The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About020 Surface WaterGallatin Center Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application 20 - Surface Water Please see the responses below to the items requested in Section 38.220.060.A.1. in the Bozeman Municipal Code. Mapping. Locate on a plat overlay or sketch map all surface water and the delineated floodplain which may affect or be affected by the proposed subdivision including: (1) Natural water systems such as natural streams, creeks, streams/ditches, drainages, waterways, gullies, ravines or washes in which water flows either continuously or intermittently and has a definite channel, bed and banks. East Catron Creek flows south to north through the east portion of the property. The creek enters the property near the intersection of North 19th Avenue and Baxter Lane and continues north through the east portion of the property until it reaches Rawhide Ridge Road, where it exits the property and continues to flow north. Similarly, another watercourse traverses the western portion of the subdivision. This watercourse, identified as West Catron Creek, enters from the south property boundary near Baxter Lane, adjacent to the existing USPS lot, and flows north until exiting at Cattail Street. (2) Artificial water systems such as canals, ditches, ditch/streams, aqueducts, reservoirs, irrigation or drainage systems. The property owner believes that Farmer’s Canal was responsible for maintaining the watercourse on the western portion of the property (West Catron Creek). A Farmer’s Canal representative, Dan Triemstra, was contacted to solicit comments regarding the subdivision improvements and to identify any known downstream water users. Please see section 27 – Agricultural Water User Facilities for this correspondence and further details. Description. (1) Describe all surface waters which may affect or be affected by the proposed subdivision including name, approximate size, present use and time of year when water is present. The functional assessments for both water courses are included in this section. The aquatic delineation report is also included, which further details the surface waters and wetlands within the subdivision. (2) Describe proximity of proposed construction (such as buildings, sewer systems, streets) to surface waters. Gallatin Center Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application The subdivision improvements will include the extension of Rawhide Ridge Road. The roadway extension will cross West Catron Creek at the location of an existing culvert crossing. The culvert will be resized and replaced, and retaining structures will be constructed on either side of the roadway to minimize any stream or wetland impacts by limiting the grading extents. Water body alteration. Describe any existing or proposed streambank or shoreline alterations or any proposed construction or modification of lake beds, watercourses or irrigation ditches. Provide information on location, extent, type and purpose of alteration. Provide a revised floodplain analysis report, in compliance with article 6 of this chapter, as appropriate. No stream bank or shoreline alterations or modifications are proposed. Please refer to section 21 – Floodplains for the provided floodplain information. Wetlands. If the subdivision contains wetlands, as defined in section 38.700.210 of this chapter, then a delineation of the wetland meeting standards of division 38.610 must be provided and the location of existing and proposed modifications to wetlands must be shown on an overlay of the proposed plat. The Wetland Delineation Report is included in this section for reference. Exhibits A and B are also included in this section, which show the existing and proposed modifications to wetlands. Permits. Include copies of any permits listed in section 38.41.020 that have been obtained for the project. No permits have been obtained for the subdivision improvements at this time. The applicable stream and wetland permits are being pursued, and will be obtained prior to construction. 20 – Surface Water Wetland Review Checklist Wetland Review Checklist 1. Wetland and watercourse delineation report complying with the requirements of Section 38.610.030 BMC. The wetland and watercourse delineation report was provided with the Pre- Application submittal. The report is also included in this section. a. The wetland and watercourse delineation report must include, but not limited to, the following and must be prepared in accordance with 38.610.030 BMC i. Wetland and watercourse descriptions See aquatic delineation report included in this section. ii. Functional assessment See functional assessment included in this section. iii. Wetland types See aquatic delineation report included in this section. iv. Wetland acreages See aquatic delineation report and map included in this section. v. Maps with property boundaries, wetland and watercourse boundaries and acreages See aquatic delineation report included in this section. vi. Wetland data forms See aquatic delineation report included in this section. 2. If activities are planned in and/or adjacent to aquatic resources the following information is required: a. A site plan that shows the property boundary; delineated wetland and watercourse boundaries; buffer boundaries; and all existing and proposed structures, roads, trails, and easements. The site plan will include a table of existing wetland functional ratings and acreage, required buffers and acreage, and linear feet of all watercourses and ditches. See Exhibit A included in this section i. All direct impacts to wetlands, watercourses, and buffers must be highlighted and summarized in a table on the site plan. The water resource and buffer summary table must include wetland/watercourse identification number; corresponding buffer width and acreage; total site, wetland, watercourse, ditch, and buffer acreages; jurisdictional status; impacts to all water resources and buffers; and mitigation types and acreages. See Exhibit B included in this section. ii. All indirect impacts must be summarized in the document. b. A map with all proposed mitigation areas and their required buffers. See Exhibit B included in this section. c. The source, type, and method of transport and disposal of any fill material to be used, and certification that the placement of fill material will not violate any applicable state or federal statutes and regulations listed in Section 38.220.020. Not applicable – all fill will be removed from the site. d. Copies of the following: i. And floodplain determination for the proposed site 404 Pending ii. Any ACOE jurisdictional determinations Most wetlands are jurisdictional. iii. Any other required permits 1. SPA 124 (FWP) Not applicable. 2. Stormwater discharge. The proposed stormwater drainage design will not discharge any stormwater from the proposed improvements to the watercourses. Please see section 029 Stormwater Management for further details. 3. 310 Permit (GCD) To be submitted with subsequent applications. 4. Floodplain Permit Not applicable. 5. 404 Permit (ACOE) To be submitted with subsequent applications. 6. Section 10 Permit Not applicable. 7. 401/318 Permit (DEQ) To be submitted with subsequent applications. 8. Navigable Waters (DNC) Not applicable. 9. Water right changes (DNRC) Not applicable. 3. If in the preparation or review of the submittal materials it is determined that there are unavoidable impacts to wetlands and/or watercourses that will require Federal Clean Water Act permit, then the following information must be submitted to the city for all federal jurisdictional and city-regulated wetlands (see Section 38.700.210 for definition) in a compensatory mitigation report. Not applicable with this application. a. The descriptive narrative must include, at a minimum: i. The name and contact information of the applicants; the name, qualifications, and contact information for the primary author of the compensatory mitigation report; a description of the proposal; summary of the direct and indirect impacts and proposed mitigation concept; identification of all the local, state, and federal wetland/stream-related permit required for the project; and, a vicinity map for the project. ii. A description of existing wetland, watercourse and buffer areas that will be impacted including area based on professional surveys; dominant vegetation; and functional assessments and wetland ratings for the entire wetland and the portions proposed to be impacted. 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 the wetland, watercourse and buffer areas. Provide specifications (including buffers) for all proposed mitigation for all wetland/watercourse/buffer impacts. Include a map with all proposed mitigation areas and their required buffers. 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 existing conditions of the proposed wetland mitigation sites and on which the future hydrologic and soil conditions of the mitigation wetlands are based (e.g., hydrologic condition: piezometer data, staff/crest gage data, hydrologic modeling, visual observations; soil conditions: data form hand dug or mechanical soil pits or boring results). The applicant may not rely on soil survey data for establishing existing conditions. vii. A planting schedule by proposed community type and hydrologic regime, size and type of plant material to be installed, spacing of plants, “typical” clustering patterns, total number of each species by community type, timing of installation, nutrient requirements, water schedule, weed control, 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. viii. The mitigation monitoring plan must include a period of not less than three years, and establish the responsibility for long-term removal of invasive species. ix. Wetland mitigation performance criteria (measurable standards reflective of expected development goals established for each year after the mitigation site is established, i.e., “At the end of three years, there will be an 80 percent survival of the planted shrubs and trees.”) for mitigation wetlands and buffers, a monitoring schedule, reporting requirements to the city, and a maintenance schedule and actions for each year of monitoring. x. Contingency plans which clearly define the 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 survey edges; proposed areas of wetland and buffer impacts; and location of proposed wetland and buffer compensation action. ii. Surveyed topography at one- to two-foot contour intervals in the zone of the proposed compensation actions if any grading activity is proposed in the compensation area. Provide existing and proposed mitigation design cross-section for the wetland and/or buffer compensation areas. iii. Required wetland buffers for existing wetlands and proposed mitigation areas; c. A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect and maintain the non-impacted and mitigation wetland, watercourse and buffer areas in perpetuity. 20 – Surface Water Responses to Wetland Comment Letter Code Section 38.220.130.A 1 (a.1)inadequate Review comments See updated map (Exhibit A) with watercourses delineated. (a.2)no Review comments See functional assessment. (a.4)Wetland acreages (by a licensed surveyor)inadequate Review comments See updated map (Exhibit A) with watercourses delineated. (a.5)inadequate Review comments See updated map (Exhibit A) with watercourses delineated. 2 a no The phasing plan shows all prposed improvements in relation to wetlands. Only one phase at present, which is Rawhide Ridge Road. (a.1)no No wetland impacts at this time, culvert was originally placed for road. Review comments (a.2)no No indirect impacts at this time. Review comments b n/a Wetland and watercourse descriptions Functional assessment, as determined by a state-accepted functional assessment method, i.e. MDT or MTDEQ No functional assessment was provided Maps with property boundaries, wetlands and water course boundaries and acreages. If activities are planned in and/or adjacent to aquatic resources the following information is required: 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 water courses and ditches. Wetlands were delineated, but the watercourses were not. The acreage of the wetland was provided, but the linear feet of watercourses were not. Wetlands were delineated, but the watercourses were not. The acreage of the wetland was provided, but the linear feet of watercourses were not. The acreage was provided, but the survey method was not provided. If GPS was used, we need to know the make and model of the unit and if any post processing was used to increase accuracy. All direct impacts to wetlands, watercourses, and buffers must be highlighted and summarized in a table on the site plan. The water resource and buffer summary table must include wetland/watercourse identification number, corresponding buffer width and acreage; total site, wetland, watercourse, ditch, and buffer acreages; jurisdictional status; impacts to all water resources and buffers; and mitigation types and acreages. All indirect impacts (e.g., shading from boardwalks or public utility well drawdown) must be summarized in the document A map with all proposed mitigation areas and their required buffer. 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). Submitted Y/N or NACode requirement (From Wetland Comment Letter) Comment Response c See submitted wetland checklist. d (d.1)to be submitted (d.2)to be submitted (d.3)to be submitted (d.4)Any other application, state or federal, for wetlands permits regarding the proposed site to be submitted (d.5)Any USACOE jurisdictional determinations regarding wetlands on the proposed and adjacent site to be submitted (d.6)to be submitted e.See attached wetland checklist. 3 (a.1)no (a.2)no (a.3)no none (a.4)no none (a.5)no see wetland delineation report. (a.6)no n/a (a.7)no n/a 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 statues and regulations as listed in section 38.220.020 If relevant, any Montana state joint applications for the proposed project site. copies of the following Any Clean Water At section 401 and 404 permits Any MT 310 permits Any floodplain determinations for the proposed site known to the applicant A completed wetland review checklist Field data that was collected to document the existing conditions of the proposed mitigation site 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 conditionsA 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 plans from destruction. Native species must comprise 80 percent of the plants installed or seeded within the mitigation site. Any irrigation installed in these areas must comply with requirements outlined in the most recent version of the City of Bozeman Landscape and Irrigation Performance and Designs Standards Manual. 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; a and, a vicinity map for the project. 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 impacts. 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. 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 buffers. An assessment of existing conditions in the zone of the proposed mitigation including wetland vegetation community structure and composition, existing hydroperiod, existing soil conditions, and existing wetland functions. (a.8)no n/a (a.9)no n/a (b.1)no n/a (b.2)no n/a (b.3)no n/a c no n/a 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. 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. Existing wetland and buffer surveyed edges; proposed areas of wetland and buffer impacts; and, location of proposed wetland and buffer compensation action. 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. Required wetland buffers for existing wetlands and proposed mitigation area. A discussion of ongoing management proactive that will protect and maintain the nonimpacted and mitigation wetland, watercourse and buffer areas in perpetuity. 20 – Surface Water Wetland Delineation Report 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 © 2025 Microsoft Corporation © 2025 Maxar ©CNES (2025) Distribution Airbus DS WWWWWWWWWWNGNGNGNGNGNGNGFOSTSTUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPFOFOFOXX X X XUGPXXXXNG NG NG NG NG NG NG NGFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSWWWWWWWSSWWUGTVUGTVUGTVUGTVW W W W W WSSSSSSSS SS S S S S S S S S S UGPUGPUGPNGNGNGCATTAIL STREET KIMBERWICKE STREET RAWHIDE RIDGE ROADMAX AVENUETHOMAS DRIVENORTH 19TH AVENUEBAXTER LANE WETLAND-1 266,927 SF 6.13 ACRES PROPERTY BOUNDARY WETLAND-2 36,748 SF 0.844 ACRES DP-1W DP-1U DP-2W DP-2U EDGE OF WATER (TYPICAL) EDGE OF WATER (TYPICAL) ZONE 1 WATERCOURSE SETBACK PER BMC 38.410.100 (TYPICAL) ZONE 2 WATERCOURSE SETBACK PER BMC 38.410.100 (TYPICAL) ZONE 1 WATERCOURSE SETBACK PER BMC 38.410.100 (TYPICAL) ZONE 2 WATERCOURSE SETBACK PER BMC 38.410.100 (TYPICAL) 25' WETLAND BUFFER PER BMC 38.610.080.B (TYPICAL) 25' WETLAND BUFFER PER BMC 38.610.080.B (TYPICAL) PROPOSED RAWHIDE RIDGE ROAD EXTENSION LOT A 16.489 ACRES LOT B 46.147 ACRES WETLAND-1 BOUNDARY LEGEND WETLAND AREA WETLAND-2 BOUNDARY DATA POINT EDGE OF WATER K:\Bozeman\Gallatin Center LP\2024381 Gallatin Center\05CAD\Sheets\Exhibits\24381-EXBT-WETL.dwg EXHIBIT A 3/23/2026 10:31:25 AM DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:EWRJRH---AUGUST 2025SHEETEX. ANO.DATEREVISIONPREPARED BY BY EXHIBIT A - EXISTING GALLATIN CENTER LP BOZEMAN, MT GALLATIN CENTER ENGI NEERING PROJECT NO. 2024381 895 TECHNOLOGY BLVD., SUITE 203 BOZEMAN, MT 59718 (406) 586-0262 www.wwcengineering.com 0 SCALE: 1" = 100' 100'50' WETLAND/ WATERCOURSE WETLAND AREA (ACRES) WETLAND FUNCTIONAL RATING WATERCOURSE LINEAL FOOTAGE WETLAND-1 (WEST CATRON CREEK)6.13 CATEGORY III 2,805 Ft WETLAND -2 (EAST CATRON CREEK)0.84 CATEGORY IV 1,475 Ft 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 20 – Surface Water Wetland Exhibit A © 2025 Microsoft Corporation © 2025 Maxar ©CNES (2025) Distribution Airbus DS WWWWWWWWWWNGNGNGNGNGNGNGFOSTSTUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPFOFOFOXX X X XUGPXXXXNG NG NG NG NG NG NG NGFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSWWWWWWWSSWWUGTVUGTVUGTVUGTVW W W W W WSSSSSSSS SS S S S S S S S S S UGPUGPUGPNGNGNGCATTAIL STREET KIMBERWICKE STREET RAWHIDE RIDGE ROADMAX AVENUETHOMAS DRIVENORTH 19TH AVENUEBAXTER LANE WETLAND-1 266,927 SF 6.13 ACRES PROPERTY BOUNDARY WETLAND-2 36,748 SF 0.844 ACRES DP-1W DP-1U DP-2W DP-2U EDGE OF WATER (TYPICAL) EDGE OF WATER (TYPICAL) ZONE 1 WATERCOURSE SETBACK PER BMC 38.410.100 (TYPICAL) ZONE 2 WATERCOURSE SETBACK PER BMC 38.410.100 (TYPICAL) ZONE 1 WATERCOURSE SETBACK PER BMC 38.410.100 (TYPICAL) ZONE 2 WATERCOURSE SETBACK PER BMC 38.410.100 (TYPICAL) 25' WETLAND BUFFER PER BMC 38.610.080.B (TYPICAL) 25' WETLAND BUFFER PER BMC 38.610.080.B (TYPICAL) PROPOSED RAWHIDE RIDGE ROAD EXTENSION LOT A 16.489 ACRES LOT B 46.147 ACRES WETLAND-1 BOUNDARY LEGEND WETLAND AREA WETLAND-2 BOUNDARY DATA POINT EDGE OF WATER K:\Bozeman\Gallatin Center LP\2024381 Gallatin Center\05CAD\Sheets\Exhibits\24381-EXBT-WETL.dwg EXHIBIT A 3/23/2026 10:31:25 AM DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:EWRJRH---AUGUST 2025SHEETEX. ANO.DATEREVISIONPREPARED BY BY EXHIBIT A - EXISTING GALLATIN CENTER LP BOZEMAN, MT GALLATIN CENTER ENGI NEERING PROJECT NO. 2024381 895 TECHNOLOGY BLVD., SUITE 203 BOZEMAN, MT 59718 (406) 586-0262 www.wwcengineering.com 0 SCALE: 1" = 100' 100'50' WETLAND/ WATERCOURSE WETLAND AREA (ACRES) WETLAND FUNCTIONAL RATING WATERCOURSE LINEAL FOOTAGE WETLAND-1 (WEST CATRON CREEK)6.13 CATEGORY III 2,805 Ft WETLAND -2 (EAST CATRON CREEK)0.84 CATEGORY IV 1,475 Ft 20 – Surface Water Wetland Impacts and Exhibit B © 2025 Microsoft Corporation © 2025 Maxar ©CNES (2025) Distribution Airbus DS WWWWWWWWWWNGNGNGNGNGNGNGFOSTSTUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPFOFOFOXX X X XUGPXXXXNG NG NG NG NG NG NG NGFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSWWWWWWWSSWWUGTVUGTVUGTVUGTVW W W W W WSSSSSSSS SS S S S S S S S S S UGPUGPUGPNGNGNGCATTAIL STREET KIMBERWICKE STREET RAWHIDE RIDGE ROADMAX AVENUETHOMAS DRIVENORTH 19TH AVENUEBAXTER LANE45' WIDE PUBLIC ROAD DEDICATION 45' WIDE PUBLIC ROAD DEDICATION WETLAND-1 266,927 SF 6.13 ACRES PROPERTY BOUNDARY WETLAND-2 36,748 SF 0.844 ACRES WETLAND IMPACT 837 SF 0.02 AC DP-1W DP-1U DP-2W DP-2U EDGE OF WATER (TYPICAL) EDGE OF WATER (TYPICAL) ZONE 1 WATERCOURSE SETBACK PER BMC 38.410.100 (TYPICAL) ZONE 2 WATERCOURSE SETBACK PER BMC 38.410.100 (TYPICAL) ZONE 1 WATERCOURSE SETBACK PER BMC 38.410.100 (TYPICAL) ZONE 2 WATERCOURSE SETBACK PER BMC 38.410.100 (TYPICAL) 25' WETLAND BUFFER PER BMC 38.610.080.B (TYPICAL) 25' WETLAND BUFFER PER BMC 38.610.080.B (TYPICAL) PROPOSED RAWHIDE RIDGE ROAD EXTENSION LOT A 16.489 ACRES LOT B 46.147 ACRES WETLAND-1 BOUNDARY LEGEND WETLAND AREA WETLAND-2 BOUNDARY DATA POINT EDGE OF WATER WETLAND IMPACT K:\Bozeman\Gallatin Center LP\2024381 Gallatin Center\05CAD\Sheets\Exhibits\24381-EXBT-WETL.dwg EXHIBIT B 3/23/2026 10:09:28 AM DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:JRHJRH---MARCH 2026SHEETEX. BNO.DATEREVISIONPREPARED BY BY EXHIBIT B - PROPOSED IMPACTS GALLATIN CENTER LP BOZEMAN, MT GALLATIN CENTER ENGI NEERING PROJECT NO. 2024381 895 TECHNOLOGY BLVD., SUITE 203 BOZEMAN, MT 59718 (406) 586-0262 www.wwcengineering.com 0 SCALE: 1" = 100' 100'50' WETLAND/ WATERCOURSE WETLAND AREA (ACRES) WETLAND FUNCTIONAL RATING WATERCOURSE LINEAL FOOTAGE WETLAND-1 (WEST CATRON CREEK)6.13 CATEGORY III 2,805 Ft WETLAND -2 (EAST CATRON CREEK)0.84 CATEGORY IV 1,475 Ft IMPACTS IMPACT TYPE ACRES (SF) OF IMPACT LINEAR FEET OF IMPACT PURPOSE WETLAND IMPACT (WETLAND-1)0.02 (837)N/A WING WALLS/ GRADING EXTENTS STREAM IMPACT (WEST CATRON CREEK) N/A 128 CULVERT REPLACEMENT/ WING WALLS Wetland Impacts Narrative The improvements related to the Gallatin Center Subdivision include the extension of Rawhide Ridge Road, which will cross West Catron Creek at the location of an existing culvert crossing. An analysis of the existing culvert showed that the existing culvert would not be compliant with City of Bozeman standards. For this reason, the existing 95-foot long 24-inch by 44inch arch pipe culvert will be replaced with a 95-foot long 3- foot by 6-foot reinforced concrete box culvert, with wingwalls on the upstream and downstream ends. These improvements are proposed for the crossing to be compliant with design requirements set by the City of Bozeman. Wetland impacts associated with this project will total approximately 0.02 acres (837 square feet). The total waterway impacts (West Fork Catron Creek) will total approximately 128 linear feet, which includes the length of culvert that will be replaced and the length of the wing wall structures at both ends of the culvert. The design minimizes wetland and waterway impacts to the greatest extent possible to facilitate a design compliant with applicable standards and accounting for future buildout of the road crossing sidewalks and boulevards. Due to the small scale of the project and the limited area for viable onsite mitigation, the impacts resulting from culvert replacement will be completed (if required) via the Upper Missouri Mitigation Bank in Twin Bridges or the Audubon Mitigation Bank in Bozeman, depending on project approval from ACOE and the available mitigation credits. The proposed trail through Lot A will be financially guaranteed with the subdivision, and construction of the trail will take place with the future development of Lot A (site plan). Any required wetland/watercourse permitting will be pursued with the construction of the trail with the future site plan. Additionally, the trail is proposed to go over an existing culvert and no impacts to the wetlands or watercourse are anticipated due to the trail. 20 – Surface Water East Catron Creek Functional Assessment MDT Montana Wetland Assessment Form (revised March 2008) 1. Project Name:Gallatin Center - West Fork Catron Creek 2. MDT Project #:Control #: 3. Evaluation Date:10/24/2024 4. Evaluator(s):B Schultz L Bacon 5. Wetlands/Site #(s): 6. Wetland Location(s): i. Legal:T1S,R5E,35 ii. Approx. Stationing or Mileposts: iii. Watershed:Upper Missouri Watershed Name, County:Upper Missouri, Gallatin 7. a. Evaluating Agency: b. Purpose of Evaluation: 1. 2. 3. 4. Wetlands potentially affected by MDT project Mitigation wetlands; pre-construction Mitigation wetlands; post-construction Other: 8. Wetland size: 0.844 acres (measured) 9. Assessment area (AA): 0.844 acres (measured) 10. Classification of Wetland and Aquatic Habitats in AA HGM Class (Brinson) Class (Cowardin) Modifier (Cowardin) Water Regime % of AA R EM F PP 90 R UB NA PP 10 Abbreviations:(see manual for definitions) HGM Classes: Riverine (R), Depressional (D), Slope (S), Mineral Soil Flats (MSF), Organic Soil Flats (OSF), Lacustrine Fringe (LF); Cowardin Classes: Rock Bottom (RB), Unconsolidated bottom (UB), Aquatic Bed (AB), Unconsolidated Shore (US), Moss-lichen Wetland (ML), Emergent Wetland (EM), Scrub-Shrub Wetland (SS), Forested Wetland (FO) Modifiers: Excavated (E), Impounded (I), Diked (D), Partly Drained (PD), Farmed (F), Artificial (A) Water Regimes: Permanent / Perennial (PP), Seasonal / Intermittent (SI), Temporary / Ephemeral (TE) 11. Estimated relative abundance:(of similarly classified sites within the same Major Montana Watershed Basin, see definitions) ABUNDANT 12. General condition of AA: i. Disturbance: (use matrix below to determine [circle] appropriate response – see instructions for Montana-listed noxious weed and aquatic nuisance vegetation species (ANVS) list) Conditions within AA Managed in predominantly natural state; is not grazed, hayed, logged, or otherwise converted; does not contain roads or buildings; and noxious weed or ANVS cover is >=15%. Land not cultivated, but may be moderately grazed or hayed or selectively logged; or has been subject to minor clearing; contains few roads or buildings; noxious weed or ANVS cover is <= 30%. Land cultivated or heavily grazed or logged; subject to substantial fill placement, grading, clearing, or hydrological alteration; high road or building density; or noxious weed or ANVS cover is > 30%. Predominant conditions adjacent to (within 500 feet of) AA AA cultivated or heavily grazed or logged; subject to relatively substantial fill placement, grading, clearing, or hydrological alteration; high road or building density; or noxious weed or ANVS cover is > 30%. AA not cultivated, but may be moderately grazed or hayed or selectively logged; or has been subject to relatively minor clearing, fill placement, or hydrological alteration; contains few roads or buildings; noxious weed or ANVS cover is <= AA occurs and is managed in predominantly natural state; is not grazed, hayed, logged, or otherwise converted; does not contain roads or occupied buildings; and noxious weed or ANVS cover is <= 15%. low disturbance low disturbance moderate disturbance moderate disturbance moderate disturbance high disturbance high disturbance high disturbance high disturbancehigh disturbance Comments: (types of disturbance, intensity, season, etc.): Fields adjacent to AA are hayed. ii. Prominent noxious, aquatic nuisance, & other exotic vegetation species: Canada thistle is predominant with some houndstongue observed. iii. Provide brief descriptive summary of AA and surrounding land use/habitat: Land surrounding the AA is predominantly hayed with roads and commercial and residential development nearby. 13. Structural Diversity: (based on number of "Cowardin" vegetated classes present [do not include unvegetated classes], see #10 above) Existing # of “Cowardin” Vegetated Classes in AA Initial Rating Is current management preventing (passive) existence of additional vegetated classes?Modified Rating >= 3 (or 2 if 1 is forested) classes H NA NA NA 2 (or 1 if forested) classes M NA NA NA 1 class, but not a monoculture MM <-- NO YES -->L 1 class, monoculture (1 species comprises >= 90% of total cover)L NA NA NA Comments: Mixed pasture grasses and mixed wetlands were observed. 45.701907, -111.166711 :Latitude/Longitude: 1 SECTION PERTAINING to FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 14A. Habitat for Federally Listed or Proposed Threatened or Endangered Plants or Animals: i. AA is Documented (D) or Suspected (S) to contain (circle one based on definitions contained in instructions): Primary or critical habitat (list species)Secondary habitat (list species)Incidental habitat (list species) No usable habitat ii. Rating (use the conclusions from i above and the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating) Highest Habitat Level doc/primary sus/primary doc/secondary sus/secondary doc/incidental sus/incidental None Functional Points and Rating 1H .9H .8M .7M .3L .1L 0L0L Sources for documented use (e.g. observations, records, etc):IPaC reviewed. No listed or threatened species within in the AA. Incidental habitat (list species) i. AA is Documented (D) or Suspected (S) to contain (circle one based on definitions contained in instructions): ii. Rating (use the conclusions from i above and the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating) No usable habitat 14B. Habitat for plant or animals rated S1, S2, or S3 by the Montana Natural Heritage Program: (not including species listed in14A above) Primary or critical habitat (list species)Secondary habitat (list species) sus/secondary S1 Species: Functional Points and Rating doc/primary sus/primary sus/incidentalHighest Habitat Level Nonedoc/secondary doc/incidental 1H .8H .7M .6M .2L .1L 0L S2 and S3 Species: Functional Points and Rating .9H .7M .6M .5M .2L .1L 0L0L Sources for documented use (e.g. observations, records, etc):MTNHP found no species within the area. 14C. General Wildlife Habitat Rating: i. Evidence of overall wildlife use in the AA (circle substantial, moderate, or low based on supporting evidence): Substantial (based on any of the following [check]):Minimal (based on any of the following [check]): observations of abundant wildlife #s or high species diversity (during any period) abundant wildlife sign such as scat, tracks, nest structures, game trails, etc. presence of extremely limiting habitat features not available in the surrounding area interviews with local biologists with knowledge of the AA few or no wildlife observations during peak use periods little to no wildlife sign sparse adjacent upland food sources interviews with local biologists with knowledge of the AA X X X Moderate (based on any of the following [check]): observations of scattered wildlife groups or individuals or relatively few species during peak periods interviews with local biologists with knowledge of the AA common occurrence of wildlife sign such as scat, tracks, nest structures, game trails, etc. adequate adjacent upland food sources ii. Wildlife habitat features (Working from top to bottom, circle appropriate AA attributes in matrix to arrive at rating. Structural diversity is from #13. For class cover to be considered evenly distributed, the most and least prevalent vegetated classes must be within 20% of each other interms of their percent composition of the AA (see #10). Abbreviations for surface water durations are as follows: P/P = permanent/perennial; S/I = seasonal/intermittent; T/E = temporary/ephemeral; and A = absent [see instructions for further definitions of these terms]) Structural diversity (see #13)High Moderate Low Class cover distribution (all vegetated classes)Even Uneven Even Uneven Even Duration of surface water in >=10% of AA P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A Low disturbance at AA (see #12i)E E E H E E H H E H H M E H M M E H M M Moderate disturbance at AA (see #12i)H H H H H H H M H H M M H M M L H M L L High disturbance at AA (see #12i)M M M L M M L L MM M L L M L L L L L L L iii. Rating (use the conclusions from i and ii above and the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating) Evidence of wildlife use (i)Wildlife habitat features rating (ii) Exceptional High Moderate Moderate Substantial 1E .9H .8H .7M Moderate .9H .7M .5M .3L Minimal .6M .4M .2L.2L .1L Area has busy city street in all directions except west (which will soon be changed). Very few signs of animals or birds. Area likely used by small animals such as rodents and maybe a few deer. Comments: 2 14D. General Fish Habitat Rating: (Assess this function if the AA is used by fish or the existing situation is “correctable” such that the AA could be used by fish [i.e., fish use is precluded by perched culvert or other barrier, etc.]. If the AA is not used by fish, fish use is not restorable due to habitat constraints, or is not desired from a management perspective [such as fish entrapped in a canal], then mark Type of Fishery:Cold Water (CW)X Warm Water (WW)Use the CW or WW guidelines in the user manual to complete the matrix i. Habitat Quality and Known / Suspected Fish Species in AA (use matrix to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating) Duration of surface water in AA Permanent / Perennial Seasonal / Intermittent Temporary / Ephemeral Aquatic hiding / resting / escape cover Optimal Adequate Poor Optimal Adequate Poor Optimal Adequate Poor Thermal cover optimal / suboptimal O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S FWP Tier I fish species 1E .9H .8H .7M .6M .5M .9H .8H .7M .6M .5M .4M .7M .6M .5M .4M .3L .2L FWP Tier II or Native Game fish species .9H .8H .7M .6M .5M .5M .8H .7M .6M .5M .4M .4M .6M .5M .4M .3L .2L .2L FWP Tier III or Introduced Game fish .8H .7M .6M .5M .5M .4M.4M .7M .6M .5M .4M .4M .3L .5M .4M .3L .2L .2L .1L FWP Non-Game Tier IV or No fish species .5M .5M .5M .4M .4M .3L .4M .4M .4M .3L .3L .2L .2L .2L .2L .1L .1L .1L Sources used for identifying fish sp. potentially found in AA:Trout could be in the waterway. Sculpins are likely in the waterway. ii. Modified Rating (NOTE: Modified score cannot exceed 1 or be less than 0.1) a) Is fish use of the AA significantly reduced by a culvert, dike, or other man-made structure or activity or is the waterbody included on the current life support, or do aquatic nuisance plant or animal species (see Appendix E) occur in fish habitat? final MDEQ list of waterbodies in need of TMDL development with listed “Probable Impaired Uses” including cold or warm water fishery or aquatic b) Does the AA contain a documented spawning area or other critical habitat feature (i.e., sanctuary pool, upwelling area, etc.- specify in comments) for native fish or introduced game fish? iii. Final Score and Rating: 0.3L Comments:Multiple culverts exist throughout the AA. 14E. Flood Attenuation: (Applies only to wetlands subject to flooding via in-channel or overbank flow. If wetlands in AA are not flooded from in-channel or overbank flow, mark i. Rating (working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating) Estimated or Calculated Entrenchment (Rosgen 1994, 1996)Slightly entrenched - C, D, E stream types Moderately entrenched – B stream type Entrenched-A, F, G stream types % of flooded wetland classified as forested and/or scrub/shrub 75%25-75%<25%75%25-75%<25%75%25-75%<25% AA contains no outlet or restricted outlet 1H .9H .6M .8H .7M .5M.5M .4M .3L .2L AA contains unrestricted outlet .9H .8H .5M .7M .6M .4M .3L .2L .1L Entrenchment ratio (ER) estimation – see User’s Manual for additional guidance. Entrenchment ratio = (flood-prone width)/(bankfull width) Flood-prone width = estimated horizontal projection of where 2 x maximum bankfull depth elevation intersects the floodplain on each side of the stream. 16 / Flood-prone width 10 = Bankfull width 1.6 Entrenchment ratio (ER) Slightly Entrenched ER = >2.2 Moderately Entrenched ER = 1.41 – 2.2 Entrenched ER = 1.0 – 1.4 C stream type D stream type E stream type B stream type A stream type F stream type G stream type NA and proceed to 14E.) If yes, reduce score in i above by 0.1. If yes, add 0.1 to the adjusted score in i or iia. NA and proceed to 14F.) ii. Are ≥10 acres of wetland in the AA subject to flooding AND are man-made features which may be significantly damaged by floods located within 0.5 mile downstream of the AA (circle)?Comments:Multiple culverts upstream, downstream and within AA. 3 14F. Short and Long Term Surface Water Storage: (Applies to wetlands that flood or pond from overbank or in-channel flow, precipitation, upland surface flow, or groundwater flow. If no wetlands in the AA are subject to flooding or ponding, i. Rating (Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating. Abbreviations for surface water durations are as follows: P/P = permanent/perennial; S/I = seasonal/intermittent; and T/E = temporary/ephemeral [see instructions for further definitions of these terms].) Estimated maximum acre feet of water contained in wetlands within the AA that are subject to periodic flooding or ponding >5 acre feet 1.1 to 5 acre feet <=1 acre foot Duration of surface water at wetlands within the AA P/P S/I T/E P/P S/I T/E P/P S/I T/E Wetlands in AA flood or pond >= 5 out of 10 years 1H .9H .8H .8H .6M .5M .4M .3L .2L Wetlands in AA flood or pond < 5 out of 10 years .9H .8H .7M .7M .5M .4M .3L.3L .2L .1L Comments:Flooding likely only occurs during runoff or rare high rainfall events. 14G. Sediment/Nutrient/Toxicant Retention and Removal: (Applies to wetlands with potential to receive sediments, nutrients, or toxicants through influx of surface or ground water or direct input. If no wetlands in the AA are subject to such input, i. Rating (working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating [H=high, M=moderate, or L=low]) Sediment, nutrient, and toxicant input levels within AA AA receives or surrounding land use with potential to deliver levels of sediments, nutrients, or compounds at levels such that other functions are not substantially impaired. Minor sedimentation, sources of nutrients or toxicants, or signs of eutrophication present. Waterbody on MDEQ list of waterbodies in need of TMDL development for “probable causes” related to sediment, nutrients, or toxicants or AA receives or surrounding land use with potential to deliver high levels of sediments, nutrients, or compounds such that other functions are substantially impaired. Major sedimentation, sources of nutrients or toxicants, or signs of eutrophication present. % cover of wetland vegetation in AA >= 70%< 70%>= 70%< 70% Evidence of flooding / ponding in AA Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No AA contains no or restricted outlet 1H .8H .7M .5M.5M .5M .4M .3L .2L AA contains unrestricted outlet .9H .7M .6M .4M .4M .3L .2L .1L Comments:Waterway and AA are surrounded by busy roads that likely contribute sediments and toxicants. 14H Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization: (Applies only if AA occurs on or within the banks or a river, stream, or other natural or man-made drainage, or on the shoreline of a standing water body which is subject to wave action. If 14H does not apply, i. Rating (working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating) % Cover of wetland streambank or shoreline by species with stability ratings of >=6 (see Appendix F). Duration of surface water adjacent to rooted vegetation Permanent / Perennial Seasonal / Intermittent Temporary / Ephemeral >= 65%1H .9H .7M 35-64%.7M.7M .6M .5M 35%.3L .2L .1L Comments:Banks of waterways are mostly covered by species with a greater than 6 stability rating. 14I. Production Export/Food Chain Support: i. Level of Biological Activity (synthesis of wildlife and fish habitat ratings [circle]) General Fish Habitat Rating (14D.iii.) General Wildlife Habitat Rating (14C.iii.) E/H M L E/H H H M M H M M L M M LL N/A H M L ii. Rating (Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating. Factor A = acreage of vegetated wetland component in the AA; Factor B = level of biological activity rating from above (14I.i.); Factor C = whether or not the AA contains a surface or subsurface outlet; the final three rows pertain to duration of surface water in the AA, where P/P, S/I, and T/E are as previously defined, and A = “absent” [see instructions for further definitions of these terms].) NA and proceed to 14G.) NA and proceed to 14H.) NA and proceed to 14I.) ii. Rating (Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating. Factor A = acreage of vegetated wetland component in the AA; Factor B = level of biological activity rating from above (14I.i.); Factor C = whether or not the AA contains a surface or subsurface outlet; the final three rows pertain to duration of surface water in the AA, where P/P, S/I, and T/E are as previously defined, and A = “absent” [see instructions for further definitions of these terms].) A Vegetated component >5 acres Vegetated component 1-5 acres Vegetated component < 1 acre B High Moderate Low High Moderate Low High Moderate Low C Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No P/P 1H .7M .8H .5M .6M .4M .9H .6M .7M .4M .5M .3L .8H .6M .6M .4M .3L.3L .2L S/I .9H .6M .7M .4M .5M .3L .8H .5M .6M .3L .4M .2L .7M .5M .5M .3L .3L .2L T/E/A .8H .5M .6M .3L .4M .2L .7M .4M .5M .2L .3L .1L .6M .4M .4M .2L .2L .1L iii. Modified Rating (NOTE: Modified score cannot exceed 1 or be less than 0.1.) Vegetated Upland Buffer (VUB): Area with >= 30% plant cover, = 15% noxious weed or ANVS cover, and that is not subjected to periodic mechanical mowing or clearing (unless for weed control). a) Is there an average >= 50 foot-wide vegetated upland buffer around >= 75% of the AA circumference? iv. Final Score and Rating: 0.30L Comments:Area surrounding hayed likely 2-3 times per year. If yes, add 0.1 to the score in ii above. 4 14J. Groundwater Discharge/Recharge: (check the appropriate indicators in i & ii below) i. Discharge Indicators The AA is a slope wetland Springs or seeps are known or observed X Vegetation growing during dormant season/drought Wetland occurs at the toe of a natural slope AA permanently flooded during drought periods Wetland contains an outlet, but no inlet Shallow water table and the site is saturated to the surface Other: ii. Recharge Indicators Permeable substrate present without underlying impeding layer Wetland contains inlet but no outlet Stream is a known ‘losing’ stream; discharge volume decreases Other: iii. Rating (use the information from i and ii above and the table below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating) Criteria Duration of saturation at AA Wetlands FROM GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE OR WITH WATER THAT IS RECHARGING THE GROUNDWATER SYSTEM P/P S/I T None Groundwater Discharge or Recharge 1H .7M .4M .1L Insufficient Data/Information N/AN/A Comments:No evidence of groundwater discharge or recharge observed. 14K. Uniqueness: i. Rating (working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating) Replacement potential AA contains fen, bog, warm springs or mature (>80 yr-old) forested wetland or plant association listed as “S1” by the MTNHP AA does not contain previously cited rare types and structural diversity (#13) is high or contains plant association listed as “S2” by the MTNHP AA does not contain previously cited rare types or associations and structural diversity (#13) is low- moderate Estimated relative abundance (#11)rare common abundant rare common abundant rare common abundant Low disturbance at AA (#12i)1H .9H .8H .8H .6M .5M .5M .4M .3L Moderate disturbance at AA (#12i).9H .8H .7M .7M .5M .4M .4M .3L .2L High disturbance at AA (#12i).8H .7M .6M .6M .4M .3L .3L .2L .1L.1L 14L. Recreation/Education Potential: (affords “bonus” points if AA provides recreation or education opportunity) i. Is the AA a known or potential rec./ed. site: (circle)(if ‘Yes’ continue with the evaluation; if ‘No’ then mark X NA and proceed to the overall summary and rating page) ii. Check categories that apply to the AA:Educational/scientific study;Consumptive rec.;Non-consumptive rec.; Other : iii. Rating: Known or Potential Recreation or Education Area Known Potential Public ownership or public easement with general public access (no permission required).2H .15H Private ownership with general public access (no permission required).15H .1M Private or public ownership without general public access, or requiring permission for public access .1M .05L Comments:Private property surrounded primarily by commercial and residential development. General Site Notes AA is not unique or scarce.Comments: 5 FUNCTION & VALUE SUMMARY & OVERALL RATING FOR WETLAND/SITE #(S): Function & Value Variables Rating Actual Functional Points Possible Functional Points Functional Units: (Actual Points x Wetland Acreage) Indicate the four most prominent functions with an asterisk (*) A. Listed/Proposed T&E Species Habitat L 0.00 0.001 B. MT Natural Heritage Program Species Habitat L 0.00 1 0.00 C. General Wildlife Habitat L 0.20 1 0.17 D. General Fish Habitat L 0.30 1 0.25 E. Flood Attenuation M 0.50 1 0.42 * F. Short and Long Term Surface Water Storage L 0.30 1 0.25 * G. Sediment/Nutrient/Toxicant Removal M 0.50 1 0.42 * H. Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization M 0.70 1 0.59 * I. Production Export/Food Chain Support L 0.30 1 0.25 J. Groundwater Discharge/Recharge NA K. Uniqueness L 0.10 1 0.08 L. Recreation/Education Potential (bonus points)NA Totals: 2.90 10.00 2.43 Percent of Possible Score 29% Category I Wetland: (must satisfy one of the following criteria; otherwise go to Category II) Score of 1 functional point for Listed/Proposed Threatened or Endangered Species; or Score of 1 functional point for Uniqueness; or Score of 1 functional point for Flood Attenuation and answer to Question 14E.ii is "yes"; or Percent of possible score > 80% (round to nearest whole #). Category II Wetland: (Criteria for Category I not satisfied and meets any one of the following criteria; otherwise go to Category IV) Score of 1 functional point for MT Natural Heritage Program Species Habitat; or Score of .9 or 1 functional point for General Wildlife Habitat; or Score of .9 or 1 functional point for General Fish Habitat; or "High" to “Exceptional” ratings for both General Wildlife Habitat and General Fish/Aquatic Habitat; or Score of .9 functional point for Uniqueness; or Percent of possible score > 65% (round to nearest whole #). Category III Wetland: (Criteria for Categories I, II, or IV not satisfied) Category IV Wetland: (Criteria for Categories I or II are not satisfied and all of the following criteria are met; otherwise go to Category III) "Low" rating for Uniqueness; andX Vegetated wetland component 1 acre (do not include upland vegetated buffer); andX Percent of possible score 35% (round to nearest whole #).X OVERALL ANALYSIS AREA RATING:IV Summary Comments: Wetland is a category IV wetland. 6 20 – Surface Water West Catron Creek Functional Assessment MDT Montana Wetland Assessment Form (revised March 2008) 1. Project Name:Gallatin Center - West Fork Catron Creek 2. MDT Project #:Control #: 3. Evaluation Date:10/24/2024 4. Evaluator(s):B Schultz L Bacon 5. Wetlands/Site #(s): 6. Wetland Location(s): i. Legal:T1S,R5E,35 ii. Approx. Stationing or Mileposts: iii. Watershed:6 Watershed Name, County:Upper Missouri, Gallatin 7. a. Evaluating Agency: b. Purpose of Evaluation: 1. 2. 3. 4. Wetlands potentially affected by MDT project Mitigation wetlands; pre-construction Mitigation wetlands; post-construction Other: 8. Wetland size: 6.130 acres (estimated) 9. Assessment area (AA): 6.130 acres (estimated) 10. Classification of Wetland and Aquatic Habitats in AA HGM Class (Brinson) Class (Cowardin) Modifier (Cowardin) Water Regime % of AA R EM F PP 85 R UB E PP 15 Abbreviations:(see manual for definitions) HGM Classes: Riverine (R), Depressional (D), Slope (S), Mineral Soil Flats (MSF), Organic Soil Flats (OSF), Lacustrine Fringe (LF); Cowardin Classes: Rock Bottom (RB), Unconsolidated bottom (UB), Aquatic Bed (AB), Unconsolidated Shore (US), Moss-lichen Wetland (ML), Emergent Wetland (EM), Scrub-Shrub Wetland (SS), Forested Wetland (FO) Modifiers: Excavated (E), Impounded (I), Diked (D), Partly Drained (PD), Farmed (F), Artificial (A) Water Regimes: Permanent / Perennial (PP), Seasonal / Intermittent (SI), Temporary / Ephemeral (TE) 11. Estimated relative abundance:(of similarly classified sites within the same Major Montana Watershed Basin, see definitions) ABUNDANT 12. General condition of AA: i. Disturbance: (use matrix below to determine [circle] appropriate response – see instructions for Montana-listed noxious weed and aquatic nuisance vegetation species (ANVS) list) Conditions within AA Managed in predominantly natural state; is not grazed, hayed, logged, or otherwise converted; does not contain roads or buildings; and noxious weed or ANVS cover is >=15%. Land not cultivated, but may be moderately grazed or hayed or selectively logged; or has been subject to minor clearing; contains few roads or buildings; noxious weed or ANVS cover is <= 30%. Land cultivated or heavily grazed or logged; subject to substantial fill placement, grading, clearing, or hydrological alteration; high road or building density; or noxious weed or ANVS cover is > 30%. Predominant conditions adjacent to (within 500 feet of) AA AA cultivated or heavily grazed or logged; subject to relatively substantial fill placement, grading, clearing, or hydrological alteration; high road or building density; or noxious weed or ANVS cover is > 30%. AA not cultivated, but may be moderately grazed or hayed or selectively logged; or has been subject to relatively minor clearing, fill placement, or hydrological alteration; contains few roads or buildings; noxious weed or ANVS cover is <= AA occurs and is managed in predominantly natural state; is not grazed, hayed, logged, or otherwise converted; does not contain roads or occupied buildings; and noxious weed or ANVS cover is <= 15%. low disturbance low disturbance moderate disturbance moderate disturbance moderate disturbance high disturbance high disturbance high disturbance high disturbancehigh disturbance Comments: (types of disturbance, intensity, season, etc.): Area surrounding AA has been modified and the channel has been straightened. Fields adjacent to AA are hayed. ii. Prominent noxious, aquatic nuisance, & other exotic vegetation species: Canada thistle is predominant with some houndstongue observed. iii. Provide brief descriptive summary of AA and surrounding land use/habitat: Land surrounding the AA is predominantly hayed with commercial and residential development nearby 13. Structural Diversity: (based on number of "Cowardin" vegetated classes present [do not include unvegetated classes], see #10 above) Existing # of “Cowardin” Vegetated Classes in AA Initial Rating Is current management preventing (passive) existence of additional vegetated classes?Modified Rating >= 3 (or 2 if 1 is forested) classes H NA NA NA 2 (or 1 if forested) classes M NA NA NA 1 class, but not a monoculture MM <-- NO YES -->L 1 class, monoculture (1 species comprises >= 90% of total cover)L NA NA NA Comments: Mixed pasture grasses and mixed wetland species were observed. Latitude/Longitude: 1 SECTION PERTAINING to FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 14A. Habitat for Federally Listed or Proposed Threatened or Endangered Plants or Animals: i. AA is Documented (D) or Suspected (S) to contain (circle one based on definitions contained in instructions): Primary or critical habitat (list species)Secondary habitat (list species)Incidental habitat (list species) No usable habitat ii. Rating (use the conclusions from i above and the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating) Highest Habitat Level doc/primary sus/primary doc/secondary sus/secondary doc/incidental sus/incidental None Functional Points and Rating 1H .9H .8M .7M .3L .1L 0L0L Sources for documented use (e.g. observations, records, etc):No listed threatened or endangered species with in the AA. IPaC reviewed. Incidental habitat (list species) i. AA is Documented (D) or Suspected (S) to contain (circle one based on definitions contained in instructions): ii. Rating (use the conclusions from i above and the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating) No usable habitat 14B. Habitat for plant or animals rated S1, S2, or S3 by the Montana Natural Heritage Program: (not including species listed in14A above) Primary or critical habitat (list species)Secondary habitat (list species) sus/secondary S1 Species: Functional Points and Rating doc/primary sus/primary sus/incidentalHighest Habitat Level Nonedoc/secondary doc/incidental 1H .8H .7M .6M .2L .1L 0L S2 and S3 Species: Functional Points and Rating .9H .7M .6M .5M .2L .1L 0L0L Sources for documented use (e.g. observations, records, etc):MTNHP review found no species within the area. 14C. General Wildlife Habitat Rating: i. Evidence of overall wildlife use in the AA (circle substantial, moderate, or low based on supporting evidence): Substantial (based on any of the following [check]):Minimal (based on any of the following [check]): observations of abundant wildlife #s or high species diversity (during any period) abundant wildlife sign such as scat, tracks, nest structures, game trails, etc. presence of extremely limiting habitat features not available in the surrounding area interviews with local biologists with knowledge of the AA few or no wildlife observations during peak use periods little to no wildlife sign sparse adjacent upland food sources interviews with local biologists with knowledge of the AA X X X Moderate (based on any of the following [check]): observations of scattered wildlife groups or individuals or relatively few species during peak periods interviews with local biologists with knowledge of the AA common occurrence of wildlife sign such as scat, tracks, nest structures, game trails, etc. adequate adjacent upland food sources ii. Wildlife habitat features (Working from top to bottom, circle appropriate AA attributes in matrix to arrive at rating. Structural diversity is from #13. For class cover to be considered evenly distributed, the most and least prevalent vegetated classes must be within 20% of each other interms of their percent composition of the AA (see #10). Abbreviations for surface water durations are as follows: P/P = permanent/perennial; S/I = seasonal/intermittent; T/E = temporary/ephemeral; and A = absent [see instructions for further definitions of these terms]) Structural diversity (see #13)High Moderate Low Class cover distribution (all vegetated classes)Even Uneven Even Uneven Even Duration of surface water in >=10% of AA P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A Low disturbance at AA (see #12i)E E E H E E H H E H H M E H M M E H M M Moderate disturbance at AA (see #12i)H H H H H H H M H H M M H M M L H M L L High disturbance at AA (see #12i)M M M L M M L L MM M L L M L L L L L L L iii. Rating (use the conclusions from i and ii above and the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating) Evidence of wildlife use (i)Wildlife habitat features rating (ii) Exceptional High Moderate Moderate Substantial 1E .9H .8H .7M Moderate .9H .7M .5M .3L Minimal .6M .4M .2L.2L .1L Area has busy city streets in all directions except west. Very few signs of animals or birds. Area likely used by small animals such as rodents and a few deer. Comments: 2 14D. General Fish Habitat Rating: (Assess this function if the AA is used by fish or the existing situation is “correctable” such that the AA could be used by fish [i.e., fish use is precluded by perched culvert or other barrier, etc.]. If the AA is not used by fish, fish use is not restorable due to habitat constraints, or is not desired from a management perspective [such as fish entrapped in a canal], then mark Type of Fishery:Cold Water (CW)X Warm Water (WW)Use the CW or WW guidelines in the user manual to complete the matrix i. Habitat Quality and Known / Suspected Fish Species in AA (use matrix to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating) Duration of surface water in AA Permanent / Perennial Seasonal / Intermittent Temporary / Ephemeral Aquatic hiding / resting / escape cover Optimal Adequate Poor Optimal Adequate Poor Optimal Adequate Poor Thermal cover optimal / suboptimal O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S FWP Tier I fish species 1E .9H .8H .7M .6M .5M .9H .8H .7M .6M .5M .4M .7M .6M .5M .4M .3L .2L FWP Tier II or Native Game fish species .9H .8H .7M .6M .5M .5M .8H .7M .6M .5M .4M .4M .6M .5M .4M .3L .2L .2L FWP Tier III or Introduced Game fish .8H .7M .6M .5M .5M .4M.4M .7M .6M .5M .4M .4M .3L .5M .4M .3L .2L .2L .1L FWP Non-Game Tier IV or No fish species .5M .5M .5M .4M .4M .3L .4M .4M .4M .3L .3L .2L .2L .2L .2L .1L .1L .1L Sources used for identifying fish sp. potentially found in AA:Trout could possibly be in the waterway. Sculpin are likely in waterway. ii. Modified Rating (NOTE: Modified score cannot exceed 1 or be less than 0.1) a) Is fish use of the AA significantly reduced by a culvert, dike, or other man-made structure or activity or is the waterbody included on the current life support, or do aquatic nuisance plant or animal species (see Appendix E) occur in fish habitat?X final MDEQ list of waterbodies in need of TMDL development with listed “Probable Impaired Uses” including cold or warm water fishery or aquatic b) Does the AA contain a documented spawning area or other critical habitat feature (i.e., sanctuary pool, upwelling area, etc.- specify in comments) for native fish or introduced game fish? iii. Final Score and Rating: 0.2L Comments:Multiple culverts exist both up and downstream of the AA. 14E. Flood Attenuation: (Applies only to wetlands subject to flooding via in-channel or overbank flow. If wetlands in AA are not flooded from in-channel or overbank flow, mark i. Rating (working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating) Estimated or Calculated Entrenchment (Rosgen 1994, 1996)Slightly entrenched - C, D, E stream types Moderately entrenched – B stream type Entrenched-A, F, G stream types % of flooded wetland classified as forested and/or scrub/shrub 75%25-75%<25%75%25-75%<25%75%25-75%<25% AA contains no outlet or restricted outlet 1H .9H .6M .8H .7M .5M.5M .4M .3L .2L AA contains unrestricted outlet .9H .8H .5M .7M .6M .4M .3L .2L .1L Entrenchment ratio (ER) estimation – see User’s Manual for additional guidance. Entrenchment ratio = (flood-prone width)/(bankfull width) Flood-prone width = estimated horizontal projection of where 2 x maximum bankfull depth elevation intersects the floodplain on each side of the stream. 16 / Flood-prone width 8 = Bankfull width 2 Entrenchment ratio (ER) Slightly Entrenched ER = >2.2 Moderately Entrenched ER = 1.41 – 2.2 Entrenched ER = 1.0 – 1.4 C stream type D stream type E stream type B stream type A stream type F stream type G stream type NA and proceed to 14E.) If yes, reduce score in i above by 0.1. If yes, add 0.1 to the adjusted score in i or iia. NA and proceed to 14F.) ii. Are ≥10 acres of wetland in the AA subject to flooding AND are man-made features which may be significantly damaged by floods located within 0.5 mile downstream of the AA (circle)?Comments:Multiple culverts and diversions both up and downstream of AA. 3 14F. Short and Long Term Surface Water Storage: (Applies to wetlands that flood or pond from overbank or in-channel flow, precipitation, upland surface flow, or groundwater flow. If no wetlands in the AA are subject to flooding or ponding, i. Rating (Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating. Abbreviations for surface water durations are as follows: P/P = permanent/perennial; S/I = seasonal/intermittent; and T/E = temporary/ephemeral [see instructions for further definitions of these terms].) Estimated maximum acre feet of water contained in wetlands within the AA that are subject to periodic flooding or ponding >5 acre feet 1.1 to 5 acre feet <=1 acre foot Duration of surface water at wetlands within the AA P/P S/I T/E P/P S/I T/E P/P S/I T/E Wetlands in AA flood or pond >= 5 out of 10 years 1H .9H .8H .8H .6M .5M .4M .3L .2L Wetlands in AA flood or pond < 5 out of 10 years .9H .8H .7M .7M .5M .4M .3L.3L .2L .1L Comments:Flooding like only occurs during runoff or rare high rainfall events. 14G. Sediment/Nutrient/Toxicant Retention and Removal: (Applies to wetlands with potential to receive sediments, nutrients, or toxicants through influx of surface or ground water or direct input. If no wetlands in the AA are subject to such input, i. Rating (working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating [H=high, M=moderate, or L=low]) Sediment, nutrient, and toxicant input levels within AA AA receives or surrounding land use with potential to deliver levels of sediments, nutrients, or compounds at levels such that other functions are not substantially impaired. Minor sedimentation, sources of nutrients or toxicants, or signs of eutrophication present. Waterbody on MDEQ list of waterbodies in need of TMDL development for “probable causes” related to sediment, nutrients, or toxicants or AA receives or surrounding land use with potential to deliver high levels of sediments, nutrients, or compounds such that other functions are substantially impaired. Major sedimentation, sources of nutrients or toxicants, or signs of eutrophication present. % cover of wetland vegetation in AA >= 70%< 70%>= 70%< 70% Evidence of flooding / ponding in AA Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No AA contains no or restricted outlet 1H .8H .7M .5M .5M.5M .4M .3L .2L AA contains unrestricted outlet .9H .7M .6M .4M .4M .3L .2L .1L Comments:Waterway surrounded by busy roads that likely contribute sediments, nutrients and toxicants. 14H Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization: (Applies only if AA occurs on or within the banks or a river, stream, or other natural or man-made drainage, or on the shoreline of a standing water body which is subject to wave action. If 14H does not apply, i. Rating (working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating) % Cover of wetland streambank or shoreline by species with stability ratings of >=6 (see Appendix F). Duration of surface water adjacent to rooted vegetation Permanent / Perennial Seasonal / Intermittent Temporary / Ephemeral >= 65%1H .9H .7M 35-64%.7M.7M .6M .5M 35%.3L .2L .1L Comments:Banks of waterway are mostly covered by species with greater than 6 stability rating. 14I. Production Export/Food Chain Support: i. Level of Biological Activity (synthesis of wildlife and fish habitat ratings [circle]) General Fish Habitat Rating (14D.iii.) General Wildlife Habitat Rating (14C.iii.) E/H M L E/H H H M M H M M L M M LL N/A H M L ii. Rating (Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating. Factor A = acreage of vegetated wetland component in the AA; Factor B = level of biological activity rating from above (14I.i.); Factor C = whether or not the AA contains a surface or subsurface outlet; the final three rows pertain to duration of surface water in the AA, where P/P, S/I, and T/E are as previously defined, and A = “absent” [see instructions for further definitions of these terms].) NA and proceed to 14G.) NA and proceed to 14H.) NA and proceed to 14I.) ii. Rating (Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating. Factor A = acreage of vegetated wetland component in the AA; Factor B = level of biological activity rating from above (14I.i.); Factor C = whether or not the AA contains a surface or subsurface outlet; the final three rows pertain to duration of surface water in the AA, where P/P, S/I, and T/E are as previously defined, and A = “absent” [see instructions for further definitions of these terms].) A Vegetated component >5 acres Vegetated component 1-5 acres Vegetated component < 1 acre B High Moderate Low High Moderate Low High Moderate Low C Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No P/P 1H .7M .8H .5M .6M.6M .4M .9H .6M .7M .4M .5M .3L .8H .6M .6M .4M .3L .2L S/I .9H .6M .7M .4M .5M .3L .8H .5M .6M .3L .4M .2L .7M .5M .5M .3L .3L .2L T/E/A .8H .5M .6M .3L .4M .2L .7M .4M .5M .2L .3L .1L .6M .4M .4M .2L .2L .1L iii. Modified Rating (NOTE: Modified score cannot exceed 1 or be less than 0.1.) Vegetated Upland Buffer (VUB): Area with >= 30% plant cover, = 15% noxious weed or ANVS cover, and that is not subjected to periodic mechanical mowing or clearing (unless for weed control). a) Is there an average >= 50 foot-wide vegetated upland buffer around >= 75% of the AA circumference? iv. Final Score and Rating: 0.60M Comments:Area hayed 2 to 3 times during the growing season. If yes, add 0.1 to the score in ii above. 4 14J. Groundwater Discharge/Recharge: (check the appropriate indicators in i & ii below) i. Discharge Indicators The AA is a slope wetland Springs or seeps are known or observed X Vegetation growing during dormant season/drought Wetland occurs at the toe of a natural slope AA permanently flooded during drought periods Wetland contains an outlet, but no inlet Shallow water table and the site is saturated to the surface Other: ii. Recharge Indicators Permeable substrate present without underlying impeding layer Wetland contains inlet but no outlet Stream is a known ‘losing’ stream; discharge volume decreases Other: iii. Rating (use the information from i and ii above and the table below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating) Criteria Duration of saturation at AA Wetlands FROM GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE OR WITH WATER THAT IS RECHARGING THE GROUNDWATER SYSTEM P/P S/I T None Groundwater Discharge or Recharge 1H .7M .4M .1L Insufficient Data/Information N/AN/A Comments:No evidence of groundwater discharge or recharge observed. 14K. Uniqueness: i. Rating (working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating) Replacement potential AA contains fen, bog, warm springs or mature (>80 yr-old) forested wetland or plant association listed as “S1” by the MTNHP AA does not contain previously cited rare types and structural diversity (#13) is high or contains plant association listed as “S2” by the MTNHP AA does not contain previously cited rare types or associations and structural diversity (#13) is low- moderate Estimated relative abundance (#11)rare common abundant rare common abundant rare common abundant Low disturbance at AA (#12i)1H .9H .8H .8H .6M .5M .5M .4M .3L Moderate disturbance at AA (#12i).9H .8H .7M .7M .5M .4M .4M .3L .2L High disturbance at AA (#12i).8H .7M .6M .6M .4M .3L .3L .2L .1L.1L 14L. Recreation/Education Potential: (affords “bonus” points if AA provides recreation or education opportunity) i. Is the AA a known or potential rec./ed. site: (circle)(if ‘Yes’ continue with the evaluation; if ‘No’ then mark X NA and proceed to the overall summary and rating page) ii. Check categories that apply to the AA:Educational/scientific study;Consumptive rec.;Non-consumptive rec.; Other : iii. Rating: Known or Potential Recreation or Education Area Known Potential Public ownership or public easement with general public access (no permission required).2H .15H Private ownership with general public access (no permission required).15H .1M Private or public ownership without general public access, or requiring permission for public access .1M .05L Comments:Private property surrounded primarily by commercial and residential development. General Site Notes Wetland is a Category III wetland. AA is not unique or scarce.Comments: 5 FUNCTION & VALUE SUMMARY & OVERALL RATING FOR WETLAND/SITE #(S): Function & Value Variables Rating Actual Functional Points Possible Functional Points Functional Units: (Actual Points x Wetland Acreage) Indicate the four most prominent functions with an asterisk (*) A. Listed/Proposed T&E Species Habitat L 0.00 0.001 B. MT Natural Heritage Program Species Habitat L 0.00 1 0.00 C. General Wildlife Habitat L 0.20 1 1.23 D. General Fish Habitat L 0.20 1 1.23 E. Flood Attenuation M 0.50 1 3.07 * F. Short and Long Term Surface Water Storage L 0.30 1 1.84 G. Sediment/Nutrient/Toxicant Removal M 0.50 1 3.07 * H. Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization M 0.70 1 4.29 * I. Production Export/Food Chain Support M 0.60 1 3.68 * J. Groundwater Discharge/Recharge NA K. Uniqueness L 0.10 1 0.61 L. Recreation/Education Potential (bonus points)NA Totals: 3.10 10.00 19.02 Percent of Possible Score 31% Category I Wetland: (must satisfy one of the following criteria; otherwise go to Category II) Score of 1 functional point for Listed/Proposed Threatened or Endangered Species; or Score of 1 functional point for Uniqueness; or Score of 1 functional point for Flood Attenuation and answer to Question 14E.ii is "yes"; or Percent of possible score > 80% (round to nearest whole #). Category II Wetland: (Criteria for Category I not satisfied and meets any one of the following criteria; otherwise go to Category IV) Score of 1 functional point for MT Natural Heritage Program Species Habitat; or Score of .9 or 1 functional point for General Wildlife Habitat; or Score of .9 or 1 functional point for General Fish Habitat; or "High" to “Exceptional” ratings for both General Wildlife Habitat and General Fish/Aquatic Habitat; or Score of .9 functional point for Uniqueness; or Percent of possible score > 65% (round to nearest whole #). Category III Wetland: (Criteria for Categories I, II, or IV not satisfied) Category IV Wetland: (Criteria for Categories I or II are not satisfied and all of the following criteria are met; otherwise go to Category III) "Low" rating for Uniqueness; andX Vegetated wetland component 1 acre (do not include upland vegetated buffer); and Percent of possible score 35% (round to nearest whole #).X OVERALL ANALYSIS AREA RATING:III Summary Comments: Wetland is a Category III wetland. 6 20 – Surface Water Wetland Professional Qualifications PO Box 1424 Bozeman, MT 59771 :: 406.539.7244 :: briana@sundogeco.com EXPERIENCE Principal | Sundog Ecological, Inc., Bozeman, MT 01/2015 to Present ▪ Practicing conservation ecology in riverine, wetland and riparian ecosystems ▪ Conducting aquatic delineations for enhancement, restoration and development projects ▪ Conducting stream and riparian habitat surveys to produce outcomes reporting. ▪ Design and implementation of revegetation strategies for enhancement, restoration and development projects. ▪ Environmental Permitting (Federal, State, County and Local Entities) Supervisor | Gallatin County Conservation District, Manhattan, MT 12/2021 to term end 12/2028 ▪ The conservation district’s role is to identify the natural resource concerns and issues within Gallatin County, MT and determine how to best address them. ▪ Gallatin Conservation District works with Natural Streambed and Land Preservation ACT (SB310), agriculture, irrigation, local conservation advocacy, education/outreach workshops and tours, weed and pest management and many other areas of natural resources. Board Member | Gallatin Local Water Quality District, Bozeman, MT 03/2022 to Present ▪ Conducted stream and riparian habitat surveys, wetland delineations and monitoring. ▪ Produced outcomes reporting in the form of technical and final report documents. Revegetation Coordinator (Volunteer)| Mandeville Creek Restoration, Bozeman, MT 05/2015 to 12/2018 ▪ Planning, implementation, maintenance and monitoring of revegetation efforts associated with stream restoration of Mandeville Creek at Bozeman High School Stream Restoration Associate | Confluence Consulting, Inc., Bozeman, MT 06/2011 to 01/2015 ▪ Conducted stream and riparian habitat surveys, wetland delineations and monitoring. ▪ Produced outcomes reporting in the form of technical and final report documents. Graduate Teaching Assistant | Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 05/2008 to 12/2010 ▪ Participated in the development of teaching objectives, guidelines, outcomes measurement, teaching and grading of 300+ students throughout the school year. ▪ Responsible for the management and oversight of teaching assistants and graders. ▪ Member of Campus Sustainability and Advisory Council (CSAC). Associate | Gillilan Associates, Inc., Bozeman, MT 05/2004- 12/2004 ▪ Stream, wetland and riparian restoration, implementation and monitoring. ▪ Spring creek ecosystems research including locating and investigating spring creeks throughout Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming Research Assistant | Bio Regions International, Bozeman, MT May 2001-July 2001 ▪ Community wealth profile assessment in Hokkaido, Japan and Darhad Valley, Northern Mongolia. ▪ Project design for testing fencing functionality in sand dune areas to increase plant establishment in the Darhad Valley region, Northern Mongolia EXPERTISE • Aquatic (Wetland/Watercourse) and Riparian Delineations • Environmental Permitting (Federal, State and Local Entities) • Ecosystem Inventories and Habitat Assessments PO Box 1424 Bozeman, MT 59771 :: 406.539.7244 :: briana@sundogeco.com • Aquatic (Wetland/Watercourse) and Riparian Delineations • Environmental Permitting (Federal, State and Local Entities) • Subdivision Planning and Permitting for Aquatic Resources • Site Evaluation and Monitoring Development and Implementation • Riparian and Wetland Restoration Design and Construction • Revegetation Planning, Implementation, Maintenance and Monitoring • Ecosystem Inventories and Habitat Assessments • Aquatic Resource Inventory and Management EDUCATION, CERTIFICATIONS AND TRAININGS M.S. Land Resources and Environmental Science | Montana State University, Bozeman MT 2012 B.S. Land Rehabilitation, Soil Science Emphasis | Montana State University, Bozeman MT 2003 Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) | 11/2014 to Expires March 2027 Electrofishing Safety and Policy | Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Wetlands Regulation | Montana Department of Environmental Quality Basic Wetland Delineation with Field Practicum| Wetland Training Institute Wetlands Regulation and Permitting | Montana Department of Environmental Quality NRCS Riparian Assessment and MDT Wetland Functional Assessment Training SUNDOG ECOLOGICAL INC., PROJECT EXPERIENCE EXAMPLES Targhee Creek Aquatic Restoration, Island Park, Idaho 2023-Current. Conducted aquatic resource delineation and planned revegetation on 12 miles of stream channel and associated areas. Successfully submitted 404, 401, and related permits for restoration. Urban + Farm Subdivision, Bozeman, MT, 2020-Current. Conducted aquatic resource delineation on the Urban Farms Subdivision for environmental permitting through Federal, State and local entities. Planned restoration of approximately 1,000 feet of stream channel and wetland/riparian restoration associated with it. Sundog will conduct project oversite during the channel restoration and revegetation process and conduct all required monitoring and outcomes evaluation. Glen Lake Outfall Reconfiguration, Bozeman, MT, 2020-2022. Conducted aquatic resource delineation on Glen Lake Outfall to connect with a previously completed section of ditch within the Manley Road Reconfiguration Project. North Cottonwood Creek Restoration, Wyoming 2019-2022. Conducted aquatic resource delineation and planned revegetation on 12 miles of stream channel and associated areas. Successfully submitted 404, 401 and related permits. Manley Road Reconfiguration, Bozeman, MT 2019-2020. Conducted aquatic resource delineation, reporting and permitting on the Glen Lake Outfall and associated ditches and wetlands for improvements on Manley Road. Rocky Creek Restoration, Bozeman, MT, 2018-2019. Due to channel manipulation, floodplain farming, and floodplain encroachment, Rocky Creek in Gallatin Valley suffered a tremendous loss to its historic channel and floodplain processes. A large restoration project was designed to improve water quality while enhancing wildlife habitat. Rocky Creek restoration included excavating and establishing wetland swales, stabilizing an eroding PO Box 1424 Bozeman, MT 59771 :: 406.539.7244 :: briana@sundogeco.com toe slope threatening farming activities, installing a beaver analog structure and reactivating an abandoned channel. Dry Creek Fish Passage, Belgrade, MT 2017. A fish bypass channel was built to reconnect Dry Creek with the East Gallatin River. Sundog conducted aquatic resource delineation, reporting and permitting. Dry Creek Restoration, Belgrade, MT 2016-Present. Restoration of Dry Creek in the Gallatin Valley, MT is a multiphase approach that includes streambank stabilization and channel narrowing on multiple sections of stream channel. All projects require aquatic delineations and habitat assessments along with wetland and revegetation design, implementation and monitoring. Long Creek Restoration, Centennial Valley, MT, 2016- 2020. Conducted aquatic resource delineation and monitoring on Long Creek for The Nature Conservancy of MT. Bull Run Creek Restoration, Belgrade, MT, 2016-2023. Conducted aquatic resources delineation along Bull Run Creek and associated property for stream restoration and infrastructure development. Successfully submitted permits to multiple agencies. Mandeville Creek Restoration, Bozeman, MT, 2015-2021. Spearheaded revegetation planning, implementation and monitoring efforts along Mandeville Creek at Bozeman High School. BRIANA SCHULTZ PROJECT EXPERIENCE (OUTSIDE OF SUNDOG ECOLOGICAL INC.) Montana Department of Transportation Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Term Contract, 2013-2015. Conducted comprehensive environmental monitoring and wrote technical monitoring reports for 29 mitigation wetland projects. Montana Department of Transportation Stream Mitigation Monitoring Term Contract, 2013-2015. Established and conducted stream monitoring requirements and wrote technical monitoring reports on stream mitigation sites throughout Montana. Montana Department of Transportation Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Term Contract, 2010-2012. Wrote technical monitoring reports of 23 wetland mitigation sites throughout Montana. Reviewed field data and interpreted results. Upper Missouri River Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank, Twin Bridges, MT. 2011-2012. Conducted stream channel cross-section and longitudinal profile surveys, performed culvert inventory, and monitored discharges at 14 locations and assisted in wetland delineations as part of stream and wetland mitigation banking plan on the Hamilton Ranch near Twin Bridges, MT.