of water (approximately 25-30% of the subject property). Conditions were not favorable to delineate wetlands as plants not yet fully emerged, and hydrology was significantly altered. 2.2.5.3 August 2023 The field wetland delineation, completed in August, identified four wetlands and two riverine features. In addition to the results discussed in Section 4, the following was observed: The stormwater pond was enlarged, water contained by tall banks/berms. Downstream surface flow from the stormwater pond had ceased. The wetland downstream of the stormwater pond evidenced stressed obligate vegetation (Section 3.2.3, Section 4.1.3) suggesting changing wetland/saturated conditions either due to cessation of surface flow, seasonal water level fluctuation, or both. A smaller portion of the investigation area was saturated and/or inundated at the surface. Inundation was contained within a swale in the center of the property (see Section 2.2.3). Recent mowing of the property classified much of the vegetation as “problematic” (Section 3.3.1). This mowing prevented the identification of plant species at most data points, requiring an evaluation of wetland conditions based solely on hydrology and SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 9 | Page hydric soils. Furthermore, the classification of problematic vegetation removed the FAC-neutral secondary hydrology indicator from consideration. 3.28 acres of wetlands were delineated, comprised of three individual wetlands, as well as one stormwater pond, a man-made stormwater facility/channel, and an irrigation stream/ditch. Morrison-Maierle delivered a pre-application submittal, including the wetland delineation report, to USACE on December 7, 2023. Based on its 2023 wetland delineation report and pre-application submittal, Morrison-Maierle submitted a Request for an Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) to USACE, Omaha District (State of Montana) on January 18, 2024. 2.2.5.4 June 2024 Morrison-Maierle environmental scientists, the USACE project manager Jennifer Bergner, two additional USACE staff, and the property owner toured the site on June 12, 2024, as part of USACE’s field review of the pending AJD Request. USACE staff traversed the site by foot and excavated one soil pit in the central area of the site. In a follow-up email on July 25, 2024, Ms. Bergner requested an updated delineation of the property that included the following: Re-evaluation of vegetation communities as most data points were impacted by recent mowing at the time of delineation. Additional evaluation of soils for the Thick Dark Surface hydric soil indicator. Data point(s) on the southern half of the property, within farmed areas. Expanded narrative on how problematic scenarios were assessed, if encountered. Ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of non-wetland water features. o Note: USACE inaccurately stated that the 2023 delineation report did not include the OHWM of surface water features, and evaluation of wetland presence/absence along the lateral ditch in the northwest corner of the property. OHWMs were identified on Figure 7 and a data point along the ditch lateral was collected in 2023 and included in the report (formerly UDP8, now UDP4). A second data point was evaluated along the stream/ditch in 2024 to bolster the project record (UDP7). 2.2.5.5 August and September 2024 At the request of the USACE, following the June 2024 field visit and subsequent emails from Ms. Bergner on July 25, 2024, and July 31, 2024, Morrison-Maierle environmental scientists re-delineated the investigation area during multiple field visits in August and September 2024 and identified the following: Wetland areas continued to expand. Obligate and facultative-wet plant species populations increased in range and density throughout the wetland area(s). The property was left fallow in 2024, eliminating an annual cycle of tilling, planting, and harvesting which typically depletes soil moisture. No surface water connection between the stormwater pond and Mandeville Creek to the north (outside of the investigation area) was observed. No surface water connection between the man-made eastern channel (former Woward-Esgar Ditch) along the eastern boundary of the subject property (now SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 10 | Page stormwater conveyance feature from Blackwood Groves Subdivision) and Mandeville Creek was observed. Groundwater levels measured at wells across the property varied but on average were within 22-40 inches from the soil surface. The stormwater pond remains full and is likely receiving groundwater drainage from the rock embedding the storm pipe outfall into the pond and subsurface utility infrastructure along Graf Street. 5.1 acres of wetlands were delineated, comprised of one large wetland complex and a narrow wetland feature in the bottom of the man-made eastern channel. o Surface water features remained consistent with the 2023 delineation. o A continuous surface water connection from delineated wetlands to Mandeville Creek was not observed. o Additional data collection refined boundaries of delineated features. 2.3 Objectives The objective of this report is to document the presence and extent of aquatic features on the subject property. This report also addresses additional items required by the City of Bozeman Wetland Review Checklist (November 2022 Revised Edition). 2.4 Site Description 2.4.1 National Wetlands Inventory Data from the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP) depicts zero aquatic and/or wetland features within the investigation area. An R4SBA feature (Riverine, Intermittent, Streambed, Temporary Flooded), presumed as Mandeville Creek, begins just north of the property, according to NWI and MNHP. Figure 4 in Appendix A shows NWI features mapped near the investigation area. A note on data sources: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) maintains the NWI database, a publicly available resource providing detailed information on the abundance, characteristics, and distribution of 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. 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 According to the Bozeman, Montana (2024) U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map, the property ranges in elevation between approximately 4,960 and 4,980 feet. The USGS map indicates that the Middle Creek Ditch (containing Mandeville Creek water) runs SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 11 | Page south to north through the center of the subject property and that scattered wetlands are located on the northern area of the subject property. Historical aerial imagery of the area suggests that Middle Creek Ditch/Mandeville Creek was routed along the western edge of the subject property, and that a wetland and/or periodically saturated feature is located on the central northern area of the subject property. 2.4.3 Soils The Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS) maps five soil units on the subject property. Of these, two have a partial hydric rating. Hydric ratings are presented as a percentage of hydric components. Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric soils 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 mapped soil types on the subject property are summarized in Table 1. The soil with the highest hydric rating (512B) is in the northeast corner of the subject property. Table 1. NRCS mapped soil units on the subject property Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Hydric Rating Percent of Subject Property 510B Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 10 82.8% 457A Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes 0 9.4% 512B Enbar-Nythar loams, 0 to 4 percent slopes 35 6.6% 350B Blackmore silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 0 1.3% 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 B. Figure 5 in Appendix A depicts mapped soil units in the investigation area. 2.4.4 Floodplains The subject property is located within Panel 30031C0818E with an effective date of April 20, 2021. The subject property is not within the 100-year floodplain. A custom FEMA map of the subject property is attached to this memo (Figure 6). 2.4.5 Hydroperiod The general hydroperiod of wetlands in the Bozeman, MT area is shaped by the region's climate, including precipitation patterns and snowmelt. Bozeman receives an average of 18-20 inches of precipitation annually, with the majority occurring between April and June, often coinciding with the peak water levels in local wetlands due to both snowmelt and spring rainfall (Western Regional Climate Center, 2024). Snowfall in Bozeman typically ranges from 55-80 inches per year, contributing to groundwater recharge and surface water flow during the spring melt, a key source of water for many wetlands (National Weather Service, 2024). SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 12 | Page The area experiences an average of 90-110 frost-free days per year, with the growing season beginning in late May and ending by early September (USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map, 2023). The relatively short frost-free period limits evaporation, but the combination of higher summer temperatures and reduced precipitation in late summer often leads to declining water levels in wetlands. 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 (2022) 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 of secondary hydrology indicators are FAC-neutral test and geomorphic position on the landscape. SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 13 | Page 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. Sample points and wetland boundaries, if present, are collected via resource-grade GPS, with sub-meter accuracy, by a Morrison-Maierle environmental scientist and certified by a licensed surveyor. Data is postprocessed in ArcGIS to create maps and perform calculations. (ESRI). 3.3.1 Problematic Conditions Problematic wetland conditions exist when an area is lacking one of the three wetland criteria. For instance, problematic hydrophytic vegetation exists were disturbance, seasonal or annual variability, or permanent changes alters the plant community. This includes changes from grazing, farming, or mowing. This delineation follows methods described in Chapter 5 of the 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), such that lacking one of three criteria does not exclude the aquatic resource from being a wetland. SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 14 | Page 4 RESULTS 4.1 Wetland Types and Boundaries Our delineation identified one wetland complex2, a stormwater pond, a man-made stormwater facility/channel, and an irrigation stream/ditch, transect on the subject property (Figure 2). Morrison-Maierle environmental scientists completed the wetland delineation of the project area in August and September 2024, with site visits during June and August of 2023 and June 2024 (as discussed in Section 2.2.5). 4.1.1 Wetland A In 2024, the three formerly isolated wetlands on the property merged into a single wetland complex encompassing 4.94 acres. This wetland is classified as a PEM1E/PEM1Ef/PEM1r complex due to its position, history of farming (Section 2.2.1), and history of disturbance including artificial hydrology (Section 2.2). Table 2 summarizes the Cowardin classification of Wetland A. Table 2. Wetland A Cowardin classification. System Class Water Regime: Nontidal Special Modifier Classification Palustrine (P) Emergent (EM) Seasonally flooded/saturated (E) NA PEM1E Farmed (f) PEM1Ef Artificial (r) PEM1r Wetland A merges two wetlands documented in 2015 and 2023, as the landscape within these two shallow swales showed increasing populations of hydrophytic vegetation (e.g. Carex nebrascensis), a depleted layer starting at 22 inches, and a dry season water table within 24 inches of the surface (WDP14). The engineered drainage swale described in Section 2.2.4 contained surface water during the August and September 2024 field visits but lacked a defined bed, bank, and discernible flow. Surface water was first observed starting north of WDP17, within the northernmost section of the investigation area (Figure 7, Appendix A). The wetland boundary around the soil stockpiles is abrupt due to an immediate topographic shift. No pits were dug in these stockpiles as they do not represent intact soil conditions and are dominated by weedy upland vegetation. The wetland/upland boundary on the outer edges is blurry but generally follows subtle shifts in vegetative communities and topography. 4.1.1.1 Hydrology Sources Upgradient of Wetland A piped municipal stormwater introduced additional hydrology to the area starting in 2017 (Section 2.2). Soil stockpiled on the subject property between 2015 and 2019 function as a topographic barrier, slowing stormwater flow and pooling surface water upgradient, between the piles. In June 2023, downstream flow of municipal stormwater towards Wetland A was mostly eliminated during maintenance of the stormwater detention pond, to create a retention pond. This disruption of artificial man-induced hydrology stopped the surface water flow from the 2 Artificially influenced and enlarged by municipal stormwater runoff and the installation of a temporary stormwater pond and engineered drainage swale, as discussed in Sections 2.2.3 and 2.2.4. SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 15 | Page pond although it is likely that subsurface seeping from the contained water in the pond continues to contribute to the hydrology of the wetland downgradient, as evidenced by the nearly 650% increase in wetland size from 2015 to 2024. 4.1.1.2 Problematic Hydric Soils WDP6, WDP7, and WDP15 met problematic hydric soil conditions (Table 3). Problematic hydric soils were determined following the procedure described in Section 3.3.1 of this report and Section 5 of the Regional Supplement, and documented here: 1. Verified the presence of wetland vegetation. All points scored >50% on the Dominance Test and ≤3.0 on the Prevalence Index (Table 3). 2. Verified the presence of wetland hydrology. All points met two or more secondary hydrology indicators and/or one primary indicator (Table 3). 3. Soil profile was thoroughly described on the USACE data sheet for each point. The landscape setting for each point is as follows: o WDP6: Flat area between two large soil stockpiles. Water appears to be seeping from a more frequently saturated/inundated area to the northwest to this location. Deep ruts approximately 2 feet deep from tractor tires are fully vegetated and contain denser wetland vegetation than the surrounding area. o WDP7: Flat area close to a gap between two stockpiles. Water appears to be seeping from a more frequently saturated/inundated area to the northwest to this location o WDP15: Fairly flat area draining slightly north. Downgradient of stormwater pond and upgradient of swale to the north that hold surface water. 4. Determined the following problematic soil situation is present: Recently Developed Wetlands. Discussion of the recent development of wetlands at this area is lengthy and described throughout this report. 4.1.2 Man-made eastern channel A man-made channel approximately 895.1 linear feet in length—or 0.23 acres, 0.16 acres of which are within the investigation area—conveys municipal stormwater northwards along the eastern edge of the subject property. No surface water, beyond stormwater flow, is conveyed in this channel. Surface water has never been present within this channel during any site visits to the property. An OHWM is not noted within this channel and no surface water connection is present between this channel and Mandeville Creek. The channel follows a topographic change from the flat agricultural field to the man-made, vegetated, ditch. Although this feature exhibits some wetland characteristics, it is currently considered a man-made stormwater channel and non-wetland, due to: a) Its man-made geomorphic position 4-5 feet beneath the unaltered natural ground surface, artificially raising the water table. b) Function as a municipal stormwater conveyance. The channel was formerly operated as private ditch lateral and labeled the “Woward-Esgar Ditch” by the 2015 delineation by Vaughn Environmental Services (Appendix E). Presently the channel drains stormwater from the Blackwood Groves and Alder Creek subdivisions to the south (Section 2.2.2). SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 16 | Page Under the applicable pre-2015 regulatory regime for “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS), as informed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 2023 decision in Sackett v. EPA, swales/ditches that do not carry relatively permanent water flows are non-jurisdictional. Section 4.5 discusses a selection of legal and regulatory framework applicable to this feature. 4.1.3 Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of Irrigation Ditches and Mandeville Creek Approximately 1,067.06 linear feet of Middle Creek Ditch/Mandeville Creek, classified as a “stream/ditch” by the Gallatin Conservation District on December 7, 2022 flows northwards on the west property edge, 627.3 feet of the OHWM is within the investigation area (Section 2.2.4). A riparian, non-wetland, area borders the ditch on either side (see UDP7, Appendix B). The OHWM of this feature is displayed on Figure 7 in Appendix A. 4.1.3.1 Ditch Lateral A headgate diverts water from the ditch at the northwest corner of the investigation area in a northeast direction, exiting the area after approximately 214.5 feet. This narrow ditch lateral is vegetated with upland and/or FAC plant species and is not a wetland (see UDP4 in Appendix B). The OHWM of this feature is displayed on Figure 7 in Appendix A. 4.1.4 Stormwater Pond A stormwater pond fed by a municipal stormwater outfall (Section 2.2.4), located within the south-central portion of the investigation area held surface water during all site visits. Lack of a wetland fringe is due to distinct topographic edge and compact pond containment. This stormwater pond was constructed on the property in 2017, as a “temporary detention pond” (see Engineering Plan Set for Graf Street Improvements (Stormwater Management) in Appendix E), with the associated temporary storm drain easement held by the City of Bozeman and located on the subject property “to be abandoned when permanent storm drain detention is provided” (see note on Engineering Plan Set). In late June of 2023, between Morrison-Maierle field visits, the stormwater detention pond was maintained to create a stormwater retention pond, eliminating downstream flow of municipal stormwater drainage. This disruption of artificial man-induced hydrology during the growing season diminished wetland hydrology on the subject property, indicating a direct link between artificial man-induced hydrology and increased extent of wetlands from 2015. 4.2 Upland Areas The wetland/upland boundary within this investigation area is often blurry and complicated, as discussed in Section 4.1. Delineation of upland boundaries followed vegetation patterns, changes in topography, and changes in hydric soil conditions. Historically farmed for hay and cereal crop production, the property was left fallow in 2024 reducing disturbance and likely increasing soil moisture as seen in the 2024 investigations. 4.3 Data Summary The vegetation, hydrology, and soil characteristics at each of 31 data points were documented in the field and recorded on USACE Wetland Determination Data Forms for the Western SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 17 | Page Mountains, Valleys, and Coast (USACE 2022). Table 3 summarizes collected data. Appendix B contains PDFs of the USACE data forms. Note on data management in 2024: All data points from the 2023 and 2024 wetland delineations were combined, updated, and renamed for clarity. This integration ensures that the dataset accurately reflects the current conditions of the investigation area. SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 18 | Page Table 3. Wetland delineation data summary table Feature Data point ID Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicator(s) Hydric Soil Indicator(s) Hydrology Indicator(s) Wetland A WDP1 Dominance Test >50%, Prevalence Index ≤3.0 Other- Recently Developed Wetlands C2*, C9*, D5* WDP2 Dominance Test >50%, Prevalence Index ≤3.0 F6 B6, C9*, D2* WDP3 Dominance Test >50%, Prevalence Index ≤3.0 F6 B6, C9*, D2*, D5* WDP4 Dominance Test >50%, Prevalence Index ≤3.0 F6 B6, D2*, D5* WDP5 Dominance Test >50%, Prevalence Index ≤3.0 A4 A3, C1, C9*, D5* WDP6 Dominance Test >50%, Prevalence Index ≤3.0 Other- Recently Developed Wetlands C2*, D5*, C9* WDP7 Dominance Test >50%, Prevalence Index ≤3.0 Other- Recently Developed Wetland D5*, C9* WDP8 Dominance Test >50%, Prevalence Index ≤3.0 F1 A2, A3, B7, C2*, C9*, D2*, D5* WDP9 Dominance Test >50%, Prevalence Index ≤3.0 A11, A12 A3, C9*, D5* WDP10 Dominance Test >50%, Prevalence Index ≤3.0 A11 A3, C9*, D2*, D5* WDP14 Dominance Test >50%, Prevalence Index ≤3.0 A12 C2*, C9*, D5* WDP15 Dominance Test >50%, Prevalence Index ≤3.0 Other- Recently Developed Wetland A3, C2*, C9*, D5* WDP16 Dominance Test >50%, Prevalence Index ≤3.0 A12 A3, C2*, C9* WDP17 Dominance Test >50%, Prevalence Index ≤3.0 A12 A3, C2*, C9*, D5* UDP2 None None None UDP3 None None None UDP5 None None None UDP6 None None None UDP8 None None None UDP9 None None None UDP10 None None None UDP11 None None None UDP12 None None None UDP13 None None None UDP14 None None None Man-made eastern channel WDP11 Dominance Test >50% A4 C1, B10*, D2* WDP12 Dominance Test >50% A11, F3 B10*, D2* WDP13 Prevalence Index ≤3.0 A11, F3 B10*, D2* UDP1 None None None Middle Creek stream/ditch UDP4 None None None UDP7 None None None *Secondary Indicator SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 19 | Page 4.3.2 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 7 (Appendix A). Grasses, weed, and remnant farmed cereal and hay crops dominate vegetation in upland areas. The most common wetland plant species in the investigation area is meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis) which is facultative, suggesting that soils are saturated intermittently during the growing season. Most wetland data points pass the Dominance Test and Prevalence Index (Table 2). Dominant species include: Meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis) (FAC) Nebraska sedge (Carex nebrascensis) (OBL) Broad leaved cattail (Typha latifolia) (OBL) Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) (FAC) Baltic rush (Juncus balticus) (FACW) Slender sedge (Carex lasicarpa) (OBL) 4.3.3 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. Soils at Wetland A met multiple hydric soil indicators, with changes depending on proximity from the primary engineered swale as it connects to the 2015 mapped wetland in the north part of the property and the relative landscape position of the sample site. Hydric soil indicators observed in the field include Depleted Matrix, Thick Dark Surface, Hydrogen Sulfide, and Redox Dark Surface. Table 3 summarizes the indicators observed at each data point. Problematic hydric soils exist at WDP6, WDP7, WDP15 as wetland conditions are developing in this area likely due to the history of disturbance and change in land use from farmed to fallow (Section 2.2). See section 4.1.1.2 for a narrative of how problematic scenarios were assessed. No hydric soil indicators were observed at upland data points. Here, soils exhibit Mollic epipedon characteristics common in agricultural fields in the Gallatin Valley. Soil colors are dark at 10YR 2/2, 10YR 2/1, and 10YR 3/2, with granular structure, high organic matter, and loamy textures from 0-16 inches. Many fine roots and few medium roots occupied the upper 3-6 inches of the profiles observed. 4.3.4 Hydrology Wetland hydrology indicators varied depending on the area. Indicators most often were a combination of secondary indicators including Dry Season Water Table (C2), Geomorphic Position (D2), FAC-Neutral Test (D5), and Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9). Primary indicators include Saturation (A3) and/or Surface Soil Cracks (B6). Upland areas exhibited no hydrology indicators (Table 2). 4.4 Wetland Functional Assessment A Wetland Functional Assessment was completed to satisfy requirements of the City of Bozeman Wetland Review Checklist (November 2022 Edition). The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) Montana Wetland Assessment Form (revised March 2008) was used to conduct the SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 20 | Page analysis. The completed form can be found in Appendix D. The analysis resulted in an overall analysis area rating of III. 4.5 Legal and Regulatory Framework3 In Montana, due to ongoing litigation by the State of Montana and 23 other states,4 USACE and EPA (the Agencies) are currently interpreting the jurisdictional reach and limits of “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS, including into adjacent wetlands) under the Clean Water Act (CWA), as well as with regards to other water-related features (such as man-made channels ditches, stormwater ponds/settling basins, and storm/wastewater treatment systems or WTS), consistent with the Agencies’ pre-2015 WOTUS regulations and in conformance with the 2023 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Sackett v. Env't Prot. Agency (143 S. Ct. 1322) until further notice.5 Beyond the CWA’s statutory text itself (including specific statute-based exceptions), Sackett’s controlling legal test for the CWA jurisdiction over WOTUS (including adjacent wetlands),6 and the Agencies July 2014 WOTUS regulations, other guidance identified by the Agencies for their present implementation of the pre-2015 regulatory regime, as informed by SCOTUS’s 2023 Sackett decision (or the “pre-2015, post-Sackett” regime), include the 2008 guidance published by the Agencies following the SCOTUS’s 2006 decision in consolidated cases for Rapanos v. U.S., and Carabell v. U.S. (126 S. Ct. 2208, and collectively referred to as Rapanos).7 Additionally, while not legally binding, the Agencies have issued multiple field memos throughout 2024, which direct site-specific re-evaluations of CWA 404 jurisdiction asserted by USACE’s Districts in draft AJDs,8 including under the “pre-2015, post-Sackett” regulatory regime, which is presently applicable to the Agencies’ approved jurisdictional determinations (AJDs) and CWA jurisdiction for wetlands in Montana.9 As stated in Sackett’s majority opinion and its controlling 2-part legal test for CWA jurisdiction: In sum, we hold that the CWA extends to only those wetlands that are “as a practical matter indistinguishable from waters of the United States.” Rapanos, 547 U.S., at 755, 126 S.Ct. 2208 (plurality opinion) (emphasis deleted). This requires the party asserting jurisdiction over adjacent wetlands to establish “first, that the adjacent [body of water constitutes] ... ‘water[s] of the United States,’ (i.e., a 3 This section is primarily authored by landowner’s environmental counsel, Lara D. Guercio of Crowley Fleck PLLP. 4 See W. Va. et al. v. EPA et al. (D.N.D. Case No. 3:23-cv-00032-DLH-ARS). 5 See EPA’s websites for “Waters of the United States” including: https://www.epa.gov/wotus/definition-waters-united-states-rule-status-and-litigation-update, and https://epa.gov/wotus/pre-2015- regulatory-regime. 6 As SCOTUS’s majority opinion explained in Sackett, “Because the ‘adjacent’ wetlands in § 1344(g)(1) are ‘includ[ed]’ within ‘waters of the United States,’ these wetlands must qualify as ‘waters of the United States’ in their own right, i.e., be indistinguishably part of a body of water that itself constitutes ‘waters’ under the CWA.” Sackett v. Env't Prot. Agency, 143 S. Ct. 1322, at 1324 (2023) (emphasis added). 7 EPA/USACE, “Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the [SCOTUS]’s Decision in Rapanos v. U.S., and Carabell v. U.S, Guidance Memo published Dec. 2, 2008 (referred to herein as 2008 Guidance). 8 As disclaimed by the Agencies on the face of each of their 2024 field memos issued to date, “This memorandum does not substitute for those provisions or regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, this memorandum does not impose legally binding requirements on EPA, the Corps, … or the regulated community, and may or may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances.” See e.g., “Memorandum on LRB-2023-00451” from the Agencies to USACE, Buffalo District, pg. 1, note 1 (Sept. 3, 2024). 9 See supra, EPA website for current implementation for WOTUS, including the “pre-2015, post-Sackett” regime. SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 21 | Page relatively permanent body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters); and second, that the wetland has a continuous surface connection with that water, making it difficult to determine where the ‘water’ ends and the ‘wetland’ begins.” Id., at 742, 126 S.Ct. 2208.10 The limits of the CWA’s jurisdiction over adjacent wetlands, as well as the Agencies’ related regulatory authority for CWA 404 permitting requirements, per Sackett’s controlling test, is underscored by Justice Kavanaugh concurring opinion in the Sackett decision. While agreeing with the SCOTUS majority’s decision in Sackett regarding: its reversal of the Ninth Circuit’s earlier decision; rejection of the Agencies’ prior use of the “significant nexus” test for CWA’s jurisdiction over wetlands; and its bottom-line judgment that the wetlands on the Sacketts’ property are not covered by the CWA, and therefore not subject to the Agencies’ related 404 permitting requirements, Justice Kavanaugh wrote a separate concurrence (joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson), in which he specifically disagreed that that the wetlands had to have a constant surface water connection to another water to be regulated.11 Notably, in his concurring opinion in Sackett, Justice Kavanaugh stated: I respectfully disagree with the Court's new test for assessing when wetlands are covered by the Clean Water Act. The Court concludes that wetlands are covered by the Act only when the wetlands have a “continuous surface connection” to [WOTUS]—that is, when the wetlands are “adjoining” covered waters. … The Court’s test narrows the Clean Water Act’s coverage of “adjacent” wetlands to mean only “adjoining” wetlands.12 While not specifically applicable to AJDs or CWA 404 permits issued in Montana, the Agencies also recognized (or appeared to initially recognize) Sackett’s clear limit on their CWA jurisdiction over adjacent wetlands in the amended 2023 WOTUS final rule, published on Sept. 8, 2023 in 88 FR 61964 (conforming the prior WOTUS final rule, published on Jan. 18, 2023 in 88 FR 3004, with SCOTUS’s May 2023 Sackett decision). Notably, the amended 2023 WOTUS final rule revised the Agencies’ previously expansive definition of “adjacent” to mean only “having a continuous surface connection.”13 As such, the Agencies’ 2014 regulatory definition of “adjacent” as applied to jurisdictional wetlands under the CWA, then defined to broadly mean: “bordering, contiguous, or neighboring. Wetlands separated from other [WOTUS] by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes and the like are ‘‘adjacent wetlands.’’14— is no longer applicable, including under the “pre-2015, post-Sackett” regime now applied in MT. However, in the still applicable definition of WOTUS, USACE’s 2014 regulations provide: “Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds … are not waters of the United States.”15 Under the applicable preamble to Section 328.3 definitions (as published on Nov. 13, 1986 in FR 41217), the Agencies clarified that they generally do not consider the following waters to be WOTUS: “(a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated in dry land. (b) Artificially 10 Sackett v. Env't Prot. Agency, 143 S. Ct. 1322, 1341 (2023) (emphasis added). 11 Id. at 1364. 12 Id. at 1362 (emphasis added). 13 33 CFR 328.3(c) (88 FR 3142, Jan. 18, 2023, as amended at 88 FR 61968, Sept. 8, 2023). 14 33 CFR 328.3(c), July, 1, 2014 (51 FR 41250, Nov. 13, 1986, as amended at 58 FR 45036, Aug. 25, 1993). 15 33 CFR 328.3(a), July 1, 2014 (51 FR 41250, Nov. 13, 1986, as amended at 58 FR 45036, Aug. 25, 1993). SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 22 | Page irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as … settling basins, ….” Additionally, the text of the CWA itself (in § 404(f)(C) & (D)), states that the discharge or placement of fill material: (C) for the purpose of construction or maintenance of … irrigation ditches, or the maintenance of drainage ditches;” or (D) “for the purpose of construction of temporary sedimentation basins on a construction site which does not include placement of fill material into the navigable waters; … is not prohibited by or otherwise subject to regulation under this section [§ 1344] or 1331(a) or 1342 ….”16 Relatedly, the Agencies’ applicable 2008 Guidance provides that they generally will not assert jurisdiction over swales (characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow) or ditches excavated in and draining uplands that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water.17 Per the 2008 Guidance (and consistent with Sackett), the Agencies found that Justice Scalia’s plurality opinion in Rapanos limited regulatory authority to “’relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water’ connected to traditional navigable waters, and to ‘wetlands with a continuous surface connection to’ such relatively permanent waters.”18 In the 2008 Guidance, the Agencies defined the term “relatively permanent” (as used in Scalia’s plurality decision in Rapanos, and followed by SCOTUS’s majority decision in Sackett) to mean: “waters that typically (e.g. except due to drought) flow year-round or waters that have a continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically three months).”19 In accord with Scalia’s interpretation that “relatively permanent” does not include water flow that comes and goes at intervals, the Agencies found in the 2008 Guidance that “relatively permanent” waters do not include “ephemeral tributaries which flow only in response to precipitation and intermittent streams which do not typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally.”20 In sum, and as detailed below, given the CWA’s applicable statutory and regulatory exceptions, as well as the Agencies’ 2008 Guidance on what constitutes “relatively permanent” for WOTUS (including adjacent wetlands) as summarized above, with specific respect to SRX II’s property, the temporary stormwater pond; engineered drainage swale (constructed within what was dry uplands, but is now part of an artificially irrigated and expanded area delineated in 2024 as Wetland A); man-made eastern channel/abandoned drainage ditch (also originally constructed in dry uplands); and any adjacent wetlands that subsequent formed and are now associated with these man-made features, should not be considered WOTUS nor subject to the Agencies jurisdiction or related permitting requirements under the CWA and its applicable regulations. Stormwater Pond & Drainage Swale: The municipal stormwater drainage and storage system (including the engineered detention pond and drainage swale, as excavated and installed within dry uplands in 2017, and since maintained within a storm drain easement located on SRX-II’s property) is a WTS, which is excepted from the CWA’s jurisdictional reach and the Agencies’ related 404 regulatory authority under the currently applicable “pre-2015, post-Sackett” regime. 16 33 U.S.C. § 1344(f)(C) & (D). 17 See 2008 Guidance at 1. 18 Id. at 2, quoting from Justice Scalia’s 2006 plurality decision in Rapanos. 19 Id. at 6-7. 20 Id. at 7. SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 23 | Page As further described in the comprehensive Pre-Application Informational Submittal provided by Morrison-Maierle (M-M) on behalf of the landowner/developer to the USACE’s Montana office on Dec. 8, 2023 (the 2023 Prep-App Submittal), Sections 2.2.3, 2.2.4 and 4.1.1.1 of this updated report, and the as built Engineering Plan Set for the Graf Street Improvements (Stormwater Management) dated as of July 21, 2017 (the As Built 2017 Plans, as included in Appendix E), municipal stormwater drainage from the City of Bozeman’s adjacent roadway improvements was specifically engineered to flow into this detention pond, which was excavated in dry uplands for the specific purpose of collecting and retaining stormwater. It has and continues to function (pending the anticipated development of the subject property) as a temporary settling basin (within the planned alignment of 17th Avenue roadway), and as part of the City’s municipal WTS associated with its adjacent Graf Street improvements. As detailed in the 2023 Pre-App Submittal and above sections of this 2024 update report, an outfall pipe installed in May 2017 during of the City’s construction of Graf Street improvements drains municipal stormwater onto the SRX-II property. Stormwater was originally engineered, per City-approved infrastructure plans, to drain into the detention pond or settling basin constructed on this property and within the City’s associated storm drain easement. Between 2017 and 2024, stormwater has drained from this pond and flowed north across the property, via a man-made engineered drainage swale (now located within the artificially expanded Wetland A), directing municipal stormwater to the limited wetlands area delineated in the 2015 shown in Figure 1 of this report (and further described in Section 2.2.2 above). Much of the expanded area delineated in 2023 and 2024 by M-M as wetlands has been artificially irrigated by stormwater from the municipal WTS, including the channelized drainage created by its engineered drainage swale. The engineered drainage swale was designed to convey stormwater to the northern corner of the subject property. This swale was designed as a temporary solution (less than 2 years), to remain in place while the previous planned development by the prior owner (Yellowstone Theological Institute) started construction. However, that project never moved forward, and subsequently, the stormwater resulting and flowing from this municipal WTS across the subject property remained largely unchecked over a 7-year period (2017-2024), during which time areas artificially irrigated by this stormwater created the expanded and additional mapped wetlands seen in the wetland delineations completed in 2023 and 2024 by M-M. Typically, wetlands do not naturally expand 650% in a 7-year time period without artificial irrigation and influence from the additional or artificial hydrology—here introduced on-site from the municipal WTS. However, this portion of the City’s WTS, as installed on the property prior to SRX II’s acquisition, was always anticipated by the City and prior property owner to be temporary and subject to relocation during the anticipated construction of 17th Avenue (to be extended north from the existing Graf Street roundabout, as designed and built in 2017). Notably, the engineered stormwater detention pond and drainage swale lie entirely within the City’s long planned and required right-of-way for 17th Avenue. The 2015 wetland delineation report and the 2017 As Built Plans for this existing municipal WTS (both included in Appendix E), as well as the historical aerial imagery of the property before and after 2017 (included in Appendix F), all provided for USACE’s review and reference. These site-specific documents support and clearly show that the wetlands, as initially delineated on-site in 2015, artificially expanded following the installation of the City’s Graf Street infrastructure improvements and associated WTS (with a portion of this SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 24 | Page WTS located on the SRX-II property within a “temporary storm drain easement to be abandoned when permanent storm drain detention is provided.”) (See note on 2017 As Built Plans.) Per the 2008 Guidance, as highlighted above, the Agencies generally do not assert jurisdiction over swales or drainage ditches that lack a relatively permanent and continuous flow at least seasonally (i.e., greater than 3 months). Although not legally binding, per the Agencies’ own disclaimers, their Feb. 16, 2024 Memo to Re-Evaluate Jurisdiction for SAS-2001-13740 to USACE’s Savanah District (for potential CWA jurisdiction over detention ponds and any ditches), and the USACE Savanah District’s Mar. 26, 2024 Memo of Record for SAS-2001-13740 (finding upon re-evaluation that artificial ponds created in dry land for the purpose of collecting and retaining water as settling ponds, which are stormwater control features, were non-jurisdictional) are generally relevant and instructive. More notably, under the controlling legal test for the CWA’s jurisdiction over WOTUS (including adjacent wetlands), first articulated by Justice Scalia in Rapanos and as adopted by SCOTUS’s 2023 majority decision in Sackett, these temporary WTS features simply do not constitute “relatively permanent” bodies of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters. As such, these temporary WTS features (i.e., stormwater pond and drainage swale) as constructed on the SRX-II property are clearly exempt from regulation by the Agencies under CWA § 404(f) and the Sackett decision, as well as per the direction of the Agencies’ applicable 2008 Guidance and 2014 WOTUS regulations. Artificially Enlarged Wetland A: As detailed above in Sections 2.2.5.5 and 4.1.1 above, outside of the engineered drainage swale (which is part of the City’s WTS and located within a temporary storm drain easement on the SRX-II property, and notably during M-M’s 2024 field visits “lacked a defined bed and bank and discernable flow”) surface water was not observed in portions of Wetland A located south of WDP17, and no continuous surface water connection between Wetlands A and Mandeville Creek was identified. As such, Wetland A lacks the requisite continuous surface connection to WOTUS, as required under Sackett’s controlling legal test (excerpted above), to be considered jurisdictional adjacent wetlands and also WOTUS “in their own right, i.e., be indistinguishably part of a body of water that itself constitutes ‘waters’ under the CWA.”21 Additionally, the entire PEM wetlands complex currently mapped as Wetland A by M-M in 2024 (beyond the limited area as delineated in 2015) has been artificially created and irrigated primarily by stormwater, conveyed across the subject property via the engineered drainage swale, from the temporary stormwater pond excavated in 2017. However, as evidenced in historical aerial imagery, as well as the 2015 wetland delineation, there was previously dry uplands and former farm fields located between this stormwater pond and the natural wetland complex primarily located to the north of the SRX-II property (with only a small portion of this natural wetland located within the property’s northern boundary as of 2015). As reviewed above, the engineered swale/drainage ditch and associated wetlands (currently located within the present extent of the artificially enlarged Wetland A), should be considered non-jurisdictional per the Agencies’ own 2008 Guidance. Historical aerial imagery provided for USACE’s reference in Appendix F support and provide evidence for a non-jurisdictional finding. This area, although now delineated as a part of the Wetland A complex, clearly lacks the requisite continuous surface connection to any adjacent WOTUS to be jurisdictional under the 21 Sackett v. Env't Prot. Agency, 143 S. Ct. 1322, 1324 (2023). SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 25 | Page CWA and cannot be WOTUS “in its own right” as required by Sackett. This area is presently delineated as wetland due to its developed wetlands characteristics (including hydric soils) after years of water inundation and saturation from largely unchecked stormwater from the City’s Graf Street Improvements and its municipal WTS (including the on-site stormwater pond and engineered swale), as installed in 2017. If these improvements and WTS were never installed directly adjacent to the subject property and on-site (via an easement), the current wetland conditions would likely be very similar to and consistent with conditions as delineated in 2015. In sum, it remains our position, as previously detailed in the comprehensive 2023 Pre-App Submittal provided to USACE back in Dec. 2023, that the expanded areas of delineated wetlands on the SRX-II property—which were significantly (greater than 6x increase in size) and artificially enlarged between 2017 and 2024 by additional stormwater drainage and artificial hydrology introduced by the City’s adjacent roadway improvements and its WTS, are non-jurisdictional. The temporary WTS installed on-site (including the stormwater pond and drainage swale) were engineered to direct stormwater drainage north across the SRX-II property and into existing naturally occurring wetlands. However, this WTS and resulting artificially irrigated wetland areas, lack relative permanence and continuous surface water connection to WOTUS; they are clearly not WOTUS “in their own right”, all as plainly required by Sackett for CWA jurisdiction. These artificially enlarged and irrigated wetland areas have been heavily influenced by the largely unchecked WTS stormwater drainage and will likely revert back to dry uplands, following the cessation of stormwater drainage through SRX-II’s property. As such, CWA 404 jurisdiction should not be applied to these artificially enlarged wetland areas, which exhibit wetland characteristics primarily due to artificial man-induced hydrology (i.e., stormwater drainage via the temporary municipal WTS, as first installed in 2017 on the subject property). Man-Made Eastern Channel (Stormwater): The man-made channel or stormwater drainage ditch running along the eastern edge of the SRX-II property (which, as further detailed in the 2023 Pre-App Submittal and Sections 2.2.2 and 4.1.2 of this updated report, was originally constructed as an irrigation ditch for agricultural purposes and currently serves as a stormwater conveyance channel) simply cannot qualify as “relatively permanent waters” (i.e., the ditch is not WOTUS itself) under Sackett’s controlling legal test or the Agencies’ 2008 Guidance (which finds “relatively permanent waters” to mean having a continuous flow at least seasonally or typically 3 months). As such, this man-made channel, which was constructed and maintained in a dry uplands, should be properly identified as a “non-relatively permanent ditch” that lacks the required continuous surface water connection to WOTUS, and is clearly not WOTUS itself. Any wetlands within this man-made channel/ditch also lack a continuous surface connection to any traditional interstate navigable waters. It remains unclear why USACE staff raised potential jurisdiction here in their 2024 field visit to the property, in light of the controlling legal test for federally regulated wetlands, as clearly established in the Sackett decision. Site-specific data and assessment of this man-made stormwater channel in the 2015, 2023 and 2024 delineation reports all support a finding on non-jurisdiction, including per the Agencies’ own legally non-binding June 2024 Memos for NWK-2022-00809 and SWG2023-00284 (re: CWA jurisdictional evaluations for “non-relatively permanent ditches”, specifically as reviewed for AJDs issued by USACE Districts under the “pre-2015, post-Sackett” regime). SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 26 | Page 5 CONCLUSION Based on the wetland delineation presented in this report and the data collected, it is Morrison-Maierle’s professional judgement that wetlands and waterways exist within the project area. The investigation area contains 5.1 acres of PEM1E/PEM1Ef/PEM1r wetland. Figure 7 in Appendix A details the investigation area and delineated features. Table 4 summarizes the wetlands delineated within the project area. Table 4. Wetland and Waterways within the Investigation Area Feature ID Wetland Type (Cowardin) Wetland Type (HGM) Acres Linear Feet Wetland A PEM1E/PEM1Ef/PEM1r Depressional 4.94 - Man-made eastern channel Riverine/PEM1r NA 0.16 272.8 Middle Creek Ditch/ Mandeville Creek (stream/ditch) Riverine NA - 627.2 Ditch lateral Riverine NA - 214.5 Stormwater detention pond NA NA 0.07 - Total waterway linear feet: 1,114.5 feet Total wetland area: 5.1 acres Piped municipal stormwater to the investigation area in 2017 altered hydrology at Wetland A. Furthermore, this altered hydrology increased the extent of Wetland A by altering groundwater flow and periodically flooding the site, increasing saturated conditions in previously upland areas. The change in size of Wetland A is evidenced by the approximately 650% increase in wetland size delineated by Vaughn Environmental Services in 2015, and Morrison-Maierle’s in 2023 and 2024. Figure 2. Change in wetland size within the investigation area. The USACE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are the final administrative authority for the jurisdictional status of both wetlands and waters of the U.S. according to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), interpreted in conformance with the controlling legal test for CWA jurisdiction established by the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in its 2023 majority decision in Sackett v. EPA (143 S. Ct. 1322). The findings discussed in this report are solely the opinion of Morrison-Maierle and have not been verified by the regulatory government agencies. 2015 0.76 acres 2023 3.28 acres 2024 5.1 acres SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 27 | Page 6 REFERENCES Bozeman MT Geographic Information System (GIS) Open Data. 2023. Accessed January 2023. Shapefiles downloaded: Stormwater Utility, Water Gravity Mains, Gravity Main. Available at https://public-bozeman.opendata.arcgis.com/ 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 Data Resources (EDR). 2024. The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package. Inquiry Number 7792909.1, October 16, 2024. 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. 2023. Retrieved January and September 2023. Kollmorgan Instruments Corporation. 2009. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Macbeth Division, New Windsor, NY. Lesica, P. 2012. Manual of Montana Vascular Plants. Brit Press. Fort Worth, Texas. Montana Natural Heritage Program, 2024. Wetlands Data using the MNHP Map Viewer. https://msl.mt.gov/geoinfo/msdi/wetlands/ Montana Spatial Data Infrastructure (MSDI). 2021. Imagery. Natural Color and Infrared. Accessed January 2023. Available at https://msl.mt.gov/geoinfo/msdi/orthoimagery/ National Weather Service. 2024. Accessed at https://www.weather.gov/wrh/Climate?wfo=tfx Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2019. Hydric Soils Definition. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/use/hydric/?cid=nrcs142p2_053961 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2023. Web Soil Survey. Accessed December 2022. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2024. 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, FEB 2024. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2023 Plant Hardiness Zone Map. Accessed at https://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/ U.S. Geological Survey. 2020. Bozeman, Montana, 7.5-minute Series Topographic Quadrangle Map. Accessed January 2023. SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 28 | Page US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2020. National Wetland Plant List 202. http://wetland-plants.usace.army.mil/ US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2023. National Wetland Inventory Wetlands Mapper. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html Western Regional Climate Center. 2024. Bozeman Montana SU, Montana (241044). Period of record monthly climate summary. Period of Record: 04/08/1892 to 06/09/2016. Accessed at: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?mt1044 SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 29 | Page APPENDIX A: FIGURES DonnaAveMeriwetherAveMichaelGroveAveWildaLnSunlightAveW T echnology B l vd W Garfield St W Lincoln St Gallatin Valley Mall Babcock Meadows Orchard Bozeman Agricultural Research and Teaching Farm Horticulture Farm S 27thAveS 27thAveS 26thAveW Graf St Kurk Dr Stucky Rd Gran Cielo Park Girvin Farm Blackwood Rd Meah Ln Meadow Creek Park W Babcock St S 19thAveS 13thAveS15thAveS 20thAveS 10th AveS 11thAveN24th AveW Main S t University Square W Kagy Blvd W G arfield St WillowWayS 11th AveS 19th AveW Koch St S10thAveS 23rd AveS 20th Ave W S t ory S t S 14thAveW College St S 19th Ave 2 3 14 Koch Story Lot McIntosh Court Townhouses 26 18 5 6 4 8 19 Aasheim Gate Duck Pond 15 15 Marching Band Practice Field 21 Montana State University FigginsCreekEnterprise Blvd Stucky R d Opportunity Way W Graf S t W Graf St S 11th AveS11thAveS11th Ave Student Dr S 15th A v e ParkwayAveS19th AveStucky Rd 20 Bobcat Stadium Grounds Blackwood Rd S 19thAveShady Lane Park W Curtiss St W Olive St W Babcock StN 8th AveS8th AveS9th AveW Mendenhall St S 7thAveS 6th Ave W Main StBozeman W Kagy Blvd S 3rd Ave W College St W A lderson S t W Dickerson St S GrandAveW Harrison St W Cleveland StS9th Ave W H a y e s St Gallagator Linear Park 9 Alumni Plaza 22 16Michael P. Malone Centenial Mall 11 Dyche Field 13 Forestry Lot 12 Plew Lot South Central Cooper Park W Graf St S 3rd AveS 3rdAveW A rnold St STracy A v e HillcrestDrLangohrAveWestridgeD r Westfield Park Morning Star Elementary School Museum of the Rockies Lot Tinsley Historic Farm Complex 25 Southeast FieldstoneDrWS3rd Ave W agonwheelRdAddition To McLeod Park Sacajawea Middle School PROJECT NO. 5659.018VICINITY MAPDRAWN BY: FD CHK'D BY: CP APPR. BY: CP DATE:10/18/2024 N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\GIS - N SRX\ArcPro\N_SRX_100924_1445.aprx SRX-II FIG.1 Legend Subject Property ± COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2024a 2880 Technology Blvd. WBozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet Project Area MONTANA PROJECT NO. 5659.018TOPOGRAPHIC MAPDRAWN BY: FD CHK'D BY: CP APPR. BY: CP DATE:10/18/2024 N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\GIS - N SRX\ArcPro\N_SRX_100924_1445.aprx SRX-II FIG.2 Legend Subject Property ± COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2024a 2880 Technology Blvd. WBozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet PROJECT NO. 5659.018AERIAL MAPDRAWN BY: FD CHK'D BY: CP APPR. BY: CP DATE:10/18/2024 N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\GIS - N SRX\ArcPro\N_SRX_100924_1445.aprx SRX-II FIG.3 Legend Subject Property ± COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2024a 2880 Technology Blvd. WBozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721 0 150 30075 Feet 510B Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 457A Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes 512B Enbar-Nythar loams, 0 to 4 percent slopes 350B Blackmore silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes PROJECT NO. 5659.018NRCS SOIL UNITS MAPDRAWN BY: FD CHK'D BY: CP APPR. BY: CP DATE:10/18/2024 N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\GIS - N SRX\ArcPro\N_SRX_100924_1445.aprx SRX-II FIG.5 Legend Subject Property ± COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2024a 2880 Technology Blvd. WBozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721 0 150 30075 Feet Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community 0 1,000 2,000500Feet ± N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\GIS\Exhibits\Fig6_FEMA.mxd; Plotted: 9/29/2023 COPYRIGHT © MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2880 Technology Blvd. WBozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721 SRX-II FEMA MAPGALLATIN CO.MT FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 5659.018 FIG. 52023 DRAWN BY: FD CHK'D BY: FD APPR. BY: CP DATE: 09/2023 Legend Subject Property Flood Hazard Zones Zone Type 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Regulatory Floodway Special Floodway Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area with Reduced Risk Due to Levee Area with Risk Due to Levee WDP1 UDP1 UDP2UDP3 UDP4 WDP2 WDP3 WDP4 WDP5 WDP6 WDP7 WDP8 WDP9 WDP10 WDP11 WDP12 WDP13 UDP7 UDP8 UDP9 UDP10 UDP11 UDP12 UDP13 UDP14 WDP14 WDP15 WDP16 WDP17 UDP5 UDP6 PROJECT NO.5659.0132024 WETLAND DELINEATION UPDATE MAPDRAWN BY: FD CHK'D BY: CP APPR. BY: FD DATE: 10/18/2024 2:49 PM N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\GIS - N SRX\ArcPro\N_SRX_100924_1445.aprx SRX-II FIG.7 Legend Investigation Area PEM wetland complex (Wetland A) Eastern channel Data Points Upland Wetland OHWM of surface water features Middle Creek Ditch/Mandeville Creek Ditch lateral Stormwater pond ± COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2024a 2880 Technology Blvd. W Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 587-0721 0 150 30075 Feet Approximate origin of surface water on Oct-16, 2024 Rock Concrete stormwater outfall Culvert Head gate Culvert Break between wetland and ditch unclear Primary wetland Ditch lateral Middle Creek ditch (stream/ditch) Woward-Esgar ditch (lateral) Wetland continues off site Mandeville Creek flows north 0 140 28070Feet ± N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\GIS\Exhibits\Fig8_2015WD.mxd; Plotted: 11/2/2023 COPYRIGHT © MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2880 Technology Blvd. WBozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721 SRX-II 2015 WETLAND DELINEATION MAPGALLATIN CO.MT FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 5659.018 FIG. 82023 DRAWN BY: FD CHK'D BY: FD APPR. BY: CP DATE: 11/2023 Legend Investigation area 2015 Delineated aquatic features Data Sources:-2015 Aerial imagery (MSDI)-2015 Wetland delineation byVaughn Environmental Services Ditch lateral Woward-Esgar ditch (lateral) Middle Creek Ditch/ Mandeville Creek PROJECT NO. 5659.0132015 AND 2024 WETLAND DELINEATION COMPARISON MAPDRAWN BY: FD CHK'D BY: CP APPR. BY: CP DATE:10/18/2024 N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\GIS - N SRX\ArcPro\N_SRX_100924_1445.aprx SRX-II FIG.9COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2024 2880 Technology Blvd. W Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721 a Legend Investigation Area 2015 delineated aquatic features Wetland PEM wetland complex (Wetland A) Eastern channel OHWM of surface water features Middle Creek Ditch/Mandeville Creek Ditch lateral Stormwater pond 0 160 32080 Feet ± Data Sources: -2015 and 2021 aerial imagery (MSDI) -2015 wetland delineation by Vaughn Environmental Services -2024 wetland delineation by Morrison-Maierle PROJECT NO.5659.0132015 AND 2024 WETLAND DELINEATION OVERLAY MAPDRAWN BY: FD CHK'D BY: CP APPR. BY: FD DATE: 10/18/2024 11:09 AM N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\GIS - N SRX\ArcPro\N_SRX_100924_1445.aprx SRX-II FIG.7 Legend Investigation Area PEM wetland complex (Wetland A) Eastern channel 2015 Delineated aquatic features OHWM of surface water features Middle Creek Ditch/Mandeville Creek Ditch lateral Stormwater pond ± COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2024a 2880 Technology Blvd. W Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 587-0721 0 150 30075 Feet 0 150 30075Feet ± N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\GIS - N SRX\ArcPro\N_SRX_100924_1445.aprx; Plotted: 10/18/2024 COPYRIGHT © MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2880 Technology Blvd. WBozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721 SRX-II ENGINEERED STORMWATER SWALE AND 2024 WETLAND DELINEATION OVERLAY MAPGALLATIN CO.MT FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 5659.013 FIG. 122024 DRAWN BY: FD CHK'D BY: FD APPR. BY: CP DATE: 10/2024 Legend CAD Master Wetland PEM wetland complex (Wetland A) Eastern channel OHWM of surface water features Middle Creek Ditch/Mandeville Creek Ditch lateral Stormwater pond Engineered man-made swale/ditch Engineered stormwater pond SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 30 | Page APPENDIX B: USACE WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 15 No 5m Remarks: Indicator Status 1 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Deschampsia caespitosa No FACU FAC Herb Stratum 10 No Alopecurus pratensis 15 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 5m naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Updated UDP7 from 2023. Paired upland point with WDP11, next to vegetated ditch lateral on the east side of the investigation area. Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species FAC 3.45 20 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: YesBromus inermis UPL 10 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 60 Multiply by: 20 Prevalence Index = B/A = 55 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 9/9/24 Providence Development Faith Doty Farm field Bozeman, Gallatin Co.City/County: Phleum pratense Meadowcreek loam None 5m NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT UDP1 Flat Section, Township, Range: 50.0% ) 5m ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 165 35 Project/Site:North SRX (NSRX) NWI classification: Dominant Species? NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 0 Sampling Date: Poa pratensis Elymus smithii 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 5 No FACW 45.651426 Long:-111.057699LRR E, MLRA 49 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 15 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 100 345 20 100 =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X UDP1SOIL Loam, dense fine roots Loam, granular structure Loam, granular structure Remarks Loamy/Clayey Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Thick dark surface not suspected due to lack of wetland hydrology and vegetation. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 2-6 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/2 10YR 2/2 Color (moist) 0-2 Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey 10YR 3/2 Matrix Texture 6-16 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No hydrology indicators. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X 45.652108 Long:-111.058086LRR E, MLRA 49 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 60 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 100 400 20 100 =Total Cover Bromus inermis Cirsium arvense 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 0 No FACU 15 Project/Site:North SRX (NSRX) NWI classification: Dominant Species? NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 0 Sampling Date: Deschampsia cespitosa Meadowcreek loam None 5m NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT UDP2 Flat Section, Township, Range: 0.0% ) 5m ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 60 Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 9/9/24 Providence Development Faith Doty Farm field Bozeman, Gallatin Co.City/County: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 240 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 20 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species No Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species UPL 4.00 2 - Dominance Test is >50% (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 5m naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Near UDP4 from 2023. Paired point with WDP4. In previously farmed field, left fallow in 2024. Indicator Status 0 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Elymus smithii FAC FAC Herb Stratum 60 Yes Poa pratensis 5 0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 20 Yes 5m Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 100 100 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No hydrology indicators. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Surface Water (A1) 10YR 2/2 Loamy/Clayey Loamy/Clayey 10YR 2/2 Matrix 10-16 10YR 2/2 Texture 5-10 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/2 10YR 2/2 Color (moist) 0-2 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Thick dark surface not suspected due to lack of wetland hydrology and vegetation. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 2-5 UDP2SOIL Clay loam, dense fine roots Clay loam, granular Clay loam, blocky, increasing compaction Clay loam, <1% faint redox Clay loam, 30% rock Remarks 16-18 Loamy/Clayey Loamy/Clayey ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X 45.652073 Long:-111.060254LRR E, MLRA 49 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 15 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 300 435 60 100 =Total Cover Bromus inermis Lolium perenne 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 15 No FACU 20 Project/Site:North SRX (NSRX) NWI classification: Dominant Species? NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 0 Sampling Date: Deschampsia cespitosa Meadowcreek loam None 5m NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT UDP3 Flat Section, Township, Range: 50.0% ) 5m ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 75 Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 9/9/24 Providence Development Faith Doty Farm field Bozeman, Gallatin Co.City/County: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 60 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 25 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species UPL 4.35 2 - Dominance Test is >50% (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 5m naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Near UDP1 from 2023. Indicator Status 1 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Elymus smithii No FAC FAC Herb Stratum 15 No Poa pratensis 5 0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 45 Yes 5m Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No hydrology indicators. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey 10YR 2/1 Matrix Texture 16-19 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/2 Color (moist) 0-3 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Thick dark surface not suspected due to lack of wetland hydrology and vegetation. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 3-16 UDP3SOIL Silt loam, granular, dense fine roots Silt loam, granular Loam, compact, 30% rock Remarks Loamy/Clayey ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 5m Remarks: Indicator Status 0 1 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: UPL Herb Stratum Bromus inermis 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 5m naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Updated UDP8 from 2023, on edge of ditch lateral flowing northeast on the northwest corner of the investigation area. Approximately 2' above flowing water in ditch. Ditch is fully vegetated with a defined bed and bank. Reed canarygrass and meadowfoxtail growing in ditch (below current water surface) Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 5.00 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 9/9/24 Providence Development Faith Doty Farm field Bozeman, Gallatin Co.City/County: Meadowcreek loam None 5m NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT UDP4 Flat Section, Township, Range: 0.0% ) 5m ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 0 100 Project/Site:North SRX (NSRX) NWI classification: Dominant Species? NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 0 Sampling Date: 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 45.652108 Long:-111.058086LRR E, MLRA 49 Monoculture of smooth brome. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 500 500 100 100 =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 80 20 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X UDP4SOIL Silt loam, dense fine roots Mixed soil color layer Remarks Loamy/Clayey Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Thick dark surface not suspected due to lack of wetland hydrology and vegetation. 10YR 4/2 colors after 2" do not meet depleted matrix requirements due to low percentage of the matrix and lack of redox concentrations. Soils here are likely disturbed from excavating the ditch. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 2-17 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 3/2 10YR 3/2 Color (moist) 0-2 Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey 10YR 4/2 Matrix Texture Redox FeaturesDepth Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No hydrology indicators. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 10 No 0 UPL Elymus smithii 0 5m Remarks: Indicator Status 1 3 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Deschampsia cespitosa (Plot size: Anagallis arvensis No OBL UPL Herb Stratum 20 Yes Setaria viridis 10 10 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 5m naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Isolated area with different vegetation within previously farmed field, left fallow this year. Remarks: FACU species FAC species No OBL species FACU 15 Yes FACU 3.75 5 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 5 Plantago major Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) Silene latifolia 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: NoAvena sativa UPL 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 100 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 30 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 9/4/24 Providence Development Faith Doty Farm field Bozeman, Gallatin Co.City/County: Lactuca serriola Meadowcreek loam None 5m NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT UDP5 Flat Section, Township, Range: 33.3% ) 5m ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 90 30 Project/Site:North SRX (NSRX) NWI classification: Dominant Species? NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 10 Sampling Date: Alopecurus pratensis Juncus compressus 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover Trifolium pratense 5 0 No FAC 45.651226 Long:-111.05887211LRR E, MLRA 49 Vegetation heavily mixed between upland, wetland, and facultative species. Does not meet any criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 175 375 35 100 =Total Cover UPL FACU ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 90 10 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X UDP5SOIL Clay loam, granular, dense roots Clay loam, granular Clay loam, mixed color profile 55% Coarse gravel and rock Remarks 16-27 Loamy/Clayey Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Layers from 14"+ does not meet depleted layer color requirements Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 2-14 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) 0-2 Surface Water (A1) 10YR 5/3 Loamy/Clayey Loamy/Clayey 10YR 4/3 Matrix 10YR 2/1 Texture 14-16 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth Remarks: 26 Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No hydrology indicators. Water table too low to meet C2. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X 45.651427 Long:-111.058589LRR E, MLRA 49 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 0 325 0 100 =Total Cover Lolium perenne 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover No FACU 60 Project/Site:North SRX (NSRX) NWI classification: Dominant Species? NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 0 Sampling Date: Meadowcreek loam None 5m NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT UDP6 Flat Section, Township, Range: 50.0% ) 5m ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 225 Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 9/9/24 Providence Development Faith Doty Farm field Bozeman, Gallatin Co.City/County: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 100 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 75 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 3.25 2 - Dominance Test is >50% (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 5m naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Near UDP5 from 2023 Indicator Status 1 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Elymus smithii FAC FAC Herb Stratum 25 Yes Poa pratensis 15 0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 5m Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 100 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No hydrology indicators. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey 10YR 2/2 Matrix 16-18 10YR 2/2 Texture 4-16 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/2 10YR 2/2 Color (moist) 0-2 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Thick dark surface not suspected due to lack of wetland hydrology and vegetation. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 2-4 UDP6SOIL Clay loam, dense fine roots Clay loam, granular Clay loam, blocky Clay, 40% gravel and rock Remarks Loamy/Clayey Loamy/Clayey ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 State: 0 X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 5m Remarks: Indicator Status 0 1 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: UPL Herb Stratum Bromus inermis 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 5m naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Along the edge of Middle Creek Ditch (stream/ditch). Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 5.00 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 20 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 8/21/24Bozeman, Gallatin Co.City/County: 5m NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT UDP7 Flat Section, Township, Range: 0.0% ) 5m ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 0 100 NWI classification: Dominant Species? NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 0 Sampling Date: 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 45.65058872 Long:-111.062564 Project/Site: North SRX (NSRX) Applicant/Owner: Providence Development Investigator(s): Faith Doty Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Farm field Subregion (LRR/MLRA): LRR E, MLRA 49 Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek loam Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 500 500 100 100 =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 None Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X UDP7SOIL Loam, granular, dense fine roots Loam, granular, few roots, 10% rock Remarks Loamy/Clayey Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Due to lack of hydrology and vegetative indicators, thick dark surface hydric soil indicator is not suspected. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 5-16 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 3/2 10YR 3/2 Color (moist) 0-5 Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey Matrix Texture Redox FeaturesDepth Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No hydrology indicators. Pit was left for two hours and then revisited, no groundwater rise or saturation observed. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 State: 0 X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X 45.649972 Long:-111.060941 45% litter cover from previous farmed crop. Vegetative cover is remnant cereal crop plants, invasive green bristle grass, and weeds. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 50 150 10 35 =Total Cover 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover FACU 10 NWI classification: Dominant Species? NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 0 Sampling Date: 5m NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT UDP8 Flat Section, Township, Range: 0.0% ) 5m ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 0 Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 8/21/24Project/Site: North SRX (NSRX) Applicant/Owner: Providence Development Investigator(s): Faith Doty Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Farm field Subregion (LRR/MLRA): LRR E, MLRA 49 Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek loam Bozeman, Gallatin Co.City/County: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 100 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 20 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 4.29 2 - Dominance Test is >50% (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 5m naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? In previously farmed field, left fallow for 2024. Indicator Status 0 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Amaranthus retroflexus UPL Herb Stratum 25 Yes Setaria viridis 0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 35 5m Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 None Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present?Yes Water Table Present?Yes Saturation Present?Yes Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No hydrology indicators. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey 10YR 5/3 Matrix Texture 19-24 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) 1-11 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Layer from 19-24" does not meet depletion requirements due to soil color and lack of redox concentrations Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 11-19 UDP8SOIL Loam, granular, fluffy Loam, blocky structure, increased compaction Silty clay, B horizon Remarks Loamy/Clayey ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 45 Yes 5m Remarks: Indicator Status 0 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Elymus smithii No FAC FAC Herb Stratum 20 Yes Poa pratensis 10 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 5m naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? West of wetland area Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species UPL 4.30 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 80 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 25 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species No Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 9/9/24 Providence Development Faith Doty Farm field Bozeman, Gallatin Co.City/County: Deschampsia cespitosa Turner loam, moderately wet None 5m NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT UDP9 Flat Section, Township, Range: 0.0% ) 5m ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 75 15 Project/Site:North SRX (NSRX) NWI classification: Dominant Species? NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 0 Sampling Date: Bromus inermis Lolium perenne 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 10 No FACU 45.652303 Long:-111.060215LRR E, MLRA 49 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 20 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 275 430 55 100 =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X UDP9SOIL Silt loam, granular, dense fine roots Silt loam, granular Loam, compact, 20% rock Remarks Loamy/Clayey Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Thick dark surface not suspected due to lack of wetland hydrology and vegetation. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 4-16 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/2 Color (moist) 0-4 Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey 10YR 2/1 Matrix Texture 16-18 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No hydrology indicators. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 State: 0 X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X 45.65267 Long:-111.058312 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 10 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 350 450 70 100 =Total Cover Elymus smithii Cirsium arvense 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 5 No FAC 70 NWI classification: Dominant Species? NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 0 Sampling Date: Lolium perenne None 5m NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT UDP10 Flat Section, Township, Range: 0.0% ) 5m ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 60 Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 9/9/24Project/Site: North SRX (NSRX) Applicant/Owner: Providence Development Investigator(s): Faith Doty Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Farm field Subregion (LRR/MLRA): LRR E, MLRA 49 Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: Enbar-Nythar loams Bozeman, Gallatin Co.City/County: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 40 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 20 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: Juncus balticus FACW Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species FAC 4.50 0 2 - Dominance Test is >50% (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 5m naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? East of wetland area(s). Indicator Status 0 1 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Poa pratensis No FAC UPL Herb Stratum 10 No Bromus inermis 5 0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 10 No 5m Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No hydrology indicators. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey 10YR 4/2 Matrix Texture 10-24 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) 0-5 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Thick dark surface not suspected due to lack of wetland hydrology and vegetation. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 5-10 UDP10SOIL Silty clay loam, granular, low density, dense roots Silty clay loam Silty clay loam Remarks Loamy/Clayey ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 State: 0 X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 5m Remarks: Indicator Status 0 1 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Cirsium arvense FAC UPL Herb Stratum 10 No Bromus inermis 10 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 5m naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? South of stockpile and directly east of wetland area Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 4.60 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 20 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 9/4/24Bozeman, Gallatin Co.City/County: None 5m NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT UDP11 Flat Section, Township, Range: 0.0% ) 5m ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 60 80 NWI classification: Dominant Species? NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 0 Sampling Date: Phleum pratense 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover No FAC 45.65072 Long:-111.059928 Project/Site: North SRX (NSRX) Applicant/Owner: Providence Development Investigator(s): Faith Doty Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Farm field Subregion (LRR/MLRA): LRR E, MLRA 49 Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek loam Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 400 460 80 100 =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X UDP11SOIL Silty clay, granular, low density, dense roots Silty clay Silty clay Remarks Loamy/Clayey Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Layer from 24"+ does not meet depleted requirements due to color and lack of redox concentrations. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 5-24 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) 0-5 Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey 10YR 4/2 Matrix Texture 24-26 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No hydrology indicators. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 State: 0 X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X 45.651226 Long:-111.05887211 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 20 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 325 450 65 100 =Total Cover Dactylis glomerata Phleum pratense 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 10 No FAC 65 NWI classification: Dominant Species? NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 0 Sampling Date: Elymus smithii None 5m NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT UDP12 Flat Section, Township, Range: 0.0% ) 5m ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 45 Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 9/4/24Project/Site: North SRX (NSRX) Applicant/Owner: Providence Development Investigator(s): Faith Doty Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Farm field Subregion (LRR/MLRA): LRR E, MLRA 49 Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek loam Bozeman, Gallatin Co.City/County: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 80 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 15 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species FACU 4.50 2 - Dominance Test is >50% (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 5m naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? South of wetland area, on edge of previously tilled field. Indicator Status 0 1 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Cirsium arvense No FAC UPL Herb Stratum 5 No Bromus inermis 10 0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 10 No 5m Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No hydrology indicators. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey 10YR 4/2 Matrix Texture 26-28 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) 0-5 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Layer from 26"+ does not meet depleted requirements due to color and lack of redox concentrations. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 5-26 UDP12SOIL Silty clay, granular, low density, dense roots Silty clay Silty clay Remarks Loamy/Clayey ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 State: 0 X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 5m Remarks: Indicator Status 0 1 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Amaranthus retroflexus UPL UPL Herb Stratum 0 Setaria viridis 0 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 5m naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? In previously farmed field, left fallow in 2024. Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species FAC 5.00 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 8/21/24Bozeman, Gallatin Co.City/County: Cirsium arvense None 5m NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT UDP13 Flat Section, Township, Range: 0.0% ) 5m ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 0 100 NWI classification: Dominant Species? NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 0 Sampling Date: Avena sativa 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 0 FACU 45.65072 Long:-111.058864 Project/Site: North SRX (NSRX) Applicant/Owner: Providence Development Investigator(s): Faith Doty Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Farm field Subregion (LRR/MLRA): LRR E, MLRA 49 Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek loam Vegetative cover is dominated by invasive green bristle grass with small amounts of remnant cereal crop and weeds. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 500 500 100 100 =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 50 50 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X UDP13SOIL Clay loam, granular, dense fine roots Clay loam, granular Clay loam, mixed soil color layer Clay loam, increased clay, 40% rock Remarks 10-16 Loamy/Clayey Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Soil profile from 6-16" does not meet depleted matrix due to lack of redox concentrations. Texture, position, and color indicate an undeveloped B horizon. Thick dark surface not suspected due to lack of hydrophytic vegetation and zero hydrology indicators. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 4-6 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) 0-4 Surface Water (A1) 10YR 5/2 Loamy/Clayey Loamy/Clayey 10YR 2/1 Matrix 10YR 5/2 Texture 6-10 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No hydrology indicators. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 X State: 0 X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X 45.651516 Long:-111.060749 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 10 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 400 470 80 100 =Total Cover Medicago sativa Phleum pratense 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 10 FACU 40 NWI classification: Dominant Species? NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 0 Sampling Date: Poa pratensis None 5m NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT UDP14 Flat Section, Township, Range: 0.0% ) 5m ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 30 Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 9/4/24Project/Site: North SRX (NSRX) Applicant/Owner: Providence Development Investigator(s): Faith Doty Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Farm field Subregion (LRR/MLRA): LRR E, MLRA 49 Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek loam Bozeman, Gallatin Co.City/County: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 40 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 10 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species FAC 4.70 2 - Dominance Test is >50% (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 5m naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? West of wetland area, in farm field left fallow for 2024. Indicator Status 0 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Elymus smithii No FAC UPL Herb Stratum 10 No Bromus inermis 0 0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 40 Yes 5m Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No hydrology indicators. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey Matrix Texture Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) 0-6 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Do not suspect thick dark surface layer due to lack of wetland hydrology and vegetation. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 6-18 UDP14SOIL Silty clay loam, granular, dense roots Silty clay loam, blocky, compact Remarks Loamy/Clayey ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.X 8.X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 5m Remarks: Indicator Status 1 1 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Alopecurus pratensis OBL Herb Stratum 15 No Typha latifolia 85 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 5m naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Hydrology source is from stormwater pond to the south. WDP11 point from 2023. Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 1.30 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 15 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 9/9/24 Providence Development Faith Doty Farm field Bozeman, Gallatin Co.City/County: Meadowcreek loam None 5m NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT WDP1 Flat Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) 5m ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 45 85 Project/Site:North SRX (NSRX) NWI classification: Dominant Species? NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 85 Sampling Date: 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover FAC 45.651111 Long:-111.060303LRR E, MLRA 49 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 0 130 0 100 =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No WDP1SOIL Silt loam, dense fine roots Silt loam, graunlar structure Remarks Loamy/Clayey Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Remarks: Created wetland from stormwater infrastructure on Graf Street beginning between 2014-2020 (confirmed from aerial imagery). Hydric soil have not had time to form but are likely developing. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 5-16 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) 0-5 Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey Matrix Texture Redox FeaturesDepth Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):3 Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.X 8.X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X 45.65266 Long:-111.058535LRR E, MLRA 49 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 0 300 0 100 =Total Cover 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover FAC 80 Project/Site:North SRX (NSRX) NWI classification: Dominant Species? NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 0 Sampling Date: Meadowcreek loam None 5m NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT WDP2 Concave Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) 5m ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 300 Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 9/9/24 Providence Development Faith Doty Gentle swale in farm field Bozeman, Gallatin Co.City/County: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 100 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 3.00 2 - Dominance Test is >50% (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 5m naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Updated vegetation from WDP5 in 2023. Data point is within a very shallow natural swale in a previously farmed field. Indicator Status 2 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Poa pratensis FAC Herb Stratum 20 Yes Alopecurus pratensis 0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 5m Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 98 1 C PL/M 1 C PL/M X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Inundated during field inspection in June 2023. Appears to be a seasonal wetland area as conditions were dry in August/September of 2023 and 2024. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey 10YR 2/1 Matrix Texture 8-16 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/2 Color (moist) 10YR 8/6 10YR 6/8 0-2 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 2% prominent redox concentrations meets redox dark surface hydric soil requirements. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 2-8 WDP2SOIL Prominent redox concentrations Prominent redox concentrations Remarks Loamy/Clayey ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):3 Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.X 8.X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 5 No 5m Remarks: Indicator Status 3 3 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Poa pratensis No FACW FAC Herb Stratum 20 Yes Alopecurus pratensis 30 5 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 5m naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Updated vegetation from WDP6 in 2023. Data point is within a very shallow natural swale in a previously farmed field. Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species UPL 2.80 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: 30 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 60 Prevalence Index = B/A = 55 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 9/9/24 Providence Development Faith Doty Gentle swale in farm field Bozeman, Gallatin Co.City/County: Trifolium arvense Meadowcreek loam None 5m NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT WDP3 Concave Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) 5m ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 165 35 Project/Site:North SRX (NSRX) NWI classification: Dominant Species? NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 5 Sampling Date: Carex nebrascensis Juncus balticus 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 10 Yes FAC 45.652497 Long:-111.058263LRR E, MLRA 49 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 50 280 10 100 =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 98 2 C PL/M X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No WDP3SOIL Prominent redox concentrations Remarks Loamy/Clayey Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 2% prominent redox concentrations meets redox dark surface hydric soil requirements. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 2-8 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/2 Color (moist) 10YR 6/8 0-2 Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey 10YR 2/1 Matrix Texture 8-16 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Inundated during field inspection in June 2023. Appears to be a seasonal wetland area as conditions were dry in August/September of 2023 and 2024. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 X Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):3 Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.X 8.X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X 45.65218 Long:-111.058219LRR E, MLRA 49 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 0 160 0 100 =Total Cover Carex nebrascensis 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 30 Yes FAC 10 Project/Site:North SRX (NSRX) NWI classification: Dominant Species? NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 70 Sampling Date: Carex lasiocarpa Meadowcreek loam None 5m NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT WDP4 Concave Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) 5m ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 90 Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 9/9/24 Providence Development Faith Doty Gentle swale in farm field Bozeman, Gallatin Co.City/County: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 30 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species No Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species OBL 1.60 2 - Dominance Test is >50% (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 5m naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Updated vegetation from WDP7 in 2023. Data point is within a very shallow natural swale in a previously farmed field. Indicator Status 3 3 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Poa pratensis Yes OBL FAC Herb Stratum 20 Yes Alopecurus pratensis 40 70 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 5m Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 98 2 C PL/M X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Inundated during field inspection in June 2023. Appears to be a seasonal wetland area as conditions were dry in August/September of 2023 and 2024. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey 10YR 2/1 Matrix Texture 7-16 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/2 Color (moist) 10YR 6/8 0-2 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 2% prominent redox concentrations meets redox dark surface hydric soil requirements. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 2-7 WDP4SOIL Prominent redox concentrations Remarks Loamy/Clayey ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.X 8.X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 10 No 5m Remarks: Indicator Status 3 3 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Poa pratensis Yes OBL FAC Herb Stratum 20 Yes Alopecurus pratensis 10 10 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 5m naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Updated vegetation from WDP3 in 2023 Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species FACW 2.60 15 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: NoLolium perenne FAC 20 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 40 Prevalence Index = B/A = 70 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 9/9/24 Providence Development Faith Doty Farm field Bozeman, Gallatin Co.City/County: Juncus balticus Meadowcreek loam None 5m NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT WDP5 Flat Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) 5m ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 210 25 Project/Site:North SRX (NSRX) NWI classification: Dominant Species? NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 10 Sampling Date: Equisetum arvense Carex nebrascensis 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 20 No FAC 45.65238 Long:-111.059452LRR E, MLRA 49 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 0 260 0 100 =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No WDP5SOIL Mossy, dense fine roots Silty clay loam Remarks Loamy/Clayey Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Strong hydrogen sulfide odor from 10-16" meets A4 hydric soil requirements. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 2-16 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) 0-2 Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey Matrix Texture Redox FeaturesDepth Remarks: 6 Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) 0-2" of soil profile is saturated due to mossy surface holding water. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.X 8.X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X 45.651511 Long:-111.058619LRR E, MLRA 49 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 0 230 0 100 =Total Cover Schoenoplectus acutus Poa pratensis 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 10 Yes FAC 20 Project/Site:North SRX (NSRX) NWI classification: Dominant Species? NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 30 Sampling Date: Juncus balticus Meadowcreek loam None 5m NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT WDP6 Flat Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) 5m ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 180 Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 9/9/24 Providence Development Faith Doty Farm field Bozeman, Gallatin Co.City/County: 10 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 20 Prevalence Index = B/A = 60 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species FACW 2.30 2 - Dominance Test is >50% (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 5m naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Updated WDP10 from 2023. Hydrophytic vegetation cover has increased. Hydric soils are not present, but presumably developing. Indicator Status 3 3 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Alopecurus arundinaceus No FAC OBL Herb Stratum 30 Yes Carex nebrascensis 30 30 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 10 No 5m Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 100 X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 24 Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Surface Water (A1) 10YR 2/1 Matrix Texture 12-18 Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) 0-4 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) 4A, and 4B) Drainage Patterns (B10) X Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: <1% faint redox concentrations from 12-18" (not colored). Wetland conditions are developing, see disucssion in wetland delineation report. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 4-12 WDP6SOIL Loam, dense fine roots Loam, few roots Loam, <1% faint redox concentrations Remarks ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 X Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.X 8.X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 10 No 5m Remarks: Indicator Status 3 3 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Alopecurus arundinaceus No FAC OBL Herb Stratum 25 Yes Carex nebrascensis 25 40 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 5m naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Updated WDP9 from 2023. Hydrophytic vegetation cover has increased. Hydric soils are not present, but presumably developing. Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species FACW 2.10 10 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: NoTypha latifolia OBL 10 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 20 Prevalence Index = B/A = 50 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 9/9/24 Providence Development Faith Doty Farm field Bozeman, Gallatin Co.City/County: Juncus balticus Meadowcreek loam None 5m NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT WDP7 Flat Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) 5m ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 150 20 Project/Site:North SRX (NSRX) NWI classification: Dominant Species? NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 40 Sampling Date: Schoenoplectus acutus Poa pratensis 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 10 Yes FAC 45.651662 Long:-111.058855LRR E, MLRA 49 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 0 210 0 100 =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 100 X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No WDP7SOIL Loam, dense fine roots Loam, few roots Loam, <1% faint redox concentrations Remarks Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: <1% faint redox concentrations from 12-18" (not colored). Wetland conditions are developing, see disucssion in wetland delineation report. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 4-12 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) 0-4 Surface Water (A1) 10YR 2/1 Matrix Texture 12-18 Redox FeaturesDepth Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Inundated during field inspection in June 2023. Saturation and/or differential crop management visible on Google Earth aerial imagery for 2023 and 2024. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.X 8.X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 0 5m Remarks: Indicator Status 2 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Equisetum arvense (Plot size: Phalaris arundinacea No OBL FAC Herb Stratum 5 No Alopecurus pratensis 10 25 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 5m naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Updated vegetation from WDP8 in 2023 Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species FAC 2.45 15 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: YesCarex nebrascensis OBL 5 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 10 Prevalence Index = B/A = 70 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 9/9/24 Providence Development Faith Doty Farm field Bozeman, Gallatin Co.City/County: Poa pratensis Meadowcreek loam None 5m NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT WDP8 Flat Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) 5m ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 210 50 Project/Site:North SRX (NSRX) NWI classification: Dominant Species? NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 25 Sampling Date: Cirsium arvense Typha latifolia 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 10 10 No FACW 45.651976 Long:-111.059932LRR E, MLRA 49 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 0 245 0 100 =Total Cover No FAC ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X X X X X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No WDP8SOIL Loamy mucky mineral Clay loam Remarks Loamy/Clayey Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 2-4" of undecomposed organic matter on soil surface.0-4" of soil surface is a developing loamy mucky mineral that meets F1 requirements. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 4-16 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) 0-4 Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey Matrix Texture Redox FeaturesDepth Remarks: 10 0 Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Inundated during field inspection in June 2023. Inundation and/or differential crop management visible on June 2023 and July 2024 Google Earth aerial imagery. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.X 8.X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X 45.652116 Long:-111.06011LRR E, MLRA 49 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 0 245 0 100 =Total Cover No FAC Cirsium arvense Typha latifolia 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 10 10 No FACW 50 Project/Site:North SRX (NSRX) NWI classification: Dominant Species? NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 25 Sampling Date: Poa pratensis Meadowcreek loam None 5m NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT WDP9 Flat Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) 5m ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 210 Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 9/9/24 Providence Development Faith Doty Farm field Bozeman, Gallatin Co.City/County: 5 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 10 Prevalence Index = B/A = 70 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: YesCarex nebrascensis OBL Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species FAC 2.45 15 2 - Dominance Test is >50% (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 5m naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Updated vegetation from WDP2 in 2023 Indicator Status 2 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Equisetum arvense (Plot size: Phalaris arundinacea No OBL FAC Herb Stratum 5 No Alopecurus pratensis 10 25 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 0 5m Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 100 2 C PL X X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 12 Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Standing water at sample point during initial field visit in June 2023. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey 2.5Y 4/1 Matrix Texture 12-18 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) 10YR 5/8 0-2 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Depleted matrix from 12+ beneath 12" of dark surface soils meets A11 and A12 hydric soil indicator requirements. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 2-12 WDP9SOIL Loamy mucky mineral Silty clay loam Prominent redox concentrations Remarks Loamy/Clayey ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):5 Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.X 8.X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X 45.652169 Long:-111.059922LRR E, MLRA 49 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 0 256 0 100 =Total Cover No OBL Equisetum arvense Carex nebrascensis 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 20 2 No FAC 25 Project/Site:North SRX (NSRX) NWI classification: Dominant Species? NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 12 Sampling Date: Juncus balticus Meadowcreek loam None 5m NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT WDP10 Angled towards swale Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) 5m ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 204 Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 9/9/24 Providence Development Faith Doty Swale within farm field Bozeman, Gallatin Co.City/County: 20 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 40 Prevalence Index = B/A = 68 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: NoLolium perenne FAC Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species FACW 2.56 13 2 - Dominance Test is >50% (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 5m naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Updated vegetation from WDP4 in 2023 Indicator Status 3 3 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Typha latifolia (Plot size: Poa pratensis Yes OBL FAC Herb Stratum 20 Yes Alopecurus pratensis 10 12 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 10 No 5m Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 60 38 2 C PL X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 12 Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Standing water at sample point during field visit in June 2023. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey 2.5Y 4/1 Matrix 10YR 2/1 Texture 12-16 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) 10YR 5/8 0-2 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Depleted matrix from 12-16" beneath 12" of dark surface soils meets A11 hydric soil indicator requirements. Similar soil profile to WDP9. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 2-12 WDP10SOIL Mossy, dense fine roots Silty clay loam Silty clay, mixed soil colors Depleted matrix, prominent redox Remarks Loamy/Clayey Loamy/Clayey ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):5 Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.X 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X 45.651419 Long:-111.057595LRR E, MLRA 49 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 50 325 10 100 =Total Cover Tanacetum vulgare 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover No FAC 10 Project/Site:North SRX (NSRX) NWI classification: Dominant Species? NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 0 Sampling Date: Meadowcreek loam None 5m NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT WDP11 Concave Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) 5m ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 255 Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 9/9/24 Providence Development Faith Doty Abandoned ditch lateral Bozeman, Gallatin Co.City/County: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 20 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 85 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species No Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 3.25 2 - Dominance Test is >50% (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 5m naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Bottom of fully vegetated ditch on the eastern edge of the property, paired with UDP1. (WDP12 from 2023) Indicator Status 1 1 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Alopecurus pratensis FACU UPL Herb Stratum 85 Yes Bromus inermis 5 0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 5m Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey Matrix Texture Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/2 10YR 2/2 Color (moist) 0-4 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 0-4" almost meets loamy mucky mineral requirements, but is undeveloped. Strong hydrogen sulfur odor from 4-16" meets A4 hydric soil indicator. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 4-16 WDP11SOIL Silt loam, almost meets F1 requirements Silt loam, strong sulfur odor Remarks Loamy/Clayey ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.X 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 95 5m Remarks: Indicator Status 2 3 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Alopecurus pratensis UPL Herb Stratum 70 Yes Bromus inermis 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 5m naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Within the eastern channel. Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 3.45 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: 5 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 10 Prevalence Index = B/A = 70 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 10/20/23 Providence Development Faith Doty Man-made channel Bozeman, Gallatin Co.City/County: Blackmore silt loam None 5m NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT WDP12 Flat Section, Township, Range: 66.7% ) 5m ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 210 25 Project/Site:North SRX (NSRX) NWI classification: Dominant Species? 5 5 FACW NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 0 Sampling Date: 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: Populus angustifolia Yes =Total Cover FAC 45.65021 Long:-111.05757LRR E, MLRA 49 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 125 345 25 100 =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 91 9 C PL X X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No WDP12SOIL Silt loam, 55% rounded rock Depleted matrix Remarks Loamy/Clayey Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Soil layer from 10-16" meets A11 requirements. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 10-16 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 4/2 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) 7.5YR 4/6 0-10 Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey Matrix Texture Redox FeaturesDepth Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR/MLRA):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No X Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 25 5m Remarks: Indicator Status 1 3 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Taraxacum officinale UPL Herb Stratum 5 Yes Bromus inermis 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 5m naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Within the eastern channel, approximately 50' down-gradient from culvert outlet. Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 2.88 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: 55 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 20 Multiply by: 110 Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 10/20/23 Providence Development Faith Doty Man-made channel Bozeman, Gallatin Co.City/County: Blackmore silt loam None 5m NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT WDP13 Flat Section, Township, Range: 33.3% ) 5m ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 0 20 Project/Site:North SRX (NSRX) NWI classification: Dominant Species? 55 55 FACW NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 0 Sampling Date: 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: Populus angustifolia Yes =Total Cover FACU 45.649972 Long:-111.057563LRR E, MLRA 49 20% litter cover. Meets prevalence index test. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 100 230 20 80 =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 98 2 C PL X X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No WDP13SOIL Silt loam, 40% rounded rock Depleted matrix, faint redox concentrations Remarks Loamy/Clayey Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Soil layer from 10-16" meets A11 requirements. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 10-16 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 4/2 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) 10YR 6/4 0-10 Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey Matrix Texture Redox FeaturesDepth Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 State: 0 X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.X 8.X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 25 Yes 5m Remarks: Indicator Status 3 3 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Alopecurus pratensis No FACU FAC Herb Stratum 25 Yes Poa pratensis 15 5 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 5m naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Between two wetland areas delineated in 2023. Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species OBL 2.80 5 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: NoEquisetum arvense FAC 25 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 60 Multiply by: 50 Prevalence Index = B/A = 55 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 9/9/24Bozeman, Gallatin Co.City/County: Carex nebrascensis None 5m NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT WDP14 Flat Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) 5m ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 165 25 NWI classification: Dominant Species? NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 5 Sampling Date: Juncus balticus Dactylis glomerata 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 5 No FAC 45.651576 Long:-111.060132 Project/Site: North SRX (NSRX) Applicant/Owner: Providence Development Investigator(s): Faith Doty Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Farm field Subregion (LRR/MLRA): LRR E, MLRA 49 Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek loam Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 15 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 0 280 0 100 =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 100 100 X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No WDP14SOIL Silty clay, dense fine roots Silty clay Clay Clay, depleted, no redox Remarks Loamy/Clayey Loamy/Clayey Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Depleted layer beginning at 22" combined with 10YR 2/1 above meets A12 requirements. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 5-11 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) 0-5 Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey 10YR 2/1 Matrix 22-23 10YR 4/1 Texture 11-22 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth Remarks: 23 Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Meets wetland hydrology due to C2 and D5, combined secondary indicators. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 X State: 0 X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.X 8.X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 5m Remarks: Indicator Status 2 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Phalaris arundinacea OBL FAC Herb Stratum 40 Yes Alopecurus pratensis 5 5 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 5m naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Directly west of westernmost stockpile, north of stormwater pond, small cattail plants nearby. No hydric soil indicators observed Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 2.50 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: 40 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 80 Prevalence Index = B/A = 55 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 9/4/24Bozeman, Gallatin Co.City/County: None 5m NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT WDP15 Flat Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) 5m ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 165 55 NWI classification: Dominant Species? NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 5 Sampling Date: Typha latifolia 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover No FACW 45.65146 Long:-111.0603 Project/Site: North SRX (NSRX) Applicant/Owner: Providence Development Investigator(s): Faith Doty Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Farm field Subregion (LRR/MLRA): LRR E, MLRA 49 Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek loam Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 0 250 0 100 =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 100 X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No WDP15SOIL Sandy silt loam, dense fine roots Silty clay Silty clay, increased clay Remarks Loamy/Clayey Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Developing wetland conditions, see wetland report for discussion. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 2-18 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 3/2 Color (moist) 0-2 Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey 10YR 2/1 Matrix Texture 18-25 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth Remarks: 21.5 11 Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) At initial excavation, water table was not observed. A perched saturated layer from 11-20" was present. After aproximately 45 minutes, groundwater rose to 21.5". Saturation visible on historic aerial imagery from 2020 onwards, after stormwater was piped to the site. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 State: 0 X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.X 8.X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 5m Remarks: Indicator Status 1 1 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Alopecurus pratensis FACU FAC Herb Stratum 90 Yes Poa pratensis 0 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 5m naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Midway between historic wetland area and developing wetland area downstream of stormwater pond. Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 3.00 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 100 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species No Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 9/4/24Bozeman, Gallatin Co.City/County: None 5m NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT WDP16 Flat Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) 5m ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 300 10 NWI classification: Dominant Species? NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 0 Sampling Date: Dactylis glomerata 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover FAC 45.651354 Long:-111.060198 Project/Site: North SRX (NSRX) Applicant/Owner: Providence Development Investigator(s): Faith Doty Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Farm field Subregion (LRR/MLRA): LRR E, MLRA 49 Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek loam Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 0 300 0 100 =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 100 95 5 C M X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No WDP16SOIL Silty clay loam, dense fine roots Silty clay loam Clay loam Prominent redox concentrations Remarks Loamy/Clayey Loamy/Clayey Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Depleted layer with redox concentrations from 25+ inches combined with 10YR 2/1 above meets A12 requirements. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 3-14 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) 7.5R 5/6 0-3 Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey 10YR 2/1 Matrix 25-26 10YR 4/2 Texture 14-25 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth Remarks: 24 12 Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Profile saturated between 12-19", not saturated below 19" until groundwater filled in approximately 45 minutes after initial excavation. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 State: 0 X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.X 8.X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X 45.651576 Long:-111.060132 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 25 255 5 100 =Total Cover Poa pratensis Typha latifolia 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 5 No FACW 45 NWI classification: Dominant Species? NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 10 Sampling Date: Potentilla recta None 5m NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT WDP17 Flat Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) 5m ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 150 Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 9/4/24Project/Site: North SRX (NSRX) Applicant/Owner: Providence Development Investigator(s): Faith Doty Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Farm field Subregion (LRR/MLRA): LRR E, MLRA 49 Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek loam Bozeman, Gallatin Co.City/County: 35 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 70 Prevalence Index = B/A = 50 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species UPL 2.55 2 - Dominance Test is >50% (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 5m naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Midway between historic wetland area and developing wetland area downstream of stormwater pond. Indicator Status 2 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Phalaris arundinacea No OBL FAC Herb Stratum 35 Yes Alopecurus pratensis 10 10 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 5 No 5m Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 100 94 6 C M X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 17 12 Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Profile saturated between 12-19", not saturated below 19" until groundwater filled in approximately 45 minutes after initial excavation. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey 10YR 2/1 Matrix 26-28 10YR 4/2 Texture 19-26 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) 10YR 4/4 0-4 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Depleted layer with redox concentrations from 26-28+ inches combined with 10YR 2/1 above meets A12 requirements. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 4-19 WDP17SOIL Silty clay loam, dense fine roots Silty clay loam Clay loam Distinct redox concentrations Remarks Loamy/Clayey Loamy/Clayey ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 31 | Page APPENDIX C: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\Field Data\Field Photos North SRX Wetland DelineationBozeman, Montana Photo Date: Various, 2023 and 2024 Photo 1: View of north side of property (Wetlands A and B) in May 2023. Middle Creek Ditch and 19th Avenue in background. Facing northwest. Photo 2: View of stormwater flow from pond moving towards northern property area. in May 2023. Stockpiles out-of-picture to the right (east). Facing north. N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\Field Data\Field Photos North SRX Wetland DelineationBozeman, Montana Photo Date: May, 19 2023 Photo 3: Representative view of inundated area near stockpiles in May 2023 (Wetland A). Photo 4: View of inundation in May 2023 at Wetland A. N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\Field Data\Field Photos North SRX Wetland DelineationBozeman, Montana Photo Date: May, 19 2023 Photo 5: Standing water in large ruts in May 2023. Photo 6: Standing water in large ruts in August 2023. N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\Field Data\Field Photos North SRX Wetland DelineationBozeman, Montana Photo Date: August 22, 2023 Photo 7: Representative view of Wetland A (WDP17) in 2024. Photo 8: Representative view of vegetation at WDP5 in 2024. N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\Field Data\Field Photos North SRX Wetland DelineationBozeman, Montana Photo Date: August 22, 2023 Photo 9: Representative view of Wetland A vegetation (WDP17) in 2024. Photo 10: Representative view of obligate vegetation at WDP8 in 2023. N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\Field Data\Field Photos North SRX Wetland DelineationBozeman, Montana Photo Date: August 22, 2023 Photo 11: View of yellowing hydrophytic vegetation at WDP1 (2023). Photo 12: Representative view of vegetation at WDP11 (within eastern channel) (2023) N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\Field Data\Field Photos North SRX Wetland DelineationBozeman, Montana Photo Date: August 22, 2023 Photo 13: Representative view of southern upland areas (UDP8) in 2024. Photo 14: Alternate representative view of southern upland areas (UDP13) in 2024. N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\Field Data\Field Photos North SRX Wetland DelineationBozeman, Montana Photo Date: August 22, 2023 Photo 15: Representative view of northern upland areas (UDP9) in 2024. Photo 16: Representative view of northern upland areas (UDP10) in 2024. N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\Field Data\Field Photos North SRX Wetland DelineationBozeman, Montana Photo Date: August 22, 2023 Photo 17: Representative view of upland areas bordering Middle Creek Ditch (UDP7) in 2024. Photo 18: Representative view of UDP4 at ditch lateral in 2023. N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\Field Data\Field Photos North SRX Wetland DelineationBozeman, Montana Photo Date: August 22, 2023 Photo 19: Representative view of vegetation at UDP5 in 2024. Photo 20: Representative view of vegetation at UDP11 in 2024. N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\Field Data\Field Photos North SRX Wetland DelineationBozeman, Montana Photo Date: August 22, 2023 Photo 19: Representative view of vegetation at UDP14 in 2024. Photo 20: Representative view of wetland A from the western side in 2024. SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 32 | Page APPENDIX D: MDT WETLAND ASSESSMENT MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) 1 1. Project Name: North South Range Crossing 2. MDT Project #: N/A 3. Control #: N/A 3. Evaluation Date: September 2023 4. Evaluator(s): F. Doty and C.Pearcy 5. Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 1 and 2 6. Wetland Location(s): Township 2 S, Range 5 E, Section 24; Township N, Range E, Section Approximate Stationing or Roadposts: N/A Watershed: 6 - Upper Missouri County: Gallatin 7. Evaluating Agency: Private by Morrison Maierle Inc. 8. Wetland Size (acre): 2.9 (visually estimated) Purpose of Evaluation: 2.9 (measured, e.g. GPS) Wetland potentially affected by MDT project Mitigation wetlands; pre-construction Mitigation wetlands; post-construction 9. Assessment Area (AA) Size (acre): 35 (visually estimated) Other potentially impacted by private entity (see manual for determining AA) 35 (measured, e.g. GPS) 10. CLASSIFICATION OF WETLAND AND AQUATIC HABITATS IN AA (See manual for definitions.) HGM Class (Brinson) Class (Cowardin) Modifier (Cowardin) Water Regime % OF AA Organic Soil Flats Emergent Wetland Permanent / Perennial 7 Organic Soil Flats Emergent Wetland Seasonal / Intermittent 1 Comments: 11. ESTIMATED RELATIVE ABUNDANCE (of similarly classified sites within the same Major Montana Watershed Basin; see manual.) common 12. GENERAL CONDITION OF AA i. Disturbance: Use matrix below to select the appropriate response; see manual for Montana listed noxious weed and aquatic nuisance vegetation species lists. Conditions within AA Predominant Conditions Adjacent to (within 500 feet of) AA Managed in predominantly natural state; is not grazed, hayed, logged, or otherwise converted; does not contain roads or buildings; and noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤15%. Land not cultivated, but may be moderately grazed or hayed or selectively logged; or has been subject to minor clearing; contains few roads or buildings; noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤30%. Land cultivated or heavily grazed or logged; subject to substantial fill placement, grading, clearing, or hydrological alteration; high road or building density; or noxious weed or ANVS cover is >30%. AA occurs and is managed in predominantly natural state; is not grazed, hayed, logged, or otherwise converted; does not contain roads or occupied buildings; and noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤15%. --- --- --- AA not cultivated, but may be moderately grazed or hayed or selectively logged; or has been subject to relatively minor clearing, fill placement, or hydrological alteration; contains few roads or buildings; noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤30%. --- --- --- AA cultivated or heavily grazed or logged; subject to relatively substantial fill placement, grading, clearing, or hydrological alteration; high road or building density; or noxious weed or ANVS cover is >30%. --- --- high disturbance Comments (types of disturbance, intensity, season, etc.): these wetlands have been farmed around and mowed for decades. ii. Prominent noxious, aquatic nuisance, and other exotic vegetation species: Noxious weeds occur but are actively being treated. iii. Provide brief descriptive summary of AA and surrounding land use/habitat: AA is located within a quickly developing portion of Bozeman. Land use includes residential, roads, farming. 13. STRUCTURAL DIVERSITY (Based on number of “Cowardin” vegetated classes present [do not include unvegetated classes]; see #10 above.) Existing # of “Cowardin” Vegetated Classes in AA Initial Rating Is current management preventing (passive) existence of additional vegetated classes? Modified Rating ≥3 (or 2 if one is forested) classes --- NA NA NA 2 (or 1 if forested) classes --- NA NA NA 1 class, but not a monoculture mod ←NO YES→ --- 1 class, monoculture (1 species comprises ≥90% of total cover) --- NA NA NA Comments: AA consists of emergent wetlands and upland consisting of pasture grasses. . MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 2 Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 1 and Wetland 2 14A. HABITAT FOR FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED THREATENED OR ENDANGERED PLANTS OR ANIMALS i. AA is Documented (D) or Suspected (S) to contain: Check box based on definitions in manual. Primary or critical habitat (list species) D S Secondary habitat (list species) D S Incidental habitat (list species) D S No usable habitat S ii. Rating: Based on the strongest habitat chosen in 14A(i) above, select the corresponding functional point and rating. Highest Habitat Level Doc/Primary Sus/Primary Doc/Secondary Sus/Secondary Doc/Incidental Sus/Incidental None Functional Point/Rating --- --- --- --- --- .1L --- Sources for documented use (e.g. observations, records): USFWS IPaC, MTNHP, observation 14B. HABITAT FOR PLANTS OR ANIMALS RATED S1, S2, OR S3 BY THE MONTANA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM Do not include species listed in 14A above. i. AA is Documented (D) or Suspected (S) to contain: Check box based on definitions in manual. Primary or critical habitat (list species) D S Secondary habitat (list species) D S Great blue heron Incidental habitat (list species) D S No usable habitat S ii. Rating: Based on the strongest habitat chosen in 14A(i) above, select the corresponding functional point and rating. Highest Habitat Level Doc/Primary Sus/Primary Doc/Secondary Sus/Secondary Doc/Incidental Sus/Incidental None S1 Species Functional Point/Rating --- --- --- --- --- --- .0L S2 and S3 Species Functional Point/Rating --- --- .6M --- --- --- --- Sources for documented use (e.g. observations, records): MTNHP Environmental Summary Report 14C. GENERAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RATING i. Evidence of Overall Wildlife Use in the AA: Check substantial, moderate, or low based on supporting evidence. Substantial: Based on any of the following [check]. Minimal: Based on any of the following [check]. observations of abundant wildlife #s or high species diversity (during any period) few or no wildlife observations during peak use periods abundant wildlife sign such as scat, tracks, nest structures, game trails, etc. little to no wildlife sign presence of extremely limiting habitat features not available in the surrounding area sparse adjacent upland food sources interview with local biologist with knowledge of the AA interview with local biologist with knowledge of AA Moderate: Based on any of the following [check]. observations of scattered wildlife groups or individuals or relatively few species during peak periods common occurrence of wildlife sign such as scat, tracks, nest structures, game trails, etc. adequate adjacent upland food sources interview with local biologist with knowledge of the AA ii. Wildlife Habitat Features: Working from top to bottom, check appropriate AA attributes in matrix to arrive at rating. Structural diversity is from #13. For class cover to be considered evenly distributed, the most and least prevalent vegetated classes must be within 20% of each other in terms of their percent composition of the AA (see #10). Abbreviations for surface water durations are as follows: P/P = permanent/perennial; S/I = seasonal/intermittent; T/E = temporary/ephemeral; and A = absent [see manual for further definitions of these terms]. Structural Diversity (see #13) High Moderate Low Class Cover Distribution (all vegetated classes) Even Uneven Even Uneven Even Duration of Surface Water in ≥ 10% of AA P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A Low Disturbance at AA (see #12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Moderate Disturbance at AA (see #12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- High Disturbance at AA (see #12i) --- --- --- --- M --- --- --- --- --- --- --- M --- --- --- --- L --- --- iii. Rating: Use the conclusions from i and ii above and the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Evidence of Wildlife Use (i) Wildlife Habitat Features Rating (ii) Exceptional High Moderate Low Substantial --- --- --- --- Moderate --- --- .5M --- Minimal --- --- --- --- Comments: ducks, red-wing black birds, deer, black bear MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 3 Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 1 and 2 14D. GENERAL FISH HABITAT NA (proceed to 14E) If the AA is not used by fish, fish use is not restorable due to habitat constraints, or is not desired from a management perspective [such as fish entrapped in a canal], then check the NA box and proceed to 14E. Assess this function if the AA is used by fish or the existing situation is “correctable” such that the AA could be used by fish [i.e., fish use is precluded by perched culvert or other barrier]. Type of Fishery: Cold Water (CW) Warm Water (WW) Use the CW or WW guidelines in the manual to complete the matrix. i. Habitat Quality and Known / Suspected Fish Species in AA: Use matrix to select the functional point and rating. Duration of Surface Water in AA Permanent / Perennial Seasonal / Intermittent Temporary / Ephemeral Aquatic Hiding / Resting / Escape Cover Optimal Adequate Poor Optimal Adequate Poor Optimal Adequate Poor Thermal Cover: optimal / suboptimal O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S FWP Tier I fish species --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FWP Tier II or Native Game fish species --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FWP Tier III or Introduced Game fish --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FWP Non-Game Tier IV or No fish species --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Sources used for identifying fish spp. potentially found in AA: ii. Modified Rating: NOTE: Modified score cannot exceed 1.0 or be less than 0.1. a) Is fish use of the AA significantly reduced by a culvert, dike, or other man-made structure or activity, or is the waterbody included on the current final MDEQ list of waterbodies in need of TMDL development with listed “Probable Impaired Uses” including cold or warm water fishery or aquatic life support, or do aquatic nuisance plant or animal species (see Appendix E) occur in fish habitat? YES, reduce score in i by 0.1 = or N0 b) Does the AA contain a documented spawning area or other critical habitat feature (i.e., sanctuary pool, upwelling area; specify in comments) for native fish or introduced game fish? YES, add to score in i or iia 0.1 = or N0 iii. Final Score and Rating: Comments: 14E. FLOOD ATTENUATION NA (proceed to 14F) Applies only to wetlands that are subject to flooding via in-channel or overbank flow. If wetlands in AA are not flooded from in-channel or overbank flow, check the NA box and proceed to 14F. Entrenchment Ratio (ER) Estimation (see manual for additional guidance). Entrenchment ratio = (flood-prone width) / (bankfull width). Flood-prone width = estimated horizontal projection of where 2 X maximum bankfull depth elevation intersects the floodplain on each side of the stream. / = flood prone width / bankfull width = entrenchment ratio Slightly Entrenched ER ≥ 2.2 Moderately Entrenched ER = 1.41 – 2.2 Entrenched ER = 1.0 – 1.4 C stream type D stream type E stream type B stream type A stream type F stream type G stream type i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Estimated or Calculated Entrenchment (Rosgen 1994, 1996) Slightly Entrenched C, D, E stream types Moderately Entrenched B stream type Entrenched A, F, G stream types Percent of Flooded Wetland Classified as Forested and/or Scrub/Shrub 75% 25-75% <25% 75% 25-75% <25% 75% 25-75% <25% AA contains no outlet or restricted outlet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- AA contains unrestricted outlet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ii. Are ≥10 acres of wetland in the AA subject to flooding AND are man-made features which may be significantly damaged by floods located within 0.5 mile downstream of the AA? YES NO Comments: Flood-prone Width Bankfull Width Bankfull Depth 2 x Bankfull Depth MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 4 Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 1 and 2 14F. SHORT AND LONG TERM SURFACE WATER STORAGE NA (proceed to 14G) Applies to wetlands that flood or pond from overbank or in-channel flow, precipitation, upland surface flow, or groundwater flow. If no wetlands in the AA are subject to flooding or ponding, then check the NA box and proceed to 14G. i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Abbreviations for surface water durations are as follows: P/P = permanent/perennial; S/I = seasonal/intermittent; and T/E = temporary/ephemeral [see manual for further definitions of these terms]. Estimated Maximum Acre Feet of Water Contained in Wetlands within the AA that are Subject to Periodic Flooding or Ponding >5 acre feet 1.1 to 5 acre feet ≤1 acre foot Duration of Surface Water at Wetlands within the AA P/P S/I T/E P/P S/I T/E P/P S/I T/E Wetlands in AA flood or pond ≥ 5 out of 10 years --- --- --- .8H --- --- --- --- --- Wetlands in AA flood or pond < 5 out of 10 years --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Comments: . 14G. SEDIMENT / NUTRIENT / TOXICANT / RETENTION AND REMOVAL NA (proceed to 14H) Applies to wetland with potential to receive sediments, nutrients, or toxicants through influx of surface or ground water or direct input. If no wetlands in the AA are subject to such input, check the NA box and proceed to 14H. i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Sediment, Nutrient, and Toxicant Input Levels within AA AA receives or surrounding land use has potential to deliver sediments, nutrients, or compounds at levels such that other functions are not substantially impaired. Minor sedimentation, sources of nutrients or toxicants, or signs of eutrophication present. Waterbody is on MDEQ list of waterbodies in need of TMDL development for “probable causes” related to sediment, nutrients, or toxicants or AA receives or surrounding land use has potential to deliver high levels of sediments, nutrients, or compounds such that other functions are substantially impaired. Major sedimentation, sources of nutrients or toxicants, or signs of eutrophication present. % Cover of Wetland Vegetation in AA ≥ 70% < 70% ≥ 70% < 70% Evidence of Flooding / Ponding in AA Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No AA contains no or restricted outlet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- AA contains unrestricted outlet --- --- .6M --- --- --- --- --- Comments: It is assumed that these wetlands receive agricultural run-off from surrounding farm land. 14H. SEDIMENT / SHORELINE STABILIZATION NA (proceed to 14I) Applies only if AA occurs on or within the banks of a river, stream, or other natural or man-made drainage, or on the shoreline of a standing water body which is subject to wave action. If 14H does not apply, check the NA box and proceed to 14I. % Cover of Wetland Streambank or Shoreline by Species with Stability Ratings of ≥6 (see Appendix F). Duration of Surface Water Adjacent to Rooted Vegetation Permanent / Perennial Seasonal / Intermittent Temporary / Ephemeral ≥ 65% --- --- --- 35-64% --- --- --- < 35% --- --- --- Comments: Grasses and cut willows/alder located along Bull Lake shoreline. 14I. PRODUCTION EXPORT / FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT i. Level of Biological Activity: Synthesis of wildlife and fish habitat rates (select). ii. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Factor A = acreage of vegetated wetland component in the AA; Factor B = level of biological activity rating from above (14Ii); Factor C = whether or not the AA contains a surface or subsurface outlet; the final three rows pertain to the duration of surface water in the AA, where P/P, S/I, and T/E were previously defined, and A = “absent” [see manual for further definitions of these terms]. A Vegetated Component >5 acres Vegetated Component 1-5 acres Vegetated Component <1 acre B High Moderate Low High Moderate Low High Moderate Low C Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No P/P --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- S/I --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- T/E/A --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- .5M --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- General Fish Habitat Rating (14Diii) General Wildlife Habitat Rating (14Ciii) E/H M L E/H --- --- --- M --- --- --- L --- --- --- NA --- --- --- MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 5 Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 1 and 2 14I. PRODUCTION EXPORT / FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (continued) iii. Modified Rating: Note: Modified score cannot exceed 1.0 or be less than 0.1. Vegetated Upland Buffer: Area with ≥ 30% plant cover, ≤ 15% noxious weed or ANVS cover, AND that is not subjected to periodic mechanical mowing or clearing (unless for weed control). Is there an average ≥ 50-foot wide vegetated upland buffer around ≥ 75% of the AA’s perimeter? YES, add 0.1 to score in ii = NO iv. Final Score and Rating: .5M Comments: the wetland and surrounding area is mowed. 14J. GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE / RECHARGE Check the appropriate indicators in i and ii below. i. Discharge Indicators ii. Recharge Indicators The AA is a slope wetland. Permeable substrate present without underlying impeding layer. Springs or seeps are known or observed. Wetland contains inlet but no outlet. Vegetation growing during dormant season/drought. Stream is a known ‘losing’ stream. Discharge volume decreases. Wetland occurs at the toe of a natural slope. Other: Seeps are present at the wetland edge. AA permanently flooded during drought periods. Wetland contains an outlet, but no inlet. Shallow water table and the site is saturated to the surface. Other: iii. Rating: Use the information from i and ii above and the table below to select the functional point and rating. Criteria Duration of Saturation at AA Wetlands FROM GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE or WITH WATER THAT IS RECHARGING THE GROUNDWATER SYSTEM P/P S/I T None Groundwater Discharge or Recharge --- --- --- --- Insufficient Data/Information NA Comments: this information is unknown 14K. UNIQUENESS i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Replacement Potential AA contains fen, bog, warm springs or mature (>80 yr-old) forested wetland OR plant association listed as “S1” by the MTNHP AA does not contain previously cited rare types AND structural diversity (#13) is high OR contains plant association listed as “S2” by the MTNHP AA does not contain previously cited rare types OR associations AND structural diversity (#13) is low-moderate Estimated Relative Abundance (#11) Rare Common Abundant Rare Common Abundant Rare Common Abundant Low Disturbance at AA (#12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Moderate Disturbance at AA (#12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- High Disturbance at AA (#12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- .2L --- Comments: wetland is not rare, veg is non-native for the most part, area is disturbed around the wetlands 14L. RECREATION / EDUCATION POTENTIAL NA (proceed to Overall Summary and Rating page) Affords ‘bonus’ points if AA provides a recreational or educational opportunity. i. Is the AA a known or potential recreational or educational site? YES, go to ii. NO, check the NA box. ii. Check categories that apply to the AA: Educational/Scientific Study Consumptive Recreational Non-consumptive recreational Other: iii. Rating: Use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Known or Potential Recreational or Educational Area Known Potential Public ownership or public easement with general public access (no permission required) --- --- Private ownership with general public access (no permission required) --- --- Private or public ownership without general public access, or requiring permission for public access .1M --- Comments: Private property 15. GENERAL SITE NOTES: area is surrounded by farmland that is quickly being converted to residential areas. MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) FUNCTION & VALUE SUMMARY AND OVERALL RATING 6 Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 1 and 2 Function & Value Variables Rating – Actual Functional Points Possible Functional Points Functional Units: Actual Points x Estimated AA Acreage Indicate the Four Most Prominent Functions with an Asterisk A. Listed / Proposed T&E Species Habitat low 0.10 1.00 3.50 B. MT Natural Heritage Program Species Habitat mod 0.60 1.00 21 * C. General Wildlife Habitat mod 0.50 1.00 17 * D. General Fish Habitat NA NA na E. Flood Attenuation NA NA na F. Short and Long Term Surface Water Storage high 0.80 1.00 28 * G. Sediment / Nutrient / Toxicant Removal mod 0.60 1.00 21 H. Sediment / Shoreline Stabilization NA NA na * I. Production Export / Food Chain Support mod 0.50 1.00 17 * J. Groundwater Discharge / Recharge NA NA na K. Uniqueness low 0.20 1.00 7 L. Recreation / Education Potential (bonus point) NA 0 Total Points 3.3 7 114.5 Total Functional Units Percent of Possible Score 47% (round to nearest whole number) Category I Wetland: (must satisfy one of the following criteria; otherwise go to Category II) Score of 1 functional point for Listed/Proposed Threatened or Endangered Species; or Score of 1 functional point for Uniqueness; or Score of 1 functional point for Flood Attenuation and answer to Question 14E.ii is "yes"; or Percent of possible score > 80% (round to nearest whole #). Category II Wetland: (Criteria for Category I not satisfied and meets any one of the following criteria; otherwise go to Category IV) Score of 1 functional point for MT Natural Heritage Program Species Habitat; or Score of .9 or 1 functional point for General Wildlife Habitat; or Score of .9 or 1 functional point for General Fish Habitat; or "High" to “Exceptional” ratings for both General Wildlife Habitat and General Fish/Aquatic Habitat; or Score of .9 functional point for Uniqueness; or Percent of possible score > 65% (round to nearest whole #). Category III Wetland: (Criteria for Categories I, II, or IV not satisfied) Category IV Wetland: (Criteria for Categories I or II are not satisfied and all of the following criteria are met; if not go to Category III) "Low" rating for Uniqueness; and Vegetated wetland component < 1 acre (do not include upland vegetated buffer); and Percent of possible score < 35% (round to nearest whole #). OVERALL ANALYSIS AREA (AA) RATING: Check the appropriate category based on the criteria outlined above. I II III IV SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 33 | Page APPENDIX E: 2015 VAUGHN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT AND MADISON ENGINEERING PLAN SET OF GRAF STREET ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS WATERS OF THE US DELINEATION REPORT YELLOWSTONE THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE BOZEMAN, MONTANA October 19, 2015 Prepared for: Yellowstone Theological Institute c/o Chris Budeski Madison Engineering 895 Technology Blvd Suite 203 Bozeman, MT 59718 Prepared by: TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 1 1.1 Site Waterways ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Climate ................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 WETLAND DELINEATION METHODS ..................................................................... 5 2.1 Methods .................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Technical Criteria .................................................................................................... 5 3.0 WETLAND DELINEATION RESULTS ...................................................................... 8 3.1 NRCS Soil Survey Results ...................................................................................... 9 3.2 W-1 – Mandeville Creek: Riverine, Lower Perennial, Rock Bottom ........................ 9 3.3 W-2 and W-3 – Topographical Depressions ......................................................... 10 3.4 W-4 – Irrigation Ditch: Artificial Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom ......................................................................................................................... 10 3.5 W-5 – Woward-Esgar Irrigation Ditch: Artificial Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom ............................................................................................... 11 4.0 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 12 5.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 13 FIGURE 1.0 - USGS 7.5’ Bozeman Quadrangle Topographic Map ..................................... 3 FIGURE 2.0 - Aerial Photograph showing the study area ..................................................... 4 TABLE 1.0 - Summary of Attributes for WUS delineated on Property ............................ 12 APPENDIX A - Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms APPENDIX B - Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Survey APPENDIX C - Photo Log APPENDIX D - Wetland Exhibit Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute 1 1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND An investigation to identify waters of the United States (WUS) on 80 acres of agricultural land located in Bozeman, Montana, was completed by Vaughn Environmental Services, Inc. (VES) on July 24, 2015. A second wetland delineation was completed on September 24, 2015, within 75 feet of the north property boundary based on a request by the City of Bozeman to construct an east-west road and extend South 11th. The parcel, owned by Yellowstone Theological Institute and represented by Chris Budeski of Madison Engineering, Inc., is located south of Kagy Boulevard, east of South 19th Street, and north and south of the future east-ward extension of Graf Street. The land is legally described as the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter and the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 24, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, Gallatin County (Figure 1.0 – USGS 7.5’ Bozeman Quadrangle Topographic Map and Figure 2.0 – Aerial Photograph). The wetland boundaries were flagged based on vegetation, soil, and hydrological data collected during the field investigation. The flagged boundaries of the WUS within the study area were surveyed and mapped by Meridian Land Surveying, Inc. of Bozeman. The field investigation was completed for the landowners to identify the location, extent, and characteristics of jurisdictional WUS within the study area boundaries for compliance with United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulations and to define watercourse setbacks for the City of Bozeman. The USACE requires a permit for the discharge of fill material into WUS in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA 1986). A Supreme Court 2001 decision in the case of the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County versus US Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) limited the federal authority under the Clean Water act to regulate certain isolated wetlands. In light of the Court’s decision, WUS as it applies to the jurisdictional limits of the authority of the USACE include the area below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of stream channels and lakes or ponds connected to the tributary system, and wetlands adjacent to these waters. The jurisdictional status of wetlands depends on the presence or absence of a connection and/or proximity (meaning bordering, contiguous, or neighboring) to waters of the US. The Waters of the US Delineation report documents the project background, methodology used to identify project WUS, and findings of the field investigation. Three Wetland Determination Data Forms recording data collected on Mandeville Creek (W-1), at soil test pit 1 (SP-1) within W-2, and on the Woward-Esgar Ditch (W-5) are included in Appendix A. Soil mapping information for the site is included in Appendix B and photos of the site are included in Appendix C. The Waters of the US Delineation Map on Sheet 1 of 1 in Appendix D shows the boundaries of project WUS, which include Mandeville Creek (W-1), two topographical depressions (W-2 and W-3), riverine wetlands associated with two irrigation ditches located north of the property (W-4), and an irrigation ditch (W-5), known as the Woward-Esgar Ditch. The Wetland Delineation Report will be submitted to the USACE, Gallatin Conservation District (GCD), and the City of Bozeman as supporting documentation for the 404 and 310 Joint Application for Proposed Work in Montana’s Streams, Wetlands, Floodplains, and Other Water Bodies and City plat approval process. The study area encompasses an abandoned farmhouse and outbuildings. The site was historically flood irrigated and a majority of the acreage is currently used for wheat crop cultivation. The land north and south of the subject property is used for grain crops. Parcels southeast of the project are being developed into single family residences. South 19th Street is located west of the parcel and a recently constructed extension of South 15th parallels the southeast boundary. The land is mapped within the Meadowcreek series (510B), classified as stream terraces formed in alluvium on 0 to 4 percent slopes (Appendix B - USDA/NRCS 2015). Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute 2 1.1 SITE WATERWAYS Mandeville Creek parallels the west property boundary and South 19th Street for 2,660 feet from south to north. The creek channel was straightened historically to allow for crop cultivation. The creek arises from a spring located south of Patterson Road approximately 1.25 miles south of the project. The channel is identified on the GCD map as a perennial stream. A majority of the surface water flow in the creek is diverted east to an irrigation ditch that parallels the north property boundary. A portion of the flow is maintained in the straight channel that flows north along South 19th. Water in the east/west irrigation ditch located at the north boundary is diverted north toward Kagy Boulevard. Surface water is discharged to an open water segment of Mandeville Creek located north of Kagy. The water is piped underground for several hundred feet on the Montana State University campus north of Lincoln Street. The water surfaces in two open channel segments located on campus south of College Avenue. The flow is piped underground north of College Avenue until it surfaces again at the Bozeman High School campus on Main Street. The creek ultimately discharges to the East Gallatin River north of Interstate 90. The Woward-Esgar Ditch parallels the east property boundary. The ditch was dry during the investigation. There was no apparent surface water connection upgradient of the ditch at the southeast property corner. The channel cross-section was well-vegetated with herbaceous species. No OHWM was visible on the banks of the ditch at the north property boundary. The south end of the ditch terminates at a recently paved street located in a new development south of Alder Creek Road. The ditch was relocated east of the road and outside the subject property. The relocated ditch is sparsely vegetated with invasive species. 1.2 CLIMATE The Bozeman area climate generally resembles that of a middle latitude steppe, with relatively long cold winters and short cool summers (Pac 1991). The region comprises a mountain complex within the steppe region, resulting in orographic effects that produce a local, cooler and wetter climate. Peak runoff generally occurs during the spring from snowmelt and combined snowmelt/rainfall events. These events produce relatively long periods of runoff. Summer thunderstorms also contribute to peak runoff although they are generally short in duration. The annual pattern of precipitation typically results in increasing precipitation from March to a peak in June, a decline through mid summer, another increase in late August to a second, smaller peak in September, followed by a general decline to the yearly low in February (Pac et al 1993). The annual temperature regime of the study area is generally characterized by significant seasonal variations. Winters are typically long and cold with subfreezing average temperatures from November to March. Average annual precipitation ranges from 13 inches per year at the lower elevations to 50 inches per year at the higher elevations in the Bridger Range north of Bozeman (NRCS 1972). Although the average annual precipitation is low enough to classify most of the area as semi-arid, about 70 percent of the annual total precipitation normally falls during the April to September growing season. Elevations in the study area range from 4,972 to 5,007 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The closest meteorological station to the study area is Montana State University located approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the project at 4,860 feet amsl. Records from 1961 to 1990 indicate that the average annual precipitation is 19.25 inches with an average total snowfall of 92.1 inches. The average temperature is 44.2 degrees Fahrenheit (USDA 1990) and the mean annual precipitation rate for the predominant soil series, the Meadowcreek loam (510B), is 12 to 18 inches. Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute 3 Figure 1.0 USGS 7.5 minute Bozeman Quadrangle Topographic Map showing project location. Project Location Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute 4 Figure 2.0 Aerial Photograph showing study area. Mandeville Creek flows on the west property boundary adjacent to South 19th. Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute 5 2.0 WETLAND DELINEATION METHODS 2.1 METHODS Waters of the US including jurisdictional wetlands within the study area were identified on July 24, 2015, and September 24, 2015, using methodology developed by the USACE and other federal agencies for implementation of Section 404 of the CWA. Delineation procedures involved a review of existing site-specific information and completion of an onsite field investigation based on guidelines for the Routine Determination Method presented in the Field Guide for Wetland Delineation (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (USACE 2010). The Routine Level-2 Onsite Determination Method employs primarily qualitative procedures. Sample plots (approximately a 15-foot radius) are established within potential wetlands based on changes in plant communities, plant diversity, topography, and soil type. Data points are generally located parallel to watercourses, perpendicular to the apparent groundwater hydraulic gradient, and/or along topographical breaks. Vegetation composition, hydrology, and soil characteristics are assessed at each data collection point. If all three parameters exhibit positive wetland indictors, the area represented by the sample plot is classified as wetland. If any one of the parameters does not display a positive indicator, the area is classified as a non-wetland or upland unless the wetland is atypical or problematic. The jurisdictional authority of the USACE over wetlands identified in the field depends on the presence or absence of a surface water connection and/or proximity to waters of the US. Wetland Data Forms were completed for Mandeville Creek (W-1), SP-1 within W-2, a topographic depression, and the Woward-Esgar Ditch (W-5). 2.2 TECHNICAL CRITERIA A wetland must meet three technical criteria for it to be categorized as jurisdictional. The USACE (259 Federal Register 853532) and the Environmental Protection Agency (47 FR 31810) jointly define wetlands as “areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.” The following conditions must be present for an area to be considered a jurisdictional wetland. 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation: Defined as plant species normally or commonly adapted to saturation of sufficient duration to cause anaerobic conditions in the root zone. 2. Wetland Hydrology: Defined as hydrology supported by sources of water that result in saturated, flooded, or ponded soil conditions. 3. Hydric Soils: Defined as soil that forms under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (59 Fed. Reg. 35680, 7/13/94). Hydrophytic Vegetation Plants must be physiologically or morphologically adapted to saturated or anaerobic soil conditions to grow in wetlands. The USACE and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have determined the estimated probability of finding representative wetland species within Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute 6 specified areas under natural conditions. Accordingly, plants may be categorized as obligate (OBL), facultative wetland (FACW), facultative (FAC), facultative upland (FACU), or upland (UPL) in decreasing order of moisture dependence or tolerance. Obligate species occur greater than 99 percent of the time in a wetland. Facultative wetland species have a 67 to 99 percent probability of occurring in a wetland. Facultative species exhibit a 34 to 67 percent probability of occurring in a wetland. Facultative upland species have a 67 to 99 percent probability of occurring in a non-wetland and upland species have a greater than 99 percent probability of occurring in a non-wetland. Species with an indicator status of OBL, FACW, or FAC are considered hydrophytic. Vegetation indicator status for this investigation was derived from the National Wetland Plant List for the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Lichvar and Kartesz 2014). Taxonomic references included Dorn 1984, Hitchcock 1971, Lackschewitz 1991, and Lesica and Husby 2001. The name and indicator status of individual species within each vegetation stratum was recorded on the data form in descending order of abundance (Appendix A). Under the dominance test introduced in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (USACE 2010), a sample plot is classified as having wetland vegetation if the cumulative total of the estimated percent cover for the dominant hydrophytic species exceeds 50 percent and 50 percent or greater of the dominant species have a hydrophytic indicator status. The Regional Supplement also introduced the Prevalence Index, Morphological Adaptations, and Wetland Non-Vascular plants as indicators of hydrophytic vegetation only when indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology are also present. Wetland Hydrology Technical criteria for wetland hydrology guidelines have been established as “permanent or periodic inundation, or soil saturation within 12 inches of the ground surface for a significant period (usually 14 days or more or 12.5 percent of the growing season) during the growing season” (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The minimum duration required for soil saturation is five percent of the growing season in consecutive days. Inundation or saturation for periods less than 5 percent of the growing season is evidence of non-wetland conditions. Systems with continuous inundation or saturation between 5 and 12.5 percent of the growing season may or may not be jurisdictional wetlands based on other criteria. The growing season is defined for purposes of this report as the number of days where there is a 50 percent probability that the minimum daily temperature is greater than or equal to 28° Fahrenheit (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The Bozeman growing season extends from May 5 to October 1 according to the WETS Bozeman Climate data. Approximately 19 days of saturation would meet the wetland hydrology criterion for a specific wetland. Either direct observations of inundation or well data showing a free water surface at depths less than 12 inches continuously for more than 5 percent of the growing season have been used nationally to distinguish active wetland hydrology. Surface water, groundwater, direct precipitation, and/or snowmelt may contribute to wetland hydrology. Field observations were used to determine existing wetland hydrology. A positive indication of wetland hydrology requires either one primary indicator or two or more secondary indicators. The Regional Supplement for the Western Mountains area lists the primary indicators as surface water, high water table, saturation, water marks, sediment deposits, drift deposits, algal mat or crust, iron deposits, surface soil cracks, inundation visible on aerial imagery, sparsely vegetated concave surface, water stained leaves, salt crust, aquatic invertebrates, hydrogen sulfide odor, oxidized rhizospheres along living roots, presence of reduced iron, recent iron reduction in tilled soils, and Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute 7 stunted or stressed plants. Secondary indicators include water-stained leaves, drainage patterns, dry-season water table, saturation visible on aerial imagery, geomorphic position, shallow aquitard, FAC-neutral test, raised ant mounds, and frost-heave hummocks. Hydric Soils Soil is considered saturated when the capillary fringe occurs within a major portion of the root zone (within 12 inches of the surface). The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS), has compiled a list of hydric soils in the United States. The list identifies soil series mapped by the NRCS that meet the hydric criteria. Upland (non-wetland) soils may have inclusions of hydric soils that may not be demarcated on NRCS maps. Field examination of site-specific soil characteristics is necessary to confirm the presence of hydric soils. The profile description presented on the data form reflects site soil conditions as determined from soil pits, not the NRCS designation. The NRCS soil survey information reviewed for the project area is included in Appendix B. Hydric soils exhibit certain physical characteristics that can be observed visually. These characteristics, or indicators, include high organic matter content (histic epipedons), accumulation of sulfidic material, gley formation (greenish or bluish gray color), redoximorphic features (mottling), and low soil chromas (dark soil colors – soil chroma). Organic matter content is estimated visually and texturally; redoximorphic features are identified visually; sulfidic material is identified by the odor of sulfide gases; and soil colors are determined using a Munsell soil color chart (Munsell 1988). The colorimetric determination is to be made immediately below the “A” horizon or 10 inches whichever is less. The Regional Supplement for Western Mountains introduced new classifications for hydric soil indicators based on the soil type (organic, muck or mineral), soil matrix, and type of redoximorphic features such as concentrations, depletions, reduced matrix, or covered or coated sand grains. The full description of each category is included in Chapter Three of the Regional Supplement for the Western Mountains area. Wetland soils can be assumed to be present in any plant community where all the dominant species have an indicator status of OBL or FACW, and the wetland boundary is abrupt (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute 8 3.0 WETLAND DELINEATION RESULTS A site investigation to determine the presence and extent of waters of the US within the study area was completed by VES on July 24, 2015. A second wetland delineation was completed on September 24, 2015, within 75 feet of the north property boundary based on a preliminary review by the City of Bozeman requesting construction of an east-west road and extension of South 11th. Meridian surveyed the demarcated boundaries using a global positioning system (GPS). Wetland boundaries were flagged by VES based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and primary hydrologic indicators. Wetland types were based on similarities in physiographic, hydrologic, and plant community characteristics. Site-specific wetland parameters are described on the Wetland Determination Data Forms included in Appendix A. The Waters of the US Delineation Map drafted by Meridian shows the boundaries of waters of the US including wetlands within the study area (Appendix D). Mandeville Creek (W-1) is a perennial stream classified as a riverine, lower perennial, wetland under the Hydrogeomorphic system (Smith et al 1995) and a riverine, lower perennial, rock bottom wetland under the Cowardin system (Cowardin et al 1979). Emergent wetland plants dominate the adjacent riverine wetland fringe in the open channel areas. One thousand feet of the channel near the abandoned farmhouse exhibits a tree and shrub overstory. The water regime of the stream channel is permanently flooded. Riverine systems are associated with flowing water from stream channels, old oxbows, or abandoned meanders, and creek margins. Stream channels must exhibit an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) to be considered a WUS. The term OHWM means the line established by the fluctuations of water as indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, and natural line impressed on the bank shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, and the presence of litter and debris, (33 CFR 2003). The Mandeville Creek flow is divided near the north property boundary. A majority of the water is diverted east into a ditch that crosses the agricultural property located north of the site. Surface water from Mandeville Creek and the ditch converge on the south side of Kagy Boulevard near an historic farmhouse. A single channel flows from the culvert outlet on Kagy north to Lincoln Street where the channel is piped underground on the MSU campus. Segments of the creek channel surface on the MSU and Bozeman High School campuses. Wetland 2 (W-2) and Wetland 3 (W-3) are open topographical depression wetlands based on the hydrogeomorphic classification system (Smith et al. 1995). The primary source of water is groundwater and leakage from the irrigation ditch located across the north boundary. The wetlands are classified as palustrine with emergent vegetation according to the Cowardin classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979). The second delineation focused on the riverine wetland (W-4) north of the parcel that is a remnant of a large depression wetland that historically encompassed W-2 based on a 2005 delineation report. The irrigation ditch diverted from Mandeville Creek currently supplies the surface water source for two ditched channels located within W-4. The Woward-Esgar Ditch (W-5) is considered an artificial riverine WUS although the source of hydrology appears to have been removed in the last five years. The ditch is dominated by emergent vegetation. The Gallatin Conservation District does not classify the ditch as a perennial stream. The ditch channel terminates at the northeast property boundary. Section 3.1 discusses the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey results for the project site. The characteristics of the project WUS are described in Sections 3.2 to 3.5. The Wetland Determination Data forms are included in Appendix A and the NRCS soil map Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute 9 and soil descriptions are included in Appendix B. Photographs of the site wetlands are included in Appendix C. Appendix D contains the Waters of the US Delineation Map. 3.1 NRCS SOIL SURVEY RESULTS The web soil survey for Gallatin County (USDA/NRCS 2015) maps Mandeville Creek and a majority of the site within the Meadowcreek loam (510B) map unit found on 0 to 4 percent slopes (Appendix B). The soil map unit consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils. The soil series is taxonomically classified as a fine-loamy over sandy or sandy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid Fluvaquentic Halustolls. It is classified as hydric based on the aquic moisture subclass. The north quarter of the ditch (W-3) is located within the Enbar-Nythar loam (512B) found on 0 to 4 percent slopes. It is a somewhat poorly drained soil. The Nythar component is considered hydric and is classified as a fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, frigid Cumulic Endoaquolls. 3.2 W-1 – MANDEVILLE CREEK: RIVERINE WETLAND, LOWER PERENNIAL, ROCK BOTTOM; EMERGENT VEGETATION The Waters of the US Delineation Map (Appendix D) demarcates the limits of the stream and riverine fringe associated with Mandeville Creek. The creek was flowing during the investigation (Photos 1 to 6). The channel was 2.0 to 4.0 feet wide, 0.2 to 0.5 feet deep, with 2.0- foot high banks. Pools 1.0 to 1.5 feet deep form where the water is diverted through headgates. A headgate located approximately 216 feet south of the north boundary diverts a majority of the surface water flow in the creek to a ditch located immediately north of and parallel to the north property boundary. Wheat fields lie north of the ditch on the adjacent property. Vegetation The plant species on Mandeville Creek are dominated by field meadow-foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis – FAC), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea – FACW), smooth brome (Bromus inermis – FAC), Northwest Territory sedge (Carex utriculata – OBL), and red-tinge bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus – OBL). The grasses dominate a majority of the open channel. A woody overstory has developed near the abandoned farmhouse dominated by Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra – FACW), balsam cottonwood (Populus balsamifera – FAC), a non-native Colorado spruce (Picea pungens – FAC), Bebb willow (Salix bebbiana – FACW), and yellow willow (Salix lutea – OBL). Canadian thistle (Cirsium arvense – FAC), a Priority 2B weed, and Hoary alyssum (Berteroa incana – NL), a Priority 2A weed, were noted along the south end of the channel. Soil No test pit was excavated in the channel. The channel is located within the Meadowcreek loam (510B) hydric map unit. The soil series is classified as a Fluvaquentic Haplustolls, hydric based on the aquic subclass. Hydrology The channel contained flowing surface water 0.5 to 1.0 foot deep. Water marks, drift deposits, water-stained leaves, hydrogen sulfide odor (near diversion where water is pooled), drainage patterns, and geomorphic position were additional indicators of wetland hydrology. Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute 10 3.3 W-2 AND W-3 – OPEN TOPOGRAPHICAL DEPRESSIONS; EMERGENT VEGETATION The WUS exhibit in Appendix D defines the limits of the topographical depressions hydrologically supported by groundwater and overflow from the irrigation ditch across the north boundary (Photos 7 and 8). Wetland 2 (W-2) has developed in a shallow wide swale. Heavy rains fell in the area the day before the delineation was completed resulting in the presence of ponded surface water in the lowest contours of the depression. Soil test pit SP-1 was located near the north edge of the wetland. The wetland is surrounded by cultivated farmland. Wetland 3 (W-3) is a small two-foot deep depression near the north boundary that collects surface water from the ditch. Vegetation Field meadow-foxtail, Northwest Territory sedge, Nebraska sedge (Carex nebrascensis – OBL) dominate the plant species in W-2. The sedge species in the north half of the wetland were mowed. Wetland 3 (W-2) is dominated by field meadow foxtail and common timothy (Phleum pratense – FAC). Soil Soil test pit SP-1 within W-2 revealed a black (10 YR 2/1) loam with small (2 percent) dark, yellowish brown redoximorphic concentrations in the matrix at 12 inches below the ground surface (bgs). The redox dark surface is an indication of a hydric soil. The channel is located within the Meadowcreek loam (510B) map unit. Hydrology Several isolated shallow depressions within W-2 contained ponded surface water during the delineation. Heavy rain fell in the region the previous day. Test pit SP-1 was saturated at 12 inches bgs providing an indication of wetland hydrology. 3.4 W-4 – IRRIGATION DITCH: ARTIFICIAL RIVERINE WETLAND, UNCONSOLIDATED BOTTOM; EMERGENT VEGETATION Water diverted from Mandeville Creek flows east along the north parcel boundary. Surface water is diverted north near the center fenceline. A secondary ditch is diverted east and north near the center fenceline. A riverine fringe dominated by herbaceous species has developed in the lower elevations surrounding the ditches. Vegetation Field meadow foxtail, reed canary grass, spreading bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera – FAC), fringed willow herb (Epilobium ciliatum – FACW), American brooklime (Veronica americana – OBL), and Northwest Territory sedge dominate the vegetation cover. Soil No test pit was excavated in W-4. The ditches are located within the Enbar-Nythar loam (512B). The Nythar component of the soil series is classified as hydric, a Cumulic Endoaquoll. Hydrology The ditch channels contained flowing surface water during the field investigation and Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute 11 exhibited an OHWM. The riverine fringe was saturated to the ground surface in isolated areas. 3.5 W-5 – WOWARD-ESGAR DITCH: ARTIFICIAL RIVERINE WETLAND, UNCONSOLIDATED BOTTOM; EMERGENT VEGETATION The ditch channel (W-3) parallels the east boundary of the parcel from south to north (Photos 9 to 12). The channel was dry during the investigation. The base of the channel is approximately 2.5 feet wide within an eight-foot wide swale. The channel is overgrown with meadow foxtail and smooth brome. There was no evidence of recent wetland hydrology. The historic water source at the south end of the ditch appears to have been removed during construction of a new subdivision. The original ditch channel terminates at a road located north of Alder Creek Road. A new ditch has been excavated parallel to the new road. Vegetation Field meadow-foxtail, smooth brome, and Canada thistle dominate the vegetation in the ditch. Isolated patches of red-tinge bulrush and Nebraska sedge inhabit the lowest contours of the ditch near the balsam cottonwood and Pacific willow cluster located near the center of the north-south ditch line. The newly excavated channel adjacent to the subdivision under construction is predominantly bare ground with isolated patches of sweet yellow clover (Melilotus officinalis – FACU), tall hedge mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum - FACU), black eyed susan (Rudbeckia hirta – FACU), and Canadian thistle. Soil No test pit was excavated in the irrigation ditch. The ditch is located within the Enbar-Nythar loam (512B). The Nythar component of the soil series is classified as hydric, a Cumulic Endoaquoll. Hydrology The channel did not contain surface water during the field investigation. Surface soil cracks and a sparsely vegetated concave surface were primary indicators of wetland hydrology Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute 12 4.0 SUMMARY Five waters of the US, W-1 to W-5, were identified within or near the Yellowstone Theological Institute property. The jurisdictional status of the property WUS will be determined by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The Waters of the US Delineation Report will be submitted to the USACE with a request to determine the status of the project WUS. Mandeville Creek will be protected from development by City-mandated, 50-foot watercourse setbacks. Table 1.0 Summary of Attributes for WUS delineated on Property. Wetland Designation Hydrogeomorphic Class (Smith) Jurisdictional Status Areal Extent* (Acres) W-1 (Mandeville Creek) Riverine, Lower Perennial, Rock Bottom, Emergent Vegetation Jurisdictional 0.840 W-2 Depression, Emergent Vegetation Jurisdictional 0.560 W-3 Depression, Emergent Vegetation Jurisdictional 0.003 W-4 Artificial Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Emergent Vegetation Jurisdictional * W-5 Artificial Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Emergent Vegetation Jurisdictional 0.67 *Area of WUS within parcel boundaries. The limits of W-4 located north of the north boundary continue to Kagy Street beyond the scope of the delineation. The area was not calculated. Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute 13 5.0 REFERENCES Clean Water Act, Section 404. 1986. Federal Register - Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers. Cowardin, Lewis M., Virginia Carter, Francis C. Golet, and Edward T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Services, USDI, Washington, DC. Dorn, R.D. 1984. Vascular Plants of Montana. Mountain West Publishing, Wyoming. Environmental Laboratory 1987. “Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual,” Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksbrug, Miss. Hitchcock, A.S. 1971. Manual of the Grasses of the United States, Volume One and Two. Dover Publications, New York. Lackschewitz, K. 1991. Vascular Plants of West-Central Montana – Identification Guidebook. General Technical Report –277. Intermountain Research Station. USDA, Forest Service. Missoula, MT. Lichvar , Robert W. and John T. Kartesz. 2012. North American Digital Flora. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.0. USACE. Engineer Research and Development Center. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover NH and BONAP, Chapel Hill. NC. Lesica, P., P. Husby. 2001. Field Guide to Montana’s Wetland Vascular Plants. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Bozeman, MT Munsell. 1988. Soil Color Charts. New Windsor, New York. Smith, R.D., A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, and M.M. Brinson. 1995. An approach for assessing wetland functions using hydrogeomorphic classification, reference wetlands, and functional indices. Wetland Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-9. US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service 1990, WETS Climate Summary Data US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service 1987. Hydric Soils of the US. In cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. Washington DC. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to theCorps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: WesternMountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S.Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3.Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and DevelopmentCenter. WEBSITES: USDA/NRCS Web Soil Survey, Gallatin County, accessed July 2015: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ Gallatin County GIS Map Launcher accessed in July 2015 http://webapps.gallatin.mt.gov/mapengine/ APPENDIX A WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Yellowstone Theological Inst. City/County: Bozeman, MT, Gallatin County ________ ________ Sampling Date: July 24, 2015 ___________ _________ Applicant/Owner: __ Chris Budeski ______ _________________ _________________ State: MT ________ Sampling Point: W-1, Mandeville Creek __ Investigator(s): ____ Barbara Vaughn ____ _________________ Section, Township, Range: SW 1/4NW1/4SW1/4 Sec 24, T2S R5E, Gallatin County ___________ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): stream terrace _____________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): _____ flat _____________ _____________ Slope (%): 2 % Subregion (LLR): __ _________________ Lat: 45°39’10.13”N _ _________________ Long: 111°03’45.73”W _______________ Datum: ____________ _________ Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek Loam (510B) 0 to 4 % slopes _________________ ________ NWI classification: _________ __________________ _________ 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: Channel flowing during field visit. Channel 2 to 4 feet wide, 2 to 6 inches deep, pools 1 to 2 feet deep, 24-inch high stream banks. Irrigation headgate diverts flow east near NW corner to recently dug channel that flows east on the north property boundary. Minimal flow remained in creek north of Flag 64. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:_______15 ft radius______) % Cover Species? Status 1. Salix lasiandra ____________________________ 2 ______ no ____ FACW __ 2. Populus balsamifera ________________________ 4 ______ no ____ FAC ____ 3. Picea pungens ____________________________ 1 ______ no ____ FAC ____ 4 __________________________________________ 7 ______ =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:____15 ft radius________) 1. Salix bebbiana _____________________________ 2 ______ no ____ FACW __ 2. Salix lutea ________________________________ 2 ______ no ____ OBL ____ 3. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 4. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 5. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 4 ______ =Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size:_______15 ft radius________) 1. Alopecurus pratensis _______________________ 40 _____ Yes ___ FAC ____ 2. Phalaris arundinacea _______________________ 25 _____ Yes ___ FACW __ 3. Bromus inermis ___________________________ 15 _____ Yes ___ FAC ____ 4. Carex utriculata ___________________________ 5 ______ No ____ OBL ____ 5. Scirpus microcarpus ________________________ 5 ______ No ____ OBL ____ 6. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 7. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 8. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 9. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 10. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 11. ________________________________________ 90 _____ =Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:_______________) 1. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 2. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 101 ____ =Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum______0_____ Remarks: Invasive species include Hoary allysum, Cirsium arvense, Carduus nutans, Spotted knapweed, Salsify Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, OR FAC: 3 ___________ (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 ___________ (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, OR FAC: 100 _________ (A/B) Prevalance Index worksheet: _________ Total % Cover of: _________ _ Multiply by: OBL species 12 ____________ x 1 = 12 __________ FACW species 29 ____________ x 2 = 58 __________ FAC species 60 ____________ x 3 = 180 _________ FACU species ______________ x 4 = ____________ UPL species ______________ x 5 = ____________ Column Totals: 101 ___________ (A) 250 (B) Prevalance Index = B/A = __250/101=2.48______________ Hyrdophytic Vegetation Indicators: X __ Dominance Test is >50% X __ Prevalence Index is ≤3.0c ____ Morphological Adaptions¹ (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ____ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants¹ ____ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) cIndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hd hti US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Final Version SOIL Sampling Point: ____W-1_______________ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrlx Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Typec Locc Texture Remarks ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ __________ loam ________ _____________ ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ _________ ____________ _____________ ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ _________ ____________ _____________ cType: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. dLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soilse: ____ Histosol (A1) ____ Sandy Redox (S5) ____ 2 cm Muck (A10) ____ Histic Epipedon (A2) ____ Stripped Matrix (S6) ____ Red Parent Material (TF2) ____ Black Histic (A3) ____ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ____ Other (Explain in Remarks) ____ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ____ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ____ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ____ Depleted Matrix (F3) ____ Thick Dark Surface (A12) X ____ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ____ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ____ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present _____Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ____Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematicRestrictive Layer (if present): Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: _____________________________________________________ Depth (inches): ______________________________________________ Remarks: No test pit excavated. Flowing surface water in channel. Meadowcreek loam hydric by virtue of taxonomic classification, Fluvaquentic Haplustolls. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) X __ Surface Water (A1) X ____ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA ____ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1,2, ____ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) ____ Saturation (A3) ____ Salt Crust (B11) X ____ Drainage Patterns (B10) X __ Water Marks (B1) ____ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ____ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ____ Sediment Deposits (B2) X ____ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ____ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) X __ Drift Deposits (B3) ____ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) X ____ Geomorphic Position (D2) ____ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ____ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ____ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ____ Iron Deposits (B5) ____ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ____ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ____ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ____ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ____ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ____ Inundation Visible or Aerial Imagery (B7) ____ Other (Explain in Remarks) ____ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) _____Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes X ____ No ______ Depth (inches): 6 to 12 __________ Water Table Present? Yes _____ No ______ Depth (inches): ________________ Saturation Present? Yes ______ No ______ Depth (inches): ________________ (includes capillary fringe) WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Hyric Soil Present? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present Yes X ____ No_____ Project/Site: Yellowstone Theological Inst. City/County: Bozeman, MT, Gallatin County ________ ________ Sampling Date: July 24, 2015 ___________ _________ Applicant/Owner: __ Chris Budeski, representative ___________ _________________ State: MT ________ Sampling Point: SP-1 W-2______________ Investigator(s): ____ Barbara Vaughn ____ _________________ Section, Township, Range: SW 1/4NW1/4SW1/4 Sec 24, T2S R5E, Gallatin County ___________ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): topo depression ____________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): _____ slightly concave ___ _____________ Slope (%): 2 % Subregion (LLR): __ LLR E ___________ Lat: 45°39’08.46”N _ _________________ Long: 111°03’36.0”W ________________ Datum: ____________ _________ Soil Map Unit Name: Turner Loam (457A) 0 to 4 % slopes _____ _________________ ________ NWI classification: _________ __________________ _________ 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: Channel flowing during field visit. Channel 2 to 4 feet wide, 2 to 6 inches deep, pools 1 to 2 feet deep, 24-inch high stream banks. Irrigation headgate diverts flow east near NW corner to recently dug channel that flows east on the north property boundary. Minimal flow remained in creek north of Flag 64. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size ______) % Cover Species? Status 1. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 2. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 3. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 4 __________________________________________ _______ =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:___________) 1. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 2. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 3. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 4. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 5. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ _______ =Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size:_______________) 1. Alopecurus pratensis _______________________ 40 _____ Yes ___ FAC ____ 2. Carex utriculata ___________________________ 30 _____ Yes ___ OBL ____ 25 Yes ___________________________________________ FACW __ 3. Carex nebrascensis ________________________ 30 _____ Yes ___ OBL ____ 4. _________________________________________ 5. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 6. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 7. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 8. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 9. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 10. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 11. ________________________________________ _______ =Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:_______________) 1. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 2. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 100 ____ =Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum______0_____ Remarks: Invasive species include Taraxacum officinale. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Final Version Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, OR FAC: 3 ___________ (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 ___________ (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, OR FAC: 100 _________ (A/B) Prevalance Index worksheet: _________ Total % Cover of: _________ _ Multiply by: OBL species 60 ____________ x 1 = 60 __________ FACW species ______________ x 2 = ____________ FAC species 40 ____________ x 3 = 120 _________ FACU species ______________ x 4 = ____________ UPL species ______________ x 5 = ____________ Column Totals: 100 ___________ (A) 180 (B) Prevalance Index = B/A = __250/101=1.8______________ Hyrdophytic Vegetation Indicators: X __ Dominance Test is >50% X __ Prevalence Index is ≤3.0c ____ Morphological Adaptions¹ (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ____ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants¹ ____ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) cIndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hd hti SOIL Sampling Point: ____SP-1, W-2_______________ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrlx Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Typec Locc Texture Remarks 1-12 _______ 10 YR 2/1 _______ 98 ________ 10 YR 4/6 _________ 2 __________ C _________ M ________ black loam ___ light, infrequent y ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ _________ ____________ _____________ ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ _________ ____________ _____________ cType: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. dLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soilse: ____ Histosol (A1) ____ Sandy Redox (S5) ____ 2 cm Muck (A10) ____ Histic Epipedon (A2) ____ Stripped Matrix (S6) ____ Red Parent Material (TF2) ____ Black Histic (A3) ____ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ____ Other (Explain in Remarks) ____ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ____ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ____ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ____ Depleted Matrix (F3) ____ Thick Dark Surface (A12) X ____ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ____ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ____ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present _____Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ____Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematicRestrictive Layer (if present): Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: _____________________________________________________ Depth (inches): ______________________________________________ Remarks: Light, infrequent redox features. Black loam soil. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) X __ Surface Water (A1) ____ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA ____ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1,2, ____ High Water Table (A2) 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 (B3) ____ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) X ____ Geomorphic Position (D2) ____ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ____ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ____ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ____ Iron Deposits (B5) ____ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ____ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ____ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ____ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ____ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ____ Inundation Visible or Aerial Imagery (B7) ____ Other (Explain in Remarks) ____ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) _____Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes X ____ No ______ Depth (inches): 0.5 _____________ Water Table Present? Yes _____ No X ____ Depth (inches): ________________ Saturation Present? Yes X ____ No ______ Depth (inches): 12 ______________ (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Water on ground surface pooled in low spots. Heavy rain the previous night WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Yellowstone Theological Inst. City/County: Bozeman, MT, Gallatin County ________ ________ Sampling Date: July 24, 2015 ___________ _________ Hyric Soil Present? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present Yes X ____ No_____ Applicant/Owner: __ Chris Budeski, representative ___________ _________________ State: MT ________ Sampling Point: W-5, Woward Esgar Ditch _______ Investigator(s): ____ Barbara Vaughn ____ _________________ Section, Township, Range: SW 1/4NW1/4SW1/4 Sec 24, T2S R5E, Gallatin County ___________ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): irrigation ditch ____________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): _____ flat _____________ _____________ Slope (%): 2 % Subregion (LLR): __ LLR E ___________ Lat: 45°39’08.46”N _ _________________ Long: 111°03’36.0”W ________________ Datum: ____________ _________ Soil Map Unit Name: Enbar-Nythar Loams (512B) 0 to 4 % slopes _________________ ________ ________ NWI classification: __________________ _________ 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________ No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ________ No X _____ Remarks: Channel dry during investigation. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15-ft radius ______) % Cover Species? Status 1. Populus balsamifera ________________________ 5 ______ No ____ FAC ____ 2. Salix lasiandra_____________________________ 2 ______ No ____ FACW __ 3. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 4 __________________________________________ 7 ______ =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15-ft radius__________) 1. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 2. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 3. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 4. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 5. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ _______ =Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size:_____15-ft radius_________) 1. Alopecurus pratensis _______________________ 45 _____ Yes ___ FAC ____ 2. Bromus inermis ___________________________ 45 _____ Yes ___ FAC ____ 25 Yes ___________________________________________ FACW __ 3. Cirsium arvense ___________________________ 10 _____ No ____ FAC ____ 4. _________________________________________ 5. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 6. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 7. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 8. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 9. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 10. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 11. ________________________________________ 100 ____ =Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:_______________) 1. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 2. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 107 ____ =Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum______0_____ Remarks: Invasive species include tall tumble mustard, Canada thistle, musk thistle. Isolated patches of Scirpus microcarpus, Carex nebrascensis, Veronica americana in lower depressions. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Final Version Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, OR FAC: 2 ___________ (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 ___________ (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, OR FAC: 100 _________ (A/B) Prevalance Index worksheet: _________ Total % Cover of: _________ _ Multiply by: OBL species ______________ x 1 = ____________ FACW species ______________ x 2 = ____________ FAC species 100 ___________ x 3 = 300 _________ FACU species ______________ x 4 = ____________ UPL species ______________ x 5 = ____________ Column Totals: 100 ___________ (A) 300 (B) Prevalance Index = B/A = __300/100=3.0______________ Hyrdophytic Vegetation Indicators: X __ Dominance Test is >50% X __ Prevalence Index is ≤3.0c ____ Morphological Adaptions¹ (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ____ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants¹ ____ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) cIndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hd hti SOIL Sampling Point: ____, W-5, Irrigation Ditch_______________ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrlx Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Typec Locc Texture Remarks ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ _________ ____________ _____________ ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ _________ ____________ _____________ cType: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. dLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soilse: ____ Histosol (A1) ____ Sandy Redox (S5) ____ 2 cm Muck (A10) ____ Histic Epipedon (A2) ____ Stripped Matrix (S6) ____ Red Parent Material (TF2) ____ Black Histic (A3) ____ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ____ Other (Explain in Remarks) ____ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ____ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ____ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ____ Depleted Matrix (F3) ____ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ____ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ____ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ____ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present _____Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ____Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematicRestrictive Layer (if present): Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: _____________________________________________________ Depth (inches): ______________________________________________ Remarks: No test pit excavated. The Enbar series is not a hydric soil. The Nythar loam is a Cumulic Endoaquolls, hydric by virtue of the taxonomic classification. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ____ Surface Water (A1) ____ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA ____ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1,2, ____ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) ____ Saturation (A3) ____ Salt Crust (B11) ____ Drainage Patterns (B10) ____ Water Marks (B1) ____ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ____ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ____ Sediment Deposits (B2) ____ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ____ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ____ Drift Deposits (B3) ____ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) X ____ Geomorphic Position (D2) ____ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ____ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ____ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ____ Iron Deposits (B5) ____ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ____ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) X __ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ____ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ____ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ____ Inundation Visible or Aerial Imagery (B7) ____ Other (Explain in Remarks) ____ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) X___Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ______ No X ____ Depth (inches): ________________ Water Table Present? Yes _____ No X ____ Depth (inches): ________________ Saturation Present? Yes ______ No X ____ Depth (inches): ________________ (includes capillary fringe) Ditch channel dry during delineation. Vegetation overgrowing the OHWM. Only base of channel sparsely vegetated. Hyric Soil Present? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present Yes X ____ No_____ APPENDIX B NRCS SOIL SURVEY Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute LOCATION MEADOWCREEK MT Established Series Rev. DES-WDB-JCK 05/2013 MEADOWCREEK SERIES The Meadowcreek series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in alluvium. They are on flood plains, flood-plain steps, drainageways, and stream terraces. Slopes are 0 to 4 percent. Mean annual precipitation is about 305 mm, and mean annual air temperature is about 6 degrees C. TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine-loamy over sandy or sandy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid Fluvaquentic Haplustolls TYPICAL PEDON: Meadowcreek loam, cultivated (colors are for dry soil unless otherwise noted). Ap--0 to 13 cm; grayish brown (10YR 5/2) loam, very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) moist; weak fine and medium subangular blocky structure; slightly hard, friable, moderately sticky and slightly plastic; many very fine roots; strongly effervescent; moderately alkaline (pH 8.0); abrupt smooth boundary. (10 to 18 cm thick) A1--13 to 25 cm; grayish brown (10YR 5/2) loam, very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) moist; weak medium prismatic structure parting to weak fine and medium subangular blocky; slightly hard, friable, moderately sticky and slightly plastic; common very fine roots; many fine tubular and interstitial pores; strongly effervescent; moderately alkaline (pH 8.0); clear smooth boundary. (8 to 20 cm thick) A2--25 to 38 cm; gray (10YR 5/1) silt loam, very dark gray (10YR 3/1) moist; weak medium prismatic structure; slightly hard, friable, moderately sticky and slightly plastic; common very fine roots; many very fine tubular and interstitial pores; slightly alkaline (pH 7.4); clear smooth boundary. (0 to 15 cm thick) Bg1--38 to 69 cm; light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) loam, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) moist; few fine distinct brown (7.5YR 5/3) moist redox concentrations; weak coarse prismatic structure; few thin very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) moist, layers of soil; slightly hard, friable, moderately sticky and slightly plastic; common very fine roots; many very fine tubular and interstitial pores; neutral (pH 7.0); gradual smooth boundary. (13 to 38 cm thick) Bg2--69 to 79 cm; gray (10YR 6/1) sandy loam, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) moist; common fine distinct brown (7.5YR 5/4) moist redox concentrations; weak coarse prismatic structure; slightly hard, friable, nonsticky and moderately plastic; common very fine roots; many very fine tubular and interstitial pores; 5 percent gravel; neutral (pH 7.2); clear smooth boundary. (0 to 12 cm thick) 2C--79 to 152 cm; varigated colors, very gravelly sand; single grain; loose, nonsticky and nonplastic; few very fine roots; 55 percent gravel; neutral (pH 7.2). TYPE LOCATION: Lewis and Clark County, Montana; 396 meters south and 610 meters east of the NW corner of sec. 8, T. 10 N., R. 3 W. Latitude is 46 degrees, 30 minutes, 35 seconds; longitude is 112 degrees, 00 minutes, 47 seconds. RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Soil temperature - 5.5 to 8.3 degrees C Mollic epipedon thickness - 25 to 38 cm Depth to lithologic discontinuity - 50 to 100 cm Depth to seasonal high water table - 60 to 100 cm A horizons Hue: 10YR or 2.5Y Value: 4 or 5 dry; 2 or 3 moist Chroma: 1 or 2 Texture: loam, silt loam, clay loam, or silty clay loam with thin strata of sandy loam or sandy clay loam Clay content: 18 to 35 percent Rock fragments: 0 to 15 percent--0 to 10 percent gravel; 0 to 5 percent cobbles Electrical conductivity: 0 to 8 mmhos/cm Calcium carbonate equivalent: 0 to 10 percent Reaction: pH 6.6 to 8.4 Bg horizons Hue: 10YR, 2.5Y or 5Y Value: 5 or 6 dry; 3 or 4 moist Chroma: 1, 2, or 3 Texture: loam, sandy loam, sandy clay loam, or silt loam, with some thin strata of fine sandy loam Clay content: 18 to 25 percent Rock fragments: 0 to 5 percent gravel Electrical conductivity: 0 to 4 mmhos/cm Calcium carbonate equivalent: 0 to 10 percent Reaction: pH 6.1 to 8.4 2C horizon Texture: sand, coarse sand or loamy sand Clay content: 0 to 10 percent Rock fragments: 35 to 75 percent--35 to 70 percent gravel; 0 to 15 percent cobbles and stones Reaction: pH 6.1 to 8.4 COMPETING SERIES: There are no competing series. GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: Landform - flood plains, flood-plain steps, drainageways, and stream terraces Elevation - 1,067 to 1,890 meters Slope - 0 to 4 percent Parent material - alluvium Climate - long, cold winters; moist springs; warm, dry summers Mean annual precipitation - 254 to 483 mm Mean annual air temperature - 3.9 to 7.2 degrees C Frost-free period - 70 to 130 days GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: None listed. DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Somewhat poorly drained; moderate over very rapid permeability. USE AND VEGETATION: Meadowcreek soils are used mainly for irrigated crops. Some small areas are used for rangeland. Potential native vegetation is mainly western wheatgrass, slender wheatgrass, tall reedgrass, basin wildrye, prairie cordgrass, tufted hairgrass, sedges, and forbs. DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: Meadowcreek soils are of moderate extent in western Montana. MLRAs - 43B, 44B, 46, 58A. MLRA SOIL SURVEY REGIONAL OFFICE (MO) RESPONSIBLE: Bozeman, Montana SERIES ESTABLISHED: Choteau-Conrad Area, parts of Teton and Pondera Counties, Montana, 1991; proposed in Lewis and Clark County, Montana, 1979. REMARKS: Diagnostic horizons and features recognized in this pedon are: Mollic epipedon - from 0 to 38 cm (Ap, A1, and A2 horizons) Redox concentrations - 38 to 79 cm (Bg1 and Bg2 horizons) Lithologic discontinuity - at 79 cm (2C horizon) Particle-size control section - from 25 to 100 cm (A2, Bg1, Bg2, and part of the 2C horizons) Meadowcreek soils have a frigid temperature regime, an ustic moisture regime and an aquic moisture subclass. Redox depletions were not recorded at the type location in 1979. The need for documentation in support of the Fluvaquentic subgroup is recognized and should be investigated. ADDITIONAL DATA: Soil interpretation record - MT0407 National Cooperative Soil Survey U.S.A. APPENDIX C PHOTO LOG Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute Photo 1. The view is looking east toward the concrete culvert on Mandeville Creek that diverts water under the farmhouse driveway. Photo 2. The view is looking southeast at the south half of Mandeville Creek located west of fence. Photo 3. The photo is looking south toward Mandeville Creek in a straightened channel east of South 19th Street. Photo 4. The view is of the south end of Mandeville Creek at the property boundary. The headgate is located at a culvert outlet for an agricultural access road. Photo 5. The photo is of the headgate near the north end of Mandeville Creek that diverts water to a recently dug irrigation ditch. Photo 6. The view is looking northeast at the irrigation ditch that diverts water from Mandeville Creek to a ditch on the adjacent property that parallels the north parcel boundary. Photo 7. The photo is looking north at SP-1 located within W-2. The gap in the vegetation indicates where surface water drains from the irrigation ditch located north of the property boundary. Photo 8. The view is looking southwest toward W-2. Photo 9. The view is looking east at the Woward-Esgar Ditch (W-5) at the northeast property corner. Photo 10. The photo is taken looking north at the irrigation ditch. Photo 11. The view is looking southwest at the terminus of the original ditch channel. Photo 12. The photo shows the newly excavated ditch looking south. The ditch parallels a new subdivision road. Appendix D WATERS OF THE US DELINEATION MAP Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute ONLYONLYONLYDO NOTDISTURBWETLANDSFUTUREPRIVATE DRSOUTH 19TH AVENUE S. 15th AVENUEGRAF STREET PRIVATE DRDO NOTDISTURBWETLANDSFUTURE SITE OFTHE YELLOWSTONETHEOLOGICALINSTITUTE1 inch =0SCALE50 feet100'25' 50'GRAF STREET IMPROVEMENTS PLANGRAF STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROFILEC2.0ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTSDATUMROADWAYSHEETMADISON ENGINEERING 895 TECHNOLOGY BLVD. STE. 203 BOZEMAN, MT 59718 (406) 586-0262 (406) 586-5740 FAX YELLOWSTONE THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE GRAF STREET IMPROVEMENTS BOZEMAN, MTYTIAS BUILT GRAF STPRIVATE DRIVEFUTURE SITE OFYELLOWSTONETHEOLOGICAL INSTITUTEGRAF STREET TYPICAL SECTIONROUNDABOUT TYPICAL SECTION1 inch =0SCALE50 feet100'25' 50'ROUNDABOUT/PRIVATE DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS PLANROUNDABOUT/PRIVATE DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS PROFILEC2.1ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS DATUMROADWAYSHEETMADISON ENGINEERING 895 TECHNOLOGY BLVD. STE. 203 BOZEMAN, MT 59718 (406) 586-0262 (406) 586-5740 FAX YELLOWSTONE THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE GRAF STREET IMPROVEMENTS BOZEMAN, MTYTIAS BUILT SRX-II Wetland Delineation – 2024 Update 5659.018 34 | Page APPENDIX F: SELECT HISTORIC AERIAL IMAGERY (GOOGLE EARTH AND EDR) NORTH SRX June 2023 aerial 600 ft N➤➤N Image © 2023 Airbus Image © 2023 Airbus Image © 2023 Airbus NORTH SRX June 2023 aerial 600 ft N➤➤N Image © 2023 Airbus Image © 2023 Airbus Image © 2023 Airbus NORTH SRX June 2023 aerial 600 ft N➤➤N Image © 2023 Airbus Image © 2023 Airbus Image © 2023 Airbus North 20/NRSX 2024 1000 ft N➤➤N Image © 2024 Airbus Image © 2024 Airbus Image © 2024 Airbus The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package NSRX NA Bozeman, MT 59715 Inquiry Number: October 16, 2024 7792909.1 6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor Shelton, CT 06484 Toll Free: 800.352.0050 www.edrnet.com 2019 1"=500'Flight Year: 2019 USDA/NAIP 2015 1"=500'Flight Year: 2015 USDA/NAIP 2011 1"=500'Flight Year: 2011 USDA/NAIP 2006 1"=500'Flight Year: 2006 USDA/NAIP 2002 1"=500'Flight Date: September 03, 2002 USGS 1995 1"=500'Acquisition Date: August 15, 1995 USGS/DOQQ 1990 1"=500'Flight Date: September 10, 1990 USGS 1984 1"=500'Flight Date: September 18, 1984 USDA 1981 1"=500'Flight Date: September 07, 1981 USGS 1976 1"=500'Flight Date: September 05, 1976 USGS 1965 1"=500'Flight Date: July 18, 1965 USGS 1947 1"=500'Flight Date: May 01, 1947 USGS EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package 10/16/24 NSRX Site Name:Client Name: Morrison Maierle Environmental NA 172 Timberwolf Parkway Bozeman, MT 59715 Kalispell, MT 59901 EDR Inquiry #7792909.1 Contact:Faith Doty Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Aerial Photo Decade Package is a screening tool designed to assist environmental professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDR’s professional researchers provide digitally reproduced historical aerial photographs, and when available, provide one photo per decade. Search Results: Year Scale Details Source When delivered electronically by EDR, the aerial photo images included with this report are for ONE TIME USE ONLY. Further reproduction of these aerial photo images is prohibited without permission from EDR. For more information contact your EDR Account Executive. Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice Copyright 2024 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, LLC or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. 7792909 1-page 2 This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, LLC. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. This Report is provided on an “AS IS”, “AS AVAILABLE” basis. NO WARRANTY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, LLC AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES AND THIRD PARTY SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, OF ANY KIND OR NATURE, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THIS REPORT OR ANY OF THE DATA AND INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS REPORT, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES REGARDING ACCURACY, QUALITY, CORRECTNESS, COMPLETENESS, COMPREHENSIVENESS, SUITABILITY, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MISAPPROPRIATION, OR OTHERWISE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, LLC OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES OR THIRD PARTY SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE TO ANYONE FOR ANY DIRECT, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES OF ANY TYPE OR KIND (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF PROFITS, LOSS OF USE, OR LOSS OF DATA), ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH THIS REPORT OR ANY OF THE DATA AND INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS REPORT. Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels, or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only an assessment performed by a qualified environmental professional can provide findings, opinions or conclusions regarding the environmental risk or conditions in, on or at any property. 7792909.1 2019 = 500' 7792909.1 2015 = 500' 7792909.1 2011 = 500' 7792909.1 2006 = 500' 7792909.1 2002 = 500' 7792909.1 1995 = 500' 7792909.1 1990 = 500' 7792909.1 1984 = 500' 7792909.1 1981 = 500' 7792909.1 1976 = 500' 7792909.1 1965 = 500' 7792909.1 1947 = 500'