Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
013 - WETLAND
Wetland Checklist 1 of 1 Wetland Checklist Sage Peak and Alder Ridge Apartments, Graf St. Apartments, LLC Date: 03.20.2 The parcel for this project does not have any wetlands, however adjacent properties within the 17th and Graf Street South Range Crossing II preliminary plat does. Included with this application we have provided the Wetland Checklist that was submitted for the South Range Crossing II preliminary plat. City of Bozeman Required Submittal Materials for Regulated Activitites in Wetlands Yes No NA 1 38.220.130. A.1 Does the proposed action affect federal, state, or city regulated wetlands, watercourses, and/or buffers within the city limits? While exact impacts are unknown at this phase in project development, it is assumed that there will be impacts. An AJD request has been submitted to the Corps Note: If answer to item no. 1 is "no," then answer "NA" to the rest of this checklist Does the wetland and watercourse delineation report include the following: 2 38.220.130. A.1.a.1 Wetland and watercourse descriptions See Table 2 in N SRX Wetland delineation report. 3 38.220.130. A.1.a.2 MDT or DEQ Functional assessment attached in Appendix D of wetland delineation report 4 38.220.130. A.1.a.3 Wetland types (e.g. Cowardin)See Table 3 in NSRX Wetland delineation report. 5 38.220.130. A.1.a.4 Wetland acreages, by licensed surveyor See Table 3 in N SRX Wetland delineation report. 6 38.220.130. A.1.a.5 Maps with property boundaries, wetland and watercourse boundaries, and acreages See Appendix A in NSRX Wetland delineation report 7 38.220.130. A.1.a.6 USACE wetland data forms See Appendix B in NSRX Wetland Delineation report 8 38.220.130. A.2 Are activities planned in and/or adjacent to aquatic resources? Yes. This project is in Pre-Plat Phase and exact activities are unknown at this time. Note: If answer to item no. 8 is "no" then answer "NA" to the remainder of this checklist 9 38.220.130. A.2.a Site plan including all boundaries, buffers, and infrastructure as defined in COB code See Pre-Plat map in Pre-Plat submittal. 10 38.220.130. A.2.a.1 Table of existing wetland functional ratings and acreage (in site plan) Not available at this stage of the project (Pre-plat and master site plan). 11 38.220.130. A.2.a.1 Direct impacts to wetlands, waterways, and buffers highlighted in red in the site plan Direct impacts are not known at this current phase: Pre-plat and master site plan 12 38.220.130. A.2.a.2 Indirect impacts to wetlands, waterways, and buffers summarized Indirect impacts are not know at this current phase: Pre-plat and master site plan 13 38.220.130. A.2.b Mitigation map with table of mitigation wetland type, size, and functional unit gain Mitigation strategy will be implemented when impacts are known. 14 38.220.130. A.2.c Source, type, transport and disposal method of any fill material to be used, including certification that placement of fill A Joint Application will be filled out and submitted when final impacts to resources are known. 15 38.220.130. A.2.d.1 CWA 404 and/or401 permit(s) A Joint Application will be filled out and submitted when final impacts to resources are known. 16 38.220.130. A.2.d.2 MT 310 permit(s) A Joint Application will be filled out and submitted when final impacts to resources are known. 17 38.220.130. A.2.d.3 Floodplain determination(s)Located outside of the 100-year floodplain. Included in submittal? Checklist No. COB code reference Item Note(s) 2-2024 Created by Morrison-Maierle, Inc.V.1.0 City of Bozeman Required Submittal Materials for Regulated Activitites in Wetlands 18 38.220.130. A.2.d.4 Any other required state/federal wetland permit(s) (See Required Permits) A Joint Application will be filled out and submitted when final impacts to resources are known. 19 38.220.130. A.2.d.5 USACE jurisdictional determination(s) An AJD request has been submitted to the USACE. A site visit will occur in spring/summer 2024. 20 38.220.130. A.2.d.6 Joint application A Joint Application will be filled out and submitted when final impacts to resources are known. 21 38.220.130. A.3 Will wetland(s) and/or waterway(s) be impacted?Exact impacts to resources are not currently known. It is assumed that some impacts to wetlands will occur. 22 38.220.130. A.3 Is federal permitting required? Jurisdiction of the delineated features on the property is unknown. An AJD request was submitted to the USACE. Note: If the answer to checklist no. 22 and 23 is "yes" then complete the remainder of this checklist Does the descriptive narrative* include the following: 23 38.220.130. A.3.a.1 Name and contact information of the applicant If mitigation is required, a plan will be developed after impacts are quantified. 24 38.220.130. A.3.a.1 Name, qualifications, and contact information for the primary author of the compensatory mitigation report 25 38.220.130. A.3.a.1 Description of the proposal 26 38.220.130. A.3.a.1 Summary of the direct and indirect impacts 27 38.220.130. A.3.a.1 Proposed mitigation concept 28 38.220.130. A.3.a.1 Identification of all the local, state, and federal wetland/stream-related permits required for the project 29 38.220.130. A.3.a.1 A vicinity map of the project 30 38.220.130. A.3.a.2 Description of the existing wetland and/or watercourse and/or buffer areas that will be impacted 31 38.220.130. A.3.a.2 Dominant vegetation 32 38.220.130. A.3.a.2 Functional assessment(s) 33 38.220.130. A.3.a.2 Wetland ratings for the entire wetland and the portions proposed to be impacted 34 38.220.130. A.3.a.3 Change to wetland hydroperiod assessment 35 38.220.130. A.3.a.4 Description of proposed conceptual mitigation, including specifications for/of impacts and map 36 38.220.130. A.3.a.5 Assessment of existing conditions 37 38.220.130. A.3.a.6 Soil field data and discussion of future hydrology and soil conditions 38 38.220.130. A.3.a.7 Planting schedule 39 38.220.130. A.3.a.7 Do native species comprise ≥80% of planned species? 2-2024 Created by Morrison-Maierle, Inc.V.1.0 City of Bozeman Required Submittal Materials for Regulated Activitites in Wetlands 40 38.220.130. A.3.a.8 Is mitigation monitoring required for ≥ three years? 41 38.220.130. A.3.a.8 Does the mitigation plan specify responsibility for invasive vegetation control? 42 38.220.130. A.3.a.9 Wetland mitigation performance criteria 43 38.220.130. A.3.a.9 Monitoring schedule 44 38.220.130. A.3.a.9 Reporting requirements to the COB 45 38.220.130. A.3.a.9 Maintenance schedule and actions 46 38.220.130. A.3.a.10 Contingency plans 47 38.610.080. A.1 Meets review standard for avoidance/minimization of wetland impacts 48 38.610.080. A.2 Meets review standard for no impact to T&E or MT species of concern 49 38.610.080. A.3 Meets review standard for project benefitting public interest 50 38.610.090. A.4 Disucssion of proposed deed restrictions or covenants regarding open space and/or vegetation removal 51 38.610.090. A.12 Disucssion of proposed deed restriction(s) to protect water resources, mitigation, and/or buffer area(s) in perpetuity 52 38.610.090 Discussion of any other relevant wetland permit conditions in Section 38.610.090 Does the scaled plan sheet(s) for compensatory mitigation contain: 53 38.220.130. A.3.b.1 Boundaries of existing wetlands, proposed impacts, and proposed mitigation 54 38.220.130. A.3.b.2 If grading is proposed, then surveyed topography at 1-2 foot contour intervals 55 38.220.130. A.3.b.2 Cross sections of wetland(s) and/or buffer area(s) of existing conditions and proposed mitigation 56 38.220.130. A.3.b.3 Required wetland buffer(s) 57 38.220.130. A.3.c Discussion of ongoing management practices Applicable? 1.NA 2.Yes 3.Yes 4.NA 5.Yes 6.NA 7.Yes 8.NA 9.NAMontana Water Use Act (water right permit and change authorization) Wetland Review Checklist Required Permits Federal Clean Water Act (404) Federal Rivers and Harbors Act (Section 10) Short-term Water Quality Standards for Turbidity (318 authorization) Montana Land-Use License or Easement on Navigable Waters Montana Stream Protection Act (SPA 124) Stormwater discharge general permit (DEQ) Montana Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act (310) Montana Floodplain and Floodway Management Act (floodplain development permit) 2-2024 Created by Morrison-Maierle, Inc.V.1.0 North SRX Wetlands Discussion of preexisting conditions, altered hydrology, and current wetland boundaries. Subject property, northeast of Graf and South 19th Ave. intersection Wetland conditions timeline Property formerly operated for agricultural purposes; some areas too wet to support conventional practices. 2015 wetland delineation performed by Vaughn Environmental Services delineated approximately 0.764 acres of wetland on the property. 2017 installation of a municipal stormwater drain to the property introduced artificial hydrology from developments to the south (upgradient). 2023 wetland delineation performed by Morrison-Maierle delineated 3.28 wetland acreson the property, a greater than 4x increase. 2015 wetland delineation Engineered stormwater plans Engineered stormwater plans 2015 delineated wetlands Stormwater swale Stormwater pond Stormwater outfall (pipe) Flow direction 2023 wetland delineation 2023 wetland delineation Gap between wetlands due to artificial hydrology disruption in June 2023, initiating wetland boundary retreat Man-induced stormwater artificially enlarged preexisting wetlands on the property. Man-induced stormwater artificially enlarged preexisting wetlands on the property. Gap between wetlands due to artificial hydrology disruption in June 2023, initiating wetland boundary retreat Change in wetland area from 2015 to 2023 Conceptual Framework The 2015 wetland delineation is a) outdated and b) lacking robust data. Channelized stormwater discharge beginning in 2017 influences wetland conditions in 2023. National Wetland Inventory algorithm-generated data indicates wetlands in the northern property area. Field data indicates problematic wetland conditions at many sampled areas. Disruption of introduced hydrology in late summer of 2023 initiated wetland vegetation stress and diminished wetland hydrology, confirming a direct link between introduced stormwater increased wetland extent from 2015. Problem Municipal stormwater flow introduced to the subject property in 2017 artificially enlarged preexisting wetlands on the subject property. Because municipal stormwater is not within USACE jurisdiction, wetland conditions existing solely to artificial man-induced hydrology are outside the scope of federal jurisdiction. Solution Establish a desktop methodology to determine present-day wetland conditions if artificial man-induced hydrology had not been introduced in 2017. Attain consensus between the permittee and USACE. Categorize the ditch lateral on the eastern edge as a ditch lateral, not a wetland. Consistent with USACE’s Wetland Delineation Manual and the applicable pre-2015 regulatory regime for WOTUS, as informed by the Court’s 2023 Sackett decision. Incorporate northwest wetland (Wetland B) from 2023 delineation due to a) presence of wetland conditions on the NWI database, and b) lack of data points in this area documented in the 2015 delineation. Remove all wetland areas isolated from 2015 delineated wetland features. Buffer 2015 wetland areas on the subject property by 75 feet east and west, and 140 feet to the south to account for: A) Lack of robust data in 2015 delineation. B) Potential unaltered wetland expansion. C) Conservative margin of error. Methodology Results Two distinct wetlands, totaling 0.90 acres of wetland within the property boundary. Proposed Next Steps Permit impacts to jurisdictional wetlands according to purple-symbolized boundaries identified on Figure 14 via Joint Application (0.90 acres). Work with the City of Bozeman to coordinate and permit impacts to non-jurisdictional wetlands and waterways. Historical Aerial Imagery 1995 2003, August Inundated area 2003, September Persistent inundated or saturated area Temporary ditch laterals from Middle Creek Ditch/ Mandeville Creek 2011, September Exclusionary agricultural practices, indicating wet conditions 2014, July Persistent exclusionary agricultural practices, indicating wet conditions 2020, July Municipal stormwater introduced New inundated/saturated area Soil/gravel stockpiled 2020, September Persistent inundated/saturated area from introduced hydrology Spread of inundated/saturated area from introduced hydrology 2021, June Persistent spread of inundated/saturated area from introduced hydrology 2023, June: current conditions Persistent spread of inundated/saturated area from introduced hydrology North South Range Crossing (NSRX) Gallatin County, Montana Wetland Delineation Prepared for: Providence Development, LLC PO Box 4082 Bozeman, MT 59772 Prepared by: Morrison-Maierle 2880 Technology Boulevard Bozeman, MT 59715 Date of Issue: December 6, 2023 Project Number 5659.018 i | Page CONTENTS 1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 3 2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Purpose and Scope ...................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Background Information ............................................................................................................................ 4 2.3 Objectives ........................................................................................................................................................ 7 2.4 Site Description ............................................................................................................................................. 7 2.4.1 National Wetlands Inventory .......................................................................................................... 7 2.4.2 Streams & Topography ..................................................................................................................... 8 2.4.3 Soils ........................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.4.4 Floodplains ............................................................................................................................................. 9 3 Methods .................................................................................................................................................................... 9 3.1 Sampling Protocol ........................................................................................................................................ 9 3.2 Wetland Indicators ....................................................................................................................................... 9 3.2.1 Vegetation .............................................................................................................................................. 9 3.2.2 Soil ............................................................................................................................................................. 9 3.2.3 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................................ 10 3.3 Delineation Procedure ............................................................................................................................. 10 4 Results ..................................................................................................................................................................... 11 4.1 Wetland Types and Boundaries ............................................................................................................ 11 4.2 Upland Areas ............................................................................................................................................... 14 4.3 Data Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 14 4.3.1 Vegetation ........................................................................................................................................... 15 4.3.2 Soil .......................................................................................................................................................... 16 4.3.3 On-Site Hydrology ........................................................................................................................... 16 4.4 Wetland Functional Assessment .......................................................................................................... 17 5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................. 19 6 References ............................................................................................................................................................. 20 TABLES Table 1. Wetland and Waterways in the Project Area .................................................................................... 19 ii | Page APPENDICES Appendix A: Figures Appendix B: USACE Wetland Determination Data Forms Appendix C: Site Photographs Appendix D: MDT Wetland Assessment Appendix E: 2015 Vaughn Environmental Services Wetland Delineation Report Appendix F: Select Historic Aerial Imagery (Google Earth) N. SRX Wetland Delineation 5659.018 3 | Page 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Morrison-Maierle, Inc. delineated wetlands and other aquatic features on approximately 35 acres of agricultural land located northeast of the intersection of South 19th Avenue and East Graf Street in Bozeman, MT. A vicinity map of the investigation area is in Appendix A (Figure 1). Prior to the field investigation, our environmental scientists review existing literature relevant to the project area, including a 2015 delineation report of the subject property, historical aerial photography, topographic maps, and hydrologic data. Field delineation of wetlands and other aquatic features is based on identification of hydric soil conditions, wetland hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation. We evaluate the investigation area based on criteria set forth in the 2010 Regional Supplement to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USACE Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast (Version 2.0) (Environmental Laboratory 2010). Based on the wetland delineation presented in this report and the data collected, it is Morrison-Maierle’s professional judgement that wetlands and waterways are present within the project area. The project area contains 3.28 acres of PEM wetland. Figures in Appendix A detail the investigation area and delineated features. Table 3 in Section 5 summarizes the wetlands and aquatic features delineated within the project area. The USACE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are the final authority over the jurisdictional status of both wetlands and waters of the U.S. according to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The findings discussed in this report are solely the opinion of Morrison-Maierle and have not been verified by the regulatory government agencies. N. SRX Wetland Delineation 5659.018 4 | Page 2 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Purpose and Scope Morrison-Maierle completed a wetland delineation at the request of Providence Development LLC of approximately 35 acres of land located northeast of the intersection of South 19th Avenue and East Graf Street in Bozeman, MT. The legal description of the property is: Minor Sub 494, S24, T02S, R05E, Block 1, Lots 1-4 2.2 Background Information The investigation area, formerly the proposed Yellowstone Theological Institute, historically housed a farmhouse with outbuildings, and agricultural fields. Structure removal occurred between 2014 and 2020 during a period of heavy growth in Bozeman (Google Earth 2023). This section discusses the following background information: historic aerial imagery, past wetland delineation, municipal stormwater infrastructure records, and site visits by Morrison-Maierle environmental scientists. 2.2.1 Aerial Imagery Historic aerial imagery of this location is available for years 1985, 1995, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2011, 2014, 2020, and 2021 (Google Earth 2023). A narrow channel flows in a northeast direction from Middle Creek Ditch through the subject property up until 2005. Farming of the subject property for hay and cereal crop production occurred throughout the period of record. The aerial imagery also indicates that several areas within the investigation area were not farmed, indicating that these areas were too wet to support conventional agriculture practices. These areas correspond with wetlands delineated by Morrison-Maierle. A chronology of available aerial imagery is provided in Appendix F. Between 2014 and 2020, the present-day roundabout on Graf Street, immediately south of the subject property was installed. The 2020 imagery depicts a stormwater pipe/drain installed north of the roundabout, creating a narrow, ponded area. Water drains from this ponded area north, creating a riparian-type vegetation pattern. 2021 aerial imagery available through the Montana Spatial Data Infrastructure (MSDI) shows a concrete flared end section/outfall structure at the beginning of this ponded area. Gravel/rock has been placed approximately 85 feet beneath this outfall, facilitating the pond formation. Aerial imagery taken in June 2023 clearly demonstrates the effect of altered hydrology on the subject property (Appendix F). The ponded area is enlarged and banked on all edges. A flow of surface water exits the stormwater pond, flowing north towards the center of the investigation area. Pockets of surface water pool behind and between the soil stockpiles and in shallow landform depressions. Soil saturation is evident by a) inundation b) correspondence with field-verified depressions and c) correspondence with field-verified high-water table. N. SRX Wetland Delineation 5659.018 5 | Page 2.2.2 2015 Delineation Report Vaughn Environmental Services delineated four wetlands within and around the investigation area in 2015. Two delineated wetlands were associated with the stream/ditch on the western edge of the investigation area, and the disused irrigation ditch (currently a stormwater facility) on the eastern edge. The other two wetlands were in the northern area of the subject property, as seen on Figure 1 and the 2014 aerial imagery (Appendix F). Figure 1 (note that the north arrow is not accurate) This report contains the following discussion of waterways on the property: “Mandeville Creek parallels the west property boundary and South 19th Street for 2660 feet from south to north. The creek channel was straightened historically to allow for crop cultivation. The creek arises from a spring located south of Patterson Road approximately 1.25 miles south of the project. The channel is identified on the GCD [Gallatin Conservation District] map as a perennial stream. A majority of the surface water flow in the creek is diverted east to an irrigation ditch that parallels the north property boundary. A portion of the flow is maintained in the straight channel that flows north along South 19th. Water in the east/west irrigation ditch located at the north boundary is diverted north towards Kagy Boulevard. Surface water is discharged to an open water segment of Mandeville Creek located north of Kagy. The water is piped N. SRX Wetland Delineation 5659.018 6 | Page underground for several hundred feet on the Montana State University campus north of Lincoln Street. The water surfaces in two open channel segments located on campus south of College Avenue. The flow is piped underground north of College Avenue until it surfaces again at the Bozeman High School campus on Main Street. The creek ultimately discharges to the East Gallatin River north of Interstate 90. The Woward-Esgar Ditch parallels the east property boundary. The ditch was dry during the investigation. There was no apparent surface water connection upgradient of the ditch at the southeast property corner. The channel cross-section was well-vegetated with herbaceous species. No OHWM [ordinary high-water mark] was visible on the banks of the ditch at the north property boundary. The south end of the ditch terminates at a recently paved street located in a new development south of Alder Creek Road. The ditch was relocated east of the road and outside the subject property. The relocated ditch is sparsely vegetated with invasive species.” The 2015 wetland memo is provided in Appendix E. Morrison-Maierle digitized the 2015 wetland boundaries with ESRI® software to produce Figure 8 in Appendix A. 2.2.3 City of Bozeman Mapped Stormwater Infrastructure An 18-inch diameter, 155.6-foot, PVC pipe installed May 1, 2017 drains stormwater onto the subject property, immediately north of the roundabout on Graf Street (Appendix A) (City of Bozeman GIS 2023). This pipe leads to the concrete stormwater outfall observed on the 2021 aerial imagery. The pipe ties in with Gravity Main ID M.H09.0051_M.H0.00050 and discharges stormwater. Additionally, the eastern most ditch is now solely used to convey stormwater from the Blackwood Grove subdivision. City of Bozeman Wetland regulations state in Section 38.610.010 that “provisions contained in these regulations do not apply to wetlands created by a wholly manmade water source used for irrigation purposes or stormwater control.” Page 83 of the Wetland Delineation Manual details the following guidance: If hydrophytic vegetation is being maintained only because of man-induced wetland hydrology that would no longer exist if the activity were to be terminated, the area should not be considered a wetland. The City of Bozeman maintains a geographic information system (GIS) database and an online Infrastructure Viewer mapper. The online mapper was utilized, and stormwater and water distribution utility shapefiles were downloaded from this database on January 23, 2023. 2.2.4 Site Visits During an investigation of an adjacent property, Morrison-Maierle scientists and engineers met with the Gallatin Conservation District on December 7, 2022. During this meeting, it was determined that Middle Creek Ditch, which flows south to north on the western edge of the subject property, is classified as a stream/ditch. This feature is also referred to as Mandeville Creek by other sources (Section 2.2.2). N. SRX Wetland Delineation 5659.018 7 | Page Two Morrison-Maierle environmental scientists assessed the subject property for wetlands in May and Late August of 2023. The preliminary site visit in May yielded the following observations: Recent snowmelt and rain contributed to increased stormwater runoff onto the subject property. Stormwater infrastructure is introducing water/hydrology to the investigation area at the north-center outfall, pooling behind a rock check dam, before flowing northwards. Two large weedy-vegetated soil stockpiles are acting as a topographic trap of surface water, slowing flow and pooling water behind and between the stockpiles. Most of the central and northern areas of the property were saturated and/or inundated with 1-2 inches of water (approximately 25-30% of the subject property). Conditions were not favorable to delineate wetlands as plants not yet fully emerged, and hydrology was significantly altered. The field wetland delineation, completed in Late August due to scheduling and staffing, identified four wetlands and two riverine features. In addition to the results discussed in Section 4, the following was observed: The stormwater pond was enlarged, water contained by tall banks/berms. Downstream flow from the stormwater pond had ceased. The wetland downstream of the stormwater pond evidenced stressed obligate vegetation (Section 3.2.3, Section 4.1.3) indicating changing wetland/saturated conditions. A much smaller portion of the investigation area was saturated and/or inundated at the surface. Recent mowing of the property for hay classified much of the vegetation as “problematic” (Section 3.3.1). 2.3 Objectives The objective of this report is to document the presence and extent of aquatic features on the subject property. This report also addresses additional items required by the City of Bozeman Wetland Review Checklist (November 2022 Revised Edition). 2.4 Site Description 2.4.1 National Wetlands Inventory There are three mapped NWI features on the subject property: 0.16-acre Riparian forested wetland (Rp1FO) 2.29-acre Freshwater emergent wetland (PEMA) 0.53-acre freshwater emergent wetland (PEMA) N. SRX Wetland Delineation 5659.018 8 | Page The two freshwater emergent wetland features are disconnected but co-located in the northeast quadrant of the subject property. The 0.16-acre riparian forested wetland is mapped on the southeast corner of the subject property. The mapped freshwater emergent wetland areas are aligned with aerial imagery that suggests periods of inundation due to stormwater drainage. The NWI database is based on a model that predicts the presence of wetlands from various parameters and does not necessarily reflect ground conditions. A NWI map of the project area is attached to this memo (Figure 4). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) maintains the NWI database, a publicly available resource providing detailed information on the abundance, characteristics, and distribution of U.S. Wetlands. The NWI database is based on a model that predicts the presence of wetlands from various parameters and does not necessarily reflect ground conditions. 2.4.2 Streams & Topography According to the Bozeman, Montana (2020) U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map, the property ranges in elevation between approximately 4,960 and 4,980 feet. The USGS map indicates that the Middle Creek Ditch (also contain Mandeville Creek water) runs south to north through the center of the subject property and that scattered wetlands are located on the northern area of the subject property. Historical aerial imagery of the area suggests that Middle Creek Ditch/Mandeville Creek was routed along the western edge of the subject property, and that a wetland and/or periodically inundated feature is located on the central northern area of the subject property. 2.4.3 Soils There are five soil units mapped by the Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS) soil database on the subject property. Of these, two have a partial hydric rating. Hydric ratings are presented as a percentage of hydric components. Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric soils as: “Soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (Federal Register, 1994). Under natural conditions, these soils are either saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to support the growth and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation.” The mapped soil types on the subject property are summarized in Table 1. The soil with the highest hydric rating (512B) is located in the northeast corner of the subject property, and coincides with a NWI-mapped wetland feature. Table 1. NRCS mapped soil units on the subject property Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Hydric Rating Percent of Subject Property 510B Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 10 82.8% 457A Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes 0 9.4% 512B Enbar-Nythar loams, 0 to 4 percent slopes 35 6.6% N. SRX Wetland Delineation 5659.018 9 | Page Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Hydric Rating Percent of Subject Property 350B Blackmore silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 0 1.3% Total 100% A custom soil report and hydric rating by map unit for the investigation area, obtained from the NRCS Web Soil Survey, is provided in Appendix B. Figure 5 in Appendix A depicts mapped soil units in the investigation area. 2.4.4 Floodplains The subject property is located within Panel 30031C0818E with an effective date of April 20, 2021. The subject property is not within the 100-year floodplain. A custom FEMA map of the subject property is attached to this memo (Figure 6). 3 METHODS 3.1 Sampling Protocol This wetland delineation utilizes the methodology presented in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and subsequent modifications outlined in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast (Version 2.0) (Environmental Laboratory 2010). The methodology includes sampling procedures for vegetation, hydrology, and soil parameters. 3.2 Wetland Indicators 3.2.1 Vegetation Vegetation at upland and wetland data points is classified based on wetland indicator status. The indicator status of vegetation was derived from the USACE 2020 National Wetlands Plant List (NWPL). Using the current plant list, vegetation cover qualified as hydrophytic where over 50% of the dominant plant species had an indicator status of obligate (OBL), facultative wet (FACW), and/or facultative (FAC). FAC plants, such as Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), are equally likely to occur in wetlands and non-wetlands. Vegetation cover was considered as upland where over 50% of the dominant plant species were classified as upland (UPL), and/or facultative upland (FACU). Plants observed within each data plot were identified using Montana Manual of Vascular Plants (Lesica 2012). Vegetation nomenclature follows USACE NWPL (2020) and Lesica (2012). 3.2.2 Soil Wetlands must meet the qualifications of at least one hydric soil indicator or meet the definition of a hydric soil (a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (NRCS 2019a)). Soils at each data point were evaluated and described notating the depth, matrix color, N. SRX Wetland Delineation 5659.018 10 | Page mottle abundance and contrast (if present), texture, etc. (Environmental Laboratory, 1987 and 2010). Moist matrix color and moist mottle color of the soils were determined utilizing the Munsell Soil Color Chart (Kollmorgan Instruments Corporation, 2009). 3.2.3 Hydrology Primary and secondary hydrologic indicators were assessed at each data point; one primary indicator or two secondary indicators are required to qualify the area as containing wetland hydrology. Examples of primary hydrology indicators are saturation within 12 inches of the ground surface, surface water, and water table within 12 inches of the ground surface. Examples of secondary hydrology indicators are FAC-neutral test and geomorphic position on the landscape. 3.3 Delineation Procedure Upland data points (UDP) and wetland data points (WDP) are established as required during the field investigation. Vegetation, hydrology, and soils data is collected in the field according to protocols established by the USACE and recorded on USACE Wetland Determination Data Forms (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Photographs are taken at each data point. Sample points are collected with a handheld GPS device. Wetland boundaries, if present, are flagged by the environmental scientist and surveyed by a licensed surveyor. Data is postprocessed in ArcMap to create maps and perform calculations. 3.3.1 Problematic Conditions Problematic wetland conditions exist when an area is lacking one of the three wetland criteria. For instance, problematic hydrophytic vegetation exists were disturbance, seasonal or annual variability, or permanent changes alters the plant community. This includes changes from grazing, farming, or mowing. This delineation follows methods described in Chapter 3 of the 2008 Regional Supplement to USACE 1987 Delineation Manual, such that lacking one of three criteria does not exclude the aquatic resource from being a wetland. N. SRX Wetland Delineation 5659.018 11 | Page 4 RESULTS 4.1 Wetland Types and Boundaries Three wetlands, one stormwater pond, a man-made stormwater facility/channel, and an irrigation stream/ditch, transect on the subject property (Figure 2). Morrison-Maierle environmental scientists completed the wetland delineation of the project area on August 22, 2023, with a preliminary site visit in May 2023 (Section 2.2.1). Figure 2 4.1.1 Wetland A Saturation in the upper 12” of the soil profile, depletions below dark surface soils, and hydrophytic vegetation (where not problematic) distinguished Wetland A (2.53 acres) as the largest wetland on the subject property. Past disturbance and problematic vegetation and hydrology complicate the wetland/upland boundary, delineated by changes in vegetation and soils. Additionally, large stockpiles of soil have been placed on the property which trap water flowing north from the stormwater infrastructure in the center of the property. Recent mowing of large sections of Wetland A and Wetland B complicated hydrophytic vegetation assessment. Problematic vegetation at many data points at Wetlands 1 and 2 are N. SRX Wetland Delineation 5659.018 12 | Page supported by representative, non-mowed vegetation at WDP9, WDP10, and WDP11 (see Table 2) (also Section 3.3.1). A shallow swale/depression bounds this wetland to the west and east. Saturation, hydric soil indicators, inundation of this area observed during the preliminary site visit in May 2023 (Section 2.2.1), saturation and/or inundation observed in the Google Earth June 2023 aerial imagery (Appendix E), NWI mapped features (Section 2.4.1), and the 2015 wetland delineation (Section 2.2.4), together evidence this wetland. Upgradient of Wetland A piped municipal stormwater introduced additional hydrology to the area in 2017 (See Section 4.1.3 for additional information). Soil stockpiled on the subject property between 2014 and 2020 function as a topographic barrier, slowing stormwater flow and pooling surface water upgradient, between the piles. In June 2023, downstream flow of municipal stormwater towards Wetland A was mostly eliminated (see Section 4.1.6). This disruption of artificial man-induced hydrology during the growing season initiated hydrophytic vegetation stress and diminished wetland hydrology on the subject property, confirming a direct link between introduced municipal stormwater drainage and wetland characteristics. The disruption furthermore initiated wetland boundary retreat between the artificial man-induced hydrology source (stormwater outfall) and Wetland A (see Figure 7). 4.1.2 Wetland B Wetland B (0.40 acres) defining characteristics include prominent redox concentrations (2%) and surface soil cracks. Problematic hydrology and vegetation (recent mowing) at this wetland make a blurred boundary with the surrounding upland area. Past disturbance, including soil stockpiling immediately south of the area, and potential draining for agriculture (e.g., discussion of 2014 aerial imagery in Section 2.2.2) also contribute to a problematic wetland scenario. Inundation of this area observed during the preliminary site visit in May 2023 (Section 2.2.1), saturation and/or inundation observed in the Google Earth June 2023 aerial imagery (Appendix E), and NWI mapped features (Section 2.4.1) together indicate that a seasonal wetland exists in this area. High groundwater (even though relatively lower than at Wetland A), loamy soils, and a flat to slightly concave surface, likely maintain saturation for ≥2 weeks in the spring snowmelt and early growing seasons. High groundwater is also evidenced by the origination of Mandeville Creek downgradient from this wetland and Wetland A, as seen most clearly in the 2005 Google Earth historic aerial imagery (Section 2.2.2 and Appendix E). 4.1.3 Wetland C Wetland C (0.35 acres), the result of municipal infrastructure piping stormwater upgradient of the area in 2017 is currently 0.35 acres but may shrink and/or vanish, post-stormwater management changes (Section 2.2.3). A near-monoculture of broadleaf cattail (OBL, Typha latifolia) and problematic hydric soils and hydrology characterize this wetland. N. SRX Wetland Delineation 5659.018 13 | Page Piped municipal stormwater into a created stormwater pond upgradient of Wetland C introduced artificial man-induced hydrology to the area in 2017. Morrison-Maierle environmental scientists observed channelized flow from the stormwater pond downgradient towards Wetland C during their preliminary site visit in 2023 (Section 2.2.1). Changes to the structure of the stormwater pond between in late June 2023 halted surface flow of artificial man-induced hydrology mid growing season. Cattails, an obligate wetland plant, at Wetland C evidenced stress (yellowing leaves) and soils were dry in the upper 16 inches in August 2023, suggesting changing wetland conditions and confirming a link between artificial man-induced hydrology and wetland characteristics. Lack of hydric soil indicators observed in the wetland data point at Wetland C indicate problematic, recently developed hydric conditions. The disruption of artificial man-induced hydrology furthermore initiated wetland boundary retreat between the artificial man-induced hydrology source (stormwater outfall) and Wetland A, north and downgradient of Wetland C (see Figure 7). 4.1.4 Man-made eastern channel A man-made channel (approximately 1,043.1 linear feet, or 0.59 acres) conveys municipal stormwater northwards along the eastern edge of the subject property. The channel follows a topographic change from the flat agricultural field to the man-made, vegetated, ditch. Although this feature exhibits some wetland characteristics, it is considered a man-made stormwater channel and non-wetland, due to: a) Its man-made geomorphic position 4-5 feet beneath the unaltered natural ground surface, artificially raising the water table. b) Function as a municipal stormwater conveyance. The channel formerly operated as private ditch lateral, labeled the “Woward-Esgar Ditch” by the 2015 delineation by Vaughn Environmental Services (Appendix E). Presently the channel drains stormwater from the Blackwood Groves subdivision to the south (Section 2.2.3). Under the applicable pre-2015 regulatory regime for “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS), as informed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 2023 decision in Sackett v. EPA, swales/ditches that do not carry relatively permanent water flows are non-jurisdictional. Section 4.5 discusses a selection of legal and regulatory framework applicable to this feature. 4.1.5 Irrigation Ditches and Mandeville Creek Approximately 1,430.9 linear feet of Middle Creek Ditch/Mandeville Creek, classified as a “stream/ditch” by the Gallatin Conservation District on December 7, 2022 flows northwards on the west property edge (Section 2.2.4). A riparian, non-wetland, area borders the ditch on either side. A headgate diverts water from the ditch at the northwest corner of the investigation area in a northeast direction, exiting the area after approximately 212 feet. This narrow ditch lateral is vegetated with upland and/or FAC plant species and is not a wetland (see UDP8 in Appendix B). N. SRX Wetland Delineation 5659.018 14 | Page 4.1.6 Stormwater Pond A stormwater pond fed by a municipal stormwater outfall (Section 2.2.3), located within the south-central portion of the investigation area held surface water during the August 2023 investigation. Lack of a wetland fringe is due to distinct and compact pond containment. This stormwater pond was constructed on the property in 2017. In late June of 2023, between Morrison-Maierle field visits, the stormwater detention pond was converted into a stormwater retention pond, eliminating downstream flow of municipal stormwater drainage. This disruption of artificial man-induced hydrology during the growing season initiated hydrophytic vegetation stress and diminished wetland hydrology on the subject property, confirming a direct link between artificial man-induced hydrology and increased extent of wetlands from 2015. 4.2 Upland Areas The wetland/upland boundary within this investigation area is often blurry and complicated, as discussed in Section 4.1. Delineation of upland boundaries followed vegetation patterns and changes in topography as well as changes in hydric soil conditions. Much of the investigation area was recently mowed during the investigation. Aerial imagery confirms that upland areas were historically used for hay and/or cereal crop production (Section 2.2.2). 4.3 Data Summary The vegetation, hydrology, and soil characteristics at each of 20 data points were documented in the field and recorded on USACE Wetland Determination Data Forms for the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast (USACE 2020). See Table 2 for a summary of collected data. Appendix B contains PDFs of the USACE data forms. N. SRX Wetland Delineation 5659.018 15 | Page Table 2. Wetland delineation data summary table Feature Data point ID Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicator(s) Hydric Soil Indicator(s) Hydrology Indicator(s) Wetland A WDP1 NA - Problematic F3 A3, D2*, C9* WDP2 NA – Problematic A11, A12 A3, C9* WDP4 NA – Problematic A11 A3, C9* WDP8 Dominance test >50%, Prevalence index ≤3.0 F1 A2, A3, C9*, D2*, D5* WDP9 Dominance test >50%, Prevalence index ≤3.0 Other: developing wetland conditions C9*, D5* WDP10 Dominance test >50%, Prevalence index ≤3.0 Other: developing wetland conditions C9*, D5* UDP1 NA – Problematic (similar to UDP2) None None UDP2 None (representative of UDP1) None None UDP3 NA – Problematic None None UDP5 None None None Wetland B WDP5 NA - Problematic F6 B6, D2* WDP6 NA – Problematic F6 B6, D2* WDP7 Dominance test >50%, Prevalence index ≤3.0 F6 B6, D2*, D5* UDP4 None None None Wetland C Created by municipal stormwater infrastructure WDP11 Dominance test >50%, Prevalence index ≤3.0 Other: developing wetland conditions Problematic, also B7, C9*, D5* UDP6 None None None Man-made eastern channel WDP12 Dominance test >50% A4 A1, C1, C9* UDP7 None None None Irrigation Ditch Northwest corner, from Middle Creek stream/ditch UDP8 None None None 4.3.1 Vegetation Vegetation communities were evaluated and documented to delineate wetland and upland boundaries, where existing. The location of all data points is identified on Figure 7 (Appendix A). Grasses, weed, and farmed cereal and hay crops dominate vegetation in upland areas. Problematic vegetation in wetland areas presented itself due to recent mowing. Additional data points were collected as need in representative areas to describe vegetation in wetland areas. Most wetland plant species in the investigation area are facultative, suggesting that soils are saturated for only short portions of the growing season (see Section 3.2.1). Where not problematic, most wetland data points pass the Dominance Test and Prevalence Index (Table 2). Dominant species are: N. SRX Wetland Delineation 5659.018 16 | Page Wetlands A and B Meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis) (FAC) Nebraska sedge (Carex nebrascensis) (OBL) Note: Obligate species, Broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia) is emerging in the central core of Wetland A. Wetland C Broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia) (OBL) o These plants were yellowing at the time of assessment due to altered hydrology as discussed in Section 4.1.3. 4.3.2 Soil Soils were analyzed in the field for texture and color using the Munsell Soil Color Charts (Munsell 2009). Use of hydric soil indicators is described in Section 3.2.2. No hydric soil indicators were observed at upland data points. Soils exhibit Mollic epipedon characteristics common in agricultural fields in the Gallatin Valley. Soil colors are dark at 10YR 2/2, 10YR 2/1, and 10YR 3/2, with granular structure, high organic matter, and loamy textures from 0-16 inches. Many fine roots and few medium roots occupied the upper 3-6 inches of the profiles observed. Soils at Wetland A met multiple hydric soil indicators, with changes depending on proximity from the center of the wetland. Problematic hydric soils exist at WDP9 and WDP10. This southeast arm of the wetland (see Figure X) is in flux as wetland conditions are developing likely due to the adjacent soil stockpiles trapping surface water during the spring month(s) from moving downgradient. Developing wetland conditions were determined by review of background information (Section 2.2) and hydrophytic vegetation. Delineation of this area of Wetland A relied on changes in dominant facultative vegetation (Section 4.3.1). Soils at Wetland B all meet hydric soil indicator Redox Dark Surface (F6). Exhibiting prominent redox concentrations starting at 7-8 inches, loam textures, and dark surface colors. Wetland C soils are problematic. Lack of hydric soil indicators at this wetland indicate recently developed hydric conditions, as discussed in Section 4.1.3. Paired data points WDP11 and UDP6 exhibit almost identical conditions including loam texture, dark surface color 10YR 2/1 or 2/2, and many fine roots in the upper 4-5 inches of the profile. This wetland area may revert to upland conditions in the next several years, following changes in hydrology discussed in Section 4.1.3 and 2.2.1. Delineation of Wetland C relied on obligate hydrophytic vegetation (Section 4.3.1). 4.3.3 Hydrology Upland areas exhibited no hydrology indicators (Table 2). N. SRX Wetland Delineation 5659.018 17 | Page Wetland areas met multiple hydrology indicators depending on the area. Indicators most often were Saturation (A3), Surface Soil Cracks (B6), and/or a combination of secondary indicators Geomorphic Position (D2), FAC-Neutral Test (D5), and Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9). At Wetland C, primary indicator B7, Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery is met. See Figure X and Section 2.2.2 for a discussion of historic aerial imagery at the investigation area. Problematic hydrology exists at Wetland C and is narrowly avoided at the northeast arm of Wetland A. As discussed in section 4.1.3, piped municipal stormwater into a created stormwater pond upgradient of Wetland C introduced hydrology to the area in 2017. Environmental scientists during their preliminary site visit in May 2023 observed channelized flow from the stormwater pond downgradient towards Wetland C (Section 2.2.1). Changes to the structure of the stormwater pond between May and August 2023 halted surface flow of municipal stormwater mid growing season. Cattails, an obligate wetland plant, at Wetland C evidence stress (yellowing leaves) and soils were dry in the upper 16 inches in August 2023, suggesting that wetland conditions are changing or fading. The lack of hydrology at Wetland C indicate problematic, recently developed wetland conditions. Delineation of Wetland C relied on obligate hydrophytic vegetation (Section 4.3.1). 4.4 Wetland Functional Assessment A Wetland Functional Assessment was completed to satisfy requirements of the City of Bozeman Wetland Review Checklist (November 2022 Edition). The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) Montana Wetland Assessment Form (revised March 2008) was used to conduct the analysis. The completed form can be found in Appendix D. The analysis resulted in an overall analysis area rating of III. 4.5 Legal and Regulatory Framework1 In Montana, due to ongoing federal litigation brought by 24 states (including the State of Montana), neither USACE/EPA’s original rule issued January 18, 2003, nor the agencies’ conformed rule issued September 8, 2023, are currently in effect. In these states, including Montana, the agencies are presently interpreting WOTUS and related federal wetland permitting jurisdiction consistent with pre-2015 regulations (commonly referred to as the 1986/1988 regulations) and the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 25, 2023 decision in Sackett v. EPA (143 S. Ct. 1322) until further notice.2 Materials identified by the agencies for implementation of the pre-2015 regulatory regime, as informed by the Sackett decision, reference and include the WOTUS guidance developed by the agencies following the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 19, 2006 decision in the consolidated cases for Rapanos v. United States, and Carabell v. United States (126 S. Ct. 2208, commonly and collectively referred to as Rapanos).3 The agencies’ applicable and referenced 2008 Guidance notably states that USACE/EPA generally will not assert jurisdiction 1 This section is primarily authored by landowner’s environmental counsel, Lara D. Guercio of Crowley Fleck PLLP. 2 See USEPA’s websites for “Waters of the United States” including: https://www.epa.gov/wotus/definition-waters-united-states-rule-status-and-litigation-update, and https://epa.gov/wotus/pre-2015- regulatory-regime. 3 Id. N. SRX Wetland Delineation 5659.018 18 | Page over swales (characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow) or ditches excavated in and draining uplands that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water.4 Additionally, per their 2008 Guidance (and consistent with the Court’s 2023 Sackett decision), the agencies found that the plurality opinion authored by Justice Scalia in Rapanos limited their regulatory authority to “’relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water’ connected to traditional navigable waters, and to ‘wetlands with a continuous surface connection to’ such relatively permanent waters.”5 In the 2008 Guidance, the agencies defined the term “relatively permanent” (as used in Scalia’s plurality decision in Rapanos, which has been followed by the majority decision in Sackett) to mean “waters that typically (e.g. except due to drought” flow year-round or waters that have a continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically three months).”6 In accordance with Scalia’s interpretation that the term “relatively permanent” does not include water flow that comes and goes at intervals, broken or fitful, the agencies further concluded in the 2008 Guidance that “relatively permanent” waters do not include “ephemeral tributaries which flow only in response to precipitation and intermittent streams which do not typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally.”7 The engineered stormwater drainage and storage system located on the subject property (with stormwater flows originating from a municipal pipe associated with the City’s Graf Street improvements, which flows north across the subject property via a stormwater pond and an engineered swale or conveyance ditch) are features that per the 2008 Guidance, the agencies generally not assert jurisdiction over. Additionally, under the applicable standard for federal jurisdiction over WOTUS and associated wetlands under the Clean Water Act, as originally articulated by Justice Scalia in Rapanos and recently adopted by the Court in Sackett, these engineered stormwater management features do not constitute “relatively permanent” bodies of water that are connected to traditional interstate navigable waters, and as such, the wetland areas artificially enlarged since 2017 by stormwater drainage via these man-made features lack the requisite continuous surface water connection to WOTUS. As such, federal jurisdiction cannot be properly applied to these artificially enlarged areas, which presently exhibit wetland characteristics solely to artificial man-induced hydrology (i.e., municipal stormwater drainage). 4 See USEPA and USACE, Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States, and Carabell v. United States, at 1 (Dec. 2, 2008), available at: https://epa.gov/wotus/rapanos-v-united-states-carabell-v-united-states (referred to herein as 2008 Guidance). 5 Id. at 2, quoting from Justice Scalia’s 2006 plurality decision in Rapanos. 6 2008 Guidance at 6-7. 7 Id. at 7. N. SRX Wetland Delineation 5659.018 19 | Page 5 CONCLUSION Based on the wetland delineation presented in this report and the data collected, it is Morrison-Maierle’s professional judgement that wetlands and waterways exist within the project area. The project area contains 3.28 acres of PEM wetland. Figure 7 in Appendix A details the investigation area and delineated features. Table 3, summarizes the wetlands delineated within the project area. Piped municipal stormwater to the investigation area in 2017 altered hydrology to Wetland A. The stormwater pond and Wetland C exist solely because of introduced stormwater to these areas. Furthermore, this altered hydrology increased the extent of Wetland A, and possibly Wetland B, by trapping surface water against soil stockpiles, creating saturated conditions in previously upland areas. The change of Wetland A and B between 2015 and 2023 is evidenced by the delineation performed by Vaughn Environmental Services, and this delineation (Section 2.2.2). Table 3. Wetland and Waterways in the Project Area Feature ID Wetland Type (Cowardin) Wetland Type (HGM) Acres Linear Feet Wetland A PEM Depressional 2.53 - Wetland B PEM Depressional 0.40 - Wetland C PEM Riverine 0.35 - Man-made eastern channel Riverine NA 0.59 1043.1 Middle Creek Ditch/ Mandeville Creek (stream/ditch) Riverine NA - 1,430.9 Total waterway linear feet: 2,473.9 Total wetland area: 3.28 acres The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are the final authority over the jurisdictional status of both wetlands and waters of the U.S. per Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The findings discussed in this report are solely the opinion of Morrison-Maierle and have not been verified by the aforementioned regulatory government agencies. N. SRX Wetland Delineation 5659.018 20 | Page 6 REFERENCES Bozeman MT Geographic Information System (GIS) Open Data. 2023. Accessed January 2023. Shapefiles downloaded: Stormwater Utility, Water Gravity Mains, Gravity Main. Available at https://public-bozeman.opendata.arcgis.com/ Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. Environmental Laboratory. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corp of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast. (Version 2.0) U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory. Vicksburg, MS. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2023. FEMA Map Service Center. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search Google Earth Pro. 2023. Retrieved January and September 2023. Kollmorgan Instruments Corporation. 2009. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Macbeth Division, New Windsor, NY. Lesica, P. 2012. Manual of Montana Vascular Plants. Brit Press. Fort Worth, Texas. Montana Spatial Data Infrastructure (MSDI). 2021. Imagery. Natural Color and Infrared. Accessed January 2023. Available at https://msl.mt.gov/geoinfo/msdi/orthoimagery/ Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2019. Hydric Soils Definition. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/use/hydric/?cid=nrcs142p2_053961 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2023. Web Soil Survey. Accessed December 2022. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2020. National Wetland Plant List 2020. http://wetland-plants.usace.army.mil/ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2018. Wetland Determination Data Sheet – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, Version 1.16. OBM Control # 0710-0024, Expires 11/30/2024. Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR335-15, paragraph 5-2a). ENG Forms 6116-6, July 2018. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2023. National Wetland Inventory Wetlands Mapper. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html U.S. Geological Survey. 2020. Bozeman, Montana, 7.5-minute Series Topographic Quadrangle Map. Accessed January 2023. N. SRX Wetland Delineation 5659.018 21 | Page APPENDIX A: FIGURES Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c)OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 0 1,500 3,000750Feet ± N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\GIS\Exhibits\Fig1_Vicinity.mxd; Plotted: 9/29/2023 COPYRIGHT © MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2880 Technology Blvd. WBozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721 NORTH SRX VICINITY MAPGALLATIN CO.MT FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 5659.018 FIG. 12023 DRAWN BY: FD CHK'D BY: FD APPR. BY: CP DATE: 09/2023 Legend Subject Property MONTANA PROJECT LOCATION Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed 0 650 1,300325Feet ± N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\GIS\Exhibits\Fig2_Topo.mxd; Plotted: 9/29/2023 COPYRIGHT © MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2880 Technology Blvd. WBozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721 NORTH SRX TOPOGRAPHICAL MAPGALLATIN CO.MT FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 5659.018 FIG. 22023 DRAWN BY: FD CHK'D BY: FD APPR. BY: CP DATE: 09/2023 Legend Subject Property Rock/gravel deposit Concrete outfall 0 150 30075Feet ± N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\GIS\Exhibits\Fig3_Aerial.mxd; Plotted: 9/29/2023 COPYRIGHT © MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2880 Technology Blvd. WBozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721 NORTH SRX 2021 AERIAL MAPGALLATIN CO.MT FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 5659.018 FIG. 32023 DRAWN BY: FD CHK'D BY: FD APPR. BY: CP DATE: 09/2023 Legend Subject Property PEMA PEMA PEMA PEMA Rp1FO 0 150 30075Feet ± N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\GIS\Exhibits\Fig4_NWI.mxd; Plotted: 9/29/2023 COPYRIGHT © MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2880 Technology Blvd. WBozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721 NORTH SRX NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY MAPGALLATIN CO.MT FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 5659.018 FIG. 42023 DRAWN BY: FD CHK'D BY: FD APPR. BY: CP DATE: 09/2023 Legend Subject Property Wetland and Riparian Mapping Freshwater Emergent Wetland Riparian Forested 510B 350B 512B 457A 457A 0 150 30075Feet ± N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\GIS\Exhibits\Fig5_Soils.mxd; Plotted: 9/29/2023 COPYRIGHT © MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2880 Technology Blvd. WBozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721 NORTH SRX NRCS MAPPED SOIL UNITSGALLATIN CO.MT FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 5659.018 FIG. 52023 DRAWN BY: FD CHK'D BY: FD APPR. BY: CP DATE: 09/2023 Legend Subject Property Mapped Soil Units Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community 0 1,000 2,000500Feet ± N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\GIS\Exhibits\Fig6_FEMA.mxd; Plotted: 9/29/2023 COPYRIGHT © MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2880 Technology Blvd. WBozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721 NORTH SRX NRCS MAPPED SOIL UNITSGALLATIN CO.MT FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 5659.018 FIG. 52023 DRAWN BY: FD CHK'D BY: FD APPR. BY: CP DATE: 09/2023 Legend Subject Property Flood Hazard Zones Zone Type 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Regulatory Floodway Special Floodway Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area with Reduced Risk Due to Levee Area with Risk Due to Levee WDP8 UDP4 WDP7 WDP6 WDP5 UDP3 WDP4 WDP3 UDP2 UDP1 WDP2 WDP1 UDP8 UDP5 WDP9 UDP7 UDP6 WDP10 WDP12 WDP11 0 100 20050Feet ± N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\GIS - N SRX\ArcPro\N_SRX.aprx; Plotted: 12/5/2023 COPYRIGHT © MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2880 Technology Blvd. WBozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721 NORTH SRX 2023 WETLAND DELINEATION MAPGALLATIN CO.MT FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 5659.018 FIG. 72023 DRAWN BY: FD CHK'D BY: FD APPR. BY: CP DATE: 12/2023 Legend Investigation Area Wetland Man-made channel (stormwater) Middle Creek Ditch/Mandeville Creek Ditch lateral Stormwater pond Data Points Upland Wetland Wetland A (2.53 acres) Wetland B (0.40 acres) Wetland C (0.35 acres) Head gate Break between wetland and ditch unclear Primary wetland Ditch lateral Middle Creek ditch (stream/ditch) Woward-Esgar ditch (lateral) Wetland continues off site Mandeville Creek flows north 0 140 28070Feet ± N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\GIS\Exhibits\Fig8_2015WD.mxd; Plotted: 11/2/2023 COPYRIGHT © MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2880 Technology Blvd. WBozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721 NORTH SRX 2015 WETLAND DELINEATION MAPGALLATIN CO.MT FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 5659.018 FIG. 82023 DRAWN BY: FD CHK'D BY: FD APPR. BY: CP DATE: 11/2023 Legend Investigation area 2015 Delineated aquatic features Data Sources:-2015 Aerial imagery (MSDI)-2015 Wetland delineation byVaughn Environmental Services 4,5140.1 Miles This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Feet 5260 Legend 263 Location 526 01/23/2023 Created By: Created For: Date: North 20 - Aquatic Feature(s) Gravity Main Abandoned Mains Force Mains Gravity Mains Mains Active Abandoned Street Names City Limits N. SRX Wetland Delineation 5659.018 22 | Page APPENDIX B: USACE WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS Wetland A Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes Problematic vegetation: recently mowed. Low-lying plants identified included Alopecurus pratensis and Taraxacum officianale. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover =Total Cover 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover Project/Site:North SRX LRR E, MLRA 49 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 45.6521789 NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum:-111.059989 Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes PEM1A Long: 15 ft NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT WDP1 Shallow concave Section, Township, Range: ) 15 ft ) Prevalence Index worksheet: Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 8/22/23 Providence Development Christine Pearcy, Faith Doty Shallow swale in field Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County: Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Multiply by: Prevalence Index = B/A = 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species 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 2 - Dominance Test is >50% (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 15 ft naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Sample point is within a shallow swale in an agricultural field that is routinely mowed/hayed. Due to problematic vegetation the wetland was delineated based on soils and hydrology, including prior field visits in June 2023. Indicator Status VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size:Herb Stratum 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 15 ft Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 60 8 C PL X X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: NA Remarks: 8 Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Surface water 12 inches from soil pit. Standing water at sample point during field visit in June 2023. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Surface Water (A1) Mucky Loam/Clay 2.5Y 4/1 Matrix Texture 8-16 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/2 Color (moist) 10YR 5/8 0-3 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Depleted matrix from 8-16" beneath 8" of dark surface soils meets A11 and F3 hydric soil indicator requirements. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 3-8 WDP1SOIL greasy-feeling loamy mucky mineral Many large rounded coarse fragments Depleted matrix. Inclusions of 32% 10YR 2/1 Remarks Loamy/Clayey ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes 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 15 ft Remarks: Indicator Status VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size:Herb Stratum (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 15 ft naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Same condition as WDP1, 20 ft west from the swale center and approximately 1 ft higher Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 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: Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Multiply by: Prevalence Index = B/A = 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 8/22/23 Providence Development Christine Pearcy, Faith Doty Shallow swale in field Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County: None Long: 15 ft NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT WDP2 Shallow concave Section, Township, Range: ) 15 ft ) Prevalence Index worksheet: Project/Site:North SRX LRR E, MLRA 49 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 45.652123 NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum:-111.060122 Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes (Plot size: =Total Cover Problematic vegetation: recently mowed. Low-lying plants identified included Alopecurus pratensis and Taraxacum officianale. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover =Total Cover 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 60 2 C PL X X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No WDP2SOIL greasy-feeling loamy mucky mineral Clay loam Depleted matrix, 38% 10YR 2/1 Remarks Loamy/Clayey Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Depleted matrix from 12-18" beneath 12" of dark surface soils meets A11 and A12 hydric soil indicator requirements. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 2-12 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) 10YR 5/8 0-2 Surface Water (A1) Mucky Loam/Clay 2.5Y 4/1 Matrix Texture 12-18 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth NA Remarks: 12 Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Standing water at sample point during field visit in June 2023. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): 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, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes Problematic vegetation: recently mowed. Low-lying plants identified included Alopecurus pratensis and Taraxacum officianale. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover =Total Cover 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover Project/Site:North SRX LRR E, MLRA 49 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 45.6521759 NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum:-111.0599339 Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes PEM1A Long: 15 ft NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT WDP4 Shallow concave Section, Township, Range: ) 15 ft ) Prevalence Index worksheet: Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 8/22/23 Providence Development Christine Pearcy, Faith Doty Shallow swale in field Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County: Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Multiply by: Prevalence Index = B/A = 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species 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 2 - Dominance Test is >50% (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 15 ft naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Same condition as WDP1, 2, and 3. Indicator Status VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size:Herb Stratum 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 15 ft Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 60 2 C PL X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: NA Remarks: 12 Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Standing water at sample point during field visit in June 2023. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey 2.5Y 4/1 Matrix Texture 12-16 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) 10YR 5/8 0-2 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Depleted matrix from 12-16" beneath 12" of dark surface soils meets A11 hydric soil indicator requirements. Similar soil profile to WDP2. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 2-12 WDP4SOIL many fine roots Depleted matrix, 38% 10YR 2/1 Remarks Loamy/Clayey ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.X 8.X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 15 ft Remarks: Indicator Status 1 1 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Typha latifolia FAC Herb Stratum 10 No Alopecurus pratensis 10 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 15 ft naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Not mowed. Paired data point with UDP2, next to mowed edge. Area was inundated during initial field visit in June 2023 (visible on Google Earth imagery). Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 2.80 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: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 90 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 8/22/23 Providence Development Christine Pearcy, Faith Doty Unmowed area in field Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County: None Long: 15 ft NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT WDP8 Shallow concave Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) 15 ft ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 270 10 Project/Site:North SRX LRR E, MLRA 49 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 45.651983 NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum:-111.0581909 Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes (Plot size: =Total Cover OBL Yes90 Developing hydrophyic vegetation. Typha latifolia was not visible in June 2023. Many early stage Equisetum arvense plants observed in June. 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 0 280 0 100 =Total Cover 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X X X X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No WDP8SOIL loamy-mucky-mineral clay loam Remarks Loamy/Clayey Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 2-4" of undecomposed grass on soil surface. 0-4" is a developing loamy mucky mineral soil that meets F1 requirements Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 4-16 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) 0-4 Surface Water (A1) Mucky Loam/Clay Matrix Texture Redox FeaturesDepth NA Remarks: 10 0 Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Inundated during field inspection in June 2023. Inundation and/or diferential crop management visible on June 2023 Google Earth imagery No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil X , or Hydrology X SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.X 8.X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 1 No 15 ft Remarks: Indicator Status 2 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Trifolium pratense (Plot size: Carex nebrascensis No FAC FAC Herb Stratum 35 Yes Alopecurus pratensis 12 35 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 15 ft naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? SE edge of wetland, between stockpiles. Developing wetland area, hydric soil indicators are not fully formed. Hydrology is seasonal. Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species FAC 2.34 1 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: NoMelilotus officinalis FACU 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 8 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 62 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 8/23/23 Providence Development Christine Pearcy, Faith Doty Shallow swale in field Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County: None Long: 15 ft NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT WDP9 Shallow concave Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) 15 ft ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 186 35 Project/Site:North SRX LRR E, MLRA 49 NWI classification: Dominant Species? NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes (Plot size: =Total Cover 10 1 No OBL Yes40 Developing hydrophyic vegetation Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 5 234 1 100 =Total Cover No FACU Poa pratensis Medicago sativa Phleum pratense 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 100 X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No WDP9SOIL many fine and medium roots, loam few fine roots, loam <1% faint redox concentrations Remarks Loamy/Clayey Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: <1% faint redox concentrations from 10-16" (not colored). Wetland conditions are developing due to groundwater levels and disturbance (stockpiles). Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 4-10 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) 0-4 Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey 10YR 2/1 Matrix Texture 10-16 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth NA Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Inundated during field inspection in June 2023. Inundation and/or diferential crop management visible on Google Earth imagery No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil X , or Hydrology X 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 Developing hydrophyic vegetation Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 5 234 1 100 =Total Cover No FACU Poa pratensis Medicago sativa Phleum pratense 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 7 1 No OBL Yes45 Project/Site:North SRX LRR E, MLRA 49 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 45.6515180496 NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum:-111.058631192 Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes None Long: 15 ft NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT WDP10 Shallow concave Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) 15 ft ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 186 35 Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 8/23/23 Providence Development Christine Pearcy, Faith Doty Shallow swale in field Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 8 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 62 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species 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: NoMelilotus officinalis FACU Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species FAC 2.34 1 2 - Dominance Test is >50% (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 15 ft naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? SE edge of wetland, between stockpiles. Developing wetland area, hydric soil indicators are not fully formed. Hydrology is seasonal. Indicator Status 2 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Trifolium pratense (Plot size: Carex nebrascensis No FAC FAC Herb Stratum 35 Yes Alopecurus pratensis 10 35 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 1 No 15 ft Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 100 X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No 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: NA Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Inundated during field inspection in June 2023. Inundation and/or diferential crop management visible on Google Earth imagery No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey 10YR 2/1 Matrix Texture 12-16 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) 0-4 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: <1% faint redox concentrations from 12-16" (not colored). Wetland conditions are developing due to groundwater levels and disturbance. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 4-12 WDP10SOIL many fine and medium roots, loam few fine roots, loam <1% faint redox concentrations Remarks Loamy/Clayey ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes 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. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes Problematic vegetation: recently mowed. Low-lying plants identified included Alopecurus pratensis and Taraxacum officianale. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover =Total Cover 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover Project/Site:North SRX LRR E, MLRA 49 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 45.652079 NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum:-111.0602659 Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes None Long: 15 ft NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT UDP1 Flat Section, Township, Range: ) 15 ft ) Prevalence Index worksheet: Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 8/22/23 Providence Development Christine Pearcy, Faith Doty Shallow swale in field Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County: Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Multiply by: Prevalence Index = B/A = 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species 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 2 - Dominance Test is >50% (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 15 ft naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Problematic vegetation due to recent mowing & haying of site Indicator Status VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size:Herb Stratum 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 15 ft Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: NA Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey Matrix Texture Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/2 Color (moist) 0-3 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 16" of 10YR 2/1 and 2/2, loam texture, and granular structure indicate a mollic epipedon. No hydric soil indicators Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 3-16 UDP1SOIL loam, granular, many fine roots loam, granular Remarks Loamy/Clayey ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 100 341 20 100 =Total Cover Taraxacum officinale Phleum pratense 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 1 No UPL Yes75 Project/Site:North SRX LRR E, MLRA 49 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 45.65184 NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum:-111.060359 Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes None Long: 15 ft NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT UDP2 Flat Section, Township, Range: 50.0% ) 15 ft ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 237 0 Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 8/22/23 Providence Development Christine Pearcy, Faith Doty Shallow swale in field Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 4 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 79 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species 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 FACU 3.41 2 - Dominance Test is >50% (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 15 ft naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Non-mowed vegetation, representative of UDP1 Indicator Status 1 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Bromus inermis No FAC FAC Herb Stratum 20 Yes Alopecurus pratensis 4 0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 15 ft Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 70 30 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: NA Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey 10YR 3/2 Matrix Texture Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/2 Color (moist) 0-4 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 16" of 10YR 2/1 and 2/2, loam texture, and granular structure indicate a mollic epipedon. No hydric soil indicators Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 4-16 UDP2SOIL loam, granular, many fine roots loam, granular mixed soil colors from 4-16" Remarks Loamy/Clayey ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes 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. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes 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 15 ft Remarks: Indicator Status VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size:Herb Stratum (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 15 ft naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Problematic vegetation due to recent mowing & haying of site Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 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: Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Multiply by: Prevalence Index = B/A = 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 8/22/23 Providence Development Christine Pearcy, Faith Doty Shallow swale in field Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County: None Long: 15 ft NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT UDP3 Flat Section, Township, Range: ) 15 ft ) Prevalence Index worksheet: Project/Site:North SRX LRR E, MLRA 49 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 45.652448 NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum:-111.059229 Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes (Plot size: =Total Cover Problematic vegetation: recently mowed. Low-lying plants identified included Alopecurus pratensis and Taraxacum officianale. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover =Total Cover 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X UDP3SOIL loam, granular, many fine roots loam, granular Remarks Loamy/Clayey Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 16" of 10YR 2/1 and 2/2, loam texture, and granular structure indicate a mollic epipedon. No hydric soil indicators Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 4-16 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/2 Color (moist) 0-4 Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey Matrix Texture Redox FeaturesDepth NA Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 15 ft Remarks: Indicator Status 1 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Bromus inermis No FAC FAC Herb Stratum 45 Yes Alopecurus pratensis 3 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 15 ft naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species FAC 3.90 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: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 55 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 8/23/23 Providence Development Christine Pearcy, Faith Doty Flat agricultural field Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County: None Long: 15 ft NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT UDP5 Flat Section, Township, Range: 50.0% ) 15 ft ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 165 0 Project/Site:North SRX LRR E, MLRA 49 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 45.65145402 NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum:-111.058455182 Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes (Plot size: =Total Cover 12 No UPL Yes40 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 225 390 45 100 =Total Cover Poa pratensis Cirsium arvense 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X UDP5SOIL matted fine roots clay loam, granular clay loam, blocky Remarks Loamy/Clayey Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 1-4 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/2 10YR 2/2 Color (moist) 0-1 Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey 10YR 2/2 Matrix Texture 4-16 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth NA Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Wetland B Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes 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 15 ft Remarks: Indicator Status VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size:Herb Stratum (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 15 ft naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Seasonal wetland in center of shallow swale on NE corner of property. Inundated during June 2023 field visit. Recently mowed/hayed (problemeatic vegetation). Mossy surface. Aerial imagery suggests continued disturbance by agricultural activitites. Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 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: Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Multiply by: Prevalence Index = B/A = 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 8/22/23 Providence Development Christine Pearcy, Faith Doty Shallow swale in field Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County: PEM1A Long: 15 ft NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT WDP5 Shallow concave Section, Township, Range: ) 15 ft ) Prevalence Index worksheet: Project/Site:North SRX LRR E, MLRA 49 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 45.65266707069 NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum:-111.058547587 Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes (Plot size: =Total Cover Problematic vegetation: recently mowed. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover =Total Cover 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 98 1 C PL/M 1 C PL/M X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes Saturation Present?Yes Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No WDP5SOIL Mostly fine fibrous matted roots blocky-granular structure Prominent redox concentrations Remarks Loamy/Clayey Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 2% prominent redox concentrations meets redox dark surface hydric soil requirements. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 2-8 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/2 Color (moist) 10YR 8/6 10YR 6/8 0-2 Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey 10YR 2/1 Matrix Texture 8-16 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth NA Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Inundated during field inspection in June 2023. Seasonally wet (dry in August). 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, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes 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 15 ft Remarks: Indicator Status VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size:Herb Stratum (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 15 ft naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Seasonal wetland in a shallow swale on NE corner of property. Inundated during June 2023 field visit. Recently mowed/hayed (problematic vegetation). Mossy surface. Aerial imagery and interviews suggests continued disturbance by agricultural activitites. Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 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: Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Multiply by: Prevalence Index = B/A = 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 8/22/23 Providence Development Christine Pearcy, Faith Doty Shallow swale in field Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County: PEM1A Long: 15 ft NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT WDP6 Shallow concave Section, Township, Range: ) 15 ft ) Prevalence Index worksheet: Project/Site:North SRX LRR E, MLRA 49 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 45.6525032057 NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum:-111.0582748869 Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes (Plot size: =Total Cover Problematic vegetation: recently mowed. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover =Total Cover 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 98 2 C PL/M X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes Saturation Present?Yes Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No WDP6SOIL Mostly fine fibrous matted roots blocky-granular structure Prominent redox concentrations Remarks Loamy/Clayey Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 2% prominent redox concentrations meets redox dark surface hydric soil requirements. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 2-8 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/2 Color (moist) 10YR 6/8 0-2 Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey 10YR 2/1 Matrix Texture 8-16 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth NA Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Inundated during field inspection in June 2023. Seasonally wet (dry in August). 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, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.X 8.X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 15 ft Remarks: Indicator Status 2 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Carex nebrascensis No FAC FAC Herb Stratum 40 Yes Alopecurus pratensis 15 40 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 15 ft naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Not mowed.Seasonal wetland in a shallow swale on NE corner of property. Inundated during June 2023 field visit. Mossy surface. Aerial imagery and interviews suggests continued disturbance by agricultural activitites. Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species FAC 2.20 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: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 60 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 8/22/23 Providence Development Christine Pearcy, Faith Doty Shallow swale in field Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County: PEM1A Long: 15 ft NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT WDP6 Shallow concave Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) 15 ft ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 180 40 Project/Site:North SRX LRR E, MLRA 49 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 45.6521864565 NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum:-111.0581909 Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes (Plot size: =Total Cover 5 No OBL Yes40 Representative vegetation for WDP5 and WDP6 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 0 220 0 100 =Total Cover Phleum pratense Poa pratensis 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 98 2 C PL/M X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes Saturation Present?Yes Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No WDP6SOIL Mostly fine fibrous matted roots blocky-granular structure Prominent redox concentrations Remarks Loamy/Clayey Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 2% prominent redox concentrations meets redox dark surface hydric soil requirements. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 2-7 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/2 Color (moist) 10YR 6/8 0-2 Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey 10YR 2/1 Matrix Texture 7-16 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth NA Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Inundated during field inspection in June 2023. Seasonally wet (dry in August). 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, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 15 No 15 ft Remarks: Indicator Status 0 3 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Bromus inermis No FACU FACU Herb Stratum 25 Yes Pascopyrum smithii 25 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 15 ft naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Upland point paired with WDP7. Delineated wetland based on soil and hyrology observations, topography, and stressted vegetation Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species FACW 3.80 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: 15 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 180 Multiply by: 30 Prevalence Index = B/A = 15 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 8/22/23 Providence Development Christine Pearcy, Faith Doty Flat agricultural field Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County: None Long: 15 ft NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT UDP3 Flat Section, Township, Range: 0.0% ) 15 ft ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 45 0 Project/Site:North SRX LRR E, MLRA 49 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 45.6521149308 NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum:-111.058098626 Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes (Plot size: =Total Cover 15 Yes UPL Yes20 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 45 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 125 380 25 100 =Total Cover Juncus balticus Poa pratensis Dactylis glomerata 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 100 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X UDP3SOIL matted fine roots clay loam, granular clay loam, blocky <1% faint redox, clay loam Remarks Loamy/Clayey Loamy/Clayey Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 1-4 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/2 10YR 2/2 Color (moist) 0-1 Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey 10YR 2/2 Matrix 10-16 10YR 2/2 Texture 4-10 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth NA Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Wetland C Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil X , or Hydrology X SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.X 8.X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 15 ft Remarks: Indicator Status 1 1 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Alopecurus pratensis OBL Herb Stratum 15 No Typha latifolia 85 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 15 ft naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Muncipal stormwater created wetland (piped to site) Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 1.30 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: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 15 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 8/23/23 Providence Development Christine Pearcy, Faith Doty Swale/depression in field Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County: None Long: 15 ft NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT WDP11 Shallow concave Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) 15 ft ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 45 85 Project/Site:North SRX LRR E, MLRA 49 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 45.6511179 NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum:-111.060315 Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes (Plot size: =Total Cover FAC Yes85 Stressed obligate plants due to shut-off of piped stormwater mid growing season Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 0 130 0 100 =Total Cover 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No WDP11SOIL many fine and medium roots, loam few roots, granular, loam Remarks Loamy/Clayey Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Created wetland from piped municipal stormwater beginning between 2014 and 2020 (confirmed from aerial imagery). Hydric soils have not had time to form yet and may never form due to stormwater diversion (see vegetation notes). Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 5-16 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) 0-5 Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey Matrix Texture Redox FeaturesDepth NA Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Problematic hydrology. Piped municipal stormwater created this wetland beginning between 2014 and 2020. Stormwater diversion in 2023 will likely result in conversion of this area back to upland. Inundation and/or diferential crop management visible on Google Earth imagery No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 15 ft Remarks: Indicator Status 1 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Bromus inermis FAC FAC Herb Stratum 35 Yes Alopecurus pratensis 5 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 15 ft naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Upland area between piped-stormwater-created wetland and naturally-occuring wetland Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 3.70 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: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 65 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 8/23/23 Providence Development Christine Pearcy, Faith Doty Flat agricultural field Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County: None Long: 15 ft NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT UDP6 Flat Section, Township, Range: 50.0% ) 15 ft ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 195 0 Project/Site:North SRX LRR E, MLRA 49 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 45.6513254794 NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum:-111.060211929 Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes (Plot size: =Total Cover No UPL Yes60 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 175 370 35 100 =Total Cover Cirsium arvense 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X UDP6SOIL matted fine roots clay loam, granular Remarks Loamy/Clayey Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 16" of high-organic dark soils with loam texture and granular structure indicate a mollic epipedon Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 1-16 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) 0-1 Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey Matrix Texture Redox FeaturesDepth NA Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Man-made eastern channel Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil X , or Hydrology X SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.X 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 15 ft Remarks: Indicator Status 1 1 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Alopecurus pratensis FACU UPL Herb Stratum 85 Yes Bromus inermis 5 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 15 ft naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? In fully-vegetated ditch on the eastern edge of the investigation area Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 3.25 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: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 20 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 85 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 8/23/23 Providence Development Christine Pearcy, Faith Doty Stormwater ditch Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County: None Long: 15 ft NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT WDP12 Concave Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) 15 ft ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 255 0 Project/Site:North SRX LRR E, MLRA 49 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 45.6514251501 NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum:-111.057607677 Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes (Plot size: =Total Cover No FAC No10 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 50 325 10 100 =Total Cover Tanacetum vulgare 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 X X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No WDP12SOIL almost meets F1 requirements strong sulfur odor Remarks Loamy/Clayey Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 0-4" almost meets F1 requirements but is not developed enough. Strong hydrogen sulfide odor from 4-16" meets A4 hydric soil indicator Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 4-16 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/2 10YR 2/2 Color (moist) 0-4 Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey Matrix Texture Redox FeaturesDepth NA Remarks: 8 Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Within vegetated ditch 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, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 15 ft Remarks: Indicator Status 1 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Dactylis glomerata FAC Herb Stratum 40 Yes Alopecurus pratensis 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 15 ft naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Upland point paired with WDP12, next to vegetated ditch on the east side of the investigation area Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 3.40 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: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 160 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 60 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 8/23/23 Providence Development Christine Pearcy, Faith Doty Flat agricultural field Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County: None Long: 15 ft NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT UDP7 Flat Section, Township, Range: 50.0% ) 15 ft ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 180 0 Project/Site:North SRX LRR E, MLRA 49 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 45.6514322721999 NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum:-111.059229 Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes (Plot size: =Total Cover FACU Yes60 Vegetation was recently mowed, identified from strip of undisturbed vegetation between field and ditch Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 0 340 0 100 =Total Cover 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X UDP7SOIL loam, many fine roots loam, granular loam, granular Remarks Loamy/Clayey Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 2-6 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/2 10YR 2/2 Color (moist) 0-2 Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey 10YR 3/2 Matrix Texture 6-16 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth NA Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Irriga�on Ditch (Middle Creek Ditch) Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0 Subregion (LRR):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 15 ft Remarks: Indicator Status 0 1 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: UPL Herb Stratum Bromus inermis 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 15 ft naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Aproximately 2' from ditch flowing northeast on the northwest corner of the investigation area. Aproximately 2' up from flowing water in ditch. Ditch is vegetated with a defined bed and bank. Reed canarygrass and meadow foxtail is growing in ditch Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 5.00 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: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 8/23/23 Providence Development Christine Pearcy, Faith Doty Flat agricultural field Bozeman, Gallatin CountyCity/County: None Long: 15 ft NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Section 24, 2S 5E MT UDP7 Flat Section, Township, Range: 0.0% ) 15 ft ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 0 0 Project/Site:North SRX LRR E, MLRA 49 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 45.6526194691 NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum:-111.062144513 Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes (Plot size: =Total Cover Yes100 Monoculture of smooth brome Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 500 500 100 100 =Total Cover 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 80 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X UDP7SOIL 20% 10YR 4/1 Remarks Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Uniform soil profile from 0-16" 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 3/2 Color (moist) 0-16 Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey Matrix Texture Redox FeaturesDepth NA Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 N. SRX Wetland Delineation 5659.018 23 | Page APPENDIX C: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\Field Data\Field Photos North SRX Wetland DelineationBozeman, Montana Photo Date: May 19, 2023 Photo 1: View of north side of property (Wetlands A and B) in May 2023. Middle Creek Ditch and 19th Avenue in background. Facing northwest. Photo 2: View of stormwater flow from pond moving towards northern property area. Stockpiles out-of-picture to the right (east). Facing north. N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\Field Data\Field Photos North SRX Wetland DelineationBozeman, Montana Photo Date: August 22, 2023 Photo 3: View of north side in August 2023 with disturbed (mowed) vegetation. Facing north-northwest. Photo 4: View soil test pits through Wetland A in August 2023. Facing east. N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\Field Data\Field Photos North SRX Wetland DelineationBozeman, Montana Photo Date: August 22, 2023 Photos 5, 6, 7, 8: Aerial view of soil pits at WDP1, WDP2, WDP3, and WDP4 (clockwise). N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\Field Data\Field Photos North SRX Wetland DelineationBozeman, Montana Photo Date: August 22, 2023 Photo 9: Representative view of problematic vegetation at WDP5. Photo 10: Representative view of vegetation at WDP8. N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\Field Data\Field Photos North SRX Wetland DelineationBozeman, Montana Photo Date: August 22, 2023 Photo 11: View of yellowing hydrophytic vegetation at WDP11. Photo 12: Representative view of vegetation at WDP12 (within stormwater management facility) N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\Field Data\Field Photos North SRX Wetland DelineationBozeman, Montana Photo Date: August 22, 2023 Photos 13, 14, 15 (clockwise): 5) Representative view of upland soil profile (UDP7). 6) Representative view of upland non-disturbed vegetation (UDP8). 7) Representative view of upland disturbed and non-disturbed vegetation (UDP1). N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\Field Data\Field Photos North SRX Wetland DelineationBozeman, Montana Photo Date: May, 19 2023 Photo 16: Representative view of inundated area near stockpiles in May 2023 (Wetland A). Photo 17: View of inundation in May 2023 at Wetland B. N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\Field Data\Field Photos North SRX Wetland DelineationBozeman, Montana Photo Date: May, 19 2023 Photo 18: Standing water in large ruts in May 2023. Photo 19: Standing water in large ruts in August 2023. N. SRX Wetland Delineation 5659.018 24 | Page APPENDIX D: MDT WETLAND ASSESSMENT MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) 1 1. Project Name: North South Range Crossing 2. MDT Project #: N/A 3. Control #: N/A 3. Evaluation Date: September 2023 4. Evaluator(s): F. Doty and C.Pearcy 5. Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 1 and 2 6. Wetland Location(s): Township 2 S, Range 5 E, Section 24; Township N, Range E, Section Approximate Stationing or Roadposts: N/A Watershed: 6 - Upper Missouri County: Gallatin 7. Evaluating Agency: Private by Morrison Maierle Inc. 8. Wetland Size (acre): 2.9 (visually estimated) Purpose of Evaluation: 2.9 (measured, e.g. GPS) Wetland potentially affected by MDT project Mitigation wetlands; pre-construction Mitigation wetlands; post-construction 9. Assessment Area (AA) Size (acre): 35 (visually estimated) Other potentially impacted by private entity (see manual for determining AA) 35 (measured, e.g. GPS) 10. CLASSIFICATION OF WETLAND AND AQUATIC HABITATS IN AA (See manual for definitions.) HGM Class (Brinson) Class (Cowardin) Modifier (Cowardin) Water Regime % OF AA Organic Soil Flats Emergent Wetland Permanent / Perennial 7 Organic Soil Flats Emergent Wetland Seasonal / Intermittent 1 Comments: 11. ESTIMATED RELATIVE ABUNDANCE (of similarly classified sites within the same Major Montana Watershed Basin; see manual.) common 12. GENERAL CONDITION OF AA i. Disturbance: Use matrix below to select the appropriate response; see manual for Montana listed noxious weed and aquatic nuisance vegetation species lists. Conditions within AA Predominant Conditions Adjacent to (within 500 feet of) AA Managed in predominantly natural state; is not grazed, hayed, logged, or otherwise converted; does not contain roads or buildings; and noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤15%. Land not cultivated, but may be moderately grazed or hayed or selectively logged; or has been subject to minor clearing; contains few roads or buildings; noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤30%. Land cultivated or heavily grazed or logged; subject to substantial fill placement, grading, clearing, or hydrological alteration; high road or building density; or noxious weed or ANVS cover is >30%. AA occurs and is managed in predominantly natural state; is not grazed, hayed, logged, or otherwise converted; does not contain roads or occupied buildings; and noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤15%. --- --- --- AA not cultivated, but may be moderately grazed or hayed or selectively logged; or has been subject to relatively minor clearing, fill placement, or hydrological alteration; contains few roads or buildings; noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤30%. --- --- --- AA cultivated or heavily grazed or logged; subject to relatively substantial fill placement, grading, clearing, or hydrological alteration; high road or building density; or noxious weed or ANVS cover is >30%. --- --- high disturbance Comments (types of disturbance, intensity, season, etc.): these wetlands have been farmed around and mowed for decades. ii. Prominent noxious, aquatic nuisance, and other exotic vegetation species: Noxious weeds occur but are actively being treated. iii. Provide brief descriptive summary of AA and surrounding land use/habitat: AA is located within a quickly developing portion of Bozeman. Land use includes residential, roads, farming. 13. STRUCTURAL DIVERSITY (Based on number of “Cowardin” vegetated classes present [do not include unvegetated classes]; see #10 above.) Existing # of “Cowardin” Vegetated Classes in AA Initial Rating Is current management preventing (passive) existence of additional vegetated classes? Modified Rating ≥3 (or 2 if one is forested) classes --- NA NA NA 2 (or 1 if forested) classes --- NA NA NA 1 class, but not a monoculture mod ←NO YES→ --- 1 class, monoculture (1 species comprises ≥90% of total cover) --- NA NA NA Comments: AA consists of emergent wetlands and upland consisting of pasture grasses. . MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 2 Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 1 and Wetland 2 14A. HABITAT FOR FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED THREATENED OR ENDANGERED PLANTS OR ANIMALS i. AA is Documented (D) or Suspected (S) to contain: Check box based on definitions in manual. Primary or critical habitat (list species) D S Secondary habitat (list species) D S Incidental habitat (list species) D S No usable habitat S ii. Rating: Based on the strongest habitat chosen in 14A(i) above, select the corresponding functional point and rating. Highest Habitat Level Doc/Primary Sus/Primary Doc/Secondary Sus/Secondary Doc/Incidental Sus/Incidental None Functional Point/Rating --- --- --- --- --- .1L --- Sources for documented use (e.g. observations, records): USFWS IPaC, MTNHP, observation 14B. HABITAT FOR PLANTS OR ANIMALS RATED S1, S2, OR S3 BY THE MONTANA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM Do not include species listed in 14A above. i. AA is Documented (D) or Suspected (S) to contain: Check box based on definitions in manual. Primary or critical habitat (list species) D S Secondary habitat (list species) D S Great blue heron Incidental habitat (list species) D S No usable habitat S ii. Rating: Based on the strongest habitat chosen in 14A(i) above, select the corresponding functional point and rating. Highest Habitat Level Doc/Primary Sus/Primary Doc/Secondary Sus/Secondary Doc/Incidental Sus/Incidental None S1 Species Functional Point/Rating --- --- --- --- --- --- .0L S2 and S3 Species Functional Point/Rating --- --- .6M --- --- --- --- Sources for documented use (e.g. observations, records): MTNHP Environmental Summary Report 14C. GENERAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RATING i. Evidence of Overall Wildlife Use in the AA: Check substantial, moderate, or low based on supporting evidence. Substantial: Based on any of the following [check]. Minimal: Based on any of the following [check]. observations of abundant wildlife #s or high species diversity (during any period) few or no wildlife observations during peak use periods abundant wildlife sign such as scat, tracks, nest structures, game trails, etc. little to no wildlife sign presence of extremely limiting habitat features not available in the surrounding area sparse adjacent upland food sources interview with local biologist with knowledge of the AA interview with local biologist with knowledge of AA Moderate: Based on any of the following [check]. observations of scattered wildlife groups or individuals or relatively few species during peak periods common occurrence of wildlife sign such as scat, tracks, nest structures, game trails, etc. adequate adjacent upland food sources interview with local biologist with knowledge of the AA ii. Wildlife Habitat Features: Working from top to bottom, check appropriate AA attributes in matrix to arrive at rating. Structural diversity is from #13. For class cover to be considered evenly distributed, the most and least prevalent vegetated classes must be within 20% of each other in terms of their percent composition of the AA (see #10). Abbreviations for surface water durations are as follows: P/P = permanent/perennial; S/I = seasonal/intermittent; T/E = temporary/ephemeral; and A = absent [see manual for further definitions of these terms]. Structural Diversity (see #13) High Moderate Low Class Cover Distribution (all vegetated classes) Even Uneven Even Uneven Even Duration of Surface Water in ≥ 10% of AA P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A Low Disturbance at AA (see #12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Moderate Disturbance at AA (see #12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- High Disturbance at AA (see #12i) --- --- --- --- M --- --- --- --- --- --- --- M --- --- --- --- L --- --- iii. Rating: Use the conclusions from i and ii above and the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Evidence of Wildlife Use (i) Wildlife Habitat Features Rating (ii) Exceptional High Moderate Low Substantial --- --- --- --- Moderate --- --- .5M --- Minimal --- --- --- --- Comments: ducks, red-wing black birds, deer, black bear MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 3 Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 1 and 2 14D. GENERAL FISH HABITAT NA (proceed to 14E) If the AA is not used by fish, fish use is not restorable due to habitat constraints, or is not desired from a management perspective [such as fish entrapped in a canal], then check the NA box and proceed to 14E. Assess this function if the AA is used by fish or the existing situation is “correctable” such that the AA could be used by fish [i.e., fish use is precluded by perched culvert or other barrier]. Type of Fishery: Cold Water (CW) Warm Water (WW) Use the CW or WW guidelines in the manual to complete the matrix. i. Habitat Quality and Known / Suspected Fish Species in AA: Use matrix to select the functional point and rating. Duration of Surface Water in AA Permanent / Perennial Seasonal / Intermittent Temporary / Ephemeral Aquatic Hiding / Resting / Escape Cover Optimal Adequate Poor Optimal Adequate Poor Optimal Adequate Poor Thermal Cover: optimal / suboptimal O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S FWP Tier I fish species --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FWP Tier II or Native Game fish species --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FWP Tier III or Introduced Game fish --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FWP Non-Game Tier IV or No fish species --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Sources used for identifying fish spp. potentially found in AA: ii. Modified Rating: NOTE: Modified score cannot exceed 1.0 or be less than 0.1. a) Is fish use of the AA significantly reduced by a culvert, dike, or other man-made structure or activity, or is the waterbody included on the current final MDEQ list of waterbodies in need of TMDL development with listed “Probable Impaired Uses” including cold or warm water fishery or aquatic life support, or do aquatic nuisance plant or animal species (see Appendix E) occur in fish habitat? YES, reduce score in i by 0.1 = or N0 b) Does the AA contain a documented spawning area or other critical habitat feature (i.e., sanctuary pool, upwelling area; specify in comments) for native fish or introduced game fish? YES, add to score in i or iia 0.1 = or N0 iii. Final Score and Rating: Comments: 14E. FLOOD ATTENUATION NA (proceed to 14F) Applies only to wetlands that are subject to flooding via in-channel or overbank flow. If wetlands in AA are not flooded from in-channel or overbank flow, check the NA box and proceed to 14F. Entrenchment Ratio (ER) Estimation (see manual for additional guidance). Entrenchment ratio = (flood-prone width) / (bankfull width). Flood-prone width = estimated horizontal projection of where 2 X maximum bankfull depth elevation intersects the floodplain on each side of the stream. / = flood prone width / bankfull width = entrenchment ratio Slightly Entrenched ER ≥ 2.2 Moderately Entrenched ER = 1.41 – 2.2 Entrenched ER = 1.0 – 1.4 C stream type D stream type E stream type B stream type A stream type F stream type G stream type i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Estimated or Calculated Entrenchment (Rosgen 1994, 1996) Slightly Entrenched C, D, E stream types Moderately Entrenched B stream type Entrenched A, F, G stream types Percent of Flooded Wetland Classified as Forested and/or Scrub/Shrub 75% 25-75% <25% 75% 25-75% <25% 75% 25-75% <25% AA contains no outlet or restricted outlet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- AA contains unrestricted outlet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ii. Are ≥10 acres of wetland in the AA subject to flooding AND are man-made features which may be significantly damaged by floods located within 0.5 mile downstream of the AA? YES NO Comments: Flood-prone Width Bankfull Width Bankfull Depth 2 x Bankfull Depth MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 4 Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 1 and 2 14F. SHORT AND LONG TERM SURFACE WATER STORAGE NA (proceed to 14G) Applies to wetlands that flood or pond from overbank or in-channel flow, precipitation, upland surface flow, or groundwater flow. If no wetlands in the AA are subject to flooding or ponding, then check the NA box and proceed to 14G. i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Abbreviations for surface water durations are as follows: P/P = permanent/perennial; S/I = seasonal/intermittent; and T/E = temporary/ephemeral [see manual for further definitions of these terms]. Estimated Maximum Acre Feet of Water Contained in Wetlands within the AA that are Subject to Periodic Flooding or Ponding >5 acre feet 1.1 to 5 acre feet ≤1 acre foot Duration of Surface Water at Wetlands within the AA P/P S/I T/E P/P S/I T/E P/P S/I T/E Wetlands in AA flood or pond ≥ 5 out of 10 years --- --- --- .8H --- --- --- --- --- Wetlands in AA flood or pond < 5 out of 10 years --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Comments: . 14G. SEDIMENT / NUTRIENT / TOXICANT / RETENTION AND REMOVAL NA (proceed to 14H) Applies to wetland with potential to receive sediments, nutrients, or toxicants through influx of surface or ground water or direct input. If no wetlands in the AA are subject to such input, check the NA box and proceed to 14H. i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Sediment, Nutrient, and Toxicant Input Levels within AA AA receives or surrounding land use has potential to deliver sediments, nutrients, or compounds at levels such that other functions are not substantially impaired. Minor sedimentation, sources of nutrients or toxicants, or signs of eutrophication present. Waterbody is on MDEQ list of waterbodies in need of TMDL development for “probable causes” related to sediment, nutrients, or toxicants or AA receives or surrounding land use has potential to deliver high levels of sediments, nutrients, or compounds such that other functions are substantially impaired. Major sedimentation, sources of nutrients or toxicants, or signs of eutrophication present. % Cover of Wetland Vegetation in AA ≥ 70% < 70% ≥ 70% < 70% Evidence of Flooding / Ponding in AA Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No AA contains no or restricted outlet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- AA contains unrestricted outlet --- --- .6M --- --- --- --- --- Comments: It is assumed that these wetlands receive agricultural run-off from surrounding farm land. 14H. SEDIMENT / SHORELINE STABILIZATION NA (proceed to 14I) Applies only if AA occurs on or within the banks of a river, stream, or other natural or man-made drainage, or on the shoreline of a standing water body which is subject to wave action. If 14H does not apply, check the NA box and proceed to 14I. % Cover of Wetland Streambank or Shoreline by Species with Stability Ratings of ≥6 (see Appendix F). Duration of Surface Water Adjacent to Rooted Vegetation Permanent / Perennial Seasonal / Intermittent Temporary / Ephemeral ≥ 65% --- --- --- 35-64% --- --- --- < 35% --- --- --- Comments: Grasses and cut willows/alder located along Bull Lake shoreline. 14I. PRODUCTION EXPORT / FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT i. Level of Biological Activity: Synthesis of wildlife and fish habitat rates (select). ii. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Factor A = acreage of vegetated wetland component in the AA; Factor B = level of biological activity rating from above (14Ii); Factor C = whether or not the AA contains a surface or subsurface outlet; the final three rows pertain to the duration of surface water in the AA, where P/P, S/I, and T/E were previously defined, and A = “absent” [see manual for further definitions of these terms]. A Vegetated Component >5 acres Vegetated Component 1-5 acres Vegetated Component <1 acre B High Moderate Low High Moderate Low High Moderate Low C Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No P/P --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- S/I --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- T/E/A --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- .5M --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- General Fish Habitat Rating (14Diii) General Wildlife Habitat Rating (14Ciii) E/H M L E/H --- --- --- M --- --- --- L --- --- --- NA --- --- --- MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 5 Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 1 and 2 14I. PRODUCTION EXPORT / FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (continued) iii. Modified Rating: Note: Modified score cannot exceed 1.0 or be less than 0.1. Vegetated Upland Buffer: Area with ≥ 30% plant cover, ≤ 15% noxious weed or ANVS cover, AND that is not subjected to periodic mechanical mowing or clearing (unless for weed control). Is there an average ≥ 50-foot wide vegetated upland buffer around ≥ 75% of the AA’s perimeter? YES, add 0.1 to score in ii = NO iv. Final Score and Rating: .5M Comments: the wetland and surrounding area is mowed. 14J. GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE / RECHARGE Check the appropriate indicators in i and ii below. i. Discharge Indicators ii. Recharge Indicators The AA is a slope wetland. Permeable substrate present without underlying impeding layer. Springs or seeps are known or observed. Wetland contains inlet but no outlet. Vegetation growing during dormant season/drought. Stream is a known ‘losing’ stream. Discharge volume decreases. Wetland occurs at the toe of a natural slope. Other: Seeps are present at the wetland edge. AA permanently flooded during drought periods. Wetland contains an outlet, but no inlet. Shallow water table and the site is saturated to the surface. Other: iii. Rating: Use the information from i and ii above and the table below to select the functional point and rating. Criteria Duration of Saturation at AA Wetlands FROM GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE or WITH WATER THAT IS RECHARGING THE GROUNDWATER SYSTEM P/P S/I T None Groundwater Discharge or Recharge --- --- --- --- Insufficient Data/Information NA Comments: this information is unknown 14K. UNIQUENESS i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Replacement Potential AA contains fen, bog, warm springs or mature (>80 yr-old) forested wetland OR plant association listed as “S1” by the MTNHP AA does not contain previously cited rare types AND structural diversity (#13) is high OR contains plant association listed as “S2” by the MTNHP AA does not contain previously cited rare types OR associations AND structural diversity (#13) is low-moderate Estimated Relative Abundance (#11) Rare Common Abundant Rare Common Abundant Rare Common Abundant Low Disturbance at AA (#12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Moderate Disturbance at AA (#12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- High Disturbance at AA (#12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- .2L --- Comments: wetland is not rare, veg is non-native for the most part, area is disturbed around the wetlands 14L. RECREATION / EDUCATION POTENTIAL NA (proceed to Overall Summary and Rating page) Affords ‘bonus’ points if AA provides a recreational or educational opportunity. i. Is the AA a known or potential recreational or educational site? YES, go to ii. NO, check the NA box. ii. Check categories that apply to the AA: Educational/Scientific Study Consumptive Recreational Non-consumptive recreational Other: iii. Rating: Use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Known or Potential Recreational or Educational Area Known Potential Public ownership or public easement with general public access (no permission required) --- --- Private ownership with general public access (no permission required) --- --- Private or public ownership without general public access, or requiring permission for public access .1M --- Comments: Private property 15. GENERAL SITE NOTES: area is surrounded by farmland that is quickly being converted to residential areas. MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) FUNCTION & VALUE SUMMARY AND OVERALL RATING 6 Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 1 and 2 Function & Value Variables Rating – Actual Functional Points Possible Functional Points Functional Units: Actual Points x Estimated AA Acreage Indicate the Four Most Prominent Functions with an Asterisk A. Listed / Proposed T&E Species Habitat low 0.10 1.00 3.50 B. MT Natural Heritage Program Species Habitat mod 0.60 1.00 21 * C. General Wildlife Habitat mod 0.50 1.00 17 * D. General Fish Habitat NA NA na E. Flood Attenuation NA NA na F. Short and Long Term Surface Water Storage high 0.80 1.00 28 * G. Sediment / Nutrient / Toxicant Removal mod 0.60 1.00 21 H. Sediment / Shoreline Stabilization NA NA na * I. Production Export / Food Chain Support mod 0.50 1.00 17 * J. Groundwater Discharge / Recharge NA NA na K. Uniqueness low 0.20 1.00 7 L. Recreation / Education Potential (bonus point) NA 0 Total Points 3.3 7 114.5 Total Functional Units Percent of Possible Score 47% (round to nearest whole number) Category I Wetland: (must satisfy one of the following criteria; otherwise go to Category II) Score of 1 functional point for Listed/Proposed Threatened or Endangered Species; or Score of 1 functional point for Uniqueness; or Score of 1 functional point for Flood Attenuation and answer to Question 14E.ii is "yes"; or Percent of possible score > 80% (round to nearest whole #). Category II Wetland: (Criteria for Category I not satisfied and meets any one of the following criteria; otherwise go to Category IV) Score of 1 functional point for MT Natural Heritage Program Species Habitat; or Score of .9 or 1 functional point for General Wildlife Habitat; or Score of .9 or 1 functional point for General Fish Habitat; or "High" to “Exceptional” ratings for both General Wildlife Habitat and General Fish/Aquatic Habitat; or Score of .9 functional point for Uniqueness; or Percent of possible score > 65% (round to nearest whole #). Category III Wetland: (Criteria for Categories I, II, or IV not satisfied) Category IV Wetland: (Criteria for Categories I or II are not satisfied and all of the following criteria are met; if not go to Category III) "Low" rating for Uniqueness; and Vegetated wetland component < 1 acre (do not include upland vegetated buffer); and Percent of possible score < 35% (round to nearest whole #). OVERALL ANALYSIS AREA (AA) RATING: Check the appropriate category based on the criteria outlined above. I II III IV N. SRX Wetland Delineation 5659.018 25 | Page APPENDIX E: 2015 VAUGHN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT WATERS OF THE US DELINEATION REPORT YELLOWSTONE THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE BOZEMAN, MONTANA October 19, 2015 Prepared for: Yellowstone Theological Institute c/o Chris Budeski Madison Engineering 895 Technology Blvd Suite 203 Bozeman, MT 59718 Prepared by: TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 1 1.1 Site Waterways ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Climate ................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 WETLAND DELINEATION METHODS ..................................................................... 5 2.1 Methods .................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Technical Criteria .................................................................................................... 5 3.0 WETLAND DELINEATION RESULTS ...................................................................... 8 3.1 NRCS Soil Survey Results ...................................................................................... 9 3.2 W-1 – Mandeville Creek: Riverine, Lower Perennial, Rock Bottom ........................ 9 3.3 W-2 and W-3 – Topographical Depressions ......................................................... 10 3.4 W-4 – Irrigation Ditch: Artificial Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom ......................................................................................................................... 10 3.5 W-5 – Woward-Esgar Irrigation Ditch: Artificial Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom ............................................................................................... 11 4.0 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 12 5.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 13 FIGURE 1.0 - USGS 7.5’ Bozeman Quadrangle Topographic Map ..................................... 3 FIGURE 2.0 - Aerial Photograph showing the study area ..................................................... 4 TABLE 1.0 - Summary of Attributes for WUS delineated on Property ............................ 12 APPENDIX A - Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms APPENDIX B - Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Survey APPENDIX C - Photo Log APPENDIX D - Wetland Exhibit Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute 1 1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND An investigation to identify waters of the United States (WUS) on 80 acres of agricultural land located in Bozeman, Montana, was completed by Vaughn Environmental Services, Inc. (VES) on July 24, 2015. A second wetland delineation was completed on September 24, 2015, within 75 feet of the north property boundary based on a request by the City of Bozeman to construct an east-west road and extend South 11th. The parcel, owned by Yellowstone Theological Institute and represented by Chris Budeski of Madison Engineering, Inc., is located south of Kagy Boulevard, east of South 19th Street, and north and south of the future east-ward extension of Graf Street. The land is legally described as the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter and the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 24, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, Gallatin County (Figure 1.0 – USGS 7.5’ Bozeman Quadrangle Topographic Map and Figure 2.0 – Aerial Photograph). The wetland boundaries were flagged based on vegetation, soil, and hydrological data collected during the field investigation. The flagged boundaries of the WUS within the study area were surveyed and mapped by Meridian Land Surveying, Inc. of Bozeman. The field investigation was completed for the landowners to identify the location, extent, and characteristics of jurisdictional WUS within the study area boundaries for compliance with United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulations and to define watercourse setbacks for the City of Bozeman. The USACE requires a permit for the discharge of fill material into WUS in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA 1986). A Supreme Court 2001 decision in the case of the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County versus US Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) limited the federal authority under the Clean Water act to regulate certain isolated wetlands. In light of the Court’s decision, WUS as it applies to the jurisdictional limits of the authority of the USACE include the area below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of stream channels and lakes or ponds connected to the tributary system, and wetlands adjacent to these waters. The jurisdictional status of wetlands depends on the presence or absence of a connection and/or proximity (meaning bordering, contiguous, or neighboring) to waters of the US. The Waters of the US Delineation report documents the project background, methodology used to identify project WUS, and findings of the field investigation. Three Wetland Determination Data Forms recording data collected on Mandeville Creek (W-1), at soil test pit 1 (SP-1) within W-2, and on the Woward-Esgar Ditch (W-5) are included in Appendix A. Soil mapping information for the site is included in Appendix B and photos of the site are included in Appendix C. The Waters of the US Delineation Map on Sheet 1 of 1 in Appendix D shows the boundaries of project WUS, which include Mandeville Creek (W-1), two topographical depressions (W-2 and W-3), riverine wetlands associated with two irrigation ditches located north of the property (W-4), and an irrigation ditch (W-5), known as the Woward-Esgar Ditch. The Wetland Delineation Report will be submitted to the USACE, Gallatin Conservation District (GCD), and the City of Bozeman as supporting documentation for the 404 and 310 Joint Application for Proposed Work in Montana’s Streams, Wetlands, Floodplains, and Other Water Bodies and City plat approval process. The study area encompasses an abandoned farmhouse and outbuildings. The site was historically flood irrigated and a majority of the acreage is currently used for wheat crop cultivation. The land north and south of the subject property is used for grain crops. Parcels southeast of the project are being developed into single family residences. South 19th Street is located west of the parcel and a recently constructed extension of South 15th parallels the southeast boundary. The land is mapped within the Meadowcreek series (510B), classified as stream terraces formed in alluvium on 0 to 4 percent slopes (Appendix B - USDA/NRCS 2015). Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute 2 1.1 SITE WATERWAYS Mandeville Creek parallels the west property boundary and South 19th Street for 2,660 feet from south to north. The creek channel was straightened historically to allow for crop cultivation. The creek arises from a spring located south of Patterson Road approximately 1.25 miles south of the project. The channel is identified on the GCD map as a perennial stream. A majority of the surface water flow in the creek is diverted east to an irrigation ditch that parallels the north property boundary. A portion of the flow is maintained in the straight channel that flows north along South 19th. Water in the east/west irrigation ditch located at the north boundary is diverted north toward Kagy Boulevard. Surface water is discharged to an open water segment of Mandeville Creek located north of Kagy. The water is piped underground for several hundred feet on the Montana State University campus north of Lincoln Street. The water surfaces in two open channel segments located on campus south of College Avenue. The flow is piped underground north of College Avenue until it surfaces again at the Bozeman High School campus on Main Street. The creek ultimately discharges to the East Gallatin River north of Interstate 90. The Woward-Esgar Ditch parallels the east property boundary. The ditch was dry during the investigation. There was no apparent surface water connection upgradient of the ditch at the southeast property corner. The channel cross-section was well-vegetated with herbaceous species. No OHWM was visible on the banks of the ditch at the north property boundary. The south end of the ditch terminates at a recently paved street located in a new development south of Alder Creek Road. The ditch was relocated east of the road and outside the subject property. The relocated ditch is sparsely vegetated with invasive species. 1.2 CLIMATE The Bozeman area climate generally resembles that of a middle latitude steppe, with relatively long cold winters and short cool summers (Pac 1991). The region comprises a mountain complex within the steppe region, resulting in orographic effects that produce a local, cooler and wetter climate. Peak runoff generally occurs during the spring from snowmelt and combined snowmelt/rainfall events. These events produce relatively long periods of runoff. Summer thunderstorms also contribute to peak runoff although they are generally short in duration. The annual pattern of precipitation typically results in increasing precipitation from March to a peak in June, a decline through mid summer, another increase in late August to a second, smaller peak in September, followed by a general decline to the yearly low in February (Pac et al 1993). The annual temperature regime of the study area is generally characterized by significant seasonal variations. Winters are typically long and cold with subfreezing average temperatures from November to March. Average annual precipitation ranges from 13 inches per year at the lower elevations to 50 inches per year at the higher elevations in the Bridger Range north of Bozeman (NRCS 1972). Although the average annual precipitation is low enough to classify most of the area as semi-arid, about 70 percent of the annual total precipitation normally falls during the April to September growing season. Elevations in the study area range from 4,972 to 5,007 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The closest meteorological station to the study area is Montana State University located approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the project at 4,860 feet amsl. Records from 1961 to 1990 indicate that the average annual precipitation is 19.25 inches with an average total snowfall of 92.1 inches. The average temperature is 44.2 degrees Fahrenheit (USDA 1990) and the mean annual precipitation rate for the predominant soil series, the Meadowcreek loam (510B), is 12 to 18 inches. Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute 3 Figure 1.0 USGS 7.5 minute Bozeman Quadrangle Topographic Map showing project location. Project Location Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute 4 Figure 2.0 Aerial Photograph showing study area. Mandeville Creek flows on the west property boundary adjacent to South 19th. Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute 5 2.0 WETLAND DELINEATION METHODS 2.1 METHODS Waters of the US including jurisdictional wetlands within the study area were identified on July 24, 2015, and September 24, 2015, using methodology developed by the USACE and other federal agencies for implementation of Section 404 of the CWA. Delineation procedures involved a review of existing site-specific information and completion of an onsite field investigation based on guidelines for the Routine Determination Method presented in the Field Guide for Wetland Delineation (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (USACE 2010). The Routine Level-2 Onsite Determination Method employs primarily qualitative procedures. Sample plots (approximately a 15-foot radius) are established within potential wetlands based on changes in plant communities, plant diversity, topography, and soil type. Data points are generally located parallel to watercourses, perpendicular to the apparent groundwater hydraulic gradient, and/or along topographical breaks. Vegetation composition, hydrology, and soil characteristics are assessed at each data collection point. If all three parameters exhibit positive wetland indictors, the area represented by the sample plot is classified as wetland. If any one of the parameters does not display a positive indicator, the area is classified as a non-wetland or upland unless the wetland is atypical or problematic. The jurisdictional authority of the USACE over wetlands identified in the field depends on the presence or absence of a surface water connection and/or proximity to waters of the US. Wetland Data Forms were completed for Mandeville Creek (W-1), SP-1 within W-2, a topographic depression, and the Woward-Esgar Ditch (W-5). 2.2 TECHNICAL CRITERIA A wetland must meet three technical criteria for it to be categorized as jurisdictional. The USACE (259 Federal Register 853532) and the Environmental Protection Agency (47 FR 31810) jointly define wetlands as “areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.” The following conditions must be present for an area to be considered a jurisdictional wetland. 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation: Defined as plant species normally or commonly adapted to saturation of sufficient duration to cause anaerobic conditions in the root zone. 2. Wetland Hydrology: Defined as hydrology supported by sources of water that result in saturated, flooded, or ponded soil conditions. 3. Hydric Soils: Defined as soil that forms under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (59 Fed. Reg. 35680, 7/13/94). Hydrophytic Vegetation Plants must be physiologically or morphologically adapted to saturated or anaerobic soil conditions to grow in wetlands. The USACE and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have determined the estimated probability of finding representative wetland species within Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute 6 specified areas under natural conditions. Accordingly, plants may be categorized as obligate (OBL), facultative wetland (FACW), facultative (FAC), facultative upland (FACU), or upland (UPL) in decreasing order of moisture dependence or tolerance. Obligate species occur greater than 99 percent of the time in a wetland. Facultative wetland species have a 67 to 99 percent probability of occurring in a wetland. Facultative species exhibit a 34 to 67 percent probability of occurring in a wetland. Facultative upland species have a 67 to 99 percent probability of occurring in a non-wetland and upland species have a greater than 99 percent probability of occurring in a non-wetland. Species with an indicator status of OBL, FACW, or FAC are considered hydrophytic. Vegetation indicator status for this investigation was derived from the National Wetland Plant List for the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Lichvar and Kartesz 2014). Taxonomic references included Dorn 1984, Hitchcock 1971, Lackschewitz 1991, and Lesica and Husby 2001. The name and indicator status of individual species within each vegetation stratum was recorded on the data form in descending order of abundance (Appendix A). Under the dominance test introduced in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (USACE 2010), a sample plot is classified as having wetland vegetation if the cumulative total of the estimated percent cover for the dominant hydrophytic species exceeds 50 percent and 50 percent or greater of the dominant species have a hydrophytic indicator status. The Regional Supplement also introduced the Prevalence Index, Morphological Adaptations, and Wetland Non-Vascular plants as indicators of hydrophytic vegetation only when indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology are also present. Wetland Hydrology Technical criteria for wetland hydrology guidelines have been established as “permanent or periodic inundation, or soil saturation within 12 inches of the ground surface for a significant period (usually 14 days or more or 12.5 percent of the growing season) during the growing season” (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The minimum duration required for soil saturation is five percent of the growing season in consecutive days. Inundation or saturation for periods less than 5 percent of the growing season is evidence of non-wetland conditions. Systems with continuous inundation or saturation between 5 and 12.5 percent of the growing season may or may not be jurisdictional wetlands based on other criteria. The growing season is defined for purposes of this report as the number of days where there is a 50 percent probability that the minimum daily temperature is greater than or equal to 28° Fahrenheit (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The Bozeman growing season extends from May 5 to October 1 according to the WETS Bozeman Climate data. Approximately 19 days of saturation would meet the wetland hydrology criterion for a specific wetland. Either direct observations of inundation or well data showing a free water surface at depths less than 12 inches continuously for more than 5 percent of the growing season have been used nationally to distinguish active wetland hydrology. Surface water, groundwater, direct precipitation, and/or snowmelt may contribute to wetland hydrology. Field observations were used to determine existing wetland hydrology. A positive indication of wetland hydrology requires either one primary indicator or two or more secondary indicators. The Regional Supplement for the Western Mountains area lists the primary indicators as surface water, high water table, saturation, water marks, sediment deposits, drift deposits, algal mat or crust, iron deposits, surface soil cracks, inundation visible on aerial imagery, sparsely vegetated concave surface, water stained leaves, salt crust, aquatic invertebrates, hydrogen sulfide odor, oxidized rhizospheres along living roots, presence of reduced iron, recent iron reduction in tilled soils, and Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute 7 stunted or stressed plants. Secondary indicators include water-stained leaves, drainage patterns, dry-season water table, saturation visible on aerial imagery, geomorphic position, shallow aquitard, FAC-neutral test, raised ant mounds, and frost-heave hummocks. Hydric Soils Soil is considered saturated when the capillary fringe occurs within a major portion of the root zone (within 12 inches of the surface). The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS), has compiled a list of hydric soils in the United States. The list identifies soil series mapped by the NRCS that meet the hydric criteria. Upland (non-wetland) soils may have inclusions of hydric soils that may not be demarcated on NRCS maps. Field examination of site-specific soil characteristics is necessary to confirm the presence of hydric soils. The profile description presented on the data form reflects site soil conditions as determined from soil pits, not the NRCS designation. The NRCS soil survey information reviewed for the project area is included in Appendix B. Hydric soils exhibit certain physical characteristics that can be observed visually. These characteristics, or indicators, include high organic matter content (histic epipedons), accumulation of sulfidic material, gley formation (greenish or bluish gray color), redoximorphic features (mottling), and low soil chromas (dark soil colors – soil chroma). Organic matter content is estimated visually and texturally; redoximorphic features are identified visually; sulfidic material is identified by the odor of sulfide gases; and soil colors are determined using a Munsell soil color chart (Munsell 1988). The colorimetric determination is to be made immediately below the “A” horizon or 10 inches whichever is less. The Regional Supplement for Western Mountains introduced new classifications for hydric soil indicators based on the soil type (organic, muck or mineral), soil matrix, and type of redoximorphic features such as concentrations, depletions, reduced matrix, or covered or coated sand grains. The full description of each category is included in Chapter Three of the Regional Supplement for the Western Mountains area. Wetland soils can be assumed to be present in any plant community where all the dominant species have an indicator status of OBL or FACW, and the wetland boundary is abrupt (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute 8 3.0 WETLAND DELINEATION RESULTS A site investigation to determine the presence and extent of waters of the US within the study area was completed by VES on July 24, 2015. A second wetland delineation was completed on September 24, 2015, within 75 feet of the north property boundary based on a preliminary review by the City of Bozeman requesting construction of an east-west road and extension of South 11th. Meridian surveyed the demarcated boundaries using a global positioning system (GPS). Wetland boundaries were flagged by VES based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and primary hydrologic indicators. Wetland types were based on similarities in physiographic, hydrologic, and plant community characteristics. Site-specific wetland parameters are described on the Wetland Determination Data Forms included in Appendix A. The Waters of the US Delineation Map drafted by Meridian shows the boundaries of waters of the US including wetlands within the study area (Appendix D). Mandeville Creek (W-1) is a perennial stream classified as a riverine, lower perennial, wetland under the Hydrogeomorphic system (Smith et al 1995) and a riverine, lower perennial, rock bottom wetland under the Cowardin system (Cowardin et al 1979). Emergent wetland plants dominate the adjacent riverine wetland fringe in the open channel areas. One thousand feet of the channel near the abandoned farmhouse exhibits a tree and shrub overstory. The water regime of the stream channel is permanently flooded. Riverine systems are associated with flowing water from stream channels, old oxbows, or abandoned meanders, and creek margins. Stream channels must exhibit an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) to be considered a WUS. The term OHWM means the line established by the fluctuations of water as indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, and natural line impressed on the bank shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, and the presence of litter and debris, (33 CFR 2003). The Mandeville Creek flow is divided near the north property boundary. A majority of the water is diverted east into a ditch that crosses the agricultural property located north of the site. Surface water from Mandeville Creek and the ditch converge on the south side of Kagy Boulevard near an historic farmhouse. A single channel flows from the culvert outlet on Kagy north to Lincoln Street where the channel is piped underground on the MSU campus. Segments of the creek channel surface on the MSU and Bozeman High School campuses. Wetland 2 (W-2) and Wetland 3 (W-3) are open topographical depression wetlands based on the hydrogeomorphic classification system (Smith et al. 1995). The primary source of water is groundwater and leakage from the irrigation ditch located across the north boundary. The wetlands are classified as palustrine with emergent vegetation according to the Cowardin classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979). The second delineation focused on the riverine wetland (W-4) north of the parcel that is a remnant of a large depression wetland that historically encompassed W-2 based on a 2005 delineation report. The irrigation ditch diverted from Mandeville Creek currently supplies the surface water source for two ditched channels located within W-4. The Woward-Esgar Ditch (W-5) is considered an artificial riverine WUS although the source of hydrology appears to have been removed in the last five years. The ditch is dominated by emergent vegetation. The Gallatin Conservation District does not classify the ditch as a perennial stream. The ditch channel terminates at the northeast property boundary. Section 3.1 discusses the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey results for the project site. The characteristics of the project WUS are described in Sections 3.2 to 3.5. The Wetland Determination Data forms are included in Appendix A and the NRCS soil map Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute 9 and soil descriptions are included in Appendix B. Photographs of the site wetlands are included in Appendix C. Appendix D contains the Waters of the US Delineation Map. 3.1 NRCS SOIL SURVEY RESULTS The web soil survey for Gallatin County (USDA/NRCS 2015) maps Mandeville Creek and a majority of the site within the Meadowcreek loam (510B) map unit found on 0 to 4 percent slopes (Appendix B). The soil map unit consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils. The soil series is taxonomically classified as a fine-loamy over sandy or sandy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid Fluvaquentic Halustolls. It is classified as hydric based on the aquic moisture subclass. The north quarter of the ditch (W-3) is located within the Enbar-Nythar loam (512B) found on 0 to 4 percent slopes. It is a somewhat poorly drained soil. The Nythar component is considered hydric and is classified as a fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, frigid Cumulic Endoaquolls. 3.2 W-1 – MANDEVILLE CREEK: RIVERINE WETLAND, LOWER PERENNIAL, ROCK BOTTOM; EMERGENT VEGETATION The Waters of the US Delineation Map (Appendix D) demarcates the limits of the stream and riverine fringe associated with Mandeville Creek. The creek was flowing during the investigation (Photos 1 to 6). The channel was 2.0 to 4.0 feet wide, 0.2 to 0.5 feet deep, with 2.0- foot high banks. Pools 1.0 to 1.5 feet deep form where the water is diverted through headgates. A headgate located approximately 216 feet south of the north boundary diverts a majority of the surface water flow in the creek to a ditch located immediately north of and parallel to the north property boundary. Wheat fields lie north of the ditch on the adjacent property. Vegetation The plant species on Mandeville Creek are dominated by field meadow-foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis – FAC), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea – FACW), smooth brome (Bromus inermis – FAC), Northwest Territory sedge (Carex utriculata – OBL), and red-tinge bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus – OBL). The grasses dominate a majority of the open channel. A woody overstory has developed near the abandoned farmhouse dominated by Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra – FACW), balsam cottonwood (Populus balsamifera – FAC), a non-native Colorado spruce (Picea pungens – FAC), Bebb willow (Salix bebbiana – FACW), and yellow willow (Salix lutea – OBL). Canadian thistle (Cirsium arvense – FAC), a Priority 2B weed, and Hoary alyssum (Berteroa incana – NL), a Priority 2A weed, were noted along the south end of the channel. Soil No test pit was excavated in the channel. The channel is located within the Meadowcreek loam (510B) hydric map unit. The soil series is classified as a Fluvaquentic Haplustolls, hydric based on the aquic subclass. Hydrology The channel contained flowing surface water 0.5 to 1.0 foot deep. Water marks, drift deposits, water-stained leaves, hydrogen sulfide odor (near diversion where water is pooled), drainage patterns, and geomorphic position were additional indicators of wetland hydrology. Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute 10 3.3 W-2 AND W-3 – OPEN TOPOGRAPHICAL DEPRESSIONS; EMERGENT VEGETATION The WUS exhibit in Appendix D defines the limits of the topographical depressions hydrologically supported by groundwater and overflow from the irrigation ditch across the north boundary (Photos 7 and 8). Wetland 2 (W-2) has developed in a shallow wide swale. Heavy rains fell in the area the day before the delineation was completed resulting in the presence of ponded surface water in the lowest contours of the depression. Soil test pit SP-1 was located near the north edge of the wetland. The wetland is surrounded by cultivated farmland. Wetland 3 (W-3) is a small two-foot deep depression near the north boundary that collects surface water from the ditch. Vegetation Field meadow-foxtail, Northwest Territory sedge, Nebraska sedge (Carex nebrascensis – OBL) dominate the plant species in W-2. The sedge species in the north half of the wetland were mowed. Wetland 3 (W-2) is dominated by field meadow foxtail and common timothy (Phleum pratense – FAC). Soil Soil test pit SP-1 within W-2 revealed a black (10 YR 2/1) loam with small (2 percent) dark, yellowish brown redoximorphic concentrations in the matrix at 12 inches below the ground surface (bgs). The redox dark surface is an indication of a hydric soil. The channel is located within the Meadowcreek loam (510B) map unit. Hydrology Several isolated shallow depressions within W-2 contained ponded surface water during the delineation. Heavy rain fell in the region the previous day. Test pit SP-1 was saturated at 12 inches bgs providing an indication of wetland hydrology. 3.4 W-4 – IRRIGATION DITCH: ARTIFICIAL RIVERINE WETLAND, UNCONSOLIDATED BOTTOM; EMERGENT VEGETATION Water diverted from Mandeville Creek flows east along the north parcel boundary. Surface water is diverted north near the center fenceline. A secondary ditch is diverted east and north near the center fenceline. A riverine fringe dominated by herbaceous species has developed in the lower elevations surrounding the ditches. Vegetation Field meadow foxtail, reed canary grass, spreading bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera – FAC), fringed willow herb (Epilobium ciliatum – FACW), American brooklime (Veronica americana – OBL), and Northwest Territory sedge dominate the vegetation cover. Soil No test pit was excavated in W-4. The ditches are located within the Enbar-Nythar loam (512B). The Nythar component of the soil series is classified as hydric, a Cumulic Endoaquoll. Hydrology The ditch channels contained flowing surface water during the field investigation and Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute 11 exhibited an OHWM. The riverine fringe was saturated to the ground surface in isolated areas. 3.5 W-5 – WOWARD-ESGAR DITCH: ARTIFICIAL RIVERINE WETLAND, UNCONSOLIDATED BOTTOM; EMERGENT VEGETATION The ditch channel (W-3) parallels the east boundary of the parcel from south to north (Photos 9 to 12). The channel was dry during the investigation. The base of the channel is approximately 2.5 feet wide within an eight-foot wide swale. The channel is overgrown with meadow foxtail and smooth brome. There was no evidence of recent wetland hydrology. The historic water source at the south end of the ditch appears to have been removed during construction of a new subdivision. The original ditch channel terminates at a road located north of Alder Creek Road. A new ditch has been excavated parallel to the new road. Vegetation Field meadow-foxtail, smooth brome, and Canada thistle dominate the vegetation in the ditch. Isolated patches of red-tinge bulrush and Nebraska sedge inhabit the lowest contours of the ditch near the balsam cottonwood and Pacific willow cluster located near the center of the north-south ditch line. The newly excavated channel adjacent to the subdivision under construction is predominantly bare ground with isolated patches of sweet yellow clover (Melilotus officinalis – FACU), tall hedge mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum - FACU), black eyed susan (Rudbeckia hirta – FACU), and Canadian thistle. Soil No test pit was excavated in the irrigation ditch. The ditch is located within the Enbar-Nythar loam (512B). The Nythar component of the soil series is classified as hydric, a Cumulic Endoaquoll. Hydrology The channel did not contain surface water during the field investigation. Surface soil cracks and a sparsely vegetated concave surface were primary indicators of wetland hydrology Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute 12 4.0 SUMMARY Five waters of the US, W-1 to W-5, were identified within or near the Yellowstone Theological Institute property. The jurisdictional status of the property WUS will be determined by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The Waters of the US Delineation Report will be submitted to the USACE with a request to determine the status of the project WUS. Mandeville Creek will be protected from development by City-mandated, 50-foot watercourse setbacks. Table 1.0 Summary of Attributes for WUS delineated on Property. Wetland Designation Hydrogeomorphic Class (Smith) Jurisdictional Status Areal Extent* (Acres) W-1 (Mandeville Creek) Riverine, Lower Perennial, Rock Bottom, Emergent Vegetation Jurisdictional 0.840 W-2 Depression, Emergent Vegetation Jurisdictional 0.560 W-3 Depression, Emergent Vegetation Jurisdictional 0.003 W-4 Artificial Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Emergent Vegetation Jurisdictional * W-5 Artificial Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Emergent Vegetation Jurisdictional 0.67 *Area of WUS within parcel boundaries. The limits of W-4 located north of the north boundary continue to Kagy Street beyond the scope of the delineation. The area was not calculated. Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute 13 5.0 REFERENCES Clean Water Act, Section 404. 1986. Federal Register - Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers. Cowardin, Lewis M., Virginia Carter, Francis C. Golet, and Edward T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Services, USDI, Washington, DC. Dorn, R.D. 1984. Vascular Plants of Montana. Mountain West Publishing, Wyoming. Environmental Laboratory 1987. “Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual,” Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksbrug, Miss. Hitchcock, A.S. 1971. Manual of the Grasses of the United States, Volume One and Two. Dover Publications, New York. Lackschewitz, K. 1991. Vascular Plants of West-Central Montana – Identification Guidebook. General Technical Report –277. Intermountain Research Station. USDA, Forest Service. Missoula, MT. Lichvar , Robert W. and John T. Kartesz. 2012. North American Digital Flora. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.0. USACE. Engineer Research and Development Center. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover NH and BONAP, Chapel Hill. NC. Lesica, P., P. Husby. 2001. Field Guide to Montana’s Wetland Vascular Plants. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Bozeman, MT Munsell. 1988. Soil Color Charts. New Windsor, New York. Smith, R.D., A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, and M.M. Brinson. 1995. An approach for assessing wetland functions using hydrogeomorphic classification, reference wetlands, and functional indices. Wetland Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-9. US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service 1990, WETS Climate Summary Data US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service 1987. Hydric Soils of the US. In cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. Washington DC. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to theCorps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: WesternMountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S.Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3.Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and DevelopmentCenter. WEBSITES: USDA/NRCS Web Soil Survey, Gallatin County, accessed July 2015: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ Gallatin County GIS Map Launcher accessed in July 2015 http://webapps.gallatin.mt.gov/mapengine/ APPENDIX A WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Yellowstone Theological Inst. City/County: Bozeman, MT, Gallatin County ________ ________ Sampling Date: July 24, 2015 ___________ _________ Applicant/Owner: __ Chris Budeski ______ _________________ _________________ State: MT ________ Sampling Point: W-1, Mandeville Creek __ Investigator(s): ____ Barbara Vaughn ____ _________________ Section, Township, Range: SW 1/4NW1/4SW1/4 Sec 24, T2S R5E, Gallatin County ___________ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): stream terrace _____________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): _____ flat _____________ _____________ Slope (%): 2 % Subregion (LLR): __ _________________ Lat: 45°39’10.13”N _ _________________ Long: 111°03’45.73”W _______________ Datum: ____________ _________ Soil Map Unit Name: Meadowcreek Loam (510B) 0 to 4 % slopes _________________ ________ NWI classification: _________ __________________ _________ Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X ____ ________ No _____ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ____ , Soil _____________ , or Hydrology _____ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X _______________ No_______________ Are Vegetation ____ , Soil _____________ , or Hydrology _____ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X _____ No ________ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X _____ No ________ within a Wetland? Yes X _____ No _________ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X _____ No _______ Remarks: Channel flowing during field visit. Channel 2 to 4 feet wide, 2 to 6 inches deep, pools 1 to 2 feet deep, 24-inch high stream banks. Irrigation headgate diverts flow east near NW corner to recently dug channel that flows east on the north property boundary. Minimal flow remained in creek north of Flag 64. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:_______15 ft radius______) % Cover Species? Status 1. Salix lasiandra ____________________________ 2 ______ no ____ FACW __ 2. Populus balsamifera ________________________ 4 ______ no ____ FAC ____ 3. Picea pungens ____________________________ 1 ______ no ____ FAC ____ 4 __________________________________________ 7 ______ =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:____15 ft radius________) 1. Salix bebbiana _____________________________ 2 ______ no ____ FACW __ 2. Salix lutea ________________________________ 2 ______ no ____ OBL ____ 3. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 4. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 5. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 4 ______ =Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size:_______15 ft radius________) 1. Alopecurus pratensis _______________________ 40 _____ Yes ___ FAC ____ 2. Phalaris arundinacea _______________________ 25 _____ Yes ___ FACW __ 3. Bromus inermis ___________________________ 15 _____ Yes ___ FAC ____ 4. Carex utriculata ___________________________ 5 ______ No ____ OBL ____ 5. Scirpus microcarpus ________________________ 5 ______ No ____ OBL ____ 6. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 7. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 8. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 9. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 10. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 11. ________________________________________ 90 _____ =Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:_______________) 1. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 2. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 101 ____ =Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum______0_____ Remarks: Invasive species include Hoary allysum, Cirsium arvense, Carduus nutans, Spotted knapweed, Salsify Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, OR FAC: 3 ___________ (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 ___________ (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, OR FAC: 100 _________ (A/B) Prevalance Index worksheet: _________ Total % Cover of: _________ _ Multiply by: OBL species 12 ____________ x 1 = 12 __________ FACW species 29 ____________ x 2 = 58 __________ FAC species 60 ____________ x 3 = 180 _________ FACU species ______________ x 4 = ____________ UPL species ______________ x 5 = ____________ Column Totals: 101 ___________ (A) 250 (B) Prevalance Index = B/A = __250/101=2.48______________ Hyrdophytic Vegetation Indicators: X __ Dominance Test is >50% X __ Prevalence Index is ≤3.0c ____ Morphological Adaptions¹ (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ____ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants¹ ____ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) cIndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hd hti US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Final Version SOIL Sampling Point: ____W-1_______________ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrlx Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Typec Locc Texture Remarks ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ __________ loam ________ _____________ ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ _________ ____________ _____________ ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ _________ ____________ _____________ cType: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. dLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soilse: ____ Histosol (A1) ____ Sandy Redox (S5) ____ 2 cm Muck (A10) ____ Histic Epipedon (A2) ____ Stripped Matrix (S6) ____ Red Parent Material (TF2) ____ Black Histic (A3) ____ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ____ Other (Explain in Remarks) ____ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ____ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ____ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ____ Depleted Matrix (F3) ____ Thick Dark Surface (A12) X ____ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ____ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ____ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present _____Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ____Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematicRestrictive Layer (if present): Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: _____________________________________________________ Depth (inches): ______________________________________________ Remarks: No test pit excavated. Flowing surface water in channel. Meadowcreek loam hydric by virtue of taxonomic classification, Fluvaquentic Haplustolls. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) X __ Surface Water (A1) X ____ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA ____ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1,2, ____ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) ____ Saturation (A3) ____ Salt Crust (B11) X ____ Drainage Patterns (B10) X __ Water Marks (B1) ____ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ____ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ____ Sediment Deposits (B2) X ____ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ____ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) X __ Drift Deposits (B3) ____ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) X ____ Geomorphic Position (D2) ____ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ____ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ____ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ____ Iron Deposits (B5) ____ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ____ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ____ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ____ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ____ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ____ Inundation Visible or Aerial Imagery (B7) ____ Other (Explain in Remarks) ____ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) _____Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes X ____ No ______ Depth (inches): 6 to 12 __________ Water Table Present? Yes _____ No ______ Depth (inches): ________________ Saturation Present? Yes ______ No ______ Depth (inches): ________________ (includes capillary fringe) WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Hyric Soil Present? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present Yes X ____ No_____ Project/Site: Yellowstone Theological Inst. City/County: Bozeman, MT, Gallatin County ________ ________ Sampling Date: July 24, 2015 ___________ _________ Applicant/Owner: __ Chris Budeski, representative ___________ _________________ State: MT ________ Sampling Point: SP-1 W-2______________ Investigator(s): ____ Barbara Vaughn ____ _________________ Section, Township, Range: SW 1/4NW1/4SW1/4 Sec 24, T2S R5E, Gallatin County ___________ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): topo depression ____________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): _____ slightly concave ___ _____________ Slope (%): 2 % Subregion (LLR): __ LLR E ___________ Lat: 45°39’08.46”N _ _________________ Long: 111°03’36.0”W ________________ Datum: ____________ _________ Soil Map Unit Name: Turner Loam (457A) 0 to 4 % slopes _____ _________________ ________ NWI classification: _________ __________________ _________ Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X ____ ________ No _____ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ____ , Soil _____________ , or Hydrology _____ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X _______________ No_______________ Are Vegetation ____ , Soil _____________ , or Hydrology _____ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X _____ No ________ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X _____ No ________ within a Wetland? Yes X _____ No _________ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X _____ No _______ Remarks: Channel flowing during field visit. Channel 2 to 4 feet wide, 2 to 6 inches deep, pools 1 to 2 feet deep, 24-inch high stream banks. Irrigation headgate diverts flow east near NW corner to recently dug channel that flows east on the north property boundary. Minimal flow remained in creek north of Flag 64. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size ______) % Cover Species? Status 1. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 2. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 3. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 4 __________________________________________ _______ =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:___________) 1. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 2. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 3. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 4. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 5. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ _______ =Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size:_______________) 1. Alopecurus pratensis _______________________ 40 _____ Yes ___ FAC ____ 2. Carex utriculata ___________________________ 30 _____ Yes ___ OBL ____ 25 Yes ___________________________________________ FACW __ 3. Carex nebrascensis ________________________ 30 _____ Yes ___ OBL ____ 4. _________________________________________ 5. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 6. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 7. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 8. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 9. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 10. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 11. ________________________________________ _______ =Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:_______________) 1. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 2. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 100 ____ =Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum______0_____ Remarks: Invasive species include Taraxacum officinale. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Final Version Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, OR FAC: 3 ___________ (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 ___________ (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, OR FAC: 100 _________ (A/B) Prevalance Index worksheet: _________ Total % Cover of: _________ _ Multiply by: OBL species 60 ____________ x 1 = 60 __________ FACW species ______________ x 2 = ____________ FAC species 40 ____________ x 3 = 120 _________ FACU species ______________ x 4 = ____________ UPL species ______________ x 5 = ____________ Column Totals: 100 ___________ (A) 180 (B) Prevalance Index = B/A = __250/101=1.8______________ Hyrdophytic Vegetation Indicators: X __ Dominance Test is >50% X __ Prevalence Index is ≤3.0c ____ Morphological Adaptions¹ (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ____ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants¹ ____ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) cIndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hd hti SOIL Sampling Point: ____SP-1, W-2_______________ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrlx Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Typec Locc Texture Remarks 1-12 _______ 10 YR 2/1 _______ 98 ________ 10 YR 4/6 _________ 2 __________ C _________ M ________ black loam ___ light, infrequent y ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ _________ ____________ _____________ ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ _________ ____________ _____________ cType: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. dLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soilse: ____ Histosol (A1) ____ Sandy Redox (S5) ____ 2 cm Muck (A10) ____ Histic Epipedon (A2) ____ Stripped Matrix (S6) ____ Red Parent Material (TF2) ____ Black Histic (A3) ____ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ____ Other (Explain in Remarks) ____ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ____ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ____ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ____ Depleted Matrix (F3) ____ Thick Dark Surface (A12) X ____ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ____ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ____ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present _____Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ____Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematicRestrictive Layer (if present): Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: _____________________________________________________ Depth (inches): ______________________________________________ Remarks: Light, infrequent redox features. Black loam soil. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) X __ Surface Water (A1) ____ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA ____ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1,2, ____ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) X __ Saturation (A3) ____ Salt Crust (B11) ____ Drainage Patterns (B10) ____ Water Marks (B1) ____ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ____ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ____ Sediment Deposits (B2) ____ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ____ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ____ Drift Deposits (B3) ____ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) X ____ Geomorphic Position (D2) ____ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ____ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ____ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ____ Iron Deposits (B5) ____ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ____ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ____ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ____ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ____ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ____ Inundation Visible or Aerial Imagery (B7) ____ Other (Explain in Remarks) ____ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) _____Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes X ____ No ______ Depth (inches): 0.5 _____________ Water Table Present? Yes _____ No X ____ Depth (inches): ________________ Saturation Present? Yes X ____ No ______ Depth (inches): 12 ______________ (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Water on ground surface pooled in low spots. Heavy rain the previous night WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Yellowstone Theological Inst. City/County: Bozeman, MT, Gallatin County ________ ________ Sampling Date: July 24, 2015 ___________ _________ Hyric Soil Present? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present Yes X ____ No_____ Applicant/Owner: __ Chris Budeski, representative ___________ _________________ State: MT ________ Sampling Point: W-5, Woward Esgar Ditch _______ Investigator(s): ____ Barbara Vaughn ____ _________________ Section, Township, Range: SW 1/4NW1/4SW1/4 Sec 24, T2S R5E, Gallatin County ___________ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): irrigation ditch ____________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): _____ flat _____________ _____________ Slope (%): 2 % Subregion (LLR): __ LLR E ___________ Lat: 45°39’08.46”N _ _________________ Long: 111°03’36.0”W ________________ Datum: ____________ _________ Soil Map Unit Name: Enbar-Nythar Loams (512B) 0 to 4 % slopes _________________ ________ ________ NWI classification: __________________ _________ Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X ____ ________ No _____ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ____ , Soil _____________ , or Hydrology _____ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X _______________ No_______________ Are Vegetation ____ , Soil _____________ , or Hydrology _____ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X _____ No ________ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X _____ No ________ within a Wetland? Yes________ No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ________ No X _____ Remarks: Channel dry during investigation. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15-ft radius ______) % Cover Species? Status 1. Populus balsamifera ________________________ 5 ______ No ____ FAC ____ 2. Salix lasiandra_____________________________ 2 ______ No ____ FACW __ 3. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 4 __________________________________________ 7 ______ =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15-ft radius__________) 1. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 2. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 3. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 4. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 5. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ _______ =Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size:_____15-ft radius_________) 1. Alopecurus pratensis _______________________ 45 _____ Yes ___ FAC ____ 2. Bromus inermis ___________________________ 45 _____ Yes ___ FAC ____ 25 Yes ___________________________________________ FACW __ 3. Cirsium arvense ___________________________ 10 _____ No ____ FAC ____ 4. _________________________________________ 5. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 6. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 7. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 8. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 9. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 10. ________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 11. ________________________________________ 100 ____ =Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:_______________) 1. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 2. _________________________________________ _______ ______ ________ 107 ____ =Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum______0_____ Remarks: Invasive species include tall tumble mustard, Canada thistle, musk thistle. Isolated patches of Scirpus microcarpus, Carex nebrascensis, Veronica americana in lower depressions. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Final Version Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, OR FAC: 2 ___________ (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 ___________ (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, OR FAC: 100 _________ (A/B) Prevalance Index worksheet: _________ Total % Cover of: _________ _ Multiply by: OBL species ______________ x 1 = ____________ FACW species ______________ x 2 = ____________ FAC species 100 ___________ x 3 = 300 _________ FACU species ______________ x 4 = ____________ UPL species ______________ x 5 = ____________ Column Totals: 100 ___________ (A) 300 (B) Prevalance Index = B/A = __300/100=3.0______________ Hyrdophytic Vegetation Indicators: X __ Dominance Test is >50% X __ Prevalence Index is ≤3.0c ____ Morphological Adaptions¹ (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ____ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants¹ ____ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) cIndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hd hti SOIL Sampling Point: ____, W-5, Irrigation Ditch_______________ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrlx Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Typec Locc Texture Remarks ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ __________ ____________ _____________ ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ _________ ____________ _____________ ___________ _______________ __________ _________________ ___________ __________ _________ ____________ _____________ cType: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. dLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soilse: ____ Histosol (A1) ____ Sandy Redox (S5) ____ 2 cm Muck (A10) ____ Histic Epipedon (A2) ____ Stripped Matrix (S6) ____ Red Parent Material (TF2) ____ Black Histic (A3) ____ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ____ Other (Explain in Remarks) ____ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ____ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ____ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ____ Depleted Matrix (F3) ____ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ____ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ____ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ____ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present _____Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ____Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematicRestrictive Layer (if present): Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: _____________________________________________________ Depth (inches): ______________________________________________ Remarks: No test pit excavated. The Enbar series is not a hydric soil. The Nythar loam is a Cumulic Endoaquolls, hydric by virtue of the taxonomic classification. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ____ Surface Water (A1) ____ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA ____ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1,2, ____ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) ____ Saturation (A3) ____ Salt Crust (B11) ____ Drainage Patterns (B10) ____ Water Marks (B1) ____ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ____ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ____ Sediment Deposits (B2) ____ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ____ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ____ Drift Deposits (B3) ____ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) X ____ Geomorphic Position (D2) ____ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ____ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ____ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ____ Iron Deposits (B5) ____ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ____ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) X __ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ____ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ____ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ____ Inundation Visible or Aerial Imagery (B7) ____ Other (Explain in Remarks) ____ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) X___Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ______ No X ____ Depth (inches): ________________ Water Table Present? Yes _____ No X ____ Depth (inches): ________________ Saturation Present? Yes ______ No X ____ Depth (inches): ________________ (includes capillary fringe) Ditch channel dry during delineation. Vegetation overgrowing the OHWM. Only base of channel sparsely vegetated. Hyric Soil Present? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present Yes X ____ No_____ APPENDIX B NRCS SOIL SURVEY Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute LOCATION MEADOWCREEK MT Established Series Rev. DES-WDB-JCK 05/2013 MEADOWCREEK SERIES The Meadowcreek series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in alluvium. They are on flood plains, flood-plain steps, drainageways, and stream terraces. Slopes are 0 to 4 percent. Mean annual precipitation is about 305 mm, and mean annual air temperature is about 6 degrees C. TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine-loamy over sandy or sandy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid Fluvaquentic Haplustolls TYPICAL PEDON: Meadowcreek loam, cultivated (colors are for dry soil unless otherwise noted). Ap--0 to 13 cm; grayish brown (10YR 5/2) loam, very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) moist; weak fine and medium subangular blocky structure; slightly hard, friable, moderately sticky and slightly plastic; many very fine roots; strongly effervescent; moderately alkaline (pH 8.0); abrupt smooth boundary. (10 to 18 cm thick) A1--13 to 25 cm; grayish brown (10YR 5/2) loam, very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) moist; weak medium prismatic structure parting to weak fine and medium subangular blocky; slightly hard, friable, moderately sticky and slightly plastic; common very fine roots; many fine tubular and interstitial pores; strongly effervescent; moderately alkaline (pH 8.0); clear smooth boundary. (8 to 20 cm thick) A2--25 to 38 cm; gray (10YR 5/1) silt loam, very dark gray (10YR 3/1) moist; weak medium prismatic structure; slightly hard, friable, moderately sticky and slightly plastic; common very fine roots; many very fine tubular and interstitial pores; slightly alkaline (pH 7.4); clear smooth boundary. (0 to 15 cm thick) Bg1--38 to 69 cm; light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) loam, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) moist; few fine distinct brown (7.5YR 5/3) moist redox concentrations; weak coarse prismatic structure; few thin very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) moist, layers of soil; slightly hard, friable, moderately sticky and slightly plastic; common very fine roots; many very fine tubular and interstitial pores; neutral (pH 7.0); gradual smooth boundary. (13 to 38 cm thick) Bg2--69 to 79 cm; gray (10YR 6/1) sandy loam, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) moist; common fine distinct brown (7.5YR 5/4) moist redox concentrations; weak coarse prismatic structure; slightly hard, friable, nonsticky and moderately plastic; common very fine roots; many very fine tubular and interstitial pores; 5 percent gravel; neutral (pH 7.2); clear smooth boundary. (0 to 12 cm thick) 2C--79 to 152 cm; varigated colors, very gravelly sand; single grain; loose, nonsticky and nonplastic; few very fine roots; 55 percent gravel; neutral (pH 7.2). TYPE LOCATION: Lewis and Clark County, Montana; 396 meters south and 610 meters east of the NW corner of sec. 8, T. 10 N., R. 3 W. Latitude is 46 degrees, 30 minutes, 35 seconds; longitude is 112 degrees, 00 minutes, 47 seconds. RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Soil temperature - 5.5 to 8.3 degrees C Mollic epipedon thickness - 25 to 38 cm Depth to lithologic discontinuity - 50 to 100 cm Depth to seasonal high water table - 60 to 100 cm A horizons Hue: 10YR or 2.5Y Value: 4 or 5 dry; 2 or 3 moist Chroma: 1 or 2 Texture: loam, silt loam, clay loam, or silty clay loam with thin strata of sandy loam or sandy clay loam Clay content: 18 to 35 percent Rock fragments: 0 to 15 percent--0 to 10 percent gravel; 0 to 5 percent cobbles Electrical conductivity: 0 to 8 mmhos/cm Calcium carbonate equivalent: 0 to 10 percent Reaction: pH 6.6 to 8.4 Bg horizons Hue: 10YR, 2.5Y or 5Y Value: 5 or 6 dry; 3 or 4 moist Chroma: 1, 2, or 3 Texture: loam, sandy loam, sandy clay loam, or silt loam, with some thin strata of fine sandy loam Clay content: 18 to 25 percent Rock fragments: 0 to 5 percent gravel Electrical conductivity: 0 to 4 mmhos/cm Calcium carbonate equivalent: 0 to 10 percent Reaction: pH 6.1 to 8.4 2C horizon Texture: sand, coarse sand or loamy sand Clay content: 0 to 10 percent Rock fragments: 35 to 75 percent--35 to 70 percent gravel; 0 to 15 percent cobbles and stones Reaction: pH 6.1 to 8.4 COMPETING SERIES: There are no competing series. GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: Landform - flood plains, flood-plain steps, drainageways, and stream terraces Elevation - 1,067 to 1,890 meters Slope - 0 to 4 percent Parent material - alluvium Climate - long, cold winters; moist springs; warm, dry summers Mean annual precipitation - 254 to 483 mm Mean annual air temperature - 3.9 to 7.2 degrees C Frost-free period - 70 to 130 days GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: None listed. DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Somewhat poorly drained; moderate over very rapid permeability. USE AND VEGETATION: Meadowcreek soils are used mainly for irrigated crops. Some small areas are used for rangeland. Potential native vegetation is mainly western wheatgrass, slender wheatgrass, tall reedgrass, basin wildrye, prairie cordgrass, tufted hairgrass, sedges, and forbs. DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: Meadowcreek soils are of moderate extent in western Montana. MLRAs - 43B, 44B, 46, 58A. MLRA SOIL SURVEY REGIONAL OFFICE (MO) RESPONSIBLE: Bozeman, Montana SERIES ESTABLISHED: Choteau-Conrad Area, parts of Teton and Pondera Counties, Montana, 1991; proposed in Lewis and Clark County, Montana, 1979. REMARKS: Diagnostic horizons and features recognized in this pedon are: Mollic epipedon - from 0 to 38 cm (Ap, A1, and A2 horizons) Redox concentrations - 38 to 79 cm (Bg1 and Bg2 horizons) Lithologic discontinuity - at 79 cm (2C horizon) Particle-size control section - from 25 to 100 cm (A2, Bg1, Bg2, and part of the 2C horizons) Meadowcreek soils have a frigid temperature regime, an ustic moisture regime and an aquic moisture subclass. Redox depletions were not recorded at the type location in 1979. The need for documentation in support of the Fluvaquentic subgroup is recognized and should be investigated. ADDITIONAL DATA: Soil interpretation record - MT0407 National Cooperative Soil Survey U.S.A. APPENDIX C PHOTO LOG Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute Photo 1. The view is looking east toward the concrete culvert on Mandeville Creek that diverts water under the farmhouse driveway. Photo 2. The view is looking southeast at the south half of Mandeville Creek located west of fence. Photo 3. The photo is looking south toward Mandeville Creek in a straightened channel east of South 19th Street. Photo 4. The view is of the south end of Mandeville Creek at the property boundary. The headgate is located at a culvert outlet for an agricultural access road. Photo 5. The photo is of the headgate near the north end of Mandeville Creek that diverts water to a recently dug irrigation ditch. Photo 6. The view is looking northeast at the irrigation ditch that diverts water from Mandeville Creek to a ditch on the adjacent property that parallels the north parcel boundary. Photo 7. The photo is looking north at SP-1 located within W-2. The gap in the vegetation indicates where surface water drains from the irrigation ditch located north of the property boundary. Photo 8. The view is looking southwest toward W-2. Photo 9. The view is looking east at the Woward-Esgar Ditch (W-5) at the northeast property corner. Photo 10. The photo is taken looking north at the irrigation ditch. Photo 11. The view is looking southwest at the terminus of the original ditch channel. Photo 12. The photo shows the newly excavated ditch looking south. The ditch parallels a new subdivision road. Appendix D WATERS OF THE US DELINEATION MAP Waters of the US Delineation Report – Yellowstone Theological Institute N. SRX Wetland Delineation 5659.018 26 | Page APPENDIX F: SELECT HISTORIC AERIAL IMAGERY (GOOGLE EARTH) NORTH SRX June 2023 aerial 600 ft N➤➤N Image © 2023 Airbus Image © 2023 Airbus Image © 2023 Airbus NORTH SRX June 2023 aerial 600 ft N➤➤N Image © 2023 Airbus Image © 2023 Airbus Image © 2023 Airbus NORTH SRX June 2023 aerial 600 ft N➤➤N Image © 2023 Airbus Image © 2023 Airbus Image © 2023 Airbus