Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout020 Surface WaterGran Cielo Subdivision Phase 3 Preliminary Plat Application 20 - Surface Water Please see the responses below to the items requested in Section 38.220.060.A.1. in the Bozeman Municipal Code. Mapping. Locate on a plat overlay or sketch map all surface water and the delineated floodplain which may affect or be affected by the proposed subdivision including: (1) Natural water systems such as natural streams, creeks, streams/ditches, drainages, waterways, gullies, ravines or washes in which water flows either continuously or intermittently and has a definite channel, bed and banks. No natural water courses exist on or near the subject property. (2) Artificial water systems such as canals, ditches, ditch/streams, aqueducts, reservoirs, irrigation or drainage systems. A single irrigation ditch runs south to north along the eastern boundary and slightly onto the subject property. The ditch has been identified as a lateral of the Middle Creek Ditch. A short section of the ditch was previously re- aligned and piped under South 27th avenue. Improvements to South 27th avenue and the installation of a water main will occur within close proximity to the piped section of the ditch, and thus Middle Creek Ditch Company was notified per BMC 38.360.280.B. Please see section 27 – Agricultural Water User Facilities for this correspondence and further details. The existing culvert will not be altered by any proposed improvements. Description. (1) Describe all surface waters which may affect or be affected by the proposed subdivision including name, approximate size, present use and time of year when water is present. The proposed development is not anticipated to affect any part of the surface or piped portion of the Middle Creek Ditch. (2) Describe proximity of proposed construction (such as buildings, sewer systems, streets) to surface waters. Improvements to South 27th avenue include widening the southbound lane to two lanes, installation of sidewalk, curb and gutter, and a center median. A water main will be installed under the existing culvert and adequate separation will be maintained. Gran Cielo Subdivision Phase 3 Preliminary Plat Application Water body alteration. Describe any existing or proposed streambank or shoreline alterations or any proposed construction or modification of lake beds, watercourses or irrigation ditches. Provide information on location, extent, type and purpose of alteration. Provide a revised floodplain analysis report, in compliance with article 6 of this chapter, as appropriate. The proposed development will not alter any existing watercourses or irrigation ditches. Wetlands. If the subdivision contains wetlands, as defined in section 38.700.210 of this chapter, then a delineation of the wetland meeting standards of division 38.610 must be provided and the location of existing and proposed modifications to wetlands must be shown on an overlay of the proposed plat. Please refer to further documentation provided by Sundog Ecological included in this section. Permits. Include copies of any permits listed in section 38.41.020 that have been obtained for the project. No permits are required or obtained for the proposed development. PO BOX 1424 BOZEMAN, MT 59771 (406)539-7244 briana@sundogeco.com Erik Ringsak WWC Engineering 895 Technology Boulevard Suite 203 Bozeman, MT 59718 Re: Waters of the US Delineation; Grand Cielo I Phase 3 January 21, 2026 Mr. Ringsak: A comprehensive assessment to determine the presence of Waters of the United States (WOTUS) along the North 27th Expansion Corridor from 300 feet south of Bennett Boulevard to Stucky Road was conducted was conducted by Briana Schultz of Sundog Ecological, Inc. on June 19th, 2024. Supporting documentation includes project area maps featuring aerial and topographic images, wetland areas identified by the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) and National Wetland Inventory (NWI), and the Gallatin County Soils Report for these locations. The wetland delineation utilized a routine level 2 on-site methodology, adhering to procedures established in the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and supplemented by the Regional Supplement for Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast (Version 2.0; ACOE 2010). The evaluation focused on the identification of three key wetland parameters: hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation, as stipulated by the ACOE Wetland Delineation Manual. According to these guidelines, an area must demonstrate all three characteristics to be classified as a wetland. If field investigations reveal that any parameter is unmet, the area typically does not meet the criteria for wetland status. A lateral of the Middle Creek Canal flows south to north from approximately West Graf Street to Stucky Road, parallelling North 27th Avenue. From Bennett Boulevard to Apex Drive, the lateral flows for approximately 325 feet, then is piped for 320 feet until it crosses underneath Apex Drive. It resurfaces on the west side of what is now Goldeneye Drive (future North 27th Expansion). No waterway or wetlands were observed along the North 27th Avenue Expansion corridor from 300 feet south of Bennett Boulevard to the North side of Apex Drive. Wetlands were observed from north of Apex Drive to Stucky Road (along the west side of Stucky Road) within the resurfaced Middle Creek lateral and south of Apex Road along Goldeneye Road (outside of impact area). A wetland delineation report was previously submitted for the work on the North 27th Extension. A permit was approved by the Army Corps of Engineers for the work on July 25, 2025 for wetland impacts to the Middle Creek lateral. The Gallatin Conservation District determined that the waterway was not jurisdictional at the May 2025 meeting. PO BOX 1424 BOZEMAN, MT 59771 (406)539-7244 briana@sundogeco.com If you have questions or require additional information, please contact my office at 406-539- 7244 or at briana@sundogeco.com. Sincerely, Briana Schultz Wetland Scientist CC: Joselyn Hartwig, WWC Engineering Attachments: 001 Wetland Delineation Report dated July 26, 2024 002 S. 27th Ave Functional Assessment PO BOX 1424 BOZEMAN, MT 59771 406.539.7244 briana@sundogeco.com Technical Memorandum To: Ben Nistler 2B Holding LLC 7555 S Cottonwood Rd Bozeman, MT 59718 From: Briana Schultz Sundog Ecological Inc. PO Box 1424 Bozeman, MT 59771 Date: July 26, 2024 Subject: South 27th Avenue Aquatic Resources Summary Introduction A routine wetland delineation and investigation of waters of the U.S. was conducted by Sundog Ecological, Inc., on June 19th, 2024. This delineation was conducted as part of site investigation for road expansion in Bozeman, Montana in Gallatin County (NE ¼, NW ¼, Section 23, Township 2 South, Range 5 East ). This project area is located along an existing roadway that needs expansion. The purpose of this wetland delineation was 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 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 Appendices at the end of the report. Methods The wetland delineation was conducted using the routine on-site-approach in accordance with 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) systems. The aquatic resources delineation map is included in Appendix A (Exhibit 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 data points were established, 1 point within wetlands and 1 point within non-wetlands, to enable boundary determination. Data forms are included in Appendix B. Photographs were taken at data points and of general habitat conditions within the investigation area (Appendix C). Soils map and information, Montana Natural Heritage Program wetland inventory map, USFWS Nation Wetland Inventory Map are included in Appendix D. Montana Department of Transportation functional assessments (Berglund and McEldowney 2008) are included in Appendix E. Alpine Surveying and Engineering surveyed the wetland boundary using survey-grade GPS equipment. The coordinate system used was Bobcat LDP Coordinate System. The elevation datum used was NAVD88. Results The proposed South 27th Avenue project investigation identified one wetland area, totaling 0.34 acres, or 14,900 square feet. One ditch lateral of the Middle Creek Ditch was observed within the investigation area. The ditch lateral does not convey water outside of irrigation season and is not a natural waterway. Therefore, this feature is not likely to require a 310 Permit from the Gallatin Conservation District. Downstream, the channel connects to other ditches and water, eventually connecting to the East Gallatin River. Therefore, this feature is likely jurisdictional and would require a Section 404 Permit to impact. Wetland 1 along a Middle Creek Ditch lateral is narrow, averaging 1.5 feet along each side. The ditch channel bed totals 2,262 linear feet. The wetland fringe was dominated by creeping foxtail (Alopecurus arundinaceus) and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). The upland species are primarily smooth brome (Bromus inermis) and creeping foxtail. Wetland 2 is an upstream continuation of Wetland 1 with the same species and characteristics. Wetlands 1 and 2 are rated as a Class III area because of the abundance within the area (Appendix E). References Berglund, J. and R. McEldowney. 2008. MDT Montana Wetland Assessment Method. Prepared for Montana Department of Transportation, Helena, Montana. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Helena, Montana. 42pp. 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. Lichvar, R.W., M. Butterwick, N.C. Melvin, and W.N. Kirchner. 2014. The National Wetland Plant List. 2014 Update of Wetland Ratings. Phytoneuron 2014-41:1-42. Montana Natural Heritage Program website. Accessed in June 2024 at http://mtnhp.org/mapviewer 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 USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey. Gallatin County, Montana. Accessed June 2024 at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory website. Accessed June 2024 at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html. US Fish & Wildlife Service. Information for Planning and Conservation. Accessed June 2024 at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ Appendix A Exhibit A – Mapped Aquatic Boundary of South 27th Extension Exhibit B – Mapped Impacts of South 27th Extension © 2024 Microsoft Corporation © 2024 Maxar ©CNES (2024) Distribution Airbus DS OHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPWVWVWVSSSSSSSSSSWVWVWVWVWVWVXWWWWWWWWWSDSDSDPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPXSSSSWVWETLAND-12791 SF0.06 ACRESEX. 16" X 20" FETSIE 4933.32'EX. 16" X 20" FETSIE 4933.41'DP-1WDP-1UEX. 18" FETSIE 4943.19'90' ROADWAY &UTILITY EASEMENTWETLAND-212,109 SF0.28 ACRESBENNETT BLVDAPEX DRSTUCKY RDS. 27TH AVEGRAF STS. 28TH AVECIELO WAYCIELO WAYS. 29TH AVETERRA LNWETLAND BOUNDARYLEGENDDATA POINTWETLAND AREAWETLAND CHANNEL BEDK:\Bozeman\2B Holdings LLC\2024250 S 27th Ave- Infrastructure Design\05CAD\Sheets\Wetlands\24250-WETL.dwg EX A 8/2/2024 3:13:39 PM DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:CGBJMWCGB08/2024SHEETEX ANO.DATEREVISIONPREPARED BY BY AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION MAP 2B HOLDINGS LLC BOZEMAN, MT S 27TH AVE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING PROJECT NO. 2024250 895 TECHNOLOGY BLVD., SUITE 203 BOZEMAN, MT 59718 (406) 624-3910 www.wwcengineering.com 011" x 17" PAPER SIZESCALE: 1" = 200'200'100' © 2024 Microsoft Corporation © 2024 Maxar ©CNES (2024) Distribution Airbus DS OHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPWVWVWVSSSSSSSSSSWVWVWVWVWVWVXWWWWWWWWWSDSDSDPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPXSSSSWVWETLAND-12791 SF0.06 ACRESEX. 16" X 20" FETSIE 4933.32'EX. 16" X 20" FETSIE 4933.41'DP-1WWETLAND IMPACT2791 SF0.06 ACRESDP-1UEX. 18" FETSIE 4943.19'CHANNEL RUNOFF TO BEROUTED INTO 18" PVC PIPEL = 630 LFSTST90' ROADWAY &UTILITY EASEMENTWETLAND-212,109 SF0.28 ACRESBENNETT BLVDAPEX DRSTUCKY RDS. 27TH AVEGRAF STS. 28TH AVECIELO WAYCIELO WAYS. 29TH AVETERRA LNSTWETLAND BOUNDARYLEGENDDATA POINTWETLAND AREAWETLAND IMPACTPROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENTPROPOSED STORM PIPEWETLAND CHANNEL BEDK:\Bozeman\2B Holdings LLC\2024250 S 27th Ave- Infrastructure Design\05CAD\Sheets\Wetlands\24250-WETL.dwg EX B 8/2/2024 3:13:39 PM 011" x 17" PAPER SIZESCALE: 1" = 200'200'100'DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:CGBJMWCGB08/2024SHEETEX BNO.DATEREVISIONPREPARED BY BY AQUATIC RESOURCES IMPACT MAP 2B HOLDINGS LLC BOZEMAN, MT S 27TH AVE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING PROJECT NO. 2024250 895 TECHNOLOGY BLVD., SUITE 203 BOZEMAN, MT 59718 (406) 624-3910 www.wwcengineering.com Appendix B South 27th Extension Wetland Determination Data Forms Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): 0 Subregion (LRR/MLRA): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: x Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes x No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2. (A) 3. 4. (B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4. x 1 = 5. x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1. x 5 = 2. Column Totals: (A) (B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. X 8. X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X 45.655017 Long: 111.073045LRR E Ditch dominated by reed canary grass and Canada thistle. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 0 155 0 75 =Total Cover 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover FACW 5 Project/Site: S 27th Extension NWI classification: Dominant Species? WGS 84 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 0 Sampling Date: Meadow Creek loam, 0-4% slopes none 3 ft. NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S23, T 2S, R 5E MT DP 1 concave Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 15 Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 6/19/2024 B Schultz valley bottom Bozeman / GallatinCity/County: 70 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 140 Prevalence Index = B/A = 5 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species No Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 30 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 2.07 2 - Dominance Test is >50% (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Precipitation is below average for sampling time. Indicator Status 1 1 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Phalaris arundinacea FAC Herb Stratum 70 Yes Cirsium arvense 0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? No 75 Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: % %Type1 Loc2 100 85 15 C M X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) x x x X Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yes Saturation Present? Yes x Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 5 Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Sample point was saturated and had three secondary indicators. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey Matrix Texture Redox FeaturesDepth (inches) Color (moist) 10YR 2/2 10YR 2/2 Color (moist) 7.5YR 3/4 0-3 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: Good redox concentrations were observed at this location. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 3-14 DP 1SOIL wet Distinct redox concentrations Remarks Loamy/Clayey ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): 0 Subregion (LRR/MLRA): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: x Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2. (A) 3. 4. (B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4. x 1 = 5. x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1. x 5 = 2. Column Totals: (A) (B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? No 100 Remarks: Indicator Status 1 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Cirsium arvense FACW UPL Herb Stratum 5 No Bromus inermis 35 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Below average precipitation for sampling date. Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 3.85 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 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: 35 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 70 Prevalence Index = B/A = 5 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 6/19/2024 B Schultz valley bottom Bozeman / GallatinCity/County: Meadow Creek loam, 0-4% slopes none 3 ft. NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S23, T 2S, R 5E MT DP 2 concave Section, Township, Range: 50.0% ) ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 15 60 Project/Site: S 27th Extension NWI classification: Dominant Species? WGS 84 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 0 Sampling Date: Phalaris arundinacea 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover Yes FAC 45.655029 Long: 111.07299LRR E Mixed grasses. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 300 385 60 100 =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: % %Type1 Loc2 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 DP 2SOIL gravelly road mix Remarks Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: NO hydric soil indicators were observed a this sample location. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches) Color (moist) 10YR 2/2 Color (moist) 0-14 Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey Matrix Texture Redox FeaturesDepth Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No wetland hydrology indicators were observed at this sample location. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, FEB 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Appendix C South 27th Extension Aquatic Site Photographs South 27th Extension Aquatic Delineation Sundog Ecological Inc. Page | 1 Data Point 1u Data Point 1w/1u South 27th Extension Aquatic Delineation Sundog Ecological Inc. Page | 2 Looking North Looking South Appendix D Aerial Overview of South 27th Extension Topographic Overview of South 27th Extension National Wetland Inventory – Mapped Wetlands at South 27th Extension Montana Natural Heritage Program – Mapped Wetlands at South 27th Extension Soils of Gallatin County - South 27th Extension Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USFWS | Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed USA Topo Maps This map features detailed USGS topographic maps for the United States at multiple scales.0.2mi MTNHP mapped wetlands NWI mapped wetlands 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 5, 2024 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Gallatin County Area, Montana.......................................................................13 457A—Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes.......................13 510B—Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes......................................14 References............................................................................................................16 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 505510050552005055300505540050555005055600505570050558005055900505510050552005055300505540050555005055600505570050558005055900494000 494100 494200 494300 494400 494500 494600 494000 494100 494200 494300 494400 494500 494600 45° 39' 26'' N 111° 4' 40'' W45° 39' 26'' N111° 4' 6'' W45° 38' 55'' N 111° 4' 40'' W45° 38' 55'' N 111° 4' 6'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84 0 200 400 800 1200 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 Meters Map Scale: 1:4,740 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area, Montana Survey Area Data: Version 27, Aug 25, 2023 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 18, 2022—Aug 29, 2022 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 10 Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/5/2024 Page 1 of 5505510050552005055300505540050555005055600505570050558005055900505510050552005055300505540050555005055600505570050558005055900494000494100494200494300494400494500494600 494000 494100 494200 494300 494400 494500 494600 45° 39' 26'' N 111° 4' 40'' W45° 39' 26'' N111° 4' 6'' W45° 38' 55'' N 111° 4' 40'' W45° 38' 55'' N 111° 4' 6'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84 0 200 400 800 1200 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 Meters Map Scale: 1:4,740 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area, Montana Survey Area Data: Version 27, Aug 25, 2023 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 18, 2022—Aug 29, 2022 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/5/2024 Page 2 of 5 Hydric Rating by Map Unit Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 457A Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes 0 9.9 58.3% 510B Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 10 7.1 41.7% Totals for Area of Interest 17.0 100.0% Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/5/2024 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 8/5/2024 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 8/5/2024 Page 5 of 5 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 457A Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes 9.9 58.3% 510B Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 7.1 41.7% Totals for Area of Interest 17.0 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, Custom Soil Resource Report 11 onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 12 Gallatin County Area, Montana 457A—Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56tb Elevation: 4,300 to 5,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Turner and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Turner Setting Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 6 inches: loam Bt - 6 to 12 inches: clay loam Bk - 12 to 26 inches: clay loam 2C - 26 to 60 inches: very gravelly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 48 to 96 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R044BB032MT - Loamy (Lo) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Beaverton Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP818MT - Upland Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Meadowcreek Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Turner Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BB032MT - Loamy (Lo) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No 510B—Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56vt Elevation: 4,200 to 5,950 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Meadowcreek and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Meadowcreek Setting Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 11 inches: loam Bg - 11 to 25 inches: silt loam 2C - 25 to 60 inches: very gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 4 percent Custom Soil Resource Report 14 Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 24 to 42 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Blossberg Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: Yes Beaverton Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP818MT - Upland Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 15 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 16 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 17 MDT Montana Wetland Assessment Form (revised March 2008) 1. Project Name:S 27th Extension 2. MDT Project #:Control #: 3. Evaluation Date:4. Evaluator(s):5. Wetlands/Site #(s):S 27th Extension 6. Wetland Location(s): i. Legal:T2S,R5E,23 ii. Approx. Stationing or Mileposts: iii. Watershed:6 Watershed Name, County:Upper Missouri, 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 EM 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 within an agricultural field bordering a roadway. ii. Prominent noxious, aquatic nuisance, & other exotic vegetation species: Canada thistle is the predominant weed species. iii. Provide brief descriptive summary of AA and surrounding land use/habitat: Surrounding land is agricultural, commercial and residential. 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 M <-- NO YES -->L 1 class, monoculture (1 species comprises >= 90% of total cover)LL NA NA NA Comments: Primarily reed canary grass with some smooth brome and Canada thistle. 45.655017, -111.073045 :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):Canada lynx, grizzly bear, and north American wolverine listed as threatened. Monarch butterfly listed as proposed threatened. Suckley's cuckoo bumble bee listed as proposed endangered. 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):Non observed within the AA. 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 M L L M L L L L LL 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 .1L.1L Mostly reed canary grass and smooth brome with some Canada thistle. Area is heavily disturbed near a busy roadway.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:None. Seasonal waterway. 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:None. Seasonal waterway. 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:none. seasonal waterway. 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, 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 .4M .3L .2L .1L Comments:AA has seasonal irrigation flows. Waterway would contain sediment, toxicants and nutrients that wetlands can remove. 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.6M .5M 35%.3L .2L .1L Comments:Reed canary grass has stability rating of 9. 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? iv. Final Score and Rating: 0.30L Comments:Area is seasonally hayed. 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 evidence of groundwater within ditch. 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:Area private property. No recreation or educational opportunities exist on the property. General Site Notes Area is nearby busy street and mixed agriculture, commercial and residential development. Area not unique or scarce.Comments: 5 FUNCTION & VALUE SUMMARY & OVERALL RATING FOR WETLAND/SITE #(S):S 27th Extension 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 0.10 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 M 0.40 1 0.02 * H. Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization M 0.60 1 0.04 * I. Production Export/Food Chain Support L 0.30 1 0.02 * J. Groundwater Discharge/Recharge NA K. Uniqueness L 0.10 1 0.01 L. Recreation/Education Potential (bonus points)NA Totals: 1.50 7.00 0.10 Percent of Possible Score 21% 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: Area is nearby busy street and mixed agriculture, commercial and residential development. 6