Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
17-RMF-Wetland Review
BOZEMAN MT Community Development WR WETLAND REVIEW CHECKLIST GENERAL INFORMATION This handout is for all activities proposed in or adjacent to regulated wetland areas. Section 38.610 BMC includes the wetland regulations for the City of Bozeman. The regulations provide specific guidelines and methods to identify whether an area is a wetland and to determine the boundary between wetlands and uplands. The City’s wetland regulations apply to both wetlands with direct hydrologic connection to “waters of the U.S.” and to isolated wetlands with no direct connection to a water of the U.S. and that exhibit positive wetlands indicators for all three wetland parameters. DIGITAL SUBMITTALS & NAMING PROTOCOL 1.Create and submit a Planning application using the ProjectDox portal; a.After completing your Development Review Application, you will receive a Notification Letter (example) via email. Please download this document and obtain owner’s signature. Upload as a PDF to the “Documents” folder in ProjectDox. 2.The digital copies must be separated into two categories: Documents and Drawings. a.The Documents folder should include items such as application forms, narrative, response to City comments, supplemental documents, technical reports, easements, legal documents, etc. b.The Drawings folder should include items such as site plans, civil plans, landscape plans, photometric plans, elevations, etc. All drawing files must be drawn and formatted for a 24” x 36” sheet file or 11” x 17” sheet file. Plan pages shall be properly oriented in landscape mode. Refer to our Quick Guide for additional information; 3.Naming protocol. All files should be numbered and named according to their order listed on your provided Submittal Checklist. File names should start with a numeric value followed by the document name. The numeric value at the beginning of the file name ensures the order in which they are displayed. Refer to our Quick Guide for additional information; WETLAND REVIEW CHECKLIST All parties applying for activity permits proposing action affecting federal, state or city regulated wetlands, watercourses and/or buffers within the city limits must submit the following information in compliance with Section 38.220.130 BMC: 1.A wetland and watercourse delineation report must be submitted to the city for all projects, if aquatic resources are present. When required to determine applicability and scope of wetland location and function the delineation shall go beyond the boundary of the property. If no aquatic resources are present, a letter must be submitted to the city stating that there are no water resources within the subject property. a.This wetland and watercourse delineation report must include, but not be limited to, the following and must in be prepared in accordance with Section 38.610.030 BMC: i.Wetland and watercourse descriptions; ii.Functional assessment, as determined by a state-accepted functional assessment method, i.e., Montana Department of Transportation (Berglund and McEldowney 2008 as amended) or Montana Department of Environmental Quality (Apfelbeck and Farris 2005 as amended); iii.Wetland types, as determined by a state-accepted functional assessment method (i.e., Cowardin et al 1979 as amended); iv.Wetland acreages (by a licensed surveyor); v. Maps with property boundaries, wetland and watercourse boundaries and acreages; and vi.Wetland data forms (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers data forms). 2.If activities are planned in and/or adjacent to aquatic resources the following information is required: a.A site plan which shows the property boundary; delineated wetland and watercourse boundaries; buffer boundaries; and all existing and proposed structures, roads, trails, and easements. The site plan will include a table of existing wetland functional ratings and acreage, required buffers and acreage, and linear feet of all watercourses and ditches. i.All direct impacts to wetlands, watercourses, and buffers must be highlighted and summarized in a table on the Wetland Review Checklist Page 1 of 4 Revision Date: November 2022 WETLAND REVIEW CHECKLIST site plan. The water resource and buffer summary table must include wetland/watercourse identification number; corresponding buffer width and acreage; total site, wetland, watercourse, ditch, and buffer acreages; jurisdictional status; impacts to all water resources and buffers; and, mitigation types and acreages. ii. All indirect impacts (e.g., shading from boardwalks or public utility well drawdown) must be summarized in the document. b. A map with all proposed mitigation areas and their required buffers. The map must include a table of mitigation wetland type and acreage and required buffers and acreage and a description of the functional unit gain of the wetland mitigation (as determined by a state-accepted functional assessment method). c. The source, type and method of transport and disposal of any fill material to be used, and certification that the placement of fill material will not violate any applicable state or federal statutes and regulations as listed in section 38.220.020. d. Copies of the following: i. Any floodplain determinations for the proposed site known to the applicant; ii. Any U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional determinations regarding wetlands on the proposed and adjacent site; and iii. Any permits from the required permits section below e. A completed wetland review checklist. 3. If in the preparation or review of the required submittal materials it is determined that there are unavoidable impacts to wetlands and/or watercourses that will require a Federal Clean Water Act permit, then the following information must be submitted to the city for all federal jurisdictional and city-regulated wetlands (see section 38.700.210 for definition) in a compensatory mitigation report: a. The descriptive narrative must include, at a minimum: i. The name and contact information of the applicant; the name, qualifications, and contact information for the primary author of the compensatory mitigation report; a description of the proposal; summary of the direct and indirect impacts and proposed mitigation concept; identification of all the local, state, and federal wetland/stream-related permit required for the project; and, a vicinity map for the project. ii. A description of the existing wetland, watercourse and buffer areas that will be impacted including area based on professional surveys; dominant vegetation; and functional assessments and wetland ratings for the entire wetland and the portions proposed to be impacted. iii. An assessment of the potential changes in wetland hydroperiod for the proposed project and how the design has been modified to avoid, minimize or reduce impacts to the wetland hydroperiod. iv. A description of the proposed conceptual mitigation actions for wetland, watercourse and buffer areas. Provide specifications (including buffers) for all proposed mitigation for wetland/watercourse/buffer impacts. Include a map with all proposed mitigation areas and their required buffers. v. An assessment of existing conditions in the zone of the proposed mitigation including vegetation community structure and composition, existing hydroperiod, existing soil conditions, and existing wetland functions. vi. Field data that was collected to document the existing conditions of the proposed mitigation sites and on which the future hydrologic and soil conditions of the mitigation wetlands are based (e.g., hydrologic conditions: piezometer data, staff/crest gage data, hydrologic modeling, visual observations; soil conditions: data from hand- dug or mechanical soil pits or boring results). The applicant may not rely on soil survey data for establishing existing conditions. vii. A planting schedule by proposed community type and hydrologic regime, size and type of plant material to be installed, spacing of plants, “typical” clustering patterns, total number of each species by community type, timing of installation, nutrient requirements, watering schedule, weed control, and where appropriate measures to protect plants from destruction. Native species must comprise 80 percent of the plants installed or seeded within the mitigation site. Wetland Review Checklist Page 2 of 4 Revision Date: November 2022 WETLAND REVIEW CHECKLIST viii. The mitigation monitoring plan must include a period of not less than three years, and establish the responsibility for long-term removal of invasive vegetation. ix. Wetland mitigation performance criteria (measurable standards reflective of expected development goals established for each year after the mitigation site is established, i.e., “At the end of three years there will be an 80 percent survival of the planted shrubs and trees.”) for mitigation wetlands and buffers, a monitoring schedule, reporting requirements to the city, and maintenance schedule and actions for each year of monitoring. x. Contingency plans which clearly define course of action or corrective measures needed if performance criteria are not met. b. The scaled plan sheets for the compensatory mitigation must contain, at a minimum: i. Existing wetland and buffer surveyed edges; proposed areas of wetland and buffer impacts; and, location of proposed wetland and buffer compensation action. ii. Surveyed topography at one- to two-foot contour intervals in the zone of the proposed compensation actions if any grading activity is proposed in the compensation area. Provide existing and proposed mitigation design cross section for the wetland and/or buffer compensation areas. iii. Required wetland buffers for existing wetlands and proposed mitigation areas; c. A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect and maintain the non-impacted and mitigation wetland, watercourse and buffer areas in perpetuity. NARRATIVE AND DISCUSSION All applications that propose changes to wetlands must provide a narrative response and discussion to the following: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that all adverse impacts on a wetland have been avoided; or 2. The applicant has demonstrated that any adverse impact on a wetland has been minimized; the activity will result in minimal impact or impairment to any wetland function and the activity will not result in an adverse modification of habitats for, or jeopardize the continued existence of, the following: a. Plant, animal or other wildlife species listed as threatened or endangered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; and/or b. Plant, animal or other wildlife species listed as a species of concern, species of potential concern, or species on review by the state department of fish, wildlife and parks and the state natural heritage program; or 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the project is in the public interest, having considered and documented: a. The extent of the public need for the proposed regulated activity; b. The functions and values as determined by a state accepted method of functional assessment of the wetland that may be affected by the proposed regulated activity; c. The extent and permanence of the adverse effects of the regulated activity on the wetland and any associated watercourse; d. The cumulative adverse effects of past activities on the wetland; and e. The uniqueness or scarcity of the wetland that may be affected. 4. The source, type of method of transport and disposal of any fill materials to be used and certification that the placement of fill material will not violate any applicable State or Federal Statutes and Regulations. 5. Are deed restrictions or covenants regarding the future use and subdivision of land, including but not limited to the preservation of undeveloped areas as open space, and restrictions on vegetation removal proposed? 6. Are deed restrictions proposed to be filed with the county clerk and recorder stating the measures that will be taken to protect all water resources, mitigation, and buffer areas in perpetuity? 7. Are any of the other relevant wetland permit conditions in Section 38.610.090 BMC proposed with the application? Wetland Review Checklist Page 3 of 4 Revision Date: November 2022 WETLAND REVIEW CHECKLIST REQUIRED PERMITS Provide copies of any of the following permits submitted or already obtained for the site: 1. Montana Stream Protection Act (SPA 124 Permit). Administered by the Habitat Protection Bureau, Fisheries Division, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 2. Stormwater discharge general permit. Administered by the water quality bureau, state department of environmental quality. 3. Montana Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act (310 Permit). Administered by the board of supervisors, county conservation district. 4. Montana Floodplain and Floodway Management Act (Floodplain Development Permit). Administered by the city engineering department. 5. Federal Clean Water Act (404 Permit). Administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 6. Federal Rivers and Harbors Act (Section 10 Permit). Administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 7. Short-term Water Quality Standard for Turbidity (318 Authorization). Administered by state department of environmental quality. 8. Montana Land-Use License or Easement on Navigable Waters. Administered by the state department of natural resources and conservation. 9. Montana Water Use Act (Water Right Permit and Change Authorization). Administered by the water rights bureau, state department of natural resources and conservation. REQUIRED FORMS APPLICATION FEE For most current application fee, see Schedule of Community Development fees. Fees are typically adjusted in January. CONTACT US Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building 20 East Olive Street PO Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59715 phone 406-582-2260 fax 406-582-2263 planning@bozeman.net www.bozeman.net/planning Wetland Review Checklist Page 4 of 4 Revision Date: November 2022 Rocky Mountain Flats - Wetland Review Checklist Sundog Ecological Inc. Wetland Review Checklist 1. Wetland and watercourse delineation report complying with the requirements of Section 38.610.030 BMC. Has been submitted. a. The wetland and watercourse delineation report must include, but not limited to, the following and must be prepared in accordance with 38.610.030 BMC i. Wetland and watercourse descriptions See aquatic delineation report ii. Functional assessment See functional assessment iii. Wetland types See aquatic delineation report iv. Wetland acreages See aquatic delineation report and map v. Maps with property boundaries, wetland and watercourse boundaries and acreages See aquatic delineation report vi. Wetland data forms See aquatic delineation report 2. If activities are planned in and/or adjacent to aquatic resources the following information is required: a. A site plan that shows the property boundary; delineated wetland and watercourse boundaries; buffer boundaries; and all existing and proposed structures, roads, trails, and easements. The site plan will include a table of existing wetland functional ratings and acreage, required buffers and acreage, and linear feet of all watercourses and ditches. See the submitted site plan i. All direct impacts to wetlands, watercourses, and buffers must be highlighted and summarized in a table on the site plan. The water resource and buffer summary table must include wetland/watercourse identification number; corresponding buffer width and acreage; total site, wetland, watercourse, ditch, and buffer acreages; jurisdictional status; impacts to all water resources and buffers; and mitigation types and acreages. See the submitted site plan ii. All indirect impacts must be summarized in the document. b. A map with all proposed mitigation areas and their required buffers. Not applicable c. The source, type, and method of transport and disposal of any fill material to be used, and certification that the placement of fill material will not violate any applicable state or federal statutes and regulations listed in Section 38.220.020. Wetlands being filled to construct a road. No other wetlands onsite. d. Copies of the following: i. And floodplain determination for the proposed site 404 Pending ii. Any ACOE jurisdictional determinations iii. Any other required permits 1. SPA 124 (FWP) Not applicable 2. Stormwater discharge Not applicable 3. 310 Permit (GCD) Pending 4. Floodplain Permit Not applicable 5. 404 Permit (ACOE) Pending 6. Section 10 Permit Not applicable 7. 401/318 Permit (DEQ) Pending 8. Navigable Waters (DNC) Not applicable Rocky Mountain Flats - Wetland Review Checklist Sundog Ecological Inc. 9. Water right changes (DNRC) Not applicable. There are no water rights associated with the property. 3. If in the preparation or review of the submittal materials it is determined that there are unavoidable impacts to wetlands and/or watercourses that will require Federal Clean Water Act permit, then the following information must be submitted to the city for all federal jurisdictional and city-regulated wetlans (see Section 38.700.210 for definition) in a compensatory mitigation report. Not applicable a. The descriptive narrative must include, at a minimum: i. The name and contact information of the applicants; the name, qualifications, and contact information for the primary author of the compensatory mitigation report; a description of the proposal; summary of the direct and indirect impacts and proposed mitigation concept; identification of all the local, state, and federal wetland/stream-related permit required for the project; and, a vicinity map for the project. See report and submittal information ii. A description of existing wetland, watercourse and buffer areas that will be impacted including area based on professional surveys; dominant vegetation; and functional assessments and wetland ratings for the entire wetland and the portions proposed to be impacted. See wetland delineation report iii. An assessment of the potential changes in wetland hydroperiod for the proposed project and how the design has been modified to avoid, minimize or reduce impacts to the wetland hydroperiod. Hydroperiod will be changed due to a road being in place of the ditch and wetlands. iv. A description of the proposed conceptual mitigation actions for the wetland, watercourse and buffer areas. Provide specifications (including buffers) for all proposed mitigation for all wetland/watercourse/buffer impacts. Include a map with all proposed mitigation areas and their required buffers. Wetlands will be mitigated at UMMB in Twin Bridges, MT v. An assessment of existing conditions in the zone of the proposed mitigation including vegetation community structure and composition, existing hydroperiod, existing soil conditions, and existing wetland functions. Wetlands will be mitigated at UMMB in Twin Bridges, MT vi. Field data that was collected to document existing conditions of the proposed wetland mitigation sites and on which the future hydrologic and soil conditions of the mitigation wetlands are based (e.g., hydrologic condition: piezometer data, staff/crest gage data, hydrologic modeling, visual observations; soil conditions: data form hand dug or mechanical soil pits or boring results). The applicant may not rely on soil survey data for establishing existing conditions. Wetlands will be mitigated at UMMB in Twin Bridges, MT vii. A planting schedule by proposed community type and hydrologic regime, size and type of plant material to be installed, spacing of plants, “typical” clustering patterns, total number of each species by community type, timing of installation, nutrient requirements, water schedule, weed control, Rocky Mountain Flats - Wetland Review Checklist Sundog Ecological Inc. and where appropriate measures to protect plants from destruction. Native species must comprise 80 percent of the plants installed or seeded within the mitigation site. Wetlands will be mitigated at UMMB in Twin Bridges, MT viii. The mitigation monitoring plan must include a period of not less than three years, and establish the responsibility for long-term removal of invasive species. Wetlands will be mitigated at UMMB in Twin Bridges, MT ix. Wetland mitigation performance criteria (measurable standards reflective of expected development goals established for each year after the mitigation site is established, i.e., “At the end of three years, there will be an 80 percent survival of the planted shrubs and trees.”) for mitigation wetlands and buffers, a monitoring schedule, reporting requirements to the city, and a maintenance schedule and actions for each year of monitoring. Wetlands will be mitigated at UMMB in Twin Bridges, MT x. Contingency plans which clearly define the course of action or corrective measures needed if performance criteria are not met. If unable to mitigate at UMMB in Twin Bridges, MT, then wetlands will be mitigated at Indreland MB in Bozeman, MT if it is approved by time mitigation is needed. b. The scaled plan sheets for the compensatory mitigation must contain, at a minimum, Wetlands will be mitigated at UMMB in Twin Bridges, MT i. Existing wetland and buffer survey edges; proposed areas of wetland and buffer impacts; and location of proposed wetland and buffer compensation action. ii. Surveyed topography at one- to two-foot contour intervals in the zone of the proposed compensation actions if any grading activity is proposed in the compensation area. Provide existing and proposed mitigation design cross-section for the wetland and/or buffer compensation areas. iii. Required wetland buffers for existing wetlands and proposed mitigation areas; c. A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect and maintain the non-impacted and mitigation wetland, watercourse and buffer areas in perpetuity. Wetlands will be mitigated at UMMB in Twin Bridges, MT 5532 Fowler Lane Aquatic Delineation Report Prepared For: BlueLine Development, Inc. 1004 South Avenue West Missoula, MT 59801 Prepared By: PO Box 1424 Bozeman, MT 59771 406.539.7244 briana@sundogeco.com August 2025 Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Site Description ................................................................................................................................... 1 Methods .............................................................................................................................................. 3 Results .................................................................................................................................................... 3 Delineated Wetlands ........................................................................................................................... 4 Soils ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Uplands ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Threatened and Endangered Species ....................................................................................................... 5 Cultural Resources and Historic Structures .............................................................................................. 5 Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 5 References .............................................................................................................................................. 6 List of Figures and Tables Figure 1: General location of the 5532 Fowler Lane site in southwest Bozeman, Montana. ...................... 2 Figure 2: Close-up location of the 5532 Fowler Lane site in southwest Bozeman, Montana. .................... 2 Appendices Appendix A – Aquatic Delineation Map Appendix B – Wetland Determination Data Forms Appendix C – Site Photographs Appendix D – Project Area Background Maps 5532 Fowler Lane Aquatic Delineation Sundog Ecological, Inc. Page | 1 Introduction Sundog Ecological, Inc. conducted a routine wetland delineation and investigation of Waters of the U.S. on June 11, 2025, for BlueLine Development Inc. This delineation was conducted as part of due diligence for future land and infrastructure development in Bozeman, MT. The project area encompasses approximately 10 acres located at Section 23, Township 2 South, Range 5 East. This wetland delineation aimed to investigate the project area, identify areas meeting the technical guidelines for aquatic resources (wetlands and watercourses), delineate the extent of these resources within the project area, and classify these aquatic resource habitats. This report describes the methodologies used, summarizes the results of wetland investigations, and provides technical documentation for all delineated wetlands and watercourses within the project area. Figures referred to in the text are included in the Appendices at the end of the report. Site Description The 5532 Fowler Lane property is located north of Blackwood Road, between S 19th Avenue and Fowler Lane (Figures 1 and 2). It is currently classified as R-4 (Residential High-Density District) and has been historically used for residential and agricultural purposes. Directions to the site from Interstate 90 at North 19th Avenue: From the eastbound exit off Interstate 90, turn right and follow North 19th Avenue for 4.4 miles. Turn right onto Stucky Road for 1.0 miles, then turn left onto Fowler Lane. The property is located on the east side of Fowler Lane, 0.9 miles south of Stucky Road (5532 Fowler Lane). 5532 Fowler Lane Aquatic Delineation Sundog Ecological, Inc. Page | 2 Figure 1: General location of the 5532 Fowler Lane site in southwest Bozeman, Montana. Figure 2: Close-up location of the 5532 Fowler Lane site in southwest Bozeman, Montana. 5532 Fowler Lane Aquatic Delineation Sundog Ecological, Inc. Page | 3 Methods The wetland delineation was conducted using the routine on-site-approach per standard practices outlined in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and by the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 (USACE 2010). The study evaluated the presence or absence of three wetland parameters described in the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual. Under the delineation procedures outlined in the USACE manual, an area must exhibit characteristic wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation to be considered a wetland. If field investigation determines that any of the three parameters are not satisfied, the area generally does not usually qualify as a wetland; however, there are circumstances when one or more parameters may be absent within a wetland area. Wetlands were classified according to the Cowardin (Cowardin et al., 1979) and hydrogeomorphic (USEPA 2023) systems. Non-wetland water bodies such as streams were classified according to flow regime (perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral) and substrate (rock bottom, unconsolidated bottom, etc.; Cowardin et al. 1979). The aquatic resources delineation map is included in Appendix A. A delineation report, data forms, and technical information are required by the USACE (2010) to document the presence or absence of the three wetland indicators at data points (DP) within the investigation area. Data were also collected at points in non-wetland areas to determine the boundary between wetland and non-wetland areas. A total of 2 official data points were established, 1 point within wetlands and 1 point within non-wetlands, to enable boundary determination. An additional 4 to 6 unofficial data points (no recorded data) were established to ensure adherence to boundary lines. Data forms are included in Appendix B. Photographs were taken at data points and of general habitat conditions within the investigation area (Appendix C). Prior to conducting field studies, available background and supplementary reference materials were reviewed, including aerial photographs and maps from: Google Earth Pro, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS NWI 2025), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (USDA NRCS 2025a; Appendix D), USDA NRCS (2025b) Gallatin County Soil Data; National Wetlands Plant List (USACE 2024), and topographic map (Appendix D). Wetland boundaries and channel bed locations were drawn using field data, aerial photographs, topographic maps, and GPS coordinates. Results In June 2025, three wetland areas and two irrigation ditches were identified and delineated within the project boundaries. The property was assessed for dominant hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and evidence of wetland hydrology. Overall, two data points were investigated to determine the wetland/upland boundary within the project area. The location of identified wetlands, channel beds, 5532 Fowler Lane Aquatic Delineation Sundog Ecological, Inc. Page | 4 and upland and wetland data points are illustrated on a map in Appendix A. USACE data forms are included in Appendix B, and photographs are included in Appendix C. Delineated Wetlands Three wetland areas and two irrigation ditches were observed within the project boundaries. Identified wetlands were classified as mixed palustrine emergent (EM) and scrub-shrub (SS) wetlands (Cowardin et al. 1974). Wetland boundaries were readily identifiable due to changes in topography, shifts in vegetation structure or changes in vegetation dominance from FAC or wetter (FACW or OBL) species to drier (FACU or UPL) species, changes in hydrology and/or changes in soil types. Wetlands identified within the project boundaries (Exhibit A, Appendix A). Wetland 1 represents 1,509 square feet (0.035 acres); Wetland 2 is 468 square feet (0.011 acres), and Wetland 3 represents 644 square feet (0.015 acres). All wetland areas were identified as mixed palustrine emergent and scrub- shrub wetlands dominated by (Populus balsamifera), aspen (Populus tremuloides), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), and meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis). Soils One soil map unit was observed within the project limits of the 5532 Fowler Lane aquatic delineation site; the Hyalite-Beaverton Complex, moderately wet, 0-2% slopes. In general, observed wetland soils were loam to silt loam in texture with matrix hues of 10YR, matrix values of 3 and 4, and chroma values of 2 or less. Redox concentrations were observed throughout wetland soils within the project boundaries. Hydric soil indicators were depleted matrix (F3). Detailed soil descriptions for wetland and upland sample locations are provided on wetland delineation data forms in Appendix C. Hydrology No primary indicators of wetland hydrology observed. Secondary indicators of wetland hydrology observed were drainage patterns (B10), saturation visible on aerial imagery (C9), and geomorphic position (D2). Uplands One non-wetland sample point (paired with one wetland sample point) was documented within the project area and are shown on in Appendix A. These sample points were used to assist in establishing wetland boundaries and to determine/verify upland areas. Upland areas occurred in areas of slightly higher topography or different (typically drier) vegetation. Vegetation within the uplands included a mix of hydrophytic and upland species but facultative and facultative-upland (FACU) species dominated the overall cover. Common species noted in the uplands include mixed pasture grasses but dominated by Kentucky bluegrass, and meadow foxtail with an overstory of chokecherry and aspen. Soils ranged from very dark brown to dark greyish brown and lacked redox concentrations. Textures were generally a silt loam to silty clay loam. 5532 Fowler Lane Aquatic Delineation Sundog Ecological, Inc. Page | 5 Threatened and Endangered Species A review of the USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation System database listed three endangered species: the Canada lynx, grizzly bear, North American wolverine, and monarch butterfly, as candidate for endangered listing, and Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee as a candidate for threatened listing in the area. Proposed activities are not expected to impact any of these species and there is no critical habitat within the property boundaries. Cultural Resources and Historic Structures It is unknown what cultural resources, historical or other structures within the property boundaries may be impacted by the development of the property. Summary A wetland delineation was conducted on the 5532 Fowler Lane property site in June 2025. Three mixed palustrine-emergent/ scrub-shrub wetland areas were identified within the project boundary, totaling 2,621 square feet or 0.060 acres. 5532 Fowler Lane Aquatic Delineation Sundog Ecological, Inc. Page | 6 References Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Washington, DC. Reed, P.B. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). Biological Report 88(26.9), May 1988. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, 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 Development Center Websites Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP). 2025. Natural Heritage Map Viewer: Wetland and Riparian Mapping Center. Site accessed June 2025: http://mtnhp.org/mapviewer/?t=8 . Montana State University, MSU Extension, MSU Extension Invasive Plants, Montana Noxious Weed. 2025. Site accessed June 2025at: https://www.montana.edu/extension/invasiveplants/documents/mt_noxious_weeds/2019_mt _noxious_weeds.html#info. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2022. The National Wetland Plant List, version 3.5, Engineer Research and Development Center Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey. 2025a. Site accessed June 2025 at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory website. Accessed June 2025 at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html. US Fish & Wildlife Service. Information for Planning and Conservation. Accessed June 2025 at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ Appendix A Exhibit 1 – Mapped Aquatic Boundary of 5532 Fowler Lane Property XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXCO XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X XXXXX WETLAND AREA 1 (EAST DITCH) AREA: 0.0346 ACRES (1,509 SF) DP - UDP - W WETLAND AREA 3 AREA: 0.0148 ACRES (644 SF) EX. CULVERT EX. CULVERT EX. CULVERTS EX. CULVERTS EX. CULVERTS EAST DITCH #1 EAST DITCH #2 EAST DITCH #1 EAST DITCH #2 END OF EAST DITCH #2 (FILLED ON PROPERTY TO NORTH) WEST DITCH WEST DITCH FOWLER LANEWETLAND AREA 2 (WEST DITCH) AREA: 0.0107 ACRES (468 SF) WETLAND DELINEATION FIGURE BOZEMAN, MT ROCKY MOUNTAIN FLATS 0 30'60' SCALE 1" = 30' N DATE: July 23, 2025 PROJECT NO: 774-01 WETLAND AREA TABULATION WETLAND AREA (SF)AREA (ACRES) 1 1,509 0.0346 2 468 0.0107 3 644 0.0148 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPT ELEC T OHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHP16''W16''W8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''SS8''W8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W8''W8''W8''W8''W8''SSXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXOOOOOOOOOO<><>SSGASGASGASGASGASXXXXXXXXXXXUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPGASGASCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMUGPUGPUGPXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP W VW V W V HY DW V W VW VW V W VW VHY DHYDHYD TP-1 TP-7 TP-6 TP-5 TP-4 TP-3 TP-2 15''SS15''SS15''SS15''SS15''SS15''SSUGPUGPUGPUGP UGP UGP UGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGP UGPUGPUGP UGP UGP UGP UGP UGP UGP UGP UGPUGPUGPSTSWR SWR SWR SWR SWR SWR SWR SWRSWRSWRSWRSWRSWRSWRSWRSWRSWR SWRSWRSWRSWR SWR SWR SWR SWR SWR CO WETLAND AREA 1 AREA: 0.0346 ACRES (1,509 SF) DP - UDP - W WETLAND AREA 3 AREA: 0.0148 ACRES (644 SF) EX. CULVERT EX. CULVERT EX. CULVERTS EX. CULVERTS EX. CULVERTS EAST DITCH #1 EAST DITCH #2 EAST DITCH #1 EAST DITCH #2 END OF EAST DITCH #2 (FILLED ON PROPERTY TO NORTH) WEST DITCH (NO WETLAND PRESENT) WEST DITCH FOWLER LANEWETLAND AREA 2 AREA: 0.0107 ACRES (468 SF)EDGERTON BLVDGABRIEL AVES 31ST AVEMEAH LANE N89° 52' 12"E 1330.14'S0° 01' 54"W 332.91'S89° 53' 16"W 1329.39'N0° 05' 51"W 332.50'NO WETLAND PRESENT 0 50'100' SCALE 1" = 50' N DATE: 11/25/2025 PROJECT NO: 749-01 WETLAND DELINEATION FIGURE BOZEMAN, MT ROCKY MOUNTAIN FLATSWETLAND AREA TABULATION WETLAND AREA (SF)AREA (ACRES) 1 1,509 0.0346 2 468 0.0107 3 644 0.0148 DAYL E H KOUN T Z FOW L E R R K HOLDI N G S, L L C RG 5 4 0 0 F O W L E R, L L C THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SEC. 23 10.00 ACRES XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPT OHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHP16''W16''W8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''SS8''W8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W8''W8''W8''W8''W8''SSXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX<><>SSW VW V W V HY DW V W VW VW V W VW VHY DHYDHYD 15''SS15''SS15''SS15''SS15''SS15''SSUGPUGPUGPUGP UGP UGP UGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGP UGPUGPUGP UGP UGP UGP UGP UGP UGP UGP UGPUGPUGPSTELECELECELECELECGASGASGASGASELECELECCO ELEC STSTSTSTCO CO ST DSDSDS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DSDSDS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST STSTSTST STSTSTSTELECELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC 8''SS8''SS8''SS8''SS8''SS8''W8''W8''W8''W8''W8''W8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W8''W8''W8''W8''W16''W16''W16''W16''W8''SS8''SS8''SS8''SS8''SSW V W V W V W V W VW VW V W V SS SS W VHYDHYD HYDHY DW V W VW V SS SS SS ST ST STSTST STS T ST ST STSTSTW V W V W V W V W VW V ST 15''SS15''SS15''SS15''SS15''SSWBO HYDGASGASGASGASGASGASOSW W VWBO WBO WBO WBO WBO WBO W VW V ELEC WBOWBO XFOWLER LANEEDGERTON BLVDGABRIEL AVES 31ST AVEMEAH LANE BLDG #C BLDG #A BLDG #B N89° 52' 12"E 1330.14'S0° 01' 54"W 332.91'S89° 53' 16"W 1329.39'N0° 05' 51"W 332.50'WETLAND AREA 1 IMPACT AREA: 0.0346 ACRES (1,509 SF) DP - UDP - W WETLAND AREA 3 IMPACT AREA: 0.0070 ACRES (303 SF) EAST DITCH #1 EAST DITCH #2 EAST DITCH #1 EAST DITCH #2 END OF EAST DITCH #2 (FILLED ON PROPERTY TO NORTH) WEST DITCH WEST DITCH WETLAND AREA 2 IMPACT AREA: 0.0107 ACRES (468 SF) 0 50'100' SCALE 1" = 50' N DATE: 11/25/2025 PROJECT NO: 749-01 WETLAND IMPACT FIGURE BOZEMAN, MT ROCKY MOUNTAIN FLATSWETLAND AREA IMPACT TABULATION WETLAND AREA (SF)AREA (ACRES) 1 1,509 0.0346 2 468 0.0107 3 303 0.0070 WETLAND AREA TO BE FILLED MEAH LANE Appendix B 5532 Fowler Lane Property Wetland Determination Data Forms Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): 1 Subregion (LRR/MLRA): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: x Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes x No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2. (A) 3. 4. (B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4. x 1 = 5. x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1. x 5 = 2. Column Totals: (A) (B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. X 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X 45.6433505 Long: -111.083257LRR E Mixed lawn grasses with a planted overstory. 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 0 255 0 80 =Total Cover Dactylis glomerata 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: Prunus virginiana Populus tremuloides Salix amygdaloides Yes =Total Cover 15 No FACU 30 Project/Site: 5532 Fowler Lane NWI classification: Dominant Species? 20 5 5 10 FACU WGS84 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 0 Sampling Date: Alopecurus pratensis Hyalite-Beaverton Complex, moderately wet, 0-2% slopes none 3 ft. NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S 23, T 2 S, R 5 E MT DP1u concave Section, Township, Range: 60.0% ) 15 ft. ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 135 Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 06/11/2025 BlueLine B Schultz valley bottom Bozeman / GallatinCity/County: 10 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 100 Multiply by: 20 Prevalence Index = B/A = 45 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 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 3.19 2 - Dominance Test is >50% (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 30 ft. Yes naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:FACU FACW significantly disturbed? Below average precipitation for the sampling date. One of three wetland indicators was observed. Indicator Status 3 5 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Taraxacum officinale Yes FACU FAC Herb Stratum 5 No Poa pratensis 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: 9/30/2027 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? No Yes 60 Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: % %Type1 Loc2 100 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yes Saturation Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Surface Water (A1) 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) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) No wetland hydrology indicators were observed. Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) 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. Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 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) Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron Monosulfide (A18) Other (Explain in Remarks) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 9-14 Texture Redox FeaturesDepth Loamy/Clayey Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 10YR 4/2 10YR 2/2 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) No hydric soil indicators were observed at this location. Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Color (moist) 0-9 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and unless disturbed or problematic. Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) DP1uSOIL dry dry Remarks Loamy/Clayey Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): 1 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: 9/30/2027 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? No Yes 56 Remarks: Indicator Status 3 5 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Alopecurus pratensis No FAC FAC Herb Stratum 25 Yes Poa pratensis 1 5 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 30 ft. Yes naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:FACU FACU significantly disturbed? Below normal precipitation for sampling date. Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species OBL 3.00 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: 5 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 60 Multiply by: 10 Prevalence Index = B/A = 51 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 06/11/2025 BlueLine B Schultz valley bottom Bozeman / GallatinCity/County: Carex utriculata Hyalite-Beaverton Complex, moderately wet, 0-2% slopes none 3 ft. NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S 23, T 2 S, R 5 E MT DP1w concave Section, Township, Range: 60.0% ) 15 ft. ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 153 25 Project/Site: 5532 Fowler Lane NWI classification: Dominant Species? 20 5 5 10 FACW WGS 84 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 5 Sampling Date: Rumex crispus 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: Salix amygdaloides Populus tremuloides Prunus virginiana Yes =Total Cover 5 No FAC 45.643501 Long: -111083274LRR E Mixed grasses and planted overstory. 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 0 228 0 76 =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: % %Type1 Loc2 100 100 95 5 C M 80 20 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 Water Table Present? Yes Saturation Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and unless disturbed or problematic. Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) DP1wSOIL wet Prominent redox concentrations Prominent redox concentrations Remarks Loamy/Clayey Loamy/Clayey Color (moist) 10YR 4/6 10YR 4/6 0-3 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) Godd redox starting at five inches. Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 3-5 6-12 10YR 4/1 Texture 5-6 Sandy Redox FeaturesDepth Loamy/Clayey 10YR 4/1 Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 10YR 4/1 10YR 3/1 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron Monosulfide (A18) Other (Explain in Remarks) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) 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. Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 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) High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Surface Water (A1) 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) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Three secondary indicators were observed at the sampling point. Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Appendix C 5532 Fowler Lane Property Site Photographs Data Point 1u Data Point 1w Additional Photographs Appendix D Aerial Overview of 5532 Fowler Lane Property Topographic Overview of 5532 Fowler Lane Property National Wetland Inventory – Mapped Wetlands at 5532 Fowler Lane Property Montana Natural Heritage Program – Mapped Wetlands at 5532 Fowler Lane Property Soils of Gallatin County Area - 5532 Fowler Lane Property 5532 Fowler Lane Aquatic Delineation 700 ft N➤➤N Image © 2025 Airbus Image © 2025 Airbus Image © 2025 Airbus 5532 Fowler Lane Wetlands U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team,wetlands_team@fws.gov Wetlands Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Lake Other Riverine August 12, 2025 0 0.06 0.120.03 mi 0 0.1 0.20.05 km 1:3,762 This page was produced by the NWI mapperNational Wetlands Inventory (NWI) This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Gallatin County Area, MontanaNatural Resources Conservation Service August 12, 2025 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Gallatin County Area, Montana.......................................................................13 448A—Hyalite-Beaverton complex, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes....................................................................................................13 457A—Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes.......................15 510B—Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes......................................16 References............................................................................................................18 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report 6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Custom Soil Resource Report 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 505430050543505054400505445050545005054550505460050542505054300505435050544005054450505450050545505054600493440 493490 493540 493590 493640 493690 493740 493790 493840 493890 493940 493440 493490 493540 493590 493640 493690 493740 493790 493840 493890 493940 45° 38' 41'' N 111° 5' 4'' W45° 38' 41'' N111° 4' 39'' W45° 38' 30'' N 111° 5' 4'' W45° 38' 30'' N 111° 4' 39'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600 Feet 0 35 70 140 210 Meters Map Scale: 1:2,490 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area, Montana Survey Area Data: Version 28, Aug 22, 2024 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 18, 2022—Aug 29, 2022 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 10 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 448A Hyalite-Beaverton complex, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes 4.4 34.1% 457A Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes 8.5 65.6% 510B Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 0.0 0.2% Totals for Area of Interest 12.9 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or Custom Soil Resource Report 11 landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 12 Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/12/2025 Page 1 of 5505430050543505054400505445050545005054550505460050542505054300505435050544005054450505450050545505054600493440493490493540493590493640493690493740493790493840493890493940 493440 493490 493540 493590 493640 493690 493740 493790 493840 493890 493940 45° 38' 41'' N 111° 5' 4'' W45° 38' 41'' N111° 4' 39'' W45° 38' 30'' N 111° 5' 4'' W45° 38' 30'' N 111° 4' 39'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600 Feet 0 35 70 140 210 Meters Map Scale: 1:2,490 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area, Montana Survey Area Data: Version 28, Aug 22, 2024 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 18, 2022—Aug 29, 2022 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/12/2025 Page 2 of 5 Hydric Rating by Map Unit Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 448A Hyalite-Beaverton complex, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes 0 4.4 34.1% 457A Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes 0 8.5 65.6% 510B Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 10 0.0 0.2% Totals for Area of Interest 12.9 100.0% Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/12/2025 Page 3 of 5 Description This rating indicates the percentage of map units that meets the criteria for hydric soils. Map units are composed of one or more map unit components or soil types, each of which is rated as hydric soil or not hydric. Map units that are made up dominantly of hydric soils may have small areas of minor nonhydric components in the higher positions on the landform, and map units that are made up dominantly of nonhydric soils may have small areas of minor hydric components in the lower positions on the landform. Each map unit is rated based on its respective components and the percentage of each component within the map unit. The thematic map is color coded based on the composition of hydric components. The five color classes are separated as 100 percent hydric components, 66 to 99 percent hydric components, 33 to 65 percent hydric components, 1 to 32 percent hydric components, and less than one percent hydric components. In Web Soil Survey, the Summary by Map Unit table that is displayed below the map pane contains a column named 'Rating'. In this column the percentage of each map unit that is classified as hydric is displayed. Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (Federal Register, 1994). Under natural conditions, these soils are either saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to support the growth and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation. The NTCHS definition identifies general soil properties that are associated with wetness. In order to determine whether a specific soil is a hydric soil or nonhydric soil, however, more specific information, such as information about the depth and duration of the water table, is needed. Thus, criteria that identify those estimated soil properties unique to hydric soils have been established (Federal Register, 2002). These criteria are used to identify map unit components that normally are associated with wetlands. The criteria used are selected estimated soil properties that are described in "Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 1999) and "Keys to Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 2006) and in the "Soil Survey Manual" (Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993). If soils are wet enough for a long enough period of time to be considered hydric, they should exhibit certain properties that can be easily observed in the field. These visible properties are indicators of hydric soils. The indicators used to make onsite determinations of hydric soils are specified in "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States" (Hurt and Vasilas, 2006). References: Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/12/2025 Page 4 of 5 Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Percent Present Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Lower Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/12/2025 Page 5 of 5 Gallatin County Area, Montana 448A—Hyalite-Beaverton complex, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56sq Elevation: 4,450 to 5,300 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance Map Unit Composition Hyalite and similar soils:70 percent Beaverton and similar soils:20 percent Minor components:10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Hyalite Setting Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Loamy alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 5 inches: loam Bt1 - 5 to 9 inches: clay loam Bt2 - 9 to 17 inches: silty clay loam 2Bt3 - 17 to 26 inches: very cobbly sandy clay loam 3C - 26 to 60 inches: very cobbly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 48 to 96 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:5 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R043BP818MT - Upland Grassland Group Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Description of Beaverton Setting Landform:Stream terraces, alluvial fans Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 5 inches: cobbly loam Bt - 5 to 21 inches: very gravelly clay loam Bk - 21 to 25 inches: very cobbly coarse sandy loam 2Bk - 25 to 60 inches: extremely cobbly loamy coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 48 to 96 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R043BP818MT - Upland Grassland Group Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Meadowcreek Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Beaverton Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP818MT - Upland Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 14 457A—Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56tb Elevation: 4,300 to 5,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Turner and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Turner Setting Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 6 inches: loam Bt - 6 to 12 inches: clay loam Bk - 12 to 26 inches: clay loam 2C - 26 to 60 inches: very gravelly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 48 to 96 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R044BB032MT - Loamy (Lo) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 15 Minor Components Turner Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BB032MT - Loamy (Lo) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No Meadowcreek Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Beaverton Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP818MT - Upland Grassland Hydric soil rating: No 510B—Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56vt Elevation: 4,200 to 5,950 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Meadowcreek and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Meadowcreek Setting Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Custom Soil Resource Report 16 Typical profile A - 0 to 11 inches: loam Bg - 11 to 25 inches: silt loam 2C - 25 to 60 inches: very gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 4 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 24 to 42 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Blossberg Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: Yes Beaverton Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP818MT - Upland Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 17 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 18 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report 19 MDT Montana Wetland Assessment Form (revised March 2008) 1. Project Name:5532 Fowler Lane 2. MDT Project #:Control #: 3. Evaluation Date:06/11/2025 4. Evaluator(s):B Schultz 5. Wetlands/Site #(s): 6. Wetland Location(s): i. Legal:T2S,R5E,23 ii. Approx. Stationing or Mileposts: iii. Watershed:6 Watershed Name, County:Upper Missouri, Gallatin 7. a. Evaluating Agency: b. Purpose of Evaluation: 1. 2. 3. 4. Wetlands potentially affected by MDT project Mitigation wetlands; pre-construction Mitigation wetlands; post-construction Other: 8. Wetland size: 0.060 acres (measured) 9. Assessment area (AA): 0.060 acres (measured) 10. Classification of Wetland and Aquatic Habitats in AA HGM Class (Brinson) Class (Cowardin) Modifier (Cowardin) Water Regime % of AA R RB E SI 100 Abbreviations:(see manual for definitions) HGM Classes: Riverine (R), Depressional (D), Slope (S), Mineral Soil Flats (MSF), Organic Soil Flats (OSF), Lacustrine Fringe (LF); Cowardin Classes: Rock Bottom (RB), Unconsolidated bottom (UB), Aquatic Bed (AB), Unconsolidated Shore (US), Moss-lichen Wetland (ML), Emergent Wetland (EM), Scrub-Shrub Wetland (SS), Forested Wetland (FO) Modifiers: Excavated (E), Impounded (I), Diked (D), Partly Drained (PD), Farmed (F), Artificial (A) Water Regimes: Permanent / Perennial (PP), Seasonal / Intermittent (SI), Temporary / Ephemeral (TE) 11. Estimated relative abundance:(of similarly classified sites within the same Major Montana Watershed Basin, see definitions) ABUNDANT 12. General condition of AA: i. Disturbance: (use matrix below to determine [circle] appropriate response – see instructions for Montana-listed noxious weed and aquatic nuisance vegetation species (ANVS) list) Conditions within 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%. Predominant conditions adjacent to (within 500 feet of) AA 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%. 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 <= 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%. low disturbance low disturbance moderate disturbance moderate disturbance moderate disturbance high disturbance high disturbance high disturbance high disturbancehigh disturbance Comments: (types of disturbance, intensity, season, etc.): AA is a ditch and associated wetlands. AA lies within a residential property. ii. Prominent noxious, aquatic nuisance, & other exotic vegetation species: Canada thistle. iii. Provide brief descriptive summary of AA and surrounding land use/habitat: Aa is within residential property. Fowler Lane is approximately east of the AA. 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 1 is forested) classes H NA NA NA 2 (or 1 if forested) classes M NA NA NA 1 class, but not a monoculture MM <-- NO YES -->L 1 class, monoculture (1 species comprises >= 90% of total cover)L NA NA NA Comments: Mixed vegetation was observed within the AA. Latitude/Longitude: 1 SECTION PERTAINING to FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 14A. Habitat for Federally Listed or Proposed Threatened or Endangered Plants or Animals: i. AA is Documented (D) or Suspected (S) to contain (circle one based on definitions contained in instructions): Primary or critical habitat (list species)Secondary habitat (list species)Incidental habitat (list species) No usable habitat ii. Rating (use the conclusions from i above and the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating) Highest Habitat Level doc/primary sus/primary doc/secondary sus/secondary doc/incidental sus/incidental None Functional Points and Rating 1H .9H .8M .7M .3L .1L 0L0L Sources for documented use (e.g. observations, records, etc):No documented use of and T and E species. IPaC consulted. Incidental habitat (list species) i. AA is Documented (D) or Suspected (S) to contain (circle one based on definitions contained in instructions): ii. Rating (use the conclusions from i above and the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating) No usable habitat 14B. Habitat for plant or animals rated S1, S2, or S3 by the Montana Natural Heritage Program: (not including species listed in14A above) Primary or critical habitat (list species)Secondary habitat (list species) sus/secondary S1 Species: Functional Points and Rating doc/primary sus/primary sus/incidentalHighest Habitat Level Nonedoc/secondary doc/incidental 1H .8H .7M .6M .2L .1L 0L S2 and S3 Species: Functional Points and Rating .9H .7M .6M .5M .2L .1L 0L0L Sources for documented use (e.g. observations, records, etc):None. MTNHP consulted. 14C. General Wildlife Habitat Rating: i. Evidence of overall wildlife use in the AA (circle 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) abundant wildlife sign such as scat, tracks, nest structures, game trails, etc. presence of extremely limiting habitat features not available in the surrounding area interviews with local biologists with knowledge of the AA few or no wildlife observations during peak use periods little to no wildlife sign sparse adjacent upland food sources interviews with local biologists with knowledge of the AA X X Moderate (based on any of the following [check]): observations of scattered wildlife groups or individuals or relatively few species during peak periods interviews with local biologists with knowledge of the AA common occurrence of wildlife sign such as scat, tracks, nest structures, game trails, etc. adequate adjacent upland food sources ii. Wildlife habitat features (Working from top to bottom, circle 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 interms 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 instructions 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)E E E H E E H H E H H M E H M M E H M M Moderate disturbance at AA (see #12i)H H H H H H H M H H M M H M M L H M L L High disturbance at AA (see #12i)M M M L M M L L M MM L L M L L L L L L L iii. Rating (use the conclusions from i and ii above and the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating) Evidence of wildlife use (i)Wildlife habitat features rating (ii) Exceptional High Moderate Moderate Substantial 1E .9H .8H .7M Moderate .9H .7M .5M .3L Minimal .6M .4M .2L.2L .1L Minimal wetlands and water. Busy road lies approximate to AA.Comments: 2 14D. General Fish Habitat Rating: (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, etc.]. 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 mark X Type of Fishery:Cold Water (CW)Warm Water (WW)Use the CW or WW guidelines in the user manual to complete the matrix i. Habitat Quality and Known / Suspected Fish Species in AA (use matrix to arrive at [circle] the functional points 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 1E .9H .8H .7M .6M .5M .9H .8H .7M .6M .5M .4M .7M .6M .5M .4M .3L .2L FWP Tier II or Native Game fish species .9H .8H .7M .6M .5M .5M .8H .7M .6M .5M .4M .4M .6M .5M .4M .3L .2L .2L FWP Tier III or Introduced Game fish .8H .7M .6M .5M .5M .4M .7M .6M .5M .4M .4M .3L .5M .4M .3L .2L .2L .1L FWP Non-Game Tier IV or No fish species .5M .5M .5M .4M .4M .3L .4M .4M .4M .3L .3L .2L .2L .2L .2L .1L .1L .1L Sources used for identifying fish sp. potentially found in AA: ii. Modified Rating (NOTE: Modified score cannot exceed 1 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 life support, or do aquatic nuisance plant or animal species (see Appendix E) occur in fish habitat? final MDEQ list of waterbodies in need of TMDL development with listed “Probable Impaired Uses” including cold or warm water fishery or aquatic b) Does the AA contain a documented spawning area or other critical habitat feature (i.e., sanctuary pool, upwelling area, etc.- specify in comments) for native fish or introduced game fish? iii. Final Score and Rating:NA Comments:Irrigation ditch, flows seasonally. 14E. Flood Attenuation: (Applies only to wetlands subject to flooding via in-channel or overbank flow. If wetlands in AA are not flooded from in-channel or overbank flow, mark X i. Rating (working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points 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 % 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 1H .9H .6M .8H .7M .5M .4M .3L .2L AA contains unrestricted outlet .9H .8H .5M .7M .6M .4M .3L .2L .1L Entrenchment ratio (ER) estimation – see User’s 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 (ER) 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 NA and proceed to 14E.) If yes, reduce score in i above by 0.1. If yes, add 0.1 to the adjusted score in i or iia. NA and proceed to 14F.) 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 (circle)?Comments:Irrigation ditches. 3 14F. Short and Long Term Surface Water Storage: (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,X i. Rating (Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating. Abbreviations for surface water durations are as follows: P/P = permanent/perennial; S/I = seasonal/intermittent; and T/E = temporary/ephemeral [see instructions 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 1H .9H .8H .8H .6M .5M .4M .3L .2L Wetlands in AA flood or pond < 5 out of 10 years .9H .8H .7M .7M .5M .4M .3L .2L .1L Comments:Irrigation infrastructure. Only contains water if the headgates are open. 14G. Sediment/Nutrient/Toxicant Retention and Removal: (Applies to wetlands 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,X i. Rating (working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating [H=high, M=moderate, or L=low]) Sediment, nutrient, and toxicant input levels within AA AA receives or surrounding land use with potential to deliver levels of 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 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 with 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 1H .8H .7M .5M .5M .4M .3L .2L AA contains unrestricted outlet .9H .7M .6M .4M .4M .3L .2L .1L Comments:Irrigation infrastructure. Only flows during the irrigation season. 14H Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization: (Applies only if AA occurs on or within the banks or 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, i. Rating (working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating) % 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%1H .9H .7M 35-64%.7M .6M .5M 35%.3L .2L.2L .1L Comments:Vegetation mowed to edge of irrigation ditch. 14I. Production Export/Food Chain Support: i. Level of Biological Activity (synthesis of wildlife and fish habitat ratings [circle]) General Fish Habitat Rating (14D.iii.) General Wildlife Habitat Rating (14C.iii.) E/H M L E/H H H M M H M M L M M L N/A H M LL ii. Rating (Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating. Factor A = acreage of vegetated wetland component in the AA; Factor B = level of biological activity rating from above (14I.i.); Factor C = whether or not the AA contains a surface or subsurface outlet; the final three rows pertain to duration of surface water in the AA, where P/P, S/I, and T/E are as previously defined, and A = “absent” [see instructions for further definitions of these terms].) NA and proceed to 14G.) NA and proceed to 14H.) NA and proceed to 14I.) ii. Rating (Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating. Factor A = acreage of vegetated wetland component in the AA; Factor B = level of biological activity rating from above (14I.i.); Factor C = whether or not the AA contains a surface or subsurface outlet; the final three rows pertain to duration of surface water in the AA, where P/P, S/I, and T/E are as previously defined, and A = “absent” [see instructions 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 1H .7M .8H .5M .6M .4M .9H .6M .7M .4M .5M .3L .8H .6M .6M .4M .3L .2L S/I .9H .6M .7M .4M .5M .3L .8H .5M .6M .3L .4M .2L .7M .5M .5M .3L .3L.3L .2L T/E/A .8H .5M .6M .3L .4M .2L .7M .4M .5M .2L .3L .1L .6M .4M .4M .2L .2L .1L iii. Modified Rating (NOTE: Modified score cannot exceed 1 or be less than 0.1.) Vegetated Upland Buffer (VUB): 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). a) Is there an average >= 50 foot-wide vegetated upland buffer around >= 75% of the AA circumference? X iv. Final Score and Rating: 0.40M Comments:Mowed to edge of the irrigation ditch. If yes, add 0.1 to the score in ii above. 4 14J. Groundwater Discharge/Recharge: (check the appropriate indicators in i & ii below) i. Discharge Indicators The AA is a slope wetland Springs or seeps are known or observed Vegetation growing during dormant season/drought Wetland occurs at the toe of a natural slope 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: ii. Recharge Indicators Permeable substrate present without underlying impeding layer Wetland contains inlet but no outlet Stream is a known ‘losing’ stream; discharge volume decreases Other: iii. Rating (use the information from i and ii above and the table below to arrive at [circle] the functional points 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 1H .7M .4M .1L Insufficient Data/Information N/AN/A Comments:NO reasonable groundwater recharge/discharge. Only flows for portion of irrigation season and flows diverted to west side of Fowler Lane. 14K. Uniqueness: i. Rating (working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points 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)1H .9H .8H .8H .6M .5M .5M .4M .3L Moderate disturbance at AA (#12i).9H .8H .7M .7M .5M .4M .4M .3L .2L High disturbance at AA (#12i).8H .7M .6M .6M .4M .3L .3L .2L .1L.1L 14L. Recreation/Education Potential: (affords “bonus” points if AA provides recreation or education opportunity) i. Is the AA a known or potential rec./ed. site: (circle)(if ‘Yes’ continue with the evaluation; if ‘No’ then mark X NA and proceed to the overall summary and rating page) ii. Check categories that apply to the AA:Educational/scientific study;Consumptive rec.;Non-consumptive rec.; Other : iii. Rating: Known or Potential Recreation or Education Area Known Potential Public ownership or public easement with general public access (no permission required).2H .15H Private ownership with general public access (no permission required).15H .1M Private or public ownership without general public access, or requiring permission for public access .1M .05L Comments:AA is along private residence and nearby busy road. General Site Notes Site is small within minimal wetlands. Existing wetlands are narrow and associated with irrigation ditch. AA is not unique or scare.Comments: 5 FUNCTION & VALUE SUMMARY & OVERALL RATING FOR WETLAND/SITE #(S): Function & Value Variables Rating Actual Functional Points Possible Functional Points Functional Units: (Actual Points x Wetland Acreage) Indicate the four most prominent functions with an asterisk (*) A. Listed/Proposed T&E Species Habitat L 0.00 0.001 B. MT Natural Heritage Program Species Habitat L 0.00 1 0.00 C. General Wildlife Habitat L 0.20 1 0.01 * D. General Fish Habitat NA E. Flood Attenuation NA F. Short and Long Term Surface Water Storage NA G. Sediment/Nutrient/Toxicant Removal NA H. Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization L 0.20 1 0.01 * I. Production Export/Food Chain Support M 0.40 1 0.02 * J. Groundwater Discharge/Recharge NA K. Uniqueness L 0.10 1 0.01 * L. Recreation/Education Potential (bonus points)NA Totals: 0.90 6.00 0.05 Percent of Possible Score 15% 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; otherwise go to Category III) "Low" rating for Uniqueness; andX Vegetated wetland component 1 acre (do not include upland vegetated buffer); andX Percent of possible score 35% (round to nearest whole #).X OVERALL ANALYSIS AREA RATING:IV Summary Comments: AA is small with previously diverted irrigation water flowing to west of Fowler Lane. 6