The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About013 - Nelson Meadows Wetland Report Nelson Meadows Subdivision Wetland/Waterway Investigation - July 2018 Gallatin County, Montana Prepared for: Barnard Investments LLC. 701 Gold Avenue Bozeman, MT 59715 Prepared by: 2880 Technology Blvd W Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 587 0721 July 2018 Project No. 2286.007 Nelson Meadows Subdivision Project Wetland/Waterway Investigation 2018 Page 1 Table of Contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 1 2.1 Wetlands ....................................................................................................................................... 1 2.1.1 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................. 1 2.1.2 Hydrology .............................................................................................................................. 2 2.1.3 Soils ....................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1.4 Floodplains ............................................................................................................................ 2 2.1.5 National Wetland Inventory.................................................................................................. 2 3 Results ................................................................................................................................................... 2 3.1 Wetlands ....................................................................................................................................... 3 3.2 Waterways .................................................................................................................................... 3 3.2.1 Waterway WW-1-18 ............................................................................................................. 3 4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 3 5 References ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Figures Figure 1 Topographic Maps of Project Vicinity Figure 2 Aerial Photographs of the Project Area Figure 3 NRCS Soils Maps Figure 4 USFWS National Wetlands Inventories Figure 5 Wetland Delineation Map Appendices Appendix A Photo Log Appendix B NRCS Soils Report, NWI Map, FEMA Floodplain Map Appendix C Wetland Data Sheets Nelson Meadows Subdivision Project Wetland/Waterway Investigation 2018 Page 1 1 Introduction At the request of Barnard Investments, LLC, Morrison-Maierle, Inc. (Morrison-Maierle) completed wetland/waterway investigations for a proposed plat amendment. This technical memo summarizes the findings of the 2018 wetland investigation in Gallatin County, Montana. The wetland/waterway investigations were completed on May 15th, 2018. The property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Nelson Road and Interstate 90 Frontage Road. The subject properties have historically been used for agriculture and the properties are currently managed under separate farm leases. Except for a windmill, well, grain bin, subsurface petroleum pipelines and roads, the subject property is vacant. The property consists of three parcels of land legally described as Tracts 1C and 1D of Certificate of Survey No. 1372B, located in the SE ¼ of S22, T1S, R5E and the NE1/4 NE1/4; and the E1/2, E1/2, W1/2, NE1/4 of S27, T1S, R5E, Principal Meridian, Gallatin County, Montana. Figures 1 to 5 are provided immediately following the memo and depict topographic project vicinity, aerial photographs, soils, National Wetland Inventories, and delineated wetlands/waterways. Photographs are provided in Appendix A and a Natural Resources Conservation Service soils report is provided in Appendix B. Wetland and Upland Data sheets are available in Appendix C. 2 Methods Wetland delineation data was collected on May 15 and July 17, 2018. The wetland investigation utilized the methodology presented in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and subsequent modifications outlined in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (Environmental Laboratory 2010). 2.1 Wetlands Upland and wetland data points were established during the field visits. For wetlands and non- wetlands identified in 2018, wetland and upland plot data for vegetation, hydrology, and soils were recorded in the field onto Wetland Determination Forms, and are provided in Appendix A. The wetland identification numbers, (e.g. noted here in bold (W-1-18 (1)) correspond to the sample points for that location. Photographs of all sample points and wetlands are provided in Appendix B. The sample points and wetland boundaries were recorded using a Garmin Montana 650t hand- held Global Positioning System (GPS) unit. These data were exported as an ESRI Shapefile using ArcGIS. 2.1.1 Vegetation Vegetation at upland and wetland data points was classified based on wetland indicator status. The indicator status of vegetation was derived from the Montana 2016 State Wetland Plant List (Lichvar et al. 2016). Using the current plant list, vegetation cover qualified as hydrophytic where over 50% of the dominant plant species had an indicator status of obligate (OBL), facultative wet Nelson Meadows Subdivision Project Wetland/Waterway Investigation 2018 Page 2 (FACW), and/or facultative (FAC). FAC plants, such as Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), are equally likely to occur in wetlands and non-wetlands. Vegetation cover was considered as upland where over 50% of the dominant plant species were classified as upland (UPL), and/or facultative upland (FACU). Plants observed within each data plot were identified using Montana Manual of Vascular Plants (Lesica 2012). Vegetation nomenclature follows Lichvar et al. (2016) and Lesica (2012). 2.1.2 Hydrology Primary and secondary hydrologic indicators were assessed at each wetland and upland data point; one primary indicator or two secondary indicators are required to qualify the area as containing wetland hydrology. Examples of primary hydrology indicators are saturation within 12 inches of the ground surface, surface water, and water table within 12 inches of the ground surface. Examples of secondary hydrology indicators are FAC-neutral test and geomorphic position on the landscape. 2.1.3 Soils Soil types within the project area were obtained from the Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2002) and analyzed in the field for texture and color using the Munsell Soil Color Charts (Munsell 2000). Wetlands must meet the qualifications of at least one hydric soil indicator, or meet the definition of a hydric soil (a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (NRCS 2016). 2.1.4 Floodplains FEMA FIRM 30031C0802D Effective September 2, 2011. The Nelson Meadow Subdivision is located on panel 300027 in Zone X: Area of Minimal Flood Hazard. A FEMA Floodplain map is included after Figure 5. 2.1.5 National Wetland Inventory The US Fish and Wildlife Service maintains the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), which serves as a publicly available resource that provides detailed information on the abundance, characteristics, and distribution of US Wetlands. According to the NWI database, a freshwater Emergent Wetland could potentially exist within the subject property. See Figure 4 and Appendix B for details. 3 Results One riverine wetland associated with Cattail Creek was delineated on the subject property. Additionally, the ordinary high watermark of the Cattail Creek was delineated. The majority of the channel of Cattail Creek is vegetated and water flows northward and eventually splits in to two segments of an unnamed ditch. Near the southern portion of the subject property, Cattail Creek flows beneath a 60 foot road via a 24-inch corrugated metal culvert. The wetland is an emergent riverine wetland associated with Cattail Creek. The area along the creek presented indications of previous disturbance and was likely plowed at one time. The wetland investigation resulted in the delineation of one riverine Nelson Meadows Subdivision Project Wetland/Waterway Investigation 2018 Page 3 wetland (1.53 acres) and the ordinary high watermark of Cattail Creek. Photographs of the investigation areas and wetlands are provided in Appendix A and Wetland Data Sheets are included in Appendix C. 3.1 Wetlands Wetland W-1-18 was delineated as a riverine wetland along the edges of Cattail Creek. The wetland hydrology indicators for W-1-18 included surface water, high water table, algal mat, and saturation. Hydrology is provided by Cattail Creek. Two sets of soil test pits/vegetation plots were analyzed for this investigation area: W-1-18 (Pit 1) and W-1-18 (Pit 2). W-1-18 (Wetland and Upland Pit Series 1) The dominant vegetation observed within this area of the wetland included: Baltic rush (Juncus balticus, FACW), field mint (Mentha arvensis, FACW), beaked sedge (Carex rostrate, OBL), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense, FAC), and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis, FAC). The dominant Cowardin classification for this site is emergent (Cowardin et al. 1979). The hydrophytic vegetation indicators included a positive dominance test and prevalence index within the range indicating the presence of hydrophytic vegetation. The hydric soil indicator is based on observations of a 7.5YR 2.5/1 soil layer from 0 to 8 inches and saturation at the surface. An algal mat was also observed. The wetland/upland boundary primarily follows a change in topography and vegetation. Vegetation at the upland pit was dominated by Canada thistle and perennial pepperweed (Lepidudium latifolium, FAC). W-1-18 (Wetland and Upland Pit Series 2) The dominant vegetation observed within this area of the wetland included: climbing nightshade (Solanum dulcamara, FAC), beaked sedge, and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW). The hydrophytic vegetation indicators include a positive dominance test and prevalence index within the range indicating the presence of hydrophytic vegetation. They hydric soil indicator is based on saturation at surface and water table within 6 inches of the surface. Soil color from 0 to 8 inches was 10YR2/1. The wetland/upland boundary primarily follows a change in topography and vegetation. Vegetation at the upland pit was dominated by Canada thistle, common bedstraw (Galium aparine, FACU), Kentucky bluegrass, and stinging nettle (Urtica dioica, FAC). 3.2 Waterways 3.2.1 Waterway WW-1-18 Waterway WW-1-18 is identified as Cattail Creek. Approximately 2,000 feet of waterway were delineated within the investigation area. This waterway was preliminarily determined to be jurisdictional based on its confluence with a known Water of the U.S. 4 Conclusion The delineation for the Nelson Meadows Subdivision property took place on two days May 15, 2018 and July 17, 2018. During this time, one wetland (W-1-18) measuring approximately 1.53 acres and approximately 2,000 linear feet of one waterway (Cattail Creek) were delineated on the Nelson Meadows Subdivision Project Wetland/Waterway Investigation 2018 Page 4 subject property. Both the wetland and waterway are preliminary determined to be jurisdictional based on hydrologic connectivity to known Waters of the US. 5 References Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. Environmental Laboratory. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corp of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. (Version 2.0) U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory. Vicksburg, MS. Lesica, P. 2012. Manual of Montana Vascular Plants. Brit Press. Fort Worth, Texas. Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X. Montana Department of Agriculture. 2015. Montana Noxious Weed List. Effective: July 2015. http://agr.mt.gov/agr/Programs/Weeds/PDF/2015WeedList.pdf Munsell. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Macbeth Division of Kollmorgan Instruments. New Windsor, NY. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2002. Soil Survey for Gallatin County Area, Montana (MT622). http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2016. Hydric Soils Definition. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/use/hydric/?cid=nrcs142p2_053961 NELSON ROAD PROPERTY GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT TOPO MAPDRAWN BY: SRH CHK'D BY: APPR. BY: DATE: BOZEMAN MT COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2016 N:\2286\007\GIS\Figure 1 - Topo Map.mxd FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 2286.07 1 2880 Technology Blvd WestBozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721Fax: (406) 922-6702 5/8/2018 Project Location µ LegendProject Location 0 1 20.5 Miles ^_ Nelson Road Propery Growth PolicyAmendmentBarnard Investments, LLC SE 1/4 of Section 22Township 1S, Range 5EGallatin County, Montana NELSON ROAD PROPERTY GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT AERIAL MAPDRAWN BY: SRH CHK'D BY: APPR. BY: DATE: BOZEMAN MT COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2016 N:\2286\007\GIS\Figure 2 - Aerial Map.mxd FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 2286.007 2 2880 Technology Blvd WestBozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721Fax: (406) 922-6702 5/8/2018 Project Location µ LegendProject Location 0 0.25 0.50.125 Miles ^_ Nelson Road Propery Growth PolicyAmendmentBarnard Investments, LLC SE 1/4 of Section 22Township 1S, Range 5EGallatin County, Montana 50B 57B 606A 50B 364B57B 514A 364B 522A450C 57B 457A 64B 522A 448A 249A 50B 506A 748A 57B 407A 57B 407A 453D 556A 522A 407A 53B 50C M-W 448A 522A 748A 50C 542A 50C 542A 50C 57B 50C 64B 64B 556A 407A 50C 53B509B NELSON ROAD PROPERTY GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT SOILS MAPDRAWN BY: SRH CHK'D BY: APPR. BY: DATE: BOZEMAN MT COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2016 N:\2286\007\GIS\Figure 3 - Soils Map.mxd FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 2286.007 3 2880 Technology Blvd WestBozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721Fax: (406) 922-6702 5/8/2018 Project Location µ LegendProject Location 0 0.25 0.50.125 Miles NELSON ROAD PROPERTY GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT NWI MAPDRAWN BY: SRH CHK'D BY: APPR. BY: DATE: BOZEMAN MT COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2016 N:\2286\007\GIS\Figure 4 - Wetlands Map.mxd FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 2286.007 4 2880 Technology Blvd WestBozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721Fax: (406) 922-6702 5/8/2018 µ LegendProject LocationFreshwater Emergent WetlandFreshwater Forested WetlandFreshwater Forested/Shrub WetlandFreshwater Scrub-Shrub WetlandFreshwater PondLakeRiparian EmergentRiparian ForestedRiparian Scrub-ShrubRiverine 0 0.25 0.50.125 Miles !.!. "/"/ Nelson Meadows Subdivision WETLAND DELINEATION MAPDRAWN BY: CAP CHK'D BY: APPR. BY: DATE: BOZEMAN MT COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2016 N:\2286\007\GIS\Figure 5 - Wetland Delineation Map.mxd FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 2286.007 5 2880 Technology Blvd WestBozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721Fax: (406) 922-6702 7/18/2018 µ LegendProject Location "/Wetland Pit 1 "/Upland Pit 1 !.Wetland Pit 2 !.Upland Pit 2Wetland 0 250 500125Feet Appendix A Photo Log Nelson Meadows Delineation Photo-log May and July 2018 Photo 1: W-1-18 (Wetland Pit 1) Photo 2: W-1-18 (Upland Pit 1) Photo 3: W-1-18 (Upland Pit 2) Photo 4: W-1-18 (Wetland Pit 2) Nelson Meadows Delineation Photo-log May and July 2018 Photo 5: View south from County Road on subject property. Channel of Cattail Creek surrounded by dense vegetation. Photo 6: View north from County Road on subject property. Cannel of Cattail Creek dense with cattails. Appendix B On-Site Data 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, Montana Park Place Subdivision Natural Resources Conservation Service May 22, 2018 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 50C—Blackdog silt loam, 4 to 8 percent slopes..........................................14 57B—Turner loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes....................................................15 450C—Blackdog-Quagle silt loams, 4 to 8 percent slopes.........................17 514A—Soapcreek silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes............................19 556A—Threeriv-Bonebasin loams, 0 to 2 percent slopes...........................20 References............................................................................................................23 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 506350050637005063900506410050643005064500506470050649005065100506350050637005063900506410050643005064500506470050649005065100492700 492900 493100 493300 493500 493700 493900 492700 492900 493100 493300 493500 493700 493900 45° 44' 22'' N 111° 5' 40'' W45° 44' 22'' N111° 4' 41'' W45° 43' 27'' N 111° 5' 40'' W45° 43' 27'' N 111° 4' 41'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84 0 400 800 1600 2400 Feet 0 100 200 400 600 Meters Map Scale: 1:8,250 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 21, Sep 21, 2017 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 3, 2009—Sep 1, 2016 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 10 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 50B Blackdog silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 257.4 78.5% 50C Blackdog silt loam, 4 to 8 percent slopes 11.4 3.5% 57B Turner loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 8.4 2.6% 450C Blackdog-Quagle silt loams, 4 to 8 percent slopes 21.1 6.4% 514A Soapcreek silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 22.6 6.9% 556A Threeriv-Bonebasin loams, 0 to 2 percent slopes 6.8 2.1% Totals for Area of Interest 327.8 100.0% 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 Custom Soil Resource Report 11 was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, 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 Natural 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 in profile: 30 percent Available water storage in profile: High (about 10.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS355MT), Upland Grassland (R044BP818MT) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Meagher Percent of map unit: 4 percent Landform: Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS355MT) Hydric soil rating: No Quagle Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Limy (Ly) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS357MT) Hydric soil rating: No Bowery Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Stream terraces, alluvial fans Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS355MT) Hydric soil rating: No 50C—Blackdog silt loam, 4 to 8 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56vr Elevation: 4,500 to 5,750 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: Farmland of statewide importance 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: 4 to 8 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Custom Soil Resource Report 14 Natural 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 in profile: 30 percent Available water storage in profile: High (about 10.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS355MT), Upland Grassland (R044BP818MT) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Meagher Percent of map unit: 4 percent Landform: Stream terraces, alluvial fans Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS355MT) Hydric soil rating: No Quagle Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Limy (Ly) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS357MT) 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: Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS355MT) 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 Custom Soil Resource Report 15 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 Natural 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 in profile: 15 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Low (about 5.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: Upland Grassland (R044BP818MT), Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS355MT) 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: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS354MT) Hydric soil rating: No Martinsdale Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Custom Soil Resource Report 16 Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS355MT) 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: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS354MT) Hydric soil rating: No 450C—Blackdog-Quagle silt loams, 4 to 8 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56sw Elevation: 4,400 to 5,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Blackdog and similar soils: 60 percent Quagle and similar soils: 30 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: 4 to 8 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural 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 in profile: 30 percent Custom Soil Resource Report 17 Available water storage in profile: High (about 10.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS355MT), Upland Grassland (R044BP818MT) Hydric soil rating: No Description of Quagle Setting Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Silty calcareous loess Typical profile A - 0 to 6 inches: silt loam Bw - 6 to 9 inches: silt loam Bk - 9 to 60 inches: silt loam Properties and qualities Slope: 4 to 8 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural 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 in profile: 35 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: High (about 10.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: Limy (Ly) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS357MT), Upland Grassland (R044BP818MT) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Beanlake Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Limy (Ly) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS357MT) Hydric soil rating: No Bowery Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Alluvial fans, stream terraces Custom Soil Resource Report 18 Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS355MT) Hydric soil rating: No Anceney Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Silty-Droughty (SiDr) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS690MT) Hydric soil rating: No 514A—Soapcreek silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56vz Elevation: 4,200 to 6,000 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: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Soapcreek and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Soapcreek Setting Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Clayey alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 15 inches: silty clay loam Bk - 15 to 46 inches: silty clay loam Bg - 46 to 60 inches: stratified fine sandy loam to silty clay Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 24 to 42 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Custom Soil Resource Report 19 Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 3.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4w Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: Subirrigated (Sb) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS343MT), Subirrigated Grassland (R044BP815MT) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Meadowcreek Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Saline Subirrigated (SSb) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS333MT) Hydric soil rating: No Blossberg Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Wet Meadow (WM) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS365MT) Hydric soil rating: Yes 556A—Threeriv-Bonebasin loams, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56x4 Elevation: 4,000 to 6,100 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: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Bonebasin and similar soils: 45 percent Threeriv and similar soils: 45 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Bonebasin Setting Landform: Flood plains Custom Soil Resource Report 20 Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium Typical profile Oa - 0 to 4 inches: muck A - 4 to 15 inches: loam Cg - 15 to 25 inches: stratified sandy loam to silty clay loam 2C - 25 to 60 inches: very gravelly coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Very 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 0 to 12 inches Frequency of flooding: Rare Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D Ecological site: Bottomland (R044BP801MT), Wet Meadow (WM) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS365MT) Hydric soil rating: Yes Description of Threeriv Setting Landform: Flood plains Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium Typical profile Oe - 0 to 4 inches: moderately decomposed plant material Ag - 4 to 9 inches: loam Cg - 9 to 29 inches: stratified sandy loam to silty clay loam 2Cg - 29 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Very poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 0 to 12 inches Frequency of flooding: Rare Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.1 inches) Custom Soil Resource Report 21 Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D Ecological site: Bottomland (R044BP801MT), Wet Meadow (WM) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS365MT) Hydric soil rating: Yes Minor Components Threeriv Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Flood plains Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Wet Meadow (WM) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS365MT) Hydric soil rating: No Blossberg Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Marshes Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Wet Meadow (WM) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS365MT) Hydric soil rating: Yes Custom Soil Resource Report 22 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 23 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 24 Nelson Meadows U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team,wetlands_team@fws.gov Wetlands Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Lake Other Riverine August 28, 2018 0 0.15 0.30.075 mi 0 0.3 0.60.15 km 1:10,963 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. Appendix C Wetland/Upland Data Sheets US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: State: Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: Applicant/Owner: Barnard Construction LLC. Investigator(s): C. Pearcy Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Datum: No NWI classification: N/A (If no, explain in Remarks.) , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Nelson Meadow Subdivision Gallatin County 05/15/18 MT Upland Pit 1 Section 22/27, Township 1 South, Range 5 East Hillslope 20% x Remarks: Immediately adjacent to (within 1m) ploughed field used for alfalfa crops western mountains, valleys and coast Soil Map Unit Name: 50C, Blackdog silt loam, 4 to 8 percent slopes Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex nad 83 Are Vegetation x The site was on a hillslope, 2 to 3 feet above Cattail Creek. -111.084567 2 2 x x x x Lepidium latifolium (perennial pepperweed) 1m x 1m 10% 40% Cirsium arvense (Canada Thistle)20% Elymus trachycaulus (slender wild rye)30% FAC Yes FAC FAC 60 180 3 Lat: 45.728228 Long: 100% Yes 60 180 60% xx US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 0 to 6 none observed silt clay loam Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): x Upland point approximately 2 to 3 feet topographically higher than Cattail Creek. No wetland hydrology observed. W1-2-18 x Grass roots. Damp. Crumbly x x 10YR 3/2 100% 6 - 12 10YR 5/3 100%none observed silt clay Grass roots. Ants. Site is 2 to 3 feet above stream. x x US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Datum: NWI classification: No (If no, explain in Remarks.) , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Nelson Meadow Subdivision City/County: Gallatin County 05/15/18 Barnard Construction LLC. MT W-1-18 Pit 1 C. Pearcy Section 22/27, Township 1 South, Range 5 East Wetland fringe 0% x x X x Remarks: western mountains, valleys and coast Freshwater emergentSoil Map Unit Name: 50C, Blackdog silt loam, 4 to 8 percent slopes Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes nad 83 x Are Vegetation x Wetland associated with Cattail Creek which is diverted and channalized under the interstate through a culvert. Normal circumstances do not exist because of the culvert, the road and the embankment. x Juncus balticus (Baltic rush) FACW 15% x 25% Mentha arvensis (field mint)15% 35% Cirsium arvense (Canada Thistle) 5%Poa pratensis (Blue grass) 5% 1 m x 1m FACW Yes Beaked sedge (OBL) FAC FAC 2 100% 8040 10 30 85 145 1.8 X X X Yes 2 Lat: 45.728184 Long: -111.084586 Section, Township, Range: Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave x 85% OBL 35 35 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) x Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Shallow Aquitard (D3) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 0 to 8 7.5 YR 2.5/1 Too wet to tell Silty Clay Loam 8+ Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and x Type: Depth (inches): x Adjacent proximity to Cattail Creek. W-1-18 Pit 1 x x x Saturated at surface. x Gravel layer that couldn't be dug pastGravel x x 0-8 inches x 100% x US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: State: Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: Applicant/Owner: Barnard Construction LLC. Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Datum: No NWI classification: N/A (If no, explain in Remarks.) , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Nelson Meadow Subdivision Gallatin County 7/17/2018 MT Upland pit 2 Section 22/27, Township 1 South, Range 5 EastInvestigator(s): C. Pearcy Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Low Terrace 5% x Remarks: Immediately adjacent (within 1m) to ploughed field used for alfalfa crops. Previously ploughed area. Cannot tell plants as it is too early. western mountains, valleys and coast Soil Map Unit Name: 50C, Blackdog silt loam, 4 to 8 percent slopes Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex nad 83 Are Vegetation x The site was on a terrace, above Cattail Creek. -111.0853 x x 1m x 1m X Lat:45.730722 Long: Galium aparine (bedstraw)30 yes FACU Cirsium arvense (recently sprayed)30 yes FAC Poa Pratensis 30 yes FAC Urtica dioica 5 no FAC Thinopyrum intermedium 5 no 2 2 60% 65 30 120 195 31595 3.3 x US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 0 to 12 none observed Clay Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): x Upland point approximately 2 feet topographically higher than Cattail Creek on terrace. Upland Pit 2 Worms. x 10YR 3/2 100% x x US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Datum: NWI classification: No (If no, explain in Remarks.) , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Nelson Subdivision City/County: Gallatin County July 17, 2018 Barnard Construction LLC. MT W-1-18 Pit 2 C. Pearcy Section 22/27, Township 1 South, Range 5 East Wetland 0% x x X x Remarks: western mountains, valleys and coast Freshwater emergentSoil Map Unit Name: 50C, Blackdog silt loam, 4 to 8 percent slopes Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Concave nad 83 x x Wetland associated with Cattail Creek which is diverted and channalized under the interstate and through a culvert at the southern end of the site. Normal circumstances exist in this section of the wetland. The site has traditionally been used for agriculture and was partially planted in alfalfa and wheat during the site visit. Are Vegetation Phalaris arundinacea (Reed Canary Grass) 0% x 1 m x 1m FACWNo 2 2 100% 2010 100 210 2.1 10% X X X Lat:Long:-111.08533445.730703 Section, Township, Range: Local relief (concave, convex, none): 100% Solanum dulcamara 50%Yes FAC Carex rostrare 40%Yes Obl 40 40 50 150 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) x Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Shallow Aquitard (D3) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):(includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 0 to 8 10YR2/1 Silty Clay Loam Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and x Type: Depth (inches): x Adjacent proximity to Cattail Creek. W-1-18 Pit 2 x x Saturated to surface. x 6 inches 0-8 inches x 100% x x