HomeMy WebLinkAbout9 Wetland Delineation Report REV 02-2020
Northwest Crossing
Wetland/Waterway Investigation - August 2018
Gallatin County, Montana
Prepared for:
Bryan Klein
Prepared by:
2880 Technology Blvd W
Bozeman, MT 59718
(406) 587 0721
September 2018
Revised February 2020
Project No. 5659.003
Northwest Crossing
Wetland/Waterway Investigation 2018
Page 1
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
2 Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 1
2.1 Wetlands ....................................................................................................................................... 1
2.1.1 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................. 1
2.1.2 Hydrology .............................................................................................................................. 2
2.1.3 Soils ....................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1.4 Floodplains ............................................................................................................................ 2
2.1.5 National Wetland Inventory.................................................................................................. 2
3 Results ................................................................................................................................................... 2
3.1 Wetlands ....................................................................................................................................... 3
3.2 Waterways .................................................................................................................................... 4
4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 5
5 References ............................................................................................................................................ 5
Figures
Figure 1 Topographic Maps of Project Vicinity
Figure 2 Aerial Photographs of the Project Area
Figure 3 NRCS Soils Maps
Figure 4 USFWS National Wetlands Inventories
Figure 5 Wetland Delineation Map
Figure C120: Surface Water and Wetland Locations
Appendices
Appendix A Photo Log
Appendix B NRCS Soils Report
Appendix C Wetland Data Sheets
Northwest Crossing
Wetland/Waterway Investigation 2018
Page 1
1 Introduction
At the request of Bryan Klein, Morrison-Maierle, Inc. (Morrison-Maierle) completed a
wetland/waterway investigation for a 160 Acre parcel of property owned by the Anderson Family.
This property is now referred to as Northwest Crossing This technical memo summarizes the
findings of the 2018 wetland investigation in Gallatin County, Montana.
The wetland/waterway investigations were completed on August 8 and 9th, 2018. The property is
located at the near the intersection of Baxter Lane and Flanders Mill Road. The subject properties
have historically been used for agriculture (crop and cattle) and rural residential. The land is legally
described as Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, Certificate of Survey 2552, Tract 5
NE4, Principal Meridian, Gallatin County, Montana.
Figures 1 to 5 are provided immediately following the memo and depict topographic project
vicinity, aerial photographs, soils, National Wetland Inventories, and delineated
wetlands/waterways. Additionally, Figure C-120 is included to show all surface water and wetland
locations in survey-level detail. Photographs are provided in Appendix A and a Natural Resources
Conservation Service soils report is provided in Appendix B. Wetland and Upland Data sheets
are available in Appendix C.
2 Methods
Wetland delineation data was collected on August 8 and 9, 2018. The wetland investigation
utilized the methodology presented in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands
Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and subsequent modifications outlined in
the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western
Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (Environmental Laboratory 2010).
2.1 Wetlands
Upland and wetland data points were established during the field visits. For wetlands and non-
wetlands identified in 2018, wetland and upland plot data for vegetation, hydrology, and soils were
recorded in the field onto Wetland Determination Forms, and are provided in Appendix A. The
wetland identification numbers, (e.g. noted here in bold (W-1-18) correspond to the sample points
for that location. Photographs of all sample points and wetlands are provided in Appendix A. The
sample points and wetland boundaries were recorded by a professional land surveyor.
2.1.1 Vegetation
Vegetation at upland and wetland data points was classified based on wetland indicator status.
The indicator status of vegetation was derived from the Montana 2016 State Wetland Plant List
(Lichvar et al. 2016). Using the current plant list, vegetation cover qualified as hydrophytic where
over 50% of the dominant plant species had an indicator status of obligate (OBL), facultative wet
(FACW), and/or facultative (FAC). FAC plants, such as Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), are
equally likely to occur in wetlands and non-wetlands. Vegetation cover was considered as upland
where over 50% of the dominant plant species were classified as upland (UPL), and/or facultative
upland (FACU). Plants observed within each data plot were identified using Montana Manual of
Northwest Crossing
Wetland/Waterway Investigation 2018
Page 2
Vascular Plants (Lesica 2012). Vegetation nomenclature follows Lichvar et al. (2016) and Lesica
(2012).
2.1.2 Hydrology
Primary and secondary hydrologic indicators were assessed at each wetland and upland data
point; one primary indicator or two secondary indicators are required to qualify the area as
containing wetland hydrology. Examples of primary hydrology indicators are saturation within 12
inches of the ground surface, surface water, and water table within 12 inches of the ground
surface. Examples of secondary hydrology indicators are FAC-neutral test and geomorphic
position on the landscape.
2.1.3 Soils
Soil types within the project area were obtained from the Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2002) and
analyzed in the field for texture and color using the Munsell Soil Color Charts (Munsell 2000).
Wetlands must meet the qualifications of at least one hydric soil indicator, or meet the definition
of a hydric soil (a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding long enough
during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (NRCS 2016)).
2.1.4 Floodplains
FEMA FIRM 30031C0802D Effective September 2, 2011. The Anderson Property is located on
panel 300027 in Zone X: Area of Minimal Flood Hazard. This property is not located within a 100-
year floodplain and therefore, would not require floodplain permitting should development occur.
2.1.5 National Wetland Inventory
The US Fish and Wildlife Service maintains the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), which
serves as a publicly available resource that provides detailed information on the abundance,
characteristics, and distribution of US Wetlands. According to the NWI database, a freshwater
Emergent Wetland could potentially exist within the subject property. See Figure 4 and
Appendix B for details.
3 Results
The wetlands on the subject property are emergent riverine wetlands associated with a Baxter
Ditch and Baxter Creek. The area along the unnamed drainage presented indications of previous
disturbance and was likely plowed at one time. The wetland soils were not well developed. The
area along Baxter Creek was trampled and heavily grazed by cattle. The wetland investigation
resulted in the delineation of two riverine wetlands and three ordinary high watermarks of Baxter
Ditch, Baxter Creek, and a tributary of Baxter Creek. Photographs of the investigation areas and
wetlands are provided in Appendix A and Wetland Data Sheets are included in Appendix C.
Two riverine wetlands associated with three waterways were delineated on the subject property.
Additionally, the ordinary high watermark of Baxter Ditch, Baxter Creek, and a tributary of Baxter
Creek were delineated. The majority of the channel of Baxter Ditch was vegetated but, the
channel of Baxter Creek contained much less vegetation, likely due to the fact that it was located
in an open active cattle pasture.
Northwest Crossing
Wetland/Waterway Investigation 2018
Page 3
3.1 Wetlands
Wetland W-1-18 was delineated as a riverine wetland along the edges of Baxter Ditch. The
wetland hydrology indicators for W-1-18 included high water table and saturation. Hydrology is
provided by Baxter Ditch. Wetland W-2-18 was delineated as a riverine wetland along the edges
of Baxter Creek. The wetland hydrology indicators for W-2-18 included high water table, redox,
and topographical changes.
W-1-18 (Riverine wetland to Baxter Ditch)
Approximately 3.7 acres of wetlands were delineated as a wetland fringe to the un-named
drainage on the subject property. The dominant vegetation observed within this area of the
wetland included: field mint (Mentha arvensis, FACW), common cattail (Typha latifolia, OBL), reed
canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW), and climbing nightshade (Solanum dulcamara,
FAC). An infestation of noxious weeds were also observed within both the wetland and upland
areas, including Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense, FAC) and common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare,
FACU). The hydrophytic vegetation indicators include a positive dominance test and prevalence
index within the range indicating the presence of hydrophytic vegetation.
The wetland hydrology indicator is based on the water table at 8 inches below ground surface
and geomorphic position. Soil observations of a 10YR2/1 clay loam layer from 0 to 10 inches
below ground surface; unable to dig past 10 inches in most locations due to rocks or hardpack.
The wetland soils were not well developed, assumingly due to previous disturbance from
agricultural activities. Hydric soil indicator is assumed to be either Thick Dark Surface or Depletion
Below Dark Surface (but could not dig deep enough to verify). The wetland/upland boundary
primarily follows a change in topography, vegetation regime, and distance from surface water
influences. Vegetation at the upland pit was dominated by Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense,
FAC), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis, FAC), smooth brome (Bromus inermis, UPL), and
woods rose (Rosa woodsii, FACU). In summary, the wetland boundary roughly followed historic
meanders associated with Baxter Ditch.
Several pits were dug along this corridor to verify the wetland boundary. Data sheets were not
prepared for every pit due to the similar nature of each pit.
W-2-18 (Riverine wetland to Baxter Creek and Tributary of Baxter Creek)
Approximately 4.38 acres of wetland were delineated as wetland fringe to Baxter Creek and the
tributary of Baxter Creek on the subject property. The north end Baxter Creek had a more
developed natural floodplain than Baxter Ditch. This area was free from the influence of cattle
(trampling and overgrazing) and the topography provided for wetland conditions. The dominant
vegetation observed within this area of the wetland included: Baltic rush (Juncus balticus, FACW),
Kentucky bluegrass, marsh cinquefoil (Potentilla paustris, OBL). The hydrophytic vegetation
indicators include a positive dominance test and prevalence index within the range indicating the
presence of hydrophytic vegetation. The wetland hydrology indicator is based on saturation at 9
inches and water table within 11 inches of the surface.
Northwest Crossing
Wetland/Waterway Investigation 2018
Page 4
Soil color from 0 to 18 inches was 10YR2/1 with 10% redox 10YR4/4 matrix at 8 inches. The
wetland/upland boundary primarily follows a change in topography, vegetation regime, and
distance from surface water influences. Vegetation at the upland pit was dominated by Canada
goldenrod (Solidago Canadensis, FACU), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus, FACU), Baltic rush
and Kentucky bluegrass.
Several pits were dug along this corridor to verify the wetland boundary. Data sheets were not
prepared for all pits due to the similar nature of the data. The farther south on the subject property,
the greater the riparian damage from cattle trampling and grazing.
Wetland Summary Table
Wetland Name Associated
Waterway
Area Type
W-1-2018 Baxter Ditch 3.7 Riverine
W-2-2018 Baxter Creek and Unnamed Tributary of Baxter Creek
4.38 Riverine
3.2 Waterways
Waterway WW-1-18 (Baxter Ditch)
Waterway WW-1-18 is identified as an unnamed tributary. Approximately 3,501 linear feet of this
waterway was delineated within the investigation area. Much of the channel of Baxter Ditch is
vegetated. This waterway was preliminarily determined to be jurisdictional based on its assumed
confluence with a known Water of the U.S.
Waterway WW-2-18 (Baxter Creek)
Waterway WW-2-18 is identified as Baxter Creek. Approximately 3,737 feet of this waterway was
delineated within the investigation area. Baxter Creek on the north end of the property had less
negative influence from cattle trampling and grazing than on the south end of the property. Where
Baxter Creek flows through the trees near the abandoned residential home, it is directed into what
looks like a spring box and then it flows out the other side. A headgate is located on this creek
which splits the water off into an unnamed tributary (WW-3-18) on the northwest side of the
property. This waterway was preliminarily determined to be jurisdictional based on its assumed
confluence with a known Water of the U.S.
Waterway WW-3-18 (Tributary of Baxter Creek)
Waterway WW-3-18 is identified as a Tributary of Baxter Creek. Water is split off into this Tributary
by a headgate on Baxter Creek. Approximately 1475 linear feet of this waterway was delineated
within the investigation area. This waterway was preliminarily determined to be jurisdictional
based on its assumed confluence with a known Water of the U.S.
Northwest Crossing
Wetland/Waterway Investigation 2018
Page 5
Waterway Summary Table
Waterway Label Waterway name Linear Feet Area (acres) Approx Width Source Vegetated?
WW-1-2018 Baxter Ditch 3501 0.24 <1 ft. Baxter
Ditch
Yes
(heavily)
WW-2-2018 Baxter Creek 3737 1.1 3-4 ft. Baxter Creek No
WW-3-2018 Unnamed Tributary of Baxter Creek
1475 0.23 1 ft. Baxter Creek In places
4 Conclusion
The delineation for the Northwest Crossing Property took place on two days August 8 and 9,
2018. During this time, two wetlands (W-1-18 and W-2-18) totaling approximately 8.08 acres and
approximately 8,713 linear feet of three waterways (Baxter Ditch, Baxter Creek, and Tributary of
Baxter Creek) were delineated on the subject property. Both the wetlands and waterways are
preliminary determined to be jurisdictional based on hydrologic connectivity to known Waters of
the US.
5 References
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. Environmental Laboratory. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corp of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. (Version 2.0) U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory. Vicksburg, MS.
Lesica, P. 2012. Manual of Montana Vascular Plants. Brit Press. Fort Worth, Texas.
Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X. Munsell. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Macbeth Division of Kollmorgan Instruments. New Windsor, NY. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2002. Soil Survey for Gallatin County Area, Montana (MT622). http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2016. Hydric Soils Definition.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/use/hydric/?cid=nrcs142p2_053961
Northwest Crossing Wetland Investigation
TOPOGRAPHIC MAPDRAWN BY: CAP
CHK'D BY:
APPR. BY:
DATE:
BOZEMAN MT
COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2016
N:\5659\003_Anderson\GIS\Figure 1 - Topol Map.mxd
FIGURE NO.
PROJECT NO.
5659.003
1
2880 Technology Blvd WestBozeman, MT 59718
Phone: (406) 587-0721Fax: (406) 922-6702 4/22/2019
µ
0 1 20.5 Miles
Northwest Crossing Wetland Investigation
AERIAL MAPDRAWN BY: CAP
CHK'D BY:
APPR. BY:
DATE:
BOZEMAN MT
COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2016
N:\5659\003_Anderson\GIS\Figure 2 - Aerial Map.mxd
FIGURE NO.
PROJECT NO.
5659.003
2
2880 Technology Blvd WestBozeman, MT 59718
Phone: (406) 587-0721Fax: (406) 922-6702 7/8/2019
µ
0 0.25 0.50.125 Miles
53B
510B
457A
448A
537A
537A
453B
453B
453B
510B
451C
509B
748A
537A 451C
Northwest Crossing Wetland Investigation
SOILS MAPDRAWN BY: CAP
CHK'D BY:
APPR. BY:
DATE:
BOZEMAN MT
COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2016
N:\5659\003_Anderson\GIS\Figure 3 - Soils Map.mxd
FIGURE NO.
PROJECT NO.
5659.003
3
2880 Technology Blvd WestBozeman, MT 59718
Phone: (406) 587-0721Fax: (406) 922-6702 7/8/2019
µ
0 0.15 0.30.075 Miles
Northwest Crossing Wetland Investigation
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY MAPDRAWN BY: CAP
CHK'D BY:
APPR. BY:
DATE:
BOZEMAN MT
COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2016
N:\5659\003_Anderson\GIS\Figure 4 - NWI Map.mxd
FIGURE NO.
PROJECT NO.
5659.003
4
2880 Technology Blvd WestBozeman, MT 59718
Phone: (406) 587-0721Fax: (406) 922-6702 4/22/2019
µ
0 0.15 0.30.075 Miles
Legend
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Scrub-Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Riparian Emergent
Riparian Forested
Riparian Scrub-Shrub
Riverine
!.!.
!(!(
Baxter Ditch (WW-1-18)Ditch Area: 0.24 acre
Ditch Length: 3501 linear feetWetland W-1-18: 3.7 acres
Baxter Creek (WW-2-18)Creek Area: 1.1 acre
Creek Length: 3737 lin ftWetland (W-2-18): 4.38 acres
Trib. of Baxter Creek (WW-3-18)Creek Area: 0.23 acreCreek Length: 1475 linear feet
W-1-18
&Up 1
W-1-18(1)
&Up 1(1)
W-2-18
&Up 2
test pits(similar to W-2-18 series)
Spring Box
Northwest CrossingWetland Investigation
WETLAND DELINEATION MAPDRAWN BY: CAP
CHK'D BY:
APPR. BY:
DATE:
BOZEMAN MT
COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2016
N:\5659\003_Anderson\GIS\Figure 5 - Wetland Delineation Map.mxd
FIGURE NO.
PROJECT NO.
5659.003
5
2880 Technology Blvd WestBozeman, MT 59718
Phone: (406) 587-0721Fax: (406) 922-6702 2/25/2020
µ
Legend
!(Wetland Data Point
!(Upland Data Point
Wetland Boundary
Waterway
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles
Appendix A: Photo Log
Northwest Crossing Photo Log August 2018
Photo 1. Upland Pit 1 (unnamed drainage) Representative of unnamed drainage upland areas
Photo 2. Wetland Pit 1 (Unnamed drainage) Representative of unnamed wetland areas
Northwest Crossing Photo Log August 2018
Photo 3. Upland Pit 2 (Baxter Creek) (representative photos upland areas in the north area of Baxter Creek)
Photo 4. Wetland Pit 2 in the distance (Baxter Creek) North area
Northwest Crossing Photo Log August 2018
Photo 5: Upland fringe adjacent to farmed area (Baxter Ditch area)
Photo 6: Open water on south end of Baxter Ditch near Oak street
Northwest Crossing Photo Log August 2018
Photo 7: Spring box in the trees over Baxter Creek. Wetland area.
Photo 8: Western most drainage along the fence line. Topographic change and wetland veg noted. Surrounding upland heavily grazed by cattle.
Northwest Crossing Photo Log August 2018
Photo 9: Heavily grazed upland pasture infested with musk thistle in western portion of the property.
Appendix B: NRCS Custom Soils Report
United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Gallatin County
Area, Montana
Anderson 160
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
September 11, 2018
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.
They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information
about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for
many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban
planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.
Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste
disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand,
protect, or enhance the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose
special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil
properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.
The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of
soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for
identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area
planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some
cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/
portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering
applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center
(https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil
Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?
cid=nrcs142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as
septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to
basements or underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States
Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its
programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability,
and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion,
sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a
part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not
all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require
2
alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice
and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of
Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or
call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity
provider and employer.
3
Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................2
How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5
Soil Map..................................................................................................................8
Soil Map................................................................................................................9
Legend................................................................................................................10
Map Unit Legend................................................................................................11
Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11
Gallatin County Area, Montana.......................................................................13
53B—Amsterdam silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes......................................13
448A—Hyalite-Beaverton complex, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent
slopes....................................................................................................14
451C—Quagle-Brodyk silt loams, 4 to 8 percent slopes.............................16
453B—Amsterdam-Quagle silt loams, 0 to 4 percent slopes......................18
457A—Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes.......................20
509B—Enbar loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes...................................................22
510B—Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes......................................23
537A—Lamoose silt loam, 0 to 2 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
50
5
9
9
0
0
50
6
0
0
0
0
50
6
0
1
0
0
50
6
0
2
0
0
50
6
0
3
0
0
50
6
0
4
0
0
50
6
0
5
0
0
50
6
0
6
0
0
50
6
0
7
0
0
50
6
0
8
0
0
50
5
9
9
0
0
50
6
0
0
0
0
50
6
0
1
0
0
50
6
0
2
0
0
50
6
0
3
0
0
50
6
0
4
0
0
50
6
0
5
0
0
50
6
0
6
0
0
50
6
0
7
0
0
50
6
0
8
0
0
490800 490900 491000 491100 491200 491300 491400 491500 491600 491700 491800 491900 492000 492100 492200
490800 490900 491000 491100 491200 491300 491400 491500 491600 491700 491800 491900 492000 492100 492200
45° 42' 3'' N
11
1
°
7
'
5
'
'
W
45° 42' 3'' N
11
1
°
5
'
5
6
'
'
W
45° 41' 31'' N
11
1
°
7
'
5
'
'
W
45° 41' 31'' N
11
1
°
5
'
5
6
'
'
W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84
0 300 600 1200 1800Feet
0 100 200 400 600Meters
Map Scale: 1:6,820 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 21, Sep 21, 2017
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Sep 10, 2012—Nov
12, 2016
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Custom Soil Resource Report
10
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
53B Amsterdam silt loam, 0 to 4
percent slopes
24.2 14.8%
448A Hyalite-Beaverton complex,
moderately wet, 0 to 2
percent slopes
30.7 18.9%
451C Quagle-Brodyk silt loams, 4 to 8
percent slopes
2.6 1.6%
453B Amsterdam-Quagle silt loams, 0
to 4 percent slopes
3.5 2.2%
457A Turner loam, moderately wet, 0
to 2 percent slopes
37.9 23.2%
509B Enbar loam, 0 to 4 percent
slopes
1.6 1.0%
510B Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4
percent slopes
45.0 27.6%
537A Lamoose silt loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
17.5 10.7%
Totals for Area of Interest 162.9 100.0%
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
Custom Soil Resource Report
11
are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a
given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit
descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor
components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not
mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it
was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and
miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
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
53B—Amsterdam silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 56ws
Elevation: 4,400 to 5,550 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 45 degrees F
Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Amsterdam and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Amsterdam
Setting
Landform: Stream terraces
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Loess
Typical profile
A - 0 to 8 inches: silt loam
Bw - 8 to 15 inches: silt loam
Bk - 15 to 42 inches: silt loam
2C - 42 to 60 inches: very fine sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 4 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20
to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 35 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0
mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: High (about 10.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS355MT), Upland Grassland
(R044BP818MT)
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
13
Minor Components
Blackdog
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Stream terraces
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS355MT)
Hydric soil rating: No
Quagle
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Stream terraces
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: Limy (Ly) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS357MT)
Hydric soil rating: No
Bowery
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Stream terraces, alluvial fans
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS355MT)
Hydric soil rating: No
Meagher
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans, stream terraces
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS355MT)
Hydric soil rating: No
448A—Hyalite-Beaverton complex, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 56sq
Elevation: 4,450 to 5,300 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F
Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance
Map Unit Composition
Hyalite and similar soils: 70 percent
Beaverton and similar soils: 20 percent
Minor components: 10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Custom Soil Resource Report
14
Description of Hyalite
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans, stream terraces
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Loamy alluvium
Typical profile
A - 0 to 5 inches: loam
Bt1 - 5 to 9 inches: clay loam
Bt2 - 9 to 17 inches: silty clay loam
2Bt3 - 17 to 26 inches: very cobbly sandy clay loam
3C - 26 to 60 inches: very cobbly loamy sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20
to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 48 to 96 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 5 percent
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS354MT), Upland
Grassland (R044BP818MT)
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Beaverton
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans, stream terraces
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium
Typical profile
A - 0 to 5 inches: cobbly loam
Bt - 5 to 21 inches: very gravelly clay loam
Bk - 21 to 25 inches: very cobbly coarse sandy loam
2Bk - 25 to 60 inches: extremely cobbly loamy coarse sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 48 to 96 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Custom Soil Resource Report
15
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0
mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 3.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS354MT), Upland
Grassland (R044BP818MT)
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Beaverton
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Stream terraces, alluvial fans
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS354MT)
Hydric soil rating: No
Meadowcreek
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Stream terraces
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: Subirrigated (Sb) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS359MT)
Hydric soil rating: No
451C—Quagle-Brodyk silt loams, 4 to 8 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 56sy
Elevation: 4,350 to 5,150 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 18 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
Quagle and similar soils: 70 percent
Brodyk and similar soils: 20 percent
Minor components: 10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Custom Soil Resource Report
16
Description of Quagle
Setting
Landform: Stream terraces
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Silty calcareous loess
Typical profile
A - 0 to 6 inches: silt loam
Bw - 6 to 9 inches: silt loam
Bk - 9 to 60 inches: silt loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 4 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 35 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0
mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: High (about 10.8 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: Limy (Ly) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS357MT), Upland Grassland
(R044BP818MT)
Hydric soil rating: No
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: 4 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Custom Soil Resource Report
17
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 30 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0
mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: High (about 10.5 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: Limy (Ly) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS357MT), Limy Grassland
(R044BP804MT)
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Amsterdam
Percent of map unit: 8 percent
Landform: Stream terraces
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS355MT)
Hydric soil rating: No
Anceney
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Stream terraces
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: Silty-Droughty (SiDr) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS690MT)
Hydric soil rating: No
453B—Amsterdam-Quagle silt loams, 0 to 4 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 56t5
Elevation: 4,400 to 5,450 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 45 degrees F
Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Amsterdam 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.
Custom Soil Resource Report
18
Description of Amsterdam
Setting
Landform: Stream terraces
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Loess
Typical profile
A - 0 to 8 inches: silt loam
Bw - 8 to 15 inches: silt loam
Bk - 15 to 42 inches: silt loam
2C - 42 to 60 inches: very fine sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 4 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20
to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 35 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0
mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: High (about 10.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS355MT), Upland Grassland
(R044BP818MT)
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Quagle
Setting
Landform: Stream terraces
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Silty calcareous loess
Typical profile
A - 0 to 6 inches: silt loam
Bw - 6 to 9 inches: silt loam
Bk - 9 to 60 inches: silt loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 4 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Custom Soil Resource Report
19
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 35 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0
mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: High (about 10.8 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: Limy (Ly) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS357MT), Upland Grassland
(R044BP818MT)
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Beanlake
Percent of map unit: 6 percent
Landform: Stream terraces, alluvial fans
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: Limy (Ly) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS357MT)
Hydric soil rating: No
Meagher
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans, stream terraces
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS355MT)
Hydric soil rating: No
457A—Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 56tb
Elevation: 4,300 to 5,200 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F
Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Turner and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Custom Soil Resource Report
20
Description of Turner
Setting
Landform: Stream terraces
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium
Typical profile
A - 0 to 6 inches: loam
Bt - 6 to 12 inches: clay loam
Bk - 12 to 26 inches: clay loam
2C - 26 to 60 inches: very gravelly loamy sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 48 to 96 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0
mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 5.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: Upland Grassland (R044BP818MT), Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z.
(R044XS355MT)
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Beaverton
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans, stream terraces
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS354MT)
Hydric soil rating: No
Turner
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Stream terraces
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS355MT)
Hydric soil rating: No
Meadowcreek
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Stream terraces
Custom Soil Resource Report
21
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: Subirrigated (Sb) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS359MT)
Hydric soil rating: No
509B—Enbar loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 56vp
Elevation: 4,400 to 6,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 45 degrees F
Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Enbar and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Enbar
Setting
Landform: Flood plains
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Loamy alluvium
Typical profile
A - 0 to 22 inches: loam
Cg - 22 to 49 inches: sandy loam
2C - 49 to 60 inches: very gravelly loamy sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 4 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 24 to 42 inches
Frequency of flooding: Rare
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0
mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.8 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3w
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Custom Soil Resource Report
22
Ecological site: Subirrigated (Sb) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS359MT), Bottomland
(R044BP801MT)
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Nythar
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: Wet Meadow (WM) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS365MT)
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Straw
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Stream terraces
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS355MT)
Hydric soil rating: No
510B—Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 56vt
Elevation: 4,200 to 5,950 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F
Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Meadowcreek and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Meadowcreek
Setting
Landform: Stream terraces
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium
Typical profile
A - 0 to 11 inches: loam
Bg - 11 to 25 inches: silt loam
2C - 25 to 60 inches: very gravelly sand
Custom Soil Resource Report
23
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 4 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 24 to 42 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 5.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: Subirrigated Grassland (R044BP815MT), Subirrigated (Sb) 15-19"
p.z. (R044XS359MT)
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Blossberg
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Terraces
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: Wet Meadow (WM) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS365MT)
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Beaverton
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans, stream terraces
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS354MT)
Hydric soil rating: No
537A—Lamoose silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 56wp
Elevation: 4,000 to 5,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F
Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance
Map Unit Composition
Lamoose and similar soils: 85 percent
Custom Soil Resource Report
24
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Lamoose
Setting
Landform: Stream terraces
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium
Typical profile
A - 0 to 9 inches: silt loam
Bg - 9 to 27 inches: silt loam
2C - 27 to 60 inches: very gravelly loamy sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Poorly drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 12 to 24 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 3.0
mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 5.8 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w
Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D
Ecological site: Subirrigated Grassland (R044BP815MT), Wet Meadow (WM)
9-14" p.z. (R044XS349MT)
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Minor Components
Bonebasin
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Terraces
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: Wet Meadow (WM) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS365MT)
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Meadowcreek
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Stream terraces
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: Subirrigated (Sb) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS343MT)
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
25
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
Appendix C: Wetland/Upland Data Sheets
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
State: Sampling Point:
Section, Township, Range:
Applicant/Owner: Bryan Klein
Investigator(s): C. Pearcy
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Datum:
No
NWI classification: N/A
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
, Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A)(B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:)
1.
2.
= Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Anderson 160 Gallatin County 08/8/18
MT W-1-18
Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 5 East
riverine wetland 0%
x
Remarks:Land adjacent to plot, used as ag field. Area may have been plowed at one point
western mountains, valleys and coast
Soil Map Unit Name: 510B Meadowcreek Loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes
none
nad 83
-111.109654
1m x 1m
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Lat: 45.699980 Long: -
100%
x
Are Vegetation x
xx
x x
x
Mentha arvensis FACW20
Typha latifolia 60 OBL
Solanum dulcamara 20 FAC
60 60
20 40
20 60
1.6
x
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):(includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
0 to 10 none observed clay loam
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):
W-1-18
10YR 2/1 100%
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
10
8 x
could not dig below 10 inches
10
clay layer or rock
The hydric soil indicator wasn't readily obvious. Making assumptions that there are depletions below area that is difficult to dig in.
All other wetland indicators are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
State: Sampling Point:
Section, Township, Range:
Applicant/Owner: Bryan Klein
Investigator(s): C. Pearcy
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Datum:
No
NWI classification: N/A
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
, Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A)(B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:)
1.
2.
= Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Northwest Crossing Gallatin County 08/8/18
MT W-1-18
Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 5 East
riverine wetland 0%
x
Remarks:Land adjacent to plot, used as ag field. Area may have been plowed at one point
western mountains, valleys and coast
Soil Map Unit Name: 510B Meadowcreek Loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes
none
nad 83
-111.109364
1m x 1m
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Lat: 45.695376 Long: -
100%
x
Are Vegetation x
xx
x x
x
Phalaris arundinacea FACW60
Typha latifolia 20 OBL
Solanum dulcamara 20 FAC
20 20
60 120
20 60
2.0
x
(1)
100 200
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):(includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
0 to 12 none observed clay loam
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
W-1-18 (1)
10YR 2/1 100%
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
8
6 x
gets soupy
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type: clay layer or rock
Depth (inches): 12
The hydric soil indicator wasn't readily obvious. Making assumptions that there are depletions below area that is difficult to dig in.
All other wetland indicators are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
State: Sampling Point:
Section, Township, Range:
Applicant/Owner: Bryan Klein
Investigator(s): C. Pearcy
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Datum:
No
NWI classification: N/A
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
, Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A)(B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:)
1.
2.
= Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Anderson 160 (Northwest Crossing)Gallatin County 08/8/18
MT Upland Pit 1
Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 5 East
flat riparian in ag field 0%
x
Remarks:Land adjacent to plot, used as ag field. Area may have been plowed at one point
western mountains, valleys and coast
Soil Map Unit Name: 510B Meadowcreek Loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes
none
nad 83
Are Vegetation x
Soil indicators and distance from hydrology did not point to wetland data points.
-111.109693
4
3
x
x x
Carex utriculata
1m x 1m
10%
Rose Woodsii 10%
Poa pratensis 30%
OBL
Yes
FACU
FAC
70 210
3
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Lat: 45.699989 Long: -
66%
100 360
100%
x
x
bromus inermis
Elymus trachycaulus
Cirsium arvense
20%
10%
20%FAC
UPLFACYES
Yes
10 10
20 100
.6
x
10 40
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):(includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
0 to 8 none observed clay loam
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):
x
Upland point approximately 12 feet from drainage, water level approx. 3 feet lower in drainage than upland pit location.
Up 1
Grass roots. Damp. Crumbly
x
x
10YR 2/1 100%
8 - 24 10YR 3/1 100%none observed clay loam worms
Site is 2 to 3 feet above stream.
x
x
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
State: Sampling Point:
Section, Township, Range:
Applicant/Owner: Bryan Klein
Investigator(s): C. Pearcy
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Datum:
No
NWI classification: N/A
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
, Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A)(B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:)
1.
2.
= Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Anderson 160 Gallatin County 08/9/18
MT W-2-18
Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 5 East
riverine wetland 0%
x
Remarks: heavy cattle use
western mountains, valleys and coast
Soil Map Unit Name: 510B Meadowcreek Loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes
concave
nad 83
x
-111.112182
1m x 1m
Poa pratensis
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Lat: 45.699999 Long: -
100%
Are Vegetation
FAC
OBL
Juncus balticus FACW60
20
20 2
x
xx x
Potentilla anserina
20 20
20 60
60 120
x
x
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):(includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
0 to 18 10YR 4/4
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):
W-2-18
10YR 2/1 100%clay loam10RMM
x x
x
x
x
x
x
11
9 x
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
State: Sampling Point:
Section, Township, Range:
Applicant/Owner: Bryan Klein
Investigator(s): C. Pearcy
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Datum:
No
NWI classification: N/A
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
, Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A)(B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:)
1.
2.
= Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Anderson 160 Gallatin County 08/9/18
MT Upland Pit 2
Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 5 East
Hillslope 0%
x
Remarks: heavy cattle use
western mountains, valleys and coast
Soil Map Unit Name: 510B Meadowcreek Loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes
convex
nad 83
x
topographic change from wetland area
-111.111689
x
x x
1m x 1m
Poa pratensis
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Lat: 45.700001 Long: -
100%
Are Vegetation
x
x
Solidago canadensis FACU
FAC
Symphoricarpos albus FACU
Juncus balticus FACW30
20
20
30
50 200
20 60
30 60
3.2
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):(includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
0 to 18 none observed
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):
x
topographic change from wetland area
Upland 2
Grass roots. Damp. Crumbly
x
x
10YR 3/2 100%
Site is ~4 feet above stream.
x
x