Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout011_Wetland Report and Permit Supporting DocsProject: Status: Author: Date: Bikefill Bike Park: Trail Bridge locations Adam Johnson 4/10/2026 SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SDSD VALLEY RIDGE M CILHA T T A NSTORY MILLMicrosoft, Vantor 0 820410Feet¯ Bozeman GIS, Bureau of Land Bikefill Area Aquatic Delineation Report Prepared By: PO Box 1424 Bozeman, MT 59771 406.539.7244 briana@sundogeco.com November 2025 Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Site Description ................................................................................................................................... 1 Methods .............................................................................................................................................. 3 Results .................................................................................................................................................... 3 Site Vegetation .................................................................................................................................... 4 Delineated Wetlands ........................................................................................................................... 4 Soils ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Wetland Boundaries ............................................................................................................................ 4 Uplands ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Waterbodies............................................................................................................................................ 5 Threatened and Endangered Species ....................................................................................................... 5 Cultural Resources and Historic Structures .............................................................................................. 5 Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 5 References .............................................................................................................................................. 6 List of Figures and Tables Figure 1: General location of the Bikefill Project aquatic delineation site, north of Bozeman, Montana. .. 2 Figure 2: Close-up location of the Bikefill Project aquatic delineation site, north of Bozeman, Montana. . 2 Appendices Appendix A – Aquatic Delineation Map Appendix B – Wetland Determination Data Forms Appendix C – Site Photographs Appendix D – Project Area Background Maps Bikefill Area Aquatic Delineation Sundog Ecological, Inc. Page | 1 Introduction Sundog Ecological, Inc. conducted a routine wetland delineation and investigation of Waters of the U.S. on May 29th, 2025, on behalf of Gallatin Valley Land Trust to accompany permits for site infrastructure and development for a community bike park. The project area encompasses approximately 70 acres, owned by the City of Bozeman, and is legally described as Section 30, Township 01 South, Range 6 East, Acres 201.22, SE4 & SW4 E of County Road. This wetland delineation aimed to investigate the project area, identify areas meeting the technical guidelines for aquatic resources (wetlands and watercourses), delineate the extent of these resources within the project area, and classify these aquatic resource habitats. This report describes the methodologies used, summarizes the results of wetland investigations, and provides technical documentation for all delineated wetlands and watercourses within the project area. Figures referred to in the text are included in the Appendices at the end of the report. Site Description The Bikefill Project site is located in northeast Bozeman in the foothills of the Bridger Mountains. The property is owned by the City of Bozeman and lies directly south of Snowfill Park and north of the old Bozeman landfill. Churn Creek flows along the south boundary of the project, and an unnamed waterway flows along the north boundary of the project site. Directions to the site: From I-90, headed East, take exit 306 at North Seventh Avenue. Turn left onto North Seventh Avenue for 0.3 miles. Turn right onto W Griffin Drive for 0.4 miles. Turn left onto Manley Road for 1.8 miles. Turn right onto McIllhattan Road for 0.5 miles; the project site is on the left. Bikefill Area Aquatic Delineation Sundog Ecological, Inc. Page | 2 Figure 1: General location of the Bikefill Project aquatic delineation site, north of Bozeman, Montana. Figure 2: Close-up location of the Bikefill Project aquatic delineation site, north of Bozeman, Montana. Bikefill Area Aquatic Delineation Sundog Ecological, Inc. Page | 3 Methods The wetland delineation was conducted using the routine on-site-approach in accordance with standard practices outlined in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and by the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 (USACE 2010). The study evaluated the presence or absence of three wetland parameters described in the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual. Under the delineation procedures outlined in the USACE manual, an area must exhibit characteristic wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation to be considered a wetland. If field investigation determines that any of the three parameters are not satisfied, the area generally does not usually qualify as a wetland; however, there are circumstances when one or more parameters may be absent within a wetland area. Wetlands were classified according to the Cowardin (Cowardin et al., 1979) and hydrogeomorphic (USEPA 2023) systems. Non-wetland water bodies such as streams were classified according to flow regime (perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral) and substrate (rock bottom, unconsolidated bottom, etc.; Cowardin et al. 1979). The aquatic resources delineation map is included in Appendix A (Exhibit A). A delineation report, data forms, and technical information are required by the USACE (2010) to document the presence or absence of the three wetland indicators at data points (DP) within the investigation area. Data were also collected at points in non-wetland areas to determine the boundary between wetland and non-wetland areas. A total of 10 official data points were established, 5 points within wetlands and 5 points within non-wetlands, to enable boundary determination. An additional 10 to 20 unofficial data points (no recorded data) were established to ensure adherence to boundary lines. Data forms are included in Appendix B. Photographs were taken at data points and of general habitat conditions within the investigation area (Appendix C). Prior to conducting field studies, available background and supplementary reference materials were reviewed, including aerial photographs and maps from: Google Earth Pro, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS NWI 2024), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (USDA NRCS 2024a; Appendix D), USDA NRCS (2024b) Gallatin County Soil Data; National Wetlands Plant List (USACE 2022), and topographic map (Appendix D). Wetland boundaries and channel bed locations were drawn utilizing field data, aerial photographs, topographic boundaries, and GPS. Results In May 2025, five wetland areas were identified and delineated within the project boundaries. The property was assessed for dominant hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and evidence of wetland hydrology. Overall, ten data points were investigated to determine the wetland/upland boundary within the project area. The location of identified wetlands, channel beds, and upland and wetland data Bikefill Area Aquatic Delineation Sundog Ecological, Inc. Page | 4 points (DP) are illustrated in maps in Appendix A. USACE data forms are included in Appendix B, and photographs are included in Appendix C. Site Vegetation Twenty-three plant species were identified at data points within the proposed project site. Plants observed at wetland and non-wetland data point locations are listed on their respective USACE data forms (Appendix B). Two county and state-listed (Priority 2B) noxious weeds, Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), and common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare) were identified within the project area (Montana State University - Extension, 2024). Delineated Wetlands Five wetland areas were identified within the project boundaries (Exhibit A, Appendix A). These wetlands represent 2.532 acres of palustrine emergent wetlands. Wetlands are dominated by creeping meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), and common beaked sedge (Carex utriculata). Wetlands are associated with Churn Creek, an unnamed waterway, springs, and high groundwater. Soils Three soil map units were observed within the project limits of the Bikefill Area project aquatic delineation site: the Blackdog-Brodyk silt loams, 8-15% slopes; Enbar-Bowery-Nythar complex, 4-15% slopes; and Threeriv-Bonebasin loams, 0-2% slopes. In general, observed wetland soils were silt to silt loam in texture, with sand observed closer to the waterway. Matrix hues of 10YR and 7.5YR, matrix values of 2 to 4, and matrix values of 4 or less were observed. Redox concentrations were observed throughout wetland soils within the project boundaries. Hydric soil indicators were depleted below redox dark surface (F6). Detailed soil descriptions for wetland and upland sample locations are provided on wetland delineation data forms and can be found in Appendix C. Hydrology Primary indicators of wetland hydrology observed on site were soil saturation (A3), water marks (B1), drainage patterns (B10), and oxidized rhizospheres on living roots (C3). Secondary indicators of wetland hydrology observed were saturation visible on aerial imagery (C9) and geomorphic position (D2). Wetlands are sourced by Churn Creek, an unnamed waterway, runoff, and high groundwater. Wetland Boundaries Five wetland areas were observed within the project boundaries and are classified as a palustrine emergent wetland (PEM) (Cowardin et al. 1974). Wetland boundaries were generally readily identifiable due to changes in topography, shifts in vegetation structure or changes in vegetation dominance from FAC or wetter (FACW or OBL) species to drier (FACU or UPL) species, changes in hydrology and/or changes in soil types. Topographic breaks were frequently used to help identify wetland boundaries in depressional areas. In some areas, shifts in plant species composition toward drier species also assisted with boundary determinations. When FAC or wetter species were common in both wetland and upland sample plots, subsurface explorations to assess soils and hydrology assisted delineators in identifying wetland boundaries. Bikefill Area Aquatic Delineation Sundog Ecological, Inc. Page | 5 Uplands Five non-wetland sample points (paired with five wetland sample points) were documented within the project area and are shown on maps in Appendix A. These sample points were used to assist in establishing wetland boundaries and to determine/verify upland areas. Upland areas occurred in areas of slightly higher topography bordering the stream channels. Vegetation within the uplands included a mix of hydrophytic and upland species, but facultative and facultative-upland (FACU) species dominated the overall cover. Common species noted in the uplands include mixed pasture grasses, but were dominated by Bromus inermis (smooth brome) and Poa pratensis (Kentucky bluegrass. Soils ranged from very dark greyish brown to dark greyish brown and lacked redox concentrations. Textures were highly variable and were generally silt loam. Waterbodies Churn Creek, a perennial waterway, flows through the project site, starting at the east side of the project and continuing to the southwestern edge of the project. A semi-seasonal waterway flows north of Churn Creek from the northeast corner of the project to the northwest corner. Although this channel conveys water seasonally through the entirety of the project site, water appears to become subterranean midway through the site in the late fall (water was observed throughout the summer and into October in the unnamed waterway channel). Threatened and Endangered Species A review of the USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation System database listed three threatened species: the Canada lynx, grizzly bear, and North American wolverine; the monarch butterfly, as proposed threatened, and Suckley’s Cuckoo bumble bee as proposed endangered. Proposed activities are not expected to impact any of these species as there is no critical habitat within the property boundaries. Cultural Resources and Historic Structures It is unknown what cultural resources, historical or other structures within the property boundaries may be impacted by stream and wetland restoration activities on the property. Summary A wetland delineation was conducted on the Bikefill area project site in May 2025. Five palustrine- emergent wetland areas were identified within the project boundaries, totaling 2.532 acres, with 3,750 linear feet of Churn Creek and approximately 2,500 linear feet of an unnamed waterway. Bikefill Area Aquatic Delineation Sundog Ecological, Inc. Page | 6 References Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Washington, DC. Reed, P.B. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). Biological Report 88(26.9), May 1988. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP). 2024. Natural Heritage Map Viewer: Wetland and Riparian Mapping Center. Site accessed September 2025: http://mtnhp.org/mapviewer/?t=8 . Montana State University, MSU Extension, MSU Extension Invasive Plants, Montana Noxious Weeds 2024. Site accessed September 2025 at: https://www.montana.edu/extension/invasiveplants/documents/mt_noxious_weeds/2019_mt _noxious_weeds.html#info. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2022. National Wetland Plant List - 2022, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, version 3.6. https://wetland-plants.sec.usace.army.mil/ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey. Site accessed September 2025 at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory website. Accessed September 2025 at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html. US Fish & Wildlife Service. Information for Planning and Conservation. Accessed September 2025 at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ Appendix A Exhibit 1 – Mapped Aquatic Boundary of the Bikefill Aquatic Delineation Site © 2025 Microsoft Corporation © 2025 Maxar ©CNES (2025) Distribution Airbus DS PRELIMINARY-FOR REVIEW FILE: PROJECT NO: CAD: QUALITY ASSURANCE: DRAWING HISTORY DATE DESCRIPTION OVERALL EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DEMOLITION PLAN BIKEFILL BIKE PARK INFRASTRUCTURE MCILHATTAN ROADWAY AND PATH IMPROVEMENTS BOZEMAN, MTC2.1RPE 22147_WETLAND.DWG DME ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## 22147.010150SCALE: 1" = 150'30075150SITE DEMOLITION NOTES:1.ALL LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED FEATURES ARE APPROXIMATE ANDTHE PROJECT DRAWINGS MAY NOT INCLUDE ALL EXISTING FEATURES WITHIN THE PROJECTBOUNDARIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL THOROUGHLY REVIEW THE SITE PRIOR TO BIDDING ANDCONSTRUCTION TO BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE EXISTING SITE FEATURES AND CONDITIONS. IFDISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND BETWEEN THE PROJECT DRAWINGS AND FIELD CONDITIONS THECONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE PROJECT ENGINEER FOR CLARIFICATION.2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SECURING AND PAYING FOR ALL PERMITS NECESSARYTO COMPLETE THE PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DEMOLITION, RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ENVIRONMENTALPERMITS.3.ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UTILITY TERMINATIONS, DISCONNECTS AND REMOVALS TO BECOORDINATED WITH THE APPLICABLE UTILITY PROVIDERS AND PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE TOTHEIR RESPECTIVE STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS.4.ALL EXISTING MATERIALS TO BE REMOVED AND PROPERLY DISPOSED IN ACCORDANCE TO ALLFEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS.5.ALL REMOVED, DISTURBED OR DAMAGED EXISTING ASPHALT AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS TO BERESTORED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MTPWSS, 7TH EDITION, APRIL, 2021. ALL ASPHALT MATCH LINESSHALL BE SAW CUT TO PROVIDE FLUSH TRANSITION AND SEALED.6.ALL EXCAVATIONS OR VOIDS CREATED DURING DEMOLITION SHALL BE BACKFILLED AND COMPACTEDIN A CONTROLLED MANNER PER THE PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS. SEE REQUIREMENTS INTHE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.7.ALL UTILITY JUNCTION BOXES TO BE PROTECTED IN PLACE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.8.ALL TREES AND SHRUBS SHALL BE PROTECTED IN PLACE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.P:\22147_01_Bikefill_Bike_Park_Design\CADD_C3D\PRODUCTION_DWG\22147_WETLAND.dwg, WETLANDS, 12/12/2025 11:56:16 AM, mbasile, 1:1 Appendix B Bikefill Aquatic Delineation Site Wetland Determination Data Forms Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): 1 Subregion (LRR/MLRA): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: x Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes x No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2. (A) 3. 4. (B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4. x 1 = 5. x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1. x 5 = 2. Column Totals: (A) (B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 9/30/2027 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? No 100 Remarks: Indicator Status 1 3 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Bromus inermis Yes FAC Herb Stratum 35 Yes Alopecurus pratensis 30 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Below average precipitation for sampling date. Two of three indicators were observed, but strong soils so still a wetland. Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species FAC 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Multiply by: Prevalence Index = B/A = 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species No Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 05/29/2025 City of Bozeman B Schultz, L Bacon Bozeman / GallainCity/County: Poa pratensis Enbar-Bowery-Nythar complex 4-15% slopes PEMA 3 ft. NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S 30; T 1 S; R 6 E MT DP 1 concave Section, Township, Range: 33.3% ) ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 10 Project/Site: Bikefill NWI classification: Dominant Species? WGS 84 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: Sampling Date: Litter 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 25 Yes UPL 45.719472° Long: -111.030204°LRR E Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: % %Type1 Loc2 100 90 10 C M 97 3 C M X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) x x x Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yes Saturation Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and unless disturbed or problematic. Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) DP 1SOIL damp Distinct redox concentrations Prominent redox concentrations Remarks Loamy/Clayey Color (moist) 10YR 4/3 7.5R 3/4 0-7 FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Sand lens at 12 inches. Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 7-14 Texture 14-18 Loamy/Clayey Redox FeaturesDepth Loamy/Clayey 10YR 2/1 Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 3/1 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron Monosulfide (A18) Other (Explain in Remarks) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Surface Water (A1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) One primary and two secondary indicators of wetland hydrology were observed. Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): 1 Subregion (LRR/MLRA): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: x Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes x No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2. (A) 3. 4. (B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4. x 1 = 5. x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1. x 5 = 2. Column Totals: (A) (B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X 45.719500° Long: -111.030239°LRR E Mixed pasture grasses. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover =Total Cover Litter 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover Yes FAC 65 Project/Site: Bikefill NWI classification: Dominant Species? WGS 84 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: Sampling Date: Enbar-Bowery-Nythar complex 4-15% slopes none 3 ft. NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S 30; T 1 S; R 6 E MT DP 2 concave Section, Township, Range: 0.0% ) ) Prevalence Index worksheet: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 05/29/2025 GVLT / City of Bozeman B Schultz, L Bacon toeslope Bozeman / GallatinCity/County: Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Multiply by: Prevalence Index = B/A = 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 2 - Dominance Test is >50% (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Below average precipitation for sampling date. Indicator Status 0 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Poa patensis UPL Herb Stratum 10 No Bromus inermis 25 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 9/30/2027 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? No 100 Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: % %Type1 Loc2 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yes Saturation Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Surface Water (A1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) No wetland hydrology indicators were observed. Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron Monosulfide (A18) Other (Explain in Remarks) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Texture Redox FeaturesDepth Loamy/Clayey Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 10YR 3/2 FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Dry soil profile with no hydric soil indicators observed. Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Color (moist) 0-14 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and unless disturbed or problematic. Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) DP 2SOIL sandy loam Remarks Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): 1 Subregion (LRR/MLRA): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: x Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes x No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2. (A) 3. 4. (B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4. x 1 = 5. x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1. x 5 = 2. Column Totals: (A) (B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. X 8. X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 9/30/2027 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? No 70 25 Yes Remarks: Indicator Status 2 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Cirsium arvense No OBL OBL Herb Stratum 5 No Eleocharis palustris 20 55 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Below average precipitation for sampling date. Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species UPL 1.71 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 30 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 5 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species No Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 05/29/2025 GVLT / City of Bozeman B Schultz, L Bacon hillslope Bozeman / GallatinCity/County: Bromus inermis Blackdog-Brodyk silt loams 8-15% slopes none 3 ft. NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S 30; T 1 S; R 6 E MT DP 3 concave Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 15 10 Project/Site: Bikefill NWI classification: Dominant Species? WGS 84 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 55 Sampling Date: Nasturtium officinale Carex utriculata 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 10 Yes FAC 45.719292° Long: -111.034417°LRR E Mixed wetland speceis. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 50 120 10 70 =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: % %Type1 Loc2 100 80 20 C M X X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X X X X Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yes X Saturation Present? Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and unless disturbed or problematic. Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) DP 3SOIL saturated Prominent redox concentrations Remarks Sandy Color (moist) 7.5YR 3/4 0-6 FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Redox starting at six inches. Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 6-14 Texture Redox FeaturesDepth Loamy/Clayey Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/1 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 1 0 Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron Monosulfide (A18) Other (Explain in Remarks) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Surface Water (A1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Three primary indicators and three secondary indicators were observered. Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): 1 Subregion (LRR/MLRA): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2. (A) 3. 4. (B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4. x 1 = 5. x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1. x 5 = 2. Column Totals: (A) (B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 9/30/2027 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? No 100 15 No Remarks: Indicator Status 0 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Bromus inermis No FACW Herb Stratum 45 Yes Phalaris arundinacea 20 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Below average precipitation for sampling date. Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species UPL 4.25 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: 15 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 60 Multiply by: 30 Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species No Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 05/29/2025 GVLT / City of Bozeman B Schultz, L Bacon hillslope Bozeman / GallatinCity/County: Bromus tectorum Blackdog-Brodyk silt loams 8-15% slopes none 3 ft. NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S 30; T 1 S; R 6 E MT DP 4 concave Section, Township, Range: 0.0% ) ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 0 15 Project/Site: Bikefill NWI classification: Dominant Species? WGS 84 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 0 Sampling Date: Galium aparine Litter 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 5 Yes UPL 45.719283° Long: -111.034393°LRR E Mixed pasture grass and weeds. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 15 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 250 340 50 80 =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: % %Type1 Loc2 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yes Saturation Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and unless disturbed or problematic. Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) DP 4SOIL dry RemarksColor (moist) 0-14 FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) No hydric soil indicators were observed. Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Texture Redox FeaturesDepth Loamy/Clayey Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 10YR 2/2 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron Monosulfide (A18) Other (Explain in Remarks) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Surface Water (A1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) No wetland hydrology indicators were observed. Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): 1 Subregion (LRR/MLRA): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No 0 Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2. (A) 3. 4. (B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4. x 1 = 5. x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1. x 5 = 2. Column Totals: (A) (B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. X 8. X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 9/30/2027 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? No 100 20 Yes Remarks: Indicator Status 3 4 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Carex nebrascensis No FACU OBL Herb Stratum 25 Yes Carex aquatilis 5 50 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Below average precipitation for sampling date. Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species FACU 1.88 20 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: YesLitter 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 40 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 20 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 05/29/2025 GVLT / City of Bozeman B Schultz, L Bacon toeslope Bozeman / GallatinCity/County: Tanacetum vulgare Enbar-Bowery-Nythar complex 4-15% slopes Rp1SS 3 ft. NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S 30; T 1 S; R 6 E MT DP 5 concave Section, Township, Range: 75.0% ) ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 60 25 Project/Site: Bikefill NWI classification: Dominant Species? WGS 84 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 50 Sampling Date: Equisetum arvense Symphoricarpos albus 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 5 No OBL 45.718186° Long: -111.028909°LRR E Mixed wetland species. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 10 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 0 150 0 80 =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: % %Type1 Loc2 100 97 3 C M x Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yes Saturation Present? Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and unless disturbed or problematic. Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) DP 5SOIL wet Prominent redox concentrations rocky Remarks Loamy/Clayey Color (moist) 7.5R 3/6 0-2 FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Good redox and rock/cobbles. Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 2-6 Texture Redox FeaturesDepth Loamy/Clayey Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 10YR 2/2 10YR 2/1 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 2 Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron Monosulfide (A18) Other (Explain in Remarks) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Surface Water (A1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) One primary and two secondary indicators were observed at this location. Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): 1 Subregion (LRR/MLRA): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2. (A) 3. 4. (B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4. x 1 = 5. x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1. x 5 = 2. Column Totals: (A) (B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 9/30/2027 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? No 95 Remarks: Indicator Status 0 1 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Litter UPL Herb Stratum 10 No Broums inermis 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 5.00 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 5 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 05/29/2025 GVLT / City of Bozeman B Schultz, L Bacon toeslope Bozeman / GallatinCity/County: Enbar-Bowery-Nythar complex 4-15% slopes none 3 ft. NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S 30; T 1 S; R 6 E MT DP 6 concave Section, Township, Range: 0.0% ) ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 0 85 Project/Site: Bikefill NWI classification: Dominant Species? WGS 84 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 0 Sampling Date: 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 45.718220° Long: -111.028937°LRR E Smooth brome monoculture. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 425 425 85 85 =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: % %Type1 Loc2 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yes Saturation Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and unless disturbed or problematic. Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) DP 6SOIL dry RemarksColor (moist) 0-12 FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) No hydric soil indicators were observed. Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Texture Redox FeaturesDepth Loamy/Clayey Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 10YR 2/2 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron Monosulfide (A18) Other (Explain in Remarks) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Surface Water (A1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) No wetland hydrology indicators were observed. Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): 1 Subregion (LRR/MLRA): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No 0 Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2. (A) 3. 4. (B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4. x 1 = 5. x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1. x 5 = 2. Column Totals: (A) (B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. X 8. X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 9/30/2027 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? No 95 Remarks: Indicator Status 1 1 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Litter OBL Herb Stratum 5 No Typha latifolia 90 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Below average precipitation for sampling date. Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 1.00 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 5 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 05/29/2025 GVLT / City of Bozeman B Schultz, L Bacon toeslope Bozeman / GalltainCity/County: Blackdog-Brodyk silt loams 8-15% slopes none 3 ft. NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S 30; T 1 S; R 6 E MT DP 7 concave Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 0 90 Project/Site: Bikefill NWI classification: Dominant Species? WGS 84 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 90 Sampling Date: 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 45.718447° Long: -111.029366°LRR E Cattail stand. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 0 90 0 90 =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: % %Type1 Loc2 100 100 X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X X Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yes Saturation Present? Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and unless disturbed or problematic. Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) DP 7SOIL saturated Remarks Loamy/Clayey Color (moist) 0-12 FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Old excavation scar. Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 12-20 Texture Redox FeaturesDepth Loamy/Clayey Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 10YR 3/1 10YR 2/1 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 1 Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron Monosulfide (A18) Other (Explain in Remarks) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Surface Water (A1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) One primary indicators and three secondary indicators of wetland hydrology were observed. Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): 1 Subregion (LRR/MLRA): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2. (A) 3. 4. (B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4. x 1 = 5. x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1. x 5 = 2. Column Totals: (A) (B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 9/30/2027 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? No 100 Remarks: Indicator Status 0 1 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Litter UPL Herb Stratum 5 No Bromus inermis 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 5.00 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 05/29/2025 GVLT / City of Bozeman B Schultz, L Bacon valley bottom Bozeman / GallatinCity/County: Blackdog-Brodyk silt loams 8-15% slopes none 3 ft. NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S 30; T 1 S; R 6 E MT DP 8 concave Section, Township, Range: 0.0% ) ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 0 95 Project/Site: Bikefill NWI classification: Dominant Species? WGS 84 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 0 Sampling Date: 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 45.718420° Long: -111.029414°LRR E Smooth brome monoculture. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 475 475 95 95 =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: % %Type1 Loc2 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yes Saturation Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and unless disturbed or problematic. Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) DP 8SOIL silt loam RemarksColor (moist) 0-14 FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) No hydric soil indicators were observed. Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Texture Redox FeaturesDepth Loamy/Clayey Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 10YR 2/2 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron Monosulfide (A18) Other (Explain in Remarks) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Surface Water (A1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) No wetland hydrology indicators were observed. Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): 1 Subregion (LRR/MLRA): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2. (A) 3. 4. (B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4. x 1 = 5. x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1. x 5 = 2. Column Totals: (A) (B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 9/30/2027 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? No 98 10 No Remarks: Indicator Status 2 4 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: 15 Cirsium arvense 25 Yes FAC OBL Herb Stratum 3 No Typha latifolia 5 80 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Below average precipitation for sampling date. Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species OBL 1.72 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: 5 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover Yes 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 80 Multiply by: 10 Prevalence Index = B/A = 8 Yes 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species No Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 07/11/2025 GVLT / Gianforte B schultz hillslope Bozeman / GallatinCity/County: Carex vulpinoidea Threeriv-Bonebasin loams 0-2% slopes pema/pemc 5 3 ft. NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S 30; T 1 S; R 6 E MT DP 9 concave Section, Township, Range: 50.0% ) 15 ft. ) Amelanchier alnifolia Populus tremuloides Prevalence Index worksheet: 24 5 Project/Site: Bikefill NWI classification: Dominant Species? WGS 84 FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: 80 Sampling Date: Litter Agrostis gigantea 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover Salix lasiandra 75 No FACW 5 FACU Yes FAC 45.716078° Long: -111.033017°LRR E Mixed wetland species and weeds. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 20 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 0 194 0 113 =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: % %Type1 Loc2 94 6 C M 95 5 C M X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X X Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yes Saturation Present? Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and unless disturbed or problematic. Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) DP 9SOIL wet Prominent redox concentrations Remarks Loamy/Clayey Color (moist) 10YR 4/6 10YR 4/6 0-6 FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Good redox throughout soil profile. Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 6-12 Texture Redox FeaturesDepth Loamy/Clayey Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 3/1 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 3 Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron Monosulfide (A18) Other (Explain in Remarks) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Surface Water (A1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Two pimary indicators and two secondary indicators were observed. Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): 1 Subregion (LRR/MLRA): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2. (A) 3. 4. (B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4. x 1 = 5. x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1. x 5 = 2. Column Totals: (A) (B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 9/30/2027 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? No 100 5 No Remarks: Indicator Status 2 6 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: 5 Poa pratensis 25 No FAC UPL Herb Stratum 20 Yes Bromus inermis 5 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species FAC 25 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: YesLitter Total % Cover of: =Total Cover Yes 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Multiply by: Prevalence Index = B/A = Yes 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Yes Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 7/11/2025 GVLT / Giantforte B Schultz hillside Bozeman / GallatinCity/County: Rumex crispus Threeriv-Bonebasin loams 0-2% slopes none 15 3 ft. NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S 30; T 1 S; R 6 E MT DP 10 concave Section, Township, Range: 33.3% ) 15 ft. ) Salix lasiandra Populus tremuloides Prevalence Index worksheet: 40 Project/Site: Bikefill NWI classification: Dominant Species? WGS 84 FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum: Sampling Date: Lactuca serriola Cirsium arvense 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover Amelanchier alnifolia 5 No FACU 5 FACW Yes FAC 45.716069° Long: -111.032946°LRR E Mixed shrubby overstory and pasture grass understory. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover =Total Cover ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: % %Type1 Loc2 100 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yes Saturation Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and unless disturbed or problematic. Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) DP 10SOIL dry some cobbles Remarks Loamy/Clayey Color (moist) 0-6 FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) No hydric soil indicators were observed. Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 6-14 Texture Redox FeaturesDepth Loamy/Clayey Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 10YR 4/1 10YR 3/2 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron Monosulfide (A18) Other (Explain in Remarks) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Surface Water (A1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) No wetland hydrology indicators were observed. Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) ENG FORM 6116-9, SEP 2024 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Appendix C Bikefill Aquatic Delineation Site Photographs Data Point 1w/2u Data Point 3w Data Point 4u Data Point 5w Data Point 6u Data Point 7w Data Point 8u Appendix D Aerial Overview of Bikefill Aquatic Delineation Site Topographic Overview of Bikefill Aquatic Delineation Site National Wetland Inventory – Mapped Wetlands at Bikefill Aquatic Delineation Site Montana Natural Heritage Program – Mapped Wetlands at Bikefill Aquatic Delineation Site Soils of Gallatin County Area - Bikefill Aquatic Delineation Site Bikefill Aquatic Delineation 2000 ft N➤➤N Image © 2025 Airbus Image © 2025 Airbus Image © 2025 Airbus USA Topo Maps Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Copyright:© 2013 National USA_Topo_Maps 8/13/2025 0 0.25 0.50.13 mi 0 0.4 0.80.2 km 1:23,157 BikeFill Wetlands U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team,wetlands_team@fws.gov Wetlands Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Lake Other Riverine August 13, 2025 0 0.25 0.50.125 mi 0 0.4 0.80.2 km 1:15,047 This page was produced by the NWI mapperNational Wetlands Inventory (NWI) This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Gallatin County Area, MontanaNatural Resources Conservation Service August 13, 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 50C—Blackdog silt loam, 4 to 8 percent slopes..........................................13 450C—Blackdog-Quagle silt loams, 4 to 8 percent slopes.........................14 450D—Blackdog-Brodyk silt loams, 8 to 15 percent slopes........................16 512D—Enbar-Bowery-Nythar complex, 4 to 15 percent slopes..................18 522A—Enbar clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes...........................................20 556A—Threeriv-Bonebasin loams, 0 to 2 percent slopes...........................22 752E—Meagher-Shawmut-Bowery complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes.......24 References............................................................................................................27 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 50623005062400506250050626005062700506280050629005063000506310050632005062300506240050625005062600506270050628005062900506300050631005063200497100 497200 497300 497400 497500 497600 497700 497800 497900 498000 498100 498200 498300 498400 498500 497100 497200 497300 497400 497500 497600 497700 497800 497900 498000 498100 498200 498300 498400 498500 45° 43' 21'' N 111° 2' 15'' W45° 43' 21'' N111° 1' 8'' W45° 42' 50'' N 111° 2' 15'' W45° 42' 50'' N 111° 1' 8'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84 0 300 600 1200 1800 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 Meters Map Scale: 1:6,670 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 Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area, Montana Survey Area Data: Version 28, Aug 22, 2024 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 18, 2022—Aug 29, 2022 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 10 Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/13/2025 Page 1 of 550623005062400506250050626005062700506280050629005063000506310050632005062300506240050625005062600506270050628005062900506300050631005063200497100497200497300497400497500497600497700497800497900498000498100498200498300498400498500 497100 497200 497300 497400 497500 497600 497700 497800 497900 498000 498100 498200 498300 498400 498500 45° 43' 21'' N 111° 2' 15'' W45° 43' 21'' N111° 1' 8'' W45° 42' 50'' N 111° 2' 15'' W45° 42' 50'' N 111° 1' 8'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84 0 300 600 1200 1800 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 Meters Map Scale: 1:6,670 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 Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area, Montana Survey Area Data: Version 28, Aug 22, 2024 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 18, 2022—Aug 29, 2022 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/13/2025 Page 2 of 5 Hydric Rating by Map Unit Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 50C Blackdog silt loam, 4 to 8 percent slopes 0 0.1 0.1% 450C Blackdog-Quagle silt loams, 4 to 8 percent slopes 0 0.3 0.4% 450D Blackdog-Brodyk silt loams, 8 to 15 percent slopes 0 42.5 50.7% 512D Enbar-Bowery-Nythar complex, 4 to 15 percent slopes 20 22.2 26.6% 522A Enbar clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 5 3.4 4.1% 556A Threeriv-Bonebasin loams, 0 to 2 percent slopes 95 4.8 5.7% 752E Meagher-Shawmut- Bowery complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes 0 10.4 12.4% Totals for Area of Interest 83.7 100.0% Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/13/2025 Page 3 of 5 Description This rating indicates the percentage of map units that meets the criteria for hydric soils. Map units are composed of one or more map unit components or soil types, each of which is rated as hydric soil or not hydric. Map units that are made up dominantly of hydric soils may have small areas of minor nonhydric components in the higher positions on the landform, and map units that are made up dominantly of nonhydric soils may have small areas of minor hydric components in the lower positions on the landform. Each map unit is rated based on its respective components and the percentage of each component within the map unit. The thematic map is color coded based on the composition of hydric components. The five color classes are separated as 100 percent hydric components, 66 to 99 percent hydric components, 33 to 65 percent hydric components, 1 to 32 percent hydric components, and less than one percent hydric components. In Web Soil Survey, the Summary by Map Unit table that is displayed below the map pane contains a column named 'Rating'. In this column the percentage of each map unit that is classified as hydric is displayed. Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (Federal Register, 1994). Under natural conditions, these soils are either saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to support the growth and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation. The NTCHS definition identifies general soil properties that are associated with wetness. In order to determine whether a specific soil is a hydric soil or nonhydric soil, however, more specific information, such as information about the depth and duration of the water table, is needed. Thus, criteria that identify those estimated soil properties unique to hydric soils have been established (Federal Register, 2002). These criteria are used to identify map unit components that normally are associated with wetlands. The criteria used are selected estimated soil properties that are described in "Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 1999) and "Keys to Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 2006) and in the "Soil Survey Manual" (Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993). If soils are wet enough for a long enough period of time to be considered hydric, they should exhibit certain properties that can be easily observed in the field. These visible properties are indicators of hydric soils. The indicators used to make onsite determinations of hydric soils are specified in "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States" (Hurt and Vasilas, 2006). References: Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/13/2025 Page 4 of 5 Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Percent Present Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Lower Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/13/2025 Page 5 of 5 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 50C Blackdog silt loam, 4 to 8 percent slopes 0.1 0.1% 450C Blackdog-Quagle silt loams, 4 to 8 percent slopes 0.3 0.4% 450D Blackdog-Brodyk silt loams, 8 to 15 percent slopes 42.5 50.7% 512D Enbar-Bowery-Nythar complex, 4 to 15 percent slopes 22.2 26.6% 522A Enbar clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 3.4 4.1% 556A Threeriv-Bonebasin loams, 0 to 2 percent slopes 4.8 5.7% 752E Meagher-Shawmut-Bowery complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes 10.4 12.4% Totals for Area of Interest 83.7 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit Custom Soil Resource Report 11 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. 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 50C—Blackdog silt loam, 4 to 8 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56vr Elevation: 4,500 to 5,750 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 43 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Blackdog and similar soils:90 percent Minor components:10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Blackdog Setting Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Calcareous loess Typical profile A - 0 to 10 inches: silt loam Bt - 10 to 19 inches: silty clay loam Bk - 19 to 60 inches: silt loam Properties and qualities Slope:4 to 8 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:30 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 10.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R044BB032MT - Loamy (Lo) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Meagher Percent of map unit:4 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Ecological site:R044BB032MT - Loamy (Lo) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No Quagle Percent of map unit:3 percent Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BB030MT - Limy (Ly) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No Bowery Percent of map unit:3 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BB032MT - Loamy (Lo) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No 450C—Blackdog-Quagle silt loams, 4 to 8 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56sw Elevation: 4,400 to 5,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Blackdog and similar soils:60 percent Quagle and similar soils:30 percent Minor components:10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Blackdog Setting Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Calcareous loess Typical profile A - 0 to 10 inches: silt loam Bt - 10 to 19 inches: silty clay loam Bk - 19 to 60 inches: silt loam Properties and qualities Slope:4 to 8 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Custom Soil Resource Report 14 Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:30 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 10.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R044BB032MT - Loamy (Lo) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No Description of Quagle Setting Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Silty calcareous loess Typical profile A - 0 to 6 inches: silt loam Bw - 6 to 9 inches: silt loam Bk - 9 to 60 inches: silt loam Properties and qualities Slope:4 to 8 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:35 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 10.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R044BB030MT - Limy (Ly) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Beanlake Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BB030MT - Limy (Ly) LRU 01 Subset B Custom Soil Resource Report 15 Hydric soil rating: No Bowery Percent of map unit:3 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BB032MT - Loamy (Lo) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No Anceney Percent of map unit:2 percent Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BB036MT - Droughty (Dr) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No 450D—Blackdog-Brodyk silt loams, 8 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56sx Elevation: 4,500 to 5,800 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 Blackdog and similar soils:55 percent Brodyk and similar soils:35 percent Minor components:10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Blackdog Setting Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Calcareous loess Typical profile A - 0 to 10 inches: silt loam Bt - 10 to 19 inches: silty clay loam Bk - 19 to 60 inches: silt loam Properties and qualities Slope:8 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Custom Soil Resource Report 16 Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:30 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 10.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R044BB032MT - Loamy (Lo) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No Description of Brodyk Setting Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Silty calcareous loess Typical profile A - 0 to 6 inches: silt loam Bk1 - 6 to 30 inches: silt loam Bk2 - 30 to 60 inches: silt loam Properties and qualities Slope:8 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:30 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 10.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R044BB030MT - Limy (Ly) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Beanlake Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BB030MT - Limy (Ly) LRU 01 Subset B Custom Soil Resource Report 17 Hydric soil rating: No Bowery Percent of map unit:3 percent Landform:Stream terraces, alluvial fans Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BB060MT - Overflow (Ov) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No Anceney Percent of map unit:2 percent Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BB036MT - Droughty (Dr) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No 512D—Enbar-Bowery-Nythar complex, 4 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56vx Elevation: 4,450 to 6,300 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance Map Unit Composition Enbar and similar soils:55 percent Bowery and similar soils:20 percent Nythar and similar soils:15 percent Minor components:10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Enbar Setting Landform:Flood plains Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Loamy alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 22 inches: loam Bw - 22 to 29 inches: loam Bg - 29 to 50 inches: loam 2Cg - 50 to 59 inches: very gravelly sandy loam Custom Soil Resource Report 18 Properties and qualities Slope:4 to 8 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 24 to 42 inches Frequency of flooding:Rare Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:10 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R044BP801MT - Bottomland Other vegetative classification: quaking aspen/Kentucky bluegrass c.t. (HP218) Hydric soil rating: No Description of Bowery Setting Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 22 inches: loam Bw - 22 to 59 inches: clay loam Properties and qualities Slope:4 to 15 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 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 11.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R044BB060MT - Overflow (Ov) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No Description of Nythar Setting Landform:Flood plains Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Custom Soil Resource Report 19 Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 8 inches: loam Bg - 8 to 33 inches: gravelly silt loam Cg - 33 to 59 inches: sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope:4 to 6 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Very poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 0 to 12 inches Frequency of flooding:Rare Frequency of ponding:None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 6w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D Ecological site: R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: Yes Minor Components Blossberg Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Draws Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R043BP801MT - Bottomland Group Hydric soil rating: Yes Straw Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BB032MT - Loamy (Lo) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No 522A—Enbar clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56w9 Elevation: 4,300 to 5,850 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Custom Soil Resource Report 20 Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Enbar and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Enbar Setting Landform:Flood plains Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Loamy alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 16 inches: clay loam Cg - 16 to 53 inches: clay loam 2C - 53 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:Somewhat poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 24 to 42 inches Frequency of flooding:Rare Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:10 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Straw Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BB032MT - Loamy (Lo) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No Nythar Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Flood plains Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Custom Soil Resource Report 21 Ecological site:R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: Yes Sudworth Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Flood plains Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP819MT - Upland Sagebrush Shrubland Hydric soil rating: No 556A—Threeriv-Bonebasin loams, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56x4 Elevation: 4,000 to 6,100 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Threeriv and similar soils:46 percent Bonebasin and similar soils:44 percent Minor components:10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Threeriv Setting Landform:Flood plains Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile Oe - 0 to 4 inches: moderately decomposed plant material Ag - 4 to 9 inches: loam Cg - 9 to 29 inches: stratified sandy loam to silty clay loam 2Cg - 29 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Very poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 0 to 12 inches Frequency of flooding:Rare Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Custom Soil Resource Report 22 Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 7.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D Ecological site: R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: Yes Description of Bonebasin Setting Landform:Flood plains Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile Oa - 0 to 4 inches: muck A - 4 to 15 inches: loam Cg - 15 to 25 inches: stratified sandy loam to silty clay loam 2C - 25 to 60 inches: very gravelly coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Very poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 0 to 12 inches Frequency of flooding:Rare Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 7.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D Ecological site: R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: Yes Minor Components Blossberg Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Marshes Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: Yes Threeriv Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Flood plains Down-slope shape:Linear Custom Soil Resource Report 23 Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland Hydric soil rating: No 752E—Meagher-Shawmut-Bowery complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 570w Elevation: 4,600 to 6,150 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Meagher and similar soils:45 percent Shawmut and similar soils:35 percent Bowery and similar soils:10 percent Minor components:10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Meagher Setting Landform:Escarpments Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Loamy alluvium colluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 6 inches: loam Bt - 6 to 19 inches: clay loam Bk1 - 19 to 31 inches: loam 2Bk2 - 31 to 60 inches: very cobbly sandy clay loam Properties and qualities Slope:15 to 35 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:40 percent Gypsum, maximum content:1 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 6.4 inches) Custom Soil Resource Report 24 Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R043BP818MT - Upland Grassland Group Hydric soil rating: No Description of Shawmut Setting Landform:Escarpments Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium colluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 6 inches: cobbly loam Bt - 6 to 14 inches: very cobbly sandy clay loam Btk - 14 to 19 inches: very gravelly sandy clay loam Bk - 19 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly sandy clay loam Properties and qualities Slope:15 to 45 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 (0.20 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:30 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R044BB038MT - Droughty Steep (DrStp) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No Description of Bowery Setting Landform:Escarpments Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium colluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 22 inches: loam Bw - 22 to 60 inches: clay loam Properties and qualities Slope:15 to 35 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Custom Soil Resource Report 25 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 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 11.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R044BP818MT - Upland Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Shawmut, stony Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Escarpments Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BB036MT - Droughty (Dr) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No Shawmut Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Escarpments Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044BB038MT - Droughty Steep (DrStp) LRU 01 Subset B Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 26 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 27 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 28