Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout014_Prince_Lane_Aquatic_MemoWSP USA Inc. 5 West Mendenhall Bozeman, MT 59715 USA 1 Memo To:Jeremy May, PE (Headwaters Engineering, Inc.) From:Brian Sandefur, Professional Wetland Scientist (WSP) Cc:Erik Nyquist (WSP) Ref:US-PE-0053349.1060-001 Date:2026-02-25 Subject:3480 Prince Lane – Aquatic Resource Delineation Introduction WSP USA Inc. (WSP) conducted a desktop analysis and on-site field investigation to identify aquatic resources for an approximate 2.70-acre investigation area located at 3480 Prince Lane in Bozeman, Montana (Project area; Exhibit A, Figure 1). This investigation was conducted to support prospective development within an approximate 2.13-acre parcel owned by D P & J LLC and located in Lot 16 of Nelson Meadows Subdivision. The purpose of this aquatic resource (wetland/waterway) delineation was to identify and delineate all aquatic features that qualify as waterway(s) as defined in 33 Code of Federal Regulations 328.3(c)(4) and 33 Code of Federal Regulations 329.11(a)(1) or meet the three-factor technical requirements for wetland(s) per the most current United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) guidance (USACE 2010). Below is a summary of the findings from the aquatic resource delineation and represents the professional opinion of WSP regarding the potential presence/absence of wetlands and waterways within the Project Area. It should be noted that the USACE Regulatory Branch – Omaha District maintains final decision-making authority regarding the jurisdictional status of all surface water features for projects located within its district boundaries and may require an on-site inspection. Environmental Setting The Project area is situated within the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS’) Northern Rocky Mountain Valleys Major Land Resource Area (NRCS 2022) in the Hyalite Creek HUC10 drainage (1002000810) within the larger Gallatin watershed. The legal description for the Project areas includes Section 2, Township 1 South, Range 5 East. The site is relatively flat and sits at an approximate elevation of 4,595 feet above mean sea level. The Project area includes commercial development and unimproved vacant land. Landcover, as identified by the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP) landcover classification (MNHP 2025), includes human land use and Rocky Mountain lower montane, foothill, and valley grassland. Surrounding land uses include commercial development and vacant land. US-PE-0053349.1060-001 2 Desktop Review A WSP biologist conducted a desktop analysis to identify surface water resources that could be present in the Project area. The following data sources were reviewed: United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute (1:24,000 quadrangle) Topographic Map: Bozeman (USGS 1987) Google Earth aerial imagery (Google Imagery 1995-2025) USGS 3D Hydrography Program (USGS 2025) Ecological Mapping, Monitoring and Analysis Group – Montana Wetland and Riparian Framework (2022) NRCS Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2024) The USGS topographic map (Exhibit A, Figure 1) shows the Project area bounded along the eastern edge by an unnamed intermittent waterway that originates within an urbanized watershed that crosses interstate roadways and railroad grade roughly 0.25 miles upstream of the site. There was no waterway identified within the topographical depression/drainageway during the field investigation. An analysis of available aerial imagery (Exhibit A, Figure 2) shows the Project area as undeveloped, unirrigated grassland until 2024 when commercial development becomes apparent. A dark green vegetation signature is evident along the eastern boundary of the Project area and suggests an increase in available soil moisture during the growing season when compared to adjacent uplands. During the site investigation, irrigation infrastructure was identified along this swale and appeared to support trees planted throughout this area. The USGS hydrography database (Exhibit A, Figure 3) corresponds with the USGS topographic map and shows an intermittent stream that crosses into the site for approximately 118 linear feet along the eastern boundary. According to the MNHP Montana Spatial Data Infrastructure digital wetland mapping, approximately 0.04 acres of intermittent riverine streambed, seasonally flooded (R4SBC) wetland habitat is mapped within the Project area (Exhibit A, Figure 3). The Project area has been mapped as Blackdog silt loam by the NRCS (Exhibit A, Figure 4). This series generally consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in loess along relict stream terraces. The Blackdog soil series is not identified as hydric (NRCS 2024). Overall, the desktop analysis suggests an aquatic resource may be present in the Project area. Field Survey A WSP biologist conducted an on-site field investigation on January 13, 2026, to determine the presence of any potential aquatic resources within the Project area. The Routine Level 2 Determination Method, as outlined in the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and subsequent methodologies outlined in the 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (USACE 2010), were implemented to identify the presence and extent of wetlands within the Project areas. The National Ordinary High Water Mark Field Delineation Manual for Rivers and Streams (USACE 2022) was used to identify and verify waterways within the Project areas. The OHWM and wetland boundaries were US-PE-0053349.1060-001 3 surveyed with a sub-meter resource-grade Geoexplorer 6000 Trimble with postprocessed differential correction and mapped with Geographic Information System technology. The Antecedent Precipitation Tool (APT; USACE 2020) was employed to compare recent rainfall conditions to normal rainfall conditions at the time of the field investigation. Based on the results of the APT (Exhibit B), the field investigation was conducted during “wetter than normal” conditions during the wet season with a severe drought index. Of note, the delineation was completed outside the normal growing season when the site was free of snow; vegetation was senescent yet still identifiable. No waterways were identified within the Project area. One wetland was delineated within the Project areas and accounts for approximately 0.07 acres of wetland habitat. A summary of this feature is provided in Table 1. A map representing the extent of aquatic resource boundaries surveyed during this investigation is provided in Exhibit A, Figure 5. Photographs of sampling points and representative features are included in Exhibit C. Completed USACE wetland determination data forms are provided in Exhibit D. Table 1:Summary Data for Delineated Aquatic Feature Wetland/ Waterway ID Type Classification[a]Size (Acres) Jurisdictional Status[b] Location (Lat./Long.) Wetland 1 (WL-1)Wetland PEM1E 0.07 Jurisdictional 45.731069 -111.085429 Note: PEM1E = Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded/Saturated. [a] Cowardin et al. 1979. [b] The determination of wetland jurisdictional or connected status represents WSP's professional opinion; the final determination of jurisdictional status is under the purview of the USACE. Wetland 1 (WL-1) WL-1 occupies the lowest elevation of a topographic swale along the eastern boundary of the Project area and consists of approximately 0.07 acres of palustrine emergent wetland habitat. WL-1 is part of a larger wetland (0.25 acres) that extends between culverts along Royal Wolf Way and Prince Lane. WL-1 receives hydrology from localized surface water and seasonal high groundwater. The wetland hydrology indicators at Sampling Points 1 and 2 (SP1 and 2) within WL-1 include drainage patterns, geomorphic position, and a positive FAC-neutral test. Hydrophytic vegetation includes Northwest Territory sedge (Carex utriculata, OBL), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW), broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia, OBL), and tufted hairgrass (Deshampsia caespitosa, FACW). The hydrophytic vegetation indicators included a positive rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation, a positive dominance test, and prevalence index within the range indicating the presence of hydrophytic vegetation. Adjacent uplands were generally characterized by smooth brome (Bromus inermis, UPL), nodding wild rye (Elymus canadensis, FAC), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis, FAC), and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense, FAC). The wetland/upland boundary was generally characterized by a gradual topographic break and more abrupt change between vegetation communities that extend to the extent of groundwater and preferential drainage influence within the swale. The hydric soil indicator for WL-1 included depleted US-PE-0053349.1060-001 4 matrix. A wetland assessment was completed for WL-1 using the 2008 Montana Wetland Assessment Method (MWAM) (MDT 2008). According to this assessment, WL-1 classified as a Category IV wetland achieving 23% of possible score (Exhibit E). Based on aerial imagery, WL-1 appears to drain into an irrigation return and eventually into the East Gallatin River although a direct surface water connection between WL-1 and downstream WOTUS was not confirmed during the field investigation. Based on this apparent connection, WL-1 was preliminarily determined to be jurisdictional. Conclusion Based on the results of a desktop analysis and field investigation for the approximate 2.70-acre Project area, one wetland was delineated and accounts for approximately 0.07 acres of palustrine emergent wetland habitat. This feature was categorized as a Category IV wetland and was preliminarily determined to be jurisdictional based on an assessment of aerial imagery and an apparent connection to the East Gallatin River. Any impacts to jurisdictional waters within the Project area may require authorization under Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act. Enclosures Exhibit A: Map Figures Exhibit B: Antecedent Precipitation Tool Results Exhibit C: Representative Project Photographs Exhibit D: USACE Wetland Determination Data Sheets Exhibit E: 2008 Montana Wetland Assessment Method US-PE-0053349.1060-001 5 References Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, USA. Technical Report WRP-DE-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Chapman, S.S., Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Price, A.B. Freeouf, J., and Schrupp, D.L. 2006. Ecoregions of Colorado (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,200,000). Cowardin, L.M., F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 p. Ecological Mapping, Monitoring and Analysis Group – University of Montana. 2022. Montana Wetland and Riparian Framework. Helena, Montana. Available online at: https://ftpgeoinfo.msl.mt.gov/Data/Spatial/MSDI/Wetlands/ Accessed October 2023. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y- 87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 p., plus appendices. Google Imagery 2023. Accessed through ArcGIS software. April 2023 imagery. Montana Department of Transportation (MDT). 2008. Montana Wetland Assessment Method (MWAM). Montana Natural Heritage Program. 2025. Montana Land Cover Framework. Montana State Library. Helena, MT. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2024. Soil Survey Geographic database. Online Linkage: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/. _____. 2022. Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) Geographic Database, version 4.2. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2022. National Ordinary High Water Mark Field Delineation Manual for Rivers and Streams. Engineer Research and Development Center. November 2022. _____. 2020. Antecedent Precipitation Tool. Version 1.0. _____. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, Coast Region (Version 2.0). Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, MS. United States Geologic Survey (USGS). 2025. 3D Hydrography Program (3DHP). Available online at 3D Hydrography Program. U.S. Geological Survey. https://www.usgs.gov/3d-hydrography-program. Accessed January 2025. _____.1987. 7.5-minute (1:24,000 quadrangle) Bozeman topographic map. WSP USA Inc. 5 West Mendenhall Bozeman, MT 59715 USA Exhibit A Exhibit A Project Maps Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed MONTANAGallatin County Project Location 0 0.25 0.50.125 Miles 3480 Prince Lane Figure 1:Topographic/Vicinity Map Legend 3480 Prince Lane Project Area Ü Project Area Prince R o y al Wolf MONTANAGallatin County Project Location 0 100 20050 Feet 3480 Prince Lane Figure 2:2023 NAIP Map Legend 3480 Prince Lane Project Area Roads Ü R4SBC MONTANAGallatin County Project Location 0 100 20050 Feet 3480 Prince Lane Figure 3:NHD/NWI Map Legend 3480 Prince Lane Project AreaNWI Wetland Type RiverineNHD Flowline Intermittent Stream/River Ü 50B 50C MONTANAGallatin County Project Location 0 100 20050 Feet 3480 Prince Lane Figure 4:NRCS Soils Map Legend 3480 Prince Lane Project AreaNRCS Soils 50B - Blackdog silt loam, 0-4% slopes 50C - Blackdog silt loam, 4-8% slopes Ü !.!. !.!. WL-1 SP1SP2 SP3SP4 MONTANAGallatin County Project Location 0 100 20050 Feet 3480 Prince Lane Figure 5:Surveyed Aquatics Map Legend 3480 Prince Lane Project Area !.Sampling Points Surveyed Wetland Boundary Ü WSP USA Inc. 5 West Mendenhall Bozeman, MT 59715 USA Exhibit B Exhibit B Antecedent Precipitation Tool Results Jun 2025 Jul 2025 Aug 2025 Sep 2025 Oct 2025 Nov 2025 Dec 2025 Jan 2026 Feb 2026 Mar 2026 Apr 2026 May 2026 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Rainfall (Inches)2026-01-13 2025-12-14 2025-11-14 Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network Daily Total 30-Day Rolling Total 30-Year Normal Range 30 Days Ending 30th %ile (in)70th %ile (in)Observed (in)Wetness Condition Condition Value Month Weight Product 2026-01-13 0.223622 0.398425 0.629921 Wet 3 3 9 2025-12-14 0.277559 0.737008 0.413386 Normal 2 2 4 2025-11-14 0.582677 1.169685 0.980315 Normal 2 1 2 Result Wetter than Normal - 15 Coordinates 45.73138, -111.0855 Observation Date 2026-01-13 Elevation (ft)4591.421 Drought Index (PDSI)Severe drought WebWIMP H2O Balance Wet Season Weather Station Name Coordinates Elevation (ft)Distance (mi)Elevation Weighted Days Normal Days Antecedent BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD AP 45.7875, -111.1614 4431.103 5.331 160.318 3.254 10952 90 BELGRADE 2NW 45.8008, -111.2092 4096.129 2.479 334.974 1.946 326 0 BOZEMAN 6 W EXP FARM 45.6728, -111.1547 4774.935 7.932 343.832 6.297 75 0 WSP USA Inc. 5 West Mendenhall Bozeman, MT 59715 USA Exhibit C Exhibit C Project Photographs Photo 1: View south at SP1.Photo 2 View east at SP2. Photo 3: View north at SP3.Photo 4: View northeast at SP4. Photo 5: View south along WL-1, wetland swale. Photo 6: View south along WL-1. WSP USA Inc. 5 West Mendenhall Bozeman, MT 59715 USA Exhibit D Appendix D - USACE Wetland Determination Data Sheets State: Lat:Long:Datum: Yes No ,Soil Yes No ,Soil Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No ) 1. 2. 3. 4. ) 1. 2. 3.x 1 = 4.x 2 = 5.x 3 = x 4 = )x 5 = 1.(A) 2. 3. 4. 5.X 6.X 7.X 8. 9. 10. 11. ) 1. 2. No 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Remarks: A positive indication of hydrophytic vegetation was observed (Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation). 30 ft. None Observed Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: X 100 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes Are Vegetation ,or Hydrology ,or Hydrology significantly disturbed? naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Project/Site:City/County: Bozeman, Gallatin Co. Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): MT Sampling Date: 01/13/2026 Sampling Point: 3480 Prince Lane Brian Sandefur, PWS X Soil Map Unit Name: = Total Cover 60 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: SP1Headwaters Engineering, Inc. Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?X No Non-Wetland50B - Blackdog silt loam, 0-4% slopes NWI classification: Section, Township, Range: LRR E, MLRA 44 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (If no, explain in Remarks.) 45.731381 Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? WGS84 Sec. 22, T1S R5E X This point was determined to be within a wetland due to the presence of all three wetland criteria. The survey area was determined to be wetter than normal at the time of survey. Tree Stratum (Plot size: VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Indicator Status 2 FACWYes 15 ft. Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? (A/B) (A)2 60 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 0 0 100.00% 30 60 60OBL species FACW species 0 50 FAC species Total % Cover of: = Total Cover NoAre Vegetation No -111.085499 Multiply by: None Observed 30 ft. Dominance Test worksheet: None Observed (B) Remarks: The NWPL 2022 wetland ratings were used. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Subregion (LRR): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%):0-1 No No Swale X X X No Hydric Soil Present? = Total Cover Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0US Army Corps of Engineers 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1.70 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 10 Deschampsia caespitosa FACU species UPL species No Typha latifolia Yes 5 ft. = Total Cover Column Totals: Prevalence Index = B/A = 100 Centaurea stoebe 30 Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum (B)OBL UPL WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index worksheet: 170 A positive indication of hydrophytic vegetation was observed (>50% of dominant species indexed as OBL, FACW, or FAC). A positive indication of hydrophytic vegetation was observed (Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.0). %% 2/2 100 4/2 95 4/6 5 5/2 95 4/6 5 X Yes No X X Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: SP1Sampling Point: — 10YR 6-10 SOIL M 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Wetland Hydrology Present? Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) High Water Table (A2) X Depth (inches): X Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Iron Deposits (B5) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Raised Ant Mounds (D6)(LRR A) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) X Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Other (Explain in Remarks) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3)Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Type: Depth(inches): Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) X Water-Stained Leaves (B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves (B9)(MLRA 1, 2 4A, and 4B) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Surface Water (A1) HYDROLOGY Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) X Depth (inches): Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Drainage Patterns (B10) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12)3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2 cm Muck (A10) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Redox Depressions (F8) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)(except MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Hydric Soil Present? US Army Corps of Engineers A positive indication of hydric soil was observed. Saturation Present? Depth (inches): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? A positive indication of wetland hydrology was observed (at least two secondary indicators). Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Salt Crust (B11) Remarks: 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 10YR Type1 Texture Remarks 10YR Depth (inches) None 10YR Redox Features Silt Loam Silty Clay Loam — Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Depleted Matrix (F3) 10YR Silt Loam Color (moist) 0-6 M Color (moist)Loc2 C C10-16 Matrix Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) State: Lat:Long:Datum: Yes No ,Soil Yes No ,Soil Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No ) 1. 2. 3. 4. ) 1. 2. 3.x 1 = 4.x 2 = 5.x 3 = x 4 = )x 5 = 1.(A) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. ) 1. 2. No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0 No positive indication of hydrophytic vegetation was observed (≥50% of dominant species indexed as FACU or drier). Remarks: = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Yes X 100 = Total Cover 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft. None Observed Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 (B) Elymus canadensis 10 No FAC Prevalence Index = B/A =4.40 Poa pratensis 20 Yes FAC 5 ft.UPL species 70 350 Bromus inermis 70 Yes UPL Column Totals:100 440 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: FAC species 30 90 = Total Cover FACU species 0 0 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of:Multiply by: OBL species 0 0 FACW species 0 0 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:= Total Cover 50.00% (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft. Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft.Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:None Observed 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:2 (B) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status None Observed Herb Stratum (Plot size: Remarks: The NWPL 2022 wetland ratings were used. This point was determined not to be within a wetland due to the lack of all three wetland criteria. The survey area was determined to be wetter than normal at the time of survey. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?X Hydric Soil Present?X Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Wetland Hydrology Present?X X Are Vegetation No No ,or Hydrology No naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Soil Map Unit Name:50B - Blackdog silt loam, 0-4% slopes NWI classification: Non-Wetland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? X (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No No ,or Hydrology No significantly disturbed?Are "Normal Circumstances" present?X Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Valley bottom Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%):0-1 Subregion (LRR): LRR E, MLRA 44 45.731363 -111.085578 WGS84 Applicant/Owner: Headwaters Engineering, Inc.MT Sampling Point: SP2 Investigator(s): Brian Sandefur, PWS Section, Township, Range: Sec. 22, T1S R5E WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 3480 Prince Lane City/County: Bozeman, Gallatin Co. Sampling Date: 01/13/2026 %% 3/3 100 5/3 100 — Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Remarks: No positive indication of wetland hydrology was observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0 Wetland Hydrology Present?X (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?X Depth (inches): Water Table Present?X Depth (inches): Saturation Present?X Depth (inches): 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) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves (B9)(MLRA 1, 2 High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)Geomorphic Position (D2) Remarks: No positive indication of hydric soils was observed. Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present?X 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)(except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6)3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. —Silt Loam 8-16 10YR None ——Silt Loam Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist)Color (moist)Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR None — SOIL Sampling Point:SP2 State: Lat:Long:Datum: Yes No ,Soil Yes No ,Soil Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No ) 1. 2. 3. 4. ) 1. 2. 3.x 1 = 4.x 2 = 5.x 3 = x 4 = )x 5 = 1.(A) 2. 3. 4. 5.X 6.X 7.X 8. 9. 10. 11. ) 1. 2. No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0 A positive indication of hydrophytic vegetation was observed (Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation). A positive indication of hydrophytic vegetation was observed (>50% of dominant species indexed as OBL, FACW, or FAC). A positive indication of hydrophytic vegetation was observed (Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.0). Remarks: = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Yes X 100 = Total Cover 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft. None Observed Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 (B) Cirsium arvense 10 No FAC Prevalence Index = B/A =2.30 Phalaris arundinacea 70 Yes FACW 5 ft.UPL species 10 50 Centaurea stoebe 10 No UPL Column Totals:100 230 Carex utriculata 10 No OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: FAC species 10 30 = Total Cover FACU species 0 0 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of:Multiply by: OBL species 10 10 FACW species 70 140 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:= Total Cover 100.00% (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft. Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft.Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:None Observed 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:1 (B) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status None Observed Herb Stratum (Plot size: Remarks: The NWPL 2022 wetland ratings were used. This point was determined to be within a wetland due to the presence of all three wetland criteria. The survey area was determined to be wetter than normal at the time of survey. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?X Hydric Soil Present?X Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Wetland Hydrology Present?X X Are Vegetation No No ,or Hydrology No naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Soil Map Unit Name:50B - Blackdog silt loam, 0-4% slopes NWI classification: R4SBC Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? X (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No No ,or Hydrology No significantly disturbed?Are "Normal Circumstances" present?X Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Swale Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%):0-1 Subregion (LRR): LRR E, MLRA 44 45.730951 -111.085418 WGS84 Applicant/Owner: Headwaters Engineering, Inc.MT Sampling Point: SP3 Investigator(s): Brian Sandefur, PWS Section, Township, Range: Sec. 22, T1S R5E WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 3480 Prince Lane City/County: Bozeman, Gallatin Co. Sampling Date: 01/13/2026 %% 3/2 100 4/2 95 4/6 5 5/2 95 4/6 5 X Yes No X X X Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Remarks: A positive indication of wetland hydrology was observed (at least two secondary indicators). US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0 Wetland Hydrology Present?X (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?X Depth (inches): Water Table Present?X Depth (inches): Saturation Present?X Depth (inches): 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) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves (B9)(MLRA 1, 2 High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)Geomorphic Position (D2) Remarks: A positive indication of hydric soil was observed. Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present?X 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)(except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6)3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 10-15 10YR 7.5YR C M Silt Loam —Silt Loam 5-10 10YR 10YR C M Silt Loam Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist)Color (moist)Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-5 10YR None — SOIL Sampling Point:SP3 State: Lat:Long:Datum: Yes No ,Soil Yes No ,Soil Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No ) 1. 2. 3. 4. ) 1. 2. 3.x 1 = 4.x 2 = 5.x 3 = x 4 = )x 5 = 1.(A) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. ) 1. 2. No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0 No positive indication of hydrophytic vegetation was observed (≥50% of dominant species indexed as FACU or drier). Remarks: = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Yes X 100 = Total Cover 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft. None Observed Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 (B) Elymus canadensis 30 Yes FAC Prevalence Index = B/A =4.30 Cirsium arvense 5 No FAC 5 ft.UPL species 65 325 Bromus inermis 65 Yes UPL Column Totals:100 430 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: FAC species 35 105 = Total Cover FACU species 0 0 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of:Multiply by: OBL species 0 0 FACW species 0 0 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:= Total Cover 50.00% (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft. Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft.Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:None Observed 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:2 (B) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status None Observed Herb Stratum (Plot size: Remarks: The NWPL 2022 wetland ratings were used. This point was determined not to be within a wetland due to the lack of all three wetland criteria. The survey area was determined to be wetter than normal at the time of survey. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?X Hydric Soil Present?X Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Wetland Hydrology Present?X X Are Vegetation No No ,or Hydrology No naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Soil Map Unit Name:50B - Blackdog silt loam, 0-4% slopes NWI classification: Non-Wetland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? X (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No No ,or Hydrology No significantly disturbed?Are "Normal Circumstances" present?X Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Valley bottom Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%):0-1 Subregion (LRR): LRR E, MLRA 44 45.730937 -111.085500 WGS84 Applicant/Owner: Headwaters Engineering, Inc.MT Sampling Point: SP4 Investigator(s): Brian Sandefur, PWS Section, Township, Range: Sec. 22, T1S R5E WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 3480 Prince Lane City/County: Bozeman, Gallatin Co. Sampling Date: 01/13/2026 %% 3/2 100 5/3 100 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Remarks: No positive indication of wetland hydrology was observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0 Wetland Hydrology Present?X (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?X Depth (inches): Water Table Present?X Depth (inches): Saturation Present?X Depth (inches): 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) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves (B9)(MLRA 1, 2 High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)Geomorphic Position (D2) Remarks: No positive indication of hydric soils was observed. Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present?X 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)(except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6)3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. —Silt Loam 6-16 10YR None ——Silt Loam Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist)Color (moist)Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-6 10YR None — SOIL Sampling Point:SP4 WSP USA Inc. 5 West Mendenhall Bozeman, MT 59715 USA Exhibit E Exhibit E MWAM MDT Montana Wetland Assessment Form (revised March 2008) 1. Project Name:3480 Prince Lane 2. MDT Project #:NA Control #:NA 3. Evaluation Date:01/13/2026 4. Evaluator(s):Brian Sandefur, PWS 5. Wetlands/Site #(s):WL-1 6. Wetland Location(s): i. Legal:T1S,R5E,22 ii. Approx. Stationing or Mileposts:NA iii. Watershed:HUC12 100200081302 Watershed Name, County: Upper Missouri, Gallatin 7. a. Evaluating Agency:WSP b. Purpose of Evaluation: 1. 2. 3. 4. Wetlands potentially affected by MDT project Mitigation wetlands; pre-construction Mitigation wetlands; post-construction Other: 8. Wetland size: 0.270 acres (measured) 9. Assessment area (AA): 0.270 acres (measured) 10. Classification of Wetland and Aquatic Habitats in AA HGM Class (Brinson) Class (Cowardin) Modifier (Cowardin) Water Regime % of AA D EM NA SI 100 Abbreviations:(see manual for definitions) HGM Classes: Riverine (R), Depressional (D), Slope (S), Mineral Soil Flats (MSF), Organic Soil Flats (OSF), Lacustrine Fringe (LF); Cowardin Classes: Rock Bottom (RB), Unconsolidated bottom (UB), Aquatic Bed (AB), Unconsolidated Shore (US), Moss-lichen Wetland (ML), Emergent Wetland (EM), Scrub-Shrub Wetland (SS), Forested Wetland (FO) Modifiers: Excavated (E), Impounded (I), Diked (D), Partly Drained (PD), Farmed (F), Artificial (A) Water Regimes: Permanent / Perennial (PP), Seasonal / Intermittent (SI), Temporary / Ephemeral (TE) 11. Estimated relative abundance:(of similarly classified sites within the same Major Montana Watershed Basin, see definitions) ABUNDANT 12. General condition of AA: i. Disturbance: (use matrix below to determine [circle] appropriate response – see instructions for Montana-listed noxious weed and aquatic nuisance vegetation species (ANVS) list) Conditions within AA Managed in predominantly natural state; is not grazed, hayed, logged, or otherwise converted; does not contain roads or buildings; and noxious weed or ANVS cover is >=15%. Land not cultivated, but may be moderately grazed or hayed or selectively logged; or has been subject to minor clearing; contains few roads or buildings; noxious weed or ANVS cover is <= 30%. Land cultivated or heavily grazed or logged; subject to substantial fill placement, grading, clearing, or hydrological alteration; high road or building density; or noxious weed or ANVS cover is > 30%. Predominant conditions adjacent to (within 500 feet of) AA AA cultivated or heavily grazed or logged; subject to relatively substantial fill placement, grading, clearing, or hydrological alteration; high road or building density; or noxious weed or ANVS cover is > 30%. AA not cultivated, but may be moderately grazed or hayed or selectively logged; or has been subject to relatively minor clearing, fill placement, or hydrological alteration; contains few roads or buildings; noxious weed or ANVS cover is <= AA occurs and is managed in predominantly natural state; is not grazed, hayed, logged, or otherwise converted; does not contain roads or occupied buildings; and noxious weed or ANVS cover is <= 15%. low disturbance low disturbance moderate disturbance moderate disturbance moderate disturbance high disturbance high disturbance high disturbance high disturbance high disturbance Comments: (types of disturbance, intensity, season, etc.): AA includes a wetland swale among commercial development. ii. Prominent noxious, aquatic nuisance, & other exotic vegetation species: Spotted knapweed, Canada thistle iii. Provide brief descriptive summary of AA and surrounding land use/habitat: Existing and active commercial development surrounding AA. 13. Structural Diversity: (based on number of "Cowardin" vegetated classes present [do not include unvegetated classes], see #10 above) Existing # of “Cowardin” Vegetated Classes in AA Initial Rating Is current management preventing (passive) existence of additional vegetated classes?Modified Rating >= 3 (or 2 if 1 is forested) classes H NA NA NA 2 (or 1 if forested) classes M NA NA NA 1 class, but not a monoculture MM <-- NO YES -->L 1 class, monoculture (1 species comprises >= 90% of total cover)L NA NA NA Comments: PEM1E habitat present within AA 45.73073, -111.085369 : Centroid for WL-1Latitude/Longitude: 1 SECTION PERTAINING to FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT 14A. Habitat for Federally Listed or Proposed Threatened or Endangered Plants or Animals: i. AA is Documented (D) or Suspected (S) to contain (circle one based on definitions contained in instructions): Primary or critical habitat (list species)Secondary habitat (list species)Incidental habitat (list species) No usable habitat ii. Rating (use the conclusions from i above and the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating) Highest Habitat Level doc/primary sus/primary doc/secondary sus/secondary doc/incidental sus/incidental None Functional Points and Rating 1H .9H .8M .7M .3L .1L 0L0L Sources for documented use (e.g. observations, records, etc):USFWS IPac, MTNHP database Incidental habitat (list species) i. AA is Documented (D) or Suspected (S) to contain (circle one based on definitions contained in instructions): ii. Rating (use the conclusions from i above and the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating) No usable habitat 14B. Habitat for plant or animals rated S1, S2, or S3 by the Montana Natural Heritage Program: (not including species listed in14A above) Primary or critical habitat (list species)Secondary habitat (list species) sus/secondary S1 Species: Functional Points and Rating doc/primary sus/primary sus/incidentalHighest Habitat Level Nonedoc/secondary doc/incidental 1H .8H .7M .6M .2L .1L 0L S2 and S3 Species: Functional Points and Rating .9H .7M .6M .5M .2L .1L 0L0L Sources for documented use (e.g. observations, records, etc):MTNHP database, field survey 14C. General Wildlife Habitat Rating: i. Evidence of overall wildlife use in the AA (circle substantial, moderate, or low based on supporting evidence): Substantial (based on any of the following [check]):Minimal (based on any of the following [check]): observations of abundant wildlife #s or high species diversity (during any period) abundant wildlife sign such as scat, tracks, nest structures, game trails, etc. presence of extremely limiting habitat features not available in the surrounding area interviews with local biologists with knowledge of the AA few or no wildlife observations during peak use periods little to no wildlife sign sparse adjacent upland food sources interviews with local biologists with knowledge of the AA X Moderate (based on any of the following [check]): observations of scattered wildlife groups or individuals or relatively few species during peak periods interviews with local biologists with knowledge of the AA common occurrence of wildlife sign such as scat, tracks, nest structures, game trails, etc. adequate adjacent upland food sources ii. Wildlife habitat features (Working from top to bottom, circle appropriate AA attributes in matrix to arrive at rating. Structural diversity is from #13. For class cover to be considered evenly distributed, the most and least prevalent vegetated classes must be within 20% of each other interms of their percent composition of the AA (see #10). Abbreviations for surface water durations are as follows: P/P = permanent/perennial; S/I = seasonal/intermittent; T/E = temporary/ephemeral; and A = absent [see instructions for further definitions of these terms]) Structural diversity (see #13)High Moderate Low Class cover distribution (all vegetated classes)Even Uneven Even Uneven Even Duration of surface water in >=10% of AA P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A Low disturbance at AA (see #12i)E E E H E E H H E H H M E H M M E H M M Moderate disturbance at AA (see #12i)H H H H H H H M H H M M H M M L H M L L High disturbance at AA (see #12i)M M M L M M L L M MM L L M L L L L L L L iii. Rating (use the conclusions from i and ii above and the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating) Evidence of wildlife use (i)Wildlife habitat features rating (ii) Exceptional High Moderate Moderate Substantial 1E .9H .8H .7M Moderate .9H .7M .5M .3L Minimal .6M .4M .2L.2L .1L AA with minimal and marginal habitat.Comments: 2 14D. General Fish Habitat Rating: (Assess this function if the AA is used by fish or the existing situation is “correctable” such that the AA could be used by fish [i.e., fish use is precluded by perched culvert or other barrier, etc.]. If the AA is not used by fish, fish use is not restorable due to habitat constraints, or is not desired from a management perspective [such as fish entrapped in a canal], then mark X Type of Fishery:Cold Water (CW)Warm Water (WW)Use the CW or WW guidelines in the user manual to complete the matrix i. Habitat Quality and Known / Suspected Fish Species in AA (use matrix to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating) Duration of surface water in AA Permanent / Perennial Seasonal / Intermittent Temporary / Ephemeral Aquatic hiding / resting / escape cover Optimal Adequate Poor Optimal Adequate Poor Optimal Adequate Poor Thermal cover optimal / suboptimal O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S FWP Tier I fish species 1E .9H .8H .7M .6M .5M .9H .8H .7M .6M .5M .4M .7M .6M .5M .4M .3L .2L FWP Tier II or Native Game fish species .9H .8H .7M .6M .5M .5M .8H .7M .6M .5M .4M .4M .6M .5M .4M .3L .2L .2L FWP Tier III or Introduced Game fish .8H .7M .6M .5M .5M .4M .7M .6M .5M .4M .4M .3L .5M .4M .3L .2L .2L .1L FWP Non-Game Tier IV or No fish species .5M .5M .5M .4M .4M .3L .4M .4M .4M .3L .3L .2L .2L .2L .2L .1L .1L .1L Sources used for identifying fish sp. potentially found in AA: ii. Modified Rating (NOTE: Modified score cannot exceed 1 or be less than 0.1) a) Is fish use of the AA significantly reduced by a culvert, dike, or other man-made structure or activity or is the waterbody included on the current life support, or do aquatic nuisance plant or animal species (see Appendix E) occur in fish habitat? final MDEQ list of waterbodies in need of TMDL development with listed “Probable Impaired Uses” including cold or warm water fishery or aquatic b) Does the AA contain a documented spawning area or other critical habitat feature (i.e., sanctuary pool, upwelling area, etc.- specify in comments) for native fish or introduced game fish? iii. Final Score and Rating:NA Comments:MFWP fish database, field survey 14E. Flood Attenuation: (Applies only to wetlands subject to flooding via in-channel or overbank flow. If wetlands in AA are not flooded from in-channel or overbank flow, mark X i. Rating (working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating) Estimated or Calculated Entrenchment (Rosgen 1994, 1996)Slightly entrenched - C, D, E stream types Moderately entrenched – B stream type Entrenched-A, F, G stream types % of flooded wetland classified as forested and/or scrub/shrub 75%25-75%<25%75%25-75%<25%75%25-75%<25% AA contains no outlet or restricted outlet 1H .9H .6M .8H .7M .5M .4M .3L .2L AA contains unrestricted outlet .9H .8H .5M .7M .6M .4M .3L .2L .1L Entrenchment ratio (ER) estimation – see User’s Manual for additional guidance. Entrenchment ratio = (flood-prone width)/(bankfull width) Flood-prone width = estimated horizontal projection of where 2 x maximum bankfull depth elevation intersects the floodplain on each side of the stream. / Flood-prone width = Bankfull width Entrenchment ratio (ER) Slightly Entrenched ER = >2.2 Moderately Entrenched ER = 1.41 – 2.2 Entrenched ER = 1.0 – 1.4 C stream type D stream type E stream type B stream type A stream type F stream type G stream type NA and proceed to 14E.) If yes, reduce score in i above by 0.1. If yes, add 0.1 to the adjusted score in i or iia. NA and proceed to 14F.) ii. Are ≥10 acres of wetland in the AA subject to flooding AND are man-made features which may be significantly damaged by floods located within 0.5 mile downstream of the AA (circle)?Comments:No active waterway identified during the field investigation. 3 14F. Short and Long Term Surface Water Storage: (Applies to wetlands that flood or pond from overbank or in-channel flow, precipitation, upland surface flow, or groundwater flow. If no wetlands in the AA are subject to flooding or ponding,X i. Rating (Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating. Abbreviations for surface water durations are as follows: P/P = permanent/perennial; S/I = seasonal/intermittent; and T/E = temporary/ephemeral [see instructions for further definitions of these terms].) Estimated maximum acre feet of water contained in wetlands within the AA that are subject to periodic flooding or ponding >5 acre feet 1.1 to 5 acre feet <=1 acre foot Duration of surface water at wetlands within the AA P/P S/I T/E P/P S/I T/E P/P S/I T/E Wetlands in AA flood or pond >= 5 out of 10 years 1H .9H .8H .8H .6M .5M .4M .3L .2L Wetlands in AA flood or pond < 5 out of 10 years .9H .8H .7M .7M .5M .4M .3L .2L .1L Comments:No signs of flooding identified during field investigation. 14G. Sediment/Nutrient/Toxicant Retention and Removal: (Applies to wetlands with potential to receive sediments, nutrients, or toxicants through influx of surface or ground water or direct input. If no wetlands in the AA are subject to such input, i. Rating (working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating [H=high, M=moderate, or L=low]) Sediment, nutrient, and toxicant input levels within AA AA receives or surrounding land use with potential to deliver levels of sediments, nutrients, or compounds at levels such that other functions are not substantially impaired. Minor sedimentation, sources of nutrients or toxicants, or signs of eutrophication present. Waterbody on MDEQ list of waterbodies in need of TMDL development for “probable causes” related to sediment, nutrients, or toxicants or AA receives or surrounding land use with potential to deliver high levels of sediments, nutrients, or compounds such that other functions are substantially impaired. Major sedimentation, sources of nutrients or toxicants, or signs of eutrophication present. % cover of wetland vegetation in AA >= 70%< 70%>= 70%< 70% Evidence of flooding / ponding in AA Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No AA contains no or restricted outlet 1H .8H .7M .5M .5M .4M .3L .2L AA contains unrestricted outlet .9H .7M.7M .6M .4M .4M .3L .2L .1L Comments:AA potential to convey periodic stormflow and surface runoff. 14H Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization: (Applies only if AA occurs on or within the banks or a river, stream, or other natural or man-made drainage, or on the shoreline of a standing water body which is subject to wave action. If 14H does not apply, i. Rating (working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating) X % Cover of wetland streambank or shoreline by species with stability ratings of >=6 (see Appendix F). Duration of surface water adjacent to rooted vegetation Permanent / Perennial Seasonal / Intermittent Temporary / Ephemeral >= 65%1H .9H .7M 35-64%.7M .6M .5M 35%.3L .2L .1L Comments:No waterway was identified during the field investigation. 14I. Production Export/Food Chain Support: i. Level of Biological Activity (synthesis of wildlife and fish habitat ratings [circle]) General Fish Habitat Rating (14D.iii.) General Wildlife Habitat Rating (14C.iii.) E/H M L E/H H H M M H M M L M M L N/A H M LL ii. Rating (Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating. Factor A = acreage of vegetated wetland component in the AA; Factor B = level of biological activity rating from above (14I.i.); Factor C = whether or not the AA contains a surface or subsurface outlet; the final three rows pertain to duration of surface water in the AA, where P/P, S/I, and T/E are as previously defined, and A = “absent” [see instructions for further definitions of these terms].) NA and proceed to 14G.) NA and proceed to 14H.) NA and proceed to 14I.) ii. Rating (Working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating. Factor A = acreage of vegetated wetland component in the AA; Factor B = level of biological activity rating from above (14I.i.); Factor C = whether or not the AA contains a surface or subsurface outlet; the final three rows pertain to duration of surface water in the AA, where P/P, S/I, and T/E are as previously defined, and A = “absent” [see instructions for further definitions of these terms].) A Vegetated component >5 acres Vegetated component 1-5 acres Vegetated component < 1 acre B High Moderate Low High Moderate Low High Moderate Low C Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No P/P 1H .7M .8H .5M .6M .4M .9H .6M .7M .4M .5M .3L .8H .6M .6M .4M .3L .2L S/I .9H .6M .7M .4M .5M .3L .8H .5M .6M .3L .4M .2L .7M .5M .5M .3L .3L.3L .2L T/E/A .8H .5M .6M .3L .4M .2L .7M .4M .5M .2L .3L .1L .6M .4M .4M .2L .2L .1L iii. Modified Rating (NOTE: Modified score cannot exceed 1 or be less than 0.1.) Vegetated Upland Buffer (VUB): Area with >= 30% plant cover, = 15% noxious weed or ANVS cover, and that is not subjected to periodic mechanical mowing or clearing (unless for weed control). a) Is there an average >= 50 foot-wide vegetated upland buffer around >= 75% of the AA circumference? X iv. Final Score and Rating: 0.40M Comments:Small wetland swale among landscaped commercial development. If yes, add 0.1 to the score in ii above. 4 14J. Groundwater Discharge/Recharge: (check the appropriate indicators in i & ii below) i. Discharge Indicators The AA is a slope wetland Springs or seeps are known or observed Vegetation growing during dormant season/drought Wetland occurs at the toe of a natural slope AA permanently flooded during drought periods Wetland contains an outlet, but no inlet Shallow water table and the site is saturated to the surface Other: ii. Recharge Indicators Permeable substrate present without underlying impeding layer Wetland contains inlet but no outlet Stream is a known ‘losing’ stream; discharge volume decreases Other: iii. Rating (use the information from i and ii above and the table below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating) Criteria Duration of saturation at AA Wetlands FROM GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE OR WITH WATER THAT IS RECHARGING THE GROUNDWATER SYSTEM P/P S/I T None Groundwater Discharge or Recharge 1H .7M .4M .1L Insufficient Data/Information N/AN/A Comments:No groundwater identified during field investigation. 14K. Uniqueness: i. Rating (working from top to bottom, use the matrix below to arrive at [circle] the functional points and rating) Replacement potential AA contains fen, bog, warm springs or mature (>80 yr-old) forested wetland or plant association listed as “S1” by the MTNHP AA does not contain previously cited rare types and structural diversity (#13) is high or contains plant association listed as “S2” by the MTNHP AA does not contain previously cited rare types or associations and structural diversity (#13) is low- moderate Estimated relative abundance (#11)rare common abundant rare common abundant rare common abundant Low disturbance at AA (#12i)1H .9H .8H .8H .6M .5M .5M .4M .3L Moderate disturbance at AA (#12i).9H .8H .7M .7M .5M .4M .4M .3L .2L High disturbance at AA (#12i).8H .7M .6M .6M .4M .3L .3L .2L .1L.1L 14L. Recreation/Education Potential: (affords “bonus” points if AA provides recreation or education opportunity) i. Is the AA a known or potential rec./ed. site: (circle)(if ‘Yes’ continue with the evaluation; if ‘No’ then mark X NA and proceed to the overall summary and rating page) ii. Check categories that apply to the AA:Educational/scientific study;Consumptive rec.;Non-consumptive rec.; Other : iii. Rating: Known or Potential Recreation or Education Area Known Potential Public ownership or public easement with general public access (no permission required).2H .15H Private ownership with general public access (no permission required).15H .1M Private or public ownership without general public access, or requiring permission for public access .1M .05L Comments:No potential for recreation or education. General Site Notes AA includes wetland habitat common to disturbed urban landscape.Comments: 5 FUNCTION & VALUE SUMMARY & OVERALL RATING FOR WETLAND/SITE #(S):WL-1 Function & Value Variables Rating Actual Functional Points Possible Functional Points Functional Units: (Actual Points x Wetland Acreage) Indicate the four most prominent functions with an asterisk (*) A. Listed/Proposed T&E Species Habitat L 0.00 0.001 B. MT Natural Heritage Program Species Habitat L 0.00 1 0.00 C. General Wildlife Habitat L 0.20 1 0.05 * D. General Fish Habitat NA E. Flood Attenuation NA F. Short and Long Term Surface Water Storage NA G. Sediment/Nutrient/Toxicant Removal M 0.70 1 0.19 * H. Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization NA I. Production Export/Food Chain Support M 0.40 1 0.11 * J. Groundwater Discharge/Recharge NA K. Uniqueness L 0.10 1 0.03 * L. Recreation/Education Potential (bonus points)NA Totals: 1.40 6.00 0.38 Percent of Possible Score 23% Category I Wetland: (must satisfy one of the following criteria; otherwise go to Category II) Score of 1 functional point for Listed/Proposed Threatened or Endangered Species; or Score of 1 functional point for Uniqueness; or Score of 1 functional point for Flood Attenuation and answer to Question 14E.ii is "yes"; or Percent of possible score > 80% (round to nearest whole #). Category II Wetland: (Criteria for Category I not satisfied and meets any one of the following criteria; otherwise go to Category IV) Score of 1 functional point for MT Natural Heritage Program Species Habitat; or Score of .9 or 1 functional point for General Wildlife Habitat; or Score of .9 or 1 functional point for General Fish Habitat; or "High" to “Exceptional” ratings for both General Wildlife Habitat and General Fish/Aquatic Habitat; or Score of .9 functional point for Uniqueness; or Percent of possible score > 65% (round to nearest whole #). Category III Wetland: (Criteria for Categories I, II, or IV not satisfied) Category IV Wetland: (Criteria for Categories I or II are not satisfied and all of the following criteria are met; otherwise go to Category III) "Low" rating for Uniqueness; andX Vegetated wetland component 1 acre (do not include upland vegetated buffer); andX Percent of possible score 35% (round to nearest whole #).X OVERALL ANALYSIS AREA RATING:IV Summary Comments: AA generally an unremarkable wetland surrounded by commercial development. 6