Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout005 Pre-Application MaterialsGallatin Center Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application 5 - Pre-Application Materials All materials submitted with the pre-application are included in this section. K:\Bozeman\Gallatin Center LP\2024381 Gallatin Center\11Regulatory\Application\Subdivision\Pre-App 895 Technology Blvd, Ste 203  Bozeman, MT 59718  (406) 586-0262  Fax (406) 586-5740 895 Technology Boulevard, Suite 203, Bozeman, MT 59718 | 406.586.0262 December 20th, 2024 City of Bozeman Planning Department 20 E Olive Bozeman, MT 59715 RE: Gallatin Center Subdivision – 5 Lot Minor Subdivision Dear City of Bozeman, On behalf of our client, Gallatin Center LP, we are submitting a Pre-Application for review for the proposed Gallatin Center subdivision. The proposed minor subdivision consists of 5 lots and is located just West of North 19th Avenue and just North of Baxter Lane. Included in this submittal package are the following items: Documents 001 Cover Letter 002 Notification Letter 003 Subdivision Pre-Application Checklist 004 Pre-Application Narrative 005 Wetland Review Checklist 006 Wetland Delineation Report Drawings 001 Vicinity Map 002 USGS Location Map 003 Existing Conditions 004 Sketch Map 005 Phasing Plan No variances are anticipated at this time. Waivers are requested in document 004 Pre- Application Narrative. Please review the submitted material at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact us at 406-586- 0262. Sincerely, WWC Engineering _____________________________ Joselyn Hartwig, EIT PA SUBDIVISION PRE-APPLICATION PLAN CHECKLIST SUBDIVISION PRE-APP PLAT REQUIREMENTS This handout provides details for application requirements outlined in the project checklists. The purpose of the pre-application plan is to familiarize yourself with standards, goals, and objectives of the subdivision procedure. These requirements are mandatory per BMC 38.220.030. SUBDIVISION STATISTICS Subdivision Type: ☐ First Minor Subdivision from a Tract of Record ☐ First Minor Subdivision from a Tract of Record with Variance ☐ Second or Subsequent Minor Subdivision from a Tract of Record ☐ First Major Subdivision Total Number of Lots: Lots by Proposed Uses: Residential, single household Industrial Residential, multi-household Common Open Space Townhouse/Rowhouse Planned Unit Development Open Space Condominium Unit City Park Manufactured Home Space Restricted Development Commercial Other (i.e. Recreational Vehicle Space) DIGITAL SUBMITTALS & NAMING PROTOCOL 1) Create and submit a Planning application using the ProjectDox portal; a) After completing your Development Review Application, you will receive a Notification Letter (example) via email. Please download this document and obtain owner’s signature. Upload as a PDF to the “Documents” folder in ProjectDox. 2) The digital copies must be separated into two categories: Documents and Drawings. a) The Documents folder should include items such as application forms, narrative, response to City comments, supplemental documents, technical reports, easements, legal documents, etc. b) The Drawings folder should include items such as site plans, civil plans, landscape plans, photometric plans, elevations, etc. All drawing files must be drawn and formatted for a 24” x 36” sheet file or 11” x 17” sheet file. Plan pages shall be properly oriented in Subdivision Pre-Application Checklist Page 1 of 3 Revision Date: June 2024 PA landscape mode. Refer to our Quick Guide for additional information; 3) Naming protocol. All files should be numbered and named according to their order listed on your provided Submittal Checklist. File names should start with a numeric value followed by the document name. The numeric value at the beginning of the file name ensures the order in which they are displayed. Refer to our Quick Guide for additional information; APPLICATION SET 4) Sketch Map. a) Names of adjoining subdivisions and numbers of adjoining certificates of survey, adjacent lot and tract lines; b) Location, name, width, and owner of existing or proposed streets, roads, and easements within proposed subdivision; Existing streets, roads, and easements within adjacent subdivisions and tracts; name of street or road providing access from nearest public street or road to proposed subdivision; c) Location of all existing structures, including buildings, railroads, power lines towers, and improvements within 100 ft.; d) Zoning proposed for subdivision, if a change is contemplated and if an adjacent PUD is in place or proposed; 5) Topographic features. Topographic features of the proposed subdivision and adjacent subdivisions and tracts including embankments, watercourses, drainage channels, areas of seasonal water ponding, areas within designated flood-way, marsh areas, wetlands, rock outcrops, wooded areas, noxious weeds and areas of active faults. Include copies of any permits listed in section 38.220.020 obtained for project; 6) Utilities. Existing and proposed utilities located on and adjacent to proposed subdivision: a) Location, size, and depth of sanitary and storm sewers, water mains, and gas lines; b) Location of fire hydrants, electric lines, telephone lines, sewage and water treatment, and storage facilities; 7) Subdivision layout. a) Subdivision block, tract, and lot boundary lines, with numbers, dimensions, and areas for each block, tract, and lot; b) Street location, right-of-way width, and name; c) Easement location, width , and purpose; d) Sites to be dedicated or reserved as park, common open space, or other public areas. Include boundaries, dimensions, and areas; e) Sites for commercial centers, churches, schools, industrial areas, multi-household units, manufactured housing community and uses other than single-household residences; 8) Development Plan. Development plan indicating future development of the remainder of the tract if phased development; 9) Name and Location. Title block with proposed name and legal description; 10) Notations. Conventional scale (i.e. 1:20 or 1/4:1), north arrow, name and addresses of owners and developers, and date of preparation. Plan/Drawings must not contain disclaimers such as “Not to Scale” or “Preliminary” and “Not for Construction”; Subdivision Pre-Application Checklist Page 2 of 3 Revision Date: June 2024 PA 11) Variances. A list of variance requests which will be submitted with the Preliminary Plat Application; 12) Waivers. List of waivers requested from the requirements of section 38.220.060. This list must be submitted with the pre-application and an explanation of why such information is not relevant or was not previously provided; 13) Parks and Recreation Facilities. Information must be provided for all land proposed to meet parkland dedication requirements a) Park concept plan; must include site plan for entire property, zoning and ownership for adjacent properties, location of any critical lands, general description of land, and description of trails or other recreational features proposed to connect the proposed park area; b) If applicant intends to request approval for cash-in-lieu, a response to the cash-in-lieu review factors established by resolution of the City Commission; 14) Affordable Housing. Describe any intended use of 38.380 for creation of affordable housing within the subdivision; 15) Wildlife. Describe key wildlife habitat issues associated with proposed subdivision, consideration of fish and wildlife resources, and early planning suggestions (Designated species of concern, potential impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat) from local FWP field biologists; 16) Waivers of right to protest. Include copies of or recorded document numbers of all existing waivers of right to protest; 17) Water Rights. Describe how proposed subdivision intends to satisfy section 38.410.130 and provide documentation of all water rights appurtenant; 18) Agricultural water user facilities. Identify location of all agricultural water user facilities and contact information for representative per 38.360.280. 19) List the proposed landscape water supply source, location, and ownership (e.g. private or public) with a brief description of how this water will be used. REQUIRED FORMS PA APPLICATION FEE For most current application fee, see Schedule of Community Development fees. Fees are typically adjusted in January. CONTACT US Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260 20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263 PO Box 1230 planning@bozeman.net Bozeman, MT 59715 www.bozeman.net/planning Subdivision Pre-Application Checklist Page 3 of 3 Revision Date: June 2024 895 Technology Boulevard, Suite 203, Bozeman, MT 59718 | 406.586.0262 Gallatin Center Minor Subdivision Pre-Application Requirements Narrative 5-Lot Minor Subdivision MINOR SUB 210, S35, T01 S, R05 E, Lot 3 December 20th, 2024 Gallatin Center Minor subdivision is a proposed 5-lot minor subdivision currently located within both the B-2 (Community Business District) and BP (Business Park) districts. A Zone Map Amendment (ZMA) Application has been submitted requesting B-2M zoning for the subject property. The 68.3-acre parcel is located just West of North 19th Avenue, North of Baxter Lane, South of Cattail Street, and East of Thomas Drive (future North 27th Avenue). To provide access to the individual lots, Rawhide Ridge Road will be extended West to the future North 27th Avenue, Max Avenue will be extended South to Baxter Lane, and Sartain Street will be extended East to North 19th Avenue. The proposed roadway extensions will all have associated 60-foot-wide public right of ways. Roadway improvements will be planned in accordance with designs for the future North 27th Avenue improvements. Water and sewer infrastructure improvements will take place with the roadway improvements. A preliminary proposed layout of the main extensions is shown in the phasing plan (004 Phasing Plan), included in the drawings portion of this submittal. Individual water and sewer service access will be provided to each lot during its respective phase. Stormwater infrastructure improvements will involve the expansion of the existing stormwater detention facilities located on the northeast portion of the site near the corner of Max Avenue and Cattail Street. It is anticipated that this expansion of the detention basin will accommodate the additional stormwater runoff associated with the Rawhide Ridge Road extension. Development of the property will be phased. Phase 1 will include proposed Lot A, and the extension of Rawhide Ridge Road, along with the expansion of the stormwater facilities located near the northeast portion of the property. Future phases will encompass Lot B, Lot C, Lot D, and Lot E, and all other proposed roadway improvements. The phasing plan (004 Phasing Plan) outlines these proposed improvements and phasing for the subdivision. The property is moderately level with a slight grade draining from south to north. Two streams exist on the property running south to north with some trees surrounding their waterways. No further development of the property is proposed at this time. Subsequent applications will be submitted when additional development is planned. Pre-application Requirements 1. A planning application has been created using the ProjectDox portal. 2. The digital copies have been separated into categories: Documents and Drawings. 3. Naming Protocol. The files have been named using the proper naming protocol. 4. Sketch Map. A Sketch Map is included in the drawings portion of this submittal. 5. Topographic Features. Included in this submittal, 003 Existing Conditions shows the major topographical features of the property. Two stormwater detention basins exist near the northeast portion of the property near the corner of Cattail Street and Max Avenue. Additional stormwater storage will be provided near these existing basins to accommodate stormwater runoff from the proposed roadway extension of Rawhide Ridge Road with phase 1. Two streams exist on the property. The stream running on the west portion of the property flows through proposed lots A, B, and C. East Catron Creek runs through the east portion of the property through proposed lots D and E. No impacts to these streams are proposed with this application. 6. Utilities. Included in the drawings portion of this submittal, 004 Phasing Plan outlines all existing utility locations sizes and types, and a preliminary layout of proposed improvements. 7. Subdivision Layout. Subdivision Layout information is shown in the drawing 004 Sketch Map. 8. Development Plan. With this subdivision, we are proposing the extension of Rawhide Ridge Road to the future North 27th Avenue, the extension of Max Avenue to Baxter Lane, and the extension of Sartain Street from the future Nouth 27th Avenue to North 19th Avenue. It is our understanding that North 27th Avenue improvements will be constructed in 2025 by the City of Bozeman. All local street roadway improvements will have associated 60- foot-wide right of ways. Phase 1 will include Lot A and the Rawhide Ride Road extension. Future phasing will encompass the remainder of the roadway extensions. The phasing of this development is shown in 005 Phasing Plan, included in the drawings portion of this submittal. 9. Name and Location. The proposed name and legal description is included in 004 Sketch Map. 10. Notations. The correct notations are implemented into the Drawings portion of this submittal. 11. Variances. No Variances are anticipated at this time. 12. Waivers. We are requesting a waiver for the following items in §38.220.060:  Floodplains – An analysis was conducted on the Bozeman Community Development Viewer showing that the property does not fall within any FEMA floodplains. For this reason, a waiver is requested for this item.  Groundwater – A waiver is requested for this item because geotechnical investigations have occurred near the property and groundwater monitoring has taken place. The location investigated is shown below:  Geology, soils, slopes – Geotechnical investigations have taken place on adjacent properties. The report provides information on geology, soils, and slopes of the area. The location of these investigations is shown in the above section. For this reason, a waiver is requested for this section.  Wildlife – A waiver is requested for Wildlife Supplement information. It is not anticipated that subdivision of the subject property will adversely impact wildlife. Effects from humans will be minimal because the site does not contain significant wildlife. The subject property is already located within city limits and the subdivision will be subject to the City of Bozeman animal control laws that require licensing of pets and leashes on dogs. All land included in the streets will be dedicated to the City of Bozeman for public use. Fish and Wildlife has been contacted to solicit comments.  Agricultural – The property is currently hayed. The applicant owns the property and intends to continue farming the undeveloped property to maintain weed control until development is planned. For this reason, a waiver is requested for this item.  Agricultural water users facilities – A waiver is requested for this item. While there are two streams on the property, there are no other known agricultural water users on the property.  Streets, Road and Alleys – A waiver is requested for the traffic impact study portion of this item. o Traffic Impact Study: Since development is not yet planned for the proposed lots, it will be difficult to determine traffic impacts without knowing the specific land use. Additionally, North 19th Avenue and Babcock Street are at full build out, Cattail Street was recently reconstructed, and North 27th Avenue will undergo improvements by the city in the near future. For these reasons, a waiver is requested for the traffic impact study portion of this item. A traffic impact study will be provided with site plan applications once development is planned.  Non-municipal utilities – A waiver is requested for this item. Northwestern Energy and Spectrum have been contacted to comment on any concerns for providing non- municipal utilities to the property.  Land Use –Because the land has no associated development plans in this application, a waiver is requested for this section. The land use will remain the same until subsequent applications are submitted.  Parks and recreation facilities – A waiver is requested for this item since development is not yet planned. Parks and recreational facilities will be addressed with site plan applications once development is planned.  Neighborhood center plan – A waiver is requested for this item since development is not yet planned. Neighborhood center plans will be addressed with site plan applications once development is planned.  Lighting Plan – A waiver is requested for this item since development is not yet planned. Lighting plans will be provided with site plan applications, and infrastructure design once development is planned.  Miscellaneous. Public Lands, hazards, wildlands-urban interface – Since there is no planned development, a waiver is requested for this item. The relevant documentation pertaining to these miscellaneous sections will be provided with site plan submittals.  Affordable housing – A waiver is requested for this item because no affordable housing is proposed. 13. Parks and Recreation Facilities. There are no parks or recreation facilities proposed at this time. 14. Affordable Housing. There is no proposed affordable housing at this time. 15. Wildlife. The adjacent properties have all been developed making this an unlikely wildlife habit. 16. Waivers of Right to Protest. There are no existing waivers or right to protest. 17. Water Rights. The property owner has verified the following owner of water rights on the property:  Eugene Graf III A search has been conducted on the DNRC Water Rights Query System. The following water users were found to own water rights on the property; however, the property owner is not aware of any of these water rights owners, and the query system information does not align with the stream locations. For these reasons, the results may be inaccurate:  2B Holdings LLC  Auto Extreme Inc.  Bozeman 6 LLC  BW Bozeman LLC  GKT Gallatin Shopping Center CC LLC  GKT Gallatin Shopping Center SX LLC  GKT Gallatin Shopping Center VM LLC  Glacier Lodging LLC  Intrepid Credit Union  Cara V Musser  Richard E Musser  Bozeman 19TH Misc RE LLC  BOZ MD Bridger Lounge RE LLC 18. Agricultural Water User Facilities. The Middle Creek Ditch Company has been contacted to verify ditch ownership and whether there are any downstream water users. 19. Landscape Water Supply Source. The landscape water is proposed to be supplied through an irrigation well; however, it is possible that irrigation wells are not permitted due to contaminated groundwater. Attached to this document is a boundary map of the Bozeman Solvent Site Control Area. As shown on the map, part of the property falls within the control area, therefore irrigation wells may not be permissible on the entire property. If irrigation wells are not permitted, then domestic water will be utilized for landscape water supply. BOZEMAN MT Community Development WR WETLAND REVIEW CHECKLIST GENERAL INFORMATION This handout is for all activities proposed in or adjacent to regulated wetland areas. Section 38.610 BMC includes the wetland regulations for the City of Bozeman. The regulations provide specific guidelines and methods to identify whether an area is a wetland and to determine the boundary between wetlands and uplands. The City’s wetland regulations apply to both wetlands with direct hydrologic connection to “waters of the U.S.” and to isolated wetlands with no direct connection to a water of the U.S. and that exhibit positive wetlands indicators for all three wetland parameters. DIGITAL SUBMITTALS & NAMING PROTOCOL 1. Create and submit a Planning application using the ProjectDox portal; a. After completing your Development Review Application, you will receive a Notification Letter (example) via email. Please download this document and obtain owner’s signature. Upload as a PDF to the “Documents” folder in ProjectDox. 2. The digital copies must be separated into two categories: Documents and Drawings. a. The Documents folder should include items such as application forms, narrative, response to City comments, supplemental documents, technical reports, easements, legal documents, etc. b. The Drawings folder should include items such as site plans, civil plans, landscape plans, photometric plans, elevations, etc. All drawing files must be drawn and formatted for a 24” x 36” sheet file or 11” x 17” sheet file. Plan pages shall be properly oriented in landscape mode. Refer to our Quick Guide for additional information; 3. Naming protocol. All files should be numbered and named according to their order listed on your provided Submittal Checklist. File names should start with a numeric value followed by the document name. The numeric value at the beginning of the file name ensures the order in which they are displayed. Refer to our Quick Guide for additional information; WETLAND REVIEW CHECKLIST All parties applying for activity permits proposing action affecting federal, state or city regulated wetlands, watercourses and/or buffers within the city limits must submit the following information in compliance with Section 38.220.130 BMC: 1. A wetland and watercourse delineation report must be submitted to the city for all projects, if aquatic resources are present. When required to determine applicability and scope of wetland location and function the delineation shall go beyond the boundary of the property. If no aquatic resources are present, a letter must be submitted to the city stating that there are no water resources within the subject property. a. This wetland and watercourse delineation report must include, but not be limited to, the following and must in be prepared in accordance with Section 38.610.030 BMC: i. Wetland and watercourse descriptions; ii. Functional assessment, as determined by a state-accepted functional assessment method, i.e., Montana Department of Transportation (Berglund and McEldowney 2008 as amended) or Montana Department of Environmental Quality (Apfelbeck and Farris 2005 as amended); iii. Wetland types, as determined by a state-accepted functional assessment method (i.e., Cowardin et al 1979 as amended); iv. Wetland acreages (by a licensed surveyor); v. Maps with property boundaries, wetland and watercourse boundaries and acreages; and vi. Wetland data forms (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers data forms). 2. If activities are planned in and/or adjacent to aquatic resources the following information is required: a. A site plan which shows the property boundary; delineated wetland and watercourse boundaries; buffer boundaries; and all existing and proposed structures, roads, trails, and easements. The site plan will include a table of existing wetland functional ratings and acreage, required buffers and acreage, and linear feet of all watercourses and ditches. i. All direct impacts to wetlands, watercourses, and buffers must be highlighted and summarized in a table on the Wetland Review Checklist Page 1 of 4 Revision Date: November 2022 WETLAND REVIEW CHECKLIST site plan. The water resource and buffer summary table must include wetland/watercourse identification number; corresponding buffer width and acreage; total site, wetland, watercourse, ditch, and buffer acreages; jurisdictional status; impacts to all water resources and buffers; and, mitigation types and acreages. ii. All indirect impacts (e.g., shading from boardwalks or public utility well drawdown) must be summarized in the document. b. A map with all proposed mitigation areas and their required buffers. The map must include a table of mitigation wetland type and acreage and required buffers and acreage and a description of the functional unit gain of the wetland mitigation (as determined by a state-accepted functional assessment method). c. The source, type and method of transport and disposal of any fill material to be used, and certification that the placement of fill material will not violate any applicable state or federal statutes and regulations as listed in section 38.220.020. d. Copies of the following: i. Any floodplain determinations for the proposed site known to the applicant; ii. Any U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional determinations regarding wetlands on the proposed and adjacent site; and iii. Any permits from the required permits section below e. A completed wetland review checklist. 3. If in the preparation or review of the required submittal materials it is determined that there are unavoidable impacts to wetlands and/or watercourses that will require a Federal Clean Water Act permit, then the following information must be submitted to the city for all federal jurisdictional and city-regulated wetlands (see section 38.700.210 for definition) in a compensatory mitigation report: a. The descriptive narrative must include, at a minimum: i. The name and contact information of the applicant; the name, qualifications, and contact information for the primary author of the compensatory mitigation report; a description of the proposal; summary of the direct and indirect impacts and proposed mitigation concept; identification of all the local, state, and federal wetland/stream-related permit required for the project; and, a vicinity map for the project. ii. A description of the existing wetland, watercourse and buffer areas that will be impacted including area based on professional surveys; dominant vegetation; and functional assessments and wetland ratings for the entire wetland and the portions proposed to be impacted. iii. An assessment of the potential changes in wetland hydroperiod for the proposed project and how the design has been modified to avoid, minimize or reduce impacts to the wetland hydroperiod. iv. A description of the proposed conceptual mitigation actions for wetland, watercourse and buffer areas. Provide specifications (including buffers) for all proposed mitigation for wetland/watercourse/buffer impacts. Include a map with all proposed mitigation areas and their required buffers. v. An assessment of existing conditions in the zone of the proposed mitigation including vegetation community structure and composition, existing hydroperiod, existing soil conditions, and existing wetland functions. vi. Field data that was collected to document the existing conditions of the proposed mitigation sites and on which the future hydrologic and soil conditions of the mitigation wetlands are based (e.g., hydrologic conditions: piezometer data, staff/crest gage data, hydrologic modeling, visual observations; soil conditions: data from hand- dug or mechanical soil pits or boring results). The applicant may not rely on soil survey data for establishing existing conditions. vii. A planting schedule by proposed community type and hydrologic regime, size and type of plant material to be installed, spacing of plants, “typical” clustering patterns, total number of each species by community type, timing of installation, nutrient requirements, watering schedule, weed control, and where appropriate measures to protect plants from destruction. Native species must comprise 80 percent of the plants installed or seeded within the mitigation site. Wetland Review Checklist Page 2 of 4 Revision Date: November 2022 WETLAND REVIEW CHECKLIST viii. The mitigation monitoring plan must include a period of not less than three years, and establish the responsibility for long-term removal of invasive vegetation. ix. Wetland mitigation performance criteria (measurable standards reflective of expected development goals established for each year after the mitigation site is established, i.e., “At the end of three years there will be an 80 percent survival of the planted shrubs and trees.”) for mitigation wetlands and buffers, a monitoring schedule, reporting requirements to the city, and maintenance schedule and actions for each year of monitoring. x. Contingency plans which clearly define course of action or corrective measures needed if performance criteria are not met. b. The scaled plan sheets for the compensatory mitigation must contain, at a minimum: i. Existing wetland and buffer surveyed edges; proposed areas of wetland and buffer impacts; and, location of proposed wetland and buffer compensation action. ii. Surveyed topography at one- to two-foot contour intervals in the zone of the proposed compensation actions if any grading activity is proposed in the compensation area. Provide existing and proposed mitigation design cross section for the wetland and/or buffer compensation areas. iii. Required wetland buffers for existing wetlands and proposed mitigation areas; c. A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect and maintain the non-impacted and mitigation wetland, watercourse and buffer areas in perpetuity. NARRATIVE AND DISCUSSION All applications that propose changes to wetlands must provide a narrative response and discussion to the following: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that all adverse impacts on a wetland have been avoided; or 2. The applicant has demonstrated that any adverse impact on a wetland has been minimized; the activity will result in minimal impact or impairment to any wetland function and the activity will not result in an adverse modification of habitats for, or jeopardize the continued existence of, the following: a. Plant, animal or other wildlife species listed as threatened or endangered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; and/or b. Plant, animal or other wildlife species listed as a species of concern, species of potential concern, or species on review by the state department of fish, wildlife and parks and the state natural heritage program; or 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the project is in the public interest, having considered and documented: a. The extent of the public need for the proposed regulated activity; b. The functions and values as determined by a state accepted method of functional assessment of the wetland that may be affected by the proposed regulated activity; c. The extent and permanence of the adverse effects of the regulated activity on the wetland and any associated watercourse; d. The cumulative adverse effects of past activities on the wetland; and e. The uniqueness or scarcity of the wetland that may be affected. 4. The source, type of method of transport and disposal of any fill materials to be used and certification that the placement of fill material will not violate any applicable State or Federal Statutes and Regulations. 5. Are deed restrictions or covenants regarding the future use and subdivision of land, including but not limited to the preservation of undeveloped areas as open space, and restrictions on vegetation removal proposed? 6. Are deed restrictions proposed to be filed with the county clerk and recorder stating the measures that will be taken to protect all water resources, mitigation, and buffer areas in perpetuity? 7. Are any of the other relevant wetland permit conditions in Section 38.610.090 BMC proposed with the application? Wetland Review Checklist Page 3 of 4 Revision Date: November 2022 WETLAND REVIEW CHECKLIST REQUIRED PERMITS Provide copies of any of the following permits submitted or already obtained for the site: 1. Montana Stream Protection Act (SPA 124 Permit). Administered by the Habitat Protection Bureau, Fisheries Division, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 2. Stormwater discharge general permit. Administered by the water quality bureau, state department of environmental quality. 3. Montana Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act (310 Permit). Administered by the board of supervisors, county conservation district. 4. Montana Floodplain and Floodway Management Act (Floodplain Development Permit). Administered by the city engineering department. 5. Federal Clean Water Act (404 Permit). Administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 6. Federal Rivers and Harbors Act (Section 10 Permit). Administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 7. Short-term Water Quality Standard for Turbidity (318 Authorization). Administered by state department of environmental quality. 8. Montana Land-Use License or Easement on Navigable Waters. Administered by the state department of natural resources and conservation. 9. Montana Water Use Act (Water Right Permit and Change Authorization). Administered by the water rights bureau, state department of natural resources and conservation. REQUIRED FORMS APPLICATION FEE For most current application fee, see Schedule of Community Development fees. Fees are typically adjusted in January. CONTACT US Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building 20 East Olive Street PO Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59715 phone 406-582-2260 fax 406-582-2263 planning@bozeman.net www.bozeman.net/planning Wetland Review Checklist Page 4 of 4 Revision Date: November 2022 Gallatin Center Aquatic Delineation Report Prepared By: PO Box 1424 Bozeman, MT 59771 406.539.7244 briana@sundogeco.com December 2024 Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Site Description ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 3 Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 Site Vegetation .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Delineated Wetlands ................................................................................................................................ 4 Soils ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 Hydrology .................................................................................................................................................. 4 Wetland Boundaries ................................................................................................................................. 4 Uplands ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 Waterbodies.................................................................................................................................................. 5 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................................................................... 5 Cultural Resources and Historic Structures .................................................................................................. 5 Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 References .................................................................................................................................................... 6 List of Figures and Tables Figure 1: General location of the Gallatin Center project site in West Bozeman, Montana. ....................... 2 Figure 2: Close-up location of the Gallatin Center project site in West Bozeman, Montana. ...................... 2 Appendices Appendix A – Aquatic Delineation Map Appendix B – Wetland Determination Data Forms Appendix C – Site Photographs Appendix D – Project Area Background Maps Gallatin Center Aquatic Delineation Sundog Ecological, Inc. Page | 1 Introduction Sundog Ecological, Inc. conducted a routine wetland delineation and investigation of Waters of the U.S. on October 28th, 2024, for WWC Engineering on behalf of the property owner. This delineation was conducted as part of due diligence for future land and infrastructure development in Bozeman, MT. The project area encompasses approximately 68.331 acres located at Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 5 East. This wetland delineation aimed to investigate the project area, identify areas meeting the technical guidelines for aquatic resources (wetlands and watercourses), delineate the extent of these resources within the project area and classify these aquatic resource habitats. This report describes the methodologies used, summarizes the results of wetland investigations, and provides technical documentation for all delineated wetlands and watercourses within the project area. Figures referred to in the text are included in Appendices at the end of the report. Site Description The Gallatin Center property is located at the northwest corner of North 19th Avenue and Baxter Lane, approximately ¾ miles south of Interstate 90 (Figures 1 and 2). It is currently classified as and used as agricultural land but zoned B-2 (Community Business District) and BP (Business Park). Directions to the site from Interstate 90 at North 19th Avenue: From the eastbound exit of Interstate 90, turn right and follow North 19th Avenue for 0.6 miles. Turn right onto Rawhide Ridge Road for 0.2 miles. The Gallatin Center property borders Rawhide Ridge to the south. Gallatin Center Aquatic Delineation Sundog Ecological, Inc. Page | 2 Figure 1: General location of the Gallatin Center project site in West Bozeman, Montana. Figure 2: Close-up location of the Gallatin Center project site in West Bozeman, Montana. Gallatin Center Aquatic Delineation Sundog Ecological, Inc. Page | 3 Methods The wetland delineation was conducted using the routine on-site-approach in accordance with standard practices outlined in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and by the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 (USACE 2010). The study evaluated the presence or absence of three wetland parameters described in the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual. Under the delineation procedures outlined in the USACE manual, an area must exhibit characteristic wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation to be considered a wetland. If field investigation determines that any of the three parameters are not satisfied, the area generally does not usually qualify as a wetland; however, there are circumstances when one or more parameters may be absent within a wetland area. Wetlands were classified according to the Cowardin (Cowardin et al., 1979) and hydrogeomorphic (USEPA 2023) systems. Non-wetland water bodies such as streams were classified according to flow regime (perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral) and substrate (rock bottom, unconsolidated bottom, etc.; Cowardin et al. 1979). The aquatic resources delineation map is included in Appendix A (Exhibit A). A delineation report, data forms, and technical information are required by the USACE (2010) to document the presence or absence of the three wetland indicators at data points (DP) within the investigation area. Data were also collected at points in non-wetland areas to determine the boundary between wetland and non-wetland areas. A total of 4 official data points were established, 2 points within wetlands and 2 points within non-wetlands, to enable boundary determination. An additional 10 to 15 unofficial data points (no recorded data) were established to ensure adherence to boundary lines. Data forms are included in Appendix B. Photographs were taken at data points and of general habitat conditions within the investigation area (Appendix C). Prior to conducting field studies, available background and supplementary reference materials were reviewed, including aerial photographs and maps from: Google Earth Pro, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS NWI 2023), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (USDA NRCS 2023a; Appendix D), USDA NRCS (2023b) Gallatin County Soil Data; National Wetlands Plant List (USACE 2020), and topographic map (Appendix D). Wetland boundaries and channel bed locations were drawn utilizing field data, aerial photographs, topographic boundaries, and GPS. Results In October 2023, one wetland area was identified and delineated within the project boundaries. The property was assessed for dominant hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and evidence of wetland hydrology. Overall, four data points were investigated to determine the wetland/upland boundary within the project area. The location of identified wetlands, channel beds, and upland and wetland data Gallatin Center Aquatic Delineation Sundog Ecological, Inc. Page | 4 points (DP) are illustrated in maps in Appendix A. USACE data forms are included in Appendix B, and photographs are included in Appendix C. Site Vegetation Nine plant species were identified at data points within the proposed project site. Plants observed at wetland and non-wetland data point locations are listed on their respective USACE data forms (Appendix B). One state-listed Priority 2B noxious weeds, Canada thistle, and no county-listed noxious weeds were identified within the project area (Montana Department of Agriculture 2019a and 2019b, respectively). Delineated Wetlands Two wetland (WL) areas were identified within the project boundaries (Exhibit A, Appendix A). Wetland 1 represents 6.13 acres of palustrine emergent wetlands dominated by Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), and tufted hairgrass (Deschamspia caespitosa). Wetland 2 is comprised of 0.844 acres of palustrine emergent wetlands dominated by North Wester Territory sedge (Carex utriculata) and water sedge (Care aquatilis) with crack willow (Salix fragilis) overstroy. Wetlands associated with the East Fork of East Catron Creek and West Catron Creek. Soils Two soil map units were observed within the project limits of the Gallatin Center aquatic delineation site; the Lamoose silt loam, 0-2% slopes; and the Straw loam, 0-4% slopes. In general, observed wetland soils were loam to silt loam in texture with matrix hues of 10YR and 2.5YR, matrix values of 2 to 4, and matrix values of 2 or less. Redox concentrations were observed throughout wetland soils within the project boundaries. Hydric soil indicators were depleted below dark surface (A11) and redox dark surface (F6). Detailed soil descriptions for wetland and upland sample locations are provided on wetland delineation data forms and can be found in Appendix C. Hydrology Primary indicators of wetland hydrology observed on site were soil saturation (A3). Secondary indicators of wetland hydrology observed were saturation visible on aerial imagery (C9), geomorphic position (D2) and positive FAC-neutral test (D5). Wetlands are sourced by stream flows (East Fork of East Catron Creek and West Fork Catron Creek), and high groundwater. Wetland Boundaries Two wetland areas were observed within the project boundaries. All of the wetlands include large areas of palustrine emergent (EM) species (Cowardin et al. 1974). Wetland boundaries were generally readily identifiable due to changes in topography, shifts in vegetation structure or changes in vegetation dominance from FAC or wetter (FACW or OBL) species to drier (FACU or UPL) species, changes in hydrology and/or changes in soil types. Topographic breaks were frequently used to help identify wetland boundaries in depressional areas. In some areas, shifts in plant species composition toward drier species also assisted with boundary determinations. When FAC or wetter species were common in both wetland and upland sample plots, subsurface explorations to assess soils and hydrology assisted delineators in identifying wetland boundaries. Gallatin Center Aquatic Delineation Sundog Ecological, Inc. Page | 5 Uplands A total of two non-wetland sample points (paired with two wetland sample points) were documented within the project area and are shown on maps in Appendix A. These sample points were used to assist in establishing wetland boundaries and to determine/verify upland areas. Upland areas occurred in areas of slightly higher topography bordering the stream channels. Vegetation within the uplands included a mix of hydrophytic and upland species but facultative and facultative-upland (FACU) species dominated the overall cover. Common species noted in the uplands include mixed pasture grasses but dominated by Bromus inermis (smooth brome). Soils ranged from very dark greyish brown to dark greyish brown and lacked redox concentrations. Textures were highly variable and were generally a silt loam to silty clay loam. Waterbodies The East Fork of East Catron Creek flows along the east portion of the Gallatin Center property, with the West Fork of Catron Creek flowing along the western side of the property. Threatened and Endangered Species A review of the USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation System database listed three endangered species: the Canada lynx, grizzly bear, North American wolverine, and monarch butterfly, as candidates for endangered listing in the area. Proposed activities are not expected to impact any of these species as there is no critical habitat within the property boundaries. Cultural Resources and Historic Structures It is unknown what cultural resources, historical or other structures within the property boundaries may be impacted by the development of the property. Summary A wetland delineation was conducted on the Gallatin Center property site in October 2024. One palustrine-emergent wetland area was identified within the project boundary, totaling 6.13 acres, or 266,927 square feet, with West Catron Creek flowing through. One wetland with palustrine- emergent wetland understory and spotty crack willow overstory totaling 0.844 acres, or 36,748 square feet, with the East Fork of East Catron Creek flowing through. Both West Catron Creek and the East Fork of East Catron are perennial waterways. Gallatin Center Aquatic Delineation Sundog Ecological, Inc. Page | 6 References Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Washington, DC. Reed, P.B. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). Biological Report 88(26.9), May 1988. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center Websites Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP). 2024. Natural Heritage Map Viewer: Wetland and Riparian Mapping Center. Site accessed November 20243: http://mtnhp.org/mapviewer/?t=8 . Montana State University, MSU Extension, MSU Extension Invasive Plants, Montana Noxious Weed. 2024. Site accessed December 2024 at: https://www.montana.edu/extension/invasiveplants/documents/mt_noxious_weeds/2019_mt _noxious_weeds.html#info. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2020. The National Wetland Plant List, version 3.5, Engineer Research and Development Center Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey. 2023a. Site accessed December 2024 at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory website. Accessed December 2024 at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html. US Fish & Wildlife Service. Information for Planning and Conservation. Accessed December 2024 at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ Appendix A Exhibit 1 – Mapped Aquatic Boundary of Gallatin Center Property WWWWWWWWWWOH P OH P OH P NGNGNGNGNGNGNGFOUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPFOFOFOXX X X XUGPXXXXNG NG NG NG NG NG NG NGFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSWWWWWWWSSWWCS CS CATTAIL STREET KIMBERWICKE STREET RAWHIDE RIDGE ROADMAX AVENUETHOMAS DRIVENORTH 19TH AVENUEBAXTER LANE WETLAND-1 266,927 SF 6.13 ACRES DP-1W DP-1U DP-2W DP-2U PROPERTY BOUNDARY WETLAND-2 36,748 SF 0.844 ACRES 45' WIDE PUBLIC ROAD DEDICATION 45' WIDE PUBLIC ROAD DEDICATION WETLAND-1 BOUNDARY LEGEND WETLAND AREA WETLAND-2 BOUNDARY DATA POINT K:\Bozeman\Gallatin Center LP\2024381 Gallatin Center\05CAD\Sheets\Pre App\Wetland Exhibits\24381-EXBT-WETL.dwg EXHIBIT A 11/19/2024 10:52:41 AM DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:CGBJRH---DEC. 2024SHEETEX. ANO.DATEREVISIONPREPARED BY BY EXHIBIT A GALLATIN CENTER LP BOZEMAN, MT GALLATIN CENTER ENGI NEERING PROJECT NO. 2024381 895 TECHNOLOGY BLVD., SUITE 203 BOZEMAN, MT 59718 (406) 624-3910 www.wwcengineering.com 0 SCALE: 1" = 100' 100'50' Appendix B Gallatin Center Property Wetland Determination Data Forms Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): 0 Subregion (LRR/MLRA): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: x Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes x No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2. (A) 3. 4. (B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4. x 1 = 5. x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1. x 5 = 2. Column Totals: (A) (B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 9/30/2027 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? No 100 Remarks: Indicator Status 1 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Bromus inermis FAC Herb Stratum 40 Yes Poa pratensis 10 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Below averge precipitation for sampling time. Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 3.89 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 = 50 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 10/28/2024 Gallatin Center LP B Schultz valley bottom Bozeman / GallatinCity/County: Lamoose loam, 0-2% slopes none 3 ft. NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S 35, T 1 S, R 5 E MT DP1u none Section, Township, Range: 50.0% ) ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 150 50 Project/Site: Gallatin Center NWI classification: Dominant Species? WGS 84 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 0 Sampling Date: Litter 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover No UPL 45.70334 Long: 111.071078LRR E Mixed pasture grasses. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 200 350 40 90 =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: % %Type1 Loc2 100 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yes Saturation Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and unless disturbed or problematic. Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) DP1uSOIL silt loam silty clay loam Remarks Loamy/Clayey Color (moist) 0-20 FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) No hydric soil indicators were observed. Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 20-22 Texture Redox FeaturesDepth Loamy/Clayey Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 10YR 4/2 10YR 2/1 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron Monosulfide (A18) Other (Explain in Remarks) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Surface Water (A1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) No wetland hydrology indicators were observed. Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): 0 Subregion (LRR/MLRA): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: x Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes x No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2. (A) 3. 4. (B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4. x 1 = 5. x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1. x 5 = 2. Column Totals: (A) (B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. X 8. X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 9/30/2027 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? No 84 15 No Remarks: Indicator Status 2 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Deschampsia caespitosa No FAC FACW Herb Stratum 25 Yes Juncus balticus 1 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Below average precipitation for sampling time. Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species FACW 2.01 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 10 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: 68 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 136 Prevalence Index = B/A = 1 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 10/28/2024 Gallatin Center LP B Schultz valley bottom Bozeman / GallatinCity/County: Juncus ensifolius Lamoose silt loam, 0-2% slopes PEMA 3 ft. NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S 35, T 1 S, R 5 E MT DP1w none Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 3 40 Project/Site: Gallatin Center NWI classification: Dominant Species? WGS 84 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 0 Sampling Date: Litter Cirsium arvense 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 3 No FACW 45.703409 Long: 111.070899LRR E Mixed rushes and grass. 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 0 139 0 69 =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: % %Type1 Loc2 100 95 5 C M 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 X Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yes Saturation Present? Yes x Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and unless disturbed or problematic. Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) DP1wSOIL silt loam good redox concentrations Remarks Loamy/Clayey Color (moist) 2.5YR 5/6 0-3 FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Good redox concentrations. Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 3-12 Texture Redox FeaturesDepth Loamy/Clayey Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 2.5YR 5/2 10YR 2/1 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 0 Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron Monosulfide (A18) Other (Explain in Remarks) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Surface Water (A1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Saturation to soil surface. Three secondary indicators were also observed. Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): 0 Subregion (LRR/MLRA): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: x Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes x No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2. (A) 3. 4. (B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4. x 1 = 5. x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1. x 5 = 2. Column Totals: (A) (B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. X 8. X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 9/30/2027 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? No 100 15 No Remarks: Indicator Status 2 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Carex utriculata No OBL FAC Herb Stratum 25 Yes Cirsium arvense 30 55 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Below average precipitation for sampling time. Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species FACW 1.59 10 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: NoGeum macrophyllum FAC 10 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 20 Prevalence Index = B/A = 20 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species No Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 10/28/2024 Gallatin Center LP B Schultz valley bottom Bozeman / GallatinCity/County: Phalaris arundinacea Straw loam, 0-4% slopes PEMA 3 ft. NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S 35, T 1 S, R 5 E MT DP2w none Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 60 10 Project/Site: Gallatin Center NWI classification: Dominant Species? WGS 84 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 55 Sampling Date: Litter Carex aquatilis 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 10 Yes OBL 45.700646 Long: 111.066313LRR E Sedges with mixed grasses and weeds. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 0 135 0 85 =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: % %Type1 Loc2 100 97 3 C M 100 X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) x x x X Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yes Saturation Present? Yes x Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and unless disturbed or problematic. Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) DP2wSOIL saturated Distinct redox concentrations silty loam Remarks Loamy/Clayey Color (moist) 10YR 3/4 0-4 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) Good redox at four inches. Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 4-8 Texture 8-14 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth Loamy/Clayey 10YR 2/2 Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/2 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 0 Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron Monosulfide (A18) Other (Explain in Remarks) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Surface Water (A1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Saturation to soil surface. Three secondary indicators also observed. Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): 0 Subregion (LRR/MLRA): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: x Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes x No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2. (A) 3. 4. (B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4. x 1 = 5. x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1. x 5 = 2. Column Totals: (A) (B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 9/30/2027 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? No 100 Remarks: Indicator Status 1 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Poa pratensis UPL Herb Stratum 45 Yes Bromus inermis 5 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Below average precipitation for sampling time. Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 4.05 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 = 45 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 10/28/2024 Gallatin Center LP B Schultz valley bottom Bozeman / GallatinCity/County: Straw loam, 0-4% slopes none 3 ft. NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S 35, T 1 S, R 5 E MT DP2u none Section, Township, Range: 50.0% ) ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 135 50 Project/Site: Gallatin Center NWI classification: Dominant Species? WGS 84 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 0 Sampling Date: Litter 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover No FAC 45.700643 Long: 111.066242LRR E Mixed grasses. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 250 385 50 95 =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: % %Type1 Loc2 100 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yes Saturation Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and unless disturbed or problematic. Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) DP2uSOIL dry dry Remarks Loamy/Clayey Color (moist) 0-6 FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) No hydric soil indicators were observed. Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 6-14 Texture Redox FeaturesDepth Loamy/Clayey Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 10YR 2/2 10YR 2/1 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron Monosulfide (A18) Other (Explain in Remarks) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Surface Water (A1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) No wetland hydrology indicators were observed. Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Appendix C Gallatin Center Property Site Photographs Data Point 1w Data Point 1u Data Point 2w Data Point 2u Additional Site Photos Appendix D Aerial Overview of Gallatin Center Property Topographic Overview of Gallatin Center Property National Wetland Inventory – Mapped Wetlands at Gallatin Center Property Montana Natural Heritage Program – Mapped Wetlands at Gallatin Center Property Soils of Gallatin County Area - Gallatin Center Property Gallatin Center Aquatic Delineation 1000 ft N➤➤N Image © 2024 Airbus Image © 2024 Airbus Image © 2024 Airbus Gallatin Center Wetlands U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team,wetlands_team@fws.gov Wetlands Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Lake Other Riverine December 18, 2024 0 0.25 0.50.125 mi 0 0.4 0.80.2 km 1:15,047 This page was produced by the NWI mapperNational Wetlands Inventory (NWI) This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Gallatin County Area, MontanaNatural Resources Conservation Service December 18, 2024 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Gallatin County Area, Montana.......................................................................13 50B—Blackdog silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes..........................................13 57B—Turner loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes....................................................14 64B—Straw loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes.....................................................15 509B—Enbar loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes...................................................17 537A—Lamoose silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes........................................18 References............................................................................................................20 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report 6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Custom Soil Resource Report 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 50607005060800506090050610005061100506120050613005061400506150050616005060700506080050609005061000506110050612005061300506140050615005061600494300 494400 494500 494600 494700 494800 494900 495000 494300 494400 494500 494600 494700 494800 494900 495000 45° 42' 30'' N 111° 4' 25'' W45° 42' 30'' N111° 3' 51'' W45° 41' 58'' N 111° 4' 25'' W45° 41' 58'' N 111° 3' 51'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84 0 200 400 800 1200 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 Meters Map Scale: 1:4,770 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area, Montana Survey Area Data: Version 28, Aug 22, 2024 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 18, 2022—Aug 29, 2022 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 10 Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 12/18/2024 Page 1 of 550607005060800506090050610005061100506120050613005061400506150050616005060700506080050609005061000506110050612005061300506140050615005061600494300494400494500494600494700494800494900495000 494300 494400 494500 494600 494700 494800 494900 495000 45° 42' 30'' N 111° 4' 25'' W45° 42' 30'' N111° 3' 51'' W45° 41' 58'' N 111° 4' 25'' W45° 41' 58'' N 111° 3' 51'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84 0 200 400 800 1200 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 Meters Map Scale: 1:4,770 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area, Montana Survey Area Data: Version 28, Aug 22, 2024 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 18, 2022—Aug 29, 2022 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 12/18/2024 Page 2 of 5 Hydric Rating by Map Unit Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 50B Blackdog silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 0 2.3 3.3% 57B Turner loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 0 16.6 23.5% 64B Straw loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 0 39.3 55.6% 509B Enbar loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 10 2.0 2.8% 537A Lamoose silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 95 10.5 14.8% Totals for Area of Interest 70.7 100.0% Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 12/18/2024 Page 3 of 5 Description This rating indicates the percentage of map units that meets the criteria for hydric soils. Map units are composed of one or more map unit components or soil types, each of which is rated as hydric soil or not hydric. Map units that are made up dominantly of hydric soils may have small areas of minor nonhydric components in the higher positions on the landform, and map units that are made up dominantly of nonhydric soils may have small areas of minor hydric components in the lower positions on the landform. Each map unit is rated based on its respective components and the percentage of each component within the map unit. The thematic map is color coded based on the composition of hydric components. The five color classes are separated as 100 percent hydric components, 66 to 99 percent hydric components, 33 to 65 percent hydric components, 1 to 32 percent hydric components, and less than one percent hydric components. In Web Soil Survey, the Summary by Map Unit table that is displayed below the map pane contains a column named 'Rating'. In this column the percentage of each map unit that is classified as hydric is displayed. Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (Federal Register, 1994). Under natural conditions, these soils are either saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to support the growth and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation. The NTCHS definition identifies general soil properties that are associated with wetness. In order to determine whether a specific soil is a hydric soil or nonhydric soil, however, more specific information, such as information about the depth and duration of the water table, is needed. Thus, criteria that identify those estimated soil properties unique to hydric soils have been established (Federal Register, 2002). These criteria are used to identify map unit components that normally are associated with wetlands. The criteria used are selected estimated soil properties that are described in "Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 1999) and "Keys to Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 2006) and in the "Soil Survey Manual" (Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993). If soils are wet enough for a long enough period of time to be considered hydric, they should exhibit certain properties that can be easily observed in the field. These visible properties are indicators of hydric soils. The indicators used to make onsite determinations of hydric soils are specified in "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States" (Hurt and Vasilas, 2006). References: Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 12/18/2024 Page 4 of 5 Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Percent Present Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Lower Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 12/18/2024 Page 5 of 5 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 50B Blackdog silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 2.3 3.3% 57B Turner loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 16.6 23.5% 64B Straw loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 39.3 55.6% 509B Enbar loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 2.0 2.8% 537A Lamoose silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 10.5 14.8% Totals for Area of Interest 70.7 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. Custom Soil Resource Report 11 The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 12 Gallatin County Area, Montana 50B—Blackdog silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56vq Elevation: 4,350 to 5,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 43 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Blackdog and similar soils:90 percent Minor components:10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Blackdog Setting Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Calcareous loess Typical profile A - 0 to 10 inches: silt loam Bt - 10 to 19 inches: silty clay loam Bk - 19 to 60 inches: silt loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 4 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:30 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 10.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R044BB032MT - Loamy (Lo) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Meagher Percent of map unit:4 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Ecological site:R044BB032MT - Loamy (Lo) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No Bowery Percent of map unit:3 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BB032MT - Loamy (Lo) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No Quagle Percent of map unit:3 percent Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BB030MT - Limy (Ly) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No 57B—Turner loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56xd Elevation: 4,350 to 5,400 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Turner and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Turner Setting Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 6 inches: loam Bt - 6 to 12 inches: clay loam Bk - 12 to 26 inches: clay loam 2C - 26 to 60 inches: very gravelly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 4 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Custom Soil Resource Report 14 Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R044BB032MT - Loamy (Lo) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Corbly Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP818MT - Upland Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Martinsdale Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BB032MT - Loamy (Lo) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No Beaverton Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP818MT - Upland Grassland Hydric soil rating: No 64B—Straw loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56yc Elevation: 4,350 to 6,150 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Custom Soil Resource Report 15 Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Straw and similar soils:90 percent Minor components:10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Straw Setting Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Loamy alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 18 inches: loam Bk - 18 to 60 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 4 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 10.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R044BB032MT - Loamy (Lo) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Enbar Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Flood plains Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Sudworth Percent of map unit:3 percent Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BB032MT - Loamy (Lo) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 16 Straw Percent of map unit:2 percent Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP819MT - Upland Sagebrush Shrubland Hydric soil rating: No 509B—Enbar loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56vp Elevation: 4,400 to 6,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Enbar and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Enbar Setting Landform:Flood plains Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Loamy alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 22 inches: loam Cg - 22 to 49 inches: sandy loam 2C - 49 to 60 inches: very gravelly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 4 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 24 to 42 inches Frequency of flooding:Rare Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:10 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.8 inches) Custom Soil Resource Report 17 Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Nythar Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Flood plains Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: Yes Straw Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BB032MT - Loamy (Lo) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No 537A—Lamoose silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56wp Elevation: 4,000 to 5,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance Map Unit Composition Lamoose and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Lamoose Setting Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 9 inches: silt loam Custom Soil Resource Report 18 Bg - 9 to 27 inches: silt loam 2C - 27 to 60 inches: very gravelly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 12 to 24 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 3.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D Ecological site: R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: Yes Minor Components Bonebasin Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: Yes Meadowcreek Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 19 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 20 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report 21 1 Joselyn Hartwig From:Joselyn Hartwig Sent:Monday, March 3, 2025 9:24 AM To:fwpgen@mt.gov Subject:Gallatin Center Subdivision - Wildlife Information Hello, WWC Engineering is preparing a subdivision pre-application for the property located just west of North 19th Avenue, south of Cattail Street, west of Thomas Drive and north of Baxter Lane in Bozeman, MT. A Sketch Map of the subdivision is attached to better show the location of the subject property. One of the pre-application requirements is to have a local FWP biologist provide the following: “Describe key wildlife habitat issues associated with proposed subdivision, consideration of fish and wildlife resources, and early planning suggestions (Designated species of concern, potential impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat) from local FWP field biologists.” Let me know if you can provide this documentation or if you have any questions. Thank you, JOSELYN HARTWIG | Associate Engineer 895 Technology Blvd, Ste 203 | Bozeman, MT 59718 O: 406.586.0262 | D: 406.898.3448 www.wwcengineering.com © 2024 Microsoft Corporation © 2024 Maxar ©CNES (2024) Distribution Airbus DS EXISTING CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT PROPOSED 60' PUBLIC R.O.W. PROPOSED 60' PUBLIC R.O.W. PROPOSED 60' PUBLIC R.O.W. PROPOSED 60' ROADWAY EASEMENT PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED LOT LINE (TYPICAL) EXISTING CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT EXISTING CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT PROPERTY LINE GALLATIN CENTER SUBDIVISION PROPOSED LOT B PROPOSED ZONING: B-2M GALLATIN CENTER SUBDIVISION PROPOSED LOT D PROPOSED ZONING: B-2M GALLATIN CENTER SUBDIVISION PROPOSED LOT E PROPOSED ZONING: B-2M GALLATIN CENTER SUBDIVISION PROPOSED LOT C PROPOSED ZONING: B-2M GALLATIN CENTER SUBDIVISION PROPOSED LOT A PROPOSED ZONING: R-5 EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER PUBLIC USE EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 2605726 PUBLIC USE EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 2605726 ACCESS EASEMENT PER FILM 132 PG 501 PUBLIC USE EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 2605726 BAXTER LANE SUBDIVISION 1, S35, T01 S, R05 E, LOT 7 BAXTER LANE SUBDIVISION 1, S35, T01 S, R05 E, LOT 6, PLAT H-15-A BAXTER LANE SUBDIVISION 1, S 35, T01 S, R05 E, LOT 5 BAXTER LANE SUBDIVISION 1, S35, T01 S, R05 E, LOT 4, PLAT H-15 BAXTER LANE SUBDIVISION 1, S35, T01 S, R05 E, LOT3 BAXTER LANE SUBDIVISION 1, S35, T01 S, R05 E, LOT 2 BAXTER LANE SUBDIVISION 1, S35, T01 S, R05 E, LOT 1 S35, T01 S, R05 E, C.O.S. 500, PARCEL TRACT A S35, T01 S, R05 E, C.O.S. 500, PARCEL TRACT B S35, T01 S, R05 E, C.O.S. 2856, PARCEL 1 OPPORTUNITY SUB, S35, T01 S, R05 E, BLOCK 3, LOT 3 OPPORTUNITY SUB, S35, T01 S, R05 E, BLOCK 3, LOT 1 & 2 OPPORTUNITY SUB, S35, T01 S, R05 E, BLOCK 2, LOT 5 GALLATIN CENTER SUB PH 4, S35, T01 S, R05 E S35, T01 S, R05 E, C.O.S. 3020 GALLATIN CENTER SUB PUD PH 4, S35, T01 S, R05 E, BLOCK 1, Lot 12-C-1, PLAT J-423-C RED LEAF CONDO, S35, T01 S, R05 E, CATTAIL CREEK SUB PH 1 LOT 1 BLK 5 N89°51'27"E, 148.96' Δ = 55°35'31" R = 120.00' L = 116.43' CH = S64°20'07"E 111.92' S37°00'17"E, 86.57' Δ = 4 8 ° 3 5 ' 5 8 " R = 1 8 0 . 0 0 ' L = 1 5 2 . 6 8 ' CH = S 6 3 ° 4 7 ' 0 0 " E 148. 1 4 ' S89°52'36"E, 333.65'S00°18'18"E, 535.00'N00°14'19"E, 722.52'S89°41'42"W, 774.35' S89°39'55"E, 881.12' S00°16'49"W, 789.12' S89°45'26"W, 876.54'N00°03'02"W, 797.97'N89°41'42"E, 393.61' S05°57'19"E, 107.61'N00°18'18"W, 535.00'N00°16'21"W, 263.34'N89°59'06"E, 666.39'S00°14'19"W, 1102.83'S89°33'53"W, 348.07' 45' WIDE PUBLIC ROAD DEDICATION 45' WIDE PUBLIC ROAD DEDICATION OH P OH P OH P OHP OHP OH P OHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHP20.0' UTILITY EASEMENT 30.0' PUBLIC ROAD EASEMENT FOR BAXTER LANE 60.0' PUBLIC ROADWAY AND UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 2604451 20.0' UTILITY EASEMENT 10.0' R/W EASEMENT TO M.P.C. PER 67F186 30.0' DEDICATED ROADWAY FOR PUBLIC USE 20.0' EASEMENT FOR ROADWAY PURPOSES 20.0' UTILITY EASEMENT 20.0' UTILITY EASEMENT FUTURE 45.0' DEDICATED PUBLIC STREET R.O.W. (FUTURE NORTH 27TH AVE.) 30.0' WATER LINE EASEMENT PER FILM 198, PAGES 4015-4020 30.0' WATER LINE EASEMENT PER FILM 198, PAGES 4015-4020 21.5' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 2164139 10.0' UTILITY EASEMENT TO M.P.C. PER 98F4416 S89°41'43"W, 819.78'(R) S00°18'18"E, 580.00'(R) S89°41'42"W, 450.00'(R) N00°18'18"W, 580.00'(R) S89°41'42"W, 398.59'(M) N00°14'19"E, 2605.09'(R) 393.08' (M) S89°39'45"W, 393.06' Δ = 10°59'23" R = 345.74' L = (M) 66.31' (R) 66.24' CH = N84°08'31"E 66.21'(R) N00°21'29"W, 208.33'(M) S00°19'54"W, 940.48'(R) 940.37'(R) 941.77' (M) S89°39'55"E, 942.18'(M) S00°16'49"W, 863.64'(R) 863.60'S05°57'19"E, 152.86'S00°16'21"E, 308.34'S89°41'42"W, 819.35'S89°41'42"W, 398.62' (R) 178.08' (M) S78°39'08"W, 178.08' (M) S89°39'18"E, 60.72' Δ = 4°56'51" R = 1969.86' L = 170.10' CH = S04°03'54"E 170.05' N73°12'20"W, 17.36' Δ = 4°20'09" R = 223.67' L = 16.93' CH = S80°25'47"W 16.92' 30.0' WATER LINE EASEMENT PER FILM 198, PAGES 4021-4025 30.0' WATER MAIN EASEMNT PER DOC. NO. 2604450 N89°41'42"E, 450.00' 45' WIDE PUBLIC ROAD DEDICATION 45' WIDE PUBLIC ROAD DEDICATION S35, T01 S, R05 E S35, T01 S, R05 E OPPORTUNITY SUB, S35, T01 S, R05 E, BLOCK 2, LOT 4 60.0' CATTAIL STREET (EXISTING) KIMBERWICKE STREET (EXISTING) RAWHIDE RIDGE ROAD (EXISTING)MAX AVENUE (EXISTING)THOMAS DRIVE (EXISTING)NORTH 19TH AVENUE (EXISTING)BAXTER LANE (EXISTING) RAWHIDE RIDGE ROAD (PROPOSED) SARTAIN STREET (PROPOSED)MAX AVENUE (PROPOSED)S89°51'28"W, 147.64'N00°14'31"E, 614.97'N89°58'37"E, 666.78'S00°05'28"E, 797.80'S89°58'19"W, 234.94' Δ = 47°36'18" R = 120.00' L = 99.70' CH = N63°50'36"W 96.86' N37°00'17"W, 84.92' Δ = 55°08'30" R = 180.00' L = 173.23' CH = N64°11'43"W 166.62' 0 SCALE: 1" = 100' 100'50' K:\Bozeman\Gallatin Center LP\2024381 Gallatin Center\05CAD\Sheets\Pre App\24381-SKETCH.dwg 24X36 PORTRAIT 12/3/2024 10:08:18 AM DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: CGB JRH EWR/CGB DECEMBER 2024 SHEET 4 NO.DATEREVISIONPREPARED BY BY SKETCH MAP GALLATIN CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BOZEMAN, MT GALLATIN CENTER E N G I N E E R I N G PROJECT NO. 2024381 895 TECHNOLOGY BLVD., SUITE 203 BOZEMAN, MT 59718 (406) 586-0262 www.wwcengineering.com 1 Joselyn Hartwig From:Smitham, Jen <JSmitham@mt.gov> Sent:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 9:20 AM To:Joselyn Hartwig Cc:Lindsey, Deb Subject:Gallatin Center Subdivision Attachments:WWC Gallatin Center Subdivision.pdf WARNING: This email originated from an external sender. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. Hello, Your letter of comment is attached. Thank you, Jen Smitham |R3 Comment Coordinator Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Office: (406) 495-3262 | Montana FWP | Montana Outdoors Magazine MT Fish, Wildlife & Parks Region 3 Headquarters 1400 S 19th Avenue Bozeman, MT 59718 April 2, 2025 Gallatin County Planning Department 311 West Main Street #108 Bozeman, MT 59715 RE: Gallatin Center Subdivision Dear Joselyn Hartwig, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Gallatin Center Subdivision. We do not have any fish and wildlife concerns at this time. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks Region 3 Office, Bozeman NORTH 19TH AVE.THOMAS DR.BAXTER LN. SARTAIN STREETNORTH 27TH AVE.MAX AVE.CATTAIL ST.NORTH 27TH AVE.CATRON ST. BUR K E S T . TSCHACHE LN. OAK ST.DAVIS LN.CATT AI L S T.NORTH 19TH AVE.I- 9 0 I-90SIMMENTAL WAYBOOTHILL CT. ORVILLE WAY RAWHIDE RIDGE RD.MAX AVE.KIMBERWICKE ST. CATAMOUNT ST. HONOR LN. TSCHACHE LN. BAXTER LN. CATRON ST.WARBLER WAYBLACKBIRD DR.BAXTER LN. SHEET 1 K:\Bozeman\Gallatin Center LP\2024381 Gallatin Center\05CAD\Sheets\Pre App\24381-LOCT-VIC.dwg VICINITY MAP 11/22/2024 8:20:08 AM PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY PO BOX 906 BOZEMAN, MT 59771-0906 ENGINEERI NG VICINITY MAP BOZEMAN, MT GALLATIN CENTER PHASE 5 GALLATIN CENTER LP DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: JRH JRH EWR/CGB DEC. 2024 0 SCALE: 1" = 1000' 1000'500' PROJECT LOCATION 895 TECHNOLOGY BLVD., SUITE 203 BOZEMAN, MT 59718 (406) 586-0262 www.wwcengineering.com SHEET 2 K:\Bozeman\Gallatin Center LP\2024381 Gallatin Center\05CAD\Sheets\Pre App\24381-LOCT-USGS.dwg USGS LOCATION MAP 11/22/2024 8:19:59 AM PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY PO BOX 906 BOZEMAN, MT 59771-0906 ENGINEERI NG USGS LOCATION MAP BOZEMAN, MT GALLATIN CENTER PHASE 5 GALLATIN CENTER LP DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: JRH JRH EWR/CGB DEC. 2024 N.T.S. PROJECT LOCATION 895 TECHNOLOGY BLVD., SUITE 203 BOZEMAN, MT 59718 (406) 586-0262 www.wwcengineering.com © 2024 Microsoft Corporation © 2024 Maxar ©CNES (2024) Distribution Airbus DS WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWOH P OH P OH P OHP OHP OH P STNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGFOFOFOUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPFOFOFOFOFOFOUGPUGPNG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG FOFOFOFOFOFOFOFO FO FOFO FOFOFOFOFOFO ST STOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SS SS SS SS SSWWWWWWWWWWW W WWWWWW SS SS WWWWWSSSSSSSS SS SS CS CS 45' WIDE PUBLIC ROAD DEDICATION 45' WIDE PUBLIC ROAD DEDICATION CATTAIL STREET (EXISTING) KIMBERWICKE STREET (EXISTING) RAWHIDE RIDGE ROAD (EXISTING)MAX AVENUE (EXISTING)THOMAS DRIVE (EXISTING)NORTH 19TH AVENUE (EXISTING)BAXTER LANE (EXISTING)45' WIDE PUBLIC ROAD DEDICATION 45' WIDE PUBLIC ROAD DEDICATION EXISTING CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE EXISTING CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT EXISTING CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT PROPERTY LINE EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER EXISTING CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT EXISTING CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT EXISTING CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT EXISTING EDGE OF WETLAND EXISTING EDGE OF WETLAND EXISTING EDGE OF WETLAND EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER EXISTING UNDERGROUND POWER EXISTING STORMWATER CULVERT EXISTING GASLINE EXISTING FIBER OPTIC EXISTING 8" PVC SEWER MAIN EXISTING 8" PVC SEWER MAIN STUB EXISTING 8" PVC SEWER MAIN EXISTING 8" PVC SEWER MAIN EXISTING 8" PVC SEWER MAIN EXISTING 12" DI WATER MAIN EXISTING 8" DI WATER MAIN EXISTING 8" DI WATER MAIN EXISTING 8" DI WATER MAIN EXISTING 8" DI WATER MAIN EXISTING 8" PVC SEWER MAIN EXISTING 8" PVC SEWER MAIN STUB EXISTING HYDRANT (TYPICAL) EXISTING 8" PVC SEWER MAIN EXISTING FIBER OPTIC EXISTING 8" PVC SEWER MAIN STUB EXISTING 8" PVC SEWER MAIN STUB EXISTING 8" PVC SEWER MAIN STUB EXISTING 8" PVC SEWER MAIN STUB EXISTING 8" PVC SEWER MAIN STUB EXISTING 8" PVC SEWER MAIN STUB EXISTING 8" PVC SEWER MAIN EXISTING 8" PVC SEWER MAIN EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER EXISTING 32" X 36" RCP STORM PIPE EXISTING 18" PVC STORM PIPE EXISTING 26" X 30" RCP STORM PIPE EXISTING 16" X 20" RCP STORM PIPE EXISTING 48" RCP STORM PIPE EXISTING 26" X 44" RCP STORM PIPE EXISTING 26" X 42" RCP STORM PIPE EXISTING 26" X 44" RCP STORM PIPE EXISTING 14" X 24" RCP STORM PIPE EXISTING CONCRETE STORM CULVERTEXISTING 18" X 30" RCP STORM CULVERT EXISTING 36" X 36" RCP STORM CULVERT EXISTING 24" X 44" RCP STORM CULVERT EXISTING STORM PIPE EXISTING STORM CULVERT 4720' 4715' 4710' 4705' 4700' 4695' 4690' 4725' 4705' 4710' 4715' 4720' 4725' 4720' 4715' 4710' 4 7 1 0 ' 4705' 4715' 0 SCALE: 1" = 100' 100'50' K:\Bozeman\Gallatin Center LP\2024381 Gallatin Center\05CAD\Sheets\Pre App\24381-EXST.dwg 24X36 PORTRAIT 12/19/2024 10:18:53 AM DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: CGB JRH EWR/CGB DECEMBER 2024 SHEET 3 NO.DATEREVISIONPREPARED BY BY EXISTING CONDITIONS GALLATIN CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BOZEMAN, MT GALLATIN CENTER PHASE 5 E N G I N E E R I N G PROJECT NO. 2024381 895 TECHNOLOGY BLVD., SUITE 203 BOZEMAN, MT 59718 (406) 586-0262 www.wwcengineering.com © 2024 Microsoft Corporation © 2024 Maxar ©CNES (2024) Distribution Airbus DS EXISTING CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT PROPOSED 60' PUBLIC R.O.W. PROPOSED 60' PUBLIC R.O.W. PROPOSED 60' PUBLIC R.O.W. PROPOSED 60' ROADWAY EASEMENT PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED LOT LINE (TYPICAL) EXISTING CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT EXISTING CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT PROPERTY LINE GALLATIN CENTER SUBDIVISION PROPOSED LOT B PROPOSED ZONING: B-2M GALLATIN CENTER SUBDIVISION PROPOSED LOT D PROPOSED ZONING: B-2M GALLATIN CENTER SUBDIVISION PROPOSED LOT E PROPOSED ZONING: B-2M GALLATIN CENTER SUBDIVISION PROPOSED LOT C PROPOSED ZONING: B-2M GALLATIN CENTER SUBDIVISION PROPOSED LOT A PROPOSED ZONING: R-5 EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER PUBLIC USE EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 2605726 PUBLIC USE EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 2605726 ACCESS EASEMENT PER FILM 132 PG 501 PUBLIC USE EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 2605726 BAXTER LANE SUBDIVISION 1, S35, T01 S, R05 E, LOT 7 BAXTER LANE SUBDIVISION 1, S35, T01 S, R05 E, LOT 6, PLAT H-15-A BAXTER LANE SUBDIVISION 1, S 35, T01 S, R05 E, LOT 5 BAXTER LANE SUBDIVISION 1, S35, T01 S, R05 E, LOT 4, PLAT H-15 BAXTER LANE SUBDIVISION 1, S35, T01 S, R05 E, LOT3 BAXTER LANE SUBDIVISION 1, S35, T01 S, R05 E, LOT 2 BAXTER LANE SUBDIVISION 1, S35, T01 S, R05 E, LOT 1 S35, T01 S, R05 E, C.O.S. 500, PARCEL TRACT A S35, T01 S, R05 E, C.O.S. 500, PARCEL TRACT B S35, T01 S, R05 E, C.O.S. 2856, PARCEL 1 OPPORTUNITY SUB, S35, T01 S, R05 E, BLOCK 3, LOT 3 OPPORTUNITY SUB, S35, T01 S, R05 E, BLOCK 3, LOT 1 & 2 OPPORTUNITY SUB, S35, T01 S, R05 E, BLOCK 2, LOT 5 GALLATIN CENTER SUB PH 4, S35, T01 S, R05 E S35, T01 S, R05 E, C.O.S. 3020 GALLATIN CENTER SUB PUD PH 4, S35, T01 S, R05 E, BLOCK 1, Lot 12-C-1, PLAT J-423-C RED LEAF CONDO, S35, T01 S, R05 E, CATTAIL CREEK SUB PH 1 LOT 1 BLK 5 N89°51'27"E, 148.96' Δ = 55°35'31" R = 120.00' L = 116.43' CH = S64°20'07"E 111.92' S37°00'17"E, 86.57' Δ = 4 8 ° 3 5 ' 5 8 " R = 1 8 0 . 0 0 ' L = 1 5 2 . 6 8 ' CH = S 6 3 ° 4 7 ' 0 0 " E 148. 1 4 ' S89°52'36"E, 333.65'S00°18'18"E, 535.00'N00°14'19"E, 722.52'S89°41'42"W, 774.35' S89°39'55"E, 881.12' S00°16'49"W, 789.12' S89°45'26"W, 876.54'N00°03'02"W, 797.97'N89°41'42"E, 393.61' S05°57'19"E, 107.61'N00°18'18"W, 535.00'N00°16'21"W, 263.34'N89°59'06"E, 666.39'S00°14'19"W, 1102.83'S89°33'53"W, 348.07' 45' WIDE PUBLIC ROAD DEDICATION 45' WIDE PUBLIC ROAD DEDICATION OH P OH P OH P OHP OHP OH P OHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHP20.0' UTILITY EASEMENT 30.0' PUBLIC ROAD EASEMENT FOR BAXTER LANE 60.0' PUBLIC ROADWAY AND UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 2604451 20.0' UTILITY EASEMENT 10.0' R/W EASEMENT TO M.P.C. PER 67F186 30.0' DEDICATED ROADWAY FOR PUBLIC USE 20.0' EASEMENT FOR ROADWAY PURPOSES 20.0' UTILITY EASEMENT 20.0' UTILITY EASEMENT FUTURE 45.0' DEDICATED PUBLIC STREET R.O.W. (FUTURE NORTH 27TH AVE.) 30.0' WATER LINE EASEMENT PER FILM 198, PAGES 4015-4020 30.0' WATER LINE EASEMENT PER FILM 198, PAGES 4015-4020 21.5' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 2164139 10.0' UTILITY EASEMENT TO M.P.C. PER 98F4416 S89°41'43"W, 819.78'(R) S00°18'18"E, 580.00'(R) S89°41'42"W, 450.00'(R) N00°18'18"W, 580.00'(R) S89°41'42"W, 398.59'(M) N00°14'19"E, 2605.09'(R) 393.08' (M) S89°39'45"W, 393.06' Δ = 10°59'23" R = 345.74' L = (M) 66.31' (R) 66.24' CH = N84°08'31"E 66.21'(R) N00°21'29"W, 208.33'(M) S00°19'54"W, 940.48'(R) 940.37'(R) 941.77' (M) S89°39'55"E, 942.18'(M) S00°16'49"W, 863.64'(R) 863.60'S05°57'19"E, 152.86'S00°16'21"E, 308.34'S89°41'42"W, 819.35'S89°41'42"W, 398.62' (R) 178.08' (M) S78°39'08"W, 178.08' (M) S89°39'18"E, 60.72' Δ = 4°56'51" R = 1969.86' L = 170.10' CH = S04°03'54"E 170.05' N73°12'20"W, 17.36' Δ = 4°20'09" R = 223.67' L = 16.93' CH = S80°25'47"W 16.92' 30.0' WATER LINE EASEMENT PER FILM 198, PAGES 4021-4025 30.0' WATER MAIN EASEMNT PER DOC. NO. 2604450 N89°41'42"E, 450.00' 45' WIDE PUBLIC ROAD DEDICATION 45' WIDE PUBLIC ROAD DEDICATION S35, T01 S, R05 E S35, T01 S, R05 E OPPORTUNITY SUB, S35, T01 S, R05 E, BLOCK 2, LOT 4 60.0' CATTAIL STREET (EXISTING) KIMBERWICKE STREET (EXISTING) RAWHIDE RIDGE ROAD (EXISTING)MAX AVENUE (EXISTING)THOMAS DRIVE (EXISTING)NORTH 19TH AVENUE (EXISTING)BAXTER LANE (EXISTING) RAWHIDE RIDGE ROAD (PROPOSED) SARTAIN STREET (PROPOSED)MAX AVENUE (PROPOSED)S89°51'28"W, 147.64'N00°14'31"E, 614.97'N89°58'37"E, 666.78'S00°05'28"E, 797.80'S89°58'19"W, 234.94' Δ = 47°36'18" R = 120.00' L = 99.70' CH = N63°50'36"W 96.86' N37°00'17"W, 84.92' Δ = 55°08'30" R = 180.00' L = 173.23' CH = N64°11'43"W 166.62' 0 SCALE: 1" = 100' 100'50' K:\Bozeman\Gallatin Center LP\2024381 Gallatin Center\05CAD\Sheets\Pre App\24381-SKETCH.dwg 24X36 PORTRAIT 12/3/2024 10:08:18 AM DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: CGB JRH EWR/CGB DECEMBER 2024 SHEET 4 NO.DATEREVISIONPREPARED BY BY SKETCH MAP GALLATIN CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BOZEMAN, MT GALLATIN CENTER E N G I N E E R I N G PROJECT NO. 2024381 895 TECHNOLOGY BLVD., SUITE 203 BOZEMAN, MT 59718 (406) 586-0262 www.wwcengineering.com EXISTING CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT PROPOSED 60' PUBLIC R.O.W. PROPOSED 60' PUBLIC R.O.W. PROPOSED 60' PUBLIC R.O.W. PROPOSED 60' ROADWAY EASEMENT PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED LOT LINE (TYPICAL) EXISTING CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT EXISTING CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT PROPERTY LINE EXISTING EDGE OF WETLAND (TO BE REALIGNED) EXISTING EDGE OF WETLAND (TO BE REALIGNED) EDGE OF EXISTING WETLAND (TYPICAL) EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER PUBLIC USE EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 2605726 PUBLIC USE EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 2605726 ACCESS EASEMENT PER FILM 132 PG 501 PUBLIC USE EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 2605726 APPROXIMATE 70' WIDE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE/LINEAR TRAIL & STREAM CORRIDOR EASEMENT DRAWN FROM MINOR SUB. 210WWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWOH P OH P OH P OHP OHP OH P STNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGFOFOFOUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPFOFOFOFOFOFOXXXX X X X XXXXUGPUGPXXXXXXXXNG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG FOFOFOFOFOFOFOFO FO FOFO FOFOFOFOFOFO ST STOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SS SS SS SS SSWWWWWWWWWWW W WWWWWW SS SS WWWWWSSSSSSSS SS SS CS CS 20.0' UTILITY EASEMENT 30.0' PUBLIC ROAD EASEMENT FOR BAXTER LANE 60.0' PUBLIC ROADWAY AND UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 2604451 20.0' UTILITY EASEMENT 10.0' R/W EASEMENT TO M.P.C. PER 67F186 30.0' DEDICATED ROADWAY FOR PUBLIC USE 20.0' EASEMENT FOR ROADWAY PURPOSES 20.0' UTILITY EASEMENT 20.0' UTILITY EASEMENT FUTURE 45.0' DEDICATED PUBLIC STREET R.O.W. (FUTURE NORTH 27TH AVE.) 30.0' WATER LINE EASEMENT PER FILM 198, PAGES 4015-4020 30.0' WATER LINE EASEMENT PER FILM 198, PAGES 4015-4020 21.5' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 2164139 10.0' UTILITY EASEMENT TO M.P.C. PER 98F4416 S89°41'43"W, 819.78'(R) S00°18'18"E, 580.00'(R) S89°41'42"W, 450.00'(R) N00°18'18"W, 580.00'(R) S89°41'42"W, 398.59'(M) N00°14'19"E, 2605.09'(R) 393.08' (M) S89°39'45"W, 393.06' Δ = 10°59'23" R = 345.74' L = (M) 66.31' (R) 66.24' CH = N84°08'31"E 66.21'(R) N00°21'29"W, 208.33'(M) S00°19'54"W, 940.48'(R) 940.37'(R) 941.77' (M) S89°39'55"E, 942.18'(M) S00°16'49"W, 863.64'(R) 863.60'S05°57'19"E, 152.86'S00°16'21"E, 308.34'S89°41'42"W, 819.35'S89°41'42"W, 398.62' (R) 178.08' (M) S78°39'08"W, 178.08' (M) S89°39'18"E, 60.72' Δ = 4°56'51" R = 1969.86' L = 170.10' CH = S04°03'54"E 170.05' N73°12'20"W, 17.36' Δ = 4°20'09" R = 223.67' L = 16.93' CH = S80°25'47"W 16.92' 30.0' WATER LINE EASEMENT PER FILM 198, PAGES 4021-4025 30.0' WATER MAIN EASEMNT PER DOC. NO. 2604450 N89°41'42"E, 450.00'SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SS SS SS SS SSSSSS SWWWWWWW WWWWWW45' WIDE PUBLIC ROAD DEDICATION 45' WIDE PUBLIC ROAD DEDICATION RAWHIDE RIDGE ROAD (PROPOSED) SARTAIN STREET (PROPOSED) (WITH FUTURE PHASES)MAX AVENUE (PROPOSED)(WITH FUTURE PHASES)PROPOSED SEWER MAIN EXTENSION PROPOSED WATER MAIN EXTENSION FUTURE PHASES EXISTING UNDERGROUND POWER EXISTING GASLINE EXISTING FIBER OPTIC EXISTING 8" PVC SEWER MAIN EXISTING 8" PVC SEWER MAIN STUB EXISTING 8" PVC SEWER MAIN EXISTING 8" PVC SEWER MAIN EXISTING 8" PVC SEWER MAIN EXISTING 12" DI WATER MAIN EXISTING 8" DI WATER MAIN EXISTING 8" DI WATER MAIN EXISTING 8" DI WATER MAIN EXISTING 8" DI WATER MAIN EXISTING 8" PVC SEWER MAIN EXISTING 8" PVC SEWER MAIN STUB EXISTING HYDRANT (TYPICAL) EXISTING 8" PVC SEWER MAIN STUB PHASE LINE (TYPICAL) PHASE 1 CATTAIL STREET (EXISTING) KIMBERWICKE STREET (EXISTING) RAWHIDE RIDGE ROAD (EXISTING)MAX AVENUE (EXISTING)THOMAS DRIVE (EXISTING)NORTH 19TH AVENUE (EXISTING)BAXTER LANE (EXISTING) EXISTING STORMWATER CULVERT EXISTING 32" X 36" RCP STORM PIPE EXISTING 18" PVC STORM PIPE EXISTING 26" X 30" RCP STORM PIPE EXISTING 16" X 20" RCP STORM PIPE EXISTING 48" RCP STORM PIPE EXISTING 26" X 44" RCP STORM PIPE EXISTING 26" X 42" RCP STORM PIPE EXISTING 26" X 44" RCP STORM PIPE EXISTING 14" X 24" RCP STORM PIPE EXISTING CONCRETE STORM CULVERTEXISTING 18" X 30" RCP STORM CULVERT EXISTING 36" X 36" RCP STORM CULVERT EXISTING 24" X 44" RCP STORM CULVERT EXISTING STORM PIPE EXISTING STORM CULVERT FUTURE PHASES FUTURE PHASES FUTURE PHASES 45' WIDE PUBLIC ROAD DEDICATION 45' WIDE PUBLIC ROAD DEDICATION APPROXIMATE 70' WIDE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE/LINEAR TRAIL & STREAM CORRIDOR EASEMENT FROM MINOR SUB. 210 TO BE VACATED/RELOCATED PROPOSED 30' WIDE TRAIL CORRIDOR EASEMENT (FINAL LOCATION TBD) 0 SCALE: 1" = 100' 100'50' K:\Bozeman\Gallatin Center LP\2024381 Gallatin Center\05CAD\Sheets\Pre App\24381-PLAN-PHASING.dwg 24X36 PORTRAIT 12/19/2024 11:05:56 AM DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: CGB JRH EWR/CGB DECMEBER 2024 SHEET 5 NO.DATEREVISIONPREPARED BY BY PHASING PLAN GALLATIN CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BOZEMAN, MT GALLATIN CENTER PHASE 5 E N G I N E E R I N G PROJECT NO. 2024381 895 TECHNOLOGY BLVD., SUITE 203 BOZEMAN, MT 59718 (406) 586-0262 www.wwcengineering.com