The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About018 - Appendix J - Wetland Mitigation Report Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report Prepared in accordance with City of Bozeman Municipal Code §38.220.130 Prepared for: Kilday & Stratton 2880 Technology Blvd W Suite 217 Bozeman, MT 59718 Prepared by: Morrison-Maierle 2880 Technology Boulevard Bozeman, MT 59715 Date of Issue: March 10, 2026 Project Number 10130.001.04 i | Page CONTENTS 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Applicant Information ............................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Qualified Preparer ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Description of Proposal ............................................................................................................................ 4 1.3.1 Public Interest Rationale ...................................................................................................................... 5 1.3.2 Direct and Indirect Impacts to Wetlands ...................................................................................... 6 1.4 Regulatory Context ..................................................................................................................................... 8 2 Existing Condition of the Project Area and Summary of Impacts ....................................................... 8 2.1 Existing Condition of the Property ....................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Avoidance and Minimization Measures .......................................................................................... 12 2.3 Wetland and Buffer Impacts and Mitigation Requirement ...................................................... 13 3 Mitigation Plan ..................................................................................................................................................... 14 3.1 Mitigation Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 15 3.2 Mitigation Type and Location ............................................................................................................. 17 3.3 Mitigation Area Design .......................................................................................................................... 17 3.4 Mitigation Ratios and Functional Replacement ........................................................................... 18 4 Existing Conditions of the Mitigation Site ................................................................................................. 19 4.1 Vegetation .................................................................................................................................................. 19 4.2 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................................... 20 4.3 Soils ............................................................................................................................................................... 22 4.4 Baseline Wetland Functions ................................................................................................................. 25 5 Hydroperiod Change Assessment ................................................................................................................ 25 5.1 Existing Hydroperiod .............................................................................................................................. 25 5.2 Climate Summary of the Mitigation Site. ........................................................................................ 26 5.3 Anticipated Changes in Hydroperiod ............................................................................................... 27 6 Planting Plan ......................................................................................................................................................... 27 6.1 Planting Zones and Community Types ............................................................................................ 27 6.2 Plant List and Quantities ........................................................................................................................ 28 6.3 Installation and Spacing ........................................................................................................................ 30 6.4 Establishment and Maintenance ........................................................................................................ 30 6.4.1 Nutrient Requirements ..................................................................................................................... 31 6.4.2 Irrigation ................................................................................................................................................. 31 6.5 Native Species Requirement ................................................................................................................ 31 7 Monitoring and Performance Standards ................................................................................................... 31 ii | Page 7.1 Monitoring Period and Frequency..................................................................................................... 32 7.2 Performance Criteria ............................................................................................................................... 32 7.3 Monitoring Methods and Reporting ................................................................................................ 33 7.4 Maintenance and Adaptive Management ...................................................................................... 35 7.5 Contingency Plan ..................................................................................................................................... 36 7.5.1 Coordination and Reporting ........................................................................................................... 36 8 Long-Term Management and Protection .................................................................................................. 36 8.1 Management Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 36 8.2 Noxious Weeds ......................................................................................................................................... 36 8.3 Protection Mechanisms ......................................................................................................................... 37 8.4 Responsible Party ..................................................................................................................................... 37 References....................................................................................................................................................................... 37 TABLES Table 1. Qualified Wetland Professional Summary. ........................................................................................... 4 Table 2 Indirect Impacts to Wetlands ...................................................................................................................... 6 Table 3. Required Permit Summary. ......................................................................................................................... 8 Table 4. Aquatic Features Summary. ..................................................................................................................... 11 Table 5. Aquatic Feature Avoidance Measures: Summary. ........................................................................... 13 Table 6. MWAM Results ............................................................................................................................................. 14 Table 7: Functional Replacement Values based on MWAM Evaluation .................................................. 18 Table 8. Soil pit logs from Geotechnical Report for the proposed mitigation area., ......................... 24 Table 9. Bozeman, MT Monthly Climate Summary (WRC). .......................................................................... 26 Table 10 Wetland Mitigation Planting List ......................................................................................................... 28 Table 11 Wetland Buffer Planting List .................................................................................................................. 29 Table 12. Park Planting Plan ..................................................................................................................................... 29 FIGURES Figure 1. Proposed Development. ............................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 2. Wetland Delineation of the Subject Property. ................................................................................ 10 Figure 3. Representative vegetation conditions at the proposed mitigation site. .............................. 20 Figure 4. Open water habitat within borrow pit at the proposed mitigation site. .............................. 21 Figure 5. Stockpiled fill at the proposed mitigation area. ............................................................................ 23 APPENDICES Appendix A: Figures Appendix B: Wetland Checklist Appendix C: Permits Obtained Appendix D: Approved Jurisdictional Determination iii | Page Appendix E: Wetland Delineation Report + Existing Stormwater Pond As-Builts Appendix F: Groundwater Monitoring Data Appendix G: Geotechnical Report Appendix H: Laurel Meadows Landscape and Planting Plan Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 4 | Page 1 INTRODUCTION This section meets requirements of 38.220.130(A)(3)(a)(1) This Mitigation Plan (Plan) was developed in accordance with the City of Bozeman (COB) Municipal Code parts 38.610.030, 38.220.130, 38.410.100, 38.220.020, 38.220.030, 38.220.060, 38.220.080. The Plan also draws on the USACE Model Compensatory Mitigation Plan Checklist for Aquatic Resource Impacts Under the Corps Regulatory Program Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (2003). 1.1 Applicant Information 8FC, LLC owns the property, represented by Patrick Eibs (CEO/Owner).  Mailing Address: PO Box 1138, Bozeman, MT 59719  Phone: (406) 539-1366 Morrison-Maierle provides engineering and environmental consulting services for the Laurel Meadows project to 8FC, LLC and represents the applicant. 1.2 Qualified Preparer The qualified wetland professionals and supporting subject matter experts that prepared this report are listed in Table 1. Their resumes are available upon request. Table 1. Qualified Wetland Professional Summary. Individual Role Qualifications Contact Christine Pearcy Senior Environmental Scientist  MS, Earth Science (Biogeochemistry)  BS, Natural Resources and Environmental Science  23 Years experience  Specialized training in Problematic Conditions and Hydric Soils cpearcy@m-m.net (406) 922-6846 Faith Doty Subject Matter Expert  Professional Wetland Scientist Certification (4018)  BS, Land Rehabilitation  9 Years experience  Specialized training in Problematic Conditions and Hydric Soils, Wetland Delineation fdoty@m-m.net (406) 922-6772 Breanne Cline Subject Matter Expert  Professional Wetland Scientist Certification (3997)  BS, Range and Wildlife Management  11 Years experience  Specialized training in Problematic Conditions and Hydric Soils, Wetland Delineation bcline@m-m.net 406-751-5854 Pat Eller Groundwater Expert  Professional Geologist (ID, OR, UT, WY)  BS, Geology  28 Years experience neller@m-m.net (406) 922-6796 1.3 Description of Proposal Laurel Meadows (“the Project” or “the Property”) is a 40.83-acre planned residential neighborhood located south of The Lakes at Valley West and northeast of Norton (East) Ranch (Appendix A.1). To the east, the property borders a linear park corridor associated with a deed restricted wetland area along Baxter Creek, forming the southern extension of the Bronken Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 5 | Page Natural Space. Laurel Meadows is envisioned as a compact, walkable neighborhood that provides diverse housing options and integrates trails, open space, and connections to nearby amenities. The project area consists of four parcels with the following legal descriptions:  NORTON EAST RANCH SUB PH 6, S09, T02 S, R05 E, Lot R1A, ACRES 6.63, PER PLAT J-694  NORTON EAST RANCH SUB PH 6, S09, T02 S, R05 E, Lot R1B, ACRES 12.303, PER PLAT J-694  NORTON EAST RANCH SUB PH 6, S09, T02 S, R05 E, Lot R1D, ACRES 11.847, PER PLAT J-694  NORTON EAST RANCH SUB PH 6, S09, T02 S, R05 E, Lot R1C, ACRES 10.038, PER PLAT J-694 The neighborhood will be developed under the Residential High Density (R-4) zoning district, which supports higher-density housing consistent with the Urban Neighborhood land-use designation. The site plan incorporates complete streets, pedestrian corridors, and trail connections to support multimodal travel. Parks and open space are distributed throughout the neighborhood to provide accessible recreational and natural areas for residents and adjacent communities. The Laurel Meadows property contains approximately 6.76 acres of palustrine emergent wetlands distributed across five discrete wetland units, as well as a segment of Baxter Creek. All wetlands on the site, except for the wetland fringe associated with Baxter Creek, were determined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to be non-jurisdictional under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. A detailed description and map of existing wetland conditions is provided in Section 2.1. 1.3.1 Public Interest Rationale The proposed residential development at Laurel Meadows addresses a critical housing shortage in Bozeman. A 2019 housing needs assessment prepared for City of Bozeman projected that the community required an additional 5,405 to 6,340 dwelling units by 2025 to meet demand from population growth, workforce needs, retirements, and balanced owner-renter housing needs. Delivering new units through infill development such as Laurel Meadows supports City goals to produce housing in areas already served by infrastructure and to reduce pressure for sprawl beyond urban boundaries. This aligns directly with the City’s growth management strategy, as outlined in the Growth Policy. For example, the Growth Policy Goal N-1 promotes “well-planned, walkable neighborhoods” and housing diversity, including “missing-middle” housing forms. By utilizing the existing R-4 zoning and Urban Neighborhood future land use designation, Laurel Meadows can contribute housing at densities appropriate for its location while supporting pedestrian-oriented design, efficient use of public services, and reduced vehicle travel. The development will produce needed housing supply for a range of income levels and household types. Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 6 | Page 1.3.2 Direct and Indirect Impacts to Wetlands Direct Impacts to Wetlands The COB approved an initial development plan of Laurel Meadows on February 28, 2023. The updated site plan requires filling one federally non-jurisdictional wetland area, Wetland 3 (2.58 acres), to achieve stable building grades and accommodate the planned residential layout (see Figure 1). The majority of aquatic resources within the project area will remain unaffected by the proposed development. However, Wetland 3 (2.58 acres) will be filled in its entirety and mitigated on-site. To minimize impacts, the project proposes a high-density housing layout that preserves larger, contiguous tracts of wetland and aquatic habitat. The remaining 4.18 acres of wetlands will not be impacted by the proposed design. This approach aligns with the avoidance and minimization strategy previously supported by the City of Bozeman planning and engineering staff. As part of mitigation, approximately 2.6 acres of wetlands will be recreated near and within the existing borrow pit/spoil pile area. The current plan envisions transforming the borrow area into a robust wetland and open water feature. The borrow pit already attracts a variety of waterfowl, and the proposed improvements will further support biodiversity. Additionally, due to previous excavations and the quantity of spoil piles, this portion of the property is ill-suited for structural development. This enhancement will improve wildlife habitat and create recreational opportunities for the community, including extending the existing surrounding north/south trail system that connects surrounding neighborhoods. The parkland at Laurel Meadows is adjacent to the mitigation site. The master plan aims to provide play opportunities through landscape berms, tree grove, and a boulder rock dock extending into the wetland area. The reclaimed wetland area will provide a unique habitat and educational opportunity. Additionally, the recreated wetlands will establish a biological connection to the existing deed restricted wetland complex along the southeast corner of the property, strengthening ecological integrity across the site. Indirect Impacts to Wetlands Indirect impacts are caused by the action but are later in time or farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable. For this project, two indirect impacts to filling Wetland 3 have been identified in Table 2. Table 2 Indirect Impacts to Wetlands Indirect impact Mitigation Approach Loss of Recharge Area  The loss of recharge area will be replaced within the parkland/open space/mitigation area.  Additionally, a 30,000 square foot detention pond will be installed within the Wetland 3 footprint and will continue to contribute to groundwater recharge. Change in local drainage pattern  The change in local drainage pattern for the proposed project is engineered and will be reviewed and approved by the COB. It is anticipated that a majority of runoff from site development will be directed towards underground retention and detention systems which will increase recharge to groundwater. Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 7 | Page Figure 1. Proposed Development. In accordance with the COB’s “no net loss” wetland policy and applicable municipal code, the project will offset the loss of Wetland 3 (2.58 acres) by establishing a 2.60-acre wetland mitigation area in the southeastern portion of the site (Figure 1). The mitigation area lies within a previously disturbed borrow pit and directly borders an existing deed-restricted wetland conservation area. This location provides an opportunity to reclaim a highly disturbed portion of Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 8 | Page the property, improve its visual character, and enhance hydrologic and ecological continuity along the Baxter Creek corridor. A vicinity map of the project area is provided in Appendix A. 1.4 Regulatory Context In addition to compliance with COB municipal code parts 38.610.030, 38.220.130, 38.410.100, 38.220.020, 38.220.030, 38.220.060, 38.220.080, the development of Laurel Meadows will require the following wetland and waterway related permits (Table 3). Compliance with relevant COB municipal code is summarized in the Wetland Review Checklist, developed by Morrison-Maierle and provided in Appendix B. Table 3. Required Permit Summary. Permit Applicable? Status Montana Stream Protection Act (SPA 124) No This permit is not necessary because the applicant is not an agency or government entity. Additionally, no work will occur within a stream as a part of this project. Stormwater discharge general permit (DEQ and City of Bozeman) Yes This permit is necessary because the project will disturb over 1 acre of ground surface. This permit will be obtained by the selected contractor. Montana Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act (310) No This permit is not necessary because no work will be conducted in or near a stream. Montana Floodplain and Floodway Management Act (floodplain development permit) No This permit is not necessary because no work will be conducted within a regulated floodplain. Project is located within the unprinted FEMA Floodplain Panel 30031C0811D. Federal Clean Water Act (404) No This permit is not necessary because the impacted wetland (Wetland 3) is not jurisdictional based on the AJD received from the USACE on December 9, 2021. No other jurisdictional features will be impacted. Federal Rivers and Harbors Act (Section 10) No This permit is not necessary because the project will not take place in or near a US navigable waterway. Short-term Water Quality Standards for Turbidity (318 authorization) Yes Received. This permit is necessary because the project impacts a state-regulated water (Wetland 3). The project will not cause increases in turbidity of surface waters as Wetland 3 does not contain surface water. However, regulators have indicated that a 318 authorization is necessary. A 318 permit was secured for this work on June 30, 2023. It is attached in Appendix C. Montana Land-Use License or Easement on Navigable Waters No This permit is not necessary because it will not impact a state navigable water. Montana Water Use Act (water right permit and change authorization) No No water right permits or change authorization will take place as a part of this project. 2 EXISTING CONDITION OF THE PROJECT AREA AND SUMMARY OF IMPACTS This section meets requirements of 38.220.130(A)(3)(a)(2) Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 9 | Page 2.1 Existing Condition of the Property Morrison-Maierle delineated wetlands on the property in 20211 (Figure 2), and USACE issued an Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) on December 9, 2021 (Appendix D). In total, the property contains five palustrine emergent wetlands (6.76 acres total), a gravel borrow area that has converted into a groundwater-fed pond (1.54 acres), and a section of Baxter Creek (780 linear feet). 1 Wetland delineation was completed in accordance with the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (January 1987), and COB municipal code 38.610.050.A. Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 10 | Page Figure 2. Wetland Delineation of the Subject Property. USACE determined that the four isolated wetlands occurring within the western portion of the site (Wetland 1, 2, 3, and 5) are not jurisdictional under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, nor is the gravel borrow area/converted to pond feature. Baxter Creek and its associated wetland complex (Wetland 4) are jurisdictional. Table 4 summarizes aquatic features at the property, including the functional rating, Cowardin classification, size, description, federal jurisdiction, and dominant vegetation. The complete Wetland Delineation Report, supporting data, figures, and AJD are provided in Appendix E. Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 11 | Page Table 4. Aquatic Features Summary. Feature ID Wetland Type (Cowardin) Wetland Type (HGM) Acres or Linear feet MWAM Functional Rating/Total Units Impacted by proposed project activities Jurisdictional Determination by USACE Within Deed Restricted Covenant Wetland 1 Palustrine Depressional 2.18 acres 35% 5.44 No --- Yes Wetland 2 (storm pond) Palustrine Depressional 0.09 acres 34% 0.31 No --- Yes Wetland 3 Palustrine Depressional 2.58 acres 28% 5 Yes Non-Jurisdictional No Wetland 4 Palustrine Riverine 1.57 acres 53% 7.17 No --- Yes Wetland 5 (retention pond) Palustrine Depressional 0.34 acres 37% 0.876 No --- No Baxter Creek (OHWM) Riverine Riverine 2,519 feet --- No --- Yes Water-filled borrow pit ----- ----- 1.54 acres --- Yes --- No Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 12 | Page 2.2 Avoidance and Minimization Measures Avoidance and minimization were incorporated into the site design to preserve jurisdictional waters, including wetlands, and maintain existing wetland functions to the extent practicable. Federally jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Baxter Creek will not be disturbed. These wetlands occur within an existing deed-restricted conservation area, which limits development and ensures long-term protection. The subdivision design places the creek corridor and associated wetlands within the planned neighborhood park, maintaining ecological integrity and public access while avoiding direct and indirect impacts. Non-jurisdictional wetlands in the southwest portion of the property, originally delineated in 2018 as part of the Norton East Ranch Subdivision, are also fully avoided. This area remains in its undeveloped condition (i.e., will not be impacted) and is protected by the deed restriction. Wetland 3 is located near the center of the site. Wetland 3 was previously delineated in 2006 at 1.25 acres and expanded to 2.49 acres by 2021 due to a decade of artificial hydrologic inputs from dewatering of the on-site borrow pit. USACE determined in both 2006 and 2021 that this wetland is not jurisdictional under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Laurel Meadows site layout has been designed to avoid impacts (with the exception of planting enhancements) to the Baxter Creek corridor and southwest wetlands entirely; however, impacts to Wetland 3 are unavoidable due to its central location and the need to establish stable building grades and a development configuration that is practicable from both an engineering and economic standpoint. Concentrating development in the central portion of the property allows the design to preserve larger, connected tracts of wetland and riparian habitat along the periphery, while meeting the housing density envisioned for the R-4 zoning district. On February 18, 2022, City of Bozeman engineering staff indicated support for the proposed approach, in that it preserves high-value wetland resources along Baxter Creek while addressing impacts to the isolated, low-connectivity Wetland 3. This strategy was acknowledged as resulting in an overall improvement to wetland function and connectivity on the southeastern portion of the site. See an email excerpt, from Tyler Steinway with Intrinsic Architecture, received from the West Park Subdivision team: “Brian Heaston [COB Engineer] did a quick review of the conceptual wetlands plan and denoted that the proposal was good in his opinion and would encourage staff support of the concept. The improvement of the wetlands around the southeast portion of the subject property would produce a net gain in wetlands which has a much higher wetland value than that being destroyed with the subdivision.” In summary, the project’s avoidance and minimization strategy focuses on consolidating higher-density development while preserving contiguous wetland and aquatic habitats along Baxter Creek. This strategy maintains the ecological integrity of the creek corridor and was previously reviewed and supported by COB engineering staff. The COB has directed that on-site mitigation is the preferred method for the unavoidable impacts to Wetland 3 (2.58 acres) and its buffer. A summary of the proposed avoidance, minimization, and impacts is provided in Table 5. Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 13 | Page Table 5. Aquatic Feature Avoidance Measures: Summary. Feature Wetland Size Wetland Disturbance proposed? Buffer Size Buffer Disturbance proposed? Wetland 1 2.18 acres No. Full avoidance. No impact No. Full avoidance Wetland 2 (storm pond) 0.09 acres No. Full avoidance. No buffer, storm pond No buffer. Storm pond. Wetland 3 2.58 acres Yes, 2.60-acre mitigation area to be established adjacent to borrow pit pond. 1.3 acres Yes. Full disturbance. Wetland 4 1.57 acres No. Full avoidance. No impact No. Full avoidance Wetland 5 (storm pond) 0.34 acres No. Full avoidance. No buffer, storm pond No buffer. Storm pond. Baxter Creek 780 feet No. Full avoidance. No impact, deed restricted No. Full avoidance Remnant irrigation ditch 1,166 feet No. Full avoidance. No buffer. Unregulated feature. No buffer. No impact. Borrow pit pond 1.54 acres Improvements proposed to retain borrow pit as open-water habitat. No buffer. Unregulated feature. Buffer created as a part of mitigation site: 0.85 acres. 2.3 Wetland and Buffer Impacts and Mitigation Requirement The proposed residential layout requires filling Wetland 3, a 2.58 acre non-jurisdictional wetland, and its buffer (1.3 acres) in order to:  Achieve the housing density projected under the site’s R-4 zoning and Urban Neighborhood land-use designation;  Establish stable and uniform building grades necessary for residential construction; and  Maintain a development configuration that is practicable from both an engineering and economic standpoint. Section 2.3.1 discusses in more detail how Laurel Meadows meets the public need for housing, a critical need in Bozeman to support a growing population. Wetland 3 is an isolated system dominated by broadleaf cattail and reed canary grass and bordered by thick stands of tall tumble mustard. The wetland lacks surface water connectivity to nearby waterways (Baxter Creek) and wetlands; and exhibits low community diversity, with limited functional contribution to the broader Baxter Creek wetland corridor. Filling this wetland will remove an emergent depressional feature with low landscape connectivity and moderate ecological value. The Montana Wetland Assessment Method (MWAM) provides an evaluation method as a means for quantifying predicted impacts to wetlands functions and values. Functional units provide the evaluator a method for consideration in assessing project impacts, mitigation needs and in assessing mitigation plans and the success of constructed projects. Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 14 | Page Table 6. MWAM Results Feature ID MWAM Functional Rating MWAM Total Units Change in Functional Units – Post Project Wetland 3 28% 5 -5 Mitigated Wetland 45% 6.44 +6.44 Net +1.44 The COB has directed that on-site mitigation is the preferred method for the unavoidable impacts to Wetland 3 and its buffer. To offset the 2.58-acre wetland impact and 1.3-acre buffer impact, the project proposes to establish a 2.60 acre constructed wetland in the southeastern portion of the property with a 0.85 acre buffer. The mitigation site is in close proximity to an existing deed-restricted wetland conservation area and creates continuity near the Bronken Natural Space, strengthening hydrologic and ecological continuity along the Baxter Creek corridor. The location was selected based on its favorable groundwater conditions, reclamation potential, and demonstrated ability to support a more functionally diverse wetland community compared to Wetland 3. The proposed mitigation area will support a broader range of native wetland plant species as indicated in the landscaping plan in Appendix H. This will result in higher vegetation diversity and improved long-term ecological function as demonstrated by the values calculated within the MWAM forms and documented in Table 5 above. Retention of the existing borrow pit as a pond will provide open-water habitat for migrating bird species. Long-term protection of the mitigation area through dedicated parkland to the City of Bozeman ensures that the constructed wetland will remain intact and continue to provide ecological functions over time. 3 MITIGATION PLAN This section meets requirements of 38.220.130(A)(3)(a)(4) The project owner has elected to mitigate proposed wetland impacts on site in accordance with Sec. 38.610.100 (1). “Impacts must be mitigated on-site where feasible to do so.” The proposed 2.6-acre wetland mitigation area will be constructed within a previously disturbed borrow pit located in the southeastern portion of the property. This location was selected due to its proximity to an existing deed-restricted wetland conservation area and its position along the broader Baxter Creek corridor, where restoration activities can improve habitat continuity and long-term ecological function. The mitigation design leverages the naturally high groundwater table in this portion of the site to support wetland hydrology. The borrow area will be graded and amended as necessary to maintain a seasonally saturated soil layer within the rooting zone, which is essential for establishing hydrophytic vegetation and promoting long-term wetland development. A small open-water feature will be retained along the northern edge of the mitigation area. The existing ponded borrow pit currently provides habitat for local waterfowl, and maintaining this feature will preserve this ecological function while contributing to habitat diversity within the constructed wetland. Together, these actions are intended to create a resilient wetland system that increases habitat complexity, enhances local hydrologic function, and strengthens the connection between Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 15 | Page existing conserved wetlands along the southeastern boundary of the property. Detailed grading plans, hydrologic assumptions, planting specifications, and performance criteria are provided in Appendix H. 3.1 Mitigation Objectives The mitigation objectives are:  Improve wetland connectivity to ensure conservation of wetland areas in the long-term. As development helps meet the demanding and ever-growing need of housing in Bozeman, wetlands are increasingly fragmented due to construction of infrastructure and residential neighborhoods.  Improve wildlife connectivity to provide refuge, nesting, and forage opportunities for native insect, bird, amphibian, and mammal species.  Maintain and ensure in perpetuity open water wildlife habitat by retaining the non-jurisdictional pond that has formed in the borrow pit at the mitigation site and reclaiming it to function as a groundwater-fed freshwater pond and robust emergent wetland. The ponded groundwater currently within the borrow pit provides a small refuge for bird species that may use it as a temporary resting place during migration.  Offset the loss of 2.58 acres of palustrine emergent wetland and its buffer (1.3 acres) by creating a 2.60 acre palustrine emergent wetland with a 0.85 acres buffer. The newly created wetland complex will increase both the functional rating (by almost 30%) and the MWAM total functional units as indicated in Table 5.  Rehabilitate and improve a portion of the property containing many spoil piles and excavations into viable wildlife habitat and a functioning wetland. The proposed wetland mitigation area is designed to meet the three criteria of hydrology, vegetation, and soils as established by USACE for determining wetland areas (1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0)). Section 7 describes the performance criteria and monitoring methods that will be used to evaluate mitigation performance. Successful mitigation will result in the 2.60-acre mitigation area fully meeting all criteria to be delineated as a functioning palustrine emergent wetland. To achieve this, the mitigation area must demonstrate conditions consistent with the technical standards for wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation as outlined in the 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual and the 2010 Regional Supplement. These standards are summarized below. Wetland Hydrology USACE defines established wetland hydrology as “permanent or periodic inundation, or soil saturation within 12 inches of the ground surface for a significant period (usually 14 days or 12.5 percent or more during the growing season)” (USACE 2010). Wetland systems with continuous inundation or saturation for greater than 12.5 percent of the growing season meet the hydrology criteria. The growing season is defined for purposes of this report as the number of days where there is a 50 percent probability that the minimum daily temperature is greater than or equal to 28 degrees Fahrenheit (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The growing season recorded for the meteorological station at Bozeman MSU (241044) located approximately two miles southeast from the mitigation site extends from May 5 through October 1 for a total of Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 16 | Page 149 days (NRCS 2010). Areas defined as wetlands would require 19 days of inundation or saturation within 12 inches of the ground surface to meet the hydrology criteria and performance standards. Hydric Soil Development Hydric soil success will be achieved where hydric soil conditions are present2 or appear to be forming, the soil is sufficiently stable to prevent erosion, and the soil is able to support plant cover. Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric soils as: “Soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (Federal Register, 1994). Under natural conditions, these soils are either saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to support the growth and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation.” Because typical hydric soil indicators may require long periods to form, a lack of distinctive hydric soil features will not be considered a failure if hydrologic and vegetation success is achieved. Hydrophytic Vegetation Hydrophytic vegetation, as defined by USACE, consists of plant communities dominated by species adapted to grow in environments where soils are permanently or periodically saturated (USACE 1987; USACE 2010). A plant community is classified as hydrophytic if it satisfies one of the following three tests: 1. Rapid Test: met when vegetation is dominated by obligate wetland (OBL) species. 2. Dominance Test: met when more than 50 percent of the community’s dominant species have a National Wetland Plant List (NWPL) indicator status of OBL, facultative wetland (FACW), or facultative (FAC). 3. Prevalence Index: met when the weighted average of indicator statuses for all species present demonstrates a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation across the community. Indicator status for this area is based on the 20223 National Wetland Plant List (NWPL) for the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts region, which classifies plant species based on their probability of occurrence in wetlands.  Obligate Wetland (OBL) – Occur almost always (≥99%) in wetlands.  Facultative Wetland (FACW) – Usually occur in wetlands (67–99%).  Facultative (FAC) – Equally likely to occur in wetlands or uplands (34–66%).  Facultative Upland (FACU) – Usually occur in uplands (67–99%).  Upland (UPL) – Almost never occur in wetlands (≤1%). Species with OBL, FACW, or FAC status are considered hydrophytic for wetland determination purposes and must dominate the plant community (as measured by at least one of the three tests outlined above) for the mitigation area to meet vegetation criteria for wetland status. 2 According to the current Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) definitions for hydric soil. 3 Most recent list. If an updated list is published during the implementation and/or monitoring periods, the most current list will be used. Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 17 | Page 3.2 Mitigation Type and Location The project owner has elected to mitigate proposed wetland impacts on site in accordance with Sec. 38.610.100 (1). “Impacts must be mitigated on-site where feasible to do so.” The COB has directed that on-site mitigation is the preferred method for the unavoidable impacts to Wetland 3 (2.58 acres) and its buffer, because of the construction of the Laurel Meadows subdivision. To compensate for this loss, a 2.60-acre wetland mitigation area is proposed in the southeast corner of the site. The selected location connects with the existing Bronken Natural Space and strengthens the ecological corridor along Baxter Creek. Additionally, the site will become dedicated City parkland which will provide protection from future development. The mitigation area was chosen for its high likelihood of success, low development viability due to previous borrow area and soil stockpiles, and ability to improve wetland connectivity. Castle Rock Civil & Geotechnical Engineering provided supplementary comments on their original geotechnical investigation. This supplement indicates that the area used for borrow material excavations is unsuitable for redevelopment or road development based on depth of excavation and undocumented fill placements. The report concludes that the best use of the land is creating a wetland and a park which has environmental benefits and aesthetic benefits for the people of the community. The geotechnical investigation report is available in Appendix G. 3.3 Mitigation Area Design The proposed mitigation area will connect to the existing wetland/buffer green space associated with the Bronken Natural Area, creating a continuous ecological corridor along Baxter Creek. In addition to strengthening habitat connectivity, the mitigation area will provide an expanded vegetated buffer between the residential neighborhood and Baxter Creek. This buffer will help intercept and treat any incidental overland stormwater that bypasses the planned stormwater management system, further supporting water quality and hydrologic function. To compensate for this unavoidable impact, the applicant will establish a 2.60 acre constructed wetland within a previously disturbed borrow area in the southeastern portion of the property. The mitigation area lies in close proximity to an existing deed-restricted wetland conservation area, which will strengthen hydrologic and ecological connectivity and support long term conservation of the wetland complex. The mitigation design leverages the site’s naturally high water table to support wetland hydrology. The borrow area will be graded and amended to maintain a seasonally saturated soil layer within the rooting zone, which will facilitate establishment and long-term persistence of hydrophytic vegetation. A small open-water feature will be retained along the northern edge of the mitigation area because the existing ponded borrow pit currently supports regular waterfowl use. Incorporating this pond into the final design preserves existing habitat value while enhancing overall wetland function. The grading plan for this mitigated wetland was developed based on monitored groundwater levels presented in Appendix F. The constructed open water feature will be graded to have access to the groundwater year-round. The constructed wetland ground surface will be graded to ensure root access (within 12 inches) to the groundwater year-round. Cuts and fills are Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 18 | Page depicted on the grading plan for the park and wetland that is being constructed. Plan and profile view of the grading plan are in Appendix A. Native wetland plants and seeds will be installed based on the planting plan in Appendix H. 3.4 Mitigation Ratios and Functional Replacement The MWAM provides a standardized approach for quantifying wetland functions and values. This evaluation compares pre-project conditions, current conditions, and anticipated post-project conditions to demonstrate functional uplift resulting from mitigation. Table 7: Functional Replacement Values based on MWAM Evaluation Category Pre-Project Wetland 3 Functional Units Mitigated Wetland Functional Units Listed/Proposed T&E Species Habitat 0 0 MT Natural Heritage Program Species Habitat 0.258 0.26 General Wildlife Habitat 0.258 1.3 General Fish Habitat NA NA Flood Attenuation NA NA Short and Long Term Surface Water Storage 1.548 1.56 Sediment/Nutrient/Toxicant Removal 1.548 NA Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization NA Production Export/Food Chain Support 1.032 2.08 Groundwater Discharge/Recharge NA Uniqueness 0.516 1.04 Recreation/Education Potential NA 0.2 Total Units 5.16 6.44 Baxt Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 19 | Page 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE MITIGATION SITE This section meets requirements of 38.220.130(A)(3)(a)(5) and 38.220.130(A)(3)(a)(6). The proposed wetland mitigation area is located in the southeast corner of the property, adjacent to a deed-restricted wetland conservation area and an established green space and trail system on neighboring parcels. This portion of the site has experienced extensive disturbance over the past several decades. Prior to 2009, the area supported typical agricultural production common in the Gallatin Valley. As development expanded westward, the surrounding landscape transitioned to residential and commercial uses, and the mitigation area shifted from agricultural land to a source of gravel for nearby residential and road construction. For almost a decade, gravel extraction occurred within the northwest area of the property—a previously delineated upland portion of the site, resulting in multiple borrow pits and substantial alteration of native soils and topography. Excavation extended into the shallow groundwater table, requiring periodic dewatering during active mining. Groundwater pumped from the borrow area was discharged to Wetland 3, which contributed to its artificial expansion. When mining operations ceased and dewatering stopped, groundwater naturally filled the excavated basins, forming a persistent open-water feature. Despite the dominant invasive vegetation and stockpiled spoil material, the ponded borrow pit provides open-water habitat used by migratory and resident waterfowl. A 2020 geotechnical investigation documented widespread placement of earthen spoils, deleterious fill, and construction debris within the proposed mitigation area. The report notes that substantial material removal and site reclamation will be required to restore suitable soil conditions. It also concludes that the borrow pits can be feasibly reclaimed as open-water and wetland habitat integrated into the subdivision’s open space network (Castle Rock 2020). 4.1 Vegetation Vegetation within the proposed mitigation area reflects the past excavation and stockpiling. Older spoil piles support a mixed community of noxious weeds and disturbance-tolerant upland grasses, including Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), black henbane (Hyoscyamus niger), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), and smooth brome (Bromus inermis). The irregular microtopography created by stockpiled material limits the effectiveness of invasive weed mechanical treatment and complicates herbicide application, allowing invasive species to persist across much of the area. Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 20 | Page Figure 3. Representative vegetation conditions at the proposed mitigation site. Historic aerial imagery shows that the site was actively farmed, consistent with surrounding lands, and exhibits indicators of a seasonally high water table. These indicators include recurring ponded water in field ditches and excavated depressions. A 2006 wetland delineation report documented smooth brome, western wheatgrass, and Canada thistle in this area, prior to disturbance. Historical land use and site conditions indicate that the proposed mitigation area can support the planned revegetation effort (Section 5) and development of a hydrophytic plant community following reclamation. After removal of fill material and stockpiles, the site will be graded such that groundwater levels reach the upper 12 inches of the ground surface for at least 6-8 weeks during the growing season, supporting a hydrophytic plant community. The current ponding of the borrow pits with groundwater (see Figure 4) after excavation demonstrates that appropriate hydrologic connections can be established to sustain wetland vegetation once grading, soil amendments, and invasive species control are completed. 4.2 Hydrology Groundwater monitoring data collected at the Laurel Meadows property show peak groundwater levels typically between March and June which decline to annual lows between July and September (Morrison-Maierle, 2025). Three years of seasonal groundwater monitoring at wells installed near the mitigation area show groundwater levels peaking in early March, at depths ranging substantially from 0.7 inches to 4 feet below the ground surface (Morrison-Maierle 2025). Detailed groundwater well locations, monitoring methods, and associated data are provided in Appendix F. Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 21 | Page The 2020 geotechnical investigation of the subject property also completed test pits within the proposed mitigation area; this data is summarized in Table 54 of Section 4.3. Groundwater observations vary across the area and represent one point in time (i.e., are not representative of seasonal, variable, conditions). Test Pit 10 encountered groundwater at approximately 48 inches below ground surface (bgs), while Test Pit 11 recorded groundwater near 10 feet bgs. Test Pit 12 exhibited embankment collapse at 4 feet bgs due to high hydrostatic pressure, indicating shallow groundwater and reduced soil stability within the disturbed profile. Groundwater was not encountered in Test Pits 22 and 23, but horizon analysis suggests potential for shallow saturation where fine-grained clays transition to coarser materials. The complete geotechnical report, with supporting methods and figures is provided in Appendix G. Hydrologic conditions within the proposed mitigation area have been substantially altered by past borrow excavation and associated disturbance. Between approximately 2010 and 2019, this portion of the site (originally delineated as upland in 2008) was mined for gravel, creating a series of pits that extended deep enough to intercept the local groundwater table. For nearly a decade, the borrow pit was actively dewatered, and pumped groundwater was discharged to Wetland 3 at the center of the property. This dewatering artificially influenced the hydroperiod of Wetland 3 while suppressing groundwater levels within the borrow area. When dewatering activities ceased, groundwater levels rebounded, and the borrow pit transitioned to a perennial open-water feature as the excavation filled with groundwater. Subsequent placement of fill around the borrow area further altered the surface topography, producing irregular slopes and localized depressions with unpredictable flow paths. Figure 4. Open water habitat within borrow pit at the proposed mitigation site. A 2006 wetland delineation of the property confirmed that the mitigation area did not exhibit wetland hydrology at that time (Morrison-Maierle 2006). Subsequent excavation (mining) lowered the ground surface sufficiently to intersect the shallow water table, altering local 4 Andy Pilskalns, P.E. visually and manually classified the soils encountered in the test holes in accordance with ASTM D 2488, “Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedures)” (Castle Rock 2020). Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 22 | Page hydrologic conditions. Current site conditions demonstrate that groundwater is consistently accessible approximately 3 feet below the surface, creating a hydrologic regime well-suited to support wetland conditions once reclamation and grading are completed. See the proposed constructed wetland plan and profile sheet with seasonal high and low groundwater levels in Appendix A. 4.3 Soils According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey, the mitigation area is mapped as the Hyalite–Beaverton complex. This map unit is assigned a hydric rating5 of “0,” indicating that the soil series within the unit are not classified as hydric in their natural, undisturbed state. This rating reflects the soil’s typical formation under well-drained conditions rather than under prolonged saturation. However, the absence of a hydric rating does not preclude the development of hydric soil characteristics in the future. The NRCS mapping is generated at a broad scale (typically 1:24,000) and is not intended to provide site-specific detail for areas that have undergone substantial disturbance, excavation, or fill placement. Given that the mitigation area has been heavily altered through borrow excavation and now intersects the groundwater table, existing NRCS soil map units are not reliable indicators of current soil conditions. The field-based soil characterization should be relied upon to accurately document soil conditions. Field investigation shows that soils within the mitigation site area have been significantly disturbed. Undocumented fill material surrounds the borrow area (now pond). Older piles have been naturally colonized by upland grasses and noxious weeds, while newer piles are unvegetated. Beneath the stockpiled soils, soils are similar to that of the upland areas found in other areas of the subject property. 5 Hydric soils, formed under “conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part” support hydrophytic plant growth and are one of three indicators of wetland areas (Federal Register, 1994). Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 23 | Page Figure 5. Stockpiled fill at the proposed mitigation area. Upland soils at the Laurel Meadows property generally exhibited Mollic epipedon characteristics common in agricultural fields in the Gallatin Valley. Soil colors are dark at 10YR 2/1 with granular structure, high organic matter, and primarily loamy textures from 0 to 16 inches (Morrison-Maierle, 2021). The 2020 geotechnical investigation of the subject property also completed test pits within the proposed mitigation area; this data is summarized in Table 86. Soil pit data confirm that the proposed mitigation area is heavily disturbed and characterized by thick spoil deposits, ranging 1-11 feet in depth, overlying clay-rich native soils (Table 8). Test Pits 10, 11, and 12 contain approximately 5 to 11 feet of mixed fill (CL, ML, CH, OL, GC), reflecting extensive past excavation, stockpiling, and site alteration. The upper profiles of the test pits exhibit abrupt textural changes consistent with anthropogenic disturbance. The geotechnical report provides the following summary of conditions in this portion of the site: “Along the southeast portion of the site, delineated by the white boundary in Figure 27, in the vicinity of TH-10 – TH-12, and TH-22 and TH-23, open pit mining and stockpiling of soils and construction debris has occurred. Recent aerial images do show the disturbance; however they are not accurate in showing the size of mining activity since they are several years old. It is our understanding that the pits will be landscaping features transformed into lakes and properties can be constructed around the perimeter of the lakes. Test Holes 10, 11 and 12 are likely in a subsurface trough filled with silt and clay. Depth to gravel was not encountered and the materials are alluvial fan deposits. Depth to gravel was over 10 feet deep in Test Holes 10, 11 and 12. In Test Holes 10 and 11 undocumented fill was 6 Andy Pilskalns, P.E. visually and manually classified the soils encountered in the test holes in accordance with ASTM D 2488, “Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedures)” (Castle Rock 2020). 7 Figure 2 is a map of the test holes excavated on the Laurel Meadows property; the map is located on page 8 of the geotechnical report, provided in Appendix G. Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 24 | Page observed. It is believed that after 2014 soils were starting to be stockpiled in this open pit mining area and that mining operations were to soon follow.” (Castle Rock, 2020) Test Pits 22 and 23, located near the edges of the borrow area, show thinner surface disturbance (1–2 feet) above clay loam soils and underlying well-graded gravels typical of local alluvial deposits. Although groundwater was not encountered in these pits, horizon analysis suggests potential for shallow saturation where fine-grained clays transition to coarser materials. The complete geotechnical report, with supporting methods and figures is provided in Appendix G. Table 8. Soil pit logs from Geotechnical Report for the proposed mitigation area.8,9 Test Pit USDA Classification10 Horizon Thickness11 Groundwater Depth 10 CL, ML, CH, OL, GC ‐ SPOILS 5’‐0” Weeping at 48” 5’-0” Weeping at 48” OL, ML‐ Topsoil 1’‐6” 1’-6” CL‐ Brown Clay Loam 6’‐6” ** 6’-6” ** *NOTE: Top of Ground of TH-10 is 7’-0” in elevation than TH-9. ** Limited Reach of Excavator, Total Depth 12’-4” 11 CL, ML, CH, OL, GC ‐ SPOILS 7’‐0” ‐ 7’-0” - CL, CH – Brown Gray Clay 3’‐0” 10’‐0” 3’-0” 10’-0” CH‐GC Grey Clay w/Gravel 2’‐6” * 2’-6” * * Limited Reach with Excavator, Total Depth, 12-6” 12 CL, ML, CH, OL, GC – SPOILS* 11’‐0” ‐ 11’-0” - CL – Grey Clay Unknown ** ‐ Unknown** - *Very soft soils– Embankment collapse at 4’ below grade due to high hydrostatic pressure in soils. **Limited Reach of Excavator, Total Depth 12’-6” 22 OL, ML‐ Topsoil 2’‐2” ‐ 2’-2” - CL –Rust Brown Clay Loam 2’‐8” 4’‐10” 2—8” 4-10” GW – Well Graded Gravels* Unknown Unknown 23 GP‐ Road Mix 1’‐0” ‐ 1’-0” - OL, ML‐ Topsoil 2’‐0” ‐ 2’-0” - CL –Rust Brown Clay Loam 2’‐0” ‐ 2’-0” - GW – Well Graded Gravels* Unknown * Unknown* Total Depth – 6’-6” Overall, soils within the proposed mitigation area are substantially altered and no longer reflect intact native profiles in the upper 1-11 feet, with conditions varying spatially. Given the extent of prior disturbance, conducting additional earthwork to regrade the area, remove unsuitable fill, 8 The Geotechnical Report prepared by Castle Rock Civil and Geotechnical Engineering notes the following: “It should be noted the depths shown as boundaries between the strata are only approximate. The actual changes may be transitions and the depths of the changes vary between test holes. All measurements in the test holes are taken from the top of existing ground at the time of the March 2020 investigation downward. Figure 2 –Test Hole Map shows the approximate test-hole locations within the building footprint.” A map of the test holes excavated on the Laurel Meadows property is on page 8 of the report, provided in Appendix G. 9 Andy Pilskalns, P.E. visually and manually classified the soils encountered in the test holes in accordance with ASTM D 2488, “Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedures)” (Castle Rock 2020). 10 Unified Soils Classification System, (USCS). 11 Note: “Thickness” is reported here as listed in Castle Rock’s report. Our report interprets that thickness is reported in feet (‘) and inches (“) in combination. Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 25 | Page and reestablish appropriate elevations relative to the water table will improve overall site conditions, without adversely affecting intact, native soils, plant communities, or habitat. Reclamation will replace a highly degraded, low-functioning landscape with soil conditions capable of supporting hydric soil development and sustaining long-term wetland ecological functions. 4.4 Baseline Wetland Functions The proposed mitigation site does not currently function as a wetland; as such, it offers an opportunity to reclaim a highly disturbed portion of the property and convert it into a functioning wetland system that complements and enhances the surrounding protected resources. Although the site currently reflects extensive past disturbance, including borrow excavation, altered soils, invasive vegetation, and disrupted topography, it is situated immediately adjacent to a deed-restricted wetland conservation area and an established green space with an integrated trail system. Developing wetland conditions in this location will not only rehabilitate a degraded landscape but also reinforce an existing network of protected open space and preserve the existing open-water habitat for bird species. Implementing mitigation in this area also provides an opportunity for compounding ecological benefit. By implementing site protections adjacent to an existing conservation area, the constructed wetland will create a continuous and more resilient ecological corridor along Baxter Creek. This expanded corridor will improve habitat connectivity for amphibians, songbirds, waterfowl, and small mammals, all of which depend on structurally diverse wetland and riparian habitats for movement, foraging, and nesting. Establishing a hydrologically supported wetland adjacent to an existing, intact system also increases the likelihood of long-term success because the restored area will function as part of a broader hydrologic and ecological unit rather than as an isolated feature. In addition, reconstructing wetland functions within a previously disturbed footprint aligns with the City of Bozeman’s preference for on-site mitigation that strengthens watershed-scale function. Reclamation will convert a low-quality, weed-dominated area into a sustainable wetland with improved vegetation structure, water-quality benefits, groundwater interaction, and habitat value. This location therefore represents the most ecologically appropriate and practicable site for compensatory mitigation, ensuring long-term functional uplift and consistent integration into the broader Baxter Creek wetland complex. 5 HYDROPERIOD CHANGE ASSESSMENT This section meets requirements of 38.220.130(A)(3)(a)(3) 5.1 Existing Hydroperiod The hydroperiod of the proposed mitigation site will be accessed with grading according to the Constructed Wetland Cross Sections depicted in Drawing D-1 in Appendix A. The grading plan was established based on monitored seasonal high and low groundwater levels presented in Appendix F. The proposed mitigation area is located within a formerly cultivated agricultural field that has since been left fallow. The site has experienced surface disturbance as the surrounding land has been developed for residential neighborhoods, parks, and roads. Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 26 | Page Situated within the Gallatin Valley, local surface hydrology is driven by seasonal precipitation patterns and shallow groundwater conditions. A gravel borrow pit within the mitigation area maintains direct hydraulic connection to the shallow groundwater table and exhibits standing water throughout the year. The local high water table and ponded area will serve as a persistent hydrologic source for the reclaimed wetland system. Regional climate also strongly influences the site’s hydroperiod. Bozeman has a cool, semi-arid climate with moderately cold winters and relatively dry summers. Annual precipitation averages approximately 18–20 inches, with the highest inputs occurring between April and June (Western Regional Climate Center, 2025). Snowfall contributes substantially to annual moisture, and spring snowmelt is a major factor in seasonal groundwater recharge. Evapotranspiration rates increase significantly from late spring through early fall as vegetation emerges and matures, producing seasonal declines in soil moisture and groundwater elevation. 5.2 Climate Summary of the Mitigation Site. The Bozeman climate reflects conditions typical of intermountain valleys in the northern Rocky Mountains, characterized by cold, snowy winters and warm, relatively dry summers. Data from the Western Regional Climate Center for Bozeman, Montana (241044) document a mean annual precipitation of 18.5 inches and an average annual snowfall of 86 inches (Table 9). Bozeman, MT Monthly Climate Summary (WRC). Precipitation peaks in late spring and early summer, with May and June representing the wettest months, while winter snowfall contributes to a persistent snowpack that typically remains into early spring. The average maximum daily temperature reaches 81 degrees Fahrenheit in August, with the average minimum temperature occurring in January, at 12 degrees Fahrenheit. Table 9. Bozeman, MT Monthly Climate Summary (WRC). Parameter Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Average Max. Temperature (°F) 31.7 35.5 42.7 53.9 63.0 71.6 81.4 80.3 69.4 57.6 42.2 33.6 55.2 Average Min. Temperature (°F) 12.0 15.3 21.4 30.4 38.4 45.2 51.1 49.5 41.2 32.9 22.2 14.5 31.2 Average Total Precipitation (in.) 0.87 0.73 1.34 1.89 2.89 2.91 1.35 1.24 1.70 1.54 1.12 0.88 18.48 Average Total Snowfall (in.) 12.6 10.2 15.7 13.1 4.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.8 5.8 11.6 11.9 86.0 Source: Western Regional Climate Center. Bozeman Montana SU, Montana (241044). Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary. Period of Record : 04/08/1892 to 06/09/2016 The region experiences approximately 90–110 frost-free days each year, with the growing season beginning in late May and ending by early September (USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map, 2023). Declining precipitation and higher temperatures in late summer can result in reduced water levels within wetlands. Wetland hydroperiods in the Bozeman area are primarily driven by seasonal snowmelt, shallow groundwater discharge, and direct precipitation. Groundwater levels typically peak between Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 27 | Page March and June in response to snowmelt infiltration, followed by a progressive decline through late summer and early fall. Wetlands in this area generally exhibit early-season saturation or shallow inundation, and transition to drier conditions later in the growing season. Subirrigation of the mitigation site by the local groundwater table is expected to control the hydroperiod of the mitigation area. The stormwater pond evidences a consistent groundwater connection, maintaining saturated conditions in adjacent soils for much of the growing season. Seasonal variations will occur, with higher groundwater levels following snowmelt and spring precipitation, and gradual recession through late summer—typical of most wetlands in the region. 5.3 Anticipated Changes in Hydroperiod By grading the mitigation site to access seasonally shifting groundwater levels, this should effectively raise the high groundwater level to within 12-inches of the soil surface, persisting for 3-4 months in a typical water year. The mitigation design will introduce depressional features and varied surface elevations to increase the duration and extent of saturation in the rooting zone, improving conditions for hydrophytic vegetation establishment. Based on site setting, existing groundwater behavior, and regional climatic patterns, the constructed wetland is expected to function as a seasonally saturated to semi-permanently saturated system. 6 PLANTING PLAN This section meets requirements of 38.220.130(A)(3)(a)(7) A planting schedule has been proposed by community type and hydrologic regime to include 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 plant protections, where appropriate. 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 Design Standards Manual. See Appendix H for complete planting plan details. The following information is a narrative description of some elements of the planting plan. 6.1 Planting Zones and Community Types The design focuses on developing a native, hydrophytic plant community capable of persisting under the site's anticipated hydrologic regime. The wetland basin will be graded to promote seasonal inundation in the early growing season, with adjacent areas designed to remain saturated within the rooting zone for prolonged periods. Dry conditions are expected to occur during late summer and early fall, consistent with regional hydroperiod patterns. To support water quality protection and comply with COB municipal code, an upland buffer will be established around the perimeter of the wetland. The 25-foot buffer will be planted with native herbaceous vegetation and supplemented with clustered woody shrubs and trees to provide structural diversity, filter overland flow, and improve habitat connectivity with the adjacent conservation area. Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 28 | Page 6.2 Plant List and Quantities The proposed wetland plant list emphasizes native species adapted to fluctuating saturation levels and the local climate (Table 9). We prioritized obligate (OBL) and facultative-wet (FACW) species12 for the wetland mitigation area (Table 10), and facultative (FAC) to facultative-upland (FACU) species for the wetland buffer area (Table 11), to transition to the surrounding park space (Table 11). Species were selected to improve vegetation diversity, stabilize soils, and provide forage, cover, and nesting opportunities for wildlife, particularly waterfowl and migratory bird species known to use the area. Native wetland plants indigenous to the area were selected to increase diversity and to fill anticipated hydrological niches within the mitigation site. These lists were developed with the project landscape architect (Design.5), to strike a balance between the functional requirements of successful wetland mitigation and the aesthetic considerations of the surrounding residential community. Table 10 Wetland Mitigation Planting List Common name Scientific name Native % of Mix National Wetland Plant List (NWPL) Rating** Water birch Betula occidentalis Yes NA FACW Narrowleaf cottonwood Populus angustifolia Yes NA FACW Lanceleaf popular Populus acuminata Yes NA FAC Speckled alder Alnus incana Yes NA FACW Red osier dogwood Cornus sericea Yes NA FACW Booth’s willow Salix boothi Yes NA FACW Sandbar willow Salix interior Yes NA FACW Yellow willow Salix lutea Yes NA OBL Geyer willow Salix geyeriana Yes NA FACW Custom Seed Mix (12-15 lbs/acre, drill seed) Tufted hairgrass Deschampsia cepitosa Yes TBD NA, other Deschampsia species are FACW-FACU Fowl bluegrass Poa palustris No TBD FAC American mannagrass Glyceria grandis Yes TBD OBL Showy milkweed* Asclepias speciosa Yes TBD FAC Baltic rush Juncus balticus Yes TBD FACW Creeping spikerush Eleocharis palustris Yes TBD OBL *Incorporated for monarch butterfly habitat **Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts The wetland buffer zone will encompass 25 feet at the wetland perimeter. Disturbed or bare areas within the buffer will be planted with the species listed in Table 10, following the landscape architect plans provided in Appendix H. 12 Wetland Indicator Status categories follow the National Wetland Plant List (NWPL) rating for Western Valleys, Mountains, and Coasts. OBL = occur almost always in wetlands; FACW = usually occur in wetlands; FAC = equally likely in wetlands or uplands; FACU = usually occur in uplands; UPL = occur almost always in uplands (NWPL 2022). Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 29 | Page Table 11 Wetland Buffer Planting List Common name Scientific name Native % of Mix National Wetland Plant List (NWPL) Rating** Water birch Betula occidentalis Yes NA FACW Colorado spruce* Picea pungens No NA FAC Narrowleaf cottonwood Populus angustifolia Yes NA FACW Lanceleaf popular Populus acuminata Yes NA FAC Speckled alder Alnus incana Yes NA FACW Red osier dogwood Cornus sericea Yes NA FACW Booth’s willow Salix boothi Yes NA FACW Sandbar willow Salix interior Yes NA FACW Yellow willow Salix lutea Yes NA OBL Geyer willow Salix geyeriana Yes NA FACW Custom Seed Mix (20 lbs/acre), broadcast Slender wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus Yes 25 NA, likely FACU Western wheatgrass Pascopyrum/Elymus smithii Yes 10 FACU Thickspike wheatgrass Elymus lancelatus Yes 10 NA, likely FACU Mountain brome Bromus marginatus/carinatus Yes 15 NA, Bromus species are mostly UPL to FACU Nevada bluegrass Poa secunda Yes 15 FACU Bluebunch wheatgrass Psudorogeneria/Elymus spicata Yes 25 NA Lewis flax Linum lewisii Yes 10 NA Mountain lupine Lupinus argenteus Yes 10 NA, Lupinus species are mostly FACU *In buffer only. Included to meet drought-tolerant COB requirements and provide evergreen habitat for bird species. **Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts Outside of the 25-foot wetland buffer, the area transitions to either the existing perpetual wetland easement (undisturbed), or park zones and pedestrian transportation corridors. The park zones may be planted with a variety of species and are outside the scope of this report. A sample of the anticipated species are provided in Table 12 to provide context of the greater area around the wetland mitigation site. See Appendix H for details. Table 122. Park Planting Plan Common name Scientific name Native National Wetland Plant List (NWPL) Rating** Amur choke cherry Prunus maackii No NA Bur oak Quercus marcarpa Yes FACU Skyline honeylocust* Gleditsia triacanthos, variety inermis ‘skycole’ No FAC Northern red oak Quercus rubra No FACU Native fescue blend sod NA (drought tolerant boulevard sod mix from Summit Valley sod) Mix NA *Male species only. **Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 30 | Page 6.3 Installation and Spacing The installation and spacing of all plants and seeded areas is shown in the plan set located in Appendix H. Transplanted trees and shrubs will be installed as container stock (1-15 gallon) or ball and burlap material, depending on availability. The planting schematic may be field-fitted to align with observed surface-water conditions and groundwater elevations to ensure that each species is placed within an appropriate hydrologic zone. All plantings within the wetland mitigation area (perpetual wetland easement) will be installed by hand to minimize soil disturbance. All non-planted disturbed areas will be seeded when planting is complete. The seed mixes prioritize species that tolerate both periodic inundation and drought and grow in clay loam soils (Table 9, Table 10). The selected graminoid species also aid in soil stabilization as a result of quick establishment and rhizomatous root structures. In addition to the proposed plantings, sod blocks can be transplanted from Wetland 3 to the mitigation area. The salvaged sod will be placed within the wetland mitigation area to accelerate establishment of hydrophytic vegetation, introduce site-adapted seedlings/propagules, and promote soil stabilization. Transplanting intact sod blocks also preserves existing root structure and microbial communities, which can enhance early-stage wetland function and improve the likelihood of successful vegetation establishment. Planting Guidelines addressing site preparation, planting holes, and seeding methods are included in Appendix H. A landscape architect will work with the installation team on grading and planting of the wetland mitigation area to ensure that the final topography and planting align with the approved mitigation design (see Section 7 for discussion of site monitoring). Oversight will include verification of grading/topography elevations, inspection of soil and sod preparation, and confirmation that all plant materials are installed in accordance with the planting plan. 6.4 Establishment and Maintenance Planting of the wetland mitigation area will occur after grading, and during the early growing season (late spring to early summer) when soil moisture is high and groundwater levels remain near seasonal peak. This timing supports successful establishment of wetland species by reducing transplant stress and ensuring adequate rooting conditions. Seeding and installation of container-grown or ball and burlap plants will be carefully coordinated to avoid transplant stress or disturbance of newly seeded areas. Fall planting may be used selectively for species that tolerate dormant-season installation, as long as site and climate conditions are conducive to plant growth. To promote habitat connectivity with the surrounding wetland habitat, the wetland mitigation area will remain unfenced unless necessary to protect establishment of vegetation and/or prevent degradation. If human activity poses a risk to the wetland's development, fencing and/or signage will be employed to deter traffic. In such cases, any fencing used will be designed to be wildlife-friendly, allowing for the unimpeded movement of wildlife to and from the wetland mitigation site. Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 31 | Page 6.4.1 Nutrient Requirements Supplemental fertilization is not recommended within the mitigation area, as added nutrients can favor invasive species. Existing onsite soils, supplemented with transplanted sod material from Wetland 3, should provide sufficient nutrient availability for the plantings once natural nutrient cycling and organic matter accumulation processes reestablish in the reclaimed wetland. The proposed trees and shrubs have low to moderate nutrient requirements when planted within a wetland area. These species are adapted to alluvial soils with naturally occurring organic matter and fine sediments that provide adequate nutrients in situ. Nitrogen-fixing species (Alnus incana in wetland, Lupinus in buffer) should improve soil nitrogen availability over time. The selected woody species are more limited by adequate soil moisture than supplemental fertilization. No nutrient amendments are necessary under the anticipated conditions. The herbaceous seed mix consists of obligate and facultative wetland species that naturally occur in mesic to saturated soils with moderate nutrient levels. These species are adapted to low-nutrient environments and can establish effectively without fertilizer inputs. Consistent soil moisture and organic inputs (provided through natural soil processes) should be sufficient to both establish and maintain long-term growth. 6.4.2 Irrigation As the mitigation wetland will receive sub-irrigation from the local groundwater table, additional long-term irrigation of the mitigation wetland is not planned at this time (see Section 8). In the short term, woody species may require irrigation during the summer months of the first year following transplantation. The neighborhood maintenance staff will irrigate the woody species manually as needed throughout the first growing season (from June through early September). Approximately 20-30 gallons a week for wetland trees and 10-15 gallons per shrub . Irrigation will likely occur 3 to 4 times a week for 60 minutes. The park and open space areas surrounding the wetland mitigation site and buffer will use above-ground irrigation systems for 3 years/seasons. These systems are designed to use high efficiency components that are equal to or exceed the COB water conservation guidelines. When the park areas are transferred to the COB, the City parks department will control the water consumption and irrigation. 6.5 Native Species Requirement All plants within the planting plan for wetland and wetland buffers were selected by a landscape architect (Design.5) and are native to southwest Montana. 7 MONITORING AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS This section meets requirements of 38.220.130(A)(3)(a)(8) and (9) The monitoring plan for this site is based on the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and the 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) Montana Wetland Assessment Method (MDT 2008) and their standard Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 32 | Page monitoring protocol for wetland restoration13 were also referenced in development of performance standards and monitoring methods. 7.1 Monitoring Period and Frequency The mitigation site will be monitored for five consecutive years, consistent with COB municipal code 38.220.130.A3(a)(8;9). Additional years may be required by the City if performance standards are not met. The developer is contracted with Morrison-Maierle to provide these services. Monitoring will occur annually during each growing season:  Early growing season (May–June): Evaluate hydrologic conditions, planted woody species survival, and early-season vegetation emergence.  Late growing season (August–September): Document peak herbaceous cover, wetland extent, weed presence, and overall site function. Temporary groundwater monitoring wells will be installed during construction, and water levels will be recorded at each monitoring event to document hydrologic conditions. Annual reports will be submitted to the COB and will describe site conditions, evaluation of site compared to performance criteria, maintenance actions completed, and any recommended adaptive management. 7.2 Performance Criteria Mitigation will be considered successful if the 2.60 acre area meets all criteria to be delineated as a functioning palustrine emergent wetland—with the notable exception of fully developed hydric soils. Because typical hydric soil indicators may require many years to form, a lack of distinctive hydric soil features will not be considered a failure if hydrologic and vegetation success is achieved. Wetland Hydrology At each monitoring evaluation, hydrologic indicators as outlined on the USACE wetland determination data form will be documented. Areas of surface inundation will be delineated during the growing season via aerial photography, general observations, and GPS measurements of the wetted perimeter. Establish four permanent transects to assess soil saturation in the upper 12 inches. Water levels will be measured with a handheld electronic water level meter, and the water surface elevation recorded in a field notebook. Soil pits excavated to evaluate groundwater levels should extend to at least 18 inches below the ground surface. Success is demonstrated when the mitigation wetland shows:  Evidence of at least one primary hydrology indicator, or two secondary indicators14 throughout the mitigation area. 13 This data-driven methodology has been used for all USACE-approved MDT wetland mitigation projects since 1998. 14 For a complete list of primary and secondary hydrology indicators, see the example USACE data sheets, in wetland delineation report in Appendix E. Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 33 | Page  Stable hydrology within the excavated depression, supporting establishment of hydrophytic vegetation.  No drainage, fill, or grading activities that alter the intended hydrologic regime. Hydrology will be assessed through direct observation (e.g., soil saturation, surface water, stained leaves) and through groundwater data when monitoring wells are installed. Hydric Soil Development Soil sampling will be conducted during the course of the monitoring period to determine if wetland areas are exhibiting characteristics of hydric soils per the 1987 USACE Manual and 2010 Regional Supplement. Since typical hydric soil indicators may require long periods to form, a lack of distinctive hydric soil features will not be considered a failure if hydrologic and vegetation success is achieved.  Hydric soil indicators may take longer than five years to fully establish; however, soils must support hydrophytic vegetation and demonstrate early-stage hydric characteristics when feasible (e.g., redox features, organic accumulation in upper horizons).  A lack of fully developed hydric indicators will not be considered a failure if hydrology and vegetation standards are met. Hydrophytic Vegetation  At the end of Year 5, ≥80% of total vegetative cover within the mitigation area should consist of hydrophytic species (OBL, FACW, FAC).  Coverage will be surveyed for “aerial cover” and not “total vegetation cover”  Woody species survival will be ≥60% by the end of Year 5. Natural recruitment of additional shrubs or trees will count toward structural diversity goals.  The site must demonstrate a trajectory toward a stable palustrine emergent community, consistent with the planting plan. Acreage and Extent  A minimum of 2.60 acres of PEM wetland will be established and functioning by the end of the five year monitoring period.  Open water will maintain the intended depressional wetland configuration  The surrounding buffer must maintain ≥50% cover of non-weed species by Year 5.  Weed Thresholds  Noxious weeds will not exceed 10% aerial cover within the wetland or buffer by the end of Year 5.  Annual weed management is required throughout the monitoring period. 7.3 Monitoring Methods and Reporting Monitoring the wetland mitigation area will follow USACE’s Routine Level 2 On-site Determination Method (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and comply with COB municipal code 38.610.050.A and 38.220.130.A(1). Upland data points (UDP) and wetland data points (WDP) will be established during the field investigation at no less than three locations within the mitigation area. More data points will be collected based on the professional judgement of the qualified Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 34 | Page wetland professional. Establishment of permanent vegetative transects or plots is not proposed at this site due to its size and fully landscaped character. Vegetation, hydrology, and soils data will be collected in the field according to protocols established by the USACE and recorded on USACE Wetland Determination Data Forms (Environmental Laboratory 1987) for Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts. Photographs will be collected at each data point. In addition, permanent representative photo points will be established during the initial monitoring effort to repeatably capture the overall area. Sample points will be collected with a handheld GPS device. Wetland boundaries will be collected via resource-grade GPS, with sub-meter accuracy, by a Morrison-Maierle environmental scientist and certified by a licensed surveyor. Data will be postprocessed in ArcGIS Pro to create maps and perform calculations. As discussed in Section 7.2, success of the wetland mitigation will be determined by the USACE three standard criteria for identifying wetland areas. These criteria include hydrophytic vegetation, hydrology, and hydric soils15, as detailed in the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987 Corps Wetlands Delineation Manual) (Environmental Laboratory 1987), with modifications specified in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast (Version 2.0) (Environmental Laboratory 2010). The combination of these three criteria serve as the foundation for monitoring and evaluating wetland mitigation success. All evaluations will be performed in accordance with the aforementioned guidelines. Monitoring will follow standardized wetland assessment protocols and include: Hydrology  Document visible hydrology indicators in accordance with the 1987 USACE manual and supplements.  Record water levels at monitoring wells (once installed).  Document the extent of inundation and saturation during each monitoring visit. Establish four permanent transects to assess soil saturation in the upper 12 inches. Vegetation  Record percent cover by species in accordance with the 1987 USACE manual and supplements.  Conduct stem counts for planted trees and shrubs to determine survival. Soils  Evaluate three soil pits in accordance with the 1987 USACE manual and supplements. Field Documentation  Record observations on standard USACE wetland data forms for Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts. 15 Hydrophytic vegetation is characterized by plant species that have adapted to survive in inundated or saturated soil conditions. Hydrology refers to the presence of water at or near the soil surface for a sufficient duration to support the growth and survival of hydrophytic vegetation. Hydric soils are defined by the presence of reduced (anaerobic) conditions due to saturation by water for a sufficient duration to support the growth and survival of hydrophytic vegetation. Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 35 | Page  Photograph established photo points during each visit to document annual changes.  Collect spatial data with industry-grade GPS with sub-meter accuracy (meets USACE standards), and post-process with ESRI’s ArcGIS Pro. Certify all spatial data by a licensed surveyor. Annual Reporting Each annual monitoring report will comply with COB municipal code 38.610.030.A and include, at a minimum:  Site description and year-specific conditions.  Figures showing updated wetland boundaries, vegetation community composition, photo points, and locations of sample points and transects.  Hydrology, vegetation, and soil data.  Weed mapping and control actions.  Photographs.  Assessment of performance standards.  Recommended corrective or maintenance actions. All data forms, supplemental notes, photographs, and field data should be maintained for the duration of the monitoring period. Upon determination of successful wetland mitigation (Section 7.2), the supporting data must be summarized in a memo and submitted to the COB. All monitoring data should be reviewed for quality assurance and quality control by a qualified wetland professional 7.4 Maintenance and Adaptive Management Adaptive management will be implemented throughout the five-year minimum monitoring period to ensure the mitigation area trends towards meeting all performance standards described in Section 7.2. Maintenance and adaptive management actions will be based on annual monitoring results, professional field observations, and feedback from the COB. Maintenance activities may include targeted noxious weed control (through the Gallatin County Weed District approved Noxious Weed Management Plan and subsequent adherence to the noxious weed management requirements in the covenants), infill planting, or supplemental seeding to address areas with insufficient vegetative cover. Temporary erosion control measures may be prescribed to stabilize eroding areas, without compromising wetland hydrology. Minor adjustments to the grading and microtopography of the mitigation area may be warranted during the first year after construction to improve surface-water distribution or correct ponding patterns that are inconsistent with the intended depressional wetland hydrology. Adaptive management decisions will be documented in each annual monitoring report and will identify the:  Observed issue.  Recommend actions.  Implementation Schedule.  Methods to verify success. A Morrison-Maierle qualified wetland professional will coordinate closely with the development team and the COB to ensure all adaptive management actions are implemented. Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 36 | Page 7.5 Contingency Plan This section meets requirements of 38.220.130(A)(3)(a)(10) Should the mitigation areas not meet the success criteria referenced above, the Laurel Meadows Subdivision will be responsible for identifying the cause of failure and developing contingency measures to remedy the problem. Potential options addressing lack of vegetation success may include reseeding and/or replanting and weed control. Additional contingency measures may be necessary in the event of unforeseen and uncontrollable circumstances such as altered site hydrology from upgradient and surrounding land use changes. The contingency plan would be developed based on specific information and circumstances on an as-needed basis in consultation between the Laurel Meadows Subdivision and the COB. 7.5.1 Coordination and Reporting The Morrison-Maierle qualified wetland professional will notify the COB within 30 days of identifying a condition requiring corrective action. Proposed measures will be described in writing, including justification and anticipated outcomes. Implementation of all contingency actions will be documented in the subsequent annual monitoring report, along with an evaluation of their effectiveness. If performance standards are not fully met by the end of the five-year monitoring period, additional monitoring or corrective actions may be required. 8 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION 8.1 Management Objectives The property owners are committed to completing and complying with the mitigation and monitoring plan. Further assurances that the mitigation and monitoring plan will be adhered to include the financial assurances described in Section 7. 8.2 Noxious Weeds Weed control is critical before and during the first year when the varying water levels leave the ground surface exposed. The contractor will be responsible for the control and eradication of noxious weeds before they seed and before the seeding and planting period. Only herbicides approved for aquatic use will be used within the wetland site. The site is currently managed under a Gallatin County Weed Control District Noxious Weed Management and Revegetation plan that was approved by the Gallatin County Weed District in December 2025 by Montana Spraying Company, LLC. Noxious weeds included scattered infestations of Canada thistle, hoary alyssum, and musk thistle. Weed spraying is planned for spring and fall for three years or until weed eradication and site stabilization is achieved. Weed infestations at the mitigation site will be adaptively managed based on annual monitoring results. Monitoring protocols will include determining weed species and degree of infestation, as well as evaluation of control measures if implemented. Control efforts will focus on minimizing and/or eliminating infestations of state-listed noxious weeds within the wetland mitigation area. The neighborhood covenants will continue the requirement for monitoring and treatment of noxious weeds. Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 37 | Page 8.3 Protection Mechanisms The property owners are committed to completing and complying with the wetland mitigation and monitoring plan. This includes a commitment to monitor, maintain, and repair the site as necessary to ensure its viability or to augment the site if it fails to perform for unanticipated reasons. Further assurances that the mitigation and monitoring plan will be adhered to include the two-year warranty required on public improvements within the COB. As this is a phased project, the City has the authority to require further conditions on each future development phase of the project if needed. The mitigation wetland will be protected from development by a 25-foot buffer. Short-term maintenance will be the responsibility of the Laurel Meadows Homeowners Association. Long-term maintenance will be the responsibility of the COB because the mitigated wetland will be located in dedicated park land. The COB enforces building setbacks and restrictions through required building permits and review. The homeowners association will enforce building restrictions through design review. An as-built plan of the affected area will be submitted within six months of completion. 8.4 Responsible Party A noxious weed management plan has been signed by Patrick Eibs, 8FC, LLC and Gallatin County. Weed treatment will be managed under a contract by Montana Spraying Company. Wetland mitigation and monitoring will be contracted out by Patrick Eibs, 8FC LLC to Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Patrick Eibs; 406-539-1366; peibsk9@yahoo.com REFERENCES City of Bozeman Municipal Code. Sec. 38.220.130. - Submittal materials for regulated activities in wetlands. Link City of Bozeman Municipal Code. Division 38.610. – Wetland Regulations. Link Castle Rock Civil and Geotechnical Engineering. 2020. Subgrade Investigation and Geotechnical Recommendations, 2020 – The Lakes at Valley West (South). Published April 10, 2020. Morrison-Maierle Inc. 2006. Norton East Ranch Property (now Laurel Meadows) Wetland Delineation Report. October 2006. National Wetland Plant List. 2022. Available at https://nwpl.sec.usace.army.mil/ National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Climatological Data Montana. Volume 114 Numbers 01-06. ISSN 145-0395. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2019. Hydric Soils Definition. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/use/hydric/?cid=nrcs142p2_053961 Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 38 | Page APPENDIX A: FIGURES O.S. 01 1.72 acs. G © PROJECT NO. FIGURE NUMBER COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE,2025 Plotted by cooper krause on Dec/11/2025 DRAWN BY: DSGN. BY: APPR. BY: DATE:engineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle N:\10130\001.04-PDZandPPLAT\ACAD\Exhibits\Wetland Report Figure.dwg2880 Technology Blvd West Bozeman, MT 59718 406.587.0721 www.m-m.net - W. BABCOCK STREETPOND LILY DRIVEDON N E R D R I V ELAUREL PARKWAYPHASE 1 PHASE 2 FUTUR E PHASE FUTUR E PHASE COVENANT OF DEDICATION - DEED RESTRICTION - DOCUMENT No. 2299907 EXISTING WETLANDS EXISTING WETLAND TO BE MITIGATED PROPOSED WETLANDS PARK OPEN SPACE BTBTBTBTBTBPBPBPBPBPNGNGNGNGBTBTBTBPBPBPNGNGBTBTBTBPBPBPNGNGNGNGBTBTBTBPBPBT BT BT BT BT BP BP BP BP BP NG NG NG NG BT BT BT BT BTBPBPBPBPBPNGNGNG BTBTBTBTBTBPBPBPBPBPNGNGNGPARK 11.29 acs. PARK 11.29 acs. 4790 4 7 80 480 0 47984796479447 924790478847864792NGNG D G VERIFY SCALE! THESE PRINTS MAY BE REDUCED. LINE BELOW MEASURES ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING. MODIFY SCALE ACCORDINGLY! 2026COPYRIGHT © MORRISON-MAIERLE, SHEET NUMBER PROJECT NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.BY N:\10130\001.04-PDZANDPPLAT\ACAD\EXHIBITS\HYDROPERIOD STUDY.DWGREVISIONS DRAWN BY: DSGN. BY: APPR. BY: DATE: Q.C. REVIEW DATE: BY: 2880 Technology Blvd West Bozeman, MT 59718 406.587.0721 www.m-m.net engineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle PLOTTED BY:ROSIE NICKELSON ON Feb/27/2026 LAUREL MEADOWS SUBDIVISION BOZEMAN MT WETLAND OVERVIEW 10130.001 X D-1 RSN CP CP 12/2025 W BABCOCK STPOND LILY DRIVESTREET AALLEY A DON N E R D R I V E 100 200501000 SCALE IN FEET COVENANT OF DEDICATION - DEED RESTRICTION - DOCUMENT No. 2299907 EXISTING WETLANDS EXISTING WETLAND TO BE MITIGATED PROPOSED WETLANDS 1 DIRECT WETLAND AREA COMPARISON SCALE: 1" = 100' 25 FT WETLAND BUFFER AREA (TYP.) WETLAND LEGEND VAUGHN DRIVE LAUREL PARKWAYSTREET AALLEY BALLEY AFUTUR E P H A S E FUTUR E P H A S E (REST R I C T E D L O T 2 ) PROPOSED CONSTRUCTED WETLAND SEE SHEET D-2 ±834 FT ±156 FT ±545 FT±238 FTBAXTER CREEK EXISTING STORMWATER DETENTION PONDS PART OF NORTON RANCH SUBDIVISION PROPOSED STORMWATER POND (WET POND) 30' WATERCOURSE SETBACK ZONE 2 BUFFER 25' WETLAND SETBACK 30' WATERCOURSE SETBACK ZONE 2 BUFFER 50' WATERCOURSE SETBACK ZONE 1 BUFFER 50' WATERCOURSE SETBACK ZONE 1 BUFFER 25' WETLAND SETBACK 25' WETLAND SETBACK PROPOSED PARK BOUNDARY PROPOSED PARK BOUNDARY PROPERTY BOUNDARY BRONK E N P A R K BRON K E N P A R K PROPOSED TRAIL 8S PARK 11.29 acs. 4790 47 8 0 480 0 4798 4796479447924800 4792 4791 4790 4789 4788 OOOOOOOOOOOOOO PT P 4780 4785 4790 4795 4800 4805 4780 4785 4790 4795 4800 4805 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 5+975:14780 4785 4790 4795 4800 4780 4785 4790 4795 4800 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 3+50 EXISTING SURFACE PROPOSED SURFACE ESTIMATED HIGH GROUNDWATER ESTIMATED LOW GROUNDWATER VERIFY SCALE! THESE PRINTS MAY BE REDUCED. LINE BELOW MEASURES ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING. MODIFY SCALE ACCORDINGLY! 2026COPYRIGHT © MORRISON-MAIERLE, SHEET NUMBER PROJECT NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.BY N:\10130\001.04-PDZANDPPLAT\ACAD\EXHIBITS\HYDROPERIOD STUDY.DWGREVISIONS DRAWN BY: DSGN. BY: APPR. BY: DATE: Q.C. REVIEW DATE: BY: 2880 Technology Blvd West Bozeman, MT 59718 406.587.0721 www.m-m.net engineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle PLOTTED BY:ROSIE NICKELSON ON Feb/27/2026 LAUREL MEADOWS SUBDIVISION BOZEMAN MT CONSTRUCTED WETLAND CROSS SECTIONS 10130.001 X D-2 RSN CP CP 12/2025 0 VERT. SCALE IN FEET 0 HORIZ. SCALE IN FEET 24 4 8 2040 40 80B D-1 AD-1A POND AND WETLAND CROSS SECTION B WETLAND CROSS SECTION PROFILE LEGEND GENERAL NOTES 1. The material used to backfill the existing pond will be placed in accordance with the Montana Public Works Standard Specifications as a Type C Backfill in order to assure that the material does not settle significantly after placement but also is not compacted to a point where it is would interfere with groundwater migration or plant growth. 2. Existing soil to be excavated is fill material from overburden from adjacent construction activities. Once grade is cut down to finish grade surface the Engineer, in consultation with Wetland Consultant, will determine if the material is suitable for use as top soil or if additional excavation is needed and fill material from the project site is needed to create a viable growth media. 3. Refer to landscape sheets for planting and seed schedule. HIGH GROUNDWATER LOW GROUNDWATER PROPOSED GROUND EXISTING GROUND ESTIMATED HIGH GROUNDWATER LOW GROUNDWATER PROPOSED GROUND EXISTING GROUND PROPOSED POND 4:1 SLOPES (TYP.) SLOPE VARIES 5:1 MAX 25FT WETLAND SETBACK ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTED WETLAND BOUNDARY ±2.61 ACRES PROPOSED OPEN POND ±4,900 SF PROPOSED GRAVEL TRAIL SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS PROPOSED PARK BOUNDARY EXISTING BORROW PIT 30' WETLAND SETBACK ZONE 2 BUFFER 50' WETLAND SETBACK ZONE 1 BUFFER N89°31'19"E 1157.90'S1°13'55"W 1295.74'S89°04'28"W 1463.48'N0°36'20"W277.38'R=255.00'L=82.86'Δ=18°37'04"N18°00'44"E575.40'R=345.00'L=95.22'Δ=15°48'47"N2°11'57"E254.12'S87°48'03"E 120.00' N0°28'39"W 60.54' ©COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC.,2026 PLOTTED DATE: Mar/10/2026 PLOTTED BY: cooper krause DRAWING NAME: N:\10130\001.04-PDZandPPLAT\ACAD\Survey\Preliminary Plat\10130.004 PRELIMINARY PLAT MASTER.dwg 1/4 SEC.SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE PROJ. #:SHEET OF COUNTY,DATE: SCALE: CLIENT: FIELD WORK: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:1018FC LLC GALLATIN 10130.004 1" = 200' 02/12/2026 KIT/CK NJM MMI 5 EAST 2 SOUTH 9SE, SW MONTANA PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, MONTANA PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LAUREL MEADOWS SUBDIVISION BEING THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS R1A, R1B, R1C, AND R1D OF NORTON EAST RANCH SUBDIVISION PHASE 6, PLAT J-694 LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER AND NORTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 5 EAST, PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA engineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle 2880 Technology Blvd West Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: 406.587.0721 www.m-m.net 200 4001002000 SCALE IN FEET OWNER 8FC LLC P.O. Box 11388 Bozeman, MT 59719 PURPOSE To create 99 residential lots, 5 open space lots, 2 restricted lots, a park, and dedicate right of way. 8FC, L.L.C. By: ________________________________________________________________________________, Patrick Eibs ,Managing Member Dated State of ____________________________________ County of ___________________________________ On this ________________ day of ___________________________, 20__, before me, the undersigned Notary Public for the State of _____________________ personally appeared _______________________, known to me to be the Managing Member of 8FC, L.L.C. and acknowledged to me that said Inc. executed the same. Notary Public in and for the State of ___________________ Printed Name _____________________________________ Residing at _______________________________________ My commission expires _____________________________ I, ____________________________________, Treasurer of Gallatin County, Montana, do hereby certify that the accompanying plat has been duly examined and that all real property taxes and special assessments assessed and levied on the land to being subdivided are paid. Dated this __________ day of ____________________, 20__. ________________________________________ Treasurer of Gallatin County Gallatin County, Montana RGG84918_________________ RGG84915_________________ LOT R1A Tax ID No. LOT R1C Tax ID No. RGG84917_________________ RGG84916_________________ LOT R1B Tax ID No. LOT R1D Tax ID No. I, Eric Semerad, Clerk and Recorder of Gallatin County, Montana, do hereby certify that the foregoing instrument was filed in my office at _______ o'clock, __________(a.m., or p.m.), this _________ day of ______________, 20____, and recorded in Book ______ of Plats on Page __________, and Document # ____________________, Records of the Clerk and Recorder, Gallatin County, Montana. Dated this __________ day of ____________________, 20___. ___________________________________________________ Eric Semerad Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County, Montana CERTIFICATE OF EXCLUSION FROM MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW CERTIFICATE OF SURVEYOR CERTIFICATE OF DEDICATION BASIS OF BEARING BOBCAT COORDINATE SYSTEM, NAD83(2011) PER THE "ROCKY MOUNTAIN TRIBAL COORDINATE REFERENCE SYSTEM" Handbook and User Guide, Published September 30th, 2014 and subsequent revisions, established by observations with survey grade receivers. Standard Parallel & Grid Origin: 46°15'00"N Central Meridian: 111°15'00"W False Northing : 100,000.000 Meters False Easting : 100,000.000 Meters Standard Parallel Scale : 1.000185 (exact) I, the undersigned property owner, do hereby certify that we have caused to be surveyed, subdivided and platted into lots, blocks, streets, and alleys, and other divisions and dedications, as shown by the plat hereunto included the following described tract of land to wit: Being the Amended Plat of Lots R1A, R1B, R1C, and R1D of Norton East Ranch Subdivision Phase 6 Plat J-694; Located in the Southeast One Quarter of the Northwest One Quarter and Southwest One Quarter of the Northeast One Quarter of Section 9, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, Principal Meridian, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast Corner of Lot R1D and also being on the North right-of-way of West Babcock Street; thence S89°04'28”W along said North right-of-way for a distance of 1463.48 feet to a point being the intersection of said north right-of-way and the east right-of-way of Laurel Parkway; thence N0°36'20”W along said east right-of-way through the following courses for a distance of 277.38 to a point on a tangent curve to the right having a radius of 255.00 feet having a central angle of 18°37'04” an arc length of 82.86 feet having a chord bearing of N8°42'12”E and a chord distance of 82.50 feet; thence N18°00'44”E for a distance of 575.40 feet to a point on a tangent curve to the left having a radius of 345.00 feet having a central angle of 15°48'47” an arc length of 95.22 feet having a chord bearing of N10°06'21”E and a chord distance of 94.91 feet; thence N2°11'57”E and a distance of 254.12 feet to a point being the southwest corner of Lot 1 of said Norton East Ranch Subdivision Phase 6 Plat J-694; thence leaving said east right-of-way S87°48'03”E along the south boundary of Lot 1 of the Norton East Ranch Subdivision Phase 6 for a distance of 120.00 feet and also being the southeast corner of said Lot 1; thence N0°28'39”W along the east line of said Lot 1 for a distance of 60.54 feet being the northeast corner of said lot 1 and having common boundaries being the northern boundary line of said Norton East Ranch Subdivision Phase 6 and the south boundary of The Lakes At Valley West Phase 6; thence N89°31'19”E along said north and south said boundary lines for a distance of 1157.86 feet to a point being the northeast corner of said Norton East Ranch Subdivision Phase 6 and being the Northeast 1/16 corner of Section 9; thence South 1°13'55”W along the common boundaries being the east boundary line of said Norton East Ranch Subdivision Phase 6 and the west boundary of Valley West Subdivision for a distance of 1295.74 feet to the Point of Beginning. Said Tract being 40.82 acres more or less and is subject to all easements whether of record or apparent on the ground. The above-described tract of land is to be known and designated as Laurel Meadows Subdivision, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana; and the lands included in all streets, avenues, alleys, roads, highways, and parks, playgrounds, or public lands or other public improvements shown on said plat are hereby granted and donated to the City of Bozeman for the public use and enjoyment. Unless specifically listed herein, the lands included in all streets, avenues, alleys, roads, highways, and parks or public lands or other public improvements dedicated to the public are accepted for public use, but the city accepts no responsibility for maintaining the same. The owner agree that the city has no obligation to maintain the lands included in all streets, avenues, alleys, roads, highways, and parks or public lands or other public improvements, hereby dedicated to public use. The lands included in all streets, avenues, alleys, roads, highways, and parks, or public lands or other public improvements dedicated to the public for which the city accepts responsibility for maintenance included is: Donner Drive, Pond Lily Drive, Street A, Street B, Alley A, Alley B, Block 3 City Park Lot 1, and Block 4 City Park Lot 1. The undersigned hereby grants unto each and every person firm or corporation, whether public or private, providing or offering to provide telecommunications, electric power, gas, or other similar utility or service, the right to the joint use of an easement for the construction, maintenance, repair and removal of their lines and other facilities in, over, under and across each area designated on this plat as "Utility Easement" to have and to hold forever. DATED this _________________ day of __________________________, 20_____. VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE PROJECT AREA AREA SUMMARY TABLE RESIDENTIAL LOT AREA: RESTRICTED LOT AREA: PUBLIC R-O-W AREA: OPEN SPACE: PARK: TOTAL AREA: 6.40 acres 11.35 acres 4.50 acres 7.28 acres 11.29 acres 40.82 acres I, the undersigned, Kyle I. Thompson, Registered Land Surveyor, do hereby certify that between January 2021 and August 2022, I surveyed Laurel Meadows Subdivision, being the Amended Plat of Lots R1A, R1B, R1C, and R1D of Norton East Ranch Subdivision Phase 6 Plat J-694 and drew the same as shown on the accompanying plat and as described in accordance with the provisions of the Montana Land Use Planning Act and the Bozeman Municipal Code. I further certify that monuments which have not been set by the filing date of this instrument will be set within 240 days of the recording of this instrument, due to public improvements construction pursuant to 24.183.1101(1)(d) A.R.M. Dated this___________day of_________________, 20___. ________________________________________________________ Kyle I. Thompson, PLS MT; Reg. #13108LS Morrison-Maierle, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS I, _______________________ and I, James R. Nickelson, a Registered Professional Engineer licensed to practice in the State of Montana, hereby certify that the following improvements, required to meet the requirements of Chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code or as condition(s) of approval of Laurel Meadows Subdivision, have been installed in conformance with the approved plans and specifications, or financially guaranteed and covered by the improvements agreement accompanying this plat. Installed Improvements: 1.None Financially Guaranteed Improvements 1.Water, sewer and storm facilities 2.Street improvements including street lights 3.Park improvements The subdivider hereby warrants said improvements against any and all defects for a period of two years from the date of acceptance by the City of Bozeman. The subdivider grants possession of all public infrastructure improvements to the City of Bozeman and the city hereby accepts ownership of all public infrastructure improvements, subject to the above indicated warranty. ________________________________________ _________________________ Patrick Eibs, Managing Member Dated 8FC,L.L.C. __________________________________________________________________ James R. Nickelson, No. 9063PE Dated Morrison Maierle, Inc. __________________________________________________________________ Director of __________________ Dated City of Bozeman, Montana The Laurel Meadows Subdivision, Gallatin County, Montana, is within the City of Bozeman, Montana, a first- class municipality, and within the planning area of the Bozeman land use plan which was adopted pursuant to the Montana Land Use Planning Act, and can be provided with adequate storm water drainage and adequate municipal facilities. Therefore under the provisions of Section 76-4-125, this subdivision is excluded from the requirement for Montana Department of Environmental Quality review. Dated this ________________________ day of _______________________________, 20__. ________________________________ Director of Transportation and Engineering City of Bozeman, Montana CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF DEDICATIONS I, Director of Transportation and Engineering, City of Bozeman, Montana, do hereby accept the dedication to the City of Bozeman for the public use of any and all lands shown on the plat as being dedicated to such use. DATED this _______ day of , 20____. Director of Transportation and Engineering CERTIFICATE OF GOVERNING BODY APPROVING PLAT I, Community Development Director, City of Bozeman, Montana, do hereby certify that the accompanying plat has been duly examined and has found the same to conform to the law and approves it. DATED this _______ day of , 20____. Community Development Director City of Bozeman, Montana CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION OF NON-PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS I, 8FC, LLC, hereby certify that the following non-public improvements, required to meet the requirements of Chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code or as a condition(s) of approval of Laurel Meadows Subdivision, have been installed in conformance with any approved plans and specifications prepared in accordance with the standards of Chapter 38 or other City design standards, or have been financially guaranteed and are included with the subdivision improvements agreement accompanying and recorded with this plat. Installed Improvements: None. Financially Guaranteed Improvements: 1.All Improvements I, 8FC, LLC, hereby warrant said improvements against any and all defects for a period of two years from the date of acceptance by Laurel Meadows Neighborhood Condominium owners Association. Unless specifically listed in the Certificate of Dedication, the city accepts no responsibility for maintaining the same. The subdivider hereby grants ownership of all non-public infrastructure improvements to the Laurel Meadows Neighborhood Condominium owners Association created by Document Number . (Laurel Meadows Neighborhood Condominium owners Association). By:. (Signature of Subdivider) Date:. Dated this day of 20___.First Security Bank, Division of Glacier Bank State of By: County of Printed Name: This instrument was signed or acknowledged before me on this day of 20___, By , as of First Security Bank. Notary Signature Notary Public in and for the State of ___________________ Printed Name _____________________________________ Residing at _______________________________________ My commission expires _____________________________ CONSENT OF MORTGAGEE(S) We the undersigned mortgagees or encumbrances, do hereby join in and consent to the described plat, I release our respective liens, claims or encumbrances as to any portion of said lands now being platted into streets, avenues, parks or other public areas which are dedicated to the City of Bozeman for the public use and enjoyment. ABANDONMENT NOTE ANY ROAD OR UTILITY EASEMENTS 40 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF ROAD CENTERLINE ASSOCIATED WITH THE FINAL PLAT OF NORTON EAST RANCH SUBDIVISION, PHASE 6, PLAT J-694; ARE TO BE ABANDONED WITH RECORDING OF THIS FINAL PLAT OF LAUREL MEADOWS SUBDIVISION PHASE 1 PHASE 2 FUTURE PHASES PARK WEST BABCOCK STREETLAUREL PARKWAYVAUGHN DRIVE EASEMENT NOTES 1.THE FOLLOWING RECORDED EASEMENTS WERE FILED FOR THE PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED WEST PARK SUBDIVISION AND NOW ARE PROPOSED TO BE RELEASED AND RECONVEYED BY DOCUMENT No. ___________________ RECORDED DOCUMENT No.2799987 RECORDED DOCUMENT No.2800050 RECORDED DOCUMENT No.2800049 RECORDED DOCUMENT No.2809425 RECORDED DOCUMENT No.2800051 CERTIFICATE OF CLERK AND RECORDER CERTIFICATE OF COUNTY TREASURER CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION OF WATER-RELATED IMPROVEMENTS I, _______________________ , hereby certify that the following improvements, necessary to meet the requirements of Chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code or as condition(s) of approval of Laurel Meadows Subdivision, have been installed in conformance with the approved plans and specifications, or financially guaranteed and included with the improvements agreement accompanying this plat. Installed Improvements: 1.Irrigation System associated with the park. Financially Guaranteed Improvements 1.None The subdivider hereby warrants said improvements against any and all defects for a period of two years from the date of acceptance by the City of Bozeman. The subdivider grants ownership of all public infrastructure improvements to the City of Bozeman and the city hereby accepts ownership of all public infrastructure improvements, subject to the above indicated warranty. ________________________________________ _________________________ Patrick Eibs, Managing Member Dated 8FC,L.L.C. __________________________________________________________________ Director of Parks Dated City of Bozeman, Montana ZONING City of Bozeman R-C OPEN SPACE PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS PUBLIC ACCES EASEMENT ARE CREATED OVER, ACROSS AND THROUGH THE FOLLOWING OPEN SPACE TRACTS INCLUDED ON THIS PLAT AND PER THE NOTED EASEMENT DOCUMENTS: OPEN SPACE 01: DOCUMENT No. _____________ OPEN SPACE 02: DOCUMENT No. _____________ OPEN SPACE 04: DOCUMENT No. _____________ OPEN SPACE 05: DOCUMENT No. _____________ N18°00'44"E 575.40'BPBPNGXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX OOOOOOOONG DYH DYHDYH S DS S G S S S S S S WVWV WV WV WV WVWV WV WV WV T WV WV PT P T WV WV W W W W W W W W S201854780.033MHS-TEMPS W W W W W WWVWV WV DYH WV WV WV WV WVWVWV WV WVWV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WWWWWWWW W W W W SSS S S W W WWWWWSSSSSSSSSSSSDYH DYH S S BP BPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPP S FMFM FM FM FM FM FM FMS FM FM FM FM ©COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC.,2026 PLOTTED DATE: Mar/10/2026 PLOTTED BY: cooper krause DRAWING NAME: N:\10130\001.04-PDZandPPLAT\ACAD\Survey\Preliminary Plat\10130.004 PRELIMINARY PLAT MASTER.dwg 1/4 SEC.SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE PROJ. #:SHEET OF COUNTY,DATE: SCALE: CLIENT: FIELD WORK: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:1028FC LLC GALLATIN 10130.004 1" = 100' 02/12/2026 KIT/CK NJM MMI 5 EAST 2 SOUTH 9SE, SW MONTANA PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, MONTANAengineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle 2880 Technology Blvd West Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: 406.587.0721 www.m-m.net WEST BABCOCK STREETLAUREL PARKWAYVAUGHN DRIVE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LAUREL MEADOWS SUBDIVISION BEING THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS R1A, R1B, R1C, AND R1D OF NORTON EAST RANCH SUBDIVISION PHASE 6, PLAT J-694 LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER AND NORTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 5 EAST, PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA LAKES A T V A L L E Y W E S T SUBDIV I S I O N P H A S E 6 PLAT J-6 7 3 BRONKE N P A R K VALLEY W E S T SUBDIV I S I O N P L A T J - 3 2 0 TRACT 1 VALLEY WEST SUBDIV I S I O N PLAT J- 3 2 0 TRACT 2 VALLEY WEST SUBDIV I S I O N PLAT J-3 2 0 BRONKE N PARK VALLEY WEST SUBDIV I S I O N PLAT J-3 2 0 LOT 3 J & D FAMILY SUBDIVI S I O N PHASE 2 PLAT J-610A NORTON E A S T RANCH S U B D I V I S I O N P H A S E 2 NORTON E A S T RANCH SUBDIVIS I O N PHASE 1NORTON E A S T RANCH S U B D I V I S I O N NORTON EAST RANCH SUBDIVI S I O N PHASE 3 A PLAT J-5 6 4 LOT R5B NORTON E A S T RANCH SUBDIVI S I O N PHASE 5 PLAT J-7 2 1 LAKES A T V A L L E Y WEST SUBDIV I S I O N PHASE 5 A PLAT J- 6 4 5 30 6015300 SCALE IN FEET BASIS OF BEARING BOBCAT COORDINATE SYSTEM, NAD83(2011) PER THE "ROCKY MOUNTAIN TRIBAL COORDINATE REFERENCE SYSTEM" Handbook and User Guide, Published September 30th, 2014 and subsequent revisions, established by observations with survey grade receivers. Standard Parallel & Grid Origin: 46°15'00"N Central Meridian: 111°15'00"W False Northing : 100,000.000 Meters False Easting : 100,000.000 Meters Standard Parallel Scale : 1.000185 (exact) LEGEND 15SD 15SD 8W 8W 8S 8S S MW 15SD 15SD 8W 8W 8S 8S E P T BP BP FM XX OO SIDEWALK WALKING TRAIL ℄ COVENANT OF DEDICATION - DEED RESTRICTION - DOCUMENT No. 2299907 EXISTING WETLANDS EXISTING WETLAND TO BE MITIGATED CENTERLINE IRRIGATION DITCH EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT LINE PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT LINE EXISTING PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPOSED PROPERTY BOUNDARY EXISTING GAS LINE EXISTING BURIED POWER EXISTING SEWER MAIN W/ SIZE EXISTING WATER MAIN W/ SIZE EXISTING STORM DRAIN W/ SIZE EXISTING FORCE MAIN SEWER PROPOSED BURIED POWER PROPOSED SEWER MAIN W/ SIZE PROPOSED WATER MAIN W/ SIZE PROPOSED STORM DRAIN W/ SIZE PUBLIC STORM WATER POND TELEPHONE PEDESTAL/ BOX ELECTICAL BOX LIGHT POLE POWER POLE ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER BOX PROPOSED STREET LIGHTS STORM DRAIN INLET STORM DRAIN MH SANITARY SEWER MH WATER CURB STOP WATER VALVE FIRE HYDRANT SIGN MONITORING WELL EXISTING BARBWIRE FENCE EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE EXISTING EDGE GRAVEL NG NG ABANDONMENT NOTE ANY ROAD OR UTILITY EASEMENTS 40 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF ROAD CENTERLINE ASSOCIATED WITH THE FINAL PLAT OF NORTON EAST RANCH SUBDIVISION, PHASE 6, PLAT J-694; ARE TO BE ABANDONED WITH RECORDING OF THIS FINAL PLAT OF LAUREL MEADOWS SUBDIVISION EASEMENT NOTES 1.THE FOLLOWING RECORDED EASEMENTS WERE FILED FOR THE PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED WEST PARK SUBDIVISION AND NOW ARE PROPOSED TO BE RELEASED AND RECONVEYED BY DOCUMENT No. ___________________ RECORDED DOCUMENT No.2799987 RECORDED DOCUMENT No.2800050 RECORDED DOCUMENT No.2800049 RECORDED DOCUMENT No.2809425 RECORDED DOCUMENT No.2800051 EASEMENT TO BE RELEASED DOCUMENT No. 2799987, 2800050, & 2809425 EASEMENT TO BE RELEASED DOCUMENT No. 2800049 EASEMENT TO BE RELEASED DOCUMENT No. 2800051 LOT R1- A 6.63 AC R E S LOT R1 - B 12.30 AC R E S LOT R1- C 10.04 AC R E S LOT R1- D 11.85 AC R E S EASEMENT TO BE RELEASED DOCUMENT No. 2800051 PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PER PLAT J-694 TO BE RELEASED EXISTING BOUNDARY LINES PER PLAT J-694 TO BE ABANDONED PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PER PLAT J-694 TO BE RELEASED EXISTING BOUNDARY LINES PER PLAT J-694 TO BE ABANDONED EXISTING BOUNDARY LINES PER PLAT J-694 TO BE ABANDONED PUBLIC STORMWATER UTILITY EASEMENT PER PLAT J-694 STORM WATER DRAINAGE EASEMENT DOC No. 2797951 & 2799988 EASEMENT TO BE RELEASED DOCUMENT No. ___________ 20 FOOT WIDE SEWER PIPELINE AND ACCESS EASEMENT DOCUMENT No. 2852203 22 FOOT IRRIGATION EASEMENT DOCUMENT No. 2816321 50 FOOT WATERCOURSE SETBACK (TYP) 50 FOOT WATERCOURSE SETBACK (TYP) COVENANT OF DEDICATION DEED RESTRICTION DOCUMENT No. 2299907 COVENANT OF DEDICATION DEED RESTRICTION DOCUMENT No. 2299907 22 FOOT IRRIGATION EASEMENT DOCUMENT No. 2816321 COVENANT OF DEDICATION DEED RESTRICTION DOCUMENT No. 2299907 BAXTER CREEK EXISTING BORROW PIT 4795 4795 4800 4790 47854790 EXISTING STORM WATER DETENTION POND OWNER 8FC LLC P.O. Box 11388 Bozeman, MT 59719 ZONING City of Bozeman R-C PURPOSE To create 99 residential lots, 5 open space lots, 2 restricted lots, a park, and dedicate right of way. EXISTING LIFT STATION STRUCTURE SDSDSDSDSDSDSDD D D D D D D D D D 8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S 8S 8S8S8S8S 8S 8S8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W8W8W8W8W8W8W 8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8WN18°00'44"E 575.40'10' PUE (TYP.) 10' PU E ( T Y P . ) 10' PUE ( T Y P . ) 10' PUE ( T Y P . )BPBPNGXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX OOOOOOOONG DYH DYHDYH S DS S G S S S S S S WVWV WV WV WV WVWV WV WV WV T WV WV PT P T WV WV W W W W W W W W S201854780.033MHS-TEMPS W W W W W WWVWV WV DYHWV WV WV WV WVWVWV WV WVWV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WWWWWWWW W W W W SSS S S W W WWWWWSSSSSSSSSSSSDYH DYH S S BP BPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPP S FMFM FM FM FM FM FM FMS FM FM FM FM ©COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC.,2026 PLOTTED DATE: Mar/10/2026 PLOTTED BY: cooper krause DRAWING NAME: N:\10130\001.04-PDZandPPLAT\ACAD\Survey\Preliminary Plat\10130.004 PRELIMINARY PLAT MASTER.dwg 1/4 SEC.SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE PROJ. #:SHEET OF COUNTY,DATE: SCALE: CLIENT: FIELD WORK: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:1038FC LLC GALLATIN 10130.004 1" = 100' 02/12/2026 KIT/CK NJM MMI 5 EAST 2 SOUTH 9SE, SW MONTANA PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, MONTANAengineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle 2880 Technology Blvd West Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: 406.587.0721 www.m-m.net WEST BABCOCK STREETLAUREL PARKWAYVAUGHN DRIVE BLOCK 1 BLOCK 2 BLOCK 3 BLOCK 4 BLOCK 5 BLOCK 5 RESTRICTED LOT 1 RESTRICTED LOT 2 PARK DON N E R D R I V E POND LILY DRIVESTREET ASTREET AALLEY AALLEY ASTREET B ALLEY BSEE SH E E T 4 SEE SH E E T 5 SEE SH E E T 6 SEE SH E E T 7 SEE SH E E T 8 SEE SH E E T 9 PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LAUREL MEADOWS SUBDIVISION BEING THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS R1A, R1B, R1C, AND R1D OF NORTON EAST RANCH SUBDIVISION PHASE 6, PLAT J-694 LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER AND NORTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 5 EAST, PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA LAKES A T V A L L E Y W E S T SUBDIV I S I O N P H A S E 6 PLAT J-6 7 3 BRONKE N P A R K VALLEY W E S T SUBDIV I S I O N P L A T J - 3 2 0 TRACT 1 VALLEY W E S T SUBDIV I S I O N P L A T J - 3 2 0 TRACT 2 VALLEY W E S T SUBDIV I S I O N P L A T J - 3 2 0 BRONKE N P A R K VALLEY W E S T SUBDIVI S I O N PLAT J-3 2 0 LOT 3 J & D FA M I L Y S U B D I V I S I O N PHASE 2 P L A T J - 6 1 0 A NORTON E A S T RANCH S U B D I V I S I O N P H A S E 2 NORTON E A S T RANCH SUBDIVIS I O N PHASE 1NORTON E A S T RANCH S U B D I V I S I O N NORTON E A S T RANCH S U B D I V I S I O N PHASE 3 A PLAT J-5 6 4 LOT R5B NORTON E A S T R A N C H SUBDIV I S I O N P H A S E 5 PLAT J-7 2 1 LAKES A T V A L L E Y W E S T SUBDIV I S I O N P H A S E 5 A PLAT J-6 4 5 30 6015300 SCALE IN FEET BASIS OF BEARING BOBCAT COORDINATE SYSTEM, NAD83(2011) PER THE "ROCKY MOUNTAIN TRIBAL COORDINATE REFERENCE SYSTEM" Handbook and User Guide, Published September 30th, 2014 and subsequent revisions, established by observations with survey grade receivers. Standard Parallel & Grid Origin: 46°15'00"N Central Meridian: 111°15'00"W False Northing : 100,000.000 Meters False Easting : 100,000.000 Meters Standard Parallel Scale : 1.000185 (exact) LEGEND 15SD 15SD 8W 8W 8S 8S S MW 15SD 15SD 8W 8W 8S 8S E P T BP BP FM XX OO SIDEWALK WALKING TRAIL ℄ COVENANT OF DEDICATION - DEED RESTRICTION - DOCUMENT No. 2299907 EXISTING WETLANDS EXISTING WETLAND TO BE MITIGATED PROPOSED WETLANDS PARK OPEN SPACE CENTERLINE IRRIGATION DITCH EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT LINE PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT LINE EXISTING PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPOSED PROPERTY BOUNDARY EXISTING GAS LINE EXISTING BURIED POWER EXISTING SEWER MAIN W/ SIZE EXISTING WATER MAIN W/ SIZE EXISTING STORM DRAIN W/ SIZE EXISTING FORCE MAIN SEWER PROPOSED BURIED POWER PROPOSED SEWER MAIN W/ SIZE PROPOSED WATER MAIN W/ SIZE PROPOSED STORM DRAIN W/ SIZE PUBLIC STORM WATER POND TELEPHONE PEDESTAL/ BOX ELECTICAL BOX LIGHT POLE POWER POLE ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER BOX PROPOSED STREET LIGHTS STORM DRAIN INLET STORM DRAIN MH SANITARY SEWER MH WATER CURB STOP WATER VALVE FIRE HYDRANT SIGN MONITORING WELL EXISTING BARBWIRE FENCE EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE EXISTING EDGE GRAVEL PLAT NOTE: SEE SHEET 10 FOR CURVE SEGMENT TABLE NG NG PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY LOT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW -BLOCK 4 LOT 1 -BLOCK 5 LOT 33 MF MF MF OWNER 8FC LLC P.O. Box 11388 Bozeman, MT 59719 ZONING City of Bozeman R-C PURPOSE To create 99 residential lots, 5 open space lots, 2 restricted lots, a park, and dedicate right of way. SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDD D DSDSDSDSDD D 8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8WDYH 6WDYHWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWS O.S. 01 1.72 acs.63.00'36.00'S2°11'57"W 63.00'36.00'31.00' 31.00'S2°11'57"W 63.00'31.00' 31.00'S2°11'57"W 63.00'31.00' 31.00'S2°11'57"W 63.00'36.00' 36.00'S2°11'57"W 63.00'36.00' 36.00'S2°11'57"W 63.00'36.00' 36.00'S2°11'57"W 63.00'36.00' 36.00'S2°11'57"W 63.00'38.00' 38.00'S2°11'57"W 63.00'36.00' 36.00'S2°11'57"W 63.00'36.00' 36.00'S2°11'57"W 63.00'N89°31'19"E 322.16' C1 S69° 4 9 ' 4 3 " E 2 1 6 . 1 0 'S22°40'20"W 80.07'N87°48'56"W 206.06'S2°11'57"W 63.00'30.04'67.14'S87°48'03"E 120.00'N0°28'39"W 60.54'70.00' 63.53' 70.00' 37.02'40.69'70.00'40.69'36.00'63.54'36.00'23.31'C270.04'C323.29'28.01'31.00'63.56' C4 C570.00'C6C731.00'64.88' 70.18'C8C9C1031.00'68.44'C119.25'C1213.86'69.87'C1331.00'69.56'12.93'70.00' 8.23'C14C158.10' 70.00'41.00'41.00'69.63'36.16'36.00'36.00'70.00'36.00'31.00'31.00'70.00'31.00'31.00'70.00'31.00'31.00'70.00' 70.04'C189.25'9.25'C198.86'70.00'8.86'C20C2170.00'31.00'31.00'41.00'31.00'70.00'31.00'5.37'C2270.00'C235.37'C2470.17'C25C269.25' 70.00' 9.25'C2770.00'31.00'31.00'70.00'31.00'31.00'70.00'31.00'31.00'36.00'36.00'70.00' N87°48'57"W 420.53' S87°48'56"E 383.00'60.00'N2°11'57"E 254.12'S2°11'04"W 138.25'N2°11'04"E 138.25'S2°11'04"W 138.25'N2°11'04"E 138.25'S2°11'04"W 138.25'N2°11'57"E 64.01'S2°11'57"W 64.00'N18°00'44"E 575.40'S69° 4 9 ' 3 0 " E 1 1 3 . 1 2 ' RESTRICTED LOT 1 6.24 acs.N1°21'36"W 160.25'R=250.00'L=15.47'Δ=3°32'42"N2°11'06"E 153.86'N2°11'06"E213.86'7.49' 170.21' BLOCK 1 LOT 1 BLOCK 1 LOT 2 BLOCK 1 LOT 3 BLOCK 1 LOT 4 BLOCK 1 LOT 5 BLOCK 1 LOT 6 BLOCK 1 LOT 7 BLOCK 1 LOT 9 BLOCK 1 LOT 10 BLOCK 1 LOT 8 BLOCK 1 LOT 11 BLOCK 2 LOT 2 BLOCK 2 LOT 11 BLOCK 2 LOT 12 BLOCK 2 LOT 8 BLOCK 2 LOT 5 BLOCK 2 LOT 9 BLOCK 2 LOT 10 BLOCK 2 LOT 1 BLOCK 2 LOT 6 BLOCK 2 LOT 13 BLOCK 2 LOT 7 BLOCK 2 LOT 4 BLOCK 2 LOT 3 BLOCK 3 LOT 11 BLOCK 3 LOT 10 BLOCK 3 LOT 12 BLOCK 3 LOT 14 BLOCK 3 LOT 15 BLOCK 3 LOT 16 BLOCK 3 LOT 17 BLOCK 3 LOT 5 BLOCK 3 LOT 1 BLOCK 3 LOT 2 BLOCK 3 LOT 3 BLOCK 3 LOT 4 BLOCK 3 LOT 8 BLOCK 3 LOT 7 BLOCK 3 LOT 6 BLOCK 3 LOT 13 BLOCK 1 LOT 2 1953 sq.ft. BLOCK 1 LOT 3 1953 sq.ft. BLOCK 1 LOT 4 1953 sq.ft. BLOCK 1 LOT 1 2268 sq.ft.BLOCK 1 LOT 5 2268 sq.ft. BLOCK 1 LOT 6 2268 sq.ft. BLOCK 1 LOT 7 2268 sq.ft. BLOCK 1 LOT 9 2394 sq.ft. BLOCK 1 LOT 10 2268 sq.ft. BLOCK 1 LOT 8 2268 sq.ft. BLOCK 1 LOT 11 2268 sq.ft. BLOCK 2 LOT 2 2520 sq.ft. BLOCK 2 LOT 11 1985 sq.ft. BLOCK 2 LOT 12 1970 sq.ft. BLOCK 2 LOT 8 2153 sq.ft. BLOCK 2 LOT 5 2520 sq.ft. BLOCK 2 LOT 9 3253 sq.ft. BLOCK 2 LOT 10 2061 sq.ft. BLOCK 2 LOT 1 2848 sq.ft. BLOCK 2 LOT 6 2870 sq.ft. BLOCK 2 LOT 13 2287 sq.ft. BLOCK 2 LOT 7 2511 sq.ft. BLOCK 2 LOT 4 2262 sq.ft. BLOCK 2 LOT 3 2242 sq.ft. BLOCK 3 LOT 11 2244 sq.ft. BLOCK 3 LOT 10 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 3 LOT 12 2658 sq.ft. BLOCK 3 LOT 14 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 3 LOT 15 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 3 LOT 16 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 3 LOT 17 2520 sq.ft. BLOCK 3 LOT 5 3025 sq.ft. BLOCK 3 LOT 1 2520 sq.ft. BLOCK 3 LOT 2 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 3 LOT 3 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 3 LOT 4 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 3 LOT 8 BLOCK 3 LOT 7 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 3 LOT 6 2372 sq.ft. BLOCK 3 LOT 13 2171 sq.ft. 10' P U E ( T Y P . ) 10' PUE (TYP.) 10' PUE (TYP.) 10' PUE (TYP.)10' PUE (TYP.)10' P U E ( T Y P . ) 10' P U E ( T Y P . )BPBPBPBPBPNGNGNGS S BP XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX NGNGNGDYH G S S S S WV WVWV WV WVWV SD SDWS WSWWWWWW W W W W W W W W W W W S S S S S S S S S S S SSSSSSSSSSSS BPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPS S S S S S S SS SSFM FMFM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM S S87°48'03"E 120.00'N2°11'57"E 254.12'R=345.00'L=95.22'Δ=15°48'47"N0°28'39"W 60.54'N89°31'19"E 1157.90' ©COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC.,2026 PLOTTED DATE: Mar/06/2026 PLOTTED BY: cooper krause DRAWING NAME: N:\10130\001.04-PDZandPPLAT\ACAD\Survey\Preliminary Plat\10130.004 PRELIMINARY PLAT MASTER.dwg 1/4 SEC.SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE PROJ. #:SHEET OF COUNTY,DATE: SCALE: CLIENT: FIELD WORK: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:1048FC LLC GALLATIN 10130.004 1" = 30' 02/16/2026 KIT/CK NJM MMI 5 EAST 2 SOUTH 9SE, SW MONTANA PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, MONTANAengineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle 2880 Technology Blvd West Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: 406.587.0721 www.m-m.net 30 6015300 SCALE IN FEET BASIS OF BEARING BOBCAT COORDINATE SYSTEM, NAD83(2011) PER THE "ROCKY MOUNTAIN TRIBAL COORDINATE REFERENCE SYSTEM" Handbook and User Guide, Published September 30th, 2014 and subsequent revisions, established by observations with survey grade receivers. Standard Parallel & Grid Origin: 46°15'00"N Central Meridian: 111°15'00"W False Northing : 100,000.000 Meters False Easting : 100,000.000 Meters Standard Parallel Scale : 1.000185 (exact)LAUREL PARKWAYVAUGHN DRIVE RESTRICTED LOT 1 4.67 ACRES PARK DON N E R D R I V E (60 F O O T R . O . W . )STREET A (60 FOOT R.O.W.)ALLEY A (30 FOOT R.O.W.)STREET B (60 FOOT R.O.W.) LEGEND 15SD 15SD 8W 8W 8S 8S S MW 15SD 15SD 8W 8W 8S 8S E P T BP BP FM XX OO ALLEY B20 F O O T W I D E S E W E R P I P E L I N E A N D A C C E S S EAS E M E N T D O C U M E N T N o . 2 8 5 2 2 0 3 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LAUREL MEADOWS SUBDIVISION BEING THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS R1A, R1B, R1C, AND R1D OF NORTON EAST RANCH SUBDIVISION PHASE 6, PLAT J-694 LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER AND NORTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 5 EAST, PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA PLAT NOTE: SEE SHEET 10 FOR CURVE SEGMENT TABLE 20 FOOT WIDE SEWER PIPELINE AND AC C E S S EASEMENT DOCUMENT No. ____________ _ _ _ _(20 FOOT R.O.W.)20 FOOT WIDE SEWER PIPELINE AND ACCESS EASEMENT DOCUMENT No. ________________ STORM WATER RETENTION POND TO BE REMOVED NG NG LIFT STATION 60 FOOT BREAK 1 FOOT NO ACCESS STRIP STREET B 1 FOOT NO ACCESS STRIP 1 FOOT NO ACCESS STRIP 60 FOOT BREAK 1 FOOT NO ACCESS STRIP DONNER DRIVE 4785 4785 SIDEWALK WALKING TRAIL ℄ COVENANT OF DEDICATION - DEED RESTRICTION - DOCUMENT No. 2299907 EXISTING WETLANDS EXISTING WETLAND TO BE MITIGATED PROPOSED WETLANDS PARK OPEN SPACE CENTERLINE IRRIGATION DITCH EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT LINE PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT LINE EXISTING PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPOSED PROPERTY BOUNDARY EXISTING GAS LINE EXISTING BURIED POWER EXISTING SEWER MAIN W/ SIZE EXISTING WATER MAIN W/ SIZE EXISTING STORM DRAIN W/ SIZE EXISTING FORCE MAIN SEWER PROPOSED BURIED POWER PROPOSED SEWER MAIN W/ SIZE PROPOSED WATER MAIN W/ SIZE PROPOSED STORM DRAIN W/ SIZE PUBLIC STORM WATER POND TELEPHONE PEDESTAL/ BOX ELECTICAL BOX LIGHT POLE POWER POLE ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER BOX PROPOSED STREET LIGHTS STORM DRAIN INLET STORM DRAIN MH SANITARY SEWER MH WATER CURB STOP WATER VALVE FIRE HYDRANT SIGN MONITORING WELL EXISTING BARBWIRE FENCE EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE EXISTING EDGE GRAVEL OWNER 8FC LLC P.O. Box 11388 Bozeman, MT 59719 ZONING City of Bozeman R-C PURPOSE To create 99 residential lots, 5 open space lots, 2 restricted lots, a park, and dedicate right of way. S69° 4 9 ' 4 3 " E 2 1 6 . 1 0 'S22°40'20"W 80.07'N87°48'56"W 206.06'S1°13'55"W 1295.74'N89°31'19"E 1157.90' S69° 4 9 ' 3 0 " E 1 1 3 . 1 2 ' R = 2 3 0 .00'L = 1 8 8.9 8' Δ = 4 7° 0 4 '39"S22°48 '10 "E 251 .56 'R=180.00'L=247.90'Δ=78°54'37"665.53' PARK 11.29 acs. 170.21' 22' IRRIGATIO N E A S E M E N T DOC No. 28163 2 1 22' IR RI G A TI O N E A S E M E N T DOC N o. 2 8 1 6 3 2 1 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FMFMFMFMFM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM N89°31'19"E 1157.90'S1°13'55"W 1295.74'10 0 ' A G R I C U L T U R A L W A T E R US E R F A C I L I T Y E A S E M E N T D O C N o . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ©COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC.,2026 PLOTTED DATE: Mar/10/2026 PLOTTED BY: cooper krause DRAWING NAME: N:\10130\001.04-PDZandPPLAT\ACAD\Survey\Preliminary Plat\10130.004 PRELIMINARY PLAT MASTER.dwg 1/4 SEC.SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE PROJ. #:SHEET OF COUNTY,DATE: SCALE: CLIENT: FIELD WORK: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:1058FC LLC GALLATIN 10130.004 1" = 30' 02/16/2026 KIT/CK NJM MMI 5 EAST 2 SOUTH 9SE, SW MONTANA PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, MONTANAengineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle 2880 Technology Blvd West Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: 406.587.0721 www.m-m.net RESTRICTED LOT 1 6.24 ACRES PARK 11.29 ACRES O.S. 1 1.72 ACRES COVENANT OF DEDICATION - DEED RESTRICTION DOCUMENT No. 2299907 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LAUREL MEADOWS SUBDIVISION BEING THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS R1A, R1B, R1C, AND R1D OF NORTON EAST RANCH SUBDIVISION PHASE 6, PLAT J-694 LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER AND NORTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 5 EAST, PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA 20 FOOT WIDE SEWER PIPELINE AND ACCESS EASEMENT DOCUMENT No. 2852203 20 F O O T W I D E S E W E R P I P E L I N E A N D A C C E S S EAS E M E N T D O C U M E N T N o . 2 8 5 2 2 0 3 COVENANT OF DEDICATION DEED RESTRICTION DOCUMENT No. 2299907 BAXTER CREEK BA X T E R C R E E K BAXTER CREEK UNNAMED IRRIGATION DITCH UNNAMED IRRIGATION DITCH UNNAMED IRRIGATION DITCH 50 FOOT WATERCOURSE SETBACK (TYP) 50 FOOT WATERCOURSE SETBACK (TYP) 50 FOOT WATERCOURSE SETBACK (TYP) 50 FOOT WATERCOURSE SETBACK (TYP) 30 6015300 SCALE IN FEET BASIS OF BEARING BOBCAT COORDINATE SYSTEM, NAD83(2011) PER THE "ROCKY MOUNTAIN TRIBAL COORDINATE REFERENCE SYSTEM" Handbook and User Guide, Published September 30th, 2014 and subsequent revisions, established by observations with survey grade receivers. Standard Parallel & Grid Origin: 46°15'00"N Central Meridian: 111°15'00"W False Northing : 100,000.000 Meters False Easting : 100,000.000 Meters Standard Parallel Scale : 1.000185 (exact) PLAT NOTE: SEE SHEET 10 FOR CURVE SEGMENT TABLE 4785 4785 LEGEND 15SD 15SD 8W 8W 8S 8S S MW 15SD 15SD 8W 8W 8S 8S E P T BP BP FM XX OO SIDEWALK WALKING TRAIL ℄ COVENANT OF DEDICATION - DEED RESTRICTION - DOCUMENT No. 2299907 EXISTING WETLANDS EXISTING WETLAND TO BE MITIGATED PROPOSED WETLANDS PARK OPEN SPACE CENTERLINE IRRIGATION DITCH EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT LINE PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT LINE EXISTING PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPOSED PROPERTY BOUNDARY EXISTING GAS LINE EXISTING BURIED POWER EXISTING SEWER MAIN W/ SIZE EXISTING WATER MAIN W/ SIZE EXISTING STORM DRAIN W/ SIZE EXISTING FORCE MAIN SEWER PROPOSED BURIED POWER PROPOSED SEWER MAIN W/ SIZE PROPOSED WATER MAIN W/ SIZE PROPOSED STORM DRAIN W/ SIZE PUBLIC STORM WATER POND TELEPHONE PEDESTAL/ BOX ELECTICAL BOX LIGHT POLE POWER POLE ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER BOX PROPOSED STREET LIGHTS STORM DRAIN INLET STORM DRAIN MH SANITARY SEWER MH WATER CURB STOP WATER VALVE FIRE HYDRANT SIGN MONITORING WELL EXISTING BARBWIRE FENCE EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE EXISTING EDGE GRAVEL NG NG OWNER 8FC LLC P.O. Box 11388 Bozeman, MT 59719 ZONING City of Bozeman R-C PURPOSE To create 99 residential lots, 5 open space lots, 2 restricted lots, a park, and dedicate right of way. SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDD D D SD SDD SDSDSDD D 8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S 8S 8S 8S 8S 8S 8S 8S 8S8S8S8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8WDYH DYH DYHDYHWSO.S. 05 0.32 acs. O.S. 04 0.05 acs.C11C1213.86'69.87'C1331.00'69.56'12.93'70.00' 8.23'C14C158.10' 70.00'41.00'41.00'69.63'36.16'36.00'C16N89°07'14"E 5.00' N71° 0 2 ' 5 9 " W 1 0 3 . 3 5 '147.87'95.08'36.00'31.00'4.02'C1770.04'C189.25'9.25'C198.86'70.00'8.86'C20C2170.00'31.00'31.00'70.00'41.00'41.00'70.00'44.49'70.00'44.48'31.00'70.00'31.00'5.37'C2270.00'C235.37'C2470.17'C25C269.25'9.25'C27318.30'C29C30S69°16 ' 2 3 " W 7 0 . 0 1'C3117.56 '36.00 '36.00 '38.00 ' N63°0 3' 5 5 " E 7 0. 0 0'26.12 ' S63°0 3' 5 5 " W 7 0 . 0 0'31.00 '31.00 ' S63°0 3' 5 5 " W 7 0. 0 0' S63°0 3' 5 5 " W 7 0 . 0 0' S63°0 3' 5 5 " W 7 0. 0 0' S63°0 3' 5 5 " W 7 0. 0 0' S63°0 3' 5 5 " W 7 0 . 0 0' N79°11'24"E 7 0 . 0 0 ' N89°07'14"E 65.00' S80°57'45"E 6 4 . 9 1 ' S72°0 5 ' 4 4 " E 6 4 . 6 6 ' S72°0 5 ' 4 4 " E 6 4 . 6 6 ' S72°0 5 ' 4 4 " E 6 4 . 6 6 '36.00'31.00'C391.99'C40C41C42C4317.56 '36.00 '36.00 '38.00 '31.00 '31.00 '36.00 ' S72°0 5 ' 4 4 " E 7 0 . 0 0 '36.00'N72°0 5 ' 4 4 " W 7 0 . 0 0 '36.00'N72°0 5 ' 4 4 " W 7 0 . 0 0 '31.00'31.00'S82°07'31"W 70.0 0 'C512.04' 2.12'C52C5311.50' S63°0 3' 5 5 " W 7 0. 0 0' 11.50'C5431.00 ' S63°0 3' 5 5 " W 7 0. 0 0'31.00 '31.00 ' S63°0 3' 5 5 " W 7 0 . 0 0'31.00 '31.00 ' S63°0 3' 5 5 " W 7 0. 0 0'31.00 '31.00 ' S63°0 3' 5 5 " W 7 0. 0 0'31.00 '31.02 ' S63°0 3' 5 5 " W 7 0. 0 0'31.02 '36.00 ' S63°0 3' 5 5 " W 7 0. 0 0'36.00 '31.00 ' S63°0 3' 5 5 " W 7 0 . 0 0'31.00 '31.00 ' S63°0 3' 5 5 " W 7 0. 0 0'31.00 '31.00 ' N89°13'24"E 40.72' N63°0 3' 5 5 " E 7 0 . 0 0'25.00 '31.00 ' N63°0 3' 5 5 " E 7 0. 0 0'31.00 '31.00 ' N63°0 3' 5 5 " E 7 0. 0 0'31.00 '31.00 ' N63°0 3' 5 5 " E 7 0. 0 0'31.00 '31.00 ' N63°0 3' 5 5 " E 7 0 . 0 0'31.00 '36.00 ' N63°0 3' 5 5 " E 7 0 . 0 0'36.00 '31.00 ' N63°0 3' 5 5 " E 7 0. 0 0'31.00 ' S63°0 3' 5 5" W 7 0. 0 0'31.00 ' N63°0 3' 5 5 " E 7 0 . 0 0'31.00 ' N63°0 3' 5 5 " E 7 0. 0 0'31.00 '31.00 ' N88°27'45"E 74.23'42.50 'C6470.00'S20°11'00"E25.00 'N17°54'16"E 69.17'30.00'30.73 ' 30.00' S20°11'00"E 12.87' N89°13'24"E 22.03'286.90'14.74' C65 C66 N0°46'46"W 647.97'O.S. 02 0.35 acs. 44.77' C67N18°00'44"E 575.40'S17°54'16"W 69.12'S17°54'16"W 69.04'S17°54'16"W 68.99'S17°54'16"W 71.02'S72°0 5 ' 4 4 " E 1 5 9 . 7 4 ' S72°0 5 ' 4 4 " E 1 1 4 . 7 4 'S26°56'05 "E 382 .37 'S26°56 '05 "E 93 .00 'S0°46'46"E 386.90'S26°56 '05 "E 184 .99 'S26°56 '05 "E 382 .37 'N26°56 '05 "W 382 .37 'N18°00'44"E 575.40'S26°56 '05 "E 127 .56 'N26°56'05 "W 382 .37 'N1°04'16"W60.00'S88°38'24"W 112.80'N1°21'36"W 160.25'R=250.00'L=15.47'Δ=3°32'42"BLOCK 2 LOT 8 BLOCK 2 LOT 5 BLOCK 2 LOT 9 BLOCK 2 LOT 6 BLOCK 2 LOT 7 BLOCK 3 LOT 11 BLOCK 3 LOT 10 BLOCK 3 LOT 9 BLOCK 3 LOT 12 BLOCK 3 LOT 5 BLOCK 3 LOT 8 BLOCK 3 LOT 7 BLOCK 3 LOT 6 BLOCK 3 LOT 13 BLOCK 4 LOT 1 BLOCK 4 LOT 10 BLOCK 4 LOT 11 BLOCK 4 LOT 13 BLOCK 4 LOT 12 BLOCK 4 LOT 9 BLOCK 4 LOT 8 BLOCK 4 LOT 4 BLOCK 4 LOT 3 BLOCK 4 LOT 2 BLOCK 4 LOT 5 BLOCK 4 LOT 6 BLOCK 4 LOT 7 BLOCK 5 LOT 12 BLOCK 5 LOT 22 BLOCK 5 LOT 23 BLOCK 5 LOT 24 BLOCK 5 LOT 25 BLOCK 5 LOT 26 BLOCK 5 LOT 27 BLOCK 5 LOT 28 BLOCK 5 LOT 30 BLOCK 5 LOT 10 BLOCK 5 LOT 9 BLOCK 5 LOT 11 BLOCK 5 LOT 31 BLOCK 5 LOT 29 BLOCK 5 LOT 8 BLOCK 5 LOT 4 BLOCK 5 LOT 6 BLOCK 5 LOT 7 BLOCK 5 LOT 5 BLOCK 5 LOT 2 BLOCK 5 LOT 3 BLOCK 5 LOT 1 BLOCK 5 LOT 32 BLOCK 2 LOT 8 2153 sq.ft. BLOCK 2 LOT 5 2520 sq.ft. BLOCK 2 LOT 9 3253 sq.ft. BLOCK 2 LOT 6 2870 sq.ft. BLOCK 2 LOT 7 2511 sq.ft. BLOCK 3 LOT 11 2244 sq.ft. BLOCK 3 LOT 10 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 3 LOT 9 3114 sq.ft. BLOCK 3 LOT 12 2658 sq.ft. BLOCK 3 LOT 5 3025 sq.ft. BLOCK 3 LOT 8 2870 sq.ft. BLOCK 3 LOT 7 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 3 LOT 6 2372 sq.ft. BLOCK 3 LOT 13 2171 sq.ft. BLOCK 4 LOT 10 2520 sq.ft. BLOCK 4 LOT 11 2660 sq.ft. BLOCK 4 LOT 13 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 4 LOT 12 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 4 LOT 9 2520 sq.ft. BLOCK 4 LOT 8 2669 sq.ft. BLOCK 4 LOT 4 2276 sq.ft. BLOCK 4 LOT 3 2005 sq.ft. BLOCK 4 LOT 1 14500 sq.ft. BLOCK 4 LOT 2 2328 sq.ft. BLOCK 4 LOT 5 2390 sq.ft. BLOCK 4 LOT 6 2715 sq.ft. BLOCK 4 LOT 7 2689 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 32 26866 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 12 BLOCK 5 LOT 22 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 23 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 24 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 25 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 26 2520 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 27 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 28 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 30 3003 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 10 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 9 2520 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 11 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 31 3977 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 29 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 8 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 4 2784 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 6 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 7 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 5 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 2 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 3 2835 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 1 2520 sq.ft.N17°54'16"E44.46'N26°56 '05 "W 288 .26 'N17°54'16"E34.10'10' P U E ( T Y P . ) 10' PU E ( T Y P.) 10' P U E ( T Y P.) 10' P U E ( T Y P.) 10' PUE (TYP.) 10' P U E ( T Y P . ) 10' P U E ( T Y P . ) 10' P U E ( T Y P . ) 10' PUE (TYP.) S SSWV WV WV WWWWWWWWWWWWSSSSSSSSSSSSSDYH S WSBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBP N18°00'44"E 575.40'©COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC.,2026 PLOTTED DATE: Mar/06/2026 PLOTTED BY: cooper krause DRAWING NAME: N:\10130\001.04-PDZandPPLAT\ACAD\Survey\Preliminary Plat\10130.004 PRELIMINARY PLAT MASTER.dwg 1/4 SEC.SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE PROJ. #:SHEET OF COUNTY,DATE: SCALE: CLIENT: FIELD WORK: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:1068FC LLC GALLATIN 10130.004 1" = 30' 02/25/2026 KIT/CK NJM MMI 5 EAST 2 SOUTH 9SE, SW MONTANA PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, MONTANAengineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle 2880 Technology Blvd West Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: 406.587.0721 www.m-m.netLAUREL PARKWAY (90' R.O.W.)RESTRICTED LOT 1 6.24 ACRES RESTRICTED LOT 2 5.11 ACRES DON N E R D R I V E ( 6 0 ' R . O . W . )POND LILY DRIVE (60' R.O.W.)STREET A (60 ' R .O .W . )ALLEY A (30 ' R .O .W . )STREET A (60' R.O.W.)ALLEY A (30' R.O.W.)OPEN SPACE 03 4.85 ACRES PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LAUREL MEADOWS SUBDIVISION BEING THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS R1A, R1B, R1C, AND R1D OF NORTON EAST RANCH SUBDIVISION PHASE 6, PLAT J-694 LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER AND NORTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 5 EAST, PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA COVENANT OF DEDICATION DEED RESTRICTION DOCUMENT No. 2299907 30 6015300 SCALE IN FEET BASIS OF BEARING BOBCAT COORDINATE SYSTEM, NAD83(2011) PER THE "ROCKY MOUNTAIN TRIBAL COORDINATE REFERENCE SYSTEM" Handbook and User Guide, Published September 30th, 2014 and subsequent revisions, established by observations with survey grade receivers. Standard Parallel & Grid Origin: 46°15'00"N Central Meridian: 111°15'00"W False Northing : 100,000.000 Meters False Easting : 100,000.000 Meters Standard Parallel Scale : 1.000185 (exact) PLAT NOTE: SEE SHEET 10 FOR CURVE SEGMENT TABLEPUBLIC STORMWATERUTILITY EASEMENTPER PLAT J-69460 FOOT BREAK 1 FOOT NO ACCESS STRIP DONNER DRIVE 1 FOOT NO ACCESS STRIP 1 FOOT NO ACCESS STRIP 4785 47 9 0 4790 LEGEND 15SD 15SD 8W 8W 8S 8S S MW 15SD 15SD 8W 8W 8S 8S E P T BP BP FM XX OO SIDEWALK WALKING TRAIL ℄ COVENANT OF DEDICATION - DEED RESTRICTION - DOCUMENT No. 2299907 EXISTING WETLANDS EXISTING WETLAND TO BE MITIGATED PROPOSED WETLANDS PARK OPEN SPACE CENTERLINE IRRIGATION DITCH EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT LINE PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT LINE EXISTING PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPOSED PROPERTY BOUNDARY EXISTING GAS LINE EXISTING BURIED POWER EXISTING SEWER MAIN W/ SIZE EXISTING WATER MAIN W/ SIZE EXISTING STORM DRAIN W/ SIZE EXISTING FORCE MAIN SEWER PROPOSED BURIED POWER PROPOSED SEWER MAIN W/ SIZE PROPOSED WATER MAIN W/ SIZE PROPOSED STORM DRAIN W/ SIZE PUBLIC STORM WATER POND TELEPHONE PEDESTAL/ BOX ELECTICAL BOX LIGHT POLE POWER POLE ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER BOX PROPOSED STREET LIGHTS STORM DRAIN INLET STORM DRAIN MH SANITARY SEWER MH WATER CURB STOP WATER VALVE FIRE HYDRANT SIGN MONITORING WELL EXISTING BARBWIRE FENCE EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE EXISTING EDGE GRAVEL NG NG PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY LOT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW -BLOCK 4 LOT 1 -BLOCK 5 LOT 33 MF MF MF OWNER 8FC LLC P.O. Box 11388 Bozeman, MT 59719 ZONING City of Bozeman R-C PURPOSE To create 99 residential lots, 5 open space lots, 2 restricted lots, a park, and dedicate right of way. SDSDD SDSDSDD 8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S 8S8S8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W 8W 8W8W 8W DYH DYH 10' PUE (TYP.) 22' IRRIGATION EASEMENT DOC No. 2816321 22' IRRIGATIO N E A S E M E N T DOC No. 28163 2 1 XP S1°13'55"W 1295.74'©COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC.,2026 PLOTTED DATE: Mar/10/2026 PLOTTED BY: cooper krause DRAWING NAME: N:\10130\001.04-PDZandPPLAT\ACAD\Survey\Preliminary Plat\10130.004 PRELIMINARY PLAT MASTER.dwg 1/4 SEC.SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE PROJ. #:SHEET OF COUNTY,DATE: SCALE: CLIENT: FIELD WORK: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:1078FC LLC GALLATIN 10130.004 1" = 30' 02/16/2026 KIT/CK NJM MMI 5 EAST 2 SOUTH 9SE, SW MONTANA PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, MONTANAengineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle 2880 Technology Blvd West Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: 406.587.0721 www.m-m.net RESTRICTED LOT 1 6.24 ACRES RESTRICTED LOT 2 5.11 ACRESPOND LILY DRIVE (60' R.O.W.)BLOCK 5PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LAUREL MEADOWS SUBDIVISION BEING THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS R1A, R1B, R1C, AND R1D OF NORTON EAST RANCH SUBDIVISION PHASE 6, PLAT J-694 LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER AND NORTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 5 EAST, PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD EXISTING BORROW PIT BAXTER CREEK COVENANT OF DEDICATION DEED RESTRICTION DOCUMENT No. 2299907 50 FOOT WATERCOURSE SETBACK (TYP) COVENANT OF DEDICATION DEED RESTRICTION DOCUMENT No. 2299907 UNNAMED IRRIGATION DITCH 30 6015300 SCALE IN FEET BASIS OF BEARING BOBCAT COORDINATE SYSTEM, NAD83(2011) PER THE "ROCKY MOUNTAIN TRIBAL COORDINATE REFERENCE SYSTEM" Handbook and User Guide, Published September 30th, 2014 and subsequent revisions, established by observations with survey grade receivers. Standard Parallel & Grid Origin: 46°15'00"N Central Meridian: 111°15'00"W False Northing : 100,000.000 Meters False Easting : 100,000.000 Meters Standard Parallel Scale : 1.000185 (exact) PLAT NOTE: SEE SHEET 10 FOR CURVE SEGMENT TABLE 4790 4790 47904785 4 7 9 5 4795 47804780 25 FOOT WETLAND OFFSET 25 FOOT WETLAND OFFSET LEGEND 15SD 15SD 8W 8W 8S 8S S MW 15SD 15SD 8W 8W 8S 8S E P T BP BP FM XX OO SIDEWALK WALKING TRAIL ℄ COVENANT OF DEDICATION - DEED RESTRICTION - DOCUMENT No. 2299907 EXISTING WETLANDS EXISTING WETLAND TO BE MITIGATED PROPOSED WETLANDS PARK OPEN SPACE CENTERLINE IRRIGATION DITCH EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT LINE PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT LINE EXISTING PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPOSED PROPERTY BOUNDARY EXISTING GAS LINE EXISTING BURIED POWER EXISTING SEWER MAIN W/ SIZE EXISTING WATER MAIN W/ SIZE EXISTING STORM DRAIN W/ SIZE EXISTING FORCE MAIN SEWER PROPOSED BURIED POWER PROPOSED SEWER MAIN W/ SIZE PROPOSED WATER MAIN W/ SIZE PROPOSED STORM DRAIN W/ SIZE PUBLIC STORM WATER POND TELEPHONE PEDESTAL/ BOX ELECTICAL BOX LIGHT POLE POWER POLE ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER BOX PROPOSED STREET LIGHTS STORM DRAIN INLET STORM DRAIN MH SANITARY SEWER MH WATER CURB STOP WATER VALVE FIRE HYDRANT SIGN MONITORING WELL EXISTING BARBWIRE FENCE EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE EXISTING EDGE GRAVEL NG NG PROPOSED OPEN WATER OWNER 8FC LLC P.O. Box 11388 Bozeman, MT 59719 ZONING City of Bozeman R-C PARK 11.29 ACRES PURPOSE To create 99 residential lots, 5 open space lots, 2 restricted lots, a park, and dedicate right of way. 8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S 8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S 8S8S8S 8S 8S 8S 8S 8S 8S 8S 8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W 8W 8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W 8W 8W 8W 8W DYHDYHDYHO.S. 05 0.32 acs. O.S. 04 0.05 acs. 30.83'S0°46'46"E 70.00'41.04'30.62'704.67'N0°36'20"W 277.38'C2836.00 '36.00 '38.00 ' N63°0 3' 5 5 " E 7 0. 0 0'26.12 ' S63°0 3' 5 5 " W 7 0 . 0 0'31.00 '31.00 '36.00 '36.00 '36.00 '36.00 '22.69 'C32C3 3 C 3 4 C3 5 C36 C37 S0°46'46"E 70.02'C38S12°25'17"W 70.00'S23°57'30"W 70.00'S35°29'43"W 70.00'S47°01'5 6" W 70.0 0' S63°4 3' 1 7 " W 7 0. 2 0' S63°0 3' 5 5 " W 7 0 . 0 0' S63°0 3' 5 5 " W 7 0. 0 0' S63°0 3' 5 5 " W 7 0 . 0 0' S63°0 3' 5 5 " W 7 0 . 0 0' S63°0 3' 5 5 " W 7 0. 0 0' S63°0 3' 5 5 " W 7 0 . 0 0' S63°0 3' 5 5 " W 7 0 . 0 0' S63°0 3' 5 5 " W 7 0 . 0 0'36.00 '38.00 '31.00 '31.00 '36.00 '36.00 '36.00 '36.00 '22.69 'C44C4 5 C 4 6 C4 7 C48 C49 C50 30.83'41.04'70.00'S63°0 3' 5 5" W 7 0. 0 0'31.00 ' S63°0 3' 5 5 " W 7 0. 0 0'31.00 '31.02 ' S63°0 3' 5 5 " W 7 0 . 0 0'31.02 '36.00 ' S63°0 3' 5 5 " W 7 0 . 0 0'36.00 '31.00 ' S63°0 3' 5 5 " W 7 0. 0 0'31.00 '31.00 ' S63°0 3' 5 5" W 7 0. 0 0'31.00 '31.00 '31.00 ' S63°0 3' 5 5 " W 7 0. 0 0' S63°0 3' 5 5 " W 7 0 . 0 0'31.00 '31.00 ' S63°0 3' 5 5 " W 7 0. 0 0'31.00 '31.00 '24.86 '24.86 ' C61 S54° 3 1' 4 7" W 7 0. 1 5'C55 C 5 6 S33°27'31"W 70.04'C 5 7 C58 S5°07'25"W 70.00'C59 C60 C62 30.83'S0°46'46"E 70.00'30.83'S0°46'46"E 70.00'41.04' 41.04'70.00'60.06'N14°39'50"E 72.62'N89°13'24"E 40.72' C6 356.15 ' N63°0 3' 5 5 " E 7 0. 0 0'25.00 ' 11.81'31.00 ' N63°0 3' 5 5 " E 7 0 . 0 0'31.00 '31.00 ' N63°0 3' 5 5 " E 7 0. 0 0'31.00 '31.00 ' N63°0 3' 5 5" E 7 0. 0 0'31.00 '31.00 ' N63°0 3' 5 5 " E 7 0 . 0 0'31.00 '36.00 ' N63°0 3' 5 5 " E 7 0. 0 0'36.00 '30.00'30.73 ' N89°13'24"E 22.03' O.S. 03 4.85 acs.N0°46'46"W 647.97'S26°56'05 "E 382 .37 'S0°46'46"E 386.90'S26°56 '05 "E 184 .99 ' S89°13'16"W 71.87' S89°13'16"W 71.87' S89°13'16"W 71.87'S26°56 '05 "E 382 .37 'N26°56 '05 "W 382 .37 'S26°56 '05 "E 228 .69 'N26°56 '05 "W 382 .37 'S26°56 '05 "E 127 .56 'N26°56'05 "W 382 .37 ' S89°13'14"W 71.87' S89°13'16"W 71.87' S89°04'28"W 1463.48'N18°00'44"E 575.40'BLOCK 4 LOT 20 BLOCK 4 LOT 21 BLOCK 4 LOT 22 BLOCK 4 LOT 23 BLOCK 4 LOT 25 BLOCK 4 LOT 19 BLOCK 4 LOT 17 BLOCK 4 LOT 15 BLOCK 4 LOT 16 BLOCK 4 LOT 18 BLOCK 4 LOT 10 BLOCK 4 LOT 11 BLOCK 4 LOT 13 BLOCK 4 LOT 12 BLOCK 4 LOT 14 BLOCK 4 LOT 24 BLOCK 5 LOT 12 BLOCK 5 LOT 13 BLOCK 5 LOT 14 BLOCK 5 LOT 16 BLOCK 5 LOT 19 BLOCK 5 LOT 22 BLOCK 5 LOT 23 BLOCK 5 LOT 24 BLOCK 5 LOT 25 BLOCK 5 LOT 26 BLOCK 5 LOT 21 BLOCK 5 LOT 10 BLOCK 5 LOT 9 BLOCK 5 LOT 11 BLOCK 5 LOT 8 BLOCK 5 LOT 18 BLOCK 5 LOT 17 BLOCK 5 LOT 15 BLOCK 5 LOT 20 BLOCK 4 LOT 20 3030 sq.ft. BLOCK 4 LOT 21 3030 sq.ft. BLOCK 4 LOT 22 3030 sq.ft. BLOCK 4 LOT 23 3106 sq.ft. BLOCK 4 LOT 25 2873 sq.ft. BLOCK 4 LOT 19 3251 sq.ft. BLOCK 4 LOT 17 2520 sq.ft. BLOCK 4 LOT 15 2520 sq.ft. BLOCK 4 LOT 16 2520 sq.ft. BLOCK 4 LOT 18 2549 sq.ft. BLOCK 4 LOT 10 2520 sq.ft. BLOCK 4 LOT 11 2660 sq.ft. BLOCK 4 LOT 13 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 4 LOT 12 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 4 LOT 14 2520 sq.ft. 2520 sq.ft. BLOCK 4 LOT 24 2520 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 12 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 13 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 14 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 16 2716 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 19 2873 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 22 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 23 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 24 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 25 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 26 2520 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 21 4099 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 10 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 9 2520 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 11 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 8 2170 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 18 2771 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 17 2765 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 15 2276 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 20 3527 sq.ft. 10' PU E ( T Y P. ) 10' PUE (TYP.) 10' PU E ( T Y P.) 10' PU E ( T Y P . ) 10' PU E ( T Y P. ) 10' PUE (TYP.) 10' PUE (TYP.) XXXXXXXXXXXXXX OO DYH DYH S D S WV WV WV WV WV WV WV W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WWW WV DYH WV WV WV WSSBPBPBPBPBPBPBPWN0°36'20"W 277.38'R=255.00'L=82.86'Δ=18°37'04"N18°00'44"E 575.40'©COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC.,2026 PLOTTED DATE: Mar/09/2026 PLOTTED BY: cooper krause DRAWING NAME: N:\10130\001.04-PDZandPPLAT\ACAD\Survey\Preliminary Plat\10130.004 PRELIMINARY PLAT MASTER.dwg 1/4 SEC.SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE PROJ. #:SHEET OF COUNTY,DATE: SCALE: CLIENT: FIELD WORK: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:1088FC LLC GALLATIN 10130.004 1" = 30' 02/25/2026 KIT/CK NJM MMI 5 EAST 2 SOUTH 9SE, SW MONTANA PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, MONTANAengineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle 2880 Technology Blvd West Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: 406.587.0721 www.m-m.netWEST BABCOCK STREET (90' R.O.W.) RESTRICTED LOT 2 5.11 ACRES POND LILY DRIVE (60' R.O.W.)STREET A (60 ' R .O .W . )ALLEY A (30 ' R .O .W . ) STORM WATER DRAINAGE EASEMENT DOC No. 2797951 & 2799988 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LAUREL MEADOWS SUBDIVISION BEING THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS R1A, R1B, R1C, AND R1D OF NORTON EAST RANCH SUBDIVISION PHASE 6, PLAT J-694 LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER AND NORTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 5 EAST, PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA LAUREL PARKWAY(90' R.O.W.)STORM WATER DRA INAGE EASEMENTDOCUMENT No . 2797951 & 2799988 COVENANT OF DEDICATION DEED RESTRICTION DOCUMENT No. 2299907 EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVE ACCESS 30 6015300 SCALE IN FEET BASIS OF BEARING BOBCAT COORDINATE SYSTEM, NAD83(2011) PER THE "ROCKY MOUNTAIN TRIBAL COORDINATE REFERENCE SYSTEM" Handbook and User Guide, Published September 30th, 2014 and subsequent revisions, established by observations with survey grade receivers. Standard Parallel & Grid Origin: 46°15'00"N Central Meridian: 111°15'00"W False Northing : 100,000.000 Meters False Easting : 100,000.000 Meters Standard Parallel Scale : 1.000185 (exact) PLAT NOTE: SEE SHEET 10 FOR CURVE SEGMENT TABLE 1 FOOT NO ACCESS STRIP 1 FOOT NO ACCESS STRIP 1 FOOT NO ACCESS STRIP 60 FOOT BREAK 1 FOOT NO ACCESS STRIP POND LILY DRIVE 4795 47 9 5 4790 LEGEND 15SD 15SD 8W 8W 8S 8S S MW 15SD 15SD 8W 8W 8S 8S E P T BP BP FM XX OO SIDEWALK WALKING TRAIL ℄ COVENANT OF DEDICATION - DEED RESTRICTION - DOCUMENT No. 2299907 EXISTING WETLANDS EXISTING WETLAND TO BE MITIGATED PROPOSED WETLANDS PARK OPEN SPACE CENTERLINE IRRIGATION DITCH EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT LINE PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT LINE EXISTING PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPOSED PROPERTY BOUNDARY EXISTING GAS LINE EXISTING BURIED POWER EXISTING SEWER MAIN W/ SIZE EXISTING WATER MAIN W/ SIZE EXISTING STORM DRAIN W/ SIZE EXISTING FORCE MAIN SEWER PROPOSED BURIED POWER PROPOSED SEWER MAIN W/ SIZE PROPOSED WATER MAIN W/ SIZE PROPOSED STORM DRAIN W/ SIZE PUBLIC STORM WATER POND TELEPHONE PEDESTAL/ BOX ELECTICAL BOX LIGHT POLE POWER POLE ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER BOX PROPOSED STREET LIGHTS STORM DRAIN INLET STORM DRAIN MH SANITARY SEWER MH WATER CURB STOP WATER VALVE FIRE HYDRANT SIGN MONITORING WELL EXISTING BARBWIRE FENCE EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE EXISTING EDGE GRAVEL NG NG OWNER 8FC LLC P.O. Box 11388 Bozeman, MT 59719 ZONING City of Bozeman R-C PURPOSE To create 99 residential lots, 5 open space lots, 2 restricted lots, a park, and dedicate right of way. 8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W 8W 8W8W8W 41.04'30.62'41.04'70.00'S0°46'46"E 70.00'41.04' 41.04'70.00'N89°13'24"E 30.00'N89°13'24"E 22.03'286.90'341.38'N0°46'46"W 647.97'RESTRICTED LOT 2 5.11 acs.S0°46'46"E 386.90'S89°13'16"W 71.87' S89°04'28"W 1463.48'S1°13'55"W 1295.74'S0°46'46"E 678.81'357.43' BLOCK 4 LOT 25 BLOCK 5 LOT 19 BLOCK 5 BLOCK 4 LOT 25 2873 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 LOT 19 2873 sq.ft. BLOCK 5 3527 sq.ft. PARK 11.29 acs. 10' PUE (TYP.) 10' PUE (TYP.) 22' IRRIGATION EASEMENT DOC No. 2816321 22' IRRIGATION EASEMENT DOC No. 2816321 X OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO S WV WV PT W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WWV WV P W©COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC.,2026 PLOTTED DATE: Mar/10/2026 PLOTTED BY: cooper krause DRAWING NAME: N:\10130\001.04-PDZandPPLAT\ACAD\Survey\Preliminary Plat\10130.004 PRELIMINARY PLAT MASTER.dwg 1/4 SEC.SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE PROJ. #:SHEET OF COUNTY,DATE: SCALE: CLIENT: FIELD WORK: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:1098FC LLC GALLATIN 10130.004 1" = 30' 02/16/2026 KIT/CK NJM MMI 5 EAST 2 SOUTH 9SE, SW MONTANA PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, MONTANAengineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle 2880 Technology Blvd West Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: 406.587.0721 www.m-m.net RESTRICTED LOT 2 5.11 ACRES POND LILY DRIVE (60' R.O.W.)STREET A ALLEY A POND LILY DRIVE (60' R.O.W.)WEST BABCOCK STREET (90' R.O.W.) PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LAUREL MEADOWS SUBDIVISION BEING THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS R1A, R1B, R1C, AND R1D OF NORTON EAST RANCH SUBDIVISION PHASE 6, PLAT J-694 LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER AND NORTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 5 EAST, PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA EXIS TI N G G R A V E L D RI V E A C C E S S EXISTING BORROW PIT UNNAMED IRRIGATION DITCH COVENANT OF DEDICATION DEED RESTRICTION DOCUMENT No. 2299907 30 6015300 SCALE IN FEET BASIS OF BEARING BOBCAT COORDINATE SYSTEM, NAD83(2011) PER THE "ROCKY MOUNTAIN TRIBAL COORDINATE REFERENCE SYSTEM" Handbook and User Guide, Published September 30th, 2014 and subsequent revisions, established by observations with survey grade receivers. Standard Parallel & Grid Origin: 46°15'00"N Central Meridian: 111°15'00"W False Northing : 100,000.000 Meters False Easting : 100,000.000 Meters Standard Parallel Scale : 1.000185 (exact) LEGEND 15SD 15SD 8W 8W 8S 8S S MW 15SD 15SD 8W 8W 8S 8S E P T BP BP FM XX OO PLAT NOTE: SEE SHEET 10 FOR CURVE SEGMENT TABLE NG NG 60 FOOT BREAK 1 FOOT NO ACCESS STRIP POND LILY DRIVE 1 FOOT NO ACCESS STRIP 1 FOOT NO ACCESS STRIP 4800 4795 4795 4 7 9 0 4 7 8 5 47 8 0 4785 4 7 8 5 SIDEWALK WALKING TRAIL ℄ COVENANT OF DEDICATION - DEED RESTRICTION - DOCUMENT No. 2299907 EXISTING WETLANDS WETLANDS TO BE MITIGATED PROPOSED WETLANDS PARK OPENSPACE CENTERLINE IRRIGATION DITCH EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT LINE PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT LINE EXISTING PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPOSED PROPERTY BOUNDARY EXISTING GAS LINE EXISTING BURIED POWER EXISTING SEWER MAIN W/ SIZE EXISTING WATER MAIN W/ SIZE EXISTING STORM DRAIN W/ SIZE EXISTING FORCE MAIN SEWER PROPOSED BURIED POWER PROPOSED SEWER MAIN W/ SIZE PROPOSED WATER MAIN W/ SIZE PROPOSED STORM DRAIN W/ SIZE PUBLIC STORM WATER POND TELEPHONE PEDESTAL/ BOX ELECTICAL BOX LIGHT POLE POWER POLE ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER BOX PROPOSED STREET LIGHTS STORM DRAIN INLET STORM DRAIN MH SANITARY SEWER MH WATER CURB STOP WATER VALVE FIRE HYDRANT SIGN MONITORING WELL EXISTING BARBWIRE FENCE EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE EXISTING EDGE GRAVEL 25 FOOT WETLAND OFFSET 25 FOOT WETLAND OFFSET 25 FOOT WETLAND OFFSET OWNER 8FC LLC P.O. Box 11388 Bozeman, MT 59719 ZONING City of Bozeman R-C PARK 11.29 ACRES PURPOSE To create 99 residential lots, 5 open space lots, 2 restricted lots, a park, and dedicate right of way. PARCEL CURVE DATA SEGMENT C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20 C21 C22 C23 C24 C25 C26 C27 C29 C30 C31 C32 C33 C34 C35 C36 C37 C38 LENGTH 2.69 12.69 12.71 2.99 36.15 27.90 31.04 26.85 37.77 31.21 36.87 32.92 17.95 27.76 27.92 36.12 42.40 29.66 38.26 19.73 30.33 23.72 29.65 31.33 44.62 21.77 21.76 44.85 44.48 24.36 13.31 56.64 50.34 50.34 50.34 52.43 5.17 RADIUS 170.00 415.00 345.00 435.00 415.00 345.00 435.00 345.00 415.00 435.00 435.00 120.00 435.00 345.00 415.00 238.00 238.00 180.00 250.00 180.00 250.00 280.00 350.00 280.00 350.00 280.00 350.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 DELTA 000°54'27" 001°45'09" 002°06'41" 000°23'40" 004°59'30" 004°37'58" 004°05'16" 004°27'32" 005°12'52" 004°06'39" 004°51'21" 015°43'12" 002°21'51" 004°36'36" 003°51'17" 008°41'40" 010°12'28" 009°26'23" 008°46'10" 006°16'48" 006°57'01" 004°51'15" 004°51'15" 006°24'41" 007°18'13" 004°27'15" 003°33'44" 010°16'44" 010°11'37" 005°34'57" 003°03'04" 012°58'55" 011°32'13" 011°32'13" 011°32'13" 012°00'57" 001°11'04" PARCEL CURVE DATA SEGMENT C39 C40 C41 C42 C43 C44 C45 C46 C47 C48 C49 C50 C51 C52 C53 C54 C55 C56 C57 C58 C59 C60 C61 C62 C63 C64 C65 C66 C67 C69 LENGTH 28.12 31.16 32.72 32.36 16.77 14.12 36.24 36.24 36.24 36.24 36.30 5.17 54.21 22.64 16.63 39.92 12.88 25.94 51.67 22.19 56.81 12.36 2.44 5.15 22.29 15.74 77.33 17.23 39.88 102.20 RADIUS 180.00 180.00 180.00 180.00 180.00 180.00 180.00 180.00 180.00 180.00 180.00 180.00 120.00 50.00 50.00 120.00 120.00 50.00 120.00 50.00 120.00 120.00 50.00 50.00 20.00 20.00 230.00 170.00 170.00 180.02 DELTA 008°57'04" 009°55'01" 010°24'52" 010°18'05" 005°20'22" 004°29'46" 011°32'13" 011°32'13" 011°32'13" 011°32'13" 011°33'17" 001°38'43" 025°52'56" 025°56'20" 019°03'36" 019°03'36" 006°08'51" 029°43'16" 024°40'17" 025°25'27" 027°07'21" 005°54'09" 002°47'47" 005°54'09" 063°50'38" 045°05'31" 019°15'53" 005°48'27" 013°26'27" 032°31'47" ©COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC.,2026 PLOTTED DATE: Mar/06/2026 PLOTTED BY: cooper krause DRAWING NAME: N:\10130\001.04-PDZandPPLAT\ACAD\Survey\Preliminary Plat\10130.004 PRELIMINARY PLAT MASTER.dwg 1/4 SEC.SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE PROJ. #:SHEET OF COUNTY,DATE: SCALE: CLIENT: FIELD WORK: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:10108FC LLC GALLATIN 10130.004 02/16/2026 KIT/NM NJM MMI 5 EAST 2 SOUTH 9SE, SW MONTANA PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, MONTANAengineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle 2880 Technology Blvd West Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: 406.587.0721 www.m-m.net OWNER 8FC LLC P.O. Box 11388 Bozeman, MT 59719 ZONING City of Bozeman R-C PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LAUREL MEADOWS SUBDIVISION BEING THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS R1A, R1B, R1C, AND R1D OF NORTON EAST RANCH SUBDIVISION PHASE 6, PLAT J-694 LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER AND NORTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 5 EAST, PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA NOTIFICATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS I, the undersigned property owner, do hereby certifiy that the text and/or graphics shown on the Conditions of Approval Sheet(s) represent(s) requirements by the governing body for final plat approval and that all conditions of subdivision application have been satisfied. I, the undersigned property owner, do hereby certify that the information shown is current as of the date of this certification, and that changes to any land-use restrictions or encumbrances may be made by amendments to covenants, zoning regulations, easements, or other documents as allowed by law or by local regulations. I, the undersigned property owner, do hereby certify that I acknowledge that federal, state, and local plans, policies, regulations, and/or conditions of subdivision approval may limit the use of the property, including the location, size, and use as shown on the Conditions of Approval sheet or as otherwise stated. Buyers of property should ensure that they have obtained and reviewed all sheets of the plat and all documents recorded and filed in conjunction with the plat. Buyers of property are strongly encouraged to contact the local planning department and become informed of any limitations on the use of the property prior to closing. DATED this ________, day of ______________________, 20____. 8FC, L.L.C. By: ________________________________________________________________________________, Patrick Eibs ,Managing Member Dated State of ____________________________________ County of ___________________________________ On this ________________ day of ___________________________, 20__, before me, the undersigned Notary Public for the State of _____________________ personally appeared _______________________, known to me to be the Managing Member of 8FC, L.L.C. and acknowledged to me that said Inc. executed the same. Notary Public in and for the State of ___________________ Printed Name _____________________________________ Residing at _______________________________________ My commission expires _____________________________ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF LAUREL MEADOWS SUBDIVISION Record Documents: Document No. 2299907 Document No. 2797951 Document No. 2799988 Document No. 2816321 Document No. 2852203 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION OF NON-PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS We, 8FC, LLC, hereby certify that the following non-public improvements, required to meet the requirements of chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code or as a condition(s) of approval of The Final Plat of Laurel Meadows Subdivision, have been installed in conformance with any approved plans and specifications prepared in accordance with the standards of Chapter 38 or other City design standards, or have been financially guaranteed and are covered by the subdivision improvements agreement accompanying and recorded with this plat. Installed Improvements: Financially Guaranteed Improvements: All open space improvements We, 8FC, LLC, hereby warrant said improvements against any and all defects for a period of two years from the date of acceptance by Laurel Meadows Owners Association. Unless specifically listed in the Certificate of Dedication, the city accepts no responsibility for maintaining the same. The subdivider hereby grants ownership of all non-public infrastructure improvements to the property owners association created by document number _____________. DATED this ________, day of ______________________, 20____. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION OF WATER-RELATED IMPROVEMENTS I, _____________________, hereby certify that the following improvements, necessary to meet the requirements of chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code or as a condition(s) of approval of The Final Plat of Laurel Meadows Subdivision, have been installed in conformance with the approved plans and specifications, or financially guaranteed and covered by the improvements agreement accompanying this plat. Installed Improvements: Financially Guaranteed Improvements: The subdivider hereby warrants said improvements against any and all defects for a period of two years from the date of acceptance by the City of Bozeman. The subdivider hereby grants ownership of all public infrastructure improvements to the City of Bozeman and the city hereby accepts ownership of all public infrastructure improvements, subject to the above indicated warranty. __________________ ____________________________ Signature of Subdivider Dated ___________________ ____________________________ Signature, Director of Transportation and Engineering Dated 8FC, L.L.C. By: ________________________________________________________________________________, Patrick Eibs ,Managing Member Dated State of ____________________________________ County of ___________________________________ On this ________________ day of ___________________________, 20__, before me, the undersigned Notary Public for the State of _____________________ personally appeared _______________________, known to me to be the Managing Member of 8FC, L.L.C. and acknowledged to me that said Inc. executed the same. Notary Public in and for the State of ___________________ Printed Name _____________________________________ Residing at _______________________________________ My commission expires _____________________________ PURPOSE To create 99 residential lots, 5 open space lots, 2 restricted lots, a park, and dedicate right of way. Due to the potential of high groundwater table in the area of the subdivision, no basements or crawlspaces may be constructed within the subdivisions, unless a professional engineer registered in the State of Montana certifies that the lowest point of any proposed structure is located above the season high groundwater level and provides supporting groundwater data or certifies that the structure has been designed in such a way to accommodate the seasonal high groundwater prior to the release of building permits. In addition sump pumps are not allowed to be connected to the sanitary sewer system or discharge in the public right-of- way. Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 39 | Page APPENDIX B: WETLAND CHECKLIST Morrison-Maierle Wetland Review Checklist for City of Bozeman Submittals 1 38.710.120.A Are aquatic resources present on or adjacent to the subject property?Yes See wetland delineation report (2021, updated in 2025 to meet COB code standards) 2 38.610.030.A(3) 38.710.120.A(1) If no aquatic resources are present, on or adjacent to the property, has a qualified wetland professional submitted a letter to the City confirming this? NA Note: If "yes", then stop here and mark the rest of the checklist “N/A.” If no, submit the letter and mark the rest of the checklist “N/A" 3 38.610.030.A(1)Conduct a wetland delineation (boundary determination) in accordance with the procedures specified in the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (January 1987). Yes See wetland delineation report. 4 38.710.120.A(2) 38.610.030.A(1) Prepare a wetland delineation report.Yes See wetland delineation report. 5 38.610.030.A(1, 2)Wetland delineation and report are prepared by a qualified wetland professional compliant with BMC 38.610.030.A(2).Yes Christine Pearcy, over 25 years of experience. 6 38.710.120 Wetland delineation report compliant with BMC 38.710.120, that includes the following:Yes See wetland delineation report. 7 38.710.120.A(2)(a)(1)Wetland and watercourse descriptions.Yes See wetland delineation report. 8 38.710.120.A(2)(a)(2)Approved Jurisdictional Determination from USACE Yes See wetland delineation report. 9 38.710.120.A(2)(a)(3)Functional assessment (MDT or DEQ) for all wetlands. Yes See wetland mitigation report. 10 38.710.120.A(2)(a)(4)Data that supports "accurate confirmation of the three positive wetland indicators" as defined in 38.700.210 Yes See wetland delineation report. 11 38.710.120.A(2)(a)(5)Wetland acreages (by a licensed surveyor).Yes See wetland delineation report. 12 38.710.120.A(2)(a)(6)Maps with property boundaries, watercourse centerlines, OHWM, setbacks, wetland boundaries, buffers, wetland acreages.Yes See wetland delineation report. 13 38.710.120.A(2)(a)(7)USACE wetland data forms.Yes See wetland delineation report. 14 38.710.120.A(2)(a)(8)Determination of watercourse status by the Gallatin County Conservation District NA No impacts proposed to waterways within the subject property. Our regional experience indicates that Baxter Creek is within the jurisdiction of the Gallatin Conservation District. See wetland mitigation report. 15 38.710.120.A(2)(a)(9)Narrative description of how the applicant will avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to wetland and watercourses.Yes See wetland mitigation report. 16 38.710.120.A(3)Are activities planned in or adjacent to aquatic resources? If yes, submit a site plan that includes:Yes 17 38.710.120.A(3)Property boundaries 18 38.710.120.A(3)Delineated wetland boundaries 19 38.710.120.A(3)Delineated watercourse boundaries Section A. Wetland Checklist Checklist No. COB code reference Item Included in submittal?Note(s) December 2025 - Version 2.1 yes yes yes Morrison-Maierle Wetland Review Checklist for City of Bozeman Submittals Checklist No. COB code reference Item Included in submittal?Note(s) 20 38.710.120.A(3)Buffer boundaries 21 38.710.120.A(3)Setbacks 22 38.710.120.A(3)Existing and proposed structures 23 38.710.120.A(3)Existing and proposed roads and trails 24 38.710.120.A(3)Existing and proposed easements 25 38.710.120.A(3)Table of wetland jurisdictional status, functional ratings, acreage, buffers, and linear feet of all watercourses 26 38.710.120.A(3)(b)All indirect impacts summarized in a table, and discussed in a narrative section of the delineation report Yes Impacts are discussed in the wetland mitigation report. 27 38.710.120.A(3)(c)Application materials for all applicable permits. NA Required permits for the project are summarized in Section 1.4 of the Mitigation Report and at the bottom of this checklist. The project is in Pre-Plat stage currently. Upon approval from COB, the project will move forward to full design which will include obtaining these permits from the respective agencies. 28 38.710.120.A(3)(d)A completed wetland review checklist Yes This is the wetland review checklist. 29 Are direct impacts proposed?Yes If "yes" proceed to No. 15, if "no" stop here and mark the rest of the checklist "NA" 30 38.610.030.B Is the wetland less than 400 square feet? If "yes", go to No.31, if "no" go to No.32.No 31 38.610.030.B(1, 2, 3)Does the wetland provide habitat for senstivie species, or is within an interconnected mosaic? NA If no, stop here and mark the remainder of this list as "NA" if yes, then proceed 32 38.610.030.D Demonstrate that all adverse impacts on a wetland have been avoided; if "no" go to no. 38 No See wetland mitigation report. Impacts to wetlands overall on the property have been avoided: subdivision design avoids impacting Wetland 1 and Wetland 5 on the southwest portion of the property, as well as Baxter Creek and its wetland fringe (Wetland 4) on the northeast corner of the property. 33 38.610.030.D 38.610.080.A(4) Demonstrate that unavoidable impacts were minimized, will be minimal, and will not modify sensitive habitat; if "no" go to no. 34 No See wetland mitigation report. In order to build a practicable residential layout, Wetland 3 and its associated buffer will be filled to bring the surface to residential grade. To compensate for this 2.58 acre loss, a 2.6 acre wetland mitigation area is planned for the southeast corner of the site, expanding the existing Bronken Natural Space to the north which follows the Baxter Creek corridor. 34 38.610.030.D Demonstrate the impacts to wetlands or buffers or watercoures are necessary to advance other policies and goals of the city Yes See wetland mitigation report. If a minimum of one item from No. 32-34 is not checked as "yes" then the project is not compliant with BMC and must be redesigned to comply with code. Stop here and redesign. December 2025 - Version 2.1 yes yes yes yes yes yes Morrison-Maierle Wetland Review Checklist for City of Bozeman Submittals Checklist No. COB code reference Item Included in submittal?Note(s) 35 38.710.120.A(3)(a)A site plan consistent with 38.710.120.A(3)(a) 36 38.610.040.B(1)If the wetlands are jurisdictional by USACE, then submit a copy of the 404 permit NA Required permits for the project are summarized in Section 1.4 of the Mitigation Report. The project is in Pre-Plat stage currently. Upon approval from COB, the project will move forward to full design which will include obtaining these permits from the respective agencies. 37 38.610.080.A(2)Identify the extent and permanence of adverse effects to the wetland or watercourse Yes See wetland mitigation report. 38 38.710.120.A(4)Are there unavoidable impacts to wetlands and/or watercourses? Yes See wetland mitigation report. In order to build a practicable residential layout, Wetland 3 and its associated buffer will be filled to bring the surface to residential grade. To compensate for this 2.58 acre loss, a 2.6 acre wetland mitigation area is planned for the southeast corner of the site, expanding the existing Bronken Natural Space to the north which follows the Baxter Creek corridor. If "yes," then submit the following in a Compensatory Mititgation Report. The report should include descriptive narrative of the following components. 39 38.710.120.A(4)(a)(1)Identify mitigation approach consistent with 38.610.100 and provide rationale Yes See wetland mitigation report. 40 38.710.120.A(4)(a)(2)Applicant name and contact Yes See wetland mitigation report. 41 38.710.120.A(4)(a)(2)Author name, contact, and qualifications Yes See wetland mitigation report. 42 38.710.120.A(4)(a)(2)Proposed mitigation description Yes See wetland mitigation report. 43 38.710.120.A(4)(a)(2)Direct and indirect impact summary Yes See wetland mitigation report. 44 38.710.120.A(4)(a)(2)Proposed mitigation concept summary Yes See wetland mitigation report. 45 38.710.120.A(4)(a)(2)Identification of all required state and federal permits.Yes See wetland mitigation report. 46 38.710.120.A(4)(a)(2)Vicinity map Yes See wetland mitigation report. 47 38.710.120.A(4)(a)(3)Existing condition assessment, including vegetation, hydroperiod, soils, and wetland functions Yes See wetland mitigation report. 48 38.710.120.A(4)(a)(4)Assessment of the potential changes in wetland hydroperiod for the project Yes See wetland mitigation report. 49 38.710.120.A(4)(a)(5)Description of proposed mitigation actions for wetlands, watercourses, setbacks, and buffers Yes See wetland mitigation report. 50 38.710.120.A(4)(a)(5)Discussion of how the design has been modified to avoid, minimize, and/or reduce impacts to the wetland hydroperiod Yes See wetland mitigation report. 51 38.710.120.A(4)(a)(5)Specifications for proposed compensatory mitigation Yes 52 38.710.120.A(4)(a)(5)Map and table with all proposed mitigation areas and their required buffers.Yes December 2025 - Version 2.1 yes Morrison-Maierle Wetland Review Checklist for City of Bozeman Submittals Checklist No. COB code reference Item Included in submittal?Note(s) 53 38.710.120.A(4)(a)(6)Field data that documents the existing condition of the proposed mitigation area.Yes 54 38.71.120.A(4)(a)(7)Analysis of the anticipated post-development hydrologic and soil conditions of the mitigation wetlands, based on the mitigation plan (include groundwater monitoring, soil analysis, etc.) Yes 55 38.710.120.A(4)(a)(8)Planting schedule and vegetation plan compliant with 38.710.120.A(4)(8)Yes 56 38.710.120.A(4)(a)(9)Mitigation monitoring plan that includes the following Yes 57 38.710.120.A(4)(a)(9)Minimum monitoring period of five years Yes 58 38.710.120.A(4)(a)(9)Entity responsible for long-term operations, maintenance, and monitoring.Yes 59 38.710.120.A(4)(a)(9)Methods applicant will use to ensure mitigation meets the plan's objectives.Yes 60 38.710.120.A(4)(a)(10)Wetland mitigation performance criteria (measureable) for wetlands and buffers.Yes 61 38.710.120.A(4)(a)(11)Clear contingency plans if performance criteria are not met, including adaptive management strategies, and entity responsible Yes 62 38.710.120.A(b)(1)Mitigation plan sheets/maps that contain at a minimum:Yes 63 38.710.120.A(b)(1)Existing wetland and buffers Yes 64 38.710.120.A(b)(1)Proposed wetland and buffer impacts (location, acreage)Yes 65 38.710.120.A(b)(1)Proposed wetland and buffer mitigation area(s)Yes 66 38.710.120.A(b)(2)If grading in compensation area is proposed, then provide surveyed topography at a minimum of half-foot contour intervals in proposed mitigation areas. Yes 67 38.710.120.A(b)(3)Cross section of proposed wetland/buffer mitigation area(s)Yes 68 38.710.120.A(c)Discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect and maintain the nonimpacted and mitigation wetland, watercourse and buffer areas in perpetuity. Yes 70 38.710.120.B Are ditches present? If so, include submittal materials outlined in 38.220.060, 38.360.280, and 38.410.060 NA No ditches present on the subject property. 71 38.710.120.C As-built plan of the "affected area" within six months of completion.NA Will be provided within six months of completion of the project. December 2025 - Version 2.1 Morrison-Maierle Wetland Review Checklist for City of Bozeman Submittals Checklist No. COB code reference Item Included in submittal?Note(s) Applicable?Status 1.Montana Stream Protection Act (SPA 124)No Not applicable 2.Stormwater discharge general permit (DEQ)Yes Permit will be obtained by construction contractor. 3.Montana Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act (310)No Not applicable 4.Montana Floodplain and Floodway Management Act (floodplain development permit)No Not applicable 5.Federal Clean Water Act (404) No No Impacts to jurisdictional features 6.Federal Rivers and Harbors Act (Section 10)No Not applicable 7.Short-term Water Quality Standards for Turbidity (318 authorization) Yes Required permits for the project are summarized in Section 1.4 of the Mitigation Report. The project is in Pre-Plat stage currently. Upon approval from COB, the project will move forward to full design which will include obtaining these permits from the respective agencies. 8.Montana Land-Use License or Easement on Navigable Waters No Not applicable 9.Montana Water Use Act (water right permit and change authorization)No Not applicable Section B. Required State and Federal Permits Wetland Review Checklist Required Permits December 2025 - Version 2.1 Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 40 | Page APPENDIX C PERMITS OBTAINED Joint Application for Proposed Work in Montana’s Streams, Wetlands, Floodplains, and Other Waterbodies Version: 11/15/2024 https://dnrc.mt.gov/Licenses-and-Permits/Stream-Permitting/ Page 1 CD―Agency.Use.Only Application Number: Date Received: Stream or Waterbody: Date Accepted: Initials: Date Forwarded to FWP: This section is for all Department of Transportation and SPA 124 Permits (government projects) Project Name: Control Number: Contract Letting Date: MEPA/NEPA Compliance: ☐Yes ☐No If yes, #C5 of this application does not apply. Applicant.Use This is a standardized application to apply for one or all local, state, or federal permits listed below. Check the box(s) for each permit being applied for. • Refer to the instructions to determine which permits apply to your project and submit an application to each applicable agency. • Incomplete applications will result in a delay of application processing. • The applicant is responsible for obtaining all necessary permits and landowner permission before beginning work. • Other laws may apply. Permit Agency Required Application Sections: Fee ☐ NSLPA 310 Permit Local Conservation District A-E and G No fee ☐ SPA 124 Permit Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) A-E and G No fee ☐ 318 Authorization 401 Certification Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) A-E and G $250 (318); $400-$20,000 (401) ☐ Navigable Rivers Land Use License, Lease, or Easement Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC), Trust Lands Management Division A-E and G $50, plus additional fee ☐ Section 404 Permit, Section 10 Permit U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) A-G and F1-10 Varied ($0-$100) ☐ Floodplain Permit Local Floodplain Administrator A-G Varied ($25-$500+) Joint Application for Proposed Work in Montana’s Streams, Wetlands, Floodplains, and Other Waterbodies Version: 11/15/2024 https://dnrc.mt.gov/Licenses-and-Permits/Stream-Permitting/ Page 2 A. APPLICANT INFORMATION APPLICANT (party.responsible.for.project) Has the landowner consented to the project? ☐ Yes ☐ No Mailing Address: City, State: Zip: Physical Address: City, State: Zip: Daytime Phone: Email: LANDOWNER NAME (if.different.from.applicant) Mailing Address: City, State: Zip: Physical Address: City, State: Zip: Daytime Phone: Email: CONTRACTOR/COMPANY NAME (if.applicable) Mailing Address: City, State: Zip: Physical Address: City, State: Zip: Daytime Phone: Email: B. PROJECT SITE INFORMATION Refer.to.section.B7.of.the.instructions. 1. NAME OF STREAM OR WATERBODY at project location: Project Address/Location: Nearest Town: County: Geocode: Township: Range: Section: ¼ Section: ¼ Section: Latitude: Longitude: Driving directions or other instructions needed for finding the site: Refer.to.section.B8.of.the.instructions 2. Is the proposed activity within SAGE GROUSE areas designated as general, connected, or core habitat? ☐ Yes ☐ No Attach consultation letter if required. Refer.to.section.B9.of.the.instructions 3. Is this a STATE NAVIGABLE WATERWAY? The state owns the beds of certain navigable waterways. ☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, send a copy of this application to the appropriate DNRC land office. Refer.to.section.B0.of.the.instructions 4. WHAT IS THE CURRENT CONDITION of the proposed project site? What vegetation is present? Describe the existing bank condition, bank slope, height, nearby structures, and wetlands. Joint Application for Proposed Work in Montana’s Streams, Wetlands, Floodplains, and Other Waterbodies Version: 11/15/2024 https://dnrc.mt.gov/Licenses-and-Permits/Stream-Permitting/ Page 3 C. PROJECT ACTIVITY INFORMATION Refer.to.section.C7.of.the.instructions 1. TYPE OF PROJECT (check all that apply) ☐ Agricultural and Irrigation Projects: Diversions, Headgates, Flumes, Riparian Fencing, Ditches, etc. ☐ Buildings/Structures: Accessory Structures, Manufactured Homes, Residential or Commercial Buildings, etc. ☐ Channel/Bank Projects: Stabilization, Restoration, Alteration, Dredging, Fish Habitat, Vegetation or Tree Removal, or any other work that modifies existing channels or banks. ☐ Crossing/Roads: Bridge, Culvert, Fords, Road Work, Temporary Access, or any project that crosses over or under a stream or channel. ☐ Mining Projects: All mining related activities including, Placer Mining, Aggregate Mining, etc. ☐ Recreation Related Projects: Boat Ramps, Docks, Marinas, etc. ☐ Other Projects: Cisterns, Debris Removal, Excavation/Pit/Pond, Placement of Fill, Drilling or Directional Boring, Utilities, Wetland Alteration. Any other project type not listed here. Refer.to.section.C8.of.the.instructions 2. Is this application for an ANNUAL MAINTENANCE PERMIT? ☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, attach an annual plan of operations to this application Refer.to.section.C9.of.the.instructions 3. Why is this project necessary? State the PURPOSE OR GOAL of the proposed project. Refer.to.section.C0.of.the.Instructions 4. Provide a brief description of the PROPOSED PROJECT PLAN and how it will be accomplished. Joint Application for Proposed Work in Montana’s Streams, Wetlands, Floodplains, and Other Waterbodies Version: 11/15/2024 https://dnrc.mt.gov/Licenses-and-Permits/Stream-Permitting/ Page 4 Refer.to.section.C❶.of.the.instructions 5. What OTHER ALTERNATIVES were considered to accomplish the stated purpose of the objective? Why was the proposed alternative selected? Refer.to.section.C❷.of.the.instructions 6. What are the NATURAL RESOURCE BENEFITS or POTENTIAL IMPACTS? Please complete the information requested below to the best of your ability: 6a. Explain any temporary or permanent changes in erosion, sedimentation, turbidity, or increases of potential contaminants. What will be done to minimize impacts? 6b. Will the project cause temporary or permanent impacts to fish and/or aquatic habitat? What will be done to protect the fisheries and habitat? 6c. What will be done to minimize temporary or permanent impacts to the floodplain, wetlands, or riparian habitat? 6d. What efforts will be made to decrease flooding potential upstream and downstream of the project? Joint Application for Proposed Work in Montana’s Streams, Wetlands, Floodplains, and Other Waterbodies Version: 11/15/2024 https://dnrc.mt.gov/Licenses-and-Permits/Stream-Permitting/ Page 5 6e. Explain any potential temporary or permanent changes to the water flow or to the bed and banks of the waterbody. What will be done to minimize those changes? 6f. How will existing vegetation be protected and its removal minimized? Explain how the site will be revegetated, including weed control plans. D. CONSTRUCTION DETAILS Refer.to.section.D7.of.the.instructions 1. Proposed CONSTRUCTION DATES: Start: End: Is any portion of the work already completed? ☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, please describe previously completed work: Refer.to.section.D8.of.the.instructions 2. PROJECT DIMENSIONS. Describe the length and width of the project. Refer.to.section.D9.of.the.instructions 3. MATERIALS. Provide the total quantity and source of materials proposed to be used or removed. Note: this may be modified during the permitting process, therefore it is recommended that you do not purchase materials until all permits are issued. List soil/fill type, cubic yards and source, culvert size, rip-rap size, and any other materials to be used or removed on the project. Cubic yards/ Linear Feet Size and Type Source Joint Application for Proposed Work in Montana’s Streams, Wetlands, Floodplains, and Other Waterbodies Version: 11/15/2024 https://dnrc.mt.gov/Licenses-and-Permits/Stream-Permitting/ Page 6 Refer.to.section.D0.of.the.Instructions 4. EQUIPMENT. List all equipment that will be used for this project. How will the equipment be used on the bank and/or in the water? Note: all equipment used in the water must be CLEANED, DRAINED, AND DRY. Will equipment from out of state be used? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown Will the equipment cross west over the Continental Divide to the project site? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown Will equipment enter the Flathead Basin? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown E. REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS 1. Plans and/or drawings of the proposed project should include: a. Plan/Aerial View b. An elevation or cross-section view c. Dimensions of the project (height, width, depth in linear feet) d. Location of storage stockpile materials and location of fill or excavation sites e. Drainage facilities f. Location of existing/proposed structures, such as buildings, utilities, roads or, bridges g. An arrow indicating north h. Site photos 2. Attach a vicinity map or a sketch, which includes: The water body where the project is located, roads, tributaries, and other landmarks. Plan an "X" on the project location. Provide written directions to the site. This is a plan view (looking at the project from above). 3. If requesting a Maintenance 310 Permit, attach an Annual Plan of Operation. 4. Attach an Aquatic Resource Map, which documents the location and boundary of all waters of the U.S. in the project vicinity and includes wetlands and other special aquatic sites. Show the location of the ordinary high- water mark of streams or waterbodies if requesting a Section 404 or Section 10 Permit. Include the ordinary high-water mark delineation on plans or drawings and/or a separate wetland delineation. F. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (USACE) SECTION 404, SECTION 10, AND FLOODPLAIN PERMITS Refer.to.section.F.of.the.instructions Section.F.should.only.be.filled.out.by.those.needing.Section.060?.Section.76?.and―or.Floodplain.permits¡. Joint Application for Proposed Work in Montana’s Streams, Wetlands, Floodplains, and Other Waterbodies Version: 11/15/2024 https://dnrc.mt.gov/Licenses-and-Permits/Stream-Permitting/ Page 7 Applicants.applying.for.Section.060.and―or.Section.76.permits.must.complete.questions.F7‗76¡.For.questions.on. Section.060.and―or.Section.76.permits?.contact.the.USACE.by.telephone.at.06❷‗007‗79❸❶.or.by.email.at. montana.reg@usace.army.mil. Applicants.applying.for.Floodplain.permits.must.complete.all.of.Section.F¡. Refer.to.section.F7.of.the.instructions 1. Does the proposed activity and/or property have permitting history with USACE? If yes, and available, provide the USACE project number(s) associated with the previous permits, including no permit required letters and approved jurisdictional determinations. Refer.to.section.F8.of.the.instructions 2. Identify the specific Nationwide Permit(s) that you want to use to authorize the proposed activity. Refer.to.section.F9.of.the.instructions 3. Provide the footprint of impacts and the quantity of materials proposed to be placed in wetlands and/or below the ordinary high-water mark in waters of the United States. Delineations are required of wetland and other special aquatic sites, and other waters, such as lakes and ponds, and perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams, on the project site. 3a. What is the length and width (or square footage/acreage) for each impact occurring within the waters of the United States, including wetlands? 3b. How many cubic yards of fill material will be placed below the ordinary high-water mark, in a wetland, stream, or other waters of the United States? Joint Application for Proposed Work in Montana’s Streams, Wetlands, Floodplains, and Other Waterbodies Version: 11/15/2024 https://dnrc.mt.gov/Licenses-and-Permits/Stream-Permitting/ Page 8 Refer.to.section.F0.of.the.instructions 4. How will the proposed project avoid or minimize impacts to waters of the United States? Attach additional sheets if necessary. Refer.to.section.F❶.of.the.instructions 5. Will the project impact(s) be equal to or greater than 0.10 acre of wetland and/or 0.03 acre of stream or other waters? If yes, describe how the applicant is going to compensate (mitigation bank, in-lieu fee program, or permittee responsible) for these unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States. Refer.to.section.F❷.of.the.instructions 6. Is the proposed activity within any component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or a river that has been officially designated by Congress as a “study river?” ☐ Yes ☐ No Refer.to.section.F ❸.of.the.instructions 7. Does this activity require permission from the USACE because it will alter or temporarily or permanently occupy or use a USACE authorized civil works project? (Examples include USACE owned levees, Fort Peck Dam, and others). ☐ Yes ☐ No Refer.to.section.F❹.of.the.instructions 8.List the ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES and CRITICAL HABITAT(S) that might be present in the project location. Joint Application for Proposed Work in Montana’s Streams, Wetlands, Floodplains, and Other Waterbodies Version: 11/15/2024 https://dnrc.mt.gov/Licenses-and-Permits/Stream-Permitting/ Page 9 Refer.to.section.F❺.of.the.instructions 9. List any HISTORIC PROPERTY(S) that are listed, determined to be eligible or are potentially eligible (over 50 years old) for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Refer.to.section.F76.of.the.instructions 10. List all APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL PERMITS and indicate whether they were issued, waived, denied, or pending. Note: all required local, state, and federal, or proof of waiver must be issued prior to the issuance of a floodplain permit. Refer.to.section.F76.of.the.instructions 11. List the NAMES AND ADDRESS OF LANDOWNERS adjacent to the project site. This includes properties to and across from the project site. Note: Some floodplain communities require certified adjoining landowner lists. NAME/ADDRESS OF Adjacent Landowner: NAME/ADDRESS OF Adjacent Landowner: NAME/ADDRESS OF Adjacent Landowner: NAME/ADDRESS OF Adjacent Landowner: Refer.to.section.F77.of.the.instructions 12. Floodplain Map Number: Refer.to.section.F77.of.the.instructions 13. Does this project comply with local planning or zoning regulations? ☐ Yes ☐ No Joint Application for Proposed Work in Montana’s Streams, Wetlands, Floodplains, and Other Waterbodies Version: 11/15/2024 https://dnrc.mt.gov/Licenses-and-Permits/Stream-Permitting/ Page 10 G. SIGNATURE REQUIREMENTS Refer.to.section.G.of.the.instructions Some agencies require original signatures for an application to be considered complete. After completing the application form, make the required number of copies and sign each copy. Send the copies with original signatures and additional information required directly to each applicable agency. The statements contained in this application are true and correct. The applicant possesses the authority to undertake the work described herein or is acting as the duly authorized agent of the landowner. The applicant understands that the granting of a permit does not include landowner permission to access land or construct a project. Inspections of the project site after notice by inspection authorities are hereby authorized. \By.signing.or.typing.my.name.on.the.signature.line.below?.I.hereby.swear.and.affirm.that.I.am.the.applicant.for.this. project.and.am.responsible.for.all.information.contained.in.this.application¡. *APPLICANT (party responsible for project) Print Name Signature of Applicant Date LANDOWNER (If different from applicant) Print Name Signature of Landowner CONTRACTOR (If applicable. Contact agency to determine if contractor signature is required) Print Name of Primary Contract Company/Entity Name (If applicable) Signature of Contractor Date Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 41 | Page APPENDIX D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT HELENA REGULATORY OFFICE 10 WEST 15TH STREET, SUITE 2200 HELENA, MONTANA 59626 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF Printed on Recycled Paper December 9, 2021 Subject: Norton Properties, LLC (Vaughn Environmental Services) Norton East Subdivision - Various Waterways (Gallatin County); USACE File Number: NWO-2007- 01084-MTH Kevin Spencer Norton Properties, LLC 63026 Lower Meadow Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97701-6984 Dear Mr. Spencer: We are responding to your Department of the Army (DA) Jurisdictional Determination request for an approved jurisdictional determination. The project is located at Latitude 45.681384°, Longitude -111.112626°, near Baxter Creek Ditch, within Section 9, Township 2 S, Range 5 E, Gallatin County, Montana. Based on available information and a site visit conducted by USACE staff on October 19, 2021, a jurisdictional determination has found no waters or wetlands regulated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. 403) or Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) on the property listed above. Only the area labeled WET 3 on the enclosed map titled, "Wetland Delineation Map, Norton East Ranch Property" (copy attached) prepared by the Morrison-Maierle and dated November 16, 2021, was reviewed for this determination. Wetland 3 in the review area was determined to be an isolated water with no apparent interstate or foreign commerce connection and does not carry relatively permanent flow to regulated waters of the United States. As such, this water is not currently regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). This disclaimer of jurisdiction is only for Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. Other Federal, State, and local laws may apply to your activities. This letter contains an approved jurisdictional determination for your subject site. If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under USACE regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. A Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) and Request for Appeal (RFA) form is enclosed. If you request to appeal this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the Northwestern Division Office, Regulatory -2- Printed on Recycled Paper Appeals Review Officer, Melinda Larsen at Melinda.M.Larsen@usace.army.mil. For any questions you may contact her at (503) 808-3888. In order for an RFA to be accepted, USACE must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal under 33 C.F.R. part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by February 7, 2022. It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this letter. This determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps of Engineers' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site identified in this request. This determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service prior to starting work. This determination is valid for five (5) years from the date of this letter, unless new information warrants revision of the determination before the expiration date. Please refer to identification number NWO-2007-01084-MTH in any correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions, please contact Tim McNew by email at Timothy.M.McNew@usace.army.mil, or by telephone at (406) 441-1375. Sincerely, Sage L. Joyce Chief, Montana Regulatory Program 2 Enclosures: 1. NAP/RFA 2. Review Area Map APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): November 30, 2021 B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Omaha District, Norton Properties, NWO-2007-01084-MTH C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State: Montana County/parish/borough: Gallatin County City: Bozeman Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 45.681233°, Long. -111.112632° Universal Transverse Mercator: Zone 11, (X) 49122592, (Y) 5088655.16 Name of nearest waterbody: Stillwater River Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Missouri River Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 10020008 Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request. Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc…) are associated with this action and are recorded on a different JD form: At Latitude 45.680646, Longitude -111.114964 a deed restriction was put in place and this area was preserved, enhanced and created as a mitigation site for previous impacts, a copy of the deed restriction and applicable attachment is available upon request. A prelimary jurisdictional determination was completed on November 28, 2006 and reveled through a wetland delineation that Wetland 3 (referred to as Wetland 4 in the previous delineation) was approxiamtly 1.25 acres. D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): Office (Desk) Determination. Date: November 23, 2021 Field Determination. Date(s): October 19, 2021 SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no “navigable waters of the U.S.” within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the review area. [Required] Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. Explain: B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no “waters of the U.S.” within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required] 1. Waters of the U.S. a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1 TNWs, including territorial seas Wetlands adjacent to TNWs Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Impoundments of jurisdictional waters Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area: Non-wetland waters: linear feet, wide, and/or acres. Wetlands: acres. c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Pick List Elevation of established OHWM (if known): 2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3 Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional. Explain: Wetland 3 is approxiamtly 140 feet from the next jurisdictional feature and approxiamtly 460 feet from the nearest RPW and approxiamtly 25.5 miles from the nearest TNW. A wetland delineation was completed in 2006 that revealed that the wetland is 1.25 acres and the 1 Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below. 2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least “seasonally” (e.g., typically 3 months). 3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F. - 2 - delienation that was completed in 2021 indicated that the wetland grew to 2.56 acres indicating that the hydrology for this wetland is restricted to this area. Wetland 3 is so remote that the physical, biological or chemical effect on the nearest TNW (Missouri River) is speculative or in substantial. SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2 and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below. 1. TNW Identify TNW: Summarize rationale supporting determination: 2. Wetland adjacent to TNW Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is “adjacent”: B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY): This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met. The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are “relatively permanent waters” (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3 months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round (perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow, skip to Section III.D.4. A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law. If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below. 1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) General Area Conditions: Watershed size: Pick List Drainage area: Pick List Average annual rainfall: inches Average annual snowfall: inches (ii) Physical Characteristics: (a) Relationship with TNW: Tributary flows directly into TNW. Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW. Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW. Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: 4 Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid West. - 3 - Identify flow route to TNW5: Tributary stream order, if known: (b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply): Tributary is: Natural Artificial (man-made). Explain: Manipulated (man-altered). Explain: Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate): Average width: feet Average depth: feet Average side slopes: Pick List. Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply): Silts Sands Concrete Cobbles Gravel Muck Bedrock Vegetation. Type/% cover: Other. Explain: Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: Tributary geometry: Pick List Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): % (c) Flow: Tributary provides for: Pick List Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List Describe flow regime: Other information on duration and volume: Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics: Subsurface flow: Pick List . Explain findings: Dye (or other) test performed: Tributary has (check all that apply): Bed and banks OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply): clear, natural line impressed on the bank the presence of litter and debris changes in the character of soil destruction of terrestrial vegetation shelving the presence of wrack line vegetation matted down, bent, or absent sediment sorting leaf litter disturbed or washed away scour sediment deposition multiple observed or predicted flow events water staining abrupt change in plant community other (list): Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain: If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply): High Tide Line indicated by: Mean High Water Mark indicated by: oil or scum line along shore objects survey to available datum; fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) physical markings; physical markings/characteristics vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types. tidal gauges other (list): (iii) Chemical Characteristics: 5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW. 6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody’s flow regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break. 7Ibid. - 4 - Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.). Explain: Identify specific pollutants, if known: (iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply): Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): Wetland fringe. Characteristics: Habitat for: Federally Listed species. Explain findings: Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: 2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) Physical Characteristics: (a) General Wetland Characteristics: Properties: Wetland size: acres Wetland type. Explain: Wetland quality. Explain: Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: (b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW: Flow is: Pick List . Explain: Surface flow is: Pick List Characteristics: Subsurface flow: Pick List . Explain findings: Dye (or other) test performed: (c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW: Directly abutting Not directly abutting Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: Ecological connection. Explain: Separated by berm/barrier. Explain: (d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Flow is from: Pick List. Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain. (ii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed characteristics; etc.). Explain: Identify specific pollutants, if known: (iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply): Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: Habitat for: Federally Listed species. Explain findings: Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: 3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any) All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List Approximately acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis. For each wetland, specify the following: Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) - 5 - Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW. Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus. Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example: • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that support downstream foodwebs? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the TNW? Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented below: 1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D: 2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D: 3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D: D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): 1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area: TNWs: linear feet, wide, Or acres. Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres. 2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial: Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow “seasonally” (e.g., typically three months each year) are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows seasonally: Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters: linear feet wide. Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: - 6 - 3. Non-RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters: linear feet, wide. Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: 4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow “seasonally.” Provide data indicating that tributary is seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9 As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional. Demonstrate that impoundment was created from “waters of the U.S.,” or Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below). E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE, DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10 which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes. from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce. which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce. Interstate isolated waters. Explain: Other factors. Explain: Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination: Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters: linear feet, wide. Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: Wetlands: acres. 8See Footnote # 3. 9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook. 10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos. - 7 - F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements. Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce. Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in “SWANCC,” the review area would have been regulated based solely on the “Migratory Bird Rule” (MBR). Waters do not meet the “Significant Nexus” standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain: Wetland 3 is approxiamtly 140 feet from the next jurisdictional feature and approxiamtly 460 feet from the nearest RPW and approxiamtly 25.5 miles from the nearest TNW. Wetland 3 is so remote that the physical, biological or chemical effect on the nearest TNW (Missouri River) is speculative or in substantial. Other: (explain, if not covered above): Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional judgment (check all that apply): Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, wide. Lakes/ponds: acres. Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: Wetlands: 2.56 acres. Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the “Significant Nexus” standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply): Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, wide. Lakes/ponds: acres. Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: Wetlands: acres. SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES. A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below): Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant. Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Data sheets prepared by the Corps: Corps navigable waters’ study: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: USGS NHD data. USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Upper Flathead Valley Area, Montana National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: USFWS wetlands mapper retrieved on November 30, 2021 State/Local wetland inventory map(s): FEMA/FIRM maps: 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929) Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): Google Earth 6/2021 photos or Other (Name & Date): Ground photos taken on 10/19/2021 Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: Applicable/supporting case law: Applicable/supporting scientific literature: Other information (please specify): B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: The subject wetland is approxiamtly 2.58 acres in size. A previous prelimary jurisdictional determination was completed on November 28, 2006 and reveled through a wetland delineation that Wetland 3 (referred to as Wetland 4 in the previous delineation) was approxiamtly 1.25 acres and the delineation conducted on May 25, 2021, indicated that the wetland grew to 2.56 acres, therefore indicating that hydrology was being restricted or retained within that area. Wetland 3 is approxiamtly 140 feet from the next jurisdictional feature and approxiamtly 460 feet from the nearest RPW and approxiamtly 25.5 miles from the nearest TNW. Wetland 3 is so remote that the physical, biological or chemical effect on the nearest TNW (Missouri River) is speculative or in substantial. NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND REQUEST FOR APPEAL Applicant: Norton East, South of the Lakes subdivision/Kevin Spencer File No.: NWO-2007-01084-MTH Date: December 9, 2021 Attached is: See Section below INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B PERMIT DENIAL C X APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision. Additional information may be found at http://www.usace.army.mil/cecw/pages/reg_materials.aspx or USACE regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit. • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. • OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below. B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. • APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer (address on reverse). This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer (address on reverse). This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new information. • ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the USACE to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the USACE within 60 days of the date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD. • APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer (address on reverse). This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the USACE regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the USACE district for further instruction. Also, you may provide new information for further consideration by the USACE to reevaluate the JD. SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the USACE memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the USACE may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative record. POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION: If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the appeal process you may contact: US Army Corps of Engineers, Helena Regulatory Office Attn: Sage L. Joyce, Montana Program Manager Telephone: (406) 441-1376 Montana.Reg@usace.army.mil If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may also contact: US Army Corps of Engineers, Northwestern Division Melinda Larsen, Regulatory Appeals Review Officer Telephone (503) 808-3888 Melinda.M.Larsen@usace.army.mil RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15-day notice of any site investigation and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations. __________________________________________ Signature of appellant or agent. Date: Telephone number: SPD version revised December 17, 2010 Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 42 | Page APPENDIX E: WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT + EXISTING STORMWATER POND AS- BUILTS Laurel Meadows Wetland Delineation Prepared for: Kilday Stratton Prepared by: Morrison-Maierle 2880 Technology Boulevard Bozeman, MT 59715 Date of Issue: June 2021, edited to meet updated code requirements November 2025 Project Number 10130.004 i | Page CONTENTS 1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Purpose and Scope ..................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Background Information .......................................................................................................................... 2 2.2.1 Aerial Imagery ......................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2.2 City of Bozeman Mapped Stormwater Infrastructure .............................................................. 2 2.2.3 Site Visits ................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Objectives....................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.4 Site Description ............................................................................................................................................ 3 2.4.1 Climate and Hydroperiod ................................................................................................................... 3 2.4.2 National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) ................................................................................................ 4 2.4.3 Streams & Topography........................................................................................................................ 4 2.4.4 Soils ............................................................................................................................................................. 4 2.4.5 Floodplains ............................................................................................................................................... 5 3 Methods .................................................................................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Sampling Protocol ...................................................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Wetland Indicators ..................................................................................................................................... 5 3.2.1 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................................ 5 3.2.2 Soil ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 3.2.3 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................................. 6 3.3 Delineation Procedure............................................................................................................................... 6 4 Results ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6 4.1 Wetland Types and Boundaries ............................................................................................................. 6 4.1.1 Wetland 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 6 4.1.2 Wetland 2 (COB Detention Stormwater Pond) ........................................................................... 6 4.1.3 Wetland 3 .................................................................................................................................................. 6 4.1.4 Wetland 4 .................................................................................................................................................. 7 4.1.5 Wetland 5 (COB Detention Stormwater Pond) ........................................................................... 7 4.1.6 Baxter Creek ............................................................................................................................................. 7 4.1.7 Borrow Pit (ponded with groundwater) ......................................................................................... 7 4.2 Data Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 7 4.2.1 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................................ 7 ii | Page 4.2.2 Soil ............................................................................................................................................................... 7 4.2.3 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................................. 8 5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................ 8 References....................................................................................................................................................................... 10 TABLES Table 1. Bozeman, MT Monthly Climate Summary (WRC). ............................................................................. 3 Table 2. NRCS mapped soil units on the subject property ............................................................................. 4 Table 3. Wetland and Waterways in the Project Area ....................................................................................... 8 APPENDICES Appendix A: Figures Appendix B: USACE Wetland Determination Data Forms Appendix C: Site Photographs Appendix D: Correspondence Appendix E: NRCS Soil Report Appendix F: Montana Wetland Assessment Method (MWAM) Forms Laurel Meadows Wetland Delineation 10130.004 1 | Page 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Morrison-Maierle, Inc. delineated wetlands and other aquatic features on approximately 42 acres of land located north of West Babcock Street in Gallatin County, Montana. The property, within the Laurel Meadows Subdivision, is described legally as:  NORTON EAST RANCH SUB PH 6, S09, T02 S, R05 E, Lot R1A, ACRES 6.63, PER PLAT J-694  NORTON EAST RANCH SUB PH 6, S09, T02 S, R05 E, Lot R1B, ACRES 12.303, PER PLAT J-694  NORTON EAST RANCH SUB PH 6, S09, T02 S, R05 E, Lot R1C, ACRES 10.038, PER PLAT J-694  NORTON EAST RANCH SUB PH 6, S09, T02 S, R05 E, Lot R1D, ACRES 11.847, PER PLAT J-694 A vicinity map of the investigation area is in Appendix A (Figure 1). Prior to the field investigation, our environmental scientists review existing literature relevant to the project area, including historical aerial photography, topographic maps, and hydrologic data. Field delineation of wetlands and other aquatic features is based on identification of hydric soil conditions, wetland hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation. We evaluate the investigation area based on criteria set forth in the 2010 Regional Supplement to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USACE Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast (Version 2.0) (Environmental Laboratory 2010). Based on the wetland delineation presented in this report and the data collected, it is Morrison-Maierle’s professional judgement that wetlands and waterways are present within the project area. The project area contains 6.76 acres of emergent wetland, 780 linear feet of Baxter Creek, and a ponded borrow pit of 1.54 acres. Figures in Appendix A detail the investigation area and delineated features. Table 3 in Section 5 summarizes the wetlands and aquatic features delineated within the project area. The USACE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are the final authority over the jurisdictional status of both wetlands and waters of the U.S. according to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The findings discussed in this report are solely the opinion of Morrison-Maierle and have not been verified by the regulatory government agencies. Laurel Meadows Wetland Delineation 10130.004 2 | Page 2 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Purpose and Scope Morrison-Maierle, Inc. delineated wetlands and other aquatic features on approximately 42 acres of land located north of West Babcock Street in Gallatin County, Montana. The property, within the Laurel Meadows Subdivision, is described legally as:  NORTON EAST RANCH SUB PH 6, S09, T02 S, R05 E, Lot R1A, ACRES 6.63, PER PLAT J-694  NORTON EAST RANCH SUB PH 6, S09, T02 S, R05 E, Lot R1B, ACRES 12.303, PER PLAT J-694  NORTON EAST RANCH SUB PH 6, S09, T02 S, R05 E, Lot R1C, ACRES 10.038, PER PLAT J-694  NORTON EAST RANCH SUB PH 6, S09, T02 S, R05 E, Lot R1D, ACRES 11.847, PER PLAT J-694 2.2 Background Information This report was originally finalized in June 2021 and has been updated in November 2025 to account for updates required by City of Bozeman Municipal Code. Prior to the 2021 delineation, the subject property was delineated in 2006 by Morrison-Maierle. A site visit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was performed on October 19, 2021. The delineation received an approved jurisdictional determination on December 9, 2021. Prior to 2021, the delineation from 2005 received a preliminary jurisdictional determination from the USACE. These jurisdictional determinations are located in Appendix D. The subject property received an approved City of Bozeman Pre-Plat application in February 2023 for a similar wetland impact scenario and mitigation plan. In 2025, the property owner initiated a new Pre-Plat application. This updated report is in support of the new pre-plat application for Laurel Meadows, formerly Norton East. 2.2.1 Aerial Imagery Historic aerial imagery depicts Baxter Creek flowing northward along the eastern project boundary. Faint indications of a wetland within the center of the subject property and along the southwestern boundary of the subject property are visible. The subject property is plowed and farmed. Development of subdivision infrastructure to the north of the subject property is visible in 2011. The borrow pit area near the southeast corner of the subject property became visible in the 2014 aerial photography. Development surrounding the subject property began increasing rapidly after 2014. The borrow pit has filled with water in the 2020 aerial photograph. Google Earth Pro provides historical aerial imagery available for the years 1995, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2011, 2014, 2020, 2021, and 2023. 2.2.2 City of Bozeman Mapped Stormwater Infrastructure There are two City of Bozeman mapped stormwater infrastructure units within the subject property. These stormwater ponds were mapped as Wetland 2 and Wetland 5. Stormwater ponds are not subject to regulation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the City of Bozeman. Laurel Meadows Wetland Delineation 10130.004 3 | Page 2.2.3 Site Visits Morrison-Maierle completed a wetland delineation on May 25, 2021, the results of which are described in this report. An additional site visit was performed on November 22, 2025 to document vegetation and take updated site photographs. 2.3 Objectives The objective of this report is to document the presence and extent of aquatic features on the subject property. 2.4 Site Description 2.4.1 Climate and Hydroperiod The Bozeman climate reflects conditions typical of intermountain valleys in the northern Rocky Mountains, characterized by cold, snowy winters and warm, relatively dry summers. Data from the Western Regional Climate Center for Bozeman, Montana (241044) document a mean annual precipitation of 18.5 inches and an average annual snowfall of 86 inches (Table 1). Precipitation peaks in late spring and early summer, with May and June representing the wettest months, while winter snowfall contributes to a persistent snowpack that typically remains into early spring. The average maximum daily temperature reaches 81 degrees Fahrenheit in August, with the average minimum temperature occurring in January, at 12 degrees Fahrenheit. Table 1. Bozeman, MT Monthly Climate Summary (WRC). Parameter Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Average Max. Temperature (°F) 31.7 35.5 42.7 53.9 63.0 71.6 81.4 80.3 69.4 57.6 42.2 33.6 55.2 Average Min. Temperature (°F) 12.0 15.3 21.4 30.4 38.4 45.2 51.1 49.5 41.2 32.9 22.2 14.5 31.2 Average Total Precipitation (in.) 0.87 0.73 1.34 1.89 2.89 2.91 1.35 1.24 1.70 1.54 1.12 0.88 18.48 Average Total Snowfall (in.) 12.6 10.2 15.7 13.1 4.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.8 5.8 11.6 11.9 86.0 Source: Western Regional Climate Center. Bozeman Montana SU, Montana (241044). Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary. Period of Record : 04/08/1892 to 06/09/2016 The region experiences approximately 90–110 frost-free days each year, with the growing season beginning in late May and ending by early September (USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map, Laurel Meadows Wetland Delineation 10130.004 4 | Page 2023). Declining precipitation and higher temperatures in late summer can result in reduced water levels within wetlands. Wetland hydroperiods in the Bozeman area are primarily driven by seasonal snowmelt, shallow groundwater discharge, and direct precipitation. Groundwater levels typically peak between March and June in response to snowmelt infiltration, followed by a progressive decline through late summer and early fall. Wetlands in this area generally exhibit early-season saturation or shallow inundation, and transition to drier conditions later in the growing season. 2.4.2 National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) The NWI map for the subject property depicts freshwater emergent wetlands in the same general location as wetlands that were delineated in the field. A NWI map can be reviewed as Figure 4 in Appendix A. The USFWS maintains the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) database, a publicly available resource providing detailed information on the abundance, characteristics, and distribution of U.S. Wetlands. The NWI database is based on a model that predicts the presence of wetlands from various parameters and does not necessarily reflect ground conditions. 2.4.3 Streams & Topography The Bozeman, MT 2020 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map depicts Baxter Creek flowing northwards along the eastern boundary of the subject property. This map shows the elevation of the subject property ranging between 4,800 and 4,780 feet above sea level (USGS 2020). 2.4.4 Soils Approximately 40% of the property contains up to 10% hydric soil components (NRCS 2025). Twelve percent of the property contains up to 95% hydric rating and 47% of the subject property has 0% hydric rating. Hydric soils, formed under “conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part” support hydrophytic plant growth and are one of three indicators of wetland areas (Federal Register, 1994). A 10% hydric soil rating suggests, but does not exclusively indicate, the presence of wetlands on the subject property. The Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS) maps four soil units on the subject property. Table 2. NRCS mapped soil units on the subject property Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Hydric Rating Percent of Subject Property 509B Endbar loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 10 1.5% 510B Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 10 38.4% 537A Lamoose silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 95 12.6% 748A Hyalite-Beaverton complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes 0 47.6% Total 100% Laurel Meadows Wetland Delineation 10130.004 5 | Page A custom soil report and hydric rating by map unit for the investigation area, obtained from the NRCS Web Soil Survey, is provided in Appendix E. Figure 3 in Appendix A depicts NRCS mapped soil units in the investigation area. 2.4.5 Floodplains The subject property is not within the 100-year flood zone. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps the property on panel 30031C0811D with an effective date of September 2, 2011 and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) 15-08-1248P became effective October 30, 2015. 3 METHODS 3.1 Sampling Protocol This wetland delineation utilizes the methodology presented in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and subsequent modifications outlined in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast (Version 2.0) (Environmental Laboratory 2010). The methodology includes sampling procedures for vegetation, hydrology, and soil parameters. 3.2 Wetland Indicators 3.2.1 Vegetation Vegetation at upland and wetland data points is classified based on wetland indicator status. The indicator status of vegetation was derived from the USACE 2022 National Wetlands Plant List (NWPL). Using the current plant list, vegetation cover qualified as hydrophytic where over 50% of the dominant plant species had an indicator status of obligate (OBL), facultative wet (FACW), and/or facultative (FAC). FAC plants, such as Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), are equally likely to occur in wetlands and non-wetlands. Vegetation cover was considered as upland where over 50% of the dominant plant species were classified as upland (UPL), and/or facultative upland (FACU). Plants observed within each data plot were identified using Montana Manual of Vascular Plants (Lesica 2012). Vegetation nomenclature follows USACE NWPL (2020) and Lesica (2012). 3.2.2 Soil Wetlands must meet the qualifications of at least one hydric soil indicator or meet the definition of a hydric soil (a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (NRCS 2019a). Soils at each data point were evaluated and described notating the depth, matrix color, mottle abundance and contrast (if present), texture, etc. (Environmental Laboratory, 1987 and 2010). Moist matrix color and moist mottle color of the soils were determined utilizing the Munsell Soil Color Chart (Kollmorgan Instruments Corporation, 2009). Laurel Meadows Wetland Delineation 10130.004 6 | Page 3.2.3 Hydrology Primary and secondary hydrologic indicators were assessed at each data point; one primary indicator or two secondary indicators are required to qualify the area as containing wetland hydrology. Examples of primary hydrology indicators are saturation within 12 inches of the ground surface, surface water, and water table within 12 inches of the ground surface. Examples of secondary hydrology indicators are FAC-neutral test and geomorphic position on the landscape. 3.3 Delineation Procedure Upland data points (UDP) and wetland data points (WDP) are established as required during the field investigation. Vegetation, hydrology, and soils data is collected in the field according to protocols established by the USACE and recorded on USACE Wetland Determination Data Forms (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Photographs are taken at each data point. Data points and wetland boundaries, if present, were collected by a licensed surveyor. Data is postprocessed in ESRI ArcPro to analyze and create maps. 4 RESULTS 4.1 Wetland Types and Boundaries 4.1.1 Wetland 1 Wetland 1 is an isolated, depressional wetland dominated by emergent vegetation. Wetland 1 is also protected and deed restricted. Hydrology indicators observed in the field include saturation in the upper 12 inches of the soil profile and a positive FAC-neutral test. The hydric soil indicator is loamy mucky mineral (F1). The dominant wetland vegetation is reed canary grass, broadleaf cattail, and hairy willow herb. The wetland/upland boundary primarily follows a change in vegetation to smooth brome, western wheatgrass, and Canada thistle. Wetland 1 is 2.18 acres within the subject property boundary. 4.1.2 Wetland 2 (COB Detention Stormwater Pond) Wetland 2 is an excavated, isolated storm pond that has filled with groundwater. Storm ponds are not regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or City of Bozeman Municipal Code. The storm pond is located within a portion of the property which is protected and deed restricted. This storm pond is 0.09 acres. 4.1.3 Wetland 3 Wetland 3 is a depressional wetland. The hydrology indicators include saturation in the upper 12 inches of the soil profile and a positive FAC-neutral test. The dominant vegetation in this wetland is reed canary grass, broadleaf cattail, and hairy willow herb. The upland/wetland boundary was determined by the lack of hydrology indicators and hydric soil indicators. Additionally, tall tumble mustard has completed populated with west side of this feature. This feature was determined non-jurisdictional in 2021 and 2006 by the US Army Corps of Engineers. This wetland is 2.58 acres. Laurel Meadows Wetland Delineation 10130.004 7 | Page 4.1.4 Wetland 4 Wetland 4 is a riverine wetland associated with Baxter Creek. This portion of the property is protected and deed restricted. The hydrology indicators are drainage patterns in the wetland and a positive FAC neutral test. This wetland is 1.57 acres and extends beyond the delineation boundary. 4.1.5 Wetland 5 (COB Detention Stormwater Pond) Wetland 5 is a detention pond with open water characteristics and broadleaf cattails around the edge. Storm ponds are not regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or City of Bozeman Municipal Code. This wetland is 0.34 acres. 4.1.6 Baxter Creek Baxter Creek is a perennial stream that flows north through the northeastern boundary of the subject property. Baxter Creek is classified as a lower, perennial riverine system with predominantly emergent vegetation and a rock bottom. Approximately 780 linear feet of Baxter Creek flows though the investigation area. Baxter Creek is a jurisdictional waterway due to its eventual connection to the Gallatin River. 4.1.7 Borrow Pit (ponded with groundwater) This pit is located within the borrow and soil spoils deposit near the southeastern corner of the subject property. Borrow material excavated from this area consisted of 20 to 30 foot-deep excavations completed by North Properties, LLC. The former owners backfilled portions of the disturbed area with spoils from the borrow pit with clay-silt soils and organics. For over a decade, the borrow pit was dewatered and the water from the pit was directed to Wetland 3. Since dewatering activities have ceased, the pit ponded with groundwater. 4.2 Data Summary The vegetation, hydrology, and soil characteristics at each of 15 data points were documented in the field and recorded on USACE Wetland Determination Data Forms for the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast (USACE 2020). Table 3 summarizes all data points. Appendix B contains the USACE data forms. 4.2.1 Vegetation Vegetation communities were evaluated and documented to delineate wetland and upland boundaries, where existing. The location of all data points is identified on Figure 6 (Appendix A). Wetland vegetation consisted primarily of reed canary grass, fringed willow-herb, and broad-leaf cattail. Upland vegetation consisted primarily of smooth brome, western wheatgrass, tall tumble mustard, and Canada thistle. 4.2.2 Soil Soils were analyzed in the field for texture and color using the Munsell Soil Color Charts (Munsell 2009). Use of hydric soil indicators is described in Section 3.2.2. Laurel Meadows Wetland Delineation 10130.004 8 | Page No hydric soil indicators were observed at upland data points. Upland soils exhibit Mollic epipedon characteristics common in agricultural fields in the Gallatin Valley. Soil colors are dark at 10YR 2/1 with granular structure, high organic matter, and primarily loamy textures from 0-16 inches. Many fine roots and few medium roots occupied the upper 3-6 inches of the profiles observed. Soils within wetlands exhibited a thick mucky mineral layer in the upper 4-12 inches of the soil profile. This soil layer with fibrous material, greasy-feeling soil and organic matter, and thickness ≥4 inches starting within the upper 6 inches of the profile meets hydric soil indicator F1 (Environmental Laboratory, 1987 and 2010). 4.2.3 Hydrology Upland areas exhibited no hydrology indicators. Wetland data points showed saturated soils and a high water table. 5 CONCLUSION Based on the wetland delineation presented in this report and the data collected, it is Morrison-Maierle’s professional judgement that wetlands and waterways exist within the project area. Figure 6 in Appendix A details the investigation area and delineated features. Table 3 summarizes the wetlands delineated within the project area. Table 3. Wetland and Waterways in the Project Area Feature ID Wetland Type (Cowardin) Wetland Type (HGM) Acres or Linear feet MWAM Functional Rating/Total Units Impacted by proposed project activities Jurisdictional Determination by USACE Within Deed Restricted Covenant Wetland 1 Palustrine Depressional 2.18 acres 35% 5.44 No --- Yes Wetland 2 (storm pond) Palustrine Depressional 0.09 acres 34% 0.31 No --- Yes Wetland 3 Palustrine Depressional 2.58 acres 28% 5 Yes Non-Jurisdictional No Wetland 4 Palustrine Riverine 1.57 acres 53% 7.17 No --- Yes Wetland 5 (storm pond) Palustrine Depressional 0.34 acres 37% 0.876 No --- No Baxter Creek (OHWM) Riverine Riverine 2,519 feet --- No --- Yes Water-filled borrow pit ----- ----- 1.54 acres --- Yes --- No The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are the final authority over the jurisdictional status of both wetlands and waters of the U.S. per Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The findings discussed in this report are solely the opinion of Morrison-Maierle and have not been verified by the aforementioned regulatory government agencies. Laurel Meadows Wetland Delineation 10130.004 9 | Page An Approved Jurisdictional Determination was received by the US Army Corps of Engineers for Wetland 3. This wetland was determined to be non-jurisdictional due to its lack of connection to a Waters of the US. Laurel Meadows Wetland Delineation 10130.004 10 | Page 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. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. Environmental Laboratory. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corp of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast. (Version 2.0) U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory. Vicksburg, MS. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2025. FEMA Map Service Center. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search Google Earth Pro. 2025. Retrieved November 2025. Kollmorgan Instruments Corporation. 2009. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Macbeth Division, New Windsor, NY. Lesica, P. 2012. Manual of Montana Vascular Plants. Brit Press. Fort Worth, Texas. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2019. Hydric Soils Definition. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/use/hydric/?cid=nrcs142p2_053961 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2024. Web Soil Survey. Accessed November 2025. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2022. National Wetland Plant List 2022. http://wetland-plants.usace.army.mil/ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2018. Wetland Determination Data Sheet – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, Version 1.16. OBM Control # 0710-0024, Expires 11/30/2024. Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR335-15, paragraph 5-2a). ENG Forms 6116-6, July 2018. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2025. National Wetland Inventory Wetlands Mapper. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html U.S. Geological Survey. 2020. Bozeman, Montana, 7.5-minute Series Topographic Quadrangle Map. Laurel Meadows Wetland Delineation 10130.004 11 | Page APPENDIX A: FIGURES DRAWN BY: BC CHK'D BY: BC APPR. BY: CP DATE: GALLATIN COUNTY MT COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2021 N:\5418\002 - Master Agreement\GIS\Exhibits\2021_WD\Fig 1_Vicinity.mxd FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 5418.002 1 2880 Technology Bldv.Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721Fax: (406) 922-6702 6/16/2021 DURSTON RD HUFFLINE RD GOOCH HILL RDCOTTONWOOD RD±0 1 20.5 Miles Legend Investigation Area  TOPOGRAPHIC & VICINITY MAP NORTON EAST RANCH PROPERTY NORTON EAST RANCH PROPERTYBOZEMAN, MONTANAT2S R5E SEC 9GALLATIN COUNTY DRAWN BY: BC CHK'D BY: BC APPR. BY: CP DATE: GALLATIN COUNTY MT COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2021 C:\GISTemp\Fig 2_Aerial.mxd FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 5418.002 2 2880 Technology Bldv.Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721Fax: (406) 922-6702 6/16/2021 DURSTON RD HUFFLINE RD COTTONWOOD RD±0 800 1,600400Feet Legend Investigation Area  2019 NAIP AERIAL MAP NORTON EAST RANCH PROPERTY DRAWN BY: BC CHK'D BY: BC APPR. BY: CP DATE: GALLATIN COUNTY MT COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2021 N:\5418\002 - Master Agreement\GIS\Exhibits\2021_WD\Fig 3_Soils.mxd FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 5418.002 3 2880 Technology Bldv.Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721Fax: (406) 922-6702 6/16/2021 W BABCOCK ST 510B 537A 748A 509B 509B 448A 537A 509B 448A 510B±0 400 800200Feet Legend Investigation Area NRCS Soil Map Unit  NRCS SOILS MAP NORTON EAST RANCH PROPERTY DRAWN BY: BC CHK'D BY: BC APPR. BY: CP DATE: GALLATIN COUNTY MT COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2021 N:\5418\002 - Master Agreement\GIS\Exhibits\2021_WD\Fig 4_NWI.mxd FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 5418.002 4 2880 Technology Bldv.Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721Fax: (406) 922-6702 6/16/2021 W BABCOCK ST ±0 400 800200Feet Legend Investigation Area Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Pond  NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY MAP NORTON EAST RANCH PROPERTY DRAWN BY: BC CHK'D BY: BC APPR. BY: CP DATE: GALLATIN COUNTY MT COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2021 N:\5418\002 - Master Agreement\GIS\Exhibits\2021_WD\Fig 5_WD.mxd FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 5418.002 5 2880 Technology Bldv.Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721Fax: (406) 922-6702 6/23/2021 !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( W BABCOCK ST WET 1 WET 2 WET 5 WET 3 WET 4 UDP 1 WDP 1 UDP 2 WDP 3 WDP 2 UDP 3 UDP 4 UDP 5 WDP 4 ±0 250 500125Feet Legend Investigation Area Wetlands (6.76 acres) Stream (780 linear feet) Ditch (1,166 linear feet) Pond (1.54 acres) !(Upland Data Point !(Wetland Data Point  WETLAND DELINEATION MAP NORTON EAST RANCH PROPERTY Feature Area (ac)WET 1 2.18WET 2 0.09WET 3 2.58WET 4 1.57WET 5 0.34 Laurel Meadows Wetland Delineation 10130.004 12 | Page APPENDIX B: USACE WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS Project Site:City/County:Sampling Date:5/25/2021 Applicant/Owner: Greg & Kilday Stratton State:Montana Sampling Point:UDP 1 Investigator(s):C. Pearcy Section/Range:Slope (%):0-5 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Upland concave Datum:NAD83 SP MT Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Rocky Mountain Range and Forest Lat:45.67902 Long:-111.114753 Soil Map Unit Name:509B none Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Are "Normal Circumstances" present?Yes No X SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, ect. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No X Yes No X Yes Yes No X No X Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2)MLRA 1, 2, 4A, an d4B)4A, an d4B) 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)Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes No X Depth (inches) Water Table Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Wetland Hydrology Present? Saturation Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Yes (includes cappillary fringe)No X Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Norton East Gallatin Local relief (concave, convex, none): NWI classification: S9 T2 S R5 E WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Is the Sample Area within a Wetland?Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Based on the absence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology, this location does not meet the criteria of a wetland. HYDROLOGY Remarks: Hydrologic indicators were not observed at this location. Vegetation- Use scientific names of plants Montana UDP 1 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1 Number of Dominant Species 1 (A) 2 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 4 Total Number of Dominant 2 (B) 5 Species Across All Strata: 6 7 Percent of Dominant Species 50%(A/B) Total Cover 0 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Prevalance Index Worksheet: 1 2 OBL species 0 x 1 =0 3 FACW species 65 x 2 =130 4 FAC species 0 x 3 =0 5 FACU species 35 x 4 =140 6 UPL species 0 x 5 =0 7 Column Totals:100 (A) (B)270 Total Cover 0 Prevalence Index = B/A =3 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 35 YES FACU Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 Dominance Test is >50% 3 Prevalence Index < 3.01 4 Morphological Adaptation1 (Provide supporting data) 5 Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 6 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Total Cover 35 Definitions for Four Vegetation Strata: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 inches or more 1 65 YES FACW in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 2 height 3 4 Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines less 5 than 3 inch DBH and greater than 1 meter tall. 6 7 Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless 8 of size, and wood plants less than 1 meter tall. 9 10 Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 1 meter in 11 height. 12 Total Cover 65 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status 1 2 3 X 4 YES NO 5 Total Cover 0 Shrub Stratum (30') Herb Stratum (30') Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below) Hydrophytic vegetation was not observed at this location. Woody Vine Stratum (30') Sapling Stratum (30') Phalaris arundinacea Rosa woodsii Tree Stratum (Plot Sizes: 30') Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Total % Cover of:Multiply by: SOIL Profile Desription: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Montana UDP 1 Depth (inches) % % Type1 Loc2 Texture 0-12 100 silty clay 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: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)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Yes No X 3Indicators of hydrolophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Hydric soil indicators were not observed at this location. Remarks Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) Redox Fetures Hydric Soil Present? Matrix Project Site:City/County:Sampling Date:5/25/2021 Applicant/Owner: Greg & Kilday Stratton State:Montana Sampling Point:UDP 2 Investigator(s):C. Pearcy Section/Range:Slope (%):0-5 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): upland plain concave Datum:NAD83 SP MT Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Rocky Mountain Range and Forest Lat:45.6799 Long:-111.112283 Soil Map Unit Name:510B none Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Are "Normal Circumstances" present?Yes No X SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, ect. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No X Yes No X Yes Yes No X No X Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2)MLRA 1, 2, 4A, an d4B)4A, an d4B) 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)Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes No X Depth (inches) Water Table Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Wetland Hydrology Present? Saturation Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Yes (includes cappillary fringe)No X Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Based on the absence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology, this location does not meet the criteria of a wetland. HYDROLOGY Remarks: Hydrologic indicators were not observed at this location. Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Norton East Gallatin Local relief (concave, convex, none): NWI classification: S9 T2 S R5 E WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Is the Sample Area within a Wetland? Vegetation- Use scientific names of plants Montana UDP 2 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1 Number of Dominant Species 0 (A) 2 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 4 Total Number of Dominant 2 (B) 5 Species Across All Strata: 6 7 Percent of Dominant Species 0%(A/B) Total Cover 0 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Prevalance Index Worksheet: 1 2 OBL species 0 x 1 =0 3 FACW species 0 x 2 =0 4 FAC species 0 x 3 =0 5 FACU species 40 x 4 =160 6 UPL species 60 x 5 =300 7 Column Totals:100 (A) (B)460 Total Cover 0 Prevalence Index = B/A =5 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 20 YES FACU Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 Dominance Test is >50% 3 Prevalence Index < 3.01 4 Morphological Adaptation1 (Provide supporting data) 5 Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 6 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Total Cover 20 Definitions for Four Vegetation Strata: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 inches or more 1 60 YES UPL in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 2 10 NO FACU height 3 10 NO FACU 4 Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines less 5 than 3 inch DBH and greater than 1 meter tall. 6 7 Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless 8 of size, and wood plants less than 1 meter tall. 9 10 Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 1 meter in 11 height. 12 Total Cover 80 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status 1 2 3 X 4 YES NO 5 Total Cover 0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Total % Cover of:Multiply by: Pascopyrum smithii Sisymbrium altissimum Tree Stratum (Plot Sizes: 30') Sapling Stratum (30') Bromus inermis Rosa woodsii Shrub Stratum (30') Herb Stratum (30') Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below) Hydrophytic vegetation was not observed at this location. Vegetation data updated in November 2025 Woody Vine Stratum (30') SOIL Profile Desription: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Montana UDP 2 Depth (inches) % % Type1 Loc2 Texture 0-12 100 silty clay 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: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)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Yes No X Hydric Soil Present? Matrix Color (moist) Redox Fetures 10YR 2/1 Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Hydric soil indicators were not observed at this location. Remarks Color (moist) 3Indicators of hydrolophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. Project Site:City/County:Sampling Date:5/25/2021 Applicant/Owner: Greg & Kilday Stratton State:Montana Sampling Point:UDP 3 Investigator(s):C. Pearcy Section/Range:Slope (%):0-5 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): upland plain concave Datum:NAD83 SP MT Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Rocky Mountain Range and Forest Lat:45.68217 Long:-111.112606 Soil Map Unit Name:748A none Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology x significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Are "Normal Circumstances" present?Yes No X SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, ect. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes X No Yes No X Yes Yes No X No X Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2)MLRA 1, 2, 4A, an d4B)4A, an d4B) 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)Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes No X Depth (inches) Water Table Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Wetland Hydrology Present? Saturation Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Yes (includes cappillary fringe)No X Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Norton East Gallatin Local relief (concave, convex, none): NWI classification: S9 T2 S R5 E WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Is the Sample Area within a Wetland?Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Based on the absence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology, this location does not meet the criteria of a wetland. HYDROLOGY Remarks: Hydrologic indicators were not observed at this location. Vegetation- Use scientific names of plants Montana UDP 3 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1 Number of Dominant Species 1 (A) 2 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 4 Total Number of Dominant 1 (B) 5 Species Across All Strata: 6 7 Percent of Dominant Species 100%(A/B) Total Cover 0 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Prevalance Index Worksheet: 1 2 OBL species 0 x 1 =0 3 FACW species 100 x 2 =200 4 FAC species 0 x 3 =0 5 FACU species 0 x 4 =0 6 UPL species 0 x 5 =0 7 Column Totals:100 (A) (B)200 Total Cover 0 Prevalence Index = B/A =2 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 X Dominance Test is >50% 3 Prevalence Index < 3.01 4 Morphological Adaptation1 (Provide supporting data) 5 Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 6 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Total Cover 0 Definitions for Four Vegetation Strata: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 inches or more 1 100 YES FACW in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 2 height 3 4 Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines less 5 than 3 inch DBH and greater than 1 meter tall. 6 7 Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless 8 of size, and wood plants less than 1 meter tall. 9 10 Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 1 meter in 11 height. 12 Total Cover 100 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status 1 2 3 X 4 YES NO 5 Total Cover 0 Shrub Stratum (30') Herb Stratum (30') Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below) Hydrophytic vegetation was observed at this location. Woody Vine Stratum (30') Sapling Stratum (30') Phalaris arundinacea Tree Stratum (Plot Sizes: 30') Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Total % Cover of:Multiply by: SOIL Profile Desription: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Montana UDP 3 Depth (inches) % % Type1 Loc2 Texture 0-14 100 silty clay 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: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)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Yes No X 3Indicators of hydrolophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Hydric soil indicators were not observed at this location. Remarks Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) Redox Fetures Hydric Soil Present? Matrix Project Site:City/County:Sampling Date:5/25/2021 Applicant/Owner: Greg & Kilday Stratton State:Montana Sampling Point:UDP 4 Investigator(s):C. Pearcy Section/Range:Slope (%):0-5 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): upland plain concave Datum:NAD83 SP MT Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Rocky Mountain Range and Forest Lat:45.68189 Long:-111.111882 Soil Map Unit Name:748A none Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology x significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Are "Normal Circumstances" present?Yes No X SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, ect. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes X No Yes No X Yes Yes No X No X Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2)MLRA 1, 2, 4A, an d4B)4A, an d4B) 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)Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes No X Depth (inches) Water Table Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Wetland Hydrology Present? Saturation Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Yes (includes cappillary fringe)No X Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Norton East Gallatin Local relief (concave, convex, none): NWI classification: S9 T2 S R5 E WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Is the Sample Area within a Wetland?Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Based on the absence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology, this location does not meet the criteria of a wetland. HYDROLOGY Remarks: Hydrologic indicators were not observed at this location. Vegetation- Use scientific names of plants Montana UDP 4 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1 Number of Dominant Species 2 (A) 2 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 4 Total Number of Dominant 2 (B) 5 Species Across All Strata: 6 7 Percent of Dominant Species 100%(A/B) Total Cover 0 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Prevalance Index Worksheet: 1 2 OBL species 0 x 1 =0 3 FACW species 40 x 2 =80 4 FAC species 50 x 3 =150 5 FACU species 10 x 4 =40 6 UPL species 0 x 5 =0 7 Column Totals:100 (A) (B)270 Total Cover 0 Prevalence Index = B/A =3 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 X Dominance Test is >50% 3 Prevalence Index < 3.01 4 Morphological Adaptation1 (Provide supporting data) 5 Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 6 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Total Cover 0 Definitions for Four Vegetation Strata: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 inches or more 1 50 YES FAC in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 2 40 YES FACW height 3 10 NO FACU 4 Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines less 5 than 3 inch DBH and greater than 1 meter tall. 6 7 Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless 8 of size, and wood plants less than 1 meter tall. 9 10 Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 1 meter in 11 height. 12 Total Cover 100 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status 1 2 3 X 4 YES NO 5 Total Cover 0 Shrub Stratum (30') Herb Stratum (30') Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below) Hydrophytic vegetation was observed at this location. Hydrology appears to have been altered, as there are dead cattails but no new cattail growth.l Woody Vine Stratum (30') Sapling Stratum (30') Cirsium arvense Tree Stratum (Plot Sizes: 30') Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Total % Cover of:Multiply by: Phalaris arundinacea Sisymbrium altissimum SOIL Profile Desription: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Montana UDP 4 Depth (inches) % % Type1 Loc2 Texture 0-14 100 silty clay 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: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)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Yes No X 3Indicators of hydrolophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Hydric soil indicators were not observed at this location. Remarks Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) Redox Fetures Hydric Soil Present? Matrix Project Site:City/County:Sampling Date:5/25/2021 Applicant/Owner: Greg & Kilday Stratton State:Montana Sampling Point:UDP 5 Investigator(s):C. Pearcy Section/Range:Slope (%):0-5 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): upland plain concave Datum:NAD83 SP MT Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Rocky Mountain Range and Forest Lat:45.6818 Long:-111.110153 Soil Map Unit Name:537A PEMA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology x significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Are "Normal Circumstances" present?Yes No X SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, ect. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes X No Yes No X Yes Yes No X No X Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2)MLRA 1, 2, 4A, an d4B)4A, an d4B) 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)Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes No X Depth (inches) Water Table Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Wetland Hydrology Present? Saturation Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Yes (includes cappillary fringe)No X Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Norton East Gallatin Local relief (concave, convex, none): NWI classification: S9 T2 S R5 E WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Is the Sample Area within a Wetland?Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Based on the absence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology, this location does not meet the criteria of a wetland. HYDROLOGY Remarks: Hydrologic indicators were not observed at this location. Vegetation- Use scientific names of plants Montana UDP 5 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1 Number of Dominant Species 2 (A) 2 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 4 Total Number of Dominant 3 (B) 5 Species Across All Strata: 6 7 Percent of Dominant Species 67%(A/B) Total Cover 0 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Prevalance Index Worksheet: 1 2 OBL species 0 x 1 =0 3 FACW species 50 x 2 =100 4 FAC species 30 x 3 =90 5 FACU species 20 x 4 =80 6 UPL species 0 x 5 =0 7 Column Totals:100 (A) (B)270 Total Cover 0 Prevalence Index = B/A =3 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 20 YES FACU Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 X Dominance Test is >50% 3 Prevalence Index < 3.01 4 Morphological Adaptation1 (Provide supporting data) 5 Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 6 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Total Cover 20 Definitions for Four Vegetation Strata: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 inches or more 1 50 YES FACW in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 2 30 YES FAC height 3 4 Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines less 5 than 3 inch DBH and greater than 1 meter tall. 6 7 Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless 8 of size, and wood plants less than 1 meter tall. 9 10 Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 1 meter in 11 height. 12 Total Cover 80 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status 1 2 3 X 4 YES NO 5 Total Cover 0 Shrub Stratum (30') Herb Stratum (30') Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below) Hydrophytic vegetation was observed at this location. Woody Vine Stratum (30') Sapling Stratum (30') Phalaris arundinacea Rosa woodsii Tree Stratum (Plot Sizes: 30') Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Total % Cover of:Multiply by: Glycyrrhiza lepidota SOIL Profile Desription: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Montana UDP 5 Depth (inches) % % Type1 Loc2 Texture 0-14 100 silty clay 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: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)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Yes No X 3Indicators of hydrolophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Hydric soil indicators were not observed at this location. Remarks Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) Redox Fetures Hydric Soil Present? Matrix Project Site:City/County:Sampling Date:5/25/2021 Applicant/Owner: Kilday Stratton State:Montana Sampling Point:WDP 1 Investigator(s):C. Pearcy Section/Range:Slope (%):0-5 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): concave Datum:NAD83 SP MT Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Rocky Mountain Range and Forest Lat:45.67916 Long:-111.114851 Soil Map Unit Name:509B none Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology x significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Are "Normal Circumstances" present?Yes No X SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, ect. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) X Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2)MLRA 1, 2, 4A, an d4B)4A, an d4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)X Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes X No Depth (inches 2 Water Table Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Wetland Hydrology Present? Saturation Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Yes X (includes cappillary fringe)No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Norton East Gallatin Local relief (concave, convex, none): NWI classification: S9 T2 S R5 E WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Is the Sample Area within a Wetland?Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology, this location meets the criteria of a wetland. HYDROLOGY Remarks: Hydrologic indicators were observed at this location. Vegetation- Use scientific names of plants Montana WDP 1 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1 Number of Dominant Species 2 (A) 2 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 4 Total Number of Dominant 2 (B) 5 Species Across All Strata: 6 7 Percent of Dominant Species 100%(A/B) Total Cover 0 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Prevalance Index Worksheet: 1 2 OBL species 50 x 1 =50 3 FACW species 50 x 2 =100 4 FAC species 0 x 3 =0 5 FACU species 0 x 4 =0 6 UPL species 0 x 5 =0 7 Column Totals:100 (A) (B)150 Total Cover 0 Prevalence Index = B/A =2 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 X Dominance Test is >50% 3 X Prevalence Index < 3.01 4 Morphological Adaptation1 (Provide supporting data) 5 Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 6 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Total Cover 0 Definitions for Four Vegetation Strata: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 inches or more 1 50 YES FACW in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 2 50 YES OBL height 3 4 Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines less 5 than 3 inch DBH and greater than 1 meter tall. 6 7 Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless 8 of size, and wood plants less than 1 meter tall. 9 10 Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 1 meter in 11 height. 12 Total Cover 100 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status 1 2 3 X 4 YES NO 5 Total Cover 0 Shrub Stratum (30') Herb Stratum (30') Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below) Hydrophytic vegetation was observed at this location. Woody Vine Stratum (30') Sapling Stratum (30') Phalaris arundinacea Tree Stratum (Plot Sizes: 30') Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Total % Cover of:Multiply by: Typha latifolia SOIL Profile Desription: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Montana WDP 1 Depth (inches) % % Type1 Loc2 Texture 0-12 100 silty clay loam 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: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)X Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Yes X No 3Indicators of hydrolophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Hydric soil indicators were observed at this location. Remarks Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 heavy organics/muck Color (moist) Redox Fetures Hydric Soil Present? Matrix Project Site:City/County:Sampling Date:5/25/2021 Applicant/Owner: Greg & Kilday Stratton State:Montana Sampling Point:WDP 2 Investigator(s):C. Pearcy Section/Range:Slope (%):0-5 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): wet meadow concave Datum:NAD83 SP MT Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Rocky Mountain Range and Forest Lat:45.67858 Long:-111.114497 Soil Map Unit Name:510B none Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Are "Normal Circumstances" present?Yes No X SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, ect. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) X Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, X High Water Table (A2)MLRA 1, 2, 4A, an d4B)4A, an d4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)X Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes X No Depth (inches 4 Water Table Present?Yes X No Depth (inches 4 Wetland Hydrology Present? Saturation Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Yes X (includes cappillary fringe)No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology, this location meets the criteria of a wetland. HYDROLOGY Remarks: Hydrologic indicators were observed at this location. This data point was recorded in the location of a man-made storm water pond. Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Norton East Gallatin Local relief (concave, convex, none): NWI classification: S9 T2 S R5 E WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Is the Sample Area within a Wetland? Vegetation- Use scientific names of plants Montana WDP 2 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1 Number of Dominant Species 3 (A) 2 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 4 Total Number of Dominant 3 (B) 5 Species Across All Strata: 6 7 Percent of Dominant Species 100%(A/B) Total Cover 0 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Prevalance Index Worksheet: 1 2 OBL species 80 x 1 =80 3 FACW species 20 x 2 =40 4 FAC species 0 x 3 =0 5 FACU species 0 x 4 =0 6 UPL species 0 x 5 =0 7 Column Totals:100 (A) (B)120 Total Cover 0 Prevalence Index = B/A =1 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 X Dominance Test is >50% 3 X Prevalence Index < 3.01 4 Morphological Adaptation1 (Provide supporting data) 5 Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 6 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Total Cover 0 Definitions for Four Vegetation Strata: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 inches or more 1 60 YES OBL in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 2 20 YES OBL height 3 20 YES FACW 4 Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines less 5 than 3 inch DBH and greater than 1 meter tall. 6 7 Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless 8 of size, and wood plants less than 1 meter tall. 9 10 Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 1 meter in 11 height. 12 Total Cover 100 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status 1 2 3 X 4 YES NO 5 Total Cover 0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Total % Cover of:Multiply by: Carex utriculata Phalaris arundinacea Tree Stratum (Plot Sizes: 30') Sapling Stratum (30') Typha latifolia Shrub Stratum (30') Herb Stratum (30') Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below) Hydrophytic vegetation was observed at this location. Woody Vine Stratum (30') SOIL Profile Desription: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Montana WDP 2 Depth (inches) % % Type1 Loc2 Texture 0-12 100 silty clay loam 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: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)X Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Matrix Color (moist) Redox Fetures 10YR 2/1 heavy organics/muck Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Hydric soil indicators were observed at this location. Remarks Color (moist) 3Indicators of hydrolophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. Project Site:City/County:Sampling Date:5/25/2021 Applicant/Owner: Greg & Kilday Stratton State:Montana Sampling Point:WDP 3 Investigator(s):C. Pearcy Section/Range:Slope (%):0-5 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): wet meadow concave Datum:NAD83 SP MT Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Rocky Mountain Range and Forest Lat:45.67978 Long:-111.112387 Soil Map Unit Name:510B PEMA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Are "Normal Circumstances" present?Yes No X SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, ect. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, X High Water Table (A2)MLRA 1, 2, 4A, an d4B)4A, an d4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)X Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes No Depth (inches) Water Table Present?Yes X No Depth (inches 3 Wetland Hydrology Present? Saturation Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Yes X (includes cappillary fringe)No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology, this location meets the criteria of a wetland. HYDROLOGY Remarks: Hydrologic indicators were observed at this location. Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Norton East Gallatin Local relief (concave, convex, none): NWI classification: S9 T2 S R5 E WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Is the Sample Area within a Wetland? Vegetation- Use scientific names of plants Montana WDP 3 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1 Number of Dominant Species 3 (A) 2 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 4 Total Number of Dominant 3 (B) 5 Species Across All Strata: 6 7 Percent of Dominant Species 100%(A/B) Total Cover 0 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Prevalance Index Worksheet: 1 2 OBL species 60 x 1 =60 3 FACW species 20 x 2 =40 4 FAC species 20 x 3 =60 5 FACU species 0 x 4 =0 6 UPL species 0 x 5 =0 7 Column Totals:100 (A) (B)160 Total Cover 0 Prevalence Index = B/A =2 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 X Dominance Test is >50% 3 X Prevalence Index < 3.01 4 Morphological Adaptation1 (Provide supporting data) 5 Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 6 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Total Cover 0 Definitions for Four Vegetation Strata: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 inches or more 1 60 YES OBL in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 2 20 YES FAC height 3 20 YES FACW 4 Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines less 5 than 3 inch DBH and greater than 1 meter tall. 6 7 Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless 8 of size, and wood plants less than 1 meter tall. 9 10 Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 1 meter in 11 height. 12 Total Cover 100 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status 1 2 3 X 4 YES NO 5 Total Cover 0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Total % Cover of:Multiply by: Equisetum arvense Phalaris arundinacea Tree Stratum (Plot Sizes: 30') Sapling Stratum (30') Typha latifolia Shrub Stratum (30') Herb Stratum (30') Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below) Hydrophytic vegetation was observed at this location. Woody Vine Stratum (30') SOIL Profile Desription: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Montana WDP 3 Depth (inches) % % Type1 Loc2 Texture 0-12 100 silty clay loam 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: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)X Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Matrix Color (moist) Redox Fetures 10YR 2/1 heavy organics/muck Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Hydric soil indicators were observed at this location. Remarks Color (moist) 3Indicators of hydrolophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. Project Site:City/County:Sampling Date:5/25/2021 Applicant/Owner: Greg & Kilday Stratton State:Montana Sampling Point:WDP 4 Investigator(s):C. Pearcy Section/Range:Slope (%):0-5 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): fringe to Baxter Creek concave Datum:NAD83 SP MT Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Rocky Mountain Range and Forest Lat:45.68202 Long:-111.110429 Soil Map Unit Name:537A PEMA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation Soil Hydrology naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Are "Normal Circumstances" present?Yes No X SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, ect. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, X High Water Table (A2)MLRA 1, 2, 4A, an d4B)4A, an d4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)X Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes No Depth (inches) Water Table Present?Yes X No Depth (inches 4 Wetland Hydrology Present? Saturation Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Yes X (includes cappillary fringe)No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology, this location meets the criteria of a wetland. HYDROLOGY Remarks: Hydrologic indicators were observed at this location. Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Norton East Gallatin Local relief (concave, convex, none): NWI classification: S9 T2 S R5 E WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Is the Sample Area within a Wetland? Vegetation- Use scientific names of plants Montana WDP 4 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1 Number of Dominant Species 1 (A) 2 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 4 Total Number of Dominant 1 (B) 5 Species Across All Strata: 6 7 Percent of Dominant Species 100%(A/B) Total Cover 0 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Prevalance Index Worksheet: 1 2 OBL species 100 x 1 =100 3 FACW species 0 x 2 =0 4 FAC species 0 x 3 =0 5 FACU species 0 x 4 =0 6 UPL species 0 x 5 =0 7 Column Totals:100 (A) (B)100 Total Cover 0 Prevalence Index = B/A =1 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 X Dominance Test is >50% 3 X Prevalence Index < 3.01 4 Morphological Adaptation1 (Provide supporting data) 5 Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 6 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Total Cover 0 Definitions for Four Vegetation Strata: Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 inches or more 1 100 YES OBL in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 2 height 3 4 Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines less 5 than 3 inch DBH and greater than 1 meter tall. 6 7 Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless 8 of size, and wood plants less than 1 meter tall. 9 10 Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 1 meter in 11 height. 12 Total Cover 100 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status 1 2 3 X 4 YES NO 5 Total Cover 0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Total % Cover of:Multiply by: Tree Stratum (Plot Sizes: 30') Sapling Stratum (30') Typha latifolia Shrub Stratum (30') Herb Stratum (30') Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below) Hydrophytic vegetation was observed at this location. Woody Vine Stratum (30') SOIL Profile Desription: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Montana WDP 4 Depth (inches) % % Type1 Loc2 Texture 0-12 100 silty clay loam 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: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)X Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Matrix Color (moist) Redox Fetures 10YR 2/1 heavy organics/muck Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Hydric soil indicators were observed at this location. Remarks Color (moist) 3Indicators of hydrolophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. Laurel Meadows Wetland Delineation 10130.004 13 | Page APPENDIX C: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Norton East Wetland Delineation Photo Log – June 2021 Photo 1: Wetland Data Point 1 (WDP1) Photo 2: Upland Data Point 1 (UDP 1) Norton East Wetland Delineation Photo Log – June 2021 Photo 3: Stormwater Pond Photo 4: Borrow area pond Norton East Wetland Delineation Photo Log – June 2021 Photo 5: Wetland Data Point 3 (WDP3) Photo 6: Wetland complex overview, view south from northern boundary Norton East Wetland Delineation Photo Log – June 2021 Photo 7: Wetland Data Point 4 (WDP 4) Photo 8: Historic ditch infrastructure no longer in use Laurel Meadows Wetland Delineation 10130.004 14 | Page APPENDIX D: CORRESPONDENCE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT HELENA REGULATORY OFFICE 10 WEST 15TH STREET, SUITE 2200 HELENA, MONTANA 59626 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF Printed on Recycled Paper December 9, 2021 Subject: Norton Properties, LLC (Vaughn Environmental Services) Norton East Subdivision - Various Waterways (Gallatin County); USACE File Number: NWO-2007- 01084-MTH Kevin Spencer Norton Properties, LLC 63026 Lower Meadow Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97701-6984 Dear Mr. Spencer: We are responding to your Department of the Army (DA) Jurisdictional Determination request for an approved jurisdictional determination. The project is located at Latitude 45.681384°, Longitude -111.112626°, near Baxter Creek Ditch, within Section 9, Township 2 S, Range 5 E, Gallatin County, Montana. Based on available information and a site visit conducted by USACE staff on October 19, 2021, a jurisdictional determination has found no waters or wetlands regulated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. 403) or Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) on the property listed above. Only the area labeled WET 3 on the enclosed map titled, "Wetland Delineation Map, Norton East Ranch Property" (copy attached) prepared by the Morrison-Maierle and dated November 16, 2021, was reviewed for this determination. Wetland 3 in the review area was determined to be an isolated water with no apparent interstate or foreign commerce connection and does not carry relatively permanent flow to regulated waters of the United States. As such, this water is not currently regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). This disclaimer of jurisdiction is only for Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. Other Federal, State, and local laws may apply to your activities. This letter contains an approved jurisdictional determination for your subject site. If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under USACE regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. A Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) and Request for Appeal (RFA) form is enclosed. If you request to appeal this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the Northwestern Division Office, Regulatory -2- Printed on Recycled Paper Appeals Review Officer, Melinda Larsen at Melinda.M.Larsen@usace.army.mil. For any questions you may contact her at (503) 808-3888. In order for an RFA to be accepted, USACE must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal under 33 C.F.R. part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by February 7, 2022. It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this letter. This determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps of Engineers' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site identified in this request. This determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service prior to starting work. This determination is valid for five (5) years from the date of this letter, unless new information warrants revision of the determination before the expiration date. Please refer to identification number NWO-2007-01084-MTH in any correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions, please contact Tim McNew by email at Timothy.M.McNew@usace.army.mil, or by telephone at (406) 441-1375. Sincerely, Sage L. Joyce Chief, Montana Regulatory Program 2 Enclosures: 1. NAP/RFA 2. Review Area Map APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): November 30, 2021 B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Omaha District, Norton Properties, NWO-2007-01084-MTH C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State: Montana County/parish/borough: Gallatin County City: Bozeman Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 45.681233°, Long. -111.112632° Universal Transverse Mercator: Zone 11, (X) 49122592, (Y) 5088655.16 Name of nearest waterbody: Stillwater River Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Missouri River Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 10020008 Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request. Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc…) are associated with this action and are recorded on a different JD form: At Latitude 45.680646, Longitude -111.114964 a deed restriction was put in place and this area was preserved, enhanced and created as a mitigation site for previous impacts, a copy of the deed restriction and applicable attachment is available upon request. A prelimary jurisdictional determination was completed on November 28, 2006 and reveled through a wetland delineation that Wetland 3 (referred to as Wetland 4 in the previous delineation) was approxiamtly 1.25 acres. D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): Office (Desk) Determination. Date: November 23, 2021 Field Determination. Date(s): October 19, 2021 SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no “navigable waters of the U.S.” within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the review area. [Required] Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. Explain: B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no “waters of the U.S.” within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required] 1. Waters of the U.S. a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1 TNWs, including territorial seas Wetlands adjacent to TNWs Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Impoundments of jurisdictional waters Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area: Non-wetland waters: linear feet, wide, and/or acres. Wetlands: acres. c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Pick List Elevation of established OHWM (if known): 2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3 Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional. Explain: Wetland 3 is approxiamtly 140 feet from the next jurisdictional feature and approxiamtly 460 feet from the nearest RPW and approxiamtly 25.5 miles from the nearest TNW. A wetland delineation was completed in 2006 that revealed that the wetland is 1.25 acres and the 1 Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below. 2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least “seasonally” (e.g., typically 3 months). 3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F. - 2 - delienation that was completed in 2021 indicated that the wetland grew to 2.56 acres indicating that the hydrology for this wetland is restricted to this area. Wetland 3 is so remote that the physical, biological or chemical effect on the nearest TNW (Missouri River) is speculative or in substantial. SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2 and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below. 1. TNW Identify TNW: Summarize rationale supporting determination: 2. Wetland adjacent to TNW Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is “adjacent”: B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY): This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met. The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are “relatively permanent waters” (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3 months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round (perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow, skip to Section III.D.4. A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law. If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below. 1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) General Area Conditions: Watershed size: Pick List Drainage area: Pick List Average annual rainfall: inches Average annual snowfall: inches (ii) Physical Characteristics: (a) Relationship with TNW: Tributary flows directly into TNW. Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW. Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW. Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: 4 Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid West. - 3 - Identify flow route to TNW5: Tributary stream order, if known: (b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply): Tributary is: Natural Artificial (man-made). Explain: Manipulated (man-altered). Explain: Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate): Average width: feet Average depth: feet Average side slopes: Pick List. Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply): Silts Sands Concrete Cobbles Gravel Muck Bedrock Vegetation. Type/% cover: Other. Explain: Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: Tributary geometry: Pick List Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): % (c) Flow: Tributary provides for: Pick List Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List Describe flow regime: Other information on duration and volume: Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics: Subsurface flow: Pick List . Explain findings: Dye (or other) test performed: Tributary has (check all that apply): Bed and banks OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply): clear, natural line impressed on the bank the presence of litter and debris changes in the character of soil destruction of terrestrial vegetation shelving the presence of wrack line vegetation matted down, bent, or absent sediment sorting leaf litter disturbed or washed away scour sediment deposition multiple observed or predicted flow events water staining abrupt change in plant community other (list): Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain: If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply): High Tide Line indicated by: Mean High Water Mark indicated by: oil or scum line along shore objects survey to available datum; fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) physical markings; physical markings/characteristics vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types. tidal gauges other (list): (iii) Chemical Characteristics: 5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW. 6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody’s flow regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break. 7Ibid. - 4 - Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.). Explain: Identify specific pollutants, if known: (iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply): Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): Wetland fringe. Characteristics: Habitat for: Federally Listed species. Explain findings: Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: 2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) Physical Characteristics: (a) General Wetland Characteristics: Properties: Wetland size: acres Wetland type. Explain: Wetland quality. Explain: Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: (b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW: Flow is: Pick List . Explain: Surface flow is: Pick List Characteristics: Subsurface flow: Pick List . Explain findings: Dye (or other) test performed: (c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW: Directly abutting Not directly abutting Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: Ecological connection. Explain: Separated by berm/barrier. Explain: (d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Flow is from: Pick List. Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain. (ii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed characteristics; etc.). Explain: Identify specific pollutants, if known: (iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply): Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: Habitat for: Federally Listed species. Explain findings: Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: 3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any) All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List Approximately acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis. For each wetland, specify the following: Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) - 5 - Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW. Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus. Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example: • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that support downstream foodwebs? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the TNW? Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented below: 1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D: 2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D: 3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D: D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): 1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area: TNWs: linear feet, wide, Or acres. Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres. 2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial: Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow “seasonally” (e.g., typically three months each year) are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows seasonally: Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters: linear feet wide. Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: - 6 - 3. Non-RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters: linear feet, wide. Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: 4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow “seasonally.” Provide data indicating that tributary is seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9 As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional. Demonstrate that impoundment was created from “waters of the U.S.,” or Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below). E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE, DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10 which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes. from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce. which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce. Interstate isolated waters. Explain: Other factors. Explain: Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination: Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters: linear feet, wide. Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: Wetlands: acres. 8See Footnote # 3. 9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook. 10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos. - 7 - F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements. Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce. Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in “SWANCC,” the review area would have been regulated based solely on the “Migratory Bird Rule” (MBR). Waters do not meet the “Significant Nexus” standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain: Wetland 3 is approxiamtly 140 feet from the next jurisdictional feature and approxiamtly 460 feet from the nearest RPW and approxiamtly 25.5 miles from the nearest TNW. Wetland 3 is so remote that the physical, biological or chemical effect on the nearest TNW (Missouri River) is speculative or in substantial. Other: (explain, if not covered above): Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional judgment (check all that apply): Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, wide. Lakes/ponds: acres. Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: Wetlands: 2.56 acres. Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the “Significant Nexus” standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply): Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, wide. Lakes/ponds: acres. Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: Wetlands: acres. SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES. A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below): Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant. Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Data sheets prepared by the Corps: Corps navigable waters’ study: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: USGS NHD data. USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Upper Flathead Valley Area, Montana National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: USFWS wetlands mapper retrieved on November 30, 2021 State/Local wetland inventory map(s): FEMA/FIRM maps: 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929) Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): Google Earth 6/2021 photos or Other (Name & Date): Ground photos taken on 10/19/2021 Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: Applicable/supporting case law: Applicable/supporting scientific literature: Other information (please specify): B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: The subject wetland is approxiamtly 2.58 acres in size. A previous prelimary jurisdictional determination was completed on November 28, 2006 and reveled through a wetland delineation that Wetland 3 (referred to as Wetland 4 in the previous delineation) was approxiamtly 1.25 acres and the delineation conducted on May 25, 2021, indicated that the wetland grew to 2.56 acres, therefore indicating that hydrology was being restricted or retained within that area. Wetland 3 is approxiamtly 140 feet from the next jurisdictional feature and approxiamtly 460 feet from the nearest RPW and approxiamtly 25.5 miles from the nearest TNW. Wetland 3 is so remote that the physical, biological or chemical effect on the nearest TNW (Missouri River) is speculative or in substantial. NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND REQUEST FOR APPEAL Applicant: Norton East, South of the Lakes subdivision/Kevin Spencer File No.: NWO-2007-01084-MTH Date: December 9, 2021 Attached is: See Section below INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B PERMIT DENIAL C X APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision. Additional information may be found at http://www.usace.army.mil/cecw/pages/reg_materials.aspx or USACE regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit. • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. • OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below. B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. • APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer (address on reverse). This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer (address on reverse). This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new information. • ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the USACE to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the USACE within 60 days of the date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD. • APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer (address on reverse). This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the USACE regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the USACE district for further instruction. Also, you may provide new information for further consideration by the USACE to reevaluate the JD. SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the USACE memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the USACE may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative record. POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION: If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the appeal process you may contact: US Army Corps of Engineers, Helena Regulatory Office Attn: Sage L. Joyce, Montana Program Manager Telephone: (406) 441-1376 Montana.Reg@usace.army.mil If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may also contact: US Army Corps of Engineers, Northwestern Division Melinda Larsen, Regulatory Appeals Review Officer Telephone (503) 808-3888 Melinda.M.Larsen@usace.army.mil RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15-day notice of any site investigation and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations. __________________________________________ Signature of appellant or agent. Date: Telephone number: SPD version revised December 17, 2010 Laurel Meadows Wetland Delineation 10130.004 15 | Page APPENDIX E: NRCS SOIL REPORT 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 Laurel Meadows Natural Resources Conservation Service March 20, 2025 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 448A—Hyalite-Beaverton complex, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes....................................................................................................13 510B—Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes......................................15 537A—Lamoose silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes........................................16 748A—Hyalite-Beaverton complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes..........................17 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 505825050583205058390505846050585305058600505867050587405058810505825050583205058390505846050585305058600505867050587405058810491080 491150 491220 491290 491360 491430 491500 491080 491150 491220 491290 491360 491430 491500 45° 40' 58'' N 111° 6' 52'' W45° 40' 58'' N111° 6' 32'' W45° 40' 39'' N 111° 6' 52'' W45° 40' 39'' N 111° 6' 32'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600 Feet 0 40 80 160 240 Meters Map Scale: 1:2,900 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 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 448A Hyalite-Beaverton complex, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.1 0.3% 510B Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 13.4 36.2% 537A Lamoose silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 3.7 10.0% 748A Hyalite-Beaverton complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes 19.8 53.5% Totals for Area of Interest 37.0 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. 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 448A—Hyalite-Beaverton complex, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56sq Elevation: 4,450 to 5,300 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 local importance Map Unit Composition Hyalite and similar soils:70 percent Beaverton and similar soils:20 percent Minor components:10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Hyalite Setting Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Loamy alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 5 inches: loam Bt1 - 5 to 9 inches: clay loam Bt2 - 9 to 17 inches: silty clay loam 2Bt3 - 17 to 26 inches: very cobbly sandy clay loam 3C - 26 to 60 inches: very cobbly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 48 to 96 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:5 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R043BP818MT - Upland Grassland Group Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Description of Beaverton Setting Landform:Stream terraces, alluvial fans Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 5 inches: cobbly loam Bt - 5 to 21 inches: very gravelly clay loam Bk - 21 to 25 inches: very cobbly coarse sandy loam 2Bk - 25 to 60 inches: extremely cobbly loamy coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 48 to 96 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R043BP818MT - Upland Grassland Group Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components 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 Beaverton Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP818MT - Upland Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 14 510B—Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56vt Elevation: 4,200 to 5,950 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Meadowcreek and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Meadowcreek Setting Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 11 inches: loam Bg - 11 to 25 inches: silt loam 2C - 25 to 60 inches: very gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 4 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 24 to 42 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 15 Minor Components Blossberg Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: Yes Beaverton Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP818MT - Upland Grassland Hydric soil rating: No 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 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 Custom Soil Resource Report 16 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 748A—Hyalite-Beaverton complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 570v Elevation: 4,350 to 6,150 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 local importance Map Unit Composition Hyalite and similar soils:70 percent Beaverton and similar soils:20 percent Minor components:10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Custom Soil Resource Report 17 Description of Hyalite Setting Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Loamy alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 5 inches: loam Bt1 - 5 to 9 inches: clay loam Bt2 - 9 to 17 inches: silty clay loam 2Bt3 - 17 to 26 inches: very cobbly sandy clay loam 3C - 26 to 60 inches: very cobbly loamy sand 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:5 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R043BP818MT - Upland Grassland Group Hydric soil rating: No Description of Beaverton Setting Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 5 inches: cobbly loam Bt - 5 to 21 inches: very gravelly clay loam Bk - 21 to 25 inches: very cobbly coarse sandy loam 2Bk - 25 to 60 inches: extremely cobbly loamy coarse sand 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 Custom Soil Resource Report 18 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 3.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R043BP818MT - Upland Grassland Group Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Hyalite 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 Turner Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BB032MT - Loamy (Lo) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No 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 Laurel Meadows Wetland Delineation 10130.004 16 | Page APPENDIX F: MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT METHOD FORMS MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) 1 1. Project Name: West Laurel 2. MDT Project #: N/A 3. Control #: N/A 3. Evaluation Date: November 2025 4. Evaluator(s): Pearcy 5. Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 1 6. Wetland Location(s): Township 2 S, Range 5 E, Section 9; Township N, Range E, Section Approximate Stationing or Roadposts: N/A Watershed: 6 - Upper Missouri County: Gallatin 7. Evaluating Agency: Private by Morrison Maierle Inc. 8. Wetland Size (acre): 2.18 (visually estimated) Purpose of Evaluation: (measured, e.g. GPS) Wetland potentially affected by MDT project Mitigation wetlands; pre-construction Mitigation wetlands; post-construction 9. Assessment Area (AA) Size (acre): (visually estimated) Other potentially impacted by private entity (see manual for determining AA) 2.18 (measured, e.g. GPS) 10. CLASSIFICATION OF WETLAND AND AQUATIC HABITATS IN AA (See manual for definitions.) HGM Class (Brinson) Class (Cowardin) Modifier (Cowardin) Water Regime % OF AA Depressional Emergent Wetland Permanent / Perennial 0 Comments: Wetland is a part of a deed restricted area preventing any development within the area. 11. ESTIMATED RELATIVE ABUNDANCE (of similarly classified sites within the same Major Montana Watershed Basin; see manual.) common 12. GENERAL CONDITION OF AA i. Disturbance: Use matrix below to select the appropriate response; see manual for Montana listed noxious weed and aquatic nuisance vegetation species lists. Conditions within AA Predominant Conditions Adjacent to (within 500 feet of) AA Managed in predominantly natural state; is not grazed, hayed, logged, or otherwise converted; does not contain roads or buildings; and noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤15%. Land not cultivated, but may be moderately grazed or hayed or selectively logged; or has been subject to minor clearing; contains few roads or buildings; noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤30%. Land cultivated or heavily grazed or logged; subject to substantial fill placement, grading, clearing, or hydrological alteration; high road or building density; or noxious weed or ANVS cover is >30%. AA occurs and is managed in predominantly natural state; is not grazed, hayed, logged, or otherwise converted; does not contain roads or occupied buildings; and noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤15%. --- --- --- AA not cultivated, but may be moderately grazed or hayed or selectively logged; or has been subject to relatively minor clearing, fill placement, or hydrological alteration; contains few roads or buildings; noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤30%. --- moderate disturbance --- 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%. --- --- --- Comments (types of disturbance, intensity, season, etc.): Wetland area is deed restricted so little disturbance has occurred, a road is near this wetland. ii. Prominent noxious, aquatic nuisance, and other exotic vegetation species: Canada thistle is present but not as dense as other portions of this property. iii. Provide brief descriptive summary of AA and surrounding land use/habitat: Surrounding land use is residential and undeveloped but impacted by noxious weeds, borrow areas, and dumping. 13. STRUCTURAL DIVERSITY (Based on number of “Cowardin” vegetated classes present [do not include unvegetated classes]; see #10 above.) Existing # of “Cowardin” Vegetated Classes in AA Initial Rating Is current management preventing (passive) existence of additional vegetated classes? Modified Rating ≥3 (or 2 if one is forested) classes --- NA NA NA 2 (or 1 if forested) classes --- NA NA NA 1 class, but not a monoculture mod ←NO YES→ --- 1 class, monoculture (1 species comprises ≥90% of total cover) --- NA NA NA Comments: Wetland is in a deed restriction preventing alteration. MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 2 Wetland/Site #(s): wetland 1 14A. HABITAT FOR FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED THREATENED OR ENDANGERED PLANTS OR ANIMALS i. AA is Documented (D) or Suspected (S) to contain: Check box based on definitions in manual. Primary or critical habitat (list species) D S Secondary habitat (list species) D S Incidental habitat (list species) D S No usable habitat S ii. Rating: Based on the strongest habitat chosen in 14A(i) above, select the corresponding functional point and rating. Highest Habitat Level Doc/Primary Sus/Primary Doc/Secondary Sus/Secondary Doc/Incidental Sus/Incidental None Functional Point/Rating --- --- --- --- --- --- 0L Sources for documented use (e.g. observations, records): USFWS IPaC, MTNHP, observation 14B. HABITAT FOR PLANTS OR ANIMALS RATED S1, S2, OR S3 BY THE MONTANA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM Do not include species listed in 14A above. i. AA is Documented (D) or Suspected (S) to contain: Check box based on definitions in manual. Primary or critical habitat (list species) D S Secondary habitat (list species) D S Incidental habitat (list species) D S Cassin's Finch, Great Blue Heron No usable habitat S ii. Rating: Based on the strongest habitat chosen in 14A(i) above, select the corresponding functional point and rating. Highest Habitat Level Doc/Primary Sus/Primary Doc/Secondary Sus/Secondary Doc/Incidental Sus/Incidental None S1 Species Functional Point/Rating --- --- --- --- --- --- --- S2 and S3 Species Functional Point/Rating --- --- --- --- --- .1L --- Sources for documented use (e.g. observations, records): MTNHP Environmental Summary Report 14C. GENERAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RATING i. Evidence of Overall Wildlife Use in the AA: Check substantial, moderate, or low based on supporting evidence. Substantial: Based on any of the following [check]. Minimal: Based on any of the following [check]. observations of abundant wildlife #s or high species diversity (during any period) few or no wildlife observations during peak use periods abundant wildlife sign such as scat, tracks, nest structures, game trails, etc. little to no wildlife sign presence of extremely limiting habitat features not available in the surrounding area sparse adjacent upland food sources interview with local biologist with knowledge of the AA interview with local biologist with knowledge of AA Moderate: Based on any of the following [check]. observations of scattered wildlife groups or individuals or relatively few species during peak periods common occurrence of wildlife sign such as scat, tracks, nest structures, game trails, etc. adequate adjacent upland food sources interview with local biologist with knowledge of the AA ii. Wildlife Habitat Features: Working from top to bottom, check appropriate AA attributes in matrix to arrive at rating. Structural diversity is from #13. For class cover to be considered evenly distributed, the most and least prevalent vegetated classes must be within 20% of each other in terms of their percent composition of the AA (see #10). Abbreviations for surface water durations are as follows: P/P = permanent/perennial; S/I = seasonal/intermittent; T/E = temporary/ephemeral; and A = absent [see manual for further definitions of these terms]. Structural Diversity (see #13) High Moderate Low Class Cover Distribution (all vegetated classes) Even Uneven Even Uneven Even Duration of Surface Water in ≥ 10% of AA P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A Low Disturbance at AA (see #12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- E --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Moderate Disturbance at AA (see #12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- High Disturbance at AA (see #12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- iii. Rating: Use the conclusions from i and ii above and the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Evidence of Wildlife Use (i) Wildlife Habitat Features Rating (ii) Exceptional High Moderate Low Substantial --- --- --- --- Moderate --- --- .5M --- Minimal --- --- --- --- Comments: MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 3 Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 1 14D. GENERAL FISH HABITAT NA (proceed to 14E) If the AA is not used by fish, fish use is not restorable due to habitat constraints, or is not desired from a management perspective [such as fish entrapped in a canal], then check the NA box and proceed to 14E. Assess this function if the AA is used by fish or the existing situation is “correctable” such that the AA could be used by fish [i.e., fish use is precluded by perched culvert or other barrier]. Type of Fishery: Cold Water (CW) Warm Water (WW) Use the CW or WW guidelines in the manual to complete the matrix. i. Habitat Quality and Known / Suspected Fish Species in AA: Use matrix to select the functional point and rating. Duration of Surface Water in AA Permanent / Perennial Seasonal / Intermittent Temporary / Ephemeral Aquatic Hiding / Resting / Escape Cover Optimal Adequate Poor Optimal Adequate Poor Optimal Adequate Poor Thermal Cover: optimal / suboptimal O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S FWP Tier I fish species --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FWP Tier II or Native Game fish species --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FWP Tier III or Introduced Game fish --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FWP Non-Game Tier IV or No fish species --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Sources used for identifying fish spp. potentially found in AA: ii. Modified Rating: NOTE: Modified score cannot exceed 1.0 or be less than 0.1. a) Is fish use of the AA significantly reduced by a culvert, dike, or other man-made structure or activity, or is the waterbody included on the current final MDEQ list of waterbodies in need of TMDL development with listed “Probable Impaired Uses” including cold or warm water fishery or aquatic life support, or do aquatic nuisance plant or animal species (see Appendix E) occur in fish habitat? YES, reduce score in i by 0.1 = or N0 b) Does the AA contain a documented spawning area or other critical habitat feature (i.e., sanctuary pool, upwelling area; specify in comments) for native fish or introduced game fish? YES, add to score in i or iia 0.1 = or N0 iii. Final Score and Rating: Comments: 14E. FLOOD ATTENUATION NA (proceed to 14F) Applies only to wetlands that are subject to flooding via in-channel or overbank flow. If wetlands in AA are not flooded from in-channel or overbank flow, check the NA box and proceed to 14F. Entrenchment Ratio (ER) Estimation (see manual for additional guidance). Entrenchment ratio = (flood-prone width) / (bankfull width). Flood-prone width = estimated horizontal projection of where 2 X maximum bankfull depth elevation intersects the floodplain on each side of the stream. / = flood prone width / bankfull width = entrenchment ratio Slightly Entrenched ER ≥ 2.2 Moderately Entrenched ER = 1.41 – 2.2 Entrenched ER = 1.0 – 1.4 C stream type D stream type E stream type B stream type A stream type F stream type G stream type i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Estimated or Calculated Entrenchment (Rosgen 1994, 1996) Slightly Entrenched C, D, E stream types Moderately Entrenched B stream type Entrenched A, F, G stream types Percent of Flooded Wetland Classified as Forested and/or Scrub/Shrub 75% 25-75% <25% 75% 25-75% <25% 75% 25-75% <25% AA contains no outlet or restricted outlet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- AA contains unrestricted outlet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ii. Are ≥10 acres of wetland in the AA subject to flooding AND are man-made features which may be significantly damaged by floods located within 0.5 mile downstream of the AA? YES NO Comments: Flood-prone Width Bankfull Width Bankfull Depth 2 x Bankfull Depth MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 4 Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 1 14F. SHORT AND LONG TERM SURFACE WATER STORAGE NA (proceed to 14G) Applies to wetlands that flood or pond from overbank or in-channel flow, precipitation, upland surface flow, or groundwater flow. If no wetlands in the AA are subject to flooding or ponding, then check the NA box and proceed to 14G. i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Abbreviations for surface water durations are as follows: P/P = permanent/perennial; S/I = seasonal/intermittent; and T/E = temporary/ephemeral [see manual for further definitions of these terms]. Estimated Maximum Acre Feet of Water Contained in Wetlands within the AA that are Subject to Periodic Flooding or Ponding >5 acre feet 1.1 to 5 acre feet ≤1 acre foot Duration of Surface Water at Wetlands within the AA P/P S/I T/E P/P S/I T/E P/P S/I T/E Wetlands in AA flood or pond ≥ 5 out of 10 years --- --- --- --- --- --- --- .3L --- Wetlands in AA flood or pond < 5 out of 10 years --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Comments: Wetland could storm surface water as storm runoff from road. 14G. SEDIMENT / NUTRIENT / TOXICANT / RETENTION AND REMOVAL NA (proceed to 14H) Applies to wetland with potential to receive sediments, nutrients, or toxicants through influx of surface or ground water or direct input. If no wetlands in the AA are subject to such input, check the NA box and proceed to 14H. i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Sediment, Nutrient, and Toxicant Input Levels within AA AA receives or surrounding land use has potential to deliver sediments, nutrients, or compounds at levels such that other functions are not substantially impaired. Minor sedimentation, sources of nutrients or toxicants, or signs of eutrophication present. Waterbody is on MDEQ list of waterbodies in need of TMDL development for “probable causes” related to sediment, nutrients, or toxicants or AA receives or surrounding land use has potential to deliver high levels of sediments, nutrients, or compounds such that other functions are substantially impaired. Major sedimentation, sources of nutrients or toxicants, or signs of eutrophication present. % Cover of Wetland Vegetation in AA ≥ 70% < 70% ≥ 70% < 70% Evidence of Flooding / Ponding in AA Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No AA contains no or restricted outlet --- --- .7M --- --- --- --- --- AA contains unrestricted outlet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Comments: Wetlands is isolated but could potential receive stormwater flow. 14H. SEDIMENT / SHORELINE STABILIZATION NA (proceed to 14I) Applies only if AA occurs on or within the banks of a river, stream, or other natural or man-made drainage, or on the shoreline of a standing water body which is subject to wave action. If 14H does not apply, check the NA box and proceed to 14I. % Cover of Wetland Streambank or Shoreline by Species with Stability Ratings of ≥6 (see Appendix F). Duration of Surface Water Adjacent to Rooted Vegetation Permanent / Perennial Seasonal / Intermittent Temporary / Ephemeral ≥ 65% --- --- --- 35-64% --- --- --- < 35% --- --- --- Comments: 14I. PRODUCTION EXPORT / FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT i. Level of Biological Activity: Synthesis of wildlife and fish habitat rates (select). ii. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Factor A = acreage of vegetated wetland component in the AA; Factor B = level of biological activity rating from above (14Ii); Factor C = whether or not the AA contains a surface or subsurface outlet; the final three rows pertain to the duration of surface water in the AA, where P/P, S/I, and T/E were previously defined, and A = “absent” [see manual for further definitions of these terms]. A Vegetated Component >5 acres Vegetated Component 1-5 acres Vegetated Component <1 acre B High Moderate Low High Moderate Low High Moderate Low C Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No P/P --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- S/I --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- .6M --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- T/E/A --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- General Fish Habitat Rating (14Diii) General Wildlife Habitat Rating (14Ciii) E/H M L E/H --- --- --- M --- --- --- L --- M --- NA --- --- --- MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 5 Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 4 14I. PRODUCTION EXPORT / FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (continued) iii. Modified Rating: Note: Modified score cannot exceed 1.0 or be less than 0.1. Vegetated Upland Buffer: Area with ≥ 30% plant cover, ≤ 15% noxious weed or ANVS cover, AND that is not subjected to periodic mechanical mowing or clearing (unless for weed control). Is there an average ≥ 50-foot wide vegetated upland buffer around ≥ 75% of the AA’s perimeter? YES, add 0.1 to score in ii = NO iv. Final Score and Rating: .6M Comments: 14J. GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE / RECHARGE Check the appropriate indicators in i and ii below. i. Discharge Indicators ii. Recharge Indicators The AA is a slope wetland. Permeable substrate present without underlying impeding layer. Springs or seeps are known or observed. Wetland contains inlet but no outlet. Vegetation growing during dormant season/drought. Stream is a known ‘losing’ stream. Discharge volume decreases. Wetland occurs at the toe of a natural slope. Other: Seeps are present at the wetland edge. AA permanently flooded during drought periods. Wetland contains an outlet, but no inlet. Shallow water table and the site is saturated to the surface. Other: iii. Rating: Use the information from i and ii above and the table below to select the functional point and rating. Criteria Duration of Saturation at AA Wetlands FROM GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE or WITH WATER THAT IS RECHARGING THE GROUNDWATER SYSTEM P/P S/I T None Groundwater Discharge or Recharge --- --- --- --- Insufficient Data/Information NA Comments: 14K. UNIQUENESS i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Replacement Potential AA contains fen, bog, warm springs or mature (>80 yr-old) forested wetland OR plant association listed as “S1” by the MTNHP AA does not contain previously cited rare types AND structural diversity (#13) is high OR contains plant association listed as “S2” by the MTNHP AA does not contain previously cited rare types OR associations AND structural diversity (#13) is low-moderate Estimated Relative Abundance (#11) Rare Common Abundant Rare Common Abundant Rare Common Abundant Low Disturbance at AA (#12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Moderate Disturbance at AA (#12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- .3L --- High Disturbance at AA (#12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Comments: Protected wetland with regionally common wetland plants . Near roadway 14L. RECREATION / EDUCATION POTENTIAL NA (proceed to Overall Summary and Rating page) Affords ‘bonus’ points if AA provides a recreational or educational opportunity. i. Is the AA a known or potential recreational or educational site? YES, go to ii. NO, check the NA box. ii. Check categories that apply to the AA: Educational/Scientific Study Consumptive Recreational Non-consumptive recreational Other: iii. Rating: Use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Known or Potential Recreational or Educational Area Known Potential Public ownership or public easement with general public access (no permission required) --- --- Private ownership with general public access (no permission required) --- --- Private or public ownership without general public access, or requiring permission for public access --- --- Comments: Private property, deed restricted wetland. 15. GENERAL SITE NOTES: This wetland is near a roadl and protected by easement. MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) FUNCTION & VALUE SUMMARY AND OVERALL RATING 6 Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 1 Function & Value Variables Rating – Actual Functional Points Possible Functional Points Functional Units: Actual Points x Estimated AA Acreage Indicate the Four Most Prominent Functions with an Asterisk A. Listed / Proposed T&E Species Habitat low 0.00 1.00 0 B. MT Natural Heritage Program Species Habitat low 0.10 1.00 .22 C. General Wildlife Habitat mod 0.50 1.00 1.09 * D. General Fish Habitat NA NA NA E. Flood Attenuation NA NA NA F. Short and Long Term Surface Water Storage low 0.30 1.00 0.65 * G. Sediment / Nutrient / Toxicant Removal mod 0.70 1.00 1.526 * H. Sediment / Shoreline Stabilization NA NA NA I. Production Export / Food Chain Support mod 0.60 1.00 1.3 * J. Groundwater Discharge / Recharge NA NA NA K. Uniqueness low 0.30 1.00 0.65 * L. Recreation / Education Potential (bonus point) NA Total Points 2.5 7 5.436 Total Functional Units Percent of Possible Score 35% (round to nearest whole number) Category I Wetland: (must satisfy one of the following criteria; otherwise go to Category II) Score of 1 functional point for Listed/Proposed Threatened or Endangered Species; or Score of 1 functional point for Uniqueness; or Score of 1 functional point for Flood Attenuation and answer to Question 14E.ii is "yes"; or Percent of possible score > 80% (round to nearest whole #). Category II Wetland: (Criteria for Category I not satisfied and meets any one of the following criteria; otherwise go to Category IV) Score of 1 functional point for MT Natural Heritage Program Species Habitat; or Score of .9 or 1 functional point for General Wildlife Habitat; or Score of .9 or 1 functional point for General Fish Habitat; or "High" to “Exceptional” ratings for both General Wildlife Habitat and General Fish/Aquatic Habitat; or Score of .9 functional point for Uniqueness; or Percent of possible score > 65% (round to nearest whole #). Category III Wetland: (Criteria for Categories I, II, or IV not satisfied) Category IV Wetland: (Criteria for Categories I or II are not satisfied and all of the following criteria are met; if not go to Category III) "Low" rating for Uniqueness; and Vegetated wetland component < 1 acre (do not include upland vegetated buffer); and Percent of possible score < 35% (round to nearest whole #). OVERALL ANALYSIS AREA (AA) RATING: Check the appropriate category based on the criteria outlined above. I II III IV MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) 1 1. Project Name: Laurel Meadows 2. MDT Project #: N/A 3. Control #: N/A 3. Evaluation Date: November 20 2025 4. Evaluator(s): C. Pearcy 5. Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 2 6. Wetland Location(s): Township 2 S, Range 5 E, Section 9; Township N, Range E, Section Approximate Stationing or Roadposts: N/A Watershed: 6 - Upper Missouri County: Gallatin 7. Evaluating Agency: Private by Morrison Maierle Inc. 8. Wetland Size (acre): 0.09 (visually estimated) Purpose of Evaluation: (measured, e.g. GPS) Wetland potentially affected by MDT project Mitigation wetlands; pre-construction Mitigation wetlands; post-construction 9. Assessment Area (AA) Size (acre): (visually estimated) Other potentially impacted by private entity (see manual for determining AA) 0.09 (measured, e.g. GPS) 10. CLASSIFICATION OF WETLAND AND AQUATIC HABITATS IN AA (See manual for definitions.) HGM Class (Brinson) Class (Cowardin) Modifier (Cowardin) Water Regime % OF AA Depressional Emergent Wetland Excavated Seasonal / Intermittent 1 Comments: Wetland is an artificial stormpond and has been excavated. 11. ESTIMATED RELATIVE ABUNDANCE (of similarly classified sites within the same Major Montana Watershed Basin; see manual.) common 12. GENERAL CONDITION OF AA i. Disturbance: Use matrix below to select the appropriate response; see manual for Montana listed noxious weed and aquatic nuisance vegetation species lists. Conditions within AA Predominant Conditions Adjacent to (within 500 feet of) AA Managed in predominantly natural state; is not grazed, hayed, logged, or otherwise converted; does not contain roads or buildings; and noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤15%. Land not cultivated, but may be moderately grazed or hayed or selectively logged; or has been subject to minor clearing; contains few roads or buildings; noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤30%. Land cultivated or heavily grazed or logged; subject to substantial fill placement, grading, clearing, or hydrological alteration; high road or building density; or noxious weed or ANVS cover is >30%. AA occurs and is managed in predominantly natural state; is not grazed, hayed, logged, or otherwise converted; does not contain roads or occupied buildings; and noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤15%. --- --- --- AA not cultivated, but may be moderately grazed or hayed or selectively logged; or has been subject to relatively minor clearing, fill placement, or hydrological alteration; contains few roads or buildings; noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤30%. --- moderate disturbance --- 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%. --- --- --- Comments (types of disturbance, intensity, season, etc.): Wetland is a storm pond but it is in a deed restricted area. ii. Prominent noxious, aquatic nuisance, and other exotic vegetation species: Canada thistle is present but not as dense as other portions of this property. iii. Provide brief descriptive summary of AA and surrounding land use/habitat: Surrounding land use is residential and undeveloped but impacted by noxious weeds, borrow areas, and dumping. 13. STRUCTURAL DIVERSITY (Based on number of “Cowardin” vegetated classes present [do not include unvegetated classes]; see #10 above.) Existing # of “Cowardin” Vegetated Classes in AA Initial Rating Is current management preventing (passive) existence of additional vegetated classes? Modified Rating ≥3 (or 2 if one is forested) classes --- NA NA NA 2 (or 1 if forested) classes --- NA NA NA 1 class, but not a monoculture --- ←NO YES→ --- 1 class, monoculture (1 species comprises ≥90% of total cover) low NA NA NA Comments: Wetland is a storm pond. MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 2 Wetland/Site #(s): wetland 2 14A. HABITAT FOR FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED THREATENED OR ENDANGERED PLANTS OR ANIMALS i. AA is Documented (D) or Suspected (S) to contain: Check box based on definitions in manual. Primary or critical habitat (list species) D S Secondary habitat (list species) D S Incidental habitat (list species) D S No usable habitat S ii. Rating: Based on the strongest habitat chosen in 14A(i) above, select the corresponding functional point and rating. Highest Habitat Level Doc/Primary Sus/Primary Doc/Secondary Sus/Secondary Doc/Incidental Sus/Incidental None Functional Point/Rating --- --- --- --- --- --- 0L Sources for documented use (e.g. observations, records): USFWS IPaC, MTNHP, observation 14B. HABITAT FOR PLANTS OR ANIMALS RATED S1, S2, OR S3 BY THE MONTANA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM Do not include species listed in 14A above. i. AA is Documented (D) or Suspected (S) to contain: Check box based on definitions in manual. Primary or critical habitat (list species) D S Secondary habitat (list species) D S Incidental habitat (list species) D S Cassin's Finch, Great Blue Heron No usable habitat S ii. Rating: Based on the strongest habitat chosen in 14A(i) above, select the corresponding functional point and rating. Highest Habitat Level Doc/Primary Sus/Primary Doc/Secondary Sus/Secondary Doc/Incidental Sus/Incidental None S1 Species Functional Point/Rating --- --- --- --- --- --- --- S2 and S3 Species Functional Point/Rating --- --- --- --- --- .1L --- Sources for documented use (e.g. observations, records): MTNHP Environmental Summary Report 14C. GENERAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RATING i. Evidence of Overall Wildlife Use in the AA: Check substantial, moderate, or low based on supporting evidence. Substantial: Based on any of the following [check]. Minimal: Based on any of the following [check]. observations of abundant wildlife #s or high species diversity (during any period) few or no wildlife observations during peak use periods abundant wildlife sign such as scat, tracks, nest structures, game trails, etc. little to no wildlife sign presence of extremely limiting habitat features not available in the surrounding area sparse adjacent upland food sources interview with local biologist with knowledge of the AA interview with local biologist with knowledge of AA Moderate: Based on any of the following [check]. observations of scattered wildlife groups or individuals or relatively few species during peak periods common occurrence of wildlife sign such as scat, tracks, nest structures, game trails, etc. adequate adjacent upland food sources interview with local biologist with knowledge of the AA ii. Wildlife Habitat Features: Working from top to bottom, check appropriate AA attributes in matrix to arrive at rating. Structural diversity is from #13. For class cover to be considered evenly distributed, the most and least prevalent vegetated classes must be within 20% of each other in terms of their percent composition of the AA (see #10). Abbreviations for surface water durations are as follows: P/P = permanent/perennial; S/I = seasonal/intermittent; T/E = temporary/ephemeral; and A = absent [see manual for further definitions of these terms]. Structural Diversity (see #13) High Moderate Low Class Cover Distribution (all vegetated classes) Even Uneven Even Uneven Even Duration of Surface Water in ≥ 10% of AA P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A Low Disturbance at AA (see #12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Moderate Disturbance at AA (see #12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- M --- --- --- --- --- --- High Disturbance at AA (see #12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- iii. Rating: Use the conclusions from i and ii above and the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Evidence of Wildlife Use (i) Wildlife Habitat Features Rating (ii) Exceptional High Moderate Low Substantial --- --- --- --- Moderate --- --- .5M --- Minimal --- --- --- --- Comments: MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 3 Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 2 14D. GENERAL FISH HABITAT NA (proceed to 14E) If the AA is not used by fish, fish use is not restorable due to habitat constraints, or is not desired from a management perspective [such as fish entrapped in a canal], then check the NA box and proceed to 14E. Assess this function if the AA is used by fish or the existing situation is “correctable” such that the AA could be used by fish [i.e., fish use is precluded by perched culvert or other barrier]. Type of Fishery: Cold Water (CW) Warm Water (WW) Use the CW or WW guidelines in the manual to complete the matrix. i. Habitat Quality and Known / Suspected Fish Species in AA: Use matrix to select the functional point and rating. Duration of Surface Water in AA Permanent / Perennial Seasonal / Intermittent Temporary / Ephemeral Aquatic Hiding / Resting / Escape Cover Optimal Adequate Poor Optimal Adequate Poor Optimal Adequate Poor Thermal Cover: optimal / suboptimal O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S FWP Tier I fish species --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FWP Tier II or Native Game fish species --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FWP Tier III or Introduced Game fish --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FWP Non-Game Tier IV or No fish species --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Sources used for identifying fish spp. potentially found in AA: ii. Modified Rating: NOTE: Modified score cannot exceed 1.0 or be less than 0.1. a) Is fish use of the AA significantly reduced by a culvert, dike, or other man-made structure or activity, or is the waterbody included on the current final MDEQ list of waterbodies in need of TMDL development with listed “Probable Impaired Uses” including cold or warm water fishery or aquatic life support, or do aquatic nuisance plant or animal species (see Appendix E) occur in fish habitat? YES, reduce score in i by 0.1 = or N0 b) Does the AA contain a documented spawning area or other critical habitat feature (i.e., sanctuary pool, upwelling area; specify in comments) for native fish or introduced game fish? YES, add to score in i or iia 0.1 = or N0 iii. Final Score and Rating: Comments: 14E. FLOOD ATTENUATION NA (proceed to 14F) Applies only to wetlands that are subject to flooding via in-channel or overbank flow. If wetlands in AA are not flooded from in-channel or overbank flow, check the NA box and proceed to 14F. Entrenchment Ratio (ER) Estimation (see manual for additional guidance). Entrenchment ratio = (flood-prone width) / (bankfull width). Flood-prone width = estimated horizontal projection of where 2 X maximum bankfull depth elevation intersects the floodplain on each side of the stream. / = flood prone width / bankfull width = entrenchment ratio Slightly Entrenched ER ≥ 2.2 Moderately Entrenched ER = 1.41 – 2.2 Entrenched ER = 1.0 – 1.4 C stream type D stream type E stream type B stream type A stream type F stream type G stream type i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Estimated or Calculated Entrenchment (Rosgen 1994, 1996) Slightly Entrenched C, D, E stream types Moderately Entrenched B stream type Entrenched A, F, G stream types Percent of Flooded Wetland Classified as Forested and/or Scrub/Shrub 75% 25-75% <25% 75% 25-75% <25% 75% 25-75% <25% AA contains no outlet or restricted outlet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- AA contains unrestricted outlet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ii. Are ≥10 acres of wetland in the AA subject to flooding AND are man-made features which may be significantly damaged by floods located within 0.5 mile downstream of the AA? YES NO Comments: Flood-prone Width Bankfull Width Bankfull Depth 2 x Bankfull Depth MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 4 Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 2 14F. SHORT AND LONG TERM SURFACE WATER STORAGE NA (proceed to 14G) Applies to wetlands that flood or pond from overbank or in-channel flow, precipitation, upland surface flow, or groundwater flow. If no wetlands in the AA are subject to flooding or ponding, then check the NA box and proceed to 14G. i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Abbreviations for surface water durations are as follows: P/P = permanent/perennial; S/I = seasonal/intermittent; and T/E = temporary/ephemeral [see manual for further definitions of these terms]. Estimated Maximum Acre Feet of Water Contained in Wetlands within the AA that are Subject to Periodic Flooding or Ponding >5 acre feet 1.1 to 5 acre feet ≤1 acre foot Duration of Surface Water at Wetlands within the AA P/P S/I T/E P/P S/I T/E P/P S/I T/E Wetlands in AA flood or pond ≥ 5 out of 10 years --- --- --- --- --- --- --- .3L --- Wetlands in AA flood or pond < 5 out of 10 years --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Comments: wetland is a constructed storm pond. 14G. SEDIMENT / NUTRIENT / TOXICANT / RETENTION AND REMOVAL NA (proceed to 14H) Applies to wetland with potential to receive sediments, nutrients, or toxicants through influx of surface or ground water or direct input. If no wetlands in the AA are subject to such input, check the NA box and proceed to 14H. i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Sediment, Nutrient, and Toxicant Input Levels within AA AA receives or surrounding land use has potential to deliver sediments, nutrients, or compounds at levels such that other functions are not substantially impaired. Minor sedimentation, sources of nutrients or toxicants, or signs of eutrophication present. Waterbody is on MDEQ list of waterbodies in need of TMDL development for “probable causes” related to sediment, nutrients, or toxicants or AA receives or surrounding land use has potential to deliver high levels of sediments, nutrients, or compounds such that other functions are substantially impaired. Major sedimentation, sources of nutrients or toxicants, or signs of eutrophication present. % Cover of Wetland Vegetation in AA ≥ 70% < 70% ≥ 70% < 70% Evidence of Flooding / Ponding in AA Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No AA contains no or restricted outlet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- AA contains unrestricted outlet --- --- .6M --- --- --- --- --- Comments: Wetand is a constructed stormwater pond. 14H. SEDIMENT / SHORELINE STABILIZATION NA (proceed to 14I) Applies only if AA occurs on or within the banks of a river, stream, or other natural or man-made drainage, or on the shoreline of a standing water body which is subject to wave action. If 14H does not apply, check the NA box and proceed to 14I. % Cover of Wetland Streambank or Shoreline by Species with Stability Ratings of ≥6 (see Appendix F). Duration of Surface Water Adjacent to Rooted Vegetation Permanent / Perennial Seasonal / Intermittent Temporary / Ephemeral ≥ 65% --- --- --- 35-64% --- --- --- < 35% --- --- --- Comments: 14I. PRODUCTION EXPORT / FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT i. Level of Biological Activity: Synthesis of wildlife and fish habitat rates (select). ii. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Factor A = acreage of vegetated wetland component in the AA; Factor B = level of biological activity rating from above (14Ii); Factor C = whether or not the AA contains a surface or subsurface outlet; the final three rows pertain to the duration of surface water in the AA, where P/P, S/I, and T/E were previously defined, and A = “absent” [see manual for further definitions of these terms]. A Vegetated Component >5 acres Vegetated Component 1-5 acres Vegetated Component <1 acre B High Moderate Low High Moderate Low High Moderate Low C Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No P/P --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- S/I --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- .5M --- --- --- T/E/A --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- General Fish Habitat Rating (14Diii) General Wildlife Habitat Rating (14Ciii) E/H M L E/H --- --- --- M --- --- --- L --- M --- NA --- --- --- MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 5 Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 2 14I. PRODUCTION EXPORT / FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (continued) iii. Modified Rating: Note: Modified score cannot exceed 1.0 or be less than 0.1. Vegetated Upland Buffer: Area with ≥ 30% plant cover, ≤ 15% noxious weed or ANVS cover, AND that is not subjected to periodic mechanical mowing or clearing (unless for weed control). Is there an average ≥ 50-foot wide vegetated upland buffer around ≥ 75% of the AA’s perimeter? YES, add 0.1 to score in ii = NO iv. Final Score and Rating: .5M Comments: feature is a storm pond near a road but within a protected wetland status area. 14J. GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE / RECHARGE Check the appropriate indicators in i and ii below. i. Discharge Indicators ii. Recharge Indicators The AA is a slope wetland. Permeable substrate present without underlying impeding layer. Springs or seeps are known or observed. Wetland contains inlet but no outlet. Vegetation growing during dormant season/drought. Stream is a known ‘losing’ stream. Discharge volume decreases. Wetland occurs at the toe of a natural slope. Other: Seeps are present at the wetland edge. AA permanently flooded during drought periods. Wetland contains an outlet, but no inlet. Shallow water table and the site is saturated to the surface. Other: iii. Rating: Use the information from i and ii above and the table below to select the functional point and rating. Criteria Duration of Saturation at AA Wetlands FROM GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE or WITH WATER THAT IS RECHARGING THE GROUNDWATER SYSTEM P/P S/I T None Groundwater Discharge or Recharge --- --- --- --- Insufficient Data/Information NA Comments: 14K. UNIQUENESS i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Replacement Potential AA contains fen, bog, warm springs or mature (>80 yr-old) forested wetland OR plant association listed as “S1” by the MTNHP AA does not contain previously cited rare types AND structural diversity (#13) is high OR contains plant association listed as “S2” by the MTNHP AA does not contain previously cited rare types OR associations AND structural diversity (#13) is low-moderate Estimated Relative Abundance (#11) Rare Common Abundant Rare Common Abundant Rare Common Abundant Low Disturbance at AA (#12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Moderate Disturbance at AA (#12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- High Disturbance at AA (#12i) --- --- --- --- .4M --- --- --- --- Comments: feature is a excavated storm pond 14L. RECREATION / EDUCATION POTENTIAL NA (proceed to Overall Summary and Rating page) Affords ‘bonus’ points if AA provides a recreational or educational opportunity. i. Is the AA a known or potential recreational or educational site? YES, go to ii. NO, check the NA box. ii. Check categories that apply to the AA: Educational/Scientific Study Consumptive Recreational Non-consumptive recreational Other: iii. Rating: Use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Known or Potential Recreational or Educational Area Known Potential Public ownership or public easement with general public access (no permission required) --- --- Private ownership with general public access (no permission required) --- --- Private or public ownership without general public access, or requiring permission for public access --- --- Comments: 15. GENERAL SITE NOTES: Evaluation being performed to support COB submittal requirements. MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) FUNCTION & VALUE SUMMARY AND OVERALL RATING 6 Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 2 Function & Value Variables Rating – Actual Functional Points Possible Functional Points Functional Units: Actual Points x Estimated AA Acreage Indicate the Four Most Prominent Functions with an Asterisk A. Listed / Proposed T&E Species Habitat low 0.00 1.00 0 B. MT Natural Heritage Program Species Habitat low 0.10 1.00 0.009 C. General Wildlife Habitat mod 0.50 1.00 0.045 * D. General Fish Habitat NA NA NA E. Flood Attenuation NA NA NA F. Short and Long Term Surface Water Storage low 0.30 1.00 0.117 * G. Sediment / Nutrient / Toxicant Removal mod 0.60 1.00 0.054 * H. Sediment / Shoreline Stabilization NA NA NA I. Production Export / Food Chain Support mod 0.50 1.00 0.045 * J. Groundwater Discharge / Recharge NA NA NA K. Uniqueness mod 0.40 1.00 0.036 L. Recreation / Education Potential (bonus point) NA NA Total Points 2.4 7 0.306 Total Functional Units Percent of Possible Score 34% (round to nearest whole number) Category I Wetland: (must satisfy one of the following criteria; otherwise go to Category II) Score of 1 functional point for Listed/Proposed Threatened or Endangered Species; or Score of 1 functional point for Uniqueness; or Score of 1 functional point for Flood Attenuation and answer to Question 14E.ii is "yes"; or Percent of possible score > 80% (round to nearest whole #). Category II Wetland: (Criteria for Category I not satisfied and meets any one of the following criteria; otherwise go to Category IV) Score of 1 functional point for MT Natural Heritage Program Species Habitat; or Score of .9 or 1 functional point for General Wildlife Habitat; or Score of .9 or 1 functional point for General Fish Habitat; or "High" to “Exceptional” ratings for both General Wildlife Habitat and General Fish/Aquatic Habitat; or Score of .9 functional point for Uniqueness; or Percent of possible score > 65% (round to nearest whole #). Category III Wetland: (Criteria for Categories I, II, or IV not satisfied) Category IV Wetland: (Criteria for Categories I or II are not satisfied and all of the following criteria are met; if not go to Category III) "Low" rating for Uniqueness; and Vegetated wetland component < 1 acre (do not include upland vegetated buffer); and Percent of possible score < 35% (round to nearest whole #). OVERALL ANALYSIS AREA (AA) RATING: Check the appropriate category based on the criteria outlined above. I II III IV MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) 1 1. Project Name: West Laurel 2. MDT Project #: N/A 3. Control #: N/A 3. Evaluation Date: November 20 2025 4. Evaluator(s): C. Pearcy 5. Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 3 6. Wetland Location(s): Township 2 S, Range 5 E, Section 9; Township N, Range E, Section Approximate Stationing or Roadposts: N/A Watershed: 6 - Upper Missouri County: Gallatin 7. Evaluating Agency: Private by Morrison Maierle Inc. 8. Wetland Size (acre): 2.58 (visually estimated) Purpose of Evaluation: (measured, e.g. GPS) Wetland potentially affected by MDT project Mitigation wetlands; pre-construction Mitigation wetlands; post-construction 9. Assessment Area (AA) Size (acre): (visually estimated) Other potentially impacted by private entity (see manual for determining AA) 2.58 (measured, e.g. GPS) 10. CLASSIFICATION OF WETLAND AND AQUATIC HABITATS IN AA (See manual for definitions.) HGM Class (Brinson) Class (Cowardin) Modifier (Cowardin) Water Regime % OF AA Depressional Emergent Wetland Permanent / Perennial 100 Comments: Non-jurisdictional water. Increased in size over the past 10 years due to receiving dewatering water from borrow pit on the subject property. 11. ESTIMATED RELATIVE ABUNDANCE (of similarly classified sites within the same Major Montana Watershed Basin; see manual.) common 12. GENERAL CONDITION OF AA i. Disturbance: Use matrix below to select the appropriate response; see manual for Montana listed noxious weed and aquatic nuisance vegetation species lists. Conditions within AA Predominant Conditions Adjacent to (within 500 feet of) AA Managed in predominantly natural state; is not grazed, hayed, logged, or otherwise converted; does not contain roads or buildings; and noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤15%. Land not cultivated, but may be moderately grazed or hayed or selectively logged; or has been subject to minor clearing; contains few roads or buildings; noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤30%. Land cultivated or heavily grazed or logged; subject to substantial fill placement, grading, clearing, or hydrological alteration; high road or building density; or noxious weed or ANVS cover is >30%. AA occurs and is managed in predominantly natural state; is not grazed, hayed, logged, or otherwise converted; does not contain roads or occupied buildings; and noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤15%. --- --- --- AA not cultivated, but may be moderately grazed or hayed or selectively logged; or has been subject to relatively minor clearing, fill placement, or hydrological alteration; contains few roads or buildings; noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤30%. --- --- --- AA cultivated or heavily grazed or logged; subject to relatively substantial fill placement, grading, clearing, or hydrological alteration; high road or building density; or noxious weed or ANVS cover is >30%. --- high disturbance --- Comments (types of disturbance, intensity, season, etc.): The AA was subject to discharge of a former borrow pit, is completely surrounded by noxious weeds and adjacent trail, road and home development. ii. Prominent noxious, aquatic nuisance, and other exotic vegetation species: Canada thistle and tall tumble mustard iii. Provide brief descriptive summary of AA and surrounding land use/habitat: Surrounding land use is residential and a wetland conservation area. The wetland is not part of the wetland conservation area. 13. STRUCTURAL DIVERSITY (Based on number of “Cowardin” vegetated classes present [do not include unvegetated classes]; see #10 above.) Existing # of “Cowardin” Vegetated Classes in AA Initial Rating Is current management preventing (passive) existence of additional vegetated classes? Modified Rating ≥3 (or 2 if one is forested) classes --- NA NA NA 2 (or 1 if forested) classes --- NA NA NA 1 class, but not a monoculture mod ←NO YES→ --- 1 class, monoculture (1 species comprises ≥90% of total cover) --- NA NA NA Comments: Cattails and reed canarygrass MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 2 Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 3 14A. HABITAT FOR FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED THREATENED OR ENDANGERED PLANTS OR ANIMALS i. AA is Documented (D) or Suspected (S) to contain: Check box based on definitions in manual. Primary or critical habitat (list species) D S Secondary habitat (list species) D S Incidental habitat (list species) D S No usable habitat S ii. Rating: Based on the strongest habitat chosen in 14A(i) above, select the corresponding functional point and rating. Highest Habitat Level Doc/Primary Sus/Primary Doc/Secondary Sus/Secondary Doc/Incidental Sus/Incidental None Functional Point/Rating --- --- --- --- --- --- 0L Sources for documented use (e.g. observations, records): USFWS IPaC, MTNHP, observation 14B. HABITAT FOR PLANTS OR ANIMALS RATED S1, S2, OR S3 BY THE MONTANA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM Do not include species listed in 14A above. i. AA is Documented (D) or Suspected (S) to contain: Check box based on definitions in manual. Primary or critical habitat (list species) D S Secondary habitat (list species) D S Incidental habitat (list species) D S Cassin's Finch, Great Blue Heron No usable habitat S ii. Rating: Based on the strongest habitat chosen in 14A(i) above, select the corresponding functional point and rating. Highest Habitat Level Doc/Primary Sus/Primary Doc/Secondary Sus/Secondary Doc/Incidental Sus/Incidental None S1 Species Functional Point/Rating --- --- --- --- --- --- --- S2 and S3 Species Functional Point/Rating --- --- --- --- --- .1L --- Sources for documented use (e.g. observations, records): MTNHP Environmental Summary Report 14C. GENERAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RATING i. Evidence of Overall Wildlife Use in the AA: Check substantial, moderate, or low based on supporting evidence. Substantial: Based on any of the following [check]. Minimal: Based on any of the following [check]. observations of abundant wildlife #s or high species diversity (during any period) few or no wildlife observations during peak use periods abundant wildlife sign such as scat, tracks, nest structures, game trails, etc. little to no wildlife sign presence of extremely limiting habitat features not available in the surrounding area sparse adjacent upland food sources interview with local biologist with knowledge of the AA interview with local biologist with knowledge of AA Moderate: Based on any of the following [check]. observations of scattered wildlife groups or individuals or relatively few species during peak periods common occurrence of wildlife sign such as scat, tracks, nest structures, game trails, etc. adequate adjacent upland food sources interview with local biologist with knowledge of the AA ii. Wildlife Habitat Features: Working from top to bottom, check appropriate AA attributes in matrix to arrive at rating. Structural diversity is from #13. For class cover to be considered evenly distributed, the most and least prevalent vegetated classes must be within 20% of each other in terms of their percent composition of the AA (see #10). Abbreviations for surface water durations are as follows: P/P = permanent/perennial; S/I = seasonal/intermittent; T/E = temporary/ephemeral; and A = absent [see manual for further definitions of these terms]. Structural Diversity (see #13) High Moderate Low Class Cover Distribution (all vegetated classes) Even Uneven Even Uneven Even Duration of Surface Water in ≥ 10% of AA P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A Low Disturbance at AA (see #12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Moderate Disturbance at AA (see #12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- High Disturbance at AA (see #12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- L --- --- --- iii. Rating: Use the conclusions from i and ii above and the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Evidence of Wildlife Use (i) Wildlife Habitat Features Rating (ii) Exceptional High Moderate Low Substantial --- --- --- --- Moderate --- --- --- --- Minimal --- --- --- .1L Comments: MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 3 Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 3 14D. GENERAL FISH HABITAT NA (proceed to 14E) If the AA is not used by fish, fish use is not restorable due to habitat constraints, or is not desired from a management perspective [such as fish entrapped in a canal], then check the NA box and proceed to 14E. Assess this function if the AA is used by fish or the existing situation is “correctable” such that the AA could be used by fish [i.e., fish use is precluded by perched culvert or other barrier]. Type of Fishery: Cold Water (CW) Warm Water (WW) Use the CW or WW guidelines in the manual to complete the matrix. i. Habitat Quality and Known / Suspected Fish Species in AA: Use matrix to select the functional point and rating. Duration of Surface Water in AA Permanent / Perennial Seasonal / Intermittent Temporary / Ephemeral Aquatic Hiding / Resting / Escape Cover Optimal Adequate Poor Optimal Adequate Poor Optimal Adequate Poor Thermal Cover: optimal / suboptimal O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S FWP Tier I fish species --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FWP Tier II or Native Game fish species --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FWP Tier III or Introduced Game fish --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FWP Non-Game Tier IV or No fish species --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Sources used for identifying fish spp. potentially found in AA: ii. Modified Rating: NOTE: Modified score cannot exceed 1.0 or be less than 0.1. a) Is fish use of the AA significantly reduced by a culvert, dike, or other man-made structure or activity, or is the waterbody included on the current final MDEQ list of waterbodies in need of TMDL development with listed “Probable Impaired Uses” including cold or warm water fishery or aquatic life support, or do aquatic nuisance plant or animal species (see Appendix E) occur in fish habitat? YES, reduce score in i by 0.1 = or N0 b) Does the AA contain a documented spawning area or other critical habitat feature (i.e., sanctuary pool, upwelling area; specify in comments) for native fish or introduced game fish? YES, add to score in i or iia 0.1 = or N0 iii. Final Score and Rating: Comments: 14E. FLOOD ATTENUATION NA (proceed to 14F) Applies only to wetlands that are subject to flooding via in-channel or overbank flow. If wetlands in AA are not flooded from in-channel or overbank flow, check the NA box and proceed to 14F. Entrenchment Ratio (ER) Estimation (see manual for additional guidance). Entrenchment ratio = (flood-prone width) / (bankfull width). Flood-prone width = estimated horizontal projection of where 2 X maximum bankfull depth elevation intersects the floodplain on each side of the stream. / = flood prone width / bankfull width = entrenchment ratio Slightly Entrenched ER ≥ 2.2 Moderately Entrenched ER = 1.41 – 2.2 Entrenched ER = 1.0 – 1.4 C stream type D stream type E stream type B stream type A stream type F stream type G stream type i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Estimated or Calculated Entrenchment (Rosgen 1994, 1996) Slightly Entrenched C, D, E stream types Moderately Entrenched B stream type Entrenched A, F, G stream types Percent of Flooded Wetland Classified as Forested and/or Scrub/Shrub 75% 25-75% <25% 75% 25-75% <25% 75% 25-75% <25% AA contains no outlet or restricted outlet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- AA contains unrestricted outlet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ii. Are ≥10 acres of wetland in the AA subject to flooding AND are man-made features which may be significantly damaged by floods located within 0.5 mile downstream of the AA? YES NO Comments: Flood-prone Width Bankfull Width Bankfull Depth 2 x Bankfull Depth MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 4 Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 3 14F. SHORT AND LONG TERM SURFACE WATER STORAGE NA (proceed to 14G) Applies to wetlands that flood or pond from overbank or in-channel flow, precipitation, upland surface flow, or groundwater flow. If no wetlands in the AA are subject to flooding or ponding, then check the NA box and proceed to 14G. i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Abbreviations for surface water durations are as follows: P/P = permanent/perennial; S/I = seasonal/intermittent; and T/E = temporary/ephemeral [see manual for further definitions of these terms]. Estimated Maximum Acre Feet of Water Contained in Wetlands within the AA that are Subject to Periodic Flooding or Ponding >5 acre feet 1.1 to 5 acre feet ≤1 acre foot Duration of Surface Water at Wetlands within the AA P/P S/I T/E P/P S/I T/E P/P S/I T/E Wetlands in AA flood or pond ≥ 5 out of 10 years --- --- --- --- --- .5M --- --- --- Wetlands in AA flood or pond < 5 out of 10 years --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Comments: . 14G. SEDIMENT / NUTRIENT / TOXICANT / RETENTION AND REMOVAL NA (proceed to 14H) Applies to wetland with potential to receive sediments, nutrients, or toxicants through influx of surface or ground water or direct input. If no wetlands in the AA are subject to such input, check the NA box and proceed to 14H. i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Sediment, Nutrient, and Toxicant Input Levels within AA AA receives or surrounding land use has potential to deliver sediments, nutrients, or compounds at levels such that other functions are not substantially impaired. Minor sedimentation, sources of nutrients or toxicants, or signs of eutrophication present. Waterbody is on MDEQ list of waterbodies in need of TMDL development for “probable causes” related to sediment, nutrients, or toxicants or AA receives or surrounding land use has potential to deliver high levels of sediments, nutrients, or compounds such that other functions are substantially impaired. Major sedimentation, sources of nutrients or toxicants, or signs of eutrophication present. % Cover of Wetland Vegetation in AA ≥ 70% < 70% ≥ 70% < 70% Evidence of Flooding / Ponding in AA Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No AA contains no or restricted outlet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- AA contains unrestricted outlet --- --- .6M --- --- --- --- --- Comments: Wetlands is isolated but could potential receive stormwater flow and has received discharge from a borrow pit. 14H. SEDIMENT / SHORELINE STABILIZATION NA (proceed to 14I) Applies only if AA occurs on or within the banks of a river, stream, or other natural or man-made drainage, or on the shoreline of a standing water body which is subject to wave action. If 14H does not apply, check the NA box and proceed to 14I. % Cover of Wetland Streambank or Shoreline by Species with Stability Ratings of ≥6 (see Appendix F). Duration of Surface Water Adjacent to Rooted Vegetation Permanent / Perennial Seasonal / Intermittent Temporary / Ephemeral ≥ 65% --- --- --- 35-64% --- --- --- < 35% --- --- --- Comments: 14I. PRODUCTION EXPORT / FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT i. Level of Biological Activity: Synthesis of wildlife and fish habitat rates (select). ii. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Factor A = acreage of vegetated wetland component in the AA; Factor B = level of biological activity rating from above (14Ii); Factor C = whether or not the AA contains a surface or subsurface outlet; the final three rows pertain to the duration of surface water in the AA, where P/P, S/I, and T/E were previously defined, and A = “absent” [see manual for further definitions of these terms]. A Vegetated Component >5 acres Vegetated Component 1-5 acres Vegetated Component <1 acre B High Moderate Low High Moderate Low High Moderate Low C Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No P/P --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- .5M --- --- --- --- --- --- --- S/I --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- T/E/A --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- General Fish Habitat Rating (14Diii) General Wildlife Habitat Rating (14Ciii) E/H M L E/H --- --- --- M --- --- --- L --- --- L NA --- --- --- MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 5 Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 3 ( 14I. PRODUCTION EXPORT / FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (continued) iii. Modified Rating: Note: Modified score cannot exceed 1.0 or be less than 0.1. Vegetated Upland Buffer: Area with ≥ 30% plant cover, ≤ 15% noxious weed or ANVS cover, AND that is not subjected to periodic mechanical mowing or clearing (unless for weed control). Is there an average ≥ 50-foot wide vegetated upland buffer around ≥ 75% of the AA’s perimeter? YES, add 0.1 to score in ii = 0.6 NO iv. Final Score and Rating: .6M Comments: 14J. GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE / RECHARGE Check the appropriate indicators in i and ii below. i. Discharge Indicators ii. Recharge Indicators The AA is a slope wetland. Permeable substrate present without underlying impeding layer. Springs or seeps are known or observed. Wetland contains inlet but no outlet. Vegetation growing during dormant season/drought. Stream is a known ‘losing’ stream. Discharge volume decreases. Wetland occurs at the toe of a natural slope. Other: Seeps are present at the wetland edge. AA permanently flooded during drought periods. Wetland contains an outlet, but no inlet. Shallow water table and the site is saturated to the surface. Other: iii. Rating: Use the information from i and ii above and the table below to select the functional point and rating. Criteria Duration of Saturation at AA Wetlands FROM GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE or WITH WATER THAT IS RECHARGING THE GROUNDWATER SYSTEM P/P S/I T None Groundwater Discharge or Recharge --- --- --- --- Insufficient Data/Information NA Comments: 14K. UNIQUENESS i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Replacement Potential AA contains fen, bog, warm springs or mature (>80 yr-old) forested wetland OR plant association listed as “S1” by the MTNHP AA does not contain previously cited rare types AND structural diversity (#13) is high OR contains plant association listed as “S2” by the MTNHP AA does not contain previously cited rare types OR associations AND structural diversity (#13) is low-moderate Estimated Relative Abundance (#11) Rare Common Abundant Rare Common Abundant Rare Common Abundant Low Disturbance at AA (#12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Moderate Disturbance at AA (#12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- High Disturbance at AA (#12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- .2L --- Comments: 14L. RECREATION / EDUCATION POTENTIAL NA (proceed to Overall Summary and Rating page) Affords ‘bonus’ points if AA provides a recreational or educational opportunity. i. Is the AA a known or potential recreational or educational site? YES, go to ii. NO, check the NA box. ii. Check categories that apply to the AA: Educational/Scientific Study Consumptive Recreational Non-consumptive recreational Other: iii. Rating: Use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Known or Potential Recreational or Educational Area Known Potential Public ownership or public easement with general public access (no permission required) --- --- Private ownership with general public access (no permission required) --- --- Private or public ownership without general public access, or requiring permission for public access --- --- Comments: Private property 15. GENERAL SITE NOTES: This wetland is near a trail, but is on private property. You can't really recreate in it, but you can enjoy red-winged blackbirds in the spring and summer. MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) FUNCTION & VALUE SUMMARY AND OVERALL RATING 6 Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 3 Function & Value Variables Rating – Actual Functional Points Possible Functional Points Functional Units: Actual Points x Estimated AA Acreage Indicate the Four Most Prominent Functions with an Asterisk A. Listed / Proposed T&E Species Habitat low 0.00 1.00 0 B. MT Natural Heritage Program Species Habitat low 0.10 1.00 0.25 C. General Wildlife Habitat low 0.10 1.00 0.25 D. General Fish Habitat NA NA NA E. Flood Attenuation NA NA NA F. Short and Long Term Surface Water Storage mod 0.60 1.00 1.5 G. Sediment / Nutrient / Toxicant Removal mod 0.60 1.00 1.5 * H. Sediment / Shoreline Stabilization NA NA NA * I. Production Export / Food Chain Support mod 0.40 1.00 1 J. Groundwater Discharge / Recharge NA NA NA * K. Uniqueness low 0.20 1.00 0.5 * L. Recreation / Education Potential (bonus point) NA NA Total Points 2.0 7 5 Total Functional Units Percent of Possible Score 28% (round to nearest whole number) Category I Wetland: (must satisfy one of the following criteria; otherwise go to Category II) Score of 1 functional point for Listed/Proposed Threatened or Endangered Species; or Score of 1 functional point for Uniqueness; or Score of 1 functional point for Flood Attenuation and answer to Question 14E.ii is "yes"; or Percent of possible score > 80% (round to nearest whole #). Category II Wetland: (Criteria for Category I not satisfied and meets any one of the following criteria; otherwise go to Category IV) Score of 1 functional point for MT Natural Heritage Program Species Habitat; or Score of .9 or 1 functional point for General Wildlife Habitat; or Score of .9 or 1 functional point for General Fish Habitat; or "High" to “Exceptional” ratings for both General Wildlife Habitat and General Fish/Aquatic Habitat; or Score of .9 functional point for Uniqueness; or Percent of possible score > 65% (round to nearest whole #). Category III Wetland: (Criteria for Categories I, II, or IV not satisfied) Category IV Wetland: (Criteria for Categories I or II are not satisfied and all of the following criteria are met; if not go to Category III) "Low" rating for Uniqueness; and Vegetated wetland component < 1 acre (do not include upland vegetated buffer); and Percent of possible score < 35% (round to nearest whole #). OVERALL ANALYSIS AREA (AA) RATING: Check the appropriate category based on the criteria outlined above. I II III IV MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) 1 1. Project Name: West Laurel 2. MDT Project #: N/A 3. Control #: N/A 3. Evaluation Date: November 2025 4. Evaluator(s): C. Pearcy 5. Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 4 6. Wetland Location(s): Township 2 S, Range 5 E, Section 9; Township N, Range E, Section Approximate Stationing or Roadposts: N/A Watershed: 6 - Upper Missouri County: Gallatin 7. Evaluating Agency: Private by Morrison Maierle Inc. 8. Wetland Size (acre): 1.57 (visually estimated) Purpose of Evaluation: (measured, e.g. GPS) Wetland potentially affected by MDT project Mitigation wetlands; pre-construction Mitigation wetlands; post-construction 9. Assessment Area (AA) Size (acre): (visually estimated) Other potentially impacted by private entity (see manual for determining AA) 1.57 (measured, e.g. GPS) 10. CLASSIFICATION OF WETLAND AND AQUATIC HABITATS IN AA (See manual for definitions.) HGM Class (Brinson) Class (Cowardin) Modifier (Cowardin) Water Regime % OF AA Riverine Emergent Wetland Permanent / Perennial 100% Comments: Wetland is a part of a deed restricted area preventing any development within the area. 11. ESTIMATED RELATIVE ABUNDANCE (of similarly classified sites within the same Major Montana Watershed Basin; see manual.) common 12. GENERAL CONDITION OF AA i. Disturbance: Use matrix below to select the appropriate response; see manual for Montana listed noxious weed and aquatic nuisance vegetation species lists. Conditions within AA Predominant Conditions Adjacent to (within 500 feet of) AA Managed in predominantly natural state; is not grazed, hayed, logged, or otherwise converted; does not contain roads or buildings; and noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤15%. Land not cultivated, but may be moderately grazed or hayed or selectively logged; or has been subject to minor clearing; contains few roads or buildings; noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤30%. Land cultivated or heavily grazed or logged; subject to substantial fill placement, grading, clearing, or hydrological alteration; high road or building density; or noxious weed or ANVS cover is >30%. AA occurs and is managed in predominantly natural state; is not grazed, hayed, logged, or otherwise converted; does not contain roads or occupied buildings; and noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤15%. --- low disturbance --- AA not cultivated, but may be moderately grazed or hayed or selectively logged; or has been subject to relatively minor clearing, fill placement, or hydrological alteration; contains few roads or buildings; noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤30%. --- --- --- AA cultivated or heavily grazed or logged; subject to relatively substantial fill placement, grading, clearing, or hydrological alteration; high road or building density; or noxious weed or ANVS cover is >30%. --- --- --- Comments (types of disturbance, intensity, season, etc.): Wetland area is deed restricted so little disturbance has occurred.. ii. Prominent noxious, aquatic nuisance, and other exotic vegetation species: Canada thistle is present but not as dense as other portions of this property. iii. Provide brief descriptive summary of AA and surrounding land use/habitat: Surrounding land use is residential and undeveloped but impacted by noxious weeds, borrow areas, and dumping. 13. STRUCTURAL DIVERSITY (Based on number of “Cowardin” vegetated classes present [do not include unvegetated classes]; see #10 above.) Existing # of “Cowardin” Vegetated Classes in AA Initial Rating Is current management preventing (passive) existence of additional vegetated classes? Modified Rating ≥3 (or 2 if one is forested) classes --- NA NA NA 2 (or 1 if forested) classes --- NA NA NA 1 class, but not a monoculture mod ←NO YES→ --- 1 class, monoculture (1 species comprises ≥90% of total cover) --- NA NA NA Comments: Wetland is in a deed restriction preventing alteration. MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 2 Wetland/Site #(s): wetland 4 14A. HABITAT FOR FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED THREATENED OR ENDANGERED PLANTS OR ANIMALS i. AA is Documented (D) or Suspected (S) to contain: Check box based on definitions in manual. Primary or critical habitat (list species) D S Secondary habitat (list species) D S Incidental habitat (list species) D S No usable habitat S ii. Rating: Based on the strongest habitat chosen in 14A(i) above, select the corresponding functional point and rating. Highest Habitat Level Doc/Primary Sus/Primary Doc/Secondary Sus/Secondary Doc/Incidental Sus/Incidental None Functional Point/Rating --- --- --- --- --- --- 0L Sources for documented use (e.g. observations, records): USFWS IPaC, MTNHP, observation 14B. HABITAT FOR PLANTS OR ANIMALS RATED S1, S2, OR S3 BY THE MONTANA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM Do not include species listed in 14A above. i. AA is Documented (D) or Suspected (S) to contain: Check box based on definitions in manual. Primary or critical habitat (list species) D S Secondary habitat (list species) D S Incidental habitat (list species) D S Cassin's Finch, Great Blue Heron No usable habitat S ii. Rating: Based on the strongest habitat chosen in 14A(i) above, select the corresponding functional point and rating. Highest Habitat Level Doc/Primary Sus/Primary Doc/Secondary Sus/Secondary Doc/Incidental Sus/Incidental None S1 Species Functional Point/Rating --- --- --- --- --- --- --- S2 and S3 Species Functional Point/Rating --- --- --- --- --- .1L --- Sources for documented use (e.g. observations, records): MTNHP Environmental Summary Report 14C. GENERAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RATING i. Evidence of Overall Wildlife Use in the AA: Check substantial, moderate, or low based on supporting evidence. Substantial: Based on any of the following [check]. Minimal: Based on any of the following [check]. observations of abundant wildlife #s or high species diversity (during any period) few or no wildlife observations during peak use periods abundant wildlife sign such as scat, tracks, nest structures, game trails, etc. little to no wildlife sign presence of extremely limiting habitat features not available in the surrounding area sparse adjacent upland food sources interview with local biologist with knowledge of the AA interview with local biologist with knowledge of AA Moderate: Based on any of the following [check]. observations of scattered wildlife groups or individuals or relatively few species during peak periods common occurrence of wildlife sign such as scat, tracks, nest structures, game trails, etc. adequate adjacent upland food sources interview with local biologist with knowledge of the AA ii. Wildlife Habitat Features: Working from top to bottom, check appropriate AA attributes in matrix to arrive at rating. Structural diversity is from #13. For class cover to be considered evenly distributed, the most and least prevalent vegetated classes must be within 20% of each other in terms of their percent composition of the AA (see #10). Abbreviations for surface water durations are as follows: P/P = permanent/perennial; S/I = seasonal/intermittent; T/E = temporary/ephemeral; and A = absent [see manual for further definitions of these terms]. Structural Diversity (see #13) High Moderate Low Class Cover Distribution (all vegetated classes) Even Uneven Even Uneven Even Duration of Surface Water in ≥ 10% of AA P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A Low Disturbance at AA (see #12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- E --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Moderate Disturbance at AA (see #12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- High Disturbance at AA (see #12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- iii. Rating: Use the conclusions from i and ii above and the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Evidence of Wildlife Use (i) Wildlife Habitat Features Rating (ii) Exceptional High Moderate Low Substantial --- --- --- --- Moderate --- --- .5M --- Minimal --- --- --- --- Comments: MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 3 Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 4 14D. GENERAL FISH HABITAT NA (proceed to 14E) If the AA is not used by fish, fish use is not restorable due to habitat constraints, or is not desired from a management perspective [such as fish entrapped in a canal], then check the NA box and proceed to 14E. Assess this function if the AA is used by fish or the existing situation is “correctable” such that the AA could be used by fish [i.e., fish use is precluded by perched culvert or other barrier]. Type of Fishery: Cold Water (CW) Warm Water (WW) Use the CW or WW guidelines in the manual to complete the matrix. i. Habitat Quality and Known / Suspected Fish Species in AA: Use matrix to select the functional point and rating. Duration of Surface Water in AA Permanent / Perennial Seasonal / Intermittent Temporary / Ephemeral Aquatic Hiding / Resting / Escape Cover Optimal Adequate Poor Optimal Adequate Poor Optimal Adequate Poor Thermal Cover: optimal / suboptimal O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S FWP Tier I fish species --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FWP Tier II or Native Game fish species --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FWP Tier III or Introduced Game fish --- --- --- .5M --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FWP Non-Game Tier IV or No fish species --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Sources used for identifying fish spp. potentially found in AA: MTNHP ii. Modified Rating: NOTE: Modified score cannot exceed 1.0 or be less than 0.1. a) Is fish use of the AA significantly reduced by a culvert, dike, or other man-made structure or activity, or is the waterbody included on the current final MDEQ list of waterbodies in need of TMDL development with listed “Probable Impaired Uses” including cold or warm water fishery or aquatic life support, or do aquatic nuisance plant or animal species (see Appendix E) occur in fish habitat? YES, reduce score in i by 0.1 = or N0 b) Does the AA contain a documented spawning area or other critical habitat feature (i.e., sanctuary pool, upwelling area; specify in comments) for native fish or introduced game fish? YES, add to score in i or iia 0.1 = or N0 iii. Final Score and Rating: .5M Comments: 14E. FLOOD ATTENUATION NA (proceed to 14F) Applies only to wetlands that are subject to flooding via in-channel or overbank flow. If wetlands in AA are not flooded from in-channel or overbank flow, check the NA box and proceed to 14F. Entrenchment Ratio (ER) Estimation (see manual for additional guidance). Entrenchment ratio = (flood-prone width) / (bankfull width). Flood-prone width = estimated horizontal projection of where 2 X maximum bankfull depth elevation intersects the floodplain on each side of the stream. 20 / 5 = 4 flood prone width / bankfull width = entrenchment ratio Slightly Entrenched ER ≥ 2.2 Moderately Entrenched ER = 1.41 – 2.2 Entrenched ER = 1.0 – 1.4 C stream type D stream type E stream type B stream type A stream type F stream type G stream type i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Estimated or Calculated Entrenchment (Rosgen 1994, 1996) Slightly Entrenched C, D, E stream types Moderately Entrenched B stream type Entrenched A, F, G stream types Percent of Flooded Wetland Classified as Forested and/or Scrub/Shrub 75% 25-75% <25% 75% 25-75% <25% 75% 25-75% <25% AA contains no outlet or restricted outlet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- AA contains unrestricted outlet --- .8H --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ii. Are ≥10 acres of wetland in the AA subject to flooding AND are man-made features which may be significantly damaged by floods located within 0.5 mile downstream of the AA? YES NO Comments: Flood-prone Width Bankfull Width Bankfull Depth 2 x Bankfull Depth MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 4 Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 4 14F. SHORT AND LONG TERM SURFACE WATER STORAGE NA (proceed to 14G) Applies to wetlands that flood or pond from overbank or in-channel flow, precipitation, upland surface flow, or groundwater flow. If no wetlands in the AA are subject to flooding or ponding, then check the NA box and proceed to 14G. i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Abbreviations for surface water durations are as follows: P/P = permanent/perennial; S/I = seasonal/intermittent; and T/E = temporary/ephemeral [see manual for further definitions of these terms]. Estimated Maximum Acre Feet of Water Contained in Wetlands within the AA that are Subject to Periodic Flooding or Ponding >5 acre feet 1.1 to 5 acre feet ≤1 acre foot Duration of Surface Water at Wetlands within the AA P/P S/I T/E P/P S/I T/E P/P S/I T/E Wetlands in AA flood or pond ≥ 5 out of 10 years --- --- --- .8H --- --- --- --- --- Wetlands in AA flood or pond < 5 out of 10 years --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Comments: . 14G. SEDIMENT / NUTRIENT / TOXICANT / RETENTION AND REMOVAL NA (proceed to 14H) Applies to wetland with potential to receive sediments, nutrients, or toxicants through influx of surface or ground water or direct input. If no wetlands in the AA are subject to such input, check the NA box and proceed to 14H. i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Sediment, Nutrient, and Toxicant Input Levels within AA AA receives or surrounding land use has potential to deliver sediments, nutrients, or compounds at levels such that other functions are not substantially impaired. Minor sedimentation, sources of nutrients or toxicants, or signs of eutrophication present. Waterbody is on MDEQ list of waterbodies in need of TMDL development for “probable causes” related to sediment, nutrients, or toxicants or AA receives or surrounding land use has potential to deliver high levels of sediments, nutrients, or compounds such that other functions are substantially impaired. Major sedimentation, sources of nutrients or toxicants, or signs of eutrophication present. % Cover of Wetland Vegetation in AA ≥ 70% < 70% ≥ 70% < 70% Evidence of Flooding / Ponding in AA Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No AA contains no or restricted outlet --- --- .7M --- --- --- --- --- AA contains unrestricted outlet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Comments: wetland exists within deed restricted land, giving it a measure of protection. . 14H. SEDIMENT / SHORELINE STABILIZATION NA (proceed to 14I) Applies only if AA occurs on or within the banks of a river, stream, or other natural or man-made drainage, or on the shoreline of a standing water body which is subject to wave action. If 14H does not apply, check the NA box and proceed to 14I. % Cover of Wetland Streambank or Shoreline by Species with Stability Ratings of ≥6 (see Appendix F). Duration of Surface Water Adjacent to Rooted Vegetation Permanent / Perennial Seasonal / Intermittent Temporary / Ephemeral ≥ 65% --- --- --- 35-64% --- --- --- < 35% --- --- --- Comments: 14I. PRODUCTION EXPORT / FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT i. Level of Biological Activity: Synthesis of wildlife and fish habitat rates (select). ii. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Factor A = acreage of vegetated wetland component in the AA; Factor B = level of biological activity rating from above (14Ii); Factor C = whether or not the AA contains a surface or subsurface outlet; the final three rows pertain to the duration of surface water in the AA, where P/P, S/I, and T/E were previously defined, and A = “absent” [see manual for further definitions of these terms]. A Vegetated Component >5 acres Vegetated Component 1-5 acres Vegetated Component <1 acre B High Moderate Low High Moderate Low High Moderate Low C Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No P/P --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- .7M --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- S/I --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- T/E/A --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- General Fish Habitat Rating (14Diii) General Wildlife Habitat Rating (14Ciii) E/H M L E/H --- --- --- M --- --- --- L --- M --- NA --- --- --- MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 5 Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 4 14I. PRODUCTION EXPORT / FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (continued) iii. Modified Rating: Note: Modified score cannot exceed 1.0 or be less than 0.1. Vegetated Upland Buffer: Area with ≥ 30% plant cover, ≤ 15% noxious weed or ANVS cover, AND that is not subjected to periodic mechanical mowing or clearing (unless for weed control). Is there an average ≥ 50-foot wide vegetated upland buffer around ≥ 75% of the AA’s perimeter? YES, add 0.1 to score in ii = 0.80 NO iv. Final Score and Rating: .8H Comments: The protected status of this wetland/waterway complex makes for a high production export/food chain support rating. 14J. GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE / RECHARGE Check the appropriate indicators in i and ii below. i. Discharge Indicators ii. Recharge Indicators The AA is a slope wetland. Permeable substrate present without underlying impeding layer. Springs or seeps are known or observed. Wetland contains inlet but no outlet. Vegetation growing during dormant season/drought. Stream is a known ‘losing’ stream. Discharge volume decreases. Wetland occurs at the toe of a natural slope. Other: Seeps are present at the wetland edge. AA permanently flooded during drought periods. Wetland contains an outlet, but no inlet. Shallow water table and the site is saturated to the surface. Other: iii. Rating: Use the information from i and ii above and the table below to select the functional point and rating. Criteria Duration of Saturation at AA Wetlands FROM GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE or WITH WATER THAT IS RECHARGING THE GROUNDWATER SYSTEM P/P S/I T None Groundwater Discharge or Recharge --- --- --- --- Insufficient Data/Information NA Comments: 14K. UNIQUENESS i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Replacement Potential AA contains fen, bog, warm springs or mature (>80 yr-old) forested wetland OR plant association listed as “S1” by the MTNHP AA does not contain previously cited rare types AND structural diversity (#13) is high OR contains plant association listed as “S2” by the MTNHP AA does not contain previously cited rare types OR associations AND structural diversity (#13) is low-moderate Estimated Relative Abundance (#11) Rare Common Abundant Rare Common Abundant Rare Common Abundant Low Disturbance at AA (#12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- .4M --- Moderate Disturbance at AA (#12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- High Disturbance at AA (#12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Comments: S1 plants present according to MTNHP. AA has been highly disturbed by tree clearing activities. 14L. RECREATION / EDUCATION POTENTIAL NA (proceed to Overall Summary and Rating page) Affords ‘bonus’ points if AA provides a recreational or educational opportunity. i. Is the AA a known or potential recreational or educational site? YES, go to ii. NO, check the NA box. ii. Check categories that apply to the AA: Educational/Scientific Study Consumptive Recreational Non-consumptive recreational Other: iii. Rating: Use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Known or Potential Recreational or Educational Area Known Potential Public ownership or public easement with general public access (no permission required) --- .15H Private ownership with general public access (no permission required) --- --- Private or public ownership without general public access, or requiring permission for public access --- --- Comments: Unsure of ownership but can be accessed via informal footpaths. 15. GENERAL SITE NOTES: This wetland is near a trail and protected by easement. MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) FUNCTION & VALUE SUMMARY AND OVERALL RATING 6 Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 4 Function & Value Variables Rating – Actual Functional Points Possible Functional Points Functional Units: Actual Points x Estimated AA Acreage Indicate the Four Most Prominent Functions with an Asterisk A. Listed / Proposed T&E Species Habitat low 0.00 1.00 0 B. MT Natural Heritage Program Species Habitat low 0.10 1.00 0.157 C. General Wildlife Habitat mod 0.50 1.00 0.785 * D. General Fish Habitat mod 0.50 1.00 0.785 * E. Flood Attenuation high 0.80 1.00 1.25 * F. Short and Long Term Surface Water Storage high 0.80 1.00 1.25 * G. Sediment / Nutrient / Toxicant Removal mod 0.70 1.00 0.875 * H. Sediment / Shoreline Stabilization NA NA NA I. Production Export / Food Chain Support high 0.80 1.00 1.25 J. Groundwater Discharge / Recharge NA NA NA K. Uniqueness mod 0.40 1.00 0.628 L. Recreation / Education Potential (bonus point) high 0.15 0.235 Total Points 4.75 9 7.17 Total Functional Units Percent of Possible Score 53% (round to nearest whole number) Category I Wetland: (must satisfy one of the following criteria; otherwise go to Category II) Score of 1 functional point for Listed/Proposed Threatened or Endangered Species; or Score of 1 functional point for Uniqueness; or Score of 1 functional point for Flood Attenuation and answer to Question 14E.ii is "yes"; or Percent of possible score > 80% (round to nearest whole #). Category II Wetland: (Criteria for Category I not satisfied and meets any one of the following criteria; otherwise go to Category IV) Score of 1 functional point for MT Natural Heritage Program Species Habitat; or Score of .9 or 1 functional point for General Wildlife Habitat; or Score of .9 or 1 functional point for General Fish Habitat; or "High" to “Exceptional” ratings for both General Wildlife Habitat and General Fish/Aquatic Habitat; or Score of .9 functional point for Uniqueness; or Percent of possible score > 65% (round to nearest whole #). Category III Wetland: (Criteria for Categories I, II, or IV not satisfied) Category IV Wetland: (Criteria for Categories I or II are not satisfied and all of the following criteria are met; if not go to Category III) "Low" rating for Uniqueness; and Vegetated wetland component < 1 acre (do not include upland vegetated buffer); and Percent of possible score < 35% (round to nearest whole #). OVERALL ANALYSIS AREA (AA) RATING: Check the appropriate category based on the criteria outlined above. I II III IV MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) 1 1. Project Name: West Park 2. MDT Project #: N/A 3. Control #: N/A 3. Evaluation Date: August 3, 2022 4. Evaluator(s): C. Pearcy 5. Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 5 6. Wetland Location(s): Township 2 S, Range 5 E, Section 9; Township N, Range E, Section Approximate Stationing or Roadposts: N/A Watershed: 6 - Upper Missouri County: Gallatin 7. Evaluating Agency: Private by Morrison Maierle Inc. 8. Wetland Size (acre): 0.34 (visually estimated) Purpose of Evaluation: (measured, e.g. GPS) Wetland potentially affected by MDT project Mitigation wetlands; pre-construction Mitigation wetlands; post-construction 9. Assessment Area (AA) Size (acre): (visually estimated) Other potentially impacted by private entity (see manual for determining AA) 0.34 (measured, e.g. GPS) 10. CLASSIFICATION OF WETLAND AND AQUATIC HABITATS IN AA (See manual for definitions.) HGM Class (Brinson) Class (Cowardin) Modifier (Cowardin) Water Regime % OF AA Depressional Emergent Wetland Permanent / Perennial 100 Comments: Wetland is just outside deed restricted area; wetland is a detention pond. 11. ESTIMATED RELATIVE ABUNDANCE (of similarly classified sites within the same Major Montana Watershed Basin; see manual.) common 12. GENERAL CONDITION OF AA i. Disturbance: Use matrix below to select the appropriate response; see manual for Montana listed noxious weed and aquatic nuisance vegetation species lists. Conditions within AA Predominant Conditions Adjacent to (within 500 feet of) AA Managed in predominantly natural state; is not grazed, hayed, logged, or otherwise converted; does not contain roads or buildings; and noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤15%. Land not cultivated, but may be moderately grazed or hayed or selectively logged; or has been subject to minor clearing; contains few roads or buildings; noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤30%. Land cultivated or heavily grazed or logged; subject to substantial fill placement, grading, clearing, or hydrological alteration; high road or building density; or noxious weed or ANVS cover is >30%. AA occurs and is managed in predominantly natural state; is not grazed, hayed, logged, or otherwise converted; does not contain roads or occupied buildings; and noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤15%. --- --- --- AA not cultivated, but may be moderately grazed or hayed or selectively logged; or has been subject to relatively minor clearing, fill placement, or hydrological alteration; contains few roads or buildings; noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤30%. --- moderate disturbance --- 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%. --- --- --- Comments (types of disturbance, intensity, season, etc.): Wetland area is just outside the boundary of a deed restricted area. ii. Prominent noxious, aquatic nuisance, and other exotic vegetation species: Canada thistle . iii. Provide brief descriptive summary of AA and surrounding land use/habitat: Surrounding land use is residential and undeveloped but impacted by noxious weeds, borrow areas, and dumping. 13. STRUCTURAL DIVERSITY (Based on number of “Cowardin” vegetated classes present [do not include unvegetated classes]; see #10 above.) Existing # of “Cowardin” Vegetated Classes in AA Initial Rating Is current management preventing (passive) existence of additional vegetated classes? Modified Rating ≥3 (or 2 if one is forested) classes --- NA NA NA 2 (or 1 if forested) classes --- NA NA NA 1 class, but not a monoculture --- ←NO YES→ --- 1 class, monoculture (1 species comprises ≥90% of total cover) low NA NA NA Comments: Wetland is just outside of deed restricted area; wetland is a detention pond MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 2 Wetland/Site #(s): wetland 5 14A. HABITAT FOR FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED THREATENED OR ENDANGERED PLANTS OR ANIMALS i. AA is Documented (D) or Suspected (S) to contain: Check box based on definitions in manual. Primary or critical habitat (list species) D S Secondary habitat (list species) D S Incidental habitat (list species) D S No usable habitat S ii. Rating: Based on the strongest habitat chosen in 14A(i) above, select the corresponding functional point and rating. Highest Habitat Level Doc/Primary Sus/Primary Doc/Secondary Sus/Secondary Doc/Incidental Sus/Incidental None Functional Point/Rating --- --- --- --- --- --- 0L Sources for documented use (e.g. observations, records): USFWS IPaC, MTNHP, observation 14B. HABITAT FOR PLANTS OR ANIMALS RATED S1, S2, OR S3 BY THE MONTANA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM Do not include species listed in 14A above. i. AA is Documented (D) or Suspected (S) to contain: Check box based on definitions in manual. Primary or critical habitat (list species) D S Secondary habitat (list species) D S Incidental habitat (list species) D S Cassin's Finch, Great Blue Heron No usable habitat S ii. Rating: Based on the strongest habitat chosen in 14A(i) above, select the corresponding functional point and rating. Highest Habitat Level Doc/Primary Sus/Primary Doc/Secondary Sus/Secondary Doc/Incidental Sus/Incidental None S1 Species Functional Point/Rating --- --- --- --- --- --- --- S2 and S3 Species Functional Point/Rating --- --- --- --- --- .1L --- Sources for documented use (e.g. observations, records): MTNHP Environmental Summary Report 14C. GENERAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RATING i. Evidence of Overall Wildlife Use in the AA: Check substantial, moderate, or low based on supporting evidence. Substantial: Based on any of the following [check]. Minimal: Based on any of the following [check]. observations of abundant wildlife #s or high species diversity (during any period) few or no wildlife observations during peak use periods abundant wildlife sign such as scat, tracks, nest structures, game trails, etc. little to no wildlife sign presence of extremely limiting habitat features not available in the surrounding area sparse adjacent upland food sources interview with local biologist with knowledge of the AA interview with local biologist with knowledge of AA Moderate: Based on any of the following [check]. observations of scattered wildlife groups or individuals or relatively few species during peak periods common occurrence of wildlife sign such as scat, tracks, nest structures, game trails, etc. adequate adjacent upland food sources interview with local biologist with knowledge of the AA ii. Wildlife Habitat Features: Working from top to bottom, check appropriate AA attributes in matrix to arrive at rating. Structural diversity is from #13. For class cover to be considered evenly distributed, the most and least prevalent vegetated classes must be within 20% of each other in terms of their percent composition of the AA (see #10). Abbreviations for surface water durations are as follows: P/P = permanent/perennial; S/I = seasonal/intermittent; T/E = temporary/ephemeral; and A = absent [see manual for further definitions of these terms]. Structural Diversity (see #13) High Moderate Low Class Cover Distribution (all vegetated classes) Even Uneven Even Uneven Even Duration of Surface Water in ≥ 10% of AA P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A Low Disturbance at AA (see #12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Moderate Disturbance at AA (see #12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- H --- --- --- --- --- --- --- High Disturbance at AA (see #12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- iii. Rating: Use the conclusions from i and ii above and the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Evidence of Wildlife Use (i) Wildlife Habitat Features Rating (ii) Exceptional High Moderate Low Substantial --- --- --- --- Moderate --- --- .5M --- Minimal --- --- --- --- Comments: mallard ducks observed MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 3 Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 5 14D. GENERAL FISH HABITAT NA (proceed to 14E) If the AA is not used by fish, fish use is not restorable due to habitat constraints, or is not desired from a management perspective [such as fish entrapped in a canal], then check the NA box and proceed to 14E. Assess this function if the AA is used by fish or the existing situation is “correctable” such that the AA could be used by fish [i.e., fish use is precluded by perched culvert or other barrier]. Type of Fishery: Cold Water (CW) Warm Water (WW) Use the CW or WW guidelines in the manual to complete the matrix. i. Habitat Quality and Known / Suspected Fish Species in AA: Use matrix to select the functional point and rating. Duration of Surface Water in AA Permanent / Perennial Seasonal / Intermittent Temporary / Ephemeral Aquatic Hiding / Resting / Escape Cover Optimal Adequate Poor Optimal Adequate Poor Optimal Adequate Poor Thermal Cover: optimal / suboptimal O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S FWP Tier I fish species --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FWP Tier II or Native Game fish species --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FWP Tier III or Introduced Game fish --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FWP Non-Game Tier IV or No fish species --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Sources used for identifying fish spp. potentially found in AA: ii. Modified Rating: NOTE: Modified score cannot exceed 1.0 or be less than 0.1. a) Is fish use of the AA significantly reduced by a culvert, dike, or other man-made structure or activity, or is the waterbody included on the current final MDEQ list of waterbodies in need of TMDL development with listed “Probable Impaired Uses” including cold or warm water fishery or aquatic life support, or do aquatic nuisance plant or animal species (see Appendix E) occur in fish habitat? YES, reduce score in i by 0.1 = or N0 b) Does the AA contain a documented spawning area or other critical habitat feature (i.e., sanctuary pool, upwelling area; specify in comments) for native fish or introduced game fish? YES, add to score in i or iia 0.1 = or N0 iii. Final Score and Rating: Comments: 14E. FLOOD ATTENUATION NA (proceed to 14F) Applies only to wetlands that are subject to flooding via in-channel or overbank flow. If wetlands in AA are not flooded from in-channel or overbank flow, check the NA box and proceed to 14F. Entrenchment Ratio (ER) Estimation (see manual for additional guidance). Entrenchment ratio = (flood-prone width) / (bankfull width). Flood-prone width = estimated horizontal projection of where 2 X maximum bankfull depth elevation intersects the floodplain on each side of the stream. / = flood prone width / bankfull width = entrenchment ratio Slightly Entrenched ER ≥ 2.2 Moderately Entrenched ER = 1.41 – 2.2 Entrenched ER = 1.0 – 1.4 C stream type D stream type E stream type B stream type A stream type F stream type G stream type i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Estimated or Calculated Entrenchment (Rosgen 1994, 1996) Slightly Entrenched C, D, E stream types Moderately Entrenched B stream type Entrenched A, F, G stream types Percent of Flooded Wetland Classified as Forested and/or Scrub/Shrub 75% 25-75% <25% 75% 25-75% <25% 75% 25-75% <25% AA contains no outlet or restricted outlet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- AA contains unrestricted outlet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ii. Are ≥10 acres of wetland in the AA subject to flooding AND are man-made features which may be significantly damaged by floods located within 0.5 mile downstream of the AA? YES NO Comments: Flood-prone Width Bankfull Width Bankfull Depth 2 x Bankfull Depth MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 4 Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 5 14F. SHORT AND LONG TERM SURFACE WATER STORAGE NA (proceed to 14G) Applies to wetlands that flood or pond from overbank or in-channel flow, precipitation, upland surface flow, or groundwater flow. If no wetlands in the AA are subject to flooding or ponding, then check the NA box and proceed to 14G. i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Abbreviations for surface water durations are as follows: P/P = permanent/perennial; S/I = seasonal/intermittent; and T/E = temporary/ephemeral [see manual for further definitions of these terms]. Estimated Maximum Acre Feet of Water Contained in Wetlands within the AA that are Subject to Periodic Flooding or Ponding >5 acre feet 1.1 to 5 acre feet ≤1 acre foot Duration of Surface Water at Wetlands within the AA P/P S/I T/E P/P S/I T/E P/P S/I T/E Wetlands in AA flood or pond ≥ 5 out of 10 years --- --- --- --- --- --- --- .3L --- Wetlands in AA flood or pond < 5 out of 10 years --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Comments: this feature is a pond 14G. SEDIMENT / NUTRIENT / TOXICANT / RETENTION AND REMOVAL NA (proceed to 14H) Applies to wetland with potential to receive sediments, nutrients, or toxicants through influx of surface or ground water or direct input. If no wetlands in the AA are subject to such input, check the NA box and proceed to 14H. i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Sediment, Nutrient, and Toxicant Input Levels within AA AA receives or surrounding land use has potential to deliver sediments, nutrients, or compounds at levels such that other functions are not substantially impaired. Minor sedimentation, sources of nutrients or toxicants, or signs of eutrophication present. Waterbody is on MDEQ list of waterbodies in need of TMDL development for “probable causes” related to sediment, nutrients, or toxicants or AA receives or surrounding land use has potential to deliver high levels of sediments, nutrients, or compounds such that other functions are substantially impaired. Major sedimentation, sources of nutrients or toxicants, or signs of eutrophication present. % Cover of Wetland Vegetation in AA ≥ 70% < 70% ≥ 70% < 70% Evidence of Flooding / Ponding in AA Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No AA contains no or restricted outlet --- --- .7M --- --- --- --- --- AA contains unrestricted outlet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Comments: Wetlands is isolated but could potential receive stormwater flow 14H. SEDIMENT / SHORELINE STABILIZATION NA (proceed to 14I) Applies only if AA occurs on or within the banks of a river, stream, or other natural or man-made drainage, or on the shoreline of a standing water body which is subject to wave action. If 14H does not apply, check the NA box and proceed to 14I. % Cover of Wetland Streambank or Shoreline by Species with Stability Ratings of ≥6 (see Appendix F). Duration of Surface Water Adjacent to Rooted Vegetation Permanent / Perennial Seasonal / Intermittent Temporary / Ephemeral ≥ 65% --- --- --- 35-64% --- --- --- < 35% --- --- --- Comments: 14I. PRODUCTION EXPORT / FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT i. Level of Biological Activity: Synthesis of wildlife and fish habitat rates (select). ii. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Factor A = acreage of vegetated wetland component in the AA; Factor B = level of biological activity rating from above (14Ii); Factor C = whether or not the AA contains a surface or subsurface outlet; the final three rows pertain to the duration of surface water in the AA, where P/P, S/I, and T/E were previously defined, and A = “absent” [see manual for further definitions of these terms]. A Vegetated Component >5 acres Vegetated Component 1-5 acres Vegetated Component <1 acre B High Moderate Low High Moderate Low High Moderate Low C Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No P/P --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- S/I --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- .5M --- --- --- T/E/A --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- General Fish Habitat Rating (14Diii) General Wildlife Habitat Rating (14Ciii) E/H M L E/H --- --- --- M --- --- --- L --- --- --- NA --- M --- MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 5 Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 5 14I. PRODUCTION EXPORT / FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (continued) iii. Modified Rating: Note: Modified score cannot exceed 1.0 or be less than 0.1. Vegetated Upland Buffer: Area with ≥ 30% plant cover, ≤ 15% noxious weed or ANVS cover, AND that is not subjected to periodic mechanical mowing or clearing (unless for weed control). Is there an average ≥ 50-foot wide vegetated upland buffer around ≥ 75% of the AA’s perimeter? YES, add 0.1 to score in ii = NO iv. Final Score and Rating: .5M Comments: 14J. GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE / RECHARGE Check the appropriate indicators in i and ii below. i. Discharge Indicators ii. Recharge Indicators The AA is a slope wetland. Permeable substrate present without underlying impeding layer. Springs or seeps are known or observed. Wetland contains inlet but no outlet. Vegetation growing during dormant season/drought. Stream is a known ‘losing’ stream. Discharge volume decreases. Wetland occurs at the toe of a natural slope. Other: Seeps are present at the wetland edge. AA permanently flooded during drought periods. Wetland contains an outlet, but no inlet. Shallow water table and the site is saturated to the surface. Other: iii. Rating: Use the information from i and ii above and the table below to select the functional point and rating. Criteria Duration of Saturation at AA Wetlands FROM GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE or WITH WATER THAT IS RECHARGING THE GROUNDWATER SYSTEM P/P S/I T None Groundwater Discharge or Recharge --- --- --- --- Insufficient Data/Information NA Comments: 14K. UNIQUENESS i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Replacement Potential AA contains fen, bog, warm springs or mature (>80 yr-old) forested wetland OR plant association listed as “S1” by the MTNHP AA does not contain previously cited rare types AND structural diversity (#13) is high OR contains plant association listed as “S2” by the MTNHP AA does not contain previously cited rare types OR associations AND structural diversity (#13) is low-moderate Estimated Relative Abundance (#11) Rare Common Abundant Rare Common Abundant Rare Common Abundant Low Disturbance at AA (#12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Moderate Disturbance at AA (#12i) --- --- --- --- .5M --- --- --- --- High Disturbance at AA (#12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Comments: Just outside of a deed restricted area. 14L. RECREATION / EDUCATION POTENTIAL NA (proceed to Overall Summary and Rating page) Affords ‘bonus’ points if AA provides a recreational or educational opportunity. i. Is the AA a known or potential recreational or educational site? YES, go to ii. NO, check the NA box. ii. Check categories that apply to the AA: Educational/Scientific Study Consumptive Recreational Non-consumptive recreational Other: iii. Rating: Use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Known or Potential Recreational or Educational Area Known Potential Public ownership or public easement with general public access (no permission required) --- --- Private ownership with general public access (no permission required) --- --- Private or public ownership without general public access, or requiring permission for public access --- --- Comments: Private property 15. GENERAL SITE NOTES: MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) FUNCTION & VALUE SUMMARY AND OVERALL RATING 6 Wetland/Site #(s): Wetland 5 Function & Value Variables Rating – Actual Functional Points Possible Functional Points Functional Units: Actual Points x Estimated AA Acreage Indicate the Four Most Prominent Functions with an Asterisk A. Listed / Proposed T&E Species Habitat low 0.00 1.00 0 B. MT Natural Heritage Program Species Habitat low 0.10 1.00 0.034 C. General Wildlife Habitat mod 0.50 1.00 0.17 * D. General Fish Habitat NA NA NA E. Flood Attenuation NA NA NA F. Short and Long Term Surface Water Storage low 0.30 1.00 0.102 G. Sediment / Nutrient / Toxicant Removal mod 0.70 1.00 0.23 * H. Sediment / Shoreline Stabilization NA NA NA I. Production Export / Food Chain Support mod 0.50 1.00 0.17 * J. Groundwater Discharge / Recharge NA NA NA K. Uniqueness mod 0.50 1.00 0.17 * L. Recreation / Education Potential (bonus point) NA 0 Total Points 2.6 7 0.876 Total Functional Units Percent of Possible Score 37% (round to nearest whole number) Category I Wetland: (must satisfy one of the following criteria; otherwise go to Category II) Score of 1 functional point for Listed/Proposed Threatened or Endangered Species; or Score of 1 functional point for Uniqueness; or Score of 1 functional point for Flood Attenuation and answer to Question 14E.ii is "yes"; or Percent of possible score > 80% (round to nearest whole #). Category II Wetland: (Criteria for Category I not satisfied and meets any one of the following criteria; otherwise go to Category IV) Score of 1 functional point for MT Natural Heritage Program Species Habitat; or Score of .9 or 1 functional point for General Wildlife Habitat; or Score of .9 or 1 functional point for General Fish Habitat; or "High" to “Exceptional” ratings for both General Wildlife Habitat and General Fish/Aquatic Habitat; or Score of .9 functional point for Uniqueness; or Percent of possible score > 65% (round to nearest whole #). Category III Wetland: (Criteria for Categories I, II, or IV not satisfied) Category IV Wetland: (Criteria for Categories I or II are not satisfied and all of the following criteria are met; if not go to Category III) "Low" rating for Uniqueness; and Vegetated wetland component < 1 acre (do not include upland vegetated buffer); and Percent of possible score < 35% (round to nearest whole #). OVERALL ANALYSIS AREA (AA) RATING: Check the appropriate category based on the criteria outlined above. I II III IV MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) 1 1. Project Name: West Laurel 2. MDT Project #: N/A 3. Control #: N/A 3. Evaluation Date: November 2025 4. Evaluator(s): C. Pearcy 5. Wetland/Site #(s): After Mitigation Wetland Complex 6. Wetland Location(s): Township 2 S, Range 5 E, Section 9; Township N, Range E, Section Approximate Stationing or Roadposts: N/A Watershed: 6 - Upper Missouri County: Gallatin 7. Evaluating Agency: Private by Morrison Maierle Inc. 8. Wetland Size (acre): 2.6 (visually estimated) Purpose of Evaluation: (measured, e.g. GPS) Wetland potentially affected by MDT project Mitigation wetlands; pre-construction Mitigation wetlands; post-construction 9. Assessment Area (AA) Size (acre): (visually estimated) Other potentially impacted by private entity (see manual for determining AA) 2.6 (measured, e.g. GPS) 10. CLASSIFICATION OF WETLAND AND AQUATIC HABITATS IN AA (See manual for definitions.) HGM Class (Brinson) Class (Cowardin) Modifier (Cowardin) Water Regime % OF AA Depressional Emergent Wetland Permanent / Perennial 100 Comments: 2.6 mitigated wetland only (no longer combined with wetland 4 + Baxter Creek. 11. ESTIMATED RELATIVE ABUNDANCE (of similarly classified sites within the same Major Montana Watershed Basin; see manual.) common 12. GENERAL CONDITION OF AA i. Disturbance: Use matrix below to select the appropriate response; see manual for Montana listed noxious weed and aquatic nuisance vegetation species lists. Conditions within AA Predominant Conditions Adjacent to (within 500 feet of) AA Managed in predominantly natural state; is not grazed, hayed, logged, or otherwise converted; does not contain roads or buildings; and noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤15%. Land not cultivated, but may be moderately grazed or hayed or selectively logged; or has been subject to minor clearing; contains few roads or buildings; noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤30%. Land cultivated or heavily grazed or logged; subject to substantial fill placement, grading, clearing, or hydrological alteration; high road or building density; or noxious weed or ANVS cover is >30%. AA occurs and is managed in predominantly natural state; is not grazed, hayed, logged, or otherwise converted; does not contain roads or occupied buildings; and noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤15%. low disturbance --- --- AA not cultivated, but may be moderately grazed or hayed or selectively logged; or has been subject to relatively minor clearing, fill placement, or hydrological alteration; contains few roads or buildings; noxious weed or ANVS cover is ≤30%. --- --- --- AA cultivated or heavily grazed or logged; subject to relatively substantial fill placement, grading, clearing, or hydrological alteration; high road or building density; or noxious weed or ANVS cover is >30%. --- --- --- Comments (types of disturbance, intensity, season, etc.): Wetland mitigation area will eventually become a City Park ii. Prominent noxious, aquatic nuisance, and other exotic vegetation species: Noxious weeds will be controlled. iii. Provide brief descriptive summary of AA and surrounding land use/habitat: Surrounding land use is residential and undeveloped. Area of dumping and mining has been reclaimed in this scenario 13. STRUCTURAL DIVERSITY (Based on number of “Cowardin” vegetated classes present [do not include unvegetated classes]; see #10 above.) Existing # of “Cowardin” Vegetated Classes in AA Initial Rating Is current management preventing (passive) existence of additional vegetated classes? Modified Rating ≥3 (or 2 if one is forested) classes --- NA NA NA 2 (or 1 if forested) classes --- NA NA NA 1 class, but not a monoculture mod ←NO YES→ --- 1 class, monoculture (1 species comprises ≥90% of total cover) --- NA NA NA Comments: MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 2 Wetland/Site #(s): Mitigated Wetland 14A. HABITAT FOR FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED THREATENED OR ENDANGERED PLANTS OR ANIMALS i. AA is Documented (D) or Suspected (S) to contain: Check box based on definitions in manual. Primary or critical habitat (list species) D S Secondary habitat (list species) D S Incidental habitat (list species) D S No usable habitat S ii. Rating: Based on the strongest habitat chosen in 14A(i) above, select the corresponding functional point and rating. Highest Habitat Level Doc/Primary Sus/Primary Doc/Secondary Sus/Secondary Doc/Incidental Sus/Incidental None Functional Point/Rating --- --- --- --- --- .1L --- Sources for documented use (e.g. observations, records): USFWS IPaC, MTNHP, observation, seed mix includes Milk Weed for Monarch Butterfly 14B. HABITAT FOR PLANTS OR ANIMALS RATED S1, S2, OR S3 BY THE MONTANA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM Do not include species listed in 14A above. i. AA is Documented (D) or Suspected (S) to contain: Check box based on definitions in manual. Primary or critical habitat (list species) D S Secondary habitat (list species) D S Incidental habitat (list species) D S Cassin's Finch, Great Blue Heron No usable habitat S ii. Rating: Based on the strongest habitat chosen in 14A(i) above, select the corresponding functional point and rating. Highest Habitat Level Doc/Primary Sus/Primary Doc/Secondary Sus/Secondary Doc/Incidental Sus/Incidental None S1 Species Functional Point/Rating --- --- --- --- --- --- --- S2 and S3 Species Functional Point/Rating --- --- --- --- --- .1L --- Sources for documented use (e.g. observations, records): MTNHP Environmental Summary Report 14C. GENERAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RATING i. Evidence of Overall Wildlife Use in the AA: Check substantial, moderate, or low based on supporting evidence. Substantial: Based on any of the following [check]. Minimal: Based on any of the following [check]. observations of abundant wildlife #s or high species diversity (during any period) few or no wildlife observations during peak use periods abundant wildlife sign such as scat, tracks, nest structures, game trails, etc. little to no wildlife sign presence of extremely limiting habitat features not available in the surrounding area sparse adjacent upland food sources interview with local biologist with knowledge of the AA interview with local biologist with knowledge of AA Moderate: Based on any of the following [check]. observations of scattered wildlife groups or individuals or relatively few species during peak periods common occurrence of wildlife sign such as scat, tracks, nest structures, game trails, etc. adequate adjacent upland food sources interview with local biologist with knowledge of the AA ii. Wildlife Habitat Features: Working from top to bottom, check appropriate AA attributes in matrix to arrive at rating. Structural diversity is from #13. For class cover to be considered evenly distributed, the most and least prevalent vegetated classes must be within 20% of each other in terms of their percent composition of the AA (see #10). Abbreviations for surface water durations are as follows: P/P = permanent/perennial; S/I = seasonal/intermittent; T/E = temporary/ephemeral; and A = absent [see manual for further definitions of these terms]. Structural Diversity (see #13) High Moderate Low Class Cover Distribution (all vegetated classes) Even Uneven Even Uneven Even Duration of Surface Water in ≥ 10% of AA P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A Low Disturbance at AA (see #12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- H --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Moderate Disturbance at AA (see #12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- High Disturbance at AA (see #12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- iii. Rating: Use the conclusions from i and ii above and the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Evidence of Wildlife Use (i) Wildlife Habitat Features Rating (ii) Exceptional High Moderate Low Substantial --- --- --- --- Moderate --- --- .5M --- Minimal --- --- --- --- Comments: close proximity to larger habitat tract MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 3 Wetland/Site #(s): Mitigated wetland 14D. GENERAL FISH HABITAT NA (proceed to 14E) If the AA is not used by fish, fish use is not restorable due to habitat constraints, or is not desired from a management perspective [such as fish entrapped in a canal], then check the NA box and proceed to 14E. Assess this function if the AA is used by fish or the existing situation is “correctable” such that the AA could be used by fish [i.e., fish use is precluded by perched culvert or other barrier]. Type of Fishery: Cold Water (CW) Warm Water (WW) Use the CW or WW guidelines in the manual to complete the matrix. i. Habitat Quality and Known / Suspected Fish Species in AA: Use matrix to select the functional point and rating. Duration of Surface Water in AA Permanent / Perennial Seasonal / Intermittent Temporary / Ephemeral Aquatic Hiding / Resting / Escape Cover Optimal Adequate Poor Optimal Adequate Poor Optimal Adequate Poor Thermal Cover: optimal / suboptimal O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S FWP Tier I fish species --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FWP Tier II or Native Game fish species --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FWP Tier III or Introduced Game fish --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FWP Non-Game Tier IV or No fish species --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Sources used for identifying fish spp. potentially found in AA: ii. Modified Rating: NOTE: Modified score cannot exceed 1.0 or be less than 0.1. a) Is fish use of the AA significantly reduced by a culvert, dike, or other man-made structure or activity, or is the waterbody included on the current final MDEQ list of waterbodies in need of TMDL development with listed “Probable Impaired Uses” including cold or warm water fishery or aquatic life support, or do aquatic nuisance plant or animal species (see Appendix E) occur in fish habitat? YES, reduce score in i by 0.1 = or N0 b) Does the AA contain a documented spawning area or other critical habitat feature (i.e., sanctuary pool, upwelling area; specify in comments) for native fish or introduced game fish? YES, add to score in i or iia 0.1 = or N0 iii. Final Score and Rating: Comments: 14E. FLOOD ATTENUATION NA (proceed to 14F) Applies only to wetlands that are subject to flooding via in-channel or overbank flow. If wetlands in AA are not flooded from in-channel or overbank flow, check the NA box and proceed to 14F. Entrenchment Ratio (ER) Estimation (see manual for additional guidance). Entrenchment ratio = (flood-prone width) / (bankfull width). Flood-prone width = estimated horizontal projection of where 2 X maximum bankfull depth elevation intersects the floodplain on each side of the stream. 20 / 5 = 4 flood prone width / bankfull width = entrenchment ratio Slightly Entrenched ER ≥ 2.2 Moderately Entrenched ER = 1.41 – 2.2 Entrenched ER = 1.0 – 1.4 C stream type D stream type E stream type B stream type A stream type F stream type G stream type i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Estimated or Calculated Entrenchment (Rosgen 1994, 1996) Slightly Entrenched C, D, E stream types Moderately Entrenched B stream type Entrenched A, F, G stream types Percent of Flooded Wetland Classified as Forested and/or Scrub/Shrub 75% 25-75% <25% 75% 25-75% <25% 75% 25-75% <25% AA contains no outlet or restricted outlet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- AA contains unrestricted outlet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ii. Are ≥10 acres of wetland in the AA subject to flooding AND are man-made features which may be significantly damaged by floods located within 0.5 mile downstream of the AA? YES NO Comments: Flood-prone Width Bankfull Width Bankfull Depth 2 x Bankfull Depth MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 4 Wetland/Site #(s): Mitigated wetland 14F. SHORT AND LONG TERM SURFACE WATER STORAGE NA (proceed to 14G) Applies to wetlands that flood or pond from overbank or in-channel flow, precipitation, upland surface flow, or groundwater flow. If no wetlands in the AA are subject to flooding or ponding, then check the NA box and proceed to 14G. i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Abbreviations for surface water durations are as follows: P/P = permanent/perennial; S/I = seasonal/intermittent; and T/E = temporary/ephemeral [see manual for further definitions of these terms]. Estimated Maximum Acre Feet of Water Contained in Wetlands within the AA that are Subject to Periodic Flooding or Ponding >5 acre feet 1.1 to 5 acre feet ≤1 acre foot Duration of Surface Water at Wetlands within the AA P/P S/I T/E P/P S/I T/E P/P S/I T/E Wetlands in AA flood or pond ≥ 5 out of 10 years --- --- --- --- .6M --- --- --- --- Wetlands in AA flood or pond < 5 out of 10 years --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Comments: 14G. SEDIMENT / NUTRIENT / TOXICANT / RETENTION AND REMOVAL NA (proceed to 14H) Applies to wetland with potential to receive sediments, nutrients, or toxicants through influx of surface or ground water or direct input. If no wetlands in the AA are subject to such input, check the NA box and proceed to 14H. i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Sediment, Nutrient, and Toxicant Input Levels within AA AA receives or surrounding land use has potential to deliver sediments, nutrients, or compounds at levels such that other functions are not substantially impaired. Minor sedimentation, sources of nutrients or toxicants, or signs of eutrophication present. Waterbody is on MDEQ list of waterbodies in need of TMDL development for “probable causes” related to sediment, nutrients, or toxicants or AA receives or surrounding land use has potential to deliver high levels of sediments, nutrients, or compounds such that other functions are substantially impaired. Major sedimentation, sources of nutrients or toxicants, or signs of eutrophication present. % Cover of Wetland Vegetation in AA ≥ 70% < 70% ≥ 70% < 70% Evidence of Flooding / Ponding in AA Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No AA contains no or restricted outlet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- AA contains unrestricted outlet --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Comments: 14H. SEDIMENT / SHORELINE STABILIZATION NA (proceed to 14I) Applies only if AA occurs on or within the banks of a river, stream, or other natural or man-made drainage, or on the shoreline of a standing water body which is subject to wave action. If 14H does not apply, check the NA box and proceed to 14I. % Cover of Wetland Streambank or Shoreline by Species with Stability Ratings of ≥6 (see Appendix F). Duration of Surface Water Adjacent to Rooted Vegetation Permanent / Perennial Seasonal / Intermittent Temporary / Ephemeral ≥ 65% --- --- --- 35-64% --- --- --- < 35% --- --- --- Comments: 14I. PRODUCTION EXPORT / FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT i. Level of Biological Activity: Synthesis of wildlife and fish habitat rates (select). ii. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Factor A = acreage of vegetated wetland component in the AA; Factor B = level of biological activity rating from above (14Ii); Factor C = whether or not the AA contains a surface or subsurface outlet; the final three rows pertain to the duration of surface water in the AA, where P/P, S/I, and T/E were previously defined, and A = “absent” [see manual for further definitions of these terms]. A Vegetated Component >5 acres Vegetated Component 1-5 acres Vegetated Component <1 acre B High Moderate Low High Moderate Low High Moderate Low C Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No P/P --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- .7M --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- S/I --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- T/E/A --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- General Fish Habitat Rating (14Diii) General Wildlife Habitat Rating (14Ciii) E/H M L E/H --- --- --- M --- M --- L --- --- --- NA --- --- --- MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) SECTION PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 5 Wetland/Site #(s): mitigated wetland 14I. PRODUCTION EXPORT / FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (continued) iii. Modified Rating: Note: Modified score cannot exceed 1.0 or be less than 0.1. Vegetated Upland Buffer: Area with ≥ 30% plant cover, ≤ 15% noxious weed or ANVS cover, AND that is not subjected to periodic mechanical mowing or clearing (unless for weed control). Is there an average ≥ 50-foot wide vegetated upland buffer around ≥ 75% of the AA’s perimeter? YES, add 0.1 to score in ii = 0.8 NO iv. Final Score and Rating: .8H Comments: Upland vegetated buffer included 14J. GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE / RECHARGE Check the appropriate indicators in i and ii below. i. Discharge Indicators ii. Recharge Indicators The AA is a slope wetland. Permeable substrate present without underlying impeding layer. Springs or seeps are known or observed. Wetland contains inlet but no outlet. Vegetation growing during dormant season/drought. Stream is a known ‘losing’ stream. Discharge volume decreases. Wetland occurs at the toe of a natural slope. Other: Seeps are present at the wetland edge. AA permanently flooded during drought periods. Wetland contains an outlet, but no inlet. Shallow water table and the site is saturated to the surface. Other: iii. Rating: Use the information from i and ii above and the table below to select the functional point and rating. Criteria Duration of Saturation at AA Wetlands FROM GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE or WITH WATER THAT IS RECHARGING THE GROUNDWATER SYSTEM P/P S/I T None Groundwater Discharge or Recharge --- --- --- --- Insufficient Data/Information NA Comments: 14K. UNIQUENESS i. Rating: Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Replacement Potential AA contains fen, bog, warm springs or mature (>80 yr-old) forested wetland OR plant association listed as “S1” by the MTNHP AA does not contain previously cited rare types AND structural diversity (#13) is high OR contains plant association listed as “S2” by the MTNHP AA does not contain previously cited rare types OR associations AND structural diversity (#13) is low-moderate Estimated Relative Abundance (#11) Rare Common Abundant Rare Common Abundant Rare Common Abundant Low Disturbance at AA (#12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- .4M --- Moderate Disturbance at AA (#12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- High Disturbance at AA (#12i) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Comments: 14L. RECREATION / EDUCATION POTENTIAL NA (proceed to Overall Summary and Rating page) Affords ‘bonus’ points if AA provides a recreational or educational opportunity. i. Is the AA a known or potential recreational or educational site? YES, go to ii. NO, check the NA box. ii. Check categories that apply to the AA: Educational/Scientific Study Consumptive Recreational Non-consumptive recreational Other: iii. Rating: Use the matrix below to select the functional point and rating. Known or Potential Recreational or Educational Area Known Potential Public ownership or public easement with general public access (no permission required) .2H --- Private ownership with general public access (no permission required) --- --- Private or public ownership without general public access, or requiring permission for public access --- --- Comments: Trail will be adjacent to feature. 15. GENERAL SITE NOTES: This wetland is near a trail and protected by easement. MDT MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM (revised March 2008) FUNCTION & VALUE SUMMARY AND OVERALL RATING 6 Wetland/Site #(s): Mitigated Wetland Function & Value Variables Rating – Actual Functional Points Possible Functional Points Functional Units: Actual Points x Estimated AA Acreage Indicate the Four Most Prominent Functions with an Asterisk A. Listed / Proposed T&E Species Habitat low 0.10 1.00 0 B. MT Natural Heritage Program Species Habitat low 0.10 1.00 0.26 C. General Wildlife Habitat mod 0.50 1.00 1.3 D. General Fish Habitat NA NA NA E. Flood Attenuation NA NA NA * F. Short and Long Term Surface Water Storage mod 0.60 1.00 1.56 * G. Sediment / Nutrient / Toxicant Removal NA NA NA * H. Sediment / Shoreline Stabilization NA NA NA I. Production Export / Food Chain Support high 0.80 1.00 2.08 * J. Groundwater Discharge / Recharge NA NA NA K. Uniqueness mod 0.40 1.00 1.04 L. Recreation / Education Potential (bonus point) high 0.20 0.2 Total Points 2.7 6 6.44 Total Functional Units Percent of Possible Score 45% (round to nearest whole number) Category I Wetland: (must satisfy one of the following criteria; otherwise go to Category II) Score of 1 functional point for Listed/Proposed Threatened or Endangered Species; or Score of 1 functional point for Uniqueness; or Score of 1 functional point for Flood Attenuation and answer to Question 14E.ii is "yes"; or Percent of possible score > 80% (round to nearest whole #). Category II Wetland: (Criteria for Category I not satisfied and meets any one of the following criteria; otherwise go to Category IV) Score of 1 functional point for MT Natural Heritage Program Species Habitat; or Score of .9 or 1 functional point for General Wildlife Habitat; or Score of .9 or 1 functional point for General Fish Habitat; or "High" to “Exceptional” ratings for both General Wildlife Habitat and General Fish/Aquatic Habitat; or Score of .9 functional point for Uniqueness; or Percent of possible score > 65% (round to nearest whole #). Category III Wetland: (Criteria for Categories I, II, or IV not satisfied) Category IV Wetland: (Criteria for Categories I or II are not satisfied and all of the following criteria are met; if not go to Category III) "Low" rating for Uniqueness; and Vegetated wetland component < 1 acre (do not include upland vegetated buffer); and Percent of possible score < 35% (round to nearest whole #). OVERALL ANALYSIS AREA (AA) RATING: Check the appropriate category based on the criteria outlined above. I II III IV PREPARED BY: PREPARED FOR: PROVIDING STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS BOZEMAN, MONTANA NORTON RANCH SUBDIVISION, PHASE 2A NORTON PROPERTIES 2464 SW GLACIER PLACE REDMOND, OR 97756 VICINITY MAP NO SCALE PROJECT LOCATION HUFFINE LANE COTTONWOOD RDWEST OAK STREET GOOCH HILL RDRECORD DRAWING FEBRUARY 2015 ENGINEERING, INC. 705 OSTERMAN DRIVE, SUITE F BOZEMAN, MT 59715 (406) 522-9876 R-1 LAUREL PARKWAY STA 4+00 TO 10+00 R-2 LAUREL PARKWAY STA 10+00 TO 13+97 (A.B.) (A.B.) R-3 LAUREL PARKWAY TYPICAL SECTION (A.B.) Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 43 | Page APPENDIX F: GROUNDWATER MONITORING DATA memo TO: City of Bozeman Engineering Department FROM: Morrison-Maierle DATE: November 26, 2025 JOB NO.: 10130.001.04 RE: Laurel Meadows – Groundwater Monitoring Data CC: MMI File Urgent For Review Please Comment Please Reply For Your Use Summary: The following document is intended to present and summarize groundwater data collected at the Laurel Meadows site by method of seven monitoring wells placed around the site. Data was collected in 2021 between the months of March and December; in 2022 between the months of January and March; and in 2025 between the months of April and August. Any data collected at the time of site dewatering was excluded from analysis. The data collected in Monitor Well 6 has been excluded entirely due to site dewatering and irregular data. Generally, high groundwater was observed in the spring between March and June, and low groundwater was observed between July and September. The location of each monitoring well can be seen in Appendix A. Appendix B includes a graph of the data collected in each monitoring well (not including Well 6) for 2021, 2022, and 2025. © 2022 Microsoft Corporation © 2022 Maxar ©CNES (2022) Distribution Airbus DS © 2022 TomTom 4780.26 4787.34 4783.98 4785.78 4790.53 4793.07 4792.68 4785 4790 47 9 5 4785 4790 4795 4800 TRACT 1 11.85 acs. TRACT 2 6.79 acs. TRACT 3 12.30 acs. TRACT 4 10.04 acs. © PROJECT NO. FIGURE NUMBER COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE,2022 N:\10130\001.02 Site Plan\ACAD\Civil\Worksheet\groundwater\10130.002 Groundwater Exhibit.dwg Plotted by rosie nickelson on Apr/11/2022 DRAWN BY: DSGN. BY: APPR. BY: DATE:engineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle 2880 Technology Blvd West Bozeman, MT 59718 406.587.0721 www.m-m.net 10130.001 EX-B WEST PARK SUBDIVISION GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL MAP BOZEMAN MONTANA BTB BTB JRN 4/1/2022 100 2000 SCALE IN FEET GROUNDWATER MON. WELL #5 (TH-4) GROUNDWATER MON. WELL #6 (TH-1) GROUNDWATER MON. WELL #4 (TH-16) GROUNDWATER MON. WELL #3 (TH-18) GROUNDWATER MON. WELL #2 (TH-14) GROUNDWATER MON. WELL #7 (TH-8)GROUNDWATER MON. WELL #1 (TH-11) GROUNDWATER ELEVATION FROM MARCH. 2, 2022 (TYP) EXISTING GROUND (TYP) EXISTING DETETION POND #4, NORTON PHASE 1 WETLANDS (TYP) Appendix B Figure 1: The overall high for Well 1 was observed on March 2, 2022, and measured at 0.48 feet below ground surface. The low was measured at 2.51 feet on September 29, 2021. Figure 2: The overall high for Well 2 was observed on March 2, 2022, and measured at 0.06 feet below ground surface. The low was measured at 1.69 feet on September 29, 2021. 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 11/4 12/24 2/12 4/3 5/23 7/12 8/31 10/20 12/9 1/28 DepthDate WELL 1 2025 2022 2021 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 11/4 12/24 2/12 4/3 5/23 7/12 8/31 10/20 12/9 1/28 DepthDate WELL 2 2025 2022 2021 Figure 3: The overall high for Well 3 was observed on March 2, 2022, and measured at 2.51 feet below ground surface. The low was measured at 4.03 feet on August 7, 2025. Figure 4: The overall high for Well 4 was observed on May 5, 2025, and measured at 0.22 feet below ground surface. The low was measured at 2.44 feet on August 3, 2021. 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 11/4 12/24 2/12 4/3 5/23 7/12 8/31 10/20 12/9 1/28 DepthDate WELL 3 2025 2022 2021 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 11/4 12/24 2/12 4/3 5/23 7/12 8/31 10/20 12/9 1/28 DepthDate WELL 4 2025 2022 2021 Figure 5: The overall high for Well 5 was observed on May 5, 2025, and measured at 0.05 feet below ground surface. The low was measured at 2.30 on August 7, 2025. Figure 7: The overall high for Well 7 was observed on March 2, 2022, and measured at 0.39 feet below ground surface. The low was measured at 2.89 on September 29, 2021. 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 11/4 12/24 2/12 4/3 5/23 7/12 8/31 10/20 12/9 1/28 DepthDate WELL 5 2025 2022 2021 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 11/4 12/24 2/12 4/3 5/23 7/12 8/31 10/20 12/9 1/28 DepthDate WELL 7 2025 2022 2021 Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 44 | Page APPENDIX G: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 PHONE: (406) 209‐5573 CELL: (406) 221‐7236 PROJECT: 2020 ‐ The Lakes at Valley West (South) Bozeman, Gallatin County Montana CLIENT: The Lakes at Valley West Bozeman, LLC P.O. Box 1113 Suite 179 Bozeman, Montana 59715 PROJECT NO.: 020025CR DATE: April 10th, 2020 Executive Summary This report is to serve as record of the subgrade investigation and geotechnical recommendations prepared for the 2020‐Lakes at Valley West. The Client requested the Geotechnical Evaluation in February, 2020 in phone correspondence for the above‐referenced site. The purpose of the investigation is to evaluate the subsurface soils and current groundwater conditions, and to determine suitability and characteristics for proposed construction of the new phase of the Lakes at Valley West subdivision. Castle Rock Geotechnical has prepared ‘Study of Grounds’ (geotechnical) reports for multiple phases of the Lakes at Valley West Subdivision since 2014. This report will utilize information from the March 2020 field investigation. The 2020 geotechnical information within will be used in consideration of subgrade improvements, residential building foundations, finished grading and street and stormwater infrastructure. It is assumed that the majority of buildings will utilize an earthen supported, concrete foundation with concrete footing wall and slab on grade or crawl space. The legal description is ‘located in a portion of the Southwest ¼ of the Northeast ¼ of Section 9, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, of the Bozeman, Montana Quadrangle in Gallatin County’. The Property Record Card records the Primary Owners as Norton Properties LLC and the Subdivision as Norton East Ranch Subdivision Phase III, Plat J‐ 564. The site is located on the north side of west Babcock Street between Pond Lily Drive and Water Lily Drive. The Vicinity and Topographic Map are shown in Figure 1 of the report. The geotechnical evaluation was completed in general accordance with standard industry practices. Summary of Subsurface Findings The majority of ground surface consists of wild native grasses, cattails and willows, though a large part of the southeast portion of the property has been used for construction activities such as mining of gravels. See Figure 2, Test Hole Map. No recent aerial photos could be found to show the exact size of the mining activity and depth the excavated pits, since high groundwater has filled in the burrow pits. The aerial photo, Figure 2 shows the approximate boundaries of the disturbance due to mining activity but also stockpiled earthen spoils and some construction debris. This area will require significant resources to remove deleterious materials, soils such as topsoil 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 2 or concrete debris, and unwanted clay and organics from the site. It is believed that the portion of this disturbed ground can be reclaimed for building lots once the earthen spoils and debris placed upon native grounds is removed. It is also believed that the burrow pits can be made into lakes that are landscaped and become part of the subdivision. The following subgrade summary is primarily for the ‘non‐disturbed’ grounds that were mostly used as Non‐Qualified Agricultural Land. Depth to stiff alluvial fan type gravels is observed on average 50 inches below top of existing grade. Depth varies from location to location +10 inches. A thick dark brown topsoil horizon is found from 12 to 24 inches thick USCS symbol (OL). The topsoil is underlain by brown lean clay loam USCS symbol (CL) which is from 10 to 24 inches thick depending on location. The brown lean clay loam is underlain by 5 to 10 inches of brown‐rust ‘lean clay’ with gravels USCS symbol (GC) or ‘fat’ gray clay USCS Symbol (CL or CH). The gray clay is approximately 6 inches thick and typically underlain by poorly graded gravels with sand and pebbles USCS symbol (GP). The alluvial gravels were excavated several feet before groundwater inundated the pit. Groundwater was typically suppressed by the overlying clay and is estimated to be 36 inches below top of pre‐development grade. Very little gray clay (hydric soils) was observed and when observed it was in locations where high groundwater exists for prolong periods of time and where soil mottling is occurring (redox depletion). See hydric soil rating in the NRCS data supplied. The grounds profiled in the test pit investigation match well with research information from the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology and Department of Agricultures, Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS) Data . This information will be shared in the report and NRCS soil documents are found in the Attachments at the end of the report. Summary of Observations & Recommendations for Residential Building Site Lots Based on the field investigation, and subsurface soil and conditions the following recommendations should be considered for residential construction. Each building will require a structural pad consisting of 1 inch diameter washed rock being placed upon approved native alluvial gravels 1 foot above existing groundwater elevations. On the washed rock 18 inches minimum, 3 inch minus pit run gravels is to be placed so that footing elevation is a minimum 20 inches above high groundwater. (Structural fill for any other need on this project can be either on‐site processed, 3 inch minus pit run gravels containing less than 10% non‐plastic fines and/or imported 3 inch minus pit run gravels.) Summary of Road Recommendations Dewatering will be necessary and will have to be continuous during road construction. Top of road grade (Surface Course) is assumed to be top of predevelopment grade.  All roadways are to be cleared and grubbed, removing organics and roots while stockpiling topsoil.  All native lean clays are to be removed down to native alluvial gravels, the road foundation material. 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 3  The native gravels (road foundation material) should be compacted to 95% of the native soil’s maximum dry density and +3 percent of its optimum moisture content.  A loaded double axel dump truck should drive upon the road foundation after compacted and areas that are not firm but deflect or fail under the wheel load during these maneuvers should have the soft or yielding materials removed and replaced with competent structural fill placed and compacted. The road foundation should be re‐tested until firm.  Once the entire roadway foundation is firm it should be covered with 6 inch minus sub‐grade material placed in 12 inch lifts up to 19 inches below top of road grade. All road sub‐grade material should be compacted to 95 percent of the material’s maximum dry density and +3 percent of its optimum moisture content.  Upon the sub‐grade material 12 inches of 3 inch minus pit run gravels sub‐base material should be placed up to the base layer. All road sub‐base material should be compacted to 95 percent of the material’s maximum dry density and +3 percent of its optimum moisture content.  The base course is to consist of 3 inches of ¾ inch diameter crushed aggregate compacted.  The base course is to be covered with 4 inches of hot plant mix surface course. General Other utility recommendations are given within the general report. All newly excavated grounds are to be observed and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer that prepared the Report. The Client inherits all site conditions and work not observed and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. Construction observations and records by the Geotechnical Engineer are required. Please refer to the attached report for more detailed results of our fieldwork, engineering analyses, and recommendations. For greater understanding concerning Geotechnical Engineering Reports, please read Important Information about Your Geotechnical Report found in the Attachments. Castle Rock Geotechnical Engineering is a member of the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Thank you for using Castle Rock Geotechnical Engineering. If you have any questions regarding this report, or require our services during the construction phase of this project, please call Andrew Pilskalns at (406) 539‐8439. Sincerely, Andrew Pilskalns, PE Geotechnical Engineer Attachment: Geotechnical Report 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 4 Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Summary of Subsurface Findings ................................................................................................................................. 1 Summary of Observations & Recommendations for Residential Building Site Lots ..................................................... 2 Summary of Road Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 2 General ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 A. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 6 A.1. Project ................................................................................................................................................................... 6 A.2. Purpose of this Evaluation .................................................................................................................................... 7 A.3. Scope ..................................................................................................................................................................... 7 A.4. Test Hole Investigation (2020) .............................................................................................................................. 7 B. Field Investigation ........................................................................................................................................................ 7 B.1. Logs ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7 B.2. Geologic Conditions ............................................................................................................................................ 10 B.3. Soils ..................................................................................................................................................................... 12 B.3.a. Topsoil .......................................................................................................................................................... 14 B.3.b. Quaternary Gravels ...................................................................................................................................... 15 B.4. Groundwater Observations ................................................................................................................................. 15 B.4.a Groundwater Research .................................................................................................................................. 15 B.5. Laboratory Tests .................................................................................................................................................. 15 C. Analyses and Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 16 C.1. Proposed Construction ........................................................................................................................................ 16 C.2. Discussion/Foundation Consideration ................................................................................................................ 16 C.3. Site Preparation ................................................................................................................................................... 18 C.3.a. Clearing & Grubbing ..................................................................................................................................... 18 C.3.b. Backfill and Fill Criteria ................................................................................................................................. 19 C.4. Building Foundations ........................................................................................................................................... 19 C.4.a. Depth ............................................................................................................................................................ 19 C.4.b. Footing Sub‐Grade ........................................................................................................................................ 19 C.4.c. Bearing Pressure ........................................................................................................................................... 20 C.4.d. Anticipated Settlement ................................................................................................................................ 20 C.4.e. Reinforcement .............................................................................................................................................. 20 C.4.f. Foundation Wall Backfill ................................................................................................................................ 20 C.4.g. Seismic Design Considerations ..................................................................................................................... 20 C.5. Earth‐Supported Slab & Crawlspace ................................................................................................................... 21 C.5.a. Sub‐Grade ..................................................................................................................................................... 21 C.5.b. Fill ................................................................................................................................................................. 21 C.5.c. Backfill ........................................................................................................................................................... 21 C.5.d. Vapor Retarder and Vertical Water Protection ............................................................................................ 21 C.5.e. Leveling Course and Sub‐Grade Modulus .................................................................................................... 22 C.6. Exterior Slabs ....................................................................................................................................................... 22 C.6.a. Sub‐Grade ..................................................................................................................................................... 22 C.6.d. Bearing Pressure & Lateral Load Resistance ................................................................................................ 24 C.7. Utilities ................................................................................................................................................................ 24 C.7.a. Materials ....................................................................................................................................................... 24 C.7.b. Backfilling and Compaction .......................................................................................................................... 25 C.8. Site Grading and Drainage ................................................................................................................................... 25 C.9. Concrete .............................................................................................................................................................. 25 D. Construction ............................................................................................................................................................... 25 D.1. Excavation ........................................................................................................................................................... 25 D.2. Observations ....................................................................................................................................................... 26 D.3. Moisture Conditioning ........................................................................................................................................ 26 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 5 D.4. Testing ................................................................................................................................................................. 26 D.5. Cold Weather Construction ................................................................................................................................ 26 E. Procedures .................................................................................................................................................................. 27 E.1. Test Hole Excavation ............................................................................................................................................ 27 E.2. Soil Classification ................................................................................................................................................. 27 E.3. Groundwater Observations ................................................................................................................................. 27 F. General Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................ 28 F.1. Basis of Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 28 F.2. Review of Design ................................................................................................................................................. 28 F.3. Groundwater Fluctuations ................................................................................................................................... 28 F.4. Use of Report ....................................................................................................................................................... 28 F.5. Level of Care ........................................................................................................................................................ 29 Professional Certification ............................................................................................................................................... 29 References ...................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Definitions ...................................................................................................................................................................... 32 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 6 A. Introduction A.1. Project The work as we understand it is to perform a geotechnical investigation on the proposed new phase of development for the Lakes at Valley West Subdivision. This report is to serve as a record of geotechnical information obtained as a result of research, field observations, and field testing for the above referenced phase of the project. Preliminary recommendations made within are based upon this information as well as experience with multiple phases of this development since 2014. The geotechnical information presented within this report is to be used by the Client to make educated decisions regarding the development of the subdivisions. Recommendations for subgrade improvements of individual lots are subject to change based on grade and soil conditions observed at the time of home construction. To determine subgrade improvements per lot site investigations are recommended. The foundation design for each residential building is assumed to consist primarily of a concrete footing wall with a slab on grade and crawlspace foundation. The Property Record Card records the primary owners as Norton Properties LLC and the Subdivision as Norton East Ranch Subdivision Phase III, Plat J‐564. Note that only the east portion of the plated property was studied. The area of interest is located on the north side of West Babcock Street between Pond Lily Drive and Water Lily Drive as shown in Figure 1, Vicinity and Topographic Map. The legal description is ‘located in a portion of the Southwest ¼ of the Northeast ¼ of Section 9, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, of the Bozeman, Montana Quadrangle in Gallatin County’. The property is 4800 feet above sea level and approximately 40 acres in size. Please note the marked location shown in Figure 1 which shows the general boundary of the project and labels the property as Lakes at Valley West (South) since the project is south of the Lakes at Valley West existing development. For simplicity, the lot can be best described as being a square shape with the northwest corner clipped. The west boundary of the lot is termed the Sewer Utility Road. Figure 1 –Vicinity & Topographic Map 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 7 A.2. Purpose of this Evaluation The purpose of the geotechnical evaluation is to provide geotechnical information to assist Architects and other design professionals in preparing plans and specifications for the proposed new building sites. A.3. Scope The scope of services was outlined in the proposal. The task list is given below. The authorization to proceed was in accordance with the verbal agreement with Greg Stratton. Our scope of services was limited to the following:  Executive Summary  Limited Study of Grounds Investigation with Excavator  Subsurface Soil Conditions  Groundwater Conditions  Test Hole Logs  General Earthwork Recommendations A.4. Test Hole Investigation (2020) Test Hole (TH) locations were selected by Andrew Pilskalns, P.E., Geotechnical Engineer with Castle Rock Geotechnical Engineering. The locations are shown in Figure 2, Test Hole Map. The Test Holes are used to define the subsurface characteristics of the property located just 2 miles west of Bozeman, Montana. The test holes are used to determine the 2020 geotechnical recommendations. Additional subsurface information should be gathered at the time of construction to verify subsurface materials and conditions. Not all subsurface conditions can be seen or know until a site is unearthed; therefore geotechnical hazards or conditions cannot be ascertained until sites are completely unearthed. Revisions to the geotechnical recommendations may be made during construction if hidden subsurface materials or conditions unearthed at the time of construction are observed which have not been accounted for. The Log of Test Holes is in the Attachments at the end of this report. B. Field Investigation B.1. Logs Twenty three Test Holes, TH‐1 – TH‐23, were excavated on the lot as part of the subsurface investigation. The test holes were spatially located on the property to give the best understanding of the site. The investigation occurred on Thursday March 5th, 2020 with Scott Hardy (Sime Construction) operating a Komatsu PC 170 LC steel track excavator for excavation. The number of Test Holes used in an investigation such as this should be adequate and numerous enough to gain a fundamental understanding of subsurface conditions, to ascertain general geo‐related risks and be proportional to the value of the development. Given that each building site is a large investment to every potential property Owner, each site should have site conditions approved by a licensed professional Geotechnical Engineer during construction. 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 8 The approximate locations of the 23 test holes are shown in Figure 2, the Test Hole Map. The test holes were excavated to depths of 5 feet to 13 feet below top of existing grade at the time of this investigation. The southwest portion of the site was used for mining gravels and dumping of spoils and construction debris. Only a few test holes were completed in the area used for mining and stockpiling of grounds due to uneven, soft surfaces and mounds of dirt, access to locations and open ponds. Soils were described and visually classified utilizing the Unified Soils Classification System, (USCS). In general it could be said that the test holes were similar – a 1 to 2 foot thick topsoil horizon underlain by a 1 to 3 feet thick lean clay horizon underlain by alluvial gravels with groundwater at or 6 inches above where the alluvial gravels were encountered. The alluvial gravels are is 3 inches minus material size, round rock and gravels with pebbles and sand. Figure 2 – Test Hole Map Along the southeast portion of the site, delineated by the white boundary in Figure 2, in the vicinity of TH‐10 ‐ TH‐12, and TH‐22 and TH‐23, open pit mining and stockpiling of soils and construction debris has occurred. Recent aerial images do show the disturbance; however they are not accurate in showing the size of mining activity since they are several years old. It is our understanding that the pits will be landscaping features transformed into lakes and properties can be constructed around the perimeter of the lakes. Test Holes 10, 11 and 12 are likely in a subsurface trough filled with silt and clay. Depth to gravel was not encountered and the materials are alluvial fan deposits. Depth to gravel was over 10 feet deep in Test Holes 10, 11 and 12. In Test Holes 10 and 11 undocumented fill was 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 9 observed. It is believed that after 2014 soils were starting to be stockpiled in this open pit mining area and that mining operations were to soon follow. The alluvial gravels and pebbles found approximately 50 inches below existing grade that underlie the majority of the site are rounded from mechanical (gravitational and water forces) and weathering. Well log data shows that alluvial gravel horizons and similar alluvial deposits are from 40 to 100 feet thick. The fines are washed out of some of these gravel lenses due to what is believed high subsurface groundwater flow over time. Gaps in grading were observed and fines are estimated to be 10% or less. These soils are primarily in pockets where likely old stream channels existed. Footing grade is assumed to be 2 feet below existing grade. Castle Rock Geotechnical is not responsible for determining road surface elevations or finished floor elevations of buildings. All test hole measurements are made from the existing undisturbed top of ground surface downward prior to construction. The grounds slope downward approximately 1 to 2 percent to the south west and all streams are trending in this same direction North 30◦West. The topographic map does show that the ground is relatively flat in slope because the contour units are in 20 feet intervals. The area mined for gravel extraction appears to have a similar profile as the other grounds observed. By observations of the cut embankment around the pond, alluvial gravels were observed to be 50 inches below grade. Fines within the soils matrix make up approximately 20% or less of the soil materials. Cobbles, gravels, and sands make up the other materials. Clay and silt fines can absorb moisture, decreasing soil shear strength, which can reduce the overall embankment strength and bearing capacity of the soils. From geologic maps and well logs in the area it is hypothesized that alluvium and colluvial gravels make up the upper 50 feet of ground and deeper. No clay deposits other than mentioned were encountered in the upper 12 feet below the ground during the test hole investigation. Several grab bag samples of the alluvial soils from Test Hole 1 and 14 at 5 feet below grade (gravel foundation material) were field analyzed for shrink swell potential and found to be (NP) Non‐Plastic. The lean clays observed above the alluvial gravels were field tested and found to be from moderately to highly plastic and moist (typically above their optimum moisture content) making them very soft. Research data from the Department of Natural Resource and Conservation Services shows that the lean clay has a moderate shrink swell potential. If thick clayey horizons of soil other than those observed are encountered and logged in the 2020 field investigation additional testing should be completed to classify the soils and make recommendations based on findings. Log of Test Holes sheet(s) indicating the depth and identification of the various soil strata and water level information can be found in the Attachments at the end of this report. It should be noted the depths shown as boundaries between the strata are only approximate. The actual changes may be transitions and the depths of the changes vary between test holes. All measurements in the test holes are taken from the top of existing ground at the time of the March 2020 investigation downward. Figure 2 –Test Hole Map shows the approximate test‐hole locations within the building footprint. Geologic origins presented for the stratum recorded on the Log of Test Hole sheet are based on the soil types and available knowledge of the depositional history of the site. Because of the complex glacial and post‐glacial depositional environments, geologic origins are frequently difficult to ascertain. The limited geologic evaluation of 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 10 the site is based on research and test hole information to the depth of the ‘limited’ excavation investigation. The term ‘limited’ geo‐investigation is used because understanding of ground conditions is based on the limited depth of test holes and research. More comprehensive subsurface information and soil strength can be obtained by drilling and Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) with depth at the Owners request. See Figure 3, Test Hole Map‐Depth to Gravels to determine gravel depth at a location in the study area. Figure 3 – Test Hole Map – Depth to Gravels B.2. Geologic Conditions The property topography is described as sloping 1% downhill to the northwest. The most significant topographic feature for this proposed phase is an Baxter Creek which trends in the north‐west direction cutting through the east corner of the property. There are also a very large man made ponds centrally located on the east side of the property that has a longitudinal axis exceeding 500‐ft. The ponds do not appear on the topographic map shown in Figure 1 or Figure 4. Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (MBMG) record the geological formation of the property as Qafo – Alluvial‐ fan deposits, older than Qaf (Pleistocene). An alluvial fan is defined as an outspread, gently sloping mass of alluvium deposited by a stream, esp. in an arid or semiarid region when a stream issues from a narrow canyon onto a plain or valley floor. Viewed from above, it has the shape of an open fan, the apex being at the valley mouth (Bates, 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 11 1984). Alluvium is material deposited by a stream or running water. See Figure 4, MBMG, Geologic Map of Project Area Figure 4 – MBMG, Geologic Map of Project Area Definitions are given from Bates and Jackson, (1984) ‘Dictionary of Geologic Terms’ for the following geologic terms: Alluvium is soil or sediment “deposited by a stream or running water”. Clay is hydrous silicate minerals, essentially of aluminum. They have a monoclinic layered crystal lattice. The extremely small particle size imparts ability to absorb water and ions on the particle surface. Most clay minerals belong to the kaolin, smectite, montmorillonite and illite groups. Colluvium is soils deposited “usually at the foot of a slope, brought there chiefly by gravity”. Till is Unstratified drift, deposited directly by a glacier without reworking by meltwater and consisting of a mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and boulders and cobbles ranging widely in size and shape.” Loam is “a rich, permeable soil composed of a mixture of clay, silt, sand, and organic matter”. A cobble is “a rock fragment between 64 and 256 mm 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 12 (2.5 and 10 in.) in diameter.” A boulder is “a detached rock mass larger than a cobble, having a diameter greater than 256 mm (10 in.)”. The main subsurface geologic feature hidden nearby is the normal fault that passes through Four Corners, Montana which is about 2 miles from the project. The mapping units show that glacial lakes, gravity, water and freeze thaw cycles strongly influence the Gallatin basin development. Remnants of very old stream terraces may be found in dissected country far from any present stream. Along many old established streams lie a whole series of alluvial deposits in terraces—young deposits in the immediate flood plain, up step by step to the very old deposits on the highest terraces. In some places recent alluvium covers older terraces. B.3. Soils The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) records multiple soil units in the proposed future phase of Lakes at Valley West Subdivision. The two primary soils as mapped by the NRCS within the area of development are 510B, Medowcreek loam and 748A, Hyalite‐Beaverton complex. See Figure 5 – NRCS, Soil Map. Suitability ratings for these soils will be discussed. Suitability ratings such as dwellings with basements and without basements, risk of corrosion to both concrete and steel, and water features reports for Soil unit 510B, Medowcreek loam and 748A, Hyalite‐Beaverton complex are in the Attachments. The soils mapped by the NRCS in this 2020 Phase study of the subdivision show that the Medowcreek loam has a high risk for corrosion to steel. Therefore, buried metal is to be either stainless steel, epoxy coated, encased in polyethylene wrap or have cathodic protection. The soil units have a moderate risk of corrosion to concrete. Sulphate resistant concrete should be used. 748A, Hyalite‐Beaverton complex have a low risk to corrosion to concrete and steel. The other soil units shown on the map are in areas designated as Wet Lands and have a high risk to corrosion to metal as well. The parent material of the soil units mapped in the future Lakes at Valley West, 2020 study are loamy alluvium or alluvium associated with stream terraces or alluvial fans. Alluvium is soils deposited by water and loam is a soil mixture comprised of clay, silt and sand with organic matter. This information is congruent with field findings. Linear extensibility is a measurement of a soil’s shrink‐swell potential and is considered low if the linear extensibility is less than 3 percent, moderate for 3 to 6 percent, high if 6 to 9 percent, and very high if more than 9 percent. If linear extensibility is more than 3, shrinking and swelling can cause damage to buildings, roads, and other structures. For the soil units mapped in the vicinity of this 2020 Phase study, the linear extensibility varies from 0.00 up to 5.9. The soils within the 748A, Hyalite‐Beaverton complex are found to have some moderately expansive soils. It is recommended that all clay soils be removed because they have been found to be overly moist and soft. For the most part the soils are considered to have a low to moderate shrink swell potential and should not be used as engineered fill and only approved backfill. It would not be prudent to construct slabs or other slab elements over the top of the Hyalite Beaverton complex soils. Our analysis and understanding of the subsurface materials and conditions are only to the depth of observations made. 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 13 The Plasticity Index for the gravels that underlies the lean clays (loam) is NP, Non‐Plastic. The gravelly soils are classified as very extremely gravelly sand, USCS symbol GP. Additional testing may be completed at the time of construction as deemed necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer that prepared this report. Figure 5 – NRCS – Soil Map Most Type I, II and IV Concrete are sulphate resistant. Sulphate resistant concrete is recommended. The risk of corrosion pertains to the potential soil‐induced electrochemical or chemical action that corrodes or weakens concrete or uncoated steel. For dwellings with and without basements, the NRCS rates the suitability of the soil as “somewhat limited” due to large stones, and ‘depth to saturated zone’. To avoid all issues associated with soft loam soils and lean clay soils the recommendation is to remove them from the building footprint and to construct a solid building pad out of structural fill where finished footing elevation is above high groundwater and water elevations that may flood the crawl space. Basically, the higher the footing elevation is, the lower the risk of moisture issues to the crawl‐space of the structure. 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 14 For the proposed building on this site, it is recommended that steel structural elements in the soils be protected with coatings or have some other cathodic protection. The information from the NRCS correlates well with information for the field investigation. All of the soil’s physical and engineering properties listed above can be found in the Attachments at the end of this report. Castle Rock Geotechnical cannot assume responsibility for the effects of sensitive soils on the building beyond the depth of the “limited” study area and width of the building footprint. The report is based on best information derived from typical geotechnical methods used and project budget constraints. If a more detailed bore study is desired, please contact our office for preparing a bore study. B.3.a. Topsoil In the majority of test holes with exception of TH‐10, ‐ 12, the first material encountered was very dark loam, topsoil with organics, Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) Symbol (OL‐ML) and or (ML‐CL). This was underlain by native lean clay loam with clay and silt binder. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blows per foot “N” was estimated based on experience and difficulty of excavation. The SPT “N” blow count was estimated to be 2 or less with a clay soil consistency of “ very soft ” for the upper 50 inches of ground and “N” value of 10‐30 with a sand soil relative density of “medium” for depths greater than 50 inches below grade within the alluvial gravels. The topsoil can be used only as backfill for landscaping due to high organic content. Table 1 correlates standard penetration test results to Soil Consistency, Undrained Shear Strength and Saturated Unit Weight of the soil. Table 1 – Soil Consistence based on SPT Soil Consistency Description SPT "N" Blow count Undrained Shear Strength "c" ‐ lb/ft2 Saturated Unit Weight (pcf) Very Soft 0 ‐ 2 < 250 < 100 ‐ 110 Soft 3 ‐ 4 250 ‐ 500 100 ‐ 120 Firm 5 ‐ 8 500 ‐ 1,000 110 ‐ 125 Stiff 9 ‐ 16 1,000 ‐ 2,000 115 ‐ 130 Very Stiff 16 ‐ 32 2,000 ‐ 4,000 120 ‐ 140 Hard > 32 > 4,000 > 130 The optimum unit weight of the alluvial gravel soils with oversize correction is estimated to be 135 pcf at a moisture content of 7.0%, which correlates well with the soil consistency description. It is recommended that all topsoil be removed and stockpiled for later use. It is estimated that as much as the upper 24 inches will need to be excavated to remove all topsoil. However, shallower areas may exist. Under no circumstances is construction of subgrade improvements to occur upon topsoil or organic laden soils or soft clay. All organics from tree roots are to be “grubbed out” by excavation and removed from the building footprint. This construction process of removing topsoil, organics and roots is called clearing and grubbing. The soils profile in TH‐10 through TH‐12 was 4 feet to 6 feet of spoils overlying 2 feet of dark loam underlain by 4 to 5 feet of brown‐gray clay loam underlain by gravelly clay. These three test holes were from 10 to 13 feet deep. 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 15 B.3.b. Quaternary Gravels The topsoil, approximately 24 inches thick, is underlain by native clay soils that are underlain by alluvial gravels with either sand, clay or a silty‐clay binder. These soils have a USCS symbol of GP, GM, GC, and often contain a large number of cobbles. No horizons of clean sand were observed with depth. Excavation into these gravels was found to be difficult, which indicates they are very tightly packed. The gravels are within groundwater and can easily be disturbed; therefore excavation near the alluvial gravels is to occur carefully or when groundwater is drawn down several feet below the top of the gravel’s horizon. This stratum was given an estimated SPT “N” blow count of 10‐30 for a soil relative density of “medium”. The stiff gravels were encountered in the upper 7 feet of grounds and are assumed to continue down 40 feet or more. Groundwater was encountered near 36 to 50 inches below grade in all the test holes except TH‐10, TH‐11 and TH‐12 where groundwater was observed as deep as 10 feet below grade. Weeping of the embankments was observed in these three test holes near 55 inches below grade, indicating entrapped near surface moisture in the clay horizon. Field findings correlates well with information researched from the NRCS. B.4. Groundwater Observations Groundwater was observed in all the test holes approximately 6 inches above where the native gravels were encountered. Groundwater in TH‐10 – TH‐12 was significantly deeper due to spoils placed upon the ground. This report is not a detailed groundwater study completed over a period of time but rather, a quick evaluation based on research. B.4.a Groundwater Research Groundwater information was obtained from the Bureau of Mines and Geology, Groundwater Information Center, (GWIC) web mapper. Groundwater in this report is defined as that part of the subsurface water that is in the zone of saturation, including underground streams. It may also be interpreted as all subsurface water as distinct from surface water. The definitions are taken from Bates and Jackson, (1984) ‘Dictionary of Geologic Terms’. A well log located near the project site recorded static groundwater levels ranging 40 feet below ground surface. Stratigraphy of well logs within the same geologic unit was researched to better understand where subsurface soil units begin and end. The log of GWIC Well Id: 103496, located south of the project lot, shows topsoil underlain by 86 feet of clay bound gravels and chipped rock underlain by 59 feet of shale underlain by sandstone and shale rock sequences down to 400 feet below well casing. Depth of alluvial gravels will vary. The stratigraphy of the well logs described is congruent with MBMG’s description of alluvial deposited geologic units and observations made onsite. The well logs described can be found in the Attachments at the end of this report. B.5. Laboratory Tests Laboratory testing of the soils was not deemed necessary due to ‘in situ’ soil conditions, knowledge of the soils from previous projects in the vicinity, and the similarities of soils observed in the test holes. The optimum moisture content for the poorly graded native gravels is assumed to be 7.0 percent. It is recommended that all spoils used as 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 16 backfill be placed at +3 percent moisture content. The desired dry density of the backfill is 95 percent of its maximum dry density. It is recommended that all imported processed 3 inch minus pit run gravels be compacted to approximately 135 pcf. Additional testing may be requested by the Client if they would like to determine the use of either native soils or stockpiled spoils that exist on the property. C. Analyses and Recommendations C.1. Proposed Construction It is assumed that the proposed residential building(s) will be both single and two‐story structures with an earth supported concrete footing, stem wall with crawl‐space foundation and garage with concrete slab on grade. Castle Rock Geotechnical does not determine finished floor elevations. The finished grounds around the outside of the building should have positive drainage. Positive drainage is defined as grounds sloped 5% for the first 10 feet on all sides of the building to prevent flooding of the foundation as prescribed in the 2018 International Building Code. Exceptions are areas that have impermeable surfaces such as concrete pads and paved drives, etc. These surfaces can be sloped 2% positive drainage away from the building. No water is to be allowed to pond within the first 15 feet of the building. All backfill is to be free of boulders and consist of 3 inch minus native gravels. No gravels greater than 3 inches in size are to be placed around the building as backfill. The native materials are alluvial fan deposits and have slow to high permeability rates so care must be taken to remove all oversized rock. The assumed loading is as follows: (1) wall loads will be 1 to 2.5 kips per linear foot, (2) interior column loads will be between 30 and 40 kips and exterior column loads will be between 20 and 40 kips, and (3) distributed floor loads will be 150 psf. If the proposed loads exceed these values, finished grades differ by more than 1 foot from the assumed value, or if there are changes to the design, our office is to be informed. Additional analyses and recommendations may be necessary. These assumptions are based on groundwater not being within 24 inches of the bottom of footing. C.2. Discussion/Foundation Consideration Based on the field investigation, and subsurface soil and conditions the following recommendations should be considered. Structural fill will be 1 inch diameter washed gravels and 3 inch minus pit run gravels. The structural fill is to be properly placed on approved alluvial gravels as recommended. Each building will require this structural pad with finished footing elevation above high groundwater. (Structural fill for any other need on this project can be either on‐site processed, 3 inch minus pit run gravels containing less than 10% non‐plastic fines and/or imported 3 inch minus pit run gravels.)  The building footprint should be cleared and grubbed with all deleterious materials, organics and topsoil being removed. Topsoil should be salvaged, removing large rocks and high density organics and used as landscaping backfill. Topsoil, should be used as landscaping fill only on the exterior of the building once primary backfill has been completed. The topsoil horizon is of very high quality and will make for excellent landscaping backfill. 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 17  Based on our findings and experience it is recommended that within a building’s footprint the site be excavated down to native alluvial (non‐plastic) gravels. Groundwater may or may not exist during site development depending upon time of the year or diversion practices.  All lean clay soils can be used as backfill next to the building once the concrete has properly cured and sufficiently strong. The native lean clay soils used as backfill should be free of gray clay ( if any is encountered) and placed at its optimum moisture content + 3 percent and compacted to 95 percent of its maximum dry density.  If possible all native alluvial gravels within the building footprint should be compacted and approved by the geotechnical engineer. If groundwater is present it can be temporarily pumped and controlled so that ground improvements can be constructed. Groundwater should be pumped 6 inches below where the native alluvial gravels are encountered. If groundwater is present the native alluvial gravel should not be compacted unless groundwater is lowered 2 feet below where the native alluvial gravels are first encountered. Dewater should be continuous during the construction of ground improvements or contact the GeoEngineer for alternate recommendations.  Based on current groundwater elevation it is recommended that for individual building footprints washed gravel be placed in the building footprint in 12 inch lifts, vibratory plate compacted 1 foot above groundwater.  Once placed the washed rock is to be covered with 18 inches of 3‐inch minus non‐plastic pit run gravels containing less than 10% non‐plastic fines. Engineered fill and Structural fill are interchangeable within the report and defined as 1 inch diameter washed rock or imported 3‐inch minus non‐plastic pit run gravels containing less than 10% non‐plastic fines.  Footing grade should be a minimum 20 inches above high groundwater.  Minimum footing depth and width recommended for single level residential buildings are 8 x 16 inches, with a net allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 lbs/ft². See Figure 6, Typical Crawl Space Foundation  Minimum footing depth and width recommended for two level structures proposed are 8 x 18 inches, with a net allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 lbs/ft².  The total anticipated settlement is less than 1‐inch.  Typical concrete footing, stem‐walls, slabs foundations, crawl‐space is recommended.  Full basement homes require additional geotechnical considerations. Contact the Geotechnical Engineer for further consultation. 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 18  The foundation footing and slab are to bear upon a raft of structural fill and imported processed washed gravels.  It is recommended that all foundation stem walls be insulated. Rigid foam reflective insulation that does not absorb moisture should be used on the interior of the crawlspace or framed basement. Rigid score board, XPS foam insulation or Architectural‐board that does not absorb water (or equivalent) should be used. All rigid insulation used on the exterior should be protected with metal flashing to a depth of 6 inches into the ground and should be reflective coated. It is the Contractor’s responsibility to ensure that exterior insulation does not interfere with waterproofing membrane adhesive and materials.  Spread footings for 1‐story buildings should bear minimum 3‐feet below finished grade for frost protection, as required by the Montana State Code. Based on typical construction methods the combination of concrete foundation footing and wall height is typically 42 inches.  Based on groundwater elevations, no footing drains can be installed since there is no place to discharge individual drain system. Ensuring the footing grade is above high groundwater and having a waterproof interior polyethylene barrier installed in the crawl space will ensure moisture protection of the underside of the structure.  To achieve proper grading around the building after the exterior walls have been backfilled, native soils can be placed, moisture conditioned, and compacted. It must be remembered that all backfill placed next to the walls has to be processed native 3 inch minus gravels or imported 3 inch minus gravels. Based on the results of the soil test holes, it is our opinion the native gravel soils found from 38 inches to 55 below grade are stiff and can receive structural fill as designed within. Once the building pad is constructed to the engineer’s specification the structural fill is suitable for spread footing foundations or isolated column loads. Surface flooding during excavation work is to be avoided with diversion ditches as needed. No water is to be allowed to pond or pool within a building site during construction. Dewatering may be necessary for each residential construction project. C.3. Site Preparation C.3.a. Clearing & Grubbing It is recommended that the topsoil horizon be removed from the excavation footprint. The excavation footprint is defined as the area of the building and the first 3 feet horizontally around the perimeter of the structure. Topsoil from the excavation may be recovered and used as non‐structural fill and landscaping as approved by the geotechnical engineer. All trees with roots are to be grubbed out of the building footprint. No footings should be constructed upon roots. All construction excavation and associated worker safety are the responsibility of the Contractor in accordance with current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 19 Based on the predominant soil types encountered during the field investigation, construction activities are to adhere to Type C, non‐cohesive strength soil conditions, in accordance with OSHA regulations, 1:1 embankment (See Section F of OSHA Regulations for slopes of wet soils). Beneath footings and structural columns, sub‐excavation is to extend down to native gravels and be replaced with compacted structural backfill. All critical exterior slabs will require frost protection such as polystyrene foam insulation to reduce the effects of frost heave. Isolated critical non‐heated exterior slabs are to be constructed upon structural fill with insulation under the entire slab and extend 5 inches from the slab on all sides. A vapor barrier is recommended under all interior slabs or some other form of water block. C.3.b. Backfill and Fill Criteria One inch diameter washed rock will be used as structural fill under the footings and slab. One‐quarter inch crushed rock can be used as a leveling course under slabs. This is also termed as structural fill material under slabs. Approved soils processed to remove all rock greater than 3 inch can be used as an engineered fill for non‐structural elements such as road fill, site grading fill and other projects elements such as based material for sidewalk, parking lots and site grading material. All such fill is to be 3 inch minus material, free of debris, organics, and large cobbles and boulders. Architectural landscaping does not require the large rock to be removed. Boulders are defined as rock 10 inches in diameter and larger. All backfill against the building is to consist of 3‐inch minus native gravel, processed. Non‐structural backfill will be defined as native spoils processed as 3 inch minus pit run gravels containing less than 10 percent non‐plastic fines. All non‐structural fill is to be compacted to 95 percent of the soils maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D‐698 (Standard Proctor) and moisture conditioned to +3 percent of the soils optimum moisture content. Washed rock is to be placed in maximum 12 inch lifts and vibratory plate compacted and moisture treated to reduce dust. C.4. Building Foundations C.4.a. Depth It is recommended footings bear a minimum of 4 feet below exterior grades for frost protection or utilize some type of water proof, reflective insulation for frost protection as required by 2018 International Building Code (2018 IBC). Interior footings in heated buildings may be placed immediately beneath the slabs, provided they bear on sub‐grade soils as described below. C.4.b. Footing Sub‐Grade It is recommended spread footings bear on smooth, level compacted 3 inch minus pit run gravels. All grounds prior to placing structural fil are to be level and smooth with all voids filled. Disturbed native pit run soils will be re‐ compacted prior to placing structural fill. It is recommended all existing soil be removed from beneath proposed footings and slabs and an oversized zone extending 3 feet (horizontal) beyond the outer edge of footings vertically down to native gravels. Deep excavations 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 20 will have to be benched according to OSHA regulations as given within. Sub‐excavation will extend down to native pit run soils with structural fill placed up to the desired footing grade after the newly excavated ground is compacted, level and smooth. All roots and organic debris are to be grubbed out from the building footprint. The Geo‐Engineer is to approve the grounds prior to placing materials. Upon the engineer’s approval the ground can be covered with structural fill. Structural fill is defined as 1 inch diameter washed rock to be placed in 12 inches compacted thickness. It is recommended that all washed rock be compacted in two directions twice with a vibratory plate compactor. Compaction of structural fill should not destroy existing work. Once compacted 3 inch minus pit run gravels can be moisture treated and placed up to footing grade in 12 inch lifts and compacted to specification. All newly excavated surfaces and placed fill are to be approved by the engineering firm that has prescribed the recommendations and those not approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineering firm that has prepared the recommendations are inherited by the Owner and Contractor. C.4.c. Bearing Pressure It is our opinion two story structures with footings placed on structural fill as described above may be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure up to 2,500 lbs/ft2. (Net allowable bearing pressure is defined as that bearing pressure in excess of the final minimum overburden pressure.) See Figure 6, Typical Crawlspace Detail. C.4.d. Anticipated Settlement It is anticipated that total settlement of foundations designed and placed as recommended above will be less than 1 inch under the assumed loads. C.4.e. Reinforcement Sufficient reinforcing steel should be placed in the foundation walls to span isolated zones where foundation support could be lost due to localized settlement, heave of the soils, or installation of subsurface utilities. This will also reduce the widths of cracks created by shrinkage of the concrete and local settlement and heave of the soils. The amount of reinforcing should be determined by the project structural engineer. Sulphate resistant concrete is typically standard practice. C.4.f. Foundation Wall Backfill The native pit run soils are to be approved by the engineer prior to placement of non‐structural fill. The on‐site clay loam, (not topsoil) may be used as backfill if properly conditioned and compacted to 95% of the soils optimum dry density and + 3 percent of the soils optimum moisture content. For garage slabs it is recommended that imported structural fill be placed once all clays are removed. The levels of the exterior and interior backfills should not differ by more than 10 inches during placement or the walls should be braced, otherwise the foundation walls may be displaced or crack. Backfill is to be placed when walls are adequately strong and properly cured. C.4.g. Seismic Design Considerations Based on the results of our subsurface investigation and review of available geologic information, it is anticipated that the upper 100‐foot profile is comprised of sedimentary deposits of clays, silts, sands, soft bedrock of gravels and 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 21 shale horizons. Therefore, it is recommended to use Site Class "E" (firm soil profile) as defined by the 2018 International Building Code for design. The intermountain seismic belt is a zone with major ground shaking potential. The Bozeman area and surrounding mountains is part of this seismic zone. Seismic activity is possible in the Greater Rocky Mountain Region, which stretches from Canada to Utah with Montana in the middle. Montana is subject to significant seismic activity, and the study site is located in the Intermountain Seismic Belt (ISB). Two of the largest recorded earthquakes in the Northern Rocky Mountains occurred in the Centennial Seismic Belt, a part of the ISB. These were the August 18th, 1959 Hebgan Lake, Montana, earthquake (M ‐ 7.5), and the October 28th, 1983 Borah Peak, Idaho, earthquake (M ‐ 7.3). Based on the interactive fault map provided by the Earthquake Hazards Program website offered by the USGS, Quaternary Age faults are not located within 15 miles of the project. C.5. Earth‐Supported Slab & Crawlspace C.5.a. Sub‐Grade It is recommended that all existing topsoil be removed. Good load bearing gravels are present below the topsoil and clay loam. Therefore, it is estimated that approximately 3 feet or more of structural fill will be needed to achieve the desired footing grade above high groundwater and additional fill, 4 feet to bring up the ground to slab grade. If structural fill is needed, it is recommended to consist of 1 inch diameter washed rock or imported 3 inch minus pit run gravels containing less than 10% non‐plastic fines. C.5.b. Fill It is estimated that a minimum 2 to 3 feet of structural fill will be required and placed on native alluvial gravels to bring up the ground to footing grade. However, if additional structural fill is needed for some other use it should be imported 3 inch minus pit run gravels or fill approved by the Engineer. It is recommended that 3 inch minus structural fill materials be moistened to a moisture content of +3% of optimum, then compacted to a minimum of 97 percent of its standard Proctor maximum dry density. If 1 inch minus rock is used moisture conditioning is not required; however vibratory plate compaction is required with rock lifts no greater than 12 inches in thickness. All washed rock should be plate compacted. A minimum of 4 inches of ½ inch diameter frost free gravels (leveling or choker course) is required under all slabs. C.5.c. Backfill It is recommended that backfill in footings and mechanical trenches is moistened to moisture content +3% of optimum and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its standard Proctor maximum dry density. All backfill is assumed to be native, 3 inch minus alluvial sandy gravels with some silt and clay that is properly moisture conditioned and screened. C.5.d. Vapor Retarder and Vertical Water Protection 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 22 It is recommended a vapor retarder/barrier (polyethylene) be placed directly upon the crawl space floor or under the concrete slab. (Some coverings, coatings, or situations may require a vapor barrier, i.e., a membrane with a permeance less than 0.01 perm.). Under slab (horizontal) water tight seam sealed 6 mil thickness polyethylene barrier is to be used; which is continuous and permanently attached 12 inches above the interior foundation footing onto the concrete wall. Manufacturer’s equivalents or equals products may be substituted. The Contractor should be responsible for installing a water tight moisture barrier in the crawl space of residential building and under slabs so that moisture does not adversely affect any wood or other construction material of the building. The 6 mil vapor retarder/barrier is to be seam sealed water tight and it can be placed over the entire crawl space and mechanically or chemically welded (bonded) to the foundation crawlspace walls complying with all safety for human occupancy requirements. A continuous water tight vapor barrier is recommended under all slabs. See Figure 6. If a more robust water block is used directly under a slab or blindside water proofing is used in basements etc., the 6 mil polyethylene barrier is not required. C.5.e. Leveling Course and Sub‐Grade Modulus It is recommended that a leveling course beneath the floor slabs, preferably consisting of ½‐inch crushed, frost free base course, be provided. (Actual selection of the leveling course should be determined by the architect/civil engineer). Assuming a minimum of 4 inches of crushed base leveling course is provided, it is our opinion a modulus of sub‐grade reaction, k, of 350 pounds per square inch per inch of deflection (pci) may be used to design the floor. C.6. Exterior Slabs C.6.a. Sub‐Grade Non‐critical exterior slabs may be supported on existing native gravel fill after all topsoil, organics and soft clay have been removed. The Contractor assumes all risk and liability if clay is not removed under slabs. Non‐critical slabs require structural fill and a final 3‐inches of ¾‐inch diameter washed rock for leveling. Critical exterior slabs, such as those at entrances, require some additional sub‐grade frost preparation as described previously and as below. Non‐ critical slabs built upon native clay soils are subject to freeze thaw and shrink‐swell affects and will have very poor performance over time and likely fail quickly. C.6.b. Backfill and Fill Critical slabs require placement of structural fill followed by 4‐inches of ½‐inch diameter washed rock. Backfill and fill beneath proposed exterior slabs and their oversize zones should be placed in lifts and at moisture content +3% of optimum. It is recommended that all fill and backfill beneath exterior slabs be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its standard Proctor maximum dry density. C.6.c. Frost Protection of Critical Slabs Heaving of foundation elements and slabs during the winter are a hazard and a nuisance especially where doors open outward and at other critical grade areas. If the foundation is constructed to have a crawl space or footings, wall, and slab, it is recommended that the interior walls are insulated with R‐12 or greater water protected XPS polystyrene. Basically any insulation that gets wet loses its ability to insulate and can become a very costly problem 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 23 to remove and replace. Other issues may arise such as mold that can cause health issues. Insulation used in the basement or crawlspace should be projected from getting wet. Figure 6 – Typical Crawl Space Foundation For critical slab frost protection the following methods can be applied. Excavate the footprint of the slab and 4 feet beyond the slab. If a slab abuts a building it cannot be in direct contact because this would cause cold bridging. Vertical water proof insulation will have to separate the slab from the foundation wall. Ten inches of vertical excavation below the slab is required. The base is compacted and made level and smooth with a minimum 2% slope for positive drainage as prescribed by the 2018 International Building Code (2108 IBC). The water proof insulation can be placed directly onto the ground lying flat and smooth and extend 36 inches past the slab. The insulation is to be covered with 4 inches of ½ inch diameter washed rock. The washed rock and insulation will reduce frost penetration into the underlying sub‐grade, utilize the heat of the ground and thereby reduce heave. The leveling course of pea gravel (frost free gravel) is generally required to seat the insulation panels. A minimum of 5 inches of crushed road base material should be placed over the panels to protect them during construction. The slab can be placed directly on the ½ inch minus gravel. Native topsoil can be placed over the remainder of the pea gravel and compacted with a hand tapper. 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 24 C.6.d. Bearing Pressure & Lateral Load Resistance It is our opinion footings placed as described above may be designed for an allowable bearing pressure up to 2,000 lbs/ft2 for footing dimension of 8 inches thick x 16 inches wide for single level homes. The allowable bearing pressure is 2,500 lbs/ft2 for footing dimension of 8 inches thick x 18 inches wide for two level homes. All footings must be a minimum 18 inches away from HIGH groundwater levels. Lateral Load Resistance: Footing drains cannot be installed as prescribed to reduce hydrostatic pressure on structures since there is no place to drain them and in periods of flooding the drain may bring water quicker to undesirable areas. It is assumed that the structure(s) will have a crawl space type foundation. To prevent water issues it is recommended that the building be elevated above high groundwater and flooding. All foundation walls are assumed to be fixed at the top. Both the passive and frictional resistance of the foundation can be assumed to act concurrently. The Structural Engineer may neglect the weight of the foundation and backfill when determining dead loads. When calculating resistance to vertical dead loads the coefficient of friction of the aggregate upon which the foundation is constructed is 0.40 and a passive equivalent fluid pressure of 500 pcf. For short‐period loading from wind or seismic loads allowable bearing pressures may be increased by one‐quarter. Lateral Earth Pressures coefficients for Processed native 3 inch minus structural fill & 1” diam. washed rock: (1) The active, Ka ‐ 0.31 and an equivalent fluid pressure is 35 pcf. (2) The passive, Kp – 3.20 and an equivalent fluid pressure of 500 pcf. (3) At rest, Ko ‐ .41 and an equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pcf. (Non‐sloped condition) Lateral Earth pressures coefficients for Imported 3 inch minus structural fill will be the same as given for the processed native soils. C.7. Utilities C.7.a. Materials The potential for sulfate attack is low or negligible and conventional Type II cement may be used according to Table 1904.3 of the 2018 IBC. The soils located on site are rated as having a moderate potential to corrode. It is recommended that crushed gravel road base with a maximum particle size of 3/4 inch or ½ inch be used as bedding material. On‐site soils from the trench excavations can be used as backfill above the bedding if properly conditioned and placed at 95% of the soils maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 698. Utility depths are assumed to be less than 10 feet. The embankment profile consists of non‐plastic granular materials which will require OSHA trenching, and bracing requirements for Type C apply. In addition, native soils are 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 25 not suitable for direct bedding and pipe support. Below 10 feet, rocky soils may be present that may require sub‐ excavation and replacement with Montana Public Works Standards and Specifications, MPWSS, Type II bedding. C.7.b. Backfilling and Compaction It is recommended that bedding material be thoroughly compacted around the pipes. It is recommended that trench backfill above the bedding be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent beneath proposed footings, slabs, and pavements. Backfilling around and above utilities should meet the requirements of MPWSS. C.8. Site Grading and Drainage It is recommended that the site be graded to provide positive run‐off away from the proposed building. It is recommended that landscaped areas have a slope of at least 5 percent for the first 15 feet away from the building, then 2 percent to carry run‐off away. To maintain this slope, it is essential that backfill against the foundation walls be adequately compacted. If it is not adequately compacted and stiff, the exterior foundation wall backfill will likely consolidate, settle or experience subsidence and water may pond and soak into the soil, causing settlement and future water issues. All finished grades are to be covered with a minimum 1 foot thick lift of low permeable topsoil that will prevent the easy absorption of water into the grounds around the building. Landscape features such as barriers with washed rock that will entrap surface water are not to be placed around the building drip irrigation and plants shrubs and trees are not recommended within 5 feet of the building unless in completed isolated growing units where root penetration will not damage the soils or foundation supporting the building. No permeable landscaped surfaces are to be within 10 feet of the building. C.9. Concrete It is recommended that cement meeting the requirements of ASTM C 150 Type II be used to provide moderate resistance to sulfate attack. It is recommended specifying 5 to 7 percent entrained air for exposed concrete to provide resistance to freeze‐thaw deterioration. It is recommended a water‐cement ratio of 0.50 or less be used for exposed concrete and a water‐cement ratio of 0.45 or less for concrete exposed to deicers. D. Construction D.1. Excavation It is our opinion the soils encountered during our field investigation can be excavated with a steel track‐excavator. The test holes indicate medium firm gravel deposits near 50 inches below grade. See Figure 3, Test Hole Log ‐ Depth to Gravels, to determine depth of gravels in th vicinity of a particular location in the new Phase. Soils in the footing excavation will be Type C soils under Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines. Existing fill will be Type B. All earthwork and construction should be performed in accordance with OSHA guidelines. Dewatering during infra‐structure construction will be necessary. For residential home construction it may or may not be required depending on several factors at the time of construction. The geotechnical engineer should be consulted for each site on how to proceed with residential construction dewatering. It is recommended that flow‐on the site during excavation not be allowed. Road ditches, spoil piles, and diversion ditches are to be in place to 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 26 prevent stormwater flow onto the site. A construction dewatering permit may not be required during residential construction if proper construction methods are adhered to. Montana Law requires a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for infrastructure development. Castle Rock Geotechnical is a SWPPP Administrator and our office can be contacted to assist in providing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan if needed. The pollution prevention plan implements measures such as constructing accesses from 3 inch minus pit run gravels to prevent soil debris, fines from going onto public roadways and washing into road storm water gutters and natural bodies of water and rivers. D.2. Observations All newly excavated ground and subgrade improvements are to be observed and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer who prepared the report and recommendations, prior to footing construction. All grounds and conditions and subgrade improvements not observed and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer in writing will be inherited by the Owner. Castle Rock Geotechnical is not responsible for unapproved work. The removal of topsoil and any undesirable material from beneath proposed building footprints is also to be verified by the engineer. D.3. Moisture Conditioning On site native soils that will be excavated and reused as backfill appeared to be well above the soil’s optimum moisture content. It is anticipated that it will be necessary to dry them out or during hot months, moisture condition these soils to achieve the desired optimum moisture content. It is anticipated that imported fill and backfill materials will be below the soil’s optimum moisture content and additional moisture will be necessary to achieve the desired moisture content near or slightly above optimum. All native or imported soils used as backfill are to be tested for moisture content and density when installed. D.4. Testing Density tests of fills and backfills placed beneath footings, slabs, and pavement should be completed however not required if proper equipment is implemented and compacting as prescribed within. It is recommended that density testing be conducted on the compacted pavement, sub‐base, sub‐grade, and gravel base courses. All density tests are to be completed with certified Troxler 3411‐B nuclear gauges with 8‐inch rod or equivalent. It is recommended that slump, temperature, air content, and strength tests on Portland cement concrete be performed. Samples of proposed backfill and fill materials should be submitted to our testing laboratory at least 5 days prior to placement on the site for evaluation and determination of their optimum moisture contents and maximum dry densities. All backfill placed that is not properly compacted is inherited by the Contractor. It is recommended that density testing of the asphaltic concrete pavement be performed (cores and nuclear density gauge). The maximum density of the asphaltic concrete mix should be determined by ASTM D 2041 (Rice). It is also recommended that Marshall tests of the asphalt mix be performed to evaluate strength and air voids. D.5. Cold Weather Construction If site grading and construction is anticipated during cold weather, it is recommended that good winter construction practices be observed. All snow and ice is to be removed from cut and fill areas prior to additional grading. No fill 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 27 should be placed on soils that are frozen or contain frozen material. No frozen soils are to be used as fill. The Contractor should be prepared to protect the site from freezing and/or flooding. Concrete delivered to the site should meet the temperature requirements of ASTM C 94. The concrete should meet all specifications strengths as prescribed or set forth by the Structural Engineer such as slump, water content, and air entrapment and for any additional additives that may be required. Concrete is not to be placed on frozen soils or soils that contain frozen material. Concrete is to be protected from freezing until the specified strength is attained. Frost should not be permitted to penetrate below footings bearing on frost‐susceptible soil since such freezing could heave and crack the footings and/or foundation walls. All concrete should have a minimum (2) cylinder samples for every 150 cubic yards of concrete placed (more may be required by the Structural Engineer) with concrete sampled by a trained professional adhering to the following ASTM requirements for Concrete Test Cylinders. Please reference:  ASTM C 31, Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Field  ASTM C 39, Standard Test Method For Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens  ASTM C 172, Standard Practice for Sampling Freshly Mixed Concrete  ASTM C 617, Standard Practice for Capping Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. Concrete cylinders can be tested at 28 days for compressive strength to determine it meets the requirement of the specified strength for the job. E. Procedures E.1. Test Hole Excavation The investigation occurred on Thursday March 5th, 2020 with Scott Hardy (Sime Construction) operating a Komatsu PC 170 LC steel track excavator for excavation. Observations of the embankment profiles were conducted in accordance with standard geotechnical engineering practices. Excavation proved to be without incident once the test hole locations were located by the Engineer. Additional excavated bore holes may be necessary during construction as deemed necessary by the Client or the Geotechnical Engineer. E.2. Soil Classification Andy Pilskalns, P.E. visually and manually classified the soils encountered in the test holes in accordance with ASTM D 2488, “Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual‐Manual Procedures).” A summary of the ASTM classification system is attached. E.3. Groundwater Observations Several of the test holes were left open for over one hour after excavation. This allowed ample time for any existing groundwater to enter and stabilize. Groundwater did appear to rise 2 inches higher than what was noticed at the time the hole was excavated. Based on research of existing wells in the vicinity of the project site, static groundwater is found from 3 to just over 4 feet below existing grade. If excavation occurs during spring runoff 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 28 groundwater could rise a foot, this scenario is highly probable. The test holes were backfilled after final observations were made. F. General Recommendations F.1. Basis of Recommendations The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon observations obtained from the excavation of test holes performed at the locations shown in Figure 2. Often, variations occur between these test holes, the nature and extent of which do not become evident until additional exploration or construction is conducted. A reevaluation of the recommendations in this report should be made after performing on‐site observations during construction to note the characteristics of any variations. The variations may result in additional foundation costs, and it is suggested a contingency be provided for this purpose. Please contact our office to perform observations during the construction phase of this project. This will allow correlation of the soil conditions encountered during construction to the test hole logs, and will provide continuity of professional responsibility. F.2. Review of Design This report is based on the design of the proposed structure as related to us for preparation of this report. Please contact our office to review the geotechnical aspects of the designs and specifications. With the review, our office will evaluate whether any changes in design have affected the validity of the recommendations, and whether our recommendations have been correctly interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications. F.3. Groundwater Fluctuations Water level observations were made in the test holes at the time of the field investigation, stated on the report. The period of observation was relatively short, and fluctuation in the groundwater level may occur due to rainfall, flooding, irrigation, spring thaw, drainage, and other seasonal and annual factors not evident at the time the observations were made. Design drawings and specifications and construction planning should recognize the possibility of fluctuations and surface flooding. The geologic unit is defined as ‘Alluvial Fan Deposits.’ These deposits may consist of covered hidden ancient stream beds where water can quickly flow through during spring runoff. The building foundation will act as a dam if constructed unbeknownst near an old channel. Erring on the side of caution would be best practice, which is building above high groundwater. F.4. Use of Report This report is for the exclusive use of The Lakes at Valley West Bozeman, LLC, and Castle Rock Geotechnical Engineering, to use for designing the proposed structure and preparing construction documents. In the absence of our written approval, we make no representation and assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 29 The data, analyses, and recommendations may not be appropriate for other structures or purposes. It is recommended that parties contemplating other structures or purposes contact us. Castle Rock Geotechnical Engineering cannot assume responsibility or liability for any of the recommendations within, subgrade conditions, materials used, and construction work, or performance of materials that are not observed, tested, and recorded by the Engineer that prepared this report. F.5. Level of Care Services performed by Castle Rock Geotechnical Engineering for this project have been conducted with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in this area under similar budget and time restraints. The successful completion of the geotechnical engineering of this project is dependent on continued professional geotechnical services to ensure the proper interpretation and intentions of the recommendations herein and to observe the construction phases of the design (earthwork, foundation, site grading). Castle Rock Geotechnical Engineering Inc. is not responsible for quality of “Others” work or interpretation of the recommendations; furthermore no warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Castle Rock Geotechnical is a member of the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). To better understand how geotechnical reports are to be interpreted please read Important Information about Your Geotechnical Report found in the Attachments provided by GBA. Professional Certification I hereby certify this report was prepared by me and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Montana. Andrew Pilskalns, PE Geotechnical Engineer CASTLE ROCK GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INC. 9 Cedar Lake Drive Butte, Montana 59701 CONTACT INFORMATION C: (406) 539‐8439 O: (406) 209‐5573 andy@castlerockerc.com elise@castlerockerc.com Licensed – Montana, Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Wyoming, Hawaii, Nevada 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 30 ATTACHMENTS References Definitions USCS Soil Classification Chart Property Card Log of Test Holes NRCS Soil Data Important Information about Your Geotechnical Engineering Repot 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 31 References Bates, R.L., and Jackson, J.A. 1984. Dictionary of Geological Terms. American Geological Institute. Anchor Books, New York, 571 p. Google Earth 6.2.9200.0. (July 19, 2014) (November 20, 2011) (August 10, 2009) (July 21, 2005) (August 11, 1995). Big Sky, Montana. 45.267311˚, ‐111.284837˚, Eye alt 9907 ft. Borders and labels; roads; 3D buildings. < http://www.google.com/earth/index.html>. Accessed February 22, 2016. Susan M. Vuke, Jeffery D. Lonn, Richard B. Berg, and Christopher J Schmidt V.S, 2014, Geologic Map of Bozeman 30’ x 60’ Quadrangles Southwestern Montana, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open‐File Report 648, Scale 1:24,000. Lindeburg, M.R., 1999, Civil Engineering Reference Manual for the PE Exam, Seventh Edition: Professional Publications, Inc., Belmont, 35‐19 p. Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Montana Groundwater Information Center Webpage. Available online at http://mbmggwic.mtech.edu/. Accessed March 18, 2019. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed April 03, 2020. 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 32 Definitions To assist the reader in understanding site conditions at a point in time, several definitions have been prepared. The terms include pre‐development, development, and post‐development grades. Other important terms and definitions are listed below. Unified Soil Classification System (USCS): USCS is a soil classification system used in engineering and geology to describe the texture and grain size of soils. Soil: a sediment or other accumulation of mineral particles produced by the physical or chemical disintegration of rock, plus the air, water, organic matter, and other substances that may be included. Soils are a foundation material upon which structures bear. Alluvium (Holocene)—Light gray to light brown gravel, sand, silt, and clay deposited in stream and river channels, on their floodplains, and on low terraces as much as about 6 m (20 ft) above modern streams and rivers. Moderately sorted to well sorted. Larger clasts subangular to well rounded. Composition varies, but includes clasts of Archean metamorphic rocks, Precambrian orthoquartzite, Paleozoic limestone and quartzite, vein quartz, and volcanic rocks. Clasts of some small streams originating in Tertiary uplands are dominantly granule size and smaller, and may include rip‐up clasts. Pre‐development grade: The topography of the property as observed during this investigation, prior to installation of infrastructure or commencement of additional earthwork activities. The attached soil test logs (test pit) are reflective of the pre‐development grade. Development grade: The topography of the property after installation of infrastructure and general earthwork activities. Post‐Development grade: The grades of the ground after homes are constructed and backfilled on a property. Overburden/Spoils: Soils that are disturbed by construction activities; including soils that have been placed upon undisturbed ground surfaces. Examples for this site are soils consisting of dark brown silt loam with organics, dark brown sandy gravels, mottled silt, clay loam, and non‐plastic sandy gravels. Topsoil: Native soil material consisting of dark brown silt loam with a high amount of organics; usually undisturbed ground’s first soil horizon. Topsoil remnants have been observed under spoils across the property. Lot subgrade improvements: Geotechnical recommendations given regarding the development of each residential lot for the benefit of the Builder. Road subgrade improvements: Geotechnical recommendations given regarding the development of subdivision road. Structural Fill: Soil upon which structural elements such as footings, sonotubes, slabs, etc. may be constructed upon. Two different types of material may be used as structural fill: imported 3‐inch minus (well graded) pit run gravels with less than 10% non‐plastic fines as described in Table 3 of this report, or 1 inch diameter washed rock. Other types of gravels and sand mixtures, USCS soil classification symbol – GP or GW may be used as approved structural fill if approved by the GeoEngineer upon request. Road Fill: Soils used to build the road section upon which may include: 3‐inch minus (well graded) pit run gravels with less than 10% non‐plastic fines See Table 3 Report. 1½ minus, 94‐100 passing 1” sieve, 45‐80 passing ½”sieve, 25‐60 passing No.4 sieve, 25‐55, passing No.10 sieve. ¾ inch minus, 40‐70% passing No. 4 sieve, 2‐10%, 25‐55% passing No. 10 Sieve & 2‐10% passing No. 200 sieve. 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 33 Asphaltic Concrete Aggregate – MT Public Works Specification Sieve Size ‐ Type B grading Requirements Sieve Size % Passing ¾” 100 ½” 80‐100 3/8” 70‐90 No.4 45‐65 No. 10 32‐45 No. 40 15‐25 No. 200 4‐10 Building Footprint: The entire heated area of the foundation and three feet beyond (horizontally) including garage and covered porches. Road Footprint: width and length of subbase and aggregate footprint (extend a minimum one foot horizontally beyond curb and gutter) for city rural and collector roads as defined by MPW road sections. Soil Pumping: Movement of soils under load due to excess pore water pressure in the soils. Excavation footprint: The building foundation footprint plus an additional 3‐feet horizontal around the perimeter. (sometimes interchangeable with Building Footprint) Settlement: is the result of consolidation of soils. Subsidence: is the sudden sinking of soils or gradual downward settlement with little or no horizontal movement. 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 34 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 35 Log of Test Holes – Page 1 Test Hole 1 USDA Classification Horizon Thickness Groundwater Depth OL, ML –Topsoil 1’‐6” ‐ CL – Brown Lean Clay Loam*3’‐0” 4’0” GP –Gravel w/Sand unknown * Portable static cone penetration tests record the native lean clay loam soils to be soft, 1/8 tonx/sqft. Test Hole 2 USDA Classification Horizon Thickness Groundwater Depth OL, ML – Topsoil 2’‐0” ‐ CL – Brown Lean Clay Loam 1’‐3” 3’‐0” GP –Gravel w/Sand unknown Test Hole 3 USDA Classification Horizon Thickness Groundwater Depth OL, ML‐ Topsoil 1’‐10” no ML – Silt Loam* 1’‐3” 2’‐10” GC –Gravels w/Sand‐Clay 1‐6” GP –Gravels w/Sand‐Clay Unknown ** * Portable static cone penetration tests record the native silt loam soils to be stiff, 1/6 tonx/sqft ** Total depth 5‐’5”. Test Hole 4 USDA Classification Horizon Thickness Groundwater Depth OL, ML‐ Topsoil 1’‐10” no ML – Silt Loam* 1’‐10” no GC – Gravel with Clay 0’‐6” 3’‐8” GP – Sandy Gravels unknown Test Hole 5 USDA Classification Horizon Thickness Groundwater Depth OL, ML‐ Topsoil 2’‐0” no ML – Silt Loam* 2’‐0” 3’‐0” GP – Sandy Gravels Unknown ** * Portable static cone penetration tests record the native silt loam soils to be stiff, 0 tonx/sqft ** Total depth 5’‐0” 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 36 Log of Test Holes – Page 2 Test Hole 6 USDA Classification Horizon Thickness Groundwater Depth OL, ML‐ Topsoil 1’‐10” no GP – Very Gravelly 0’‐8” 1’‐10” GW – Well Graded Gravels unknown Test Hole 7 USDA Classification Horizon Thickness Groundwater Depth OL, ML‐ Topsoil 1’‐8” ‐ CL – Brown Clay Loam 2’‐3” 3’‐10” GW – Well Graded Gravels unknown Test Hole 8 USDA Classification Horizon Thickness Groundwater Depth OL, ML‐ Topsoil 2’‐0” ‐ CL – Brown Clay Loam 1’‐6” 3’‐0” GW – Well Graded Gravels Unknown * * Total Depth 4’‐0” Test Hole 9 USDA Classification Horizon Thickness Groundwater Depth OL, ML‐ Topsoil 0’‐10” ‐ CL – Brown Clay Loam 2’‐0” ‐ GW – Well Graded Gravels unknown 3’‐4” Test Hole 10 * USDA Classification Horizon Thickness Groundwater Depth CL, ML, CH, OL, GC ‐ SPOILS 5’‐0” Weeping at 48” OL, ML‐ Topsoil 1’‐6” CL‐ Brown Clay Loam 6’‐6” ** *NOTE: Top of Ground of TH‐10 is 7’‐0” in elevation than TH‐9. ** Limited Reach of Excavator, Total Depth 12’‐4” Test Hole 11 USDA Classification Horizon Thickness Groundwater Depth CL, ML, CH, OL, GC ‐ SPOILS 7’‐0” ‐ CL, CH – Brown Gray Clay 3’‐0” 10’‐0” CH‐GC Grey Clay w/Gravel 2’‐6” * * Limited Reach with Excavator, Total Depth, 12‐6” 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 37 Log of Test Holes – Page 3 Test Hole 12 USDA Classification Horizon Thickness Groundwater Depth CL, ML, CH, OL, GC – SPOILS* 11’‐0” ‐ CL – Grey Clay Unknown ** ‐ *Very soft soils– Embankment collapse at 4’ below grade due to high hydrostatic pressure in soils. **Limited Reach of Excavator, Total Depth 12’‐6” Test Hole 13 * USDA Classification Horizon Thickness Groundwater Depth OL, ML‐ Topsoil 2’‐0” ‐ CL – Brown Clay Loam 0’‐10” ‐ GW – Well Graded Gravels Unknown ** 3’‐8” * This Test Hole is 200’ north of TH‐9 ** Total Depth is 5’‐0” Test Hole 14 USDA Classification Horizon Thickness Groundwater Depth OL, ML‐ Topsoil 1’‐0” ‐ CL –Rust Brown Clay Loam 1’‐2” ‐ GW – Well Graded Gravels unknown 3’‐0” Test Hole 15 USDA Classification Horizon Thickness Groundwater Depth OL, ML‐ Topsoil 2’‐0” ‐ CL –Rust Brown Clay Loam 2’‐3” ‐ GW – Well Graded Gravels unknown 4’‐11” Test Hole 16 USDA Classification Horizon Thickness Groundwater Depth OL, ML‐ Topsoil 2’‐0” ‐ CL –Rust Brown Clay Loam 2’‐2” 3’‐9” GW – Well Graded Gravels* unknown *Very Stiff Gravels Test Hole 17 USDA Classification Horizon Thickness Groundwater Depth OL, ML‐ Topsoil 1’‐7” ‐ CL –Rust Brown Clay Loam 2’‐1” 3’‐4” GW – Well Graded Gravels* Unknown * Total Depth 4’‐6” 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 38 Log of Test Holes – Page 3 Test Hole 18 USDA Classification Horizon Thickness Groundwater Depth OL, ML‐ Topsoil 2’‐6” ‐ CL –Rust Brown Clay Loam 1’‐11” * 5’‐0” GW – Well Graded Gravels* Unknown ** Penetration Resistance 0 tonx/sqft Total Depth 4’‐6” Test Hole 19 USDA Classification Horizon Thickness Groundwater Depth OL, ML‐ Topsoil 2’‐0” ‐ CL –Rust Brown Clay Loam 2’‐4” 4’‐4” GW – Well Graded Gravels* Unknown Test Hole 20 USDA Classification Horizon Thickness Groundwater Depth OL, ML‐ Topsoil 2’‐2” ‐ CL –Rust Brown Clay Loam 2’‐8” 4’‐0” GW – Well Graded Gravels* Unknown Test Hole 21 USDA Classification Horizon Thickness Groundwater Depth OL, ML‐ Topsoil 2’‐1” ‐ CL –Rust Brown Clay Loam 2’‐11” 5’‐0” GW – Well Graded Gravels* Unknown Test Hole 22 USDA Classification Horizon Thickness Groundwater Depth OL, ML‐ Topsoil 2’‐2” ‐ CL –Rust Brown Clay Loam 2’‐8” 4’‐10” GW – Well Graded Gravels* Unknown Test Hole 23 USDA Classification Horizon Thickness Groundwater Depth GP‐ Road Mix 1’‐0” ‐ OL, ML‐ Topsoil 2’‐0” ‐ CL –Rust Brown Clay Loam 2’‐0” ‐ GW – Well Graded Gravels* Unknown * Total Depth – 6’‐6” Property Record Card Summary Primary Information Property Category:RP Subcategory:Non-Qualified Ag Geocode:06-0798-09-1-01-13-0000 Assessment Code:00RGG67328 Primary Owner:PropertyAddress: NORTON PROPERTIES LLC 63026 NE LOWER MEADOW DR #200 COS Parcel: BEND, OR 97701-5877 NOTE: See the Owner tab for all owner information Certificate of Survey: Subdivision:NORTON EAST RANCH SUB PH 3A Legal Description: NORTON EAST RANCH SUB PH 3A, S09, T02 S, R05 E, Lot R1, ACRES 79.3085, PLAT J-564 Last Modified:7/11/2019 1:28:25 PM General Property Information Neighborhood:206.010.B Property Type:VAC_U - Vacant Land - Urban Living Units:1 Levy District:06-035008-7C 08 Zoning:Ownership %:100 Linked Property: Linked Property Link Type 06-0798-09-1-01-14-0000 8 - Split View Exemptions: No exemptions exist for this property Condo Ownership: General:0 Limited:0 Property Factors Topography:Fronting: Utilities:Parking Type: Access:Parking Quantity: Location:Parking Proximity: Land Summary Land Type Acres Value Grazing 0.000 00.00 Fallow 0.000 00.00 Irrigated 0.000 00.00 Continuous Crop 0.000 00.00 Wild Hay 0.000 00.00 Farmsite 0.000 00.00 ROW 0.000 00.00 NonQual Land 79.309 4,085.00 Total Ag Land 79.309 4,085.00 Total Forest Land 0.000 00.00 Total Market Land 0.000 00.00 Deed Information: Deed Date Book Page Recorded Date Document Number Document Type Owners Party #1 Default Information:NORTON PROPERTIES LLC 63026 NE LOWER MEADOW DR #200 Ownership %:100 Primary Owner:"Yes" Interest Type:Conversion Last Modified:3/22/2016 7:42:49 AM Other Names Other Addresses Name Type Appraisals Appraisal History Tax Year Land Value Building Value Total Value Method 2019 4085 0 4085 COST 2018 38832 0 38832 COST Market Land Market Land Info No market land info exists for this parcel Dwellings Existing Dwellings No dwellings exist for this parcel Other Buildings/Improvements Outbuilding/Yard Improvements No other buildings or yard improvements exist for this parcel Commercial Existing Commercial Buildings No commercial buildings exist for this parcel Ag/Forest Land Ag/Forest Land Item #1 Acre Type:NQ - Non Qualified Ag Land Irrigation Type: Class Code:1701 Timber Zone: Productivity Quantity:0 Commodity: Units:Non Qual Valuation Acres:79.309 Per Acre Value:51.51 Value:4085 Soil Taxonomy Classification—Gallatin County Area, Montana (Soil Taxonomy, - Lakes 2020) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 4/9/2020 Page 1 of 550583005058390505848050585705058660505875050588405058300505839050584805058570505866050587505058840490820490910491000491090491180491270491360491450491540491630491720 490820 490910 491000 491090 491180 491270 491360 491450 491540 491630 491720 45° 40' 59'' N 111° 7' 4'' W45° 40' 59'' N111° 6' 22'' W45° 40' 40'' N 111° 7' 4'' W45° 40' 40'' N 111° 6' 22'' 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: 1:4,170 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") 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 Fine-loamy over sandy or sandy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, calcareous, frigid Typic Endoaquolls Fine-loamy over sandy or sandy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid Fluvaquentic Haplustolls Fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, frigid Cumulic Haplustolls Fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, frigid Typic Argiustolls Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines Fine-loamy over sandy or sandy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, calcareous, frigid Typic Endoaquolls Fine-loamy over sandy or sandy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid Fluvaquentic Haplustolls Fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, frigid Cumulic Haplustolls Fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, frigid Typic Argiustolls Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points Fine-loamy over sandy or sandy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, calcareous, frigid Typic Endoaquolls Fine-loamy over sandy or sandy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid Fluvaquentic Haplustolls Fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, frigid Cumulic Haplustolls Fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, frigid Typic Argiustolls 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 23, Sep 16, 2019 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Sep 10, 2012—Nov 12, 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. Soil Taxonomy Classification—Gallatin County Area, Montana (Soil Taxonomy, - Lakes 2020) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 4/9/2020 Page 2 of 5 Soil Taxonomy Classification Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 448A Hyalite-Beaverton complex, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes Fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, frigid Typic Argiustolls 2.5 4.2% 509B Enbar loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, frigid Cumulic Haplustolls 2.2 3.7% 510B Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Fine-loamy over sandy or sandy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid Fluvaquentic Haplustolls 18.8 31.8% 537A Lamoose silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Fine-loamy over sandy or sandy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, calcareous, frigid Typic Endoaquolls 8.9 15.0% 748A Hyalite-Beaverton complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes Fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, frigid Typic Argiustolls 26.8 45.2% Totals for Area of Interest 59.2 100.0% Soil Taxonomy Classification—Gallatin County Area, Montana Soil Taxonomy, - Lakes 2020 Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 4/9/2020 Page 3 of 5 Description This rating presents the taxonomic classification based on Soil Taxonomy. The system of soil classification used by the National Cooperative Soil Survey has six categories (Soil Survey Staff, 1999 and 2003). Beginning with the broadest, these categories are the order, suborder, great group, subgroup, family, and series. Classification is based on soil properties observed in the field or inferred from those observations or from laboratory measurements. This table shows the classification of the soils in the survey area. The categories are defined in the following paragraphs. ORDER. Twelve soil orders are recognized. The differences among orders reflect the dominant soil-forming processes and the degree of soil formation. Each order is identified by a word ending in sol. An example is Alfisols. SUBORDER. Each order is divided into suborders primarily on the basis of properties that influence soil genesis and are important to plant growth or properties that reflect the most important variables within the orders. The last syllable in the name of a suborder indicates the order. An example is Udalfs (Ud, meaning humid, plus alfs, from Alfisols). GREAT GROUP. Each suborder is divided into great groups on the basis of close similarities in kind, arrangement, and degree of development of pedogenic horizons; soil moisture and temperature regimes; type of saturation; and base status. Each great group is identified by the name of a suborder and by a prefix that indicates a property of the soil. An example is Hapludalfs (Hapl, meaning minimal horizonation, plus udalfs, the suborder of the Alfisols that has a udic moisture regime). SUBGROUP. Each great group has a typic subgroup. Other subgroups are intergrades or extragrades. The typic subgroup is the central concept of the great group; it is not necessarily the most extensive. Intergrades are transitions to other orders, suborders, or great groups. Extragrades have some properties that are not representative of the great group but do not indicate transitions to any other taxonomic class. Each subgroup is identified by one or more adjectives preceding the name of the great group. The adjective Typic identifies the subgroup that typifies the great group. An example is Typic Hapludalfs. FAMILY. Families are established within a subgroup on the basis of physical and chemical properties and other characteristics that affect management. Generally, the properties are those of horizons below plow depth where there is much biological activity. Among the properties and characteristics considered are particle-size class, mineralogy class, cation-exchange activity class, soil temperature regime, soil depth, and reaction class. A family name consists of the name of a subgroup preceded by terms that indicate soil properties. An example is fine-loamy, mixed, active, mesic Typic Hapludalfs. SERIES. The series consists of soils within a family that have horizons similar in color, texture, structure, reaction, consistence, mineral and chemical composition, and arrangement in the profile. Soil Taxonomy Classification—Gallatin County Area, Montana Soil Taxonomy, - Lakes 2020 Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 4/9/2020 Page 4 of 5 References: 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. (The soils in a given survey area may have been classified according to earlier editions of this publication.) Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Lower Soil Taxonomy Classification—Gallatin County Area, Montana Soil Taxonomy, - Lakes 2020 Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 4/9/2020 Page 5 of 5 Gallatin County Area, Montana 510B—Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56vt Elevation: 4,200 to 5,950 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Meadowcreek and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Meadowcreek Setting Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 11 inches: loam Bg - 11 to 25 inches: silt loam 2C - 25 to 60 inches: very gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 4 percent 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 high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 24 to 42 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Low (about 5.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: Subirrigated (Sb) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS359MT), Subirrigated Grassland (R044BP815MT) Hydric soil rating: No Map Unit Description: Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes---Gallatin County Area, Montana Lakes 2020 Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 4/9/2020 Page 1 of 2 Minor Components Blossberg Percent of map unit: 10 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 Beaverton Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Stream terraces, alluvial fans Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS354MT) Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area, Montana Survey Area Data: Version 23, Sep 16, 2019 Map Unit Description: Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes---Gallatin County Area, Montana Lakes 2020 Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 4/9/2020 Page 2 of 2 Gallatin County Area, Montana 748A—Hyalite-Beaverton complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 570v Elevation: 4,350 to 6,150 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 local importance Map Unit Composition Hyalite and similar soils: 70 percent Beaverton and similar soils: 20 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Hyalite Setting Landform: Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Loamy alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 5 inches: loam Bt1 - 5 to 9 inches: clay loam Bt2 - 9 to 17 inches: silty clay loam 2Bt3 - 17 to 26 inches: very cobbly sandy clay loam 3C - 26 to 60 inches: very cobbly 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 (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: 5 percent Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS354MT), Upland Grassland (R044BP818MT) Map Unit Description: Hyalite-Beaverton complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes---Gallatin County Area, Montana Lakes 2020 Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 4/9/2020 Page 1 of 3 Hydric soil rating: No Description of Beaverton Setting Landform: Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 5 inches: cobbly loam Bt - 5 to 21 inches: very gravelly clay loam Bk - 21 to 25 inches: very cobbly coarse sandy loam 2Bk - 25 to 60 inches: extremely cobbly loamy coarse 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 3.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS354MT), Upland Grassland (R044BP818MT) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Turner Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS355MT) Hydric soil rating: No Hyalite Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Map Unit Description: Hyalite-Beaverton complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes---Gallatin County Area, Montana Lakes 2020 Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 4/9/2020 Page 2 of 3 Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Gallatin County Area, Montana (Hydric Rating, - Lakes 2020) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 4/9/2020 Page 1 of 550583005058390505848050585705058660505875050588405058300505839050584805058570505866050587505058840490820490910491000491090491180491270491360491450491540491630491720 490820 490910 491000 491090 491180 491270 491360 491450 491540 491630 491720 45° 40' 59'' N 111° 7' 4'' W45° 40' 59'' N111° 6' 22'' W45° 40' 40'' N 111° 7' 4'' W45° 40' 40'' N 111° 6' 22'' 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: 1:4,170 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 39 2020 ‐ Lakes At Valley West SOG, Bozeman, MT April 10th, 2020 ‐ Project: 020025CR P.O. Box 6217, Bozeman, Montana, 59771 C: (406) 209‐5573 O: (406) 221‐7236 40 SUPPLEMENTARY TO GEO-REPORT D:\Jobs File\JBS 2020\020025CR\Geo Report Supplement, L@VW-South MT r.doc PROJECT: West Park Neighborhood Bozeman, Gallatin County Montana CLIENT: 8FC,LLC P.O. Box 11388 Bozeman, Montana 59719-1388 PROJECT NO.: 020025CR – Supplementary Comments DATE: August 30th, 2022 Introduction This letter is to serve as a supplement to the above referenced property. Andrew Pilskalns P.E. prepared a Geotechnical Report for the above referenced property on April 10th, 2020. The legal description of the project as given at the time of the Geotechnical investigation is a portion of the Southwest ¼ of the Northeast ¼ of Section 9, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, of the Bozeman, Montana Quadrangle in Gallatin County’. The Property Record Card reported at that time the Primary Owners as Norton Properties LLC and the Subdivision as Norton East Ranch Subdivision Phase III, Plat J-564. The property is currently being developed as the West Park Neighborhood and the Owners are 8FC, LLC. The site is located on the north side of west Babcock Street between Pond Lily Drive and Water Lily Drive. The Vicinity and Topographic Map are shown in Figure 1 of the letter. Figure 1 –Vicinity & Topographic Map Geologic Review of D:\Jobs File\JBS 2020\020025CR\Geo Report Supplement, L@VW-South MT r.doc 2 Part of the ‘Study of Grounds’ work was to evaluate the proposed development and the area shown in Figure 2 – Test Hole Map as the Open Pit Gravel Mining and Soil Spoils Deposit area. The Open Pit Gravel Mining and Soil Spoils Deposit area is adjacent to Baxter Creek, which trends in the northwest direction and also makes up the east property boundary. Deep gravel mining operations consisted of 20 to 30+ feet deep excavations, completed by Norton Properties LLC. The past Owners proceeded to backfill portions of the disturbed area with spoils from the mining operation with clayey-silt soils, and organics. The area within the disturbance is considered unsuitable for redevelopment or road development based on depth of excavation associated with gravel mining activities and the undocumented fill placed in the excavations. The best use of the land is creating wetland and park, which has environmental benefits and esthetic benefits for the people of the community. Figure 2 – Test Hole Map Conclusion Geologic Review of D:\Jobs File\JBS 2020\020025CR\Geo Report Supplement, L@VW-South MT r.doc 3 Based on the risk and cost to reclaim property that was initially used in gravel mining operations, we maintain the same position as first reported; the area should be used for natural open space, such as parks, wetlands, and ponds. If you have any questions or concerns about the contents of this letter, please contact our office. I appreciate the opportunity to work with you. Prepared by, ANDY PILSKALNS, P.E. LICENSED - Montana, Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Wyoming, Hawaii, Nevada PROVIDING THE WEST WITH GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES FOR 19 YEARS Castle Rock Geotechnical Engineering 9 Cedar Lake Drive Butte, Montana 59701 C: (406) 539-8439 O: (406) 209-5573 Geologic Review of D:\Jobs File\JBS 2020\020025CR\Geo Report Supplement, L@VW-South MT r.doc 4 Geologic Review of D:\Jobs File\JBS 2020\020025CR\Geo Report Supplement, L@VW-South MT r.doc 5 Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report 10130.001.04 45 | Page APPENDIX H: LANDSCAPE AND PLANTING PLAN BFCPMPBPBPBPBPDYHDYH DYHSDSSGSSSSSSWV WV WV WVWV WVWVWVWVWV TWVWV PTPTWV WVS201854780.033MHS-TEMPS WV WVWV DYHWVWVWV WVWVWVWVWVWVWVWVWVWVWVWVWVWVWVWVDYHDYHSSBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBP PBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBPBPBPBPBPBPBPNGNGNGNGNGBT BT BT BTBPBPBPBPNGNGNGBTBTBT BTBPBPBPBPNGNGNGNGNGBTBTBTBPBPBPBTBTBTBTBTBTBPBPBPBPBPBPNGNGNGNGNG BTBTBTBTBTBTBPBPBPBPBPBPNGNGNGNGBTBTBTBTBTBTBPBPBPBPBPBPNGNGNGNGDDDDDDDDDD8S 8S 8S 8S 8S 8S 8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8S8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W 8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8WDYHDYH DYH DYH DYHDYH WSWSWSWSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHMHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHBLOCK 1LOT 21953 sq.ft.BLOCK 1LOT 31953 sq.ft.BLOCK 1LOT 41953 sq.ft.BLOCK 1LOT 12268 sq.ft.BLOCK 1LOT 52268 sq.ft.BLOCK 1LOT 62268 sq.ft.BLOCK 1LOT 72268 sq.ft.BLOCK 1LOT 92394 sq.ft.BLOCK 1LOT 102268 sq.ft.BLOCK 1LOT 82268 sq.ft.BLOCK 1LOT 112268 sq.ft.BLOCK 2LOT 93253 sq.ft.BLOCK 2LOT 102061 sq.ft.BLOCK 2LOT 12848 sq.ft.BLOCK 2LOT 62870 sq.ft.BLOCK 2LOT 132287 sq.ft.BLOCK 2LOT 72511 sq.ft.BLOCK 2LOT 42262 sq.ft.BLOCK 2LOT 32242 sq.ft.BLOCK 2LOT 22520 sq.ft.BLOCK 2LOT 111985 sq.ft.BLOCK 2LOT 121970 sq.ft.BLOCK 2LOT 82153 sq.ft.BLOCK 2LOT 52520 sq.ft.BLOCK 3LOT 112244 sq.ft.BLOCK 3LOT 102170 sq.ft.BLOCK 3LOT 93114 sq.ft.BLOCK 3LOT 122658 sq.ft.BLOCK 3LOT 142170 sq.ft.BLOCK 3LOT 152170 sq.ft.BLOCK 3LOT 162170 sq.ft.BLOCK 3LOT 172520 sq.ft.BLOCK 3LOT 53025 sq.ft.BLOCK 3LOT 12520 sq.ft.BLOCK 3LOT 22170 sq.ft.BLOCK 3LOT 32170 sq.ft.BLOCK 3LOT 42170 sq.ft.BLOCK 3LOT 82870 sq.ft.BLOCK 3LOT 72170 sq.ft.BLOCK 3LOT 62372 sq.ft.BLOCK 3LOT 132171 sq.ft.BLOCK 4LOT 203030 sq.ft.BLOCK 4LOT 213030 sq.ft.BLOCK 4LOT 223030 sq.ft.BLOCK 4LOT 233106 sq.ft.BLOCK 4LOT 252873 sq.ft.BLOCK 4LOT 193251 sq.ft.BLOCK 4LOT 172520 sq.ft.BLOCK 4LOT 152520 sq.ft.BLOCK 4LOT 162520 sq.ft.BLOCK 4LOT 182549 sq.ft.BLOCK 4LOT 102520 sq.ft.BLOCK 4LOT 112660 sq.ft.BLOCK 4LOT 132170 sq.ft.BLOCK 4LOT 122170 sq.ft.BLOCK 4LOT 142520 sq.ft.BLOCK 4LOT 92520 sq.ft.BLOCK 4LOT 82669 sq.ft.BLOCK 4LOT 42276 sq.ft.BLOCK 4LOT 32005 sq.ft.BLOCK 4LOT 114500 sq.ft.BLOCK 4LOT 22328 sq.ft.BLOCK 4LOT 52390 sq.ft.BLOCK 4LOT 62715 sq.ft.BLOCK 4LOT 72689 sq.ft.BLOCK 4LOT 242520 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 132170 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 142170 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 152170 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 172716 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 202873 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 232170 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 242170 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 252170 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 262170 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 272520 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 282170 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 292170 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 112170 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 102520 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 122170 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 324123 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 302170 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 82170 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 42784 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 62170 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 72170 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 52170 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 22170 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 32835 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 12520 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 192771 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 182765 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 162276 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 213527 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 3326875 sq.ft.BLOCK 3LOT 1915363 sq.ft.BLOCK 6LOT 2350562 sq.ft.BLOCK 7LOT 2119232 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 21BLOCK 5LOT 30BLOCK 5LOT 214099 sq.ft.BLOCK 5LOT 303003 sq.ft.SIO SIOLAN8'8'8'8'WESWESSIOLANLANWESWESWESWESWES 8'8'LANLANLANLANSIOSIOSIOWESWESSIOSIO8' 8'WESWESWESWESWESWESWESWESWESWESWESWESWESWESLANLANLANLANLAN9" 9" 28" 18"WETLAND AREATO BE USED FORSOD SALVAGEWETLAND AREATO BE USED FORSOD SALVAGEPUBLIC R-O-W3.82 acs.166342 sq.ft.SUBDIVISION PHASE 1SUBDIVISION PHASE 2FUTURE SUBDIVISION PHASEFUTURE SUBDIVISION PHASEPROJECT DATALAUREL MEADOWSSUBDIVISIONSW 14 of the NE 14, the SE 14 of the NW 14,the NW 14 of the SE 14 and the NE 14 of theSW 14 of Section 9, T. 2 South,R. 5 E, PMM Gallatin County Montana.ZONING: R4ACRES: 40.82PROJECT OWNER8FC, LLCPatrick EibsPO Box 11388Bozeman, MT 59719(406) 539 - 1366ENGINEERMORRISON-MAIERLEJames Nickelson2880 Technology Blvd. WBozeman, MT 59708(406) 922 - 6824ARCHITECT/PLANNERINTRINSIK ARCHITECTURETyler Steinway106 E. Babcock St. Suite 1ABozeman, MT 59715(406) 582 - 8988LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTDESIGN 5, LLCTroy Scherer111 N. TracyBozeman, MT 59715(406) 587 - 4873SHEET INDEXL000-OVERALL SUBDIVISION PLANL001-NOTES AND LEGENDSL100-PARK HARDSCAPE & GRADING PLANL101- PARK HARDSCAPE & GRADING PLANL102- PARK HARDSCAPE & GRADING PLANL103- PARK HARDSCAPE & GRADING PLANL300-PARK PLANTING PLANL301- PARK PLANTING PLANL302- PARK PLANTING PLANL303- PARK PLANTING PLANL500- LANDSCAPE DETAILSL501- LANDSCAPE DETAILSL600- IRRIGATION NOTES AND LEGENDSL601- IRRIGATION WATER USE CALCULATIONS &SLEEVING PLAN - SOUTHL602- IRRIGATION WATER USE CALCULATIONS &SLEEVING PLAN - NORTHL700- IRRIGATION DETAILSD-1CONSTRUCTED WETLAND CROSS SECTIONSLANDSCAPE CODE SUMMARYLAUREL MEADOWS - PHASE 1 PARKSDESIGN PATHWAY: PRESCRIPTIVEDROUGHT TOLERANT SPECIES75% OR GREATER OF THE PROPOSED TREES AND SHRUBS ARE DROUGHT TOLERANTSPECIES AS DEFINED IN THE LATEST EDITION OF THE MONTANA NURSERY ANDLANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION'S DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTS FOR THE MONTANALANDSCAPE OR THE COB LIST OF DROUGHT TOLERANT SPECIES.STREET FRONTAGE LANDSCAPINGSTREET FRONTAGE FOR VAUGHN DRIVE AT PARK: 1121.92 LF = 22 TREESSTREET FRONTAGE FOR WEST BABCOCK STREET AT PARK: 349.7 LF = 7 TREES-REQUIRED: ONE LARGE CANOPY TREE FOR EACH 50 FEET OF TOTAL STREETFRONTAGE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST WHOLE NUMBER.-PROVIDED:--22 TREES FOR VAUGHN DRIVE (PROVIDED IN PHASE 2)--7 TREES FOR WEST BABCOCK STREETACCEPTABLE LANDSCAPE MATERIALSTHE PLANT MATERIAL FOR THE PROJECT MEET THE STANDARDS OF SEC. 38.550.030 G.SEE LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE ON SHEET L001 FOR SPECIES AND SIZES OF PLANTMATERIAL.WATERCOURSE SETBACK LANDSCAPINGZONE 1 REQUIRED: ZONE 1 MUST BE PLANTED WITH NEW OR EXISTING NATIVEMATERIALS. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE DISTURBED AREAS OF ZONE 1 MUST BEPLANTED WITH A GROUND COVER OF NATIVE RIPARIAN SEDGES, FORBS AND GRASSESSUITED FOR THE AREA. IN ADDITION, A MINIMUM OF ONE SHRUB FOR EVERY TEN LINEARFEET AND ONE TREE FOR EVERY 30 LINEAR FEET OF THE WATERCOURSE IS REQUIRED.TOTAL LINEAR FEET OF ZONE 1 WATERCOURSE SETBACK AT PARK 1 = 822 LF-REQUIRED: 83 TOTAL SHRUBS, 28 TOTAL TREES-PROVIDED: 83 TOTAL SHRUBS, 28 TOTAL TREESZONE 2 REQUIRED & PROVIDED: DISTURBED AREAS OF ZONE 2 MUST BE PLANTED WITHNEW OR EXISTING NATIVE GRASSES SUITED FOR THE AREA.OverallSubdivisionPlanL 00080400160N1L0001" = 80'-0"Overall Subdivision Plandesign5la.com406.587.4873dateissuedrawn by:checked by:filename:z:\nwb west park neighborhood\autocad\01_sheets\2025 laurel meadows-parks-ph1\l000_west-park-parks_landscape_parks-ph1.dwg Laurel Meadows Phase 1 Park Plan Bozeman, Montana KHM/HU TMS 12/16/25Prelim Plat03/10/26Prelim Plat RC 1VICINITY MAPPROJECT SITEPARK PLANSHEET 1/L100& 1/L300PARK PLANSHEET 1/L101& 1/L301PARK PLANSHEET 1/L102& 1/L302PARK PLANSHEE 1/L103& 1/L303PARK PLANSHEET 2/L103& 2/L303DONNER DRIVEW BABCOCK STS LAUREL PKWY N COTTONWOOD RDPHASING NOTE:IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE PARK ARE PLANNED TO BE COMPLETED IN TWOPHASES. A DETAILED PHASING PLAN IS PROVIDED WITHIN THE PARKSMASTER PLAN ON PAGE #6. ALL PARK IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE FINANCIALLYGUARANTEED BY THE OWNER AT THE TIME OF FINAL PLAT.THE PHASE 1 PARK PLANS SERVE AS CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS FOR THEPHASE 1 PARK IMPROVEMENTS.THE PHASE 2 PARK IMPROVEMENTS ARE SHOWN CONCEPTUALLY ON THISSHEET HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE. CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS FOR THE PHASE2 PARK IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED IN THE FUTURE WITH THEDEVELOPMENT OF THE FUTURE PHASE SITE PLANS. IF THE SUBDIVISIONPHASING PLAN CHANGES, OWNERSHIP WILL REEVALUATE THE SCHEDULEOF PARK IMPROVEMENTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PHASED SITEDEVELOPMENT.NOTE: PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED FOR PHASE 1CONSTRUCTION AND THE FINAL PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT DETAILS ANDSPECIFICATIONS WILL BE PROVIDED WITH PHASE 2 REVIEWPHASE 1 CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING TRAILS TREESSYMBOLBOTANICAL NAMESIZETYPESPACINGQUANTITYCOMMON NAMEPLANT SCHEDULE - PARKS PHASE 1MATUREHEIGHTMATURESPREADPRUNUS MAACKIIAMUR CHOKECHERRY2" CALB & BPER PLAN430' - 40'20' - 40'GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS VAR. INERMIS'SKYCOLE'***SKYLINE HONEYLOCUST-MALECULTIVARS ONLYQUERCUS MACROCARPA***+BUR OAK2" CALB & BPER PLAN130' - 60'40' - 60'2" CALB & BPER PLAN535' - 45'25' - 35'QUERCUS RUBRANORTHERN RED OAK2" CALB & BPER PLAN150' - 70'50' - 70'NOTE:-ALL TREES TO HAVE A 3' DIAMETER CEDAR BARK MULCH RING AROUND BASE OF TREE AT TIME OFINSTALLATION TO HELP PROMOTE HEALTH AND GROWTH.-ALL TREES TO RECEIVE INDIVIDUAL DRIP IRRIGATION ADJUSTED PER SPECIES FOR ESTABLISHMENT.-RECOMMENDED TO PLACE 6" DIAMETER PLASTIC TREE GUARD AROUND BASE OF ALL TREES TO PROTECTFROM TRIMMER AND MOWER DAMAGE DURING MAINTENANCE.-***INDICATES DROUGHT TOLERANT SPECIES-+ INDICATES SPECIES NATIVE TO MONTANAKVALUE.03.01.03.03TREESSHRUBSSYMBOLBOTANICAL NAMESIZETYPESPACINGQUANTITYCOMMON NAMEPLANT SCHEDULE - WATERCOURSE & WETLAND AREAS PARKS PHASE 1MATUREHEIGHTMATURESPREADSALIX LUTEA +YELLOW WILLOWPOT10'-25'6'-10'POT6'-12'6'-8'SALIX GEYERIANA + GEYER WILLOWB & BSALIX LASIANDRA +PACIFIC WILLOW5 GAL5 GAL5 GALPOT5'-10'5'-15'CORNUS SERICEA + RED OSIER DOGWOOD10'-30'8'-15'BETULA OCCIDENTALIS +WATER BIRCH2" CALB & BWES40'-60'30'-40'POPULUS ANUGUSTIFOLIA+NARROWLEAF COTTONWOOD2" CALB & BPOPULUS ACUMINATA +LANCELEAF POPLAR2" CALB & B50'-75'20'-40'SIOJUNIPERUS SCOPULORUM*** +ROCKY MOUNTAIN JUNIPER6'-8'HEIGHTB & B30' - 80'10' - 20'8'***INDICATES DROUGHT TOLERANT SPECIESLANPOT10'-20'10'-15'SALIX BOOTHII +BOOTHS WILLOW5 GALPOT15'-20'15'-20ALNUS INCANA +SPECKLED ALDER5 GALPOT15'-20'10'-15'SALIX INTERIOR +SANDBAR WILLOW5 GALPER PLANPER PLANPER PLANPER PLANPER PLANPER PLANPER PLANPER PLAN23681282552792827PER PLANPER PLANPER PLANPER PLAN5 GAL15'-45'15'-45+INDICATES SPECIES NATIVE TO MONTANANOTE:-ALL TREES & SHRUBS TO HAVE A 3' DIAMETER CEDAR BARK MULCH RINGAROUND BASE-ALL WETLAND AND WATERCOURSE PLANTINGS ARE NATIVE TO MONTANALANDSCAPE INSTALL NOTESGENERAL1.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNINGWORK. CALL 811.2.PLACE TREES, SHRUBS, AND PLANT MATERIAL WITH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRESENT. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO BENOTIFIED 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE.3.PLACE ALL BOULDERS WITH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRESENT.LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO BE NOTIFIED 48 HOURS INADVANCE.4.THE LOCATION OF ALL FLAGSTONE, STEPS, AND PATIO AREAS SHALL BE COORDINATED ON SITE WITH THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT, WHEN APPLICABLE.5.ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL CONFORM TO THE CURRENT AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK.5.1.ALL DECIDUOUS TREES AND SHRUBS OUTSIDE OF DEDICATED PLANTING BEDS TO BE FENCED FOR MIN. 2 YEARS5.2.ALL TREES AND SHRUBS OUTSIDE OF DEDICATED PLANTING BEDS TO HAVE 3' DIAMETER MULCH RING.5.3.ALL TREES TO BE STAKED FOR MIN. 2 YEARS.6.VERIFY ALL QUANTITIES. ILLUSTRATED PLAN SHALL DICTATE COUNT.7.NO SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE ALLOWED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. ALLREQUESTS SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO DESIGN 5 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE. 406-587-4873 OR TROY@DESIGN5LA.COM.8.LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL MEET WITH LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR ON SITE, AT PREDETERMINED INTERVALS TODISCUSS PROGRESS, QUESTIONS, AND PRODUCT PLACEMENT.9.ALL EDGING SHALL BE 316" X 4" NATURAL STEEL ON STRAIGHT RUNS AND 18" X 4" NATURAL STEEL FOR CURVED RUNS (ORAS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN DETAILS). TAC WELD TO #4 REBAR DRIVEN A MINIMUM OF 18" DEEP.10.ALL AREAS ON SITE DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES NOT INDICATED ON LANDSCAPE PLAN ARE TO BERECLAIMED AND RE-ESTABLISHED TO PRE-DISTURBANCE CONDITION, VERIFY DISTURBANCE AREAS IN FIELD.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COST OF RESTORING ANY DISTURBANCE OUTSIDE OF THE AGREED UPONLIMIT OF WORK BOUNDARY INDICATED ON THE PLANS.11.VERIFY ALL CUSTOM SEED MIXES. THOSE PROCURED THROUGH WILD HARVEST METHODS (WIND RIVER SEED, BLAKENURSERY, BIG SKY SEED, GREAT BASIN SEED) REQUIRE ORDERING A MINIMUM OF ONE YEAR IN ADVANCE OFINSTALLATION OR OTHER AS SPECIFIED BY SEED PROVIDER.12.ALL ROCK MULCH IS TO BE WASHED PRIOR TO INSTALLATIONSITE SOIL PREP13.ALL BACKFILLED AND DISTURBED AREAS TO BE RAKED SMOOTH. ALL ROCKS GREATER THAN 3" DIAMETER AND ALLCONSTRUCTION DEBRIS TO BE PICKED UP AND REMOVED FROM SITE BEFORE SOIL AMENDMENTS ARE ADDED.14.SEED AREAS(WHEN APPLICABLE)- LIGHTLY SCARIFY SURFACE OR LIGHTLY TILL AND RAKE SMOOTH PRIOR TO ADDINGSOIL.-SEEDED AREA AMENDED TOPSOIL: MIX 1" COMPOST WITH MIN. 3" NEW TOPSOIL (COMBINED SETTLED DEPTH OF 4").HYDROSEED WITH *FLEXTERRA TACKIFIER*. ADD EROSION CONTROL MAT TO ALL AREAS WITH SLOPES STEEPER THAN3:1 PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATION15. SOD AREAS(WHEN APPLICABLE) - LIGHTLY SCARIFY SURFACE OR LIGHTLY TILL AND RAKE SMOOTH PRIOR TOADDING SOIL.-SOD AREA AMENDED SOIL: MIX 1" COMPOST WITH MIN. 5" NEW TOPSOIL (COMBINED SETTLED DEPTH OF 6"). TOPSOILSHALL BE DRUM ROLLED OR TRACK-PACKED AND GRADED SMOOTHLY AND EVENLY PRIOR TO LAYING SOD. RAKESMOOTH TO MATCH FINAL GRADING PLAN.16. ALL PLANTING BEDS TO BE EXCAVATED 18" DEEP. SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM TO REMOVE GLAZING.17. ALL PLANTING BEDS TO RECEIVE NEW, AMENDED SOIL: MIX 1" COMPOST WITH MIN. 17" NEW TOPSOIL (COMBINED SETTLED DEPTH OF 18"). RAKE SMOOTH TO MATCH FINAL GRADING PLAN.IRRIGATION18. PERMANENT UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO BE INSTALLED AT TIME OF LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION. MAIN LINE, LATERAL LINE, AND SPRINKLERS NOT BURIED AT TIME OF PROJECT COMPLETION WILL NOTBE ACCEPTED.19. IRRIGATION TO BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL STATE AND LOCAL CODES AND ORDINANCES.CONTACTSYMBOLDESCRIPTIONQUAN.PRODUCTSITE AMENITY SCHEDULE - PARK PHASE 16' LENGTHACCESSIBLEPICNICTABLE***MAGLIN 210 SERIES CLUSTER SEATING; 6'PICNIC TABLE; SURFACE MOUNT; WOOD GRAINTEXTURE HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE INBROWN; MODEL #MTB-0210-00026; SEE SHEETL501: DETAIL 12BIKE RACK***U-SHAPED THEPARK 1 78" O.D. BIKE RACK;MODEL #509-3000; STAINLESS STEEL; SEESHEET L500: DETAIL 113NOTE:1.***AMENITIES SELECTED ARE RECOMMENDED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT & ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE PEROWNER'S REQUEST. FINAL LAYOUT WILL NEED TO BE FIELD VERIFIED AND SHOP DRAWINGS WILL NEED TOBE PROVIDED TO THE CITY OF BOZEMAN.2.ALL AMENITIES TO BE AS SPECIFIED OR APPROVED EQUAL.3.ALL AMENITIES TO BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.4.AMENITIES ARE CONCEPTUAL AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE ACCORDING TO COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES.MAGLIN SITE FURNITUREDenver, CO 802021-800-716-5506sales@maglin.comTHE PARK1-866-293-8528www.theparkcatalog.comSHADEPAVILION**14' X 18' STEEL PAVILION WITH CLERESTORYSTYLE ROOF; METAL ROOF COLOR'SANDSTONE'; COLUMN COLOR 'STEEL GREY';INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'SSPECIFICATIONS; SEE SHEET L501: DETAIL 2SMITH STEELWORKSSPANISH FORK, UTAHRUSSEL SMITH801-414-17241TOTALIRRIGATIONMETER PITMETER PIT IN PARK. IRRIGATION METER BYOWNER AND IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR.IRRIGATION METER MUST COMPLY WITH STATEAND LOCAL REGULATIONS.BY OWNER1MPSYMBOLDESCRIPTIONPRODUCTQUANTITYSITE MATERIAL SCHEDULE - PARK PHASE 1CRUSHERFINES TRAIL1,475LF6' WIDTH CLASS II GRAVEL FINES TRAIL, TO MEETCITY STANDARD IDENTIFIED IN BOZEMAN UDC;SEE SHEET L500: DETAIL 7CONCRETE754SFSCORED CONCRETE SLAB AT PAVILION, 4" THICKWITH BROOM FINISH; SEE SHEET L500: DETAIL 8ALL ROUNDWASHED ROCK190SF1/2"-1" ALL ROUND WASHED ROCK AT 3" DEPTH;ALL ROCK MULCH TO BE WASHED AND CLEAN OFSEDIMENT BEFORE INSTALLATION; AVAILABLEFROM SCENIC CITY TRUCKING & LANDSCAPING,BELGRADE, MT - 406-388-7771STEELEDGING50LF316" X 4" STEEL EDGING, BY CONTRACTOR,SEE SHEET L501: DETAIL 3PERPLANSYMBOLSEED MIXESQUANTITYCOMMON NAME (BOTANICAL NAME)RECOMMENDED FOR NATIVE/UPLAND SEED BLEND & ZONE 2WATERCOURSE SETBACK SLENDER WHEATGRASS (ELYMUS TRACHYCAULUS)WESTERN WHEATGRASS (PASCOPYRUM SMITHII)THICKSPIKE WHEATGRASS (ELYMUS LANCEOLATUS)MOUNTAIN BROME (BROMUS MARGINATUS)NEVADA BLUEGRASS (POA SECUNDA)BLUEBUNCH WHEATGRASS (PSEUDOROEGNERIA SPICATA)*NOTE* ADD TO SEED MIX:10% LEWIS FLAX (LINUM LEWISII)10% MOUNTAIN LUPINE (LUPINUS ARGENTEUS)25%10%10%15%15%25%SOD & SEED SCHEDULE - PHASE 1*RECOMMENDED SEED RATE= 20 PLS LBS/ACRE%OF MIX139,390FT²APPROX.30,525 FT²TO BEUSED ASNEEDEDINDISTURBEDAREASCUSTOM SEED MIXES AVAILABLE THROUGH CIRCLE S SEEDS:(406)-285-3269RECOMMENDED FOR WETLAND AREAS AND ZONE 1WATERCOURSE SETBACK, CUSTOM SEED MIXTUFTED HAIRGRASS (DESCHAMPSIA CEPITOSA)FOWL BLUE GRASS (POA PALUSTRIS)AMERICAN MANNAGRASS (GLYCERIA GRANDIS)SHOWY MILKWEED (ASCLEPIAS SPECIOSA)BALTIC RUSH (JUNCUS BALTICUS)CREEPING SPIKERUSH (ELEOCHARIS PALUSTRIS)*AVAILABLE FROM CIRCLE S SEEDS. VERIFY % OF MIX.RECOMMENDED SEED RATE= 12-15#/ACRE FOR DRILL SEED*TBD*TBD*TBD*TBD*TBD*TBDDROUGHT TOLERANT BOULEVARD SOD MIX AVAILABLE AT SUMMIT VALLEY SOD (406)-287-22685,600 FT²SITE SALVAGED SOD FROM EXISTING WETLAND*SALVAGE SOD IS PROPOSED FOR THE CONSTRUCTEDWETLAND AREA; TO BE TAKEN FROM THE EXISTINGWETLAND TO BE REMOVED.*SALVAGING ESTABLISHED WETLAND SOD FROM THEEXISTING WETLAND IS PART OF THE MITIGATION PLANNING,SEE CIVIL.APPROX.108,815FT²PRIMARY PARKSIGNAGESIGNAGE TO DISPLAY PARK NAME AND PARKINFORMATION. SIGNAGE TO BE SELECTED BYOWNER AND COMPLY WITH CITY OF BOZEMANWAYFINDING STANDARDS; SEE SHEET L500:DETAIL 10DIRECTIONALTOTEM12DIRECTIONAL TOTEM TO DISPLAY TRAILDIRECTIONS AND DISTANCES. SIGNAGE TO BESELECTED BY OWNER AND COMPLY WITH CITYOF BOZEMAN WAYFINDING STANDARDS; SEESHEET L500: DETAIL 9SYMBOLDESCRIPTIONQUAN.PRODUCTSIGNAGE SCHEDULE - PARK PHASE 1EMERGENT WETLAND ZONESPLANTING SPECIFICATIONS1.**SEE CIVIL FOR ALL WETLAND GRADING,DETAILS, & SOILS INFORMATION**2.ALL PLANTING ZONES WILL BE SEEDED WITHSITE-SPECIFIC SEED MIX TAILORED FOR THEHYDROLOGIC REGIME OF THAT ZONE. SEEDMIXES WILL BE HYDROSEEDED WITH*FLEXTERRA TACKIFIER*. AND THEN SLIGHTLYCOVERED WITH SOIL BY HAND DISTRIBUTION& RAKING. EROSION CONTROL MATTING WILLBE APPLIED TO ALL AREAS WITH SLOPESGREATER THAN 3:1,2.1.1.NO MACHINES ALLOWED INWETLANDS.2.1.NATIVE/UPLAND SEED BLEND & ZONE 2WATERCOURSE SETBACK - SEE SEEDSCHEDULE: SHEET L0012.2.NATIVE WATERCOURSE SEED BLENDZONE 1 & WETLAND RESTORATION AREAS- SEE SEED SCHEDULE: SHEET L0012.3.SALVAGE SOD TO BE USED INCONSTRUCTED WETLAND AREA.2.4.IRRIGATION IN THIS AREA LIMITED TOTEMPORARY SURFACE DRIP PIPINGPERPETUAL WETLAND EASEMENT PROTECTEDAREA - LANDSCAPE LIMITATIONS-NO VEHICLES OR MOTORIZED EQUIPMENTALLOWED IN AREA FOR PLANTING ORMAINTENANCE-DISTURBANCE TO BE LIMITED TO EXCAVATIONOF PLANTING PIT BY HAND ONLY.-ANY EXCESS SOIL FROM EXCAVATION TO BEHAULED OUTSIDE OF WETLAND EASEMENTPROTECTED AREA-FILL MATERIAL LIMITED TO PLANTING PITBACKFILL AND WATER RETENTION RING-IRRIGATION IN THIS AREA LIMITED TOTEMPORARY SURFACE DRIP PIPING-ALL NEW PLANTINGS TO BE FENCED FORUNGULATE PROTECTION.Notes & LegendsL 001design5la.com406.587.4873dateissuedrawn by:checked by:filename:z:\nwb west park neighborhood\autocad\01_sheets\2025 laurel meadows-parks-ph1\l000_west-park-parks_landscape_parks-ph1.dwg Laurel Meadows Phase 1 Park Plan Bozeman, Montana KHM/HU TMS 12/16/25Prelim Plat03/10/26Prelim Plat RC 1 BFCPMPPTWVWV LANLANWESWESWESWESWESWESWESWESWESLANLANLANLAN6'WEST BABCOCK STREET6'PERPETUALWETLANDEASEMENTIRRIGATIONDITCHEASEMENT1112385667789101812131311131213131344CONSTRUCTEDWETLANDBOUNDARY25'PROPOSEDWETLANDSETBACK25'CONSTRUCTEDWETLANDSETBACKCONSTRUCTEDWETLANDBOUNDARY25'PROPOSEDWETLANDSETBACKKEYNOTES - 1/L100EXISTING NORTON RANCH SIGN TO BE RELOCATEDEXISTING UTILITIESPARK BOUNDARYPERPETUAL WETLAND EASEMENT, MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE IN LIMITSAS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES SHEET L001EXISTING ROAD CURBEXISTING SIDEWALK CONNECTIONSPROPOSED 10' SHARED USE PATH, SEE CIVIL6' WIDTH CRUSHER FINES TRAILPRIMARY PARK SIGNDIRECTIONAL TOTEMIRRIGATION METER PIT, BY OWNERRECONSTRUCTED/EMERGENT WETLAND AREA; SEE CIVIL FOR ALL CROSSSECTIONS, DETAILS, & SOILS INFORMATIONNATIVE PLANTINGS AT RECONSTRUCTED WETLAND, FINALPLACEMENT TBD BASED ON CIVIL GRADING & SOIL ANALYSIS12345678910111213LINE TYPE LEGENDPROPERTY LINEPROPOSED MAJOR CONTOURPROPOSED MINOR CONTOUREXISTING MAJOR CONTOUREXISTING MINOR CONTOUR7620'LIMLIMLIMITS OF DISTURBANCEWATERCOURSE SETBACKPERPETUAL WETLAND EASEMENTSYMBOLPRODUCTSITE MATERIAL SCHEDULE - PARK PHASE 1CRUSHERFINES TRAILCONCRETEALL ROUNDWASHED ROCKSTEELEDGINGPERPLANSYMBOLPRODUCTSITE AMENITY SCHEDULE - PARK PHASE 16' LENGTHACCESSIBLEPICNICTABLE***BIKE RACK***SHADEPAVILION**IRRIGATIONMETER PITMPPRIMARY PARKSIGNAGEDIRECTIONALTOTEM12SYMBOLQUAN.PRODUCTSIGNAGE SCHEDULE - PARK PHASE 1SYMBOLSEED MIXSOD & SEED SCHEDULENATIVE/UPLANDSEED BLEND &ZONE 2WATERCOURSESETBACK NATIVE FESCUEBLEND SODWETLAND AREAS& ZONE 1WATERCOURSESETBACKWETLANDSALVAGE SODWETLANDSALVAGED SODAREAPark Hardscape& Grading PlanL 1002010040N1L1001" = 20'-0"Park Hardscape & Grading Plandesign5la.com406.587.4873dateissuedrawn by:checked by:filename:z:\nwb west park neighborhood\autocad\01_sheets\2025 laurel meadows-parks-ph1\l000_west-park-parks_landscape_parks-ph1.dwg Laurel Meadows Phase 1 Park Plan Bozeman, Montana KHM/HU TMS 12/16/25Prelim Plat03/10/26Prelim Plat RC 1MATCHLINE SHEET 1/L101 PBLOCK 6LOT 2350562 sq.ft.SIOLAN8'8'WESWESSIOWESWES8'LANSIOSIO8'WESLAN(FUTURE)DONNER DRIVE XXXX4790'EXISTINGIRRIGATION DITCHPERPETUALWETLAND EASEMENTBAXTERCREEKPERPETUALWETLAND EASEMENT/COVENANT OFDEDICATION DEEDRESTRICTION LINE, SEE CIVILALL PROPOSED PLANTINGWITHIN PERPETUAL WETLAND EASEMENTTO BE INSTALLED BY HAND WITH LIMITED DISTURBANCEIRRIGATION DITCHEASEMENTZONE 2WATERCOURSESETBACKZONE 1WATERCOURSESETBACK113789455512366101110111213CONSTRUCTEDWETLANDBOUNDARY25'CONSTRUCTEDWETLANDSETBACKCONSTRUCTEDWETLANDBOUNDARY25'PROPOSEDWETLANDSETBACKKEYNOTES - 1/L101PARK BOUNDARYRECONSTRUCTED POND, SEE CIVIL6' WIDTH CRUSHER FINES TRAILRECONSTRUCTED/EMERGENT WETLAND AREA; SEE CIVIL FOR ALL CROSSSECTIONS, DETAILS, & SOILS INFORMATIONNATIVE PLANTING AT RECONSTRUCTED WETLAND, FINAL PLACEMENT TBDBASED ON CIVIL GRADING & SOIL ANALYSISPERPETUAL WETLAND EASEMENT, MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE IN LIMITSAS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES SHEET L001STEEL SHADE PAVILION(2) PICNIC TABLES, SURFACE MOUNT TO CONCRETE(3) BIKE RACKS, SURFACE MOUNT TO CONCRETE30' WATERCOURSE SETBACK, ZONE 120' WATERCOURSE SETBACK, ZONE 2EDGING AT ROCK BARK BED123456789101112LINE TYPE LEGENDPROPERTY LINEPROPOSED MAJOR CONTOURPROPOSED MINOR CONTOUREXISTING MAJOR CONTOUREXISTING MINOR CONTOUR7620'LIMLIMLIMITS OF DISTURBANCEWATERCOURSE SETBACKPERPETUAL WETLAND EASEMENTSYMBOLPRODUCTSITE MATERIAL SCHEDULE - PARK PHASE 1CRUSHERFINES TRAILCONCRETEALL ROUNDWASHED ROCKSTEELEDGINGPERPLANSYMBOLPRODUCTSITE AMENITY SCHEDULE - PARK PHASE 16' LENGTHACCESSIBLEPICNICTABLE***BIKE RACK***SHADEPAVILION**IRRIGATIONMETER PITMPPRIMARY PARKSIGNAGEDIRECTIONALTOTEM12SYMBOLQUAN.PRODUCTSIGNAGE SCHEDULE - PARK PHASE 120 ' 6'- 1 0 "10'-6"15'9'-6"27'8'11 ' - 6 " 4'- 3 " 4'- 3 "6'MAINTAIN 30"X48"CLEAR FOR ADASEATING SPACESYMBOLSEED MIXSOD & SEED SCHEDULENATIVE/UPLANDSEED BLEND &ZONE 2WATERCOURSESETBACK NATIVE FESCUEBLEND SODWETLAND AREAS& ZONE 1WATERCOURSESETBACKWETLANDSALVAGE SODWETLANDSALVAGED SODAREAPark Hardscape& Grading PlanL 1012010040N1L1011" = 20'-0"Park Hardscape & Grading PlanMATCHLINE SHEET 1/L100design5la.com406.587.4873dateissuedrawn by:checked by:filename:z:\nwb west park neighborhood\autocad\01_sheets\2025 laurel meadows-parks-ph1\l000_west-park-parks_landscape_parks-ph1.dwg Laurel Meadows Phase 1 Park Plan Bozeman, Montana KHM/HU TMS 12/16/25Prelim Plat03/10/26Prelim Plat RC 1MATCHLINE SHEET 1/L102105020N2L1011" = 10'-0"Park Hardscape Enlargement BLOCK 7LOT 2119232 sq.ft.SIO8'8'LANLANLANLANSIOSIOSIO8'WESWESWESWESWESWESWESWESXXXXXX(FUTURE)DONNER DRIVEPERPETUALWETLAND EASEMENT/COVENANT OFDEDICATION DEEDRESTRICTION LINE, SEE CIVILEXISTINGIRRIGATION DITCHEXISTINGIRRIGATION DITCHBAXTERCREEKBAXTERCREEKALL PROPOSED PLANTINGWITHIN EASEMENT TO BE INSTALLED BY HAND WITH LIMITED DISTURBANCEPERPETUALWETLAND EASEMENT/ COVENANT OFDEDICATION DEEDRESTRICTION LINE, SEE CIVILXX(FUTURE)DONNER DRIVEALL PROPOSED PLANTINGWITHIN PERPETUAL WETLAND EASEMENT TOBE INSTALLED BY HAND WITH LIMITED DISTURBANCEEXISTING DITCHEASEMENTZONE 2WATERCOURSESETBACKZONE 1WATERCOURSESETBACKEXISTING DITCHEASEMENT45131122455454336KEYNOTES - 1/L102PARK BOUNDARY6' WIDTH CRUSHER FINES TRAILPERPETUAL WETLAND EASEMENT, MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE IN LIMITSAS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES SHEET L00130' WATERCOURSE SETBACK, ZONE 120' WATERCOURSE SETBACK, ZONE 212345LINE TYPE LEGENDPROPERTY LINEPROPOSED MAJOR CONTOURPROPOSED MINOR CONTOUREXISTING MAJOR CONTOUREXISTING MINOR CONTOUR7620'LIMLIMLIMITS OF DISTURBANCEWATERCOURSE SETBACKPERPETUAL WETLAND EASEMENTSYMBOLPRODUCTSITE MATERIAL SCHEDULE - PARK PHASE 1CRUSHERFINES TRAILCONCRETEALL ROUNDWASHED ROCKSTEELEDGINGPERPLANSYMBOLPRODUCTSITE AMENITY SCHEDULE - PARK PHASE 16' LENGTHACCESSIBLEPICNICTABLE***BIKE RACK***SHADEPAVILION**IRRIGATIONMETER PITMPPRIMARY PARKSIGNAGEDIRECTIONALTOTEM12SYMBOLQUAN.PRODUCTSIGNAGE SCHEDULE - PARK PHASE 1SYMBOLSEED MIXSOD & SEED SCHEDULENATIVE/UPLANDSEED BLEND &ZONE 2WATERCOURSESETBACK NATIVE FESCUEBLEND SODWETLAND AREAS& ZONE 1WATERCOURSESETBACKWETLANDSALVAGE SODWETLANDSALVAGED SODAREAPark Hardscape &Grading PlanL 1022010040N1L1021" = 20'-0"Park Hardscape & Grading PlanMATCHLINE SHEET 1/L101design5la.com406.587.4873dateissuedrawn by:checked by:filename:z:\nwb west park neighborhood\autocad\01_sheets\2025 laurel meadows-parks-ph1\l000_west-park-parks_landscape_parks-ph1.dwg Laurel Meadows Phase 1 Park Plan Bozeman, Montana KHM/HU TMS 12/16/25Prelim Plat03/10/26Prelim Plat RC 1MATCHLINE SHEET 1/L103 8'WESXXEXISTINGIRRIGATION DITCHAPPROXIMATECENTERLINE OFBAXTER CREEKPERPETUALWETLAND EASEMENTEXISTING DITCHEASEMENT13244165EXACT CONNECTION TOEXISTING TRAIL TO BEDETERMINED IN FIELD7KEYNOTES - 1 & 2 /L103PARK BOUNDARYDIRECTIONAL SIGN TOTEMEXISTING BRONKEN PARK TRAIL6' WIDTH CRUSHER FINES TRAIL(FUTURE PHASE)30' WATERCOURSE SETBACK, ZONE 120' WATERCOURSE SETBACK, ZONE 2DONNER DRIVE SIDEWALK TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN FUTURE PHASE1234567LINE TYPE LEGENDPROPERTY LINEPROPOSED MAJOR CONTOURPROPOSED MINOR CONTOUREXISTING MAJOR CONTOUREXISTING MINOR CONTOUR7620'LIMLIMLIMITS OF DISTURBANCEWATERCOURSE SETBACKPERPETUAL WETLAND EASEMENTSYMBOLPRODUCTSITE MATERIAL SCHEDULE - PARK PHASE 1CRUSHERFINES TRAILCONCRETEALL ROUNDWASHED ROCKSTEELEDGINGPERPLANPERPETUALWETLAND EASEMENT114442EXISTING VALLEY WEST TRAILSSYMBOLPRODUCTSITE AMENITY SCHEDULE - PARK PHASE 16' LENGTHACCESSIBLEPICNICTABLE***BIKE RACK***SHADEPAVILION**IRRIGATIONMETER PITMPPRIMARY PARKSIGNAGEDIRECTIONALTOTEM12SYMBOLQUAN.PRODUCTSIGNAGE SCHEDULE - PARK PHASE 1SYMBOLSEED MIXSOD & SEED SCHEDULENATIVE/UPLANDSEED BLEND &ZONE 2WATERCOURSESETBACK NATIVE FESCUEBLEND SODWETLAND AREAS& ZONE 1WATERCOURSESETBACKWETLANDSALVAGE SODWETLANDSALVAGED SODAREAPark Hardscape& Grading PlanL 1032010040N2L1031" = 20'-0"Park Hardscape & Grading Plandesign5la.com406.587.4873dateissuedrawn by:checked by:filename:z:\nwb west park neighborhood\autocad\01_sheets\2025 laurel meadows-parks-ph1\l000_west-park-parks_landscape_parks-ph1.dwg Laurel Meadows Phase 1 Park Plan Bozeman, Montana KHM/HU TMS 12/16/25Prelim Plat03/10/26Prelim Plat RC 12010040N1L1031" = 20'-0"Park Hardscape & Grading PlanMATCHLINE SHEET 1/L102MATCHLINE SHEET 2/L103MATCHLINE SHEET 1/L102MATCHLINE SHEET 1/L103 BFCPMPPTWVWV LANLANWESWESWESWESWESWESWESWESWESLANLANLANLANPERPETUALWETLANDEASEMENTIRRIGATIONDITCHEASEMENTCONSTRUCTEDWETLANDBOUNDARY25'PROPOSEDWETLANDSETBACK25'CONSTRUCTEDWETLANDSETBACKCONSTRUCTEDWETLANDBOUNDARY25'PROPOSEDWETLANDSETBACKSYMBOLSEED MIXSOD & SEED SCHEDULENATIVE/UPLANDSEED BLEND &ZONE 2WATERCOURSESETBACK NATIVE FESCUEBLEND SODWETLAND AREAS& ZONE 1WATERCOURSESETBACKWETLANDSALVAGE SODWETLANDSALVAGED SODAREATREESSYMBOLBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEPLANT SCHEDULE - PARKS PHASE 1PRUNUS MAACKIIAMUR CHOKECHERRYGLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS VAR. INERMIS'SKYCOLE'***SKYLINE HONEYLOCUST-MALECULTIVARS ONLYQUERCUS MACROCARPA***+BUR OAKQUERCUS RUBRANORTHERN RED OAKNOTE:TREESSHRUBSSYMBOLBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEPLANT SCHEDULE - WATERCOURSE & WETLAND AREAS PARKS PHASE 1SALIX LUTEA +YELLOW WILLOWSALIX GEYERIANA + GEYER WILLOWSALIX LASIANDRA +PACIFIC WILLOW5 GAL5 GAL5 GALCORNUS SERICEA + RED OSIER DOGWOODBETULA OCCIDENTALIS +WATER BIRCH2" CALWESPOPULUS ANUGUSTIFOLIA+NARROWLEAF COTTONWOOD2" CALPOPULUS ACUMINATA +LANCELEAF POPLAR2" CALSIOJUNIPERUS SCOPULORUM*** +ROCKY MOUNTAIN JUNIPERHEIGHT8'LANSALIX BOOTHII +BOOTHS WILLOW5 GALALNUS INCANA +SPECKLED ALDER5 GALSALIX INTERIOR +SANDBAR WILLOW5 GAL5 GALNOTE:-ALL TREES & SHRUBS TO HAVE A 3' DIAMETER CEDAR BARK MULCH RINGAROUND BASE-ALL WETLAND AND WATERCOURSE PLANTINGS ARE NATIVE TO MONTANAPark PlantingPlanL 3002010040N1L3001" = 20'-0"Park Planting Plandesign5la.com406.587.4873dateissuedrawn by:checked by:filename:z:\nwb west park neighborhood\autocad\01_sheets\2025 laurel meadows-parks-ph1\l000_west-park-parks_landscape_parks-ph1.dwg Laurel Meadows Phase 1 Park Plan Bozeman, Montana KHM/HU TMS 12/16/25Prelim Plat03/10/26Prelim Plat RC 1MATCHLINE SHEET 1/L301***SEE WETLAND PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS SHEET L001ALL WETLAND AND WATERCOURSE PLANTINGS ARENATIVE TO MONTANA PBLOCK 6LOT 2350562 sq.ft.SIOLAN8'8'WESWESSIOWESWES8'LANSIOSIO8'WESLAN(FUTURE)DONNER DRIVE EXISTINGIRRIGATION DITCHPERPETUALWETLAND EASEMENTBAXTERCREEKPERPETUALWETLAND EASEMENT/COVENANT OFDEDICATION DEEDRESTRICTION LINE, SEE CIVILALL PROPOSED PLANTINGWITHIN PERPETUAL WETLAND EASEMENTTO BE INSTALLED BY HAND WITH LIMITED DISTURBANCEIRRIGATION DITCHEASEMENTZONE 2WATERCOURSESETBACKZONE 1WATERCOURSESETBACKCONSTRUCTEDWETLANDBOUNDARY25'CONSTRUCTEDWETLANDSETBACKCONSTRUCTEDWETLANDBOUNDARY25'PROPOSEDWETLANDSETBACKSYMBOLSEED MIXSOD & SEED SCHEDULENATIVE/UPLANDSEED BLEND &ZONE 2WATERCOURSESETBACK NATIVE FESCUEBLEND SODWETLAND AREAS& ZONE 1WATERCOURSESETBACKWETLANDSALVAGE SODWETLANDSALVAGED SODAREATREESSYMBOLBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEPLANT SCHEDULE - PARKS PHASE 1PRUNUS MAACKIIAMUR CHOKECHERRYGLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS VAR. INERMIS'SKYCOLE'***SKYLINE HONEYLOCUST-MALECULTIVARS ONLYQUERCUS MACROCARPA***+BUR OAKQUERCUS RUBRANORTHERN RED OAKTREESSHRUBSSYMBOLBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEPLANT SCHEDULE - WATERCOURSE & WETLAND AREAS PARKS PHASE 1SALIX LUTEA +YELLOW WILLOWSALIX GEYERIANA + GEYER WILLOWSALIX LASIANDRA +PACIFIC WILLOW5 GAL5 GAL5 GALCORNUS SERICEA + RED OSIER DOGWOODBETULA OCCIDENTALIS +WATER BIRCH2" CALWESPOPULUS ANUGUSTIFOLIA+NARROWLEAF COTTONWOOD2" CALPOPULUS ACUMINATA +LANCELEAF POPLAR2" CALSIOJUNIPERUS SCOPULORUM*** +ROCKY MOUNTAIN JUNIPERHEIGHT8'LANSALIX BOOTHII +BOOTHS WILLOW5 GALALNUS INCANA +SPECKLED ALDER5 GALSALIX INTERIOR +SANDBAR WILLOW5 GAL5 GALNOTE:-ALL TREES & SHRUBS TO HAVE A 3' DIAMETER CEDAR BARK MULCH RINGAROUND BASE-ALL WETLAND AND WATERCOURSE PLANTINGS ARE NATIVE TO MONTANAPark PlantingPlanL 3012010040N1L3011" = 20'-0"Park Planting PlanMATCHLINE SHEET 1/L300design5la.com406.587.4873dateissuedrawn by:checked by:filename:z:\nwb west park neighborhood\autocad\01_sheets\2025 laurel meadows-parks-ph1\l000_west-park-parks_landscape_parks-ph1.dwg Laurel Meadows Phase 1 Park Plan Bozeman, Montana KHM/HU TMS 12/16/25Prelim Plat03/10/26Prelim Plat RC 1MATCHLINE SHEET 1/L302***SEE WETLAND PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS SHEET L001ALL WETLAND AND WATERCOURSE PLANTINGS ARENATIVE TO MONTANA BLOCK 7LOT 2119232 sq.ft.SIO8'8'LANLANLANLANSIOSIOSIO8'WESWESWESWESWESWESWESWES(FUTURE)DONNER DRIVEPERPETUALWETLAND EASEMENT/COVENANT OFDEDICATION DEEDRESTRICTION LINE, SEE CIVILEXISTINGIRRIGATION DITCHEXISTINGIRRIGATION DITCHBAXTERCREEKBAXTERCREEKALL PROPOSED PLANTINGWITHIN EASEMENT TO BE INSTALLED BY HAND WITH LIMITED DISTURBANCEPERPETUALWETLAND EASEMENT/ COVENANT OFDEDICATION DEEDRESTRICTION LINE, SEE CIVIL(FUTURE)DONNER DRIVEALL PROPOSED PLANTINGWITHIN PERPETUAL WETLAND EASEMENT TOBE INSTALLED BY HAND WITH LIMITED DISTURBANCEEXISTING DITCHEASEMENTZONE 2WATERCOURSESETBACKZONE 1WATERCOURSESETBACKEXISTING DITCHEASEMENTSYMBOLSEED MIXSOD & SEED SCHEDULENATIVE/UPLANDSEED BLEND &ZONE 2WATERCOURSESETBACK NATIVE FESCUEBLEND SODWETLAND AREAS& ZONE 1WATERCOURSESETBACKWETLANDSALVAGE SODWETLANDSALVAGED SODAREATREESSYMBOLBOTANICAL NAMESIZETYPECOMMON NAMEPLANT SCHEDULE - PARKS PHASE 1PRUNUS MAACKIIAMUR CHOKECHERRY2" CALB & BGLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS VAR. INERMIS'SKYCOLE'***SKYLINE HONEYLOCUST-MALECULTIVARS ONLYQUERCUS MACROCARPA***+BUR OAK2" CALB & B2" CALB & BQUERCUS RUBRANORTHERN RED OAK2" CALB & BTREESSHRUBSSYMBOLBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEPLANT SCHEDULE - WATERCOURSE & WETLAND AREAS PARKS PHASE 1SALIX LUTEA +YELLOW WILLOWSALIX GEYERIANA + GEYER WILLOWSALIX LASIANDRA +PACIFIC WILLOW5 GAL5 GAL5 GALCORNUS SERICEA + RED OSIER DOGWOODBETULA OCCIDENTALIS +WATER BIRCH2" CALWESPOPULUS ANUGUSTIFOLIA+NARROWLEAF COTTONWOOD2" CALPOPULUS ACUMINATA +LANCELEAF POPLAR2" CALSIOJUNIPERUS SCOPULORUM*** +ROCKY MOUNTAIN JUNIPERHEIGHT8'LANSALIX BOOTHII +BOOTHS WILLOW5 GALALNUS INCANA +SPECKLED ALDER5 GALSALIX INTERIOR +SANDBAR WILLOW5 GAL5 GALNOTE:-ALL TREES & SHRUBS TO HAVE A 3' DIAMETER CEDAR BARK MULCH RINGAROUND BASE-ALL WETLAND AND WATERCOURSE PLANTINGS ARE NATIVE TO MONTANAPark PlantingPlanL 3022010040N1L3021" = 20'-0"Park Planting PlanMATCHLINE L301:1design5la.com406.587.4873dateissuedrawn by:checked by:filename:z:\nwb west park neighborhood\autocad\01_sheets\2025 laurel meadows-parks-ph1\l000_west-park-parks_landscape_parks-ph1.dwg Laurel Meadows Phase 1 Park Plan Bozeman, Montana KHM/HU TMS 12/16/25Prelim Plat03/10/26Prelim Plat RC 1MATCHLINE L303:1***SEE WETLAND PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS SHEET L001ALL WETLAND AND WATERCOURSE PLANTINGS ARENATIVE TO MONTANA 8'WESEXISTINGIRRIGATION DITCHAPPROXIMATECENTERLINE OFBAXTER CREEKPERPETUALWETLAND EASEMENTEXISTING DITCHEASEMENTSYMBOLSEED MIXSOD & SEED SCHEDULENATIVE/UPLANDSEED BLEND &ZONE 2WATERCOURSESETBACK NATIVE FESCUEBLEND SODWETLAND AREAS& ZONE 1WATERCOURSESETBACKWETLANDSALVAGE SODWETLANDSALVAGED SODAREATREESSYMBOLBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEPLANT SCHEDULE - PARKS PHASE 1PRUNUS MAACKIIAMUR CHOKECHERRYGLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS VAR. INERMIS'SKYCOLE'***SKYLINE HONEYLOCUST-MALECULTIVARS ONLYQUERCUS MACROCARPA***+BUR OAKQUERCUS RUBRANORTHERN RED OAKTREESSHRUBSSYMBOLBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEPLANT SCHEDULE - WATERCOURSE & WETLAND AREAS PARKS PHASE 1SALIX LUTEA +YELLOW WILLOWSALIX GEYERIANA + GEYER WILLOWSALIX LASIANDRA +PACIFIC WILLOW5 GAL5 GAL5 GALCORNUS SERICEA + RED OSIER DOGWOODBETULA OCCIDENTALIS +WATER BIRCH2" CALWESPOPULUS ANUGUSTIFOLIA+NARROWLEAF COTTONWOOD2" CALPOPULUS ACUMINATA +LANCELEAF POPLAR2" CALSIOJUNIPERUS SCOPULORUM*** +ROCKY MOUNTAIN JUNIPERHEIGHT8'LANSALIX BOOTHII +BOOTHS WILLOW5 GALALNUS INCANA +SPECKLED ALDER5 GALSALIX INTERIOR +SANDBAR WILLOW5 GAL5 GALNOTE:-ALL TREES & SHRUBS TO HAVE A 3' DIAMETER CEDAR BARK MULCH RINGAROUND BASE-ALL WETLAND AND WATERCOURSE PLANTINGS ARE NATIVE TO MONTANAPERPETUALWETLAND EASEMENTEXISTING VALLEY WEST TRAILSPark PlantingPlanL 3032010040N2L3031" = 20'-0"Park Planting PlanMATCHLINE SHEET 1/L303design5la.com406.587.4873dateissuedrawn by:checked by:filename:z:\nwb west park neighborhood\autocad\01_sheets\2025 laurel meadows-parks-ph1\l000_west-park-parks_landscape_parks-ph1.dwg Laurel Meadows Phase 1 Park Plan Bozeman, Montana KHM/HU TMS 12/16/25Prelim Plat03/10/26Prelim Plat RC 12010040N1L3031" = 20'-0"Park Planting PlanMATCHLINE SHEET 2/L303MATCHLINE SHEET 1/L303 MATCHLINE SHEET 2/L303 ***SEE WETLAND PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS SHEET L001ALL WETLAND AND WATERCOURSE PLANTINGS ARENATIVE TO MONTANA 1L5003/8" = 1'-0"Typ. Coniferous Tree B&B PlantingMIN. 2 X ROOT BALL DIAM.FINISH GRADEELEVATION OF TREE FLARE TO BE 2" ABOVE FINISHGRADE ELEVATION. REMOVE EXCESS SOIL FROMROOT BALL, AS REQUIRED, IN ORDER TO EXPOSEFLAREPLANTING PIT. PIT TO HAVE BROADLY SLOPINGSIDES; SCARIFY SIDES OF PIT. SOIL AT THE BOTTOMOF THE PIT TO BE SUFFICIENTLY COMPACTED TOPREVENT SETTLEMENT. EXCAVATE PIT 2X - 5XDIAMETER OF ROOT BALL. REMOVE ALL DEBRIS ANDROCKS (LARGER THAN 3" DIAM.) FROM PIT PRIOR TOPLANTINGBACKFILL WITH MIX: 13 NATIVE BACKFILL SOIL, 13SANDY LOAM AND 13 DEBRIS FREE TOPSOILNATIVE SOILTREE STAKING, SEE SHEET L500: DETAIL 53" - 4" LAYER OF BARK MULCH. DO NOT ALLOWMULCH TO COME IN CONTACT WITH TRUNK3" HIGH ROUND-TOPPED CIRCULAR RING FORWATER RETENTION. FORM RING OF SOIL ALONGTHE PERIMETER OF THE PLANTING PITROOT BALL2L5003/8" = 1'-0"Typ. Deciduous Tree B&B PlantingMIN. 2 X ROOT BALL DIAM.FINISH GRADEELEVATION OF TREE FLARE TO BE 2" ABOVEFINISH GRADE ELEVATION. REMOVE EXCESSSOIL FROM ROOT BALL, AS REQUIRED, INORDER TO EXPOSE FLAREPLANTING PIT. PIT TO HAVE BROADLYSLOPING SIDES; SCARIFY SIDES OF PIT. SOILAT THE BOTTOM OF THE PIT TO BESUFFICIENTLY COMPACTED TO PREVENTSETTLEMENT. EXCAVATE PIT 2X - 5XDIAMETER OF ROOT BALL. REMOVE ALLDEBRIS AND ROCKS (LARGER THAN 3" DIAM.)FROM PIT PRIOR TO PLANTINGBACKFILL WITH MIX: 13 NATIVE BACKFILLSOIL, 13 SANDY LOAM AND 13 DEBRISFREE TOPSOILNATIVE SOILTREE STAKING, SEE SHEET L500: DETAIL 5ROOT BALL3" - 4" LAYER OF BARK MULCH. DO NOTALLOW MULCH TO COME IN CONTACTWITH TRUNK3" HIGH ROUND-TOPPED CIRCULAR RING FORWATER RETENTION. FORM RING OF SOILALONG THE PERIMETER OF THE PLANTING PITFINISH GRADETREE FENCE / CAGE. CAGE SHALL BE MIN. 6'TALL. FASTEN CAGE TO STAKE WITH CABLETIES OR WIRE. CAGE TO BE NO. 14 GAUGEGALVANIZED WELDED WIRE MESH 2" X 4"TWO 2" X 2" X 8' HARDWOOD STAKES DRIVENMIN. 24" BELOW FINISHED GRADE AND MIN. 6'HEIGHT ABOVE FINISHED GRADE. STAKES TOBE SET OUTSIDE OF TREE DRIP LINE. STEELSTAKES MAY BE USED FOR LARGER TREES.STAKES SHALL NOT PENETRATE ROOT BALL.REMOVE STAKES AFTER TWO YEARSPROTECT TREE TRUNK WITH APPROVED PLANTTIE MATERIAL. SET TIES LOOSE ENOUGH TOALLOW FOR TRUNK AND ROOT DEVELOPMENT.TIES TO BE OF SOFT, WIDE (MIN. 1") POLYMERMATERIAL. WIRE SHALL NOT BE WRAPPEDAROUND TRUNK. FASTEN TIES AT LESS THAN 13OF THE TOTAL TREE HEIGHT, AT LOWESTBRANCHES TO PREVENT SLIDING10" GAUGE WIREINDUSTRY GRADE PLASTIC TREE GUARDS,DO NOT USE TRUNK WRAPS3L5003/8" = 1'-0"Typ. Plant Protection Methods6'-0"4L5003/4" = 1'-0"Typ. Shrub Planting, Individual Planting PitMIN. 2 X ROOT BALL DIAM.FINISH GRADEELEVATION OF ROOT CROWN TO BE 1" - 2"ABOVE FINISH GRADE ELEVATION3" - 4" LAYER OF BARK MULCH. DO NOTALLOW MULCH TO COME IN CONTACTWITH SHRUB STEMSNATIVE SOILPLANTING PIT. PIT TO HAVE BROADLYSLOPING SLIDES; SCARIFY SIDES OF PIT.SOIL AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PIT TO BESUFFICIENTLY COMPACTED TO PREVENTSETTLEMENT. EXCAVATE PIT 2X - 5XDIAMETER OF ROOT BALL. REMOVE ALLDEBRIS AND ROCKS (LARGER THAN 3"DIAM.) FROM PIT PRIOR TO PLANTINGROOT BALLBACKFILL WITH MIX: 13 NATIVEBACKFILL SOIL WITH 13 SANDY LOAMAND 13 DEBRIS FREE TOPSOIL3" HIGH ROUND-TOPPED CIRCULAR RINGFOR WATER RETENTION. FORM RING OFSOIL ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THEPLANTING PIT5L5003/4" = 1'-0"Typ. Planting BedNOTE:1.REMOVE ALL DEBRIS AND STONES (LARGER THAN 3" DIAMETER)2.ALL PLANTING BEDS TO BE EXCAVATED 18" DEEP. SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOMTO REMOVE GLAZING. ALL BEDS TO RECEIVE NEW, AMENDED SOIL: MIX 1"COMPOST WITH MIN. 17" NEW TOPSOIL, FOR A COMBINED SETTLED DEPTH OF 18".RAKE SMOOTH TO MATCH FINAL GRADING PLANFINISH GRADE3" - 4" MULCH LAYER,MULCH TYPE PER PLAN.DO NOT ALLOW MULCHTO COME IN CONTACTWITH SHRUB STEMSTOPSOIL, SEE NOTE 2NATIVE SOILPLANT CROWN TO BEPLANTED AT ORSLIGHTLY ABOVE FINISHGRADE AT MAXIMUM OF1"-2".SHEETS L500 LANDSCAPE DETAILS NOTES:1.LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSURE PERCOLATION OFALL PLANTING PITS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION2.ALL CONTAINMENT MATERIALS AROUND ROOT BALL TO BEREMOVED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION2.1.CAREFULLY REMOVE ENTIRE WIRE BASKETS AT PLANTING2.2.CAREFULLY REMOVE ALL TREATED BURLAP (ROT-PROOF)AT PLANTING2.3.UNTREATED BURLAP MAY PARTIALLY REMAIN ON ROOTBALL. REMOVE BURLAP FROM TOP HALF OF ROOT BALLBEFORE COMPLETION OF PLANTING3.CONTAINER PLANTS: CAREFULLY CUT ANY CIRCLING ROOTS TOPREVENT PLANT FROM BECOMING ROOT BOUND4.PRUNE ALL PLANT MATERIAL PRIOR TO PLANTING, ON AN ASNEEDED BASIS. REMOVE DEAD AND / OR DAMAGED BRANCHES,LIMBS, AND LEAVES5.ALL TREES TO BE STAKED, REMOVE STAKES AFTER TWO YEARS6.ALL DECIDUOUS TREES AND SHRUBS NOT PLANTED INFOUNDATION BEDS TO BE FENCED FOR PROTECTION FROMUNGULATES AND OTHER HERBIVORES7.PROVIDE TREE GUARDS ON ALL DECIDUOUS TREES OUTSIDE OFPLANTING BEDSSEE PLAN2% Max SLOPE4:1 MaxNOTES:1.NATURAL FINES SHALL CONSIST OF 80% SAND, 10% SILT,AND 10% CLAY2.A SOIL STERILANT SHALL BE APPLIED TO THE SUBGRADEPRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF GRAVEL BASE.7L5001/2" = 1'-0"Class II Gravel Fines Trail (Typ.)3" Min THICKNESS OF 38" MINUSCOMPACTED GRAVEL( NATURAL FINES SEE NOTE 1.)3" Min THICKNESS OF34" Minus COMPACTEDCRUSHED GRAVEL BASECOMPACTED SUBGRADE(SEE NOTE 2.)6L5003/4" = 1'-0"Planting Bed at Pavement Edge1"REVEAL - SEE NOTE 26" - 12" SEENOTE 445°NOTE:1.SLOPE PLANTED AREAS AWAY FROM PAVED AREAS2.FINISH GRADE AT PAVEMENT EDGE MUST BE AT A LEVEL SUCH THAT THEESTABLISHED PLANTED SURFACE WILL BE ONE (0.5-1) INCH BELOW TOP OFPAVEMENT FOR A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF SIX (6) FEET FROM THE EDGE3.BASE MATERIAL AND COMPACTED SUBGRADE TO BE EXTENDED 1X-2X THE DEPTHOF THE BASE MATERIAL BEYOND THE EDGE OF THE PAVEMENT SYSTEM. TAPERBASE MATERIAL TOWARD THE COMPACTED SUBGRADE AT A 45° ANGLE90% - 95% COMPACTED SUBGRADENATIVE SOILPAVEMENT EDGE - SEE PLANS ANDPAVING DETAILS FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION. SEE ALSO EDGINGDETAILS AS APPLICABLEAMENDED TOPSOIL3" - 4" MULCH LAYER,MULCH TYPE PER PLANFINISH GRADE, SEE NOTE 26" DEPTH OF 34" MINUS WASHEDAGGREGATE BASE MATERIAL2% Min SLOPE4:1 Max4:1 MaxWIDTH PER PLAN8L5001/2" = 1'-0"Concrete Picnic Area (Typ.)4" MIN. THICKNESS CONCRETE6" Min THICKNESS OF 34" MINUSCOMPACTEDCRUSHED GRAVEL BASEUNDISTURBED SOIL9L500NTSPark Wayfinding Totem (Typ)SIDE VIEWBACK VIEWFRONT VIEW10"10"10"8'14"14"14"1"45°8"8"2"2"2"+/- 45"3"8"8"8"3"3"3"3"3"10" - 12"IN GROUNDDIRECTIONAL LABELS,TBD BY CITYCUSTOM FABRICATEDTIMBER POSTFINISHGRADENOTE: SIGNAGE DETAIL IS CONCEPTUAL ONLY.VERIFY SHOP DRAWINGS WITH CITY OF BOZEMANPARK WAYFINDING STANDARDS. DIRECTIONAL TOTEMTO DISPLAY TRAIL DIRECTIONS AND DISTANCES.10L500NTSPrimary Park Sign (Typ)FRONT ELEVATIONSECTIONNOTE: SIGNAGE DETAIL IS CONCEPTUAL ONLY.VERIFY SHOP DRAWINGS WITH CITY OF BOZEMANPARK WAYFINDING STANDARDS. PRIMARY SIGN TODISPLAY PARK NAME & LOCATION.5'6'SELF ADHESIVE VINYLGRAPHICS, BY OTHERS14" STEEL PLATE POWDERCOATED, COLOR BY CITY14" STEEL KNIFE PLATE WITHANCHOR BOLTS TOCONCRETECONCRETE PAD& FOOTINGSC5X6.7 STEEL CHANNELUNFINISHED58" THRU BOLT (TYP.)14" STEEL PLATE POWDERCOATED, COLOR BY CITY11L5001/2" = 1'The Park U-Bike Rack - Surface Mounted1'-10"24"MIN.TONEARESTOBJECT30" MIN TO NEAREST OBJECT3'1'-10"2'-8"BIKE RACK.SURFACE MOUNTWITH BOLTS PERMANUFACTURER'SSPECIFICATIONSFINISH GRADERACKS ARE TOBE PLACED AMIN. 30" ONCENTER.4" CONCRETE6" MIN. THICKNESS OF 34"MINUS COMPACTEDCRUSHED GRAVEL BASELandscapeDetailsL 500design5la.com406.587.4873dateissuedrawn by:checked by:filename:z:\nwb west park neighborhood\autocad\01_sheets\2025 laurel meadows-parks-ph1\l500_west-park-parks_standarddetails2021-ph1.dwg Laurel Meadows Phase 1 Park Plan Bozeman, Montana KHM/HU TMS 12/16/25Prelim Plat03/10/26Prelim Plat RC 1 1L5011/2" = 1'Maglin 6' Picnic Table - Surface Mounted5'-10"2'-6"5'-612"PICNIC TABLE,SURFACE MOUNTWITH 38" CONCRETEANCHORS PERMANUFACTURER'SSPECIFICATIONSFINISH GRADE4" CONCRETE1'-7"6" Min THICKNESS OF 34"MINUS COMPACTEDCRUSHED GRAVEL BASE2L501NTS14'x18' Pavilion with Clerestory Style RoofTO FROSTDEPTHPER CODEFINISH GRADEINSTALL POSTS INCONCRETE FOOTINGS ATEACH PIER LOCATION,SEE NOTE4" CONCRETESTEEL PAVILION,BY OTHERS6" DEPTH 34" MINUSAGGREGATEBASE MATERIALSTEEL BASE PLATE,ATTACHED TO CONCRETEWITH CONCRETE ANCHORS,PER MANUFACTURER'SSPECIFICATIONCOMPACTEDSUBGRADENOTE: DRAWING IS CONCEPTUAL ONLY.CONTRACTOR TO ENGAGE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERFOR FOOTING REINFORCEMENT AND SIZE.MANUFACTURER TO PROVIDE SHOP DRAWINGSPRIOR TO INSTALLATION. CONFIRM ALLMEASUREMENTS BEFORE CONSTRUCTION.34" EXPANSION JOINTWITH 18" RADIUS3L5011" = 1'-0"Steel Edging at Trail EdgeFINISH GRADENOTE:1.REMOVE ALL DEBRIS AND STONES (LARGER THAN 3" DIAMETER)2.ALL PLANTING BEDS TO BE EXCAVATED 18" DEEP. SCARIFY SIDES ANDBOTTOM TO REMOVE GLAZING. ALL BEDS TO RECEIVE NEW, AMENDEDSOIL: MIX 1" COMPOST WITH MIN. 17" NEW TOPSOIL, FOR A COMBINEDSETTLED DEPTH OF 18". RAKE SMOOTH TO MATCH FINAL GRADING PLAN1" REVEALNATIVE SOIL316" X 4" NATURAL STEEL EDGING TACWELDED TO #4 REBAR DRIVENMIN. 18" REBAR SPACED 24" O.C.3" - 4" LAYER OF MULCH. MULCHTYPE PER PLAN.ADJACENT CRUSHERFINES TRAILTOPSOIL, SEE NOTE 24L501NTSPlayWorld Mount Vernon- Play equipment (Phase 2)5L501NTSParkitect Classic Bow Tie Pump Track (Phase 2) LandscapeDetailsL 501design5la.com406.587.4873dateissuedrawn by:checked by:filename:z:\nwb west park neighborhood\autocad\01_sheets\2025 laurel meadows-parks-ph1\l500_west-park-parks_standarddetails2021-ph1.dwg Laurel Meadows Phase 1 Park Plan Bozeman, Montana KHM/HU TMS 12/16/25Prelim Plat03/10/26Prelim Plat RC 1NOTE: PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED FOR PHASE 1CONSTRUCTION AND FINAL PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT DETAILS ANDSPECIFICATIONS WILL BE PROVIDED WITH PHASE 2 REVIEWPROPOSED PLAY EQUIPMENT FOR PHASE 2 ONLY. SEE NOTE BELOW: SHOWN FOR PARKS DEPT. CONTEXT ONLY ASREQUESTED & NOT SUBJECT TO REVIEW FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PHASE 1 REVIEW AT THIS TIME. FINALPHASE 2 PLAY EQUIPMENT WILL BE SUBMITTED AT A LATER DATE WITH PARK PHASE 2 PLAN REVIEW. SYMBOLSIZEDESCRIPTIONIRRIGATION LEGENDBACKFLOW PREVENTER2"BFCONNECTION POINTCPIRRIGATION SLEEVE, 4" MIN. SCH 40 PVC*NOTES:-IRRIGATION DESIGN WILL BE PROVIDED FOR FINAL PLAT FORAPPROVAL, DESIGNER WILL PROVIDE ALL PROPOSED TIMERS, VALVES,EQUIPMENT FOR FINAL PLAT SUBMITTAL.-FINAL IRRIGATION AS-BUILT MAPS TO BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY OFBOZEMAN PARKS DIVISION-METER PITS TO BE INSTALLED AT DISTANCE FROM SANITARY SEWERLINES PER CURRENT REGULATIONS-IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO BE HUNTER 2-WIRE(EZDS) SYSTEM/DECODERSWITH HUNTER ICC2 EPA WATER SENSE CERTIFIED CONTROLLER ONMETAL PEDESTAL MOUNT, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THECITY'S PARKS OPS SUPERINTENDENT, SEE TYP. DETAIL L700SEEPLANN/AMETER PITN/AMPCIRRIGATION CONTROLLERN/AGENERAL IRRIGATION NOTES - PARK:1.ALL SECTIONS OF MAINLINE CROSSING UNDER CONCRETE, ROADS, OR OTHER LARGE HARDSCAPE SURFACES TOBE IN SCH. 40 PVC SLEEVES.1.1.SLEEVES TO BE DOUBLE THE DIAMETER OF PROPOSED MAINLINE.1.2.LATERAL LINE SLEEVES TO BE SCH. 40 PVC AT LEAST DOUBLE THE DIAMETER OF THE LATERAL LINE SIZEPROPOSED.2.ALL SYSTEMS TO BE ON A LOOPED MAINLINE WHERE POSSIBLE, REFER TO CONCEPTUAL IRRIGATION MAINLINELAYOUT.3.GENERAL CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ANY NECESSARY ELECTRICAL SERVICES TO WELL PUMPSOR METER PITS.4.ALL SYSTEMS WILL BE 2 WIRE DECODER TYPE SYSTEMS.5.ALL INFORMATION SHOWN ON CONCEPTUAL DRAWINGS TO BE VERIFIED BY IRRIGATION DESIGNER, ANDCONTRACTOR. COORDINATION WITH GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS NECESSARY BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINSTO ENSURE PROPER LOCATION OF SLEEVES, ELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS, AND WATER SOURCE CONNECTIONS.6.ALL IRRIGATION COMPONENTS TO BE HIGH EFFICIENCY, HEADS, NOZZLES, DRIP, VALVES, AND FITTINGS.7.FINAL IRRIGATION DESIGN TO BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FINAL PLAT OR CONSTRUCTION, WHICHEVER OCCURSFIRST.GENERAL IRRIGATION NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS1.THESE PLANS PROVIDE GENERAL ANTICIPATED WATER DEMAND AND TYPE OF IRRIGATION FOR THE SUBDIVISIONPARK, WHICH IS IRRIGATED BY (1) EXISTING WELL.2.ALL VALVE BOXES TO BE STANDARD SIZE OR LARGER3.IRRIGATION MAIN LINE TO BE SCH. 40 PVC SOLVENT WELDED PVC IN CONTINUOUS LOOP, SIZE OF LINEDEPENDENT ON WATER DEMAND AS DETERMINED BY IRRIGATION DESIGN CONTRACTOR. LATERAL LINES TO BE 1"SCH 40 SOLVENT WELDED PVC; DEPENDENT ON PRESSURES AND GALLONS PER MINUTE AT DISCRETION OFLANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR BASED ON PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND OPINION UPON DESIGN ANDINSTALLATION OF THE SYSTEM.4.ALL TREES TO BE IRRIGATED THROUGH DEDICATED BUBBLERS EVENLY DISTRIBUTED AROUND BASE OF TREEWITH FOUR (4) EVENLY SPACED 1 GPH BUBBLER EMITTERS.5.TREES AND SHRUBS PLACED WITHIN PLANTING BEDS MAY UTILIZE DRIP IRRIGATION ADJUSTED PER INDIVIDUALPLANT REQUIREMENTS.6.ALL SHRUBS OUTSIDE OF DEDICATED PLANTING BEDS TO HAVE DEDICATED BUBBLERS EVENLY DISTRIBUTEDAROUND BASE, WITH TWO (2) EVENLY SPACED 1 GPH EMITTER.7.ALL MIXED SHRUB AND PERENNIAL PLANTINGS TO BE IRRIGATED WITH DEDICATED DRIP TUBING W/ EMITTERSADJUSTED PER INDIVIDUAL PLANT REQUIREMENTS.8.LAWN AND SEED AREAS TO BE IRRIGATED WITH SPRAY OR ROTOR OVERHEAD IRRIGATION AS INDICATED PERPLAN.8.1.ALL SPRAY OR ROTOR OVERHEAD IRRIGATION HEADS WILL BE INSTALLED AND ADJUSTED PROPERLY TOMINIMIZE WATER OVER THROW ONTO PAVEMENT.8.2.ALL SPRAY OR ROTOR OVERHEAD IRRIGATION TO UTILIZE WATER EFFICIENT NOZZLES (MULTI-SPRAY,MULTI-TRAJECTORY, OR ROTATING SPRAY).9.ALL HEADS MUST ACHIEVE HEAD-TO-HEAD COVERAGE.10.SYSTEM SHALL UTILIZE WEATHER / MOISTURE MONITOR.11.BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY AND BLOWOUT ASSEMBLY SHALL BE LOCATED IN APPROVED EXTERNAL GRADEBOX, ANDIS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE INSTALLATION PER LOCAL CODESAND ORDINANCES, WITH ARCHITECTURE AND WITH ALL OTHER TRADES.12.POWER SOURCE FOR IRRIGATION CONTROLLER TO BE COORDINATED WITH ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING ANDELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR BY LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR.13.DO NOT INSTALL IRRIGATION SYSTEM WHEN OBVIOUS OBSTRUCTIONS OR GRADE CHANGES ARE PRESENT.14.ALL INFORMATION TO BE FIELD VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.15.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AN ACCURATE & CURRENT 'AS-BUILT' IRRIGATION PLAN ON SITE AT ALLTIMES.16.ALL SPRAY AND ROTOR HEADS WITHIN SOD LAWN AREAS TO PROVIDE A PRECIPITATION RATE OF 0.4-0.8"/sqft.17.ALL HEADS SHALL BE PLACED 2" FROM ALL HARDSCAPE EDGES.TEMPORARY IRRIGATION NOTES:TOTAL AREA TO RECEIVE TEMPORARY IRRIGATION (APPROX. 131,065 SF)1.ALL TEMPORARY IRRIGATION WILL OPERATE FOR NO MORE THAN 3 YEARS. AFTER 3 YEARS, TEMPORARY ZONESWILL BE SET TO "0" RUN TIME.2.TEMPORARY ZONES WILL BE WATERED AT 2.3 GAL/SF3.SEE TABLES ON L600 FOR WATER DEMAND.4.ALL TEMPORARY IRRIGATION WITHIN WATERCOURSE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES WILL BE ABOVE GROUNDDRIP TUBING. NO PIPES SHALL BE BURIED WITHIN WATERCOURSE EXTENTS.FINISH GRADESCH. 40 PVC SLEEVE - 4" MIN. OR 2X THE O.D.OF THE IRRIGATION PIPINGWRAP 12 GAUGE WIRE AROUND EACH ENDOF THE SLEEVE AND EXTEND TO THESURFACEWASHED AND GRADED MORTARSAND BACKFILL IN ROCKY SOIL.PAVEMENT EDGENOTE:1.CAP SLEEVES UNTIL USE.2.4" MIN. HORIZONTAL SEPARATION REQUIRED BETWEEN SLEEVESIN THE SAME TRENCH.3.IRRIGATION PIPE AND CONTROL WIRES SHALL BE SLEEVEDSEPARATELY.4.SOIL AROUND SLEEVE BACKFILLED AND COMPACTED TO THESAME DENSITY AS THE SURROUNDING SOIL.DEPTH PER TRENCHING DETAIL2L600NTSIrrigation SleeveCOVERAGE TYPEIRRIGATION WATER USE REQUIRMENT - PARK PH. 1AREAGAL / SF /YRLANDSCAPED AREA136,675 SF(IRRIGATED)NOTE:1.WATER USE PER COVERAGE TYPES WERE DETERMINED USINGCITY OF BOZEMAN PRESCRIPTIVE LANDSCAPE PATHWAYCALCULATIONS.2.SQUARE FOOTAGES INDICATE THE ENTIRE AREA THAT COULDBE IRRIGATED AND NOT THE AREA THAT WILL BE IRRIGATED.3.TEMPORARY IRRIGATION WILL BE LIMITED TO 3 YEARS OFESTABLISHMENT, AFTER WHICH THE ZONES WILL BE TURNEDOFF.4.SEE L601 FOR ACTUAL WATER USE ESTIMATES.5.NO WATER COURSE AND WETLAND SEED OR EXISTINGVEGETATION WILL BE IRRIGATED.6.PROPOSED TREES AND SHRUBS WILL UTILIZE HIGH EFFICIENCYDRIP IRRIGATION.WATER USETOTALGALLONS / SF / YR2.76 GAL / SF / YRDROUGHT TOLERANT TURFBLVD. SOD3,880SF18.471,392GALTEMPORARY NATIVEGROUND COVER131,065SF2.3301,449.5GAL275,390 SF(TOTAL W/ WETLAND)Irrigation Notesand SchedulesL 600design5la.com406.587.4873dateissuedrawn by:checked by:filename:z:\nwb west park neighborhood\autocad\01_sheets\2025 laurel meadows-parks-ph1\l600_west-park-parks_irrigation-ph1.dwg Laurel Meadows Phase 1 Park Plan Bozeman, Montana KHM/HU TMS 12/16/25Prelim Plat03/10/26Prelim Plat RC 1 BFCPMPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO2264800.912263054801.36PTWV WV PBLOCK 6LOT 2350562 sq.ft.BFCPWEST BABCOCK STREETMPSIO8'SIOLANLANWESWESWESWESWESWESWESSIOSIOWESWESWESWESLANLANLANLANLANIRRIGATIONSLEEVE, TYP.IRRIGATION METER PIT,GC TO COORDINATE WATER SERVICE AND POWER NEEDS.IRRIGATION CONNECTION POINT &BACKFLOW PREVENTEREXISTING UTILITIESIRRIGATIONSLEEVE, TYP. PROVIDE TEMPORARY SURFACE DRIP IRRIGATIONTO TREES AND SHRUBSWITHIN WETLAND AREA,WETLAND SEEDING/SALVAGESOD TOESTABLISH NATURALLYALL PROPOSED PLANTING WITHINTHE PERPETUAL WETLAND EASEMENTTO BE INSTALLED BY HAND WITH LIMITEDDISTURBANCE. TEMPORARYDRIP IRRIGATION TO BEPROVIDED TO PLANTINGS. WILDLIFEFENCING TO BE PROVIDED TOPLANT GROUPS.PERPETUALWETLANDEASEMENTIRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAINCONCEPTUAL MAINLINE ROUTINGCONNECTION POINT TO WATER MAINCIRRIGATION CONTROLLER, FINAL LOCATION TBDWITH FINAL PLAT FULL IRRIGATION DESIGNWETLAND BOUNDARYIRRIGATIONTYPEIRRIGATION WATER USE- PHASE 1 PARKTOTAL AREA /QTYANNUALET RATETOTAL ANNUALH2O3,880 SF29 IN / SF70,100 GALH.E. BLVD.TURF SOD SPRAY IRRIGATION 139,390 SF3.7 IN / SF321,308 GALH.E. NATIVE SPRAY IRRIGATIONH.E. TREEBUBBLER/DRIP61 TREES20 GAL /WEEK21,960 GALH.E. SHRUBBUBBLER/DRIP156 SHRUBS7.5 GAL /WEEK21,060 GALTOTAL ANNUAL H2O REQUIRED: 415,238 GALTOTAL ACRE FEET PER YEAR: 1.27 ACRE FT*TEMPORARY IRRIGATION NOTES:-TEMPORARY IRRIGATION WILL CONSIST OF APERMANENT UNDERGROUND IRRIGATIONSYSTEM WHICH WILL BE ACTIVE FOR FIRST 3GROWING SEASONS, AFTER WHICH POWER WILLBE DISCONNECTED OR TIMERS SET TO ZERO.-MONTHLY WATER USE CAN BE FOUND BYDIVIDING THE ANNUAL WATER USE BY 4.5 ACTIVEMONTHS-ALL UPLAND SEED WILL BE IRRIGATED WITHOVERHEAD SPRAY.-NO SPRAY IRRIGATION WILL BE PROVIDED TOWETLAND AREAS, SALVAGE SOD TO ESTABLISHNATURALLY.SYMBOLSIZEDESCRIPTIONIRRIGATION LEGENDBACKFLOW PREVENTER2"BFCONNECTION POINTCPIRRIGATION SLEEVE, 4" MIN. SCH 40 PVC*NOTES:-IRRIGATION DESIGN WILL BE PROVIDED FOR FINAL PLAT FORAPPROVAL, DESIGNER WILL PROVIDE ALL PROPOSED TIMERS, VALVES,EQUIPMENT FOR FINAL PLAT SUBMITTAL.-FINAL IRRIGATION AS-BUILT MAPS TO BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY OFBOZEMAN PARKS DIVISION-METER PITS TO BE INSTALLED AT DISTANCE FROM SANITARY SEWERLINES PER CURRENT REGULATIONS-IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO BE HUNTER 2-WIRE(EZDS) SYSTEM/DECODERSWITH HUNTER ICC2 EPA WATER SENSE CERTIFIED CONTROLLER ONMETAL PEDESTAL MOUNT, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THECITY'S PARKS OPS SUPERINTENDENT, SEE TYP. DETAIL L700SEEPLANN/AMETER PITN/AMPCIRRIGATION CONTROLLERN/AFINISH GRADESCH. 40 PVC SLEEVE - 4" MIN. OR 2X THE O.D.OF THE IRRIGATION PIPINGWRAP 12 GAUGE WIRE AROUND EACH ENDOF THE SLEEVE AND EXTEND TO THESURFACEWASHED AND GRADED MORTARSAND BACKFILL IN ROCKY SOIL.PAVEMENT EDGENOTE:1.CAP SLEEVES UNTIL USE.2.4" MIN. HORIZONTAL SEPARATION REQUIRED BETWEEN SLEEVESIN THE SAME TRENCH.3.IRRIGATION PIPE AND CONTROL WIRES SHALL BE SLEEVEDSEPARATELY.4.SOIL AROUND SLEEVE BACKFILLED AND COMPACTED TO THESAME DENSITY AS THE SURROUNDING SOIL.DEPTH PER TRENCHING DETAIL2L600NTSIrrigation SleeveIrrigation WaterUse Calculations& Sleeving Plan- SouthL 6013015060N1L6011"=30'-0"Irrigation Water Use Calculations & Sleeving Plan- Southdesign5la.com406.587.4873dateissuedrawn by:checked by:filename:z:\nwb west park neighborhood\autocad\01_sheets\2025 laurel meadows-parks-ph1\l600_west-park-parks_irrigation-ph1.dwg Laurel Meadows Phase 1 Park Plan Bozeman, Montana KHM/HU TMS 12/16/25Prelim Plat03/10/26Prelim Plat RC 1MATCHLINE L602:1 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXBLOCK 7LOT 2119232 sq.ft.DONNER DRIVE(FUTURE)SIOLAN8'8'8'8'WESWES8'LANLANSIOSIOSIO8'8'WESWESWESWESWESWESWESWESIRRIGATIONSLEEVE, TYP.IRRIGATIONSLEEVE, TYP.IRRIGATIONSLEEVE, TYP.ALL PROPOSED PLANTING WITHINTHE PERPETUAL WETLAND EASEMENTTO BE INSTALLED BY HAND WITH LIMITEDDISTURBANCE. TEMPORARYDRIP IRRIGATION TO BEPROVIDED TO PLANTINGS. WILDLIFEFENCING TO BE PROVIDED TOPLANT GROUPS.PERPETUAL WETLANDEASEMENTDONNER DRIVE TO BE CONSTRUCTEDIN FUTURE PHASE. IRRIGATIONTO BE PROVIDED IN FUTURETO BOULEVARD TREE PLANTING.IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAIN IRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAINIRR MAINWETLAND BOUNDARYIRRIGATIONTYPEIRRIGATION WATER USE- PHASE 1 PARKTOTAL AREA /QTYANNUALET RATETOTAL ANNUALH2O3,880 SF29 IN / SF70,100 GALH.E. BLVD.TURF SOD SPRAY IRRIGATION 139,390 SF3.7 IN / SF321,308 GALH.E. NATIVE SPRAY IRRIGATIONH.E. TREEBUBBLER/DRIP61 TREES20 GAL /WEEK21,960 GALH.E. SHRUBBUBBLER/DRIP156 SHRUBS7.5 GAL /WEEK21,060 GALTOTAL ANNUAL H2O REQUIRED: 415,238 GALTOTAL ACRE FEET PER YEAR: 1.27 ACRE FT*TEMPORARY IRRIGATION NOTES:-TEMPORARY IRRIGATION WILL CONSIST OF APERMANENT UNDERGROUND IRRIGATIONSYSTEM WHICH WILL BE ACTIVE FOR FIRST 3GROWING SEASONS, AFTER WHICH POWER WILLBE DISCONNECTED OR TIMERS SET TO ZERO.-MONTHLY WATER USE CAN BE FOUND BYDIVIDING THE ANNUAL WATER USE BY 4.5 ACTIVEMONTHS-ALL UPLAND SEED WILL BE IRRIGATED WITHOVERHEAD SPRAY.-NO SPRAY IRRIGATION WILL BE PROVIDED TOWETLAND AREAS, SALVAGE SOD TO ESTABLISHNATURALLY.-ALL TREES WILL BE IRRIGATED BY BUBBLER/DRIP-ALL TREES AND SHRUBS IN WETLAND ANDWATERCOURSES WILL BE IRRIGATED WITH TEMP.ABOVE GROUND DRIP ZONES. ZONES WILL BEBURIED TO THE DELINEATED LINES FORWATERCOURSE AND PROPOSED WETLAND ANDTHEN GO ABOVE GROUND TO THE PLANTS.SYMBOLSIZEDESCRIPTIONIRRIGATION LEGENDBACKFLOW PREVENTER2"BFCONNECTION POINTCPIRRIGATION SLEEVE, 4" MIN. SCH 40 PVC*NOTES:-IRRIGATION DESIGN WILL BE PROVIDED FOR FINAL PLAT FORAPPROVAL, DESIGNER WILL PROVIDE ALL PROPOSED TIMERS, VALVES,EQUIPMENT FOR FINAL PLAT SUBMITTAL.-FINAL IRRIGATION AS-BUILT MAPS TO BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY OFBOZEMAN PARKS DIVISION-METER PITS TO BE INSTALLED AT DISTANCE FROM SANITARY SEWERLINES PER CURRENT REGULATIONS-IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO BE HUNTER 2-WIRE(EZDS) SYSTEM/DECODERSWITH HUNTER ICC2 EPA WATER SENSE CERTIFIED CONTROLLER ONMETAL PEDESTAL MOUNT, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THECITY'S PARKS OPS SUPERINTENDENT, SEE TYP. DETAIL L700SEEPLANN/AMETER PITN/AMPCIRRIGATION CONTROLLERN/AXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX8'LANLANWESWESDONNER DRIVE TO BE CONSTRUCTEDIN FUTURE PHASE. IRRIGATIONTO BE PROVIDED IN FUTURETO BOULEVARD TREE PLANTING.Irrigation WaterUse Calculations& Sleeving Plan- NorthL 6023015060N1L6021"=30'-0"Irrigation Water Use Calculations & Sleeving Plan- Northdesign5la.com406.587.4873dateissuedrawn by:checked by:filename:z:\nwb west park neighborhood\autocad\01_sheets\2025 laurel meadows-parks-ph1\l600_west-park-parks_irrigation-ph1.dwg Laurel Meadows Phase 1 Park Plan Bozeman, Montana KHM/HU TMS 12/16/25Prelim Plat03/10/26Prelim Plat RC 1MATCHLINE L601:13015060N2L6021"=30'-0"Irrigation Water Use Calculations & Sleeving PlanMATCHLINE L602:2MATCHLINE L602:1 NOTE:-CONTROLLER SHALL BE HARD-WIRED TOGROUNDED 110 VAC POWER SOURCE-HUNTER EDZS TWO WIRE SYSTEM TO BEUSED WITH CONTROLLERLEGEND:IRRIGATION CONTROLLER (12C-800-PL) PER PLANIRRIGATION CONTROL WIRE IN CONDUITSIZE AND TYPE PER LOCAL CODESELECTRICAL SUPPLY CONDUITCONNECT TO POWER SOURCE, J-BOX INSIDECONTROLLERADJACENT SURFACE TO MOUNT CONTROLLER PER PLAN13"5"1234123441L700NTSIrrigation Controller - Hunter ICC2 or Equivalent(1)NOTES1.1 12" BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY, PER LOCAL CODES AND ORDINANCES2.INTERIOR PRESSURE VACUUM BREAKERS TO BE INSTALLED IN MECH. ROOMSWITH SANITARY FLOOR DRAINAGE BELOW, IN ACCESSIBLE LOCATION.3.LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR, ARCHITECT, AND MEP TO COORDINATEPLACEMENT AND STUB OUT LOCATION BEFORE HOME COMPLETION.MANUAL BRASS SHUTOFFBALL VALVEMANUAL BRASS SHUTOFF BALL VALVE2L700NTSBackflow Preventer (Interior, Typ.)WATERDRAINWATER SOURCE INIRRIGATION SUPPLYOUT, PROVIDE STUBOUT OF BUILDINGMODEL SHOWN: WATTS 009 RPZ ASSEMBLYTEST COCK, TYP.3L700NTSHunter Solar Sync Sensor or Equivalent 1LEGEND:SOLAR SYNC WIRELESS SENSOR34SOLAR SYNC COMPATIBLE CONTROLLERPOST OR SUITABLE MOUNTING SURFACE2SOLAR SYNC WIRELESS RECEIVER123455FINISHED GRADEIrrigation DetailsL 700design5la.com406.587.4873dateissuedrawn by:checked by:filename:z:\nwb west park neighborhood\autocad\01_sheets\2025 laurel meadows-parks-ph1\l700_d5_irrigationdetails west park ph1 1 park.dwg Laurel Meadows Phase 1 Park Plan Bozeman, Montana KHM/HU TMS 12/16/25Prelim Plat03/10/26Prelim Plat RC 1NOTE: FINAL IRRIGATION DETAILS AND FULL IRRIGATION DESIGN TO BE PROVIDED WITH FINAL PLAT REVIEW