Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19 - Design Report - Northwest Crossing - Sewer NORTHWEST CROSSING SUBDIVISION MASTER SITE PLAN SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT September, 2019 PREPARED BY: Morrison Maierle engineers surveyors planners scientists MMI #: 5659.004 Table of Contents 1 PROBLEM DEFINED (DEQ 11.11)......................................................................................................1 2 DESIGN CONDITIONS (DEQ 11.12) ...................................................................................................1 3 IMPACT ON EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES (11.13)............................................................3 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION (11.14).......................................................................................................4 5 DRAWINGS (11.15)..............................................................................................................................4 6 DESIGN CRITERIA(11.16)..................................................................................................................4 7 SITE INFORMATION (11.17)...............................................................................................................4 8 ALTERNATIVE SELECTION/ANALYSIS(11.18)................................................................................4 9 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (11.19).................................................................................................4 APPENDICES Appendix A Vicinity Map Appendix B Framework Plan—by Norris Design Appendix C Sewer Concept Plan Appendix D USDA Soils Report Prepared by: Morrison-Maierle, Inc. 2880 Technology Blvd. W. Bozeman, Montana 59771 Phone: (406) 587-0721 Fax: (406) 922-6702 Written By: CMS Checked By: JRN Approved By: MEE PROJECT NO.: 5659.003 Northwest Crossing Subdivision Sewer Design Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed Northwest Crossing Subdivision property contains a total of 160.507 acres and is generally located at the northwest corner of West Oak Street and Cottonwood Road. The property is located within the City of Bozeman, Montana and was annexed and zoned REMU (130.994 acres) and 132-M (29.513 acres) in January of 2019. See the vicinity map in Appendix A for details. The following is the legal description for the property. Tract 5 of Certificate of Survey No. 2552, located in the NE1/4 of Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, Principal Meridian, Gallatin County, Montana. Sewer collection for the project will consist of sewer mains located in the right-of-way or easements with individual services stubbed to the properties. This design report provides a basis of design for the sewer collection system for the Northwest Crossing Subdivision. The sewer collection will be designed and installed in accordance with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Circular No. 2; Montana Public Works Standard Specifications (MPWSS); The City of Bozeman Modifications to MPWSS; City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy March of 2004, and all Addendum's; and the City of Bozeman Wastewater Facility Plan. 1 PROBLEM DEFINED (DEQ 11.11) The purpose of this design report is to quantify the anticipated sewer flows from the Northwest Crossing Subdivision and provide preliminary sizing for the proposed sewer infrastructure. The flows from the Northwest Crossing Subdivision will discharge into the exiting 21" sewer main in the Cottonwood Road Right of way and the 27" sewer main in Baxter Lane. The following design report follows the section numbering of the Circular DEQ-2 Standards for Public Sewage Systems, June 3, 2016. 2 DESIGN CONDITIONS (DEQ 11.12) The proposed subdivision includes sixteen (16) developable parcels of varying land uses. See the Framework Plan prepared by Norris Design located in the Appendix B for details. The wastewater generation for the proposed development includes sewer services for B2-M and REMU Zoning designation includes uses outlined in the LIDO Sec. 38.300.110. The City Design Standards and Specifications Policy document (Table V-2 Page 50) lists wastewater flow rate based on Land Use Designation (used to calculate flow from the 132-M commercial tracts) and the peak hour factor is calculated based on the City Design Standards and Specification Policy). The final addition to projected wastewater generation is infiltration/inflow (1/1) which is 150 gpd/acre per the City Design Standards and Specifications Policy (Section V.13.4 - Page 48). This methodology results in a conservatively high wastewater flow value as the 16 developable parcels will include open space and likely cannot all be built to as high as density as listed in the following table. The anticipated sewer flows are calculated as follows: Table 9 -Project Anticipated Demand Communi Commercial Mixed Use-R2•M _.... Development Parcel Area(acres) Average DemandAvers a Demand'2,400 d ac A 10.1 24240 16.8 8 12.2 29280 20.3 TOTAL 53520 37.2 Residential REMU e Development Parcel Allowable Density / ) ( ) Population Average Demand Average Demand P ty(units acre Area acres Total Units g 2(2.17 pp1/DU) '(64. pd/Person) (gpm) 2; C/D/E 10 15.9 159 345 22219.9 15.4 ZI f 8 9.9 79.2 172 11068.0 7.7 G 8 35.5 124 269 17328.8 12.0 \ �'' H 8 7 56 122 7825.9 5.4 I 8 10 80 174 11179.8 7.8 1 8 5.9 47.2 102 6596.1 4.6 K 8 2.3 18.4 40 2571.4 1.8 i L 8 1.3 10.4 23 1453.4 1.0 l�S M 8 1.7 13.6 30 1900.6 1.3 �y N 8 6.6 52.8 115 7378.7 5.1 __._._._._,_._._._._._._._._._, 8 6 ..__.__68 6 149 9614.7 6 7 B _._____._....__._._._._. .. - ----- -- .._._._ .__------_,___._.__._._, _._.__._._._._. ------_---.--- __ P 8 18 144 312 20123.7 14.0 TOTAL 853 1852 119261 82.8 Design Standards and Specifications Policy-Table V-2(Community Commercial=2400 gpd/acre) 2 2015 City of Bozeman Wastewater Facility Plan Infiltration 160 acres x 150 gallons/acre/day (COB Design Standards V-B4) = 24,000 gallons/day Total Average Daily Flow Total Average Daily Flow = 172,781 + 24,000 gpd = 196,781 gpd = 136.7 qpm Total Peak flow Population = B2-M property population estimate 53,520 gpd/64.4 gpcd = 831 people REMU = 1852 people Total = 2683 people Peaking Factor (PF) _ (18+(population/1000)^.5)/(4+(population/1000)".5) Peaking Factor= 3.48 Peak Flow = 196,781 (ave daily flow) x 3.48 = 684,798 gpd =476 qpm Sewer Capacity Calculations The following table shows that the layout of the 8-inch and 15-inch pipes have an adequate capacity for the peak sewer flows plus the infiltration from each parcel. See Appendix B for the pipe layout referenced in Table 2. 2 Table 2- Conveyance Sizing Sewer Main Contributing Parcels Average Flow+Infiltration(gpm)I Peaking Factor I Peak Flow(gpm) Pipe Capacity(gpm)@ min slope SS1-flinch A 17.9 72.0 313.0 SS2-8i nch A,B 39.5 152.0 313.0 SS3-flinch C/D/E 16.7 67.6 313.0 SS4-15 inch P 15.5 63.1 1025.6 555-15 inch O,P 23.4 iF4".093.5 1025.E SS6-15 inch N,O,P 29.6 116.7 1025.6 SS7-15 inch C/D/E,1,N,O,P 51.9 3.8 196.8 1025.6 SS8-15 inch C/D/E,H,J,K,L,M,N,O,P 62.2 j 3.7 232.4 1025.6 SS9-Sinch F 16.0 4.2 66.9 313.0 SS10-15 inch A,B,C/D/E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P 136.7 3.5 476.0 1025.E The Pipe Capacity calculations are based on Design Standards and Specifications Policy-Section V.Utility Design Criteria,B. Sanitary Sewer System Design Criteria,3(75%of full capacity). 3 IMPACT ON EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES (11.13) The property is within the wastewater planning boundary for the City of Bozeman as described in the 2015 City of Bozeman Wastewater Collection System Facilities Plan. A majority of the property is planned to be served by the proposed Davis Lift Station. This lift station and associated piping to serve the drainage basin is currently under design by HDR Engineering. We have contacted HDR and they have confirmed that infrastructure is scheduled to be operational by August of 2020 in time to serve the new high school which is adjacent to this development. There is existing wastewater infrastructure in Cottonwood Road adjacent to the development which currently uses the Baxter Meadows lift station to convey flow the Water Reclamation Facility. While there are capacity limitations, it is possible that a portion of the Northwest Crossing development could use this infrastructure as a short-term solution. The northwest corner of the property is shown as being served by the proposed Gooch Hill Lift Station. The 2015 City of Bozeman Wastewater Collection System Facilities plan assigned projected loadings to property within the plans study area based on zoning or land classifications depending on the status of the property within the study area. A majority of the undeveloped land within the study area utilized an average day flow rate of 770 gallons/acre/day which was based on 5.5 units per acre. This value was assigned for land defined as Residential and Present Rural based on the 2009 Bozeman Community Plan. �0 N" Using the 770 gallons per acre value for the 160 acre development results in an average assigned flow rate of 123,200 gallons per day. It is noted that this is higher than the 196,781 gallons per day computed above. The sports park directly adjacent to the proposed development consists of 80 acres which were also assigned a flow of 770 gallons per acre per day in the facility plan model. Since the sports park will not generate a significant amount of o� wastewater flow this capacity can be used in other areas. Adding this 80 acres to the flow U�v results in an average daily flow of 184,800 gallons per day for the area. This value is within 7% of the conservative computed flow rate for the proposed development. This appears to be within reason based on the assumptions that were used in developing the facility plan flow allocations. It was anticipated that some of the 42,000 acres within the study area would be developed at higher densities and some at lower densities based on location, land uses, areas not 3 developable such as wetlands and other similar factors. If these areas were assigned a maximum density rather than the 5.5 units per acre the size of the pipes in the collection system would be unreasonably large which would not make sense from an economic point of view and would be difficult and costly to maintain. A snap shot of the modeling can be seen by looking at the projected peak flow at the interceptor going in the Water Reclamation Facility based on build out of the study area. This interceptor was sized at a peak flow of 64,300,000 gallons per day which equates to an approximate population of 300,000. From a treatment perspective, the City of Bozeman's Water Reclamation Facility has adequate capacity to serve the development. 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION (11.14) The purpose of this design report is to quantity the anticipated sewer flows from the Northwest Crossing Subdivision and provide preliminary sizing for the proposed sewer infrastructure. The flows from the Northwest Crossing Subdivision will discharge into the exiting 21" sewer main in the Cottonwood Road Right of way and the 27" sewer main in Baxter Lane. 5 DRAWINGS (11.15) Drawings identifying the site of the project, including the location and alignment of proposed facilities are included in this submittal. 6 DESIGN CRITERIA (11.16) Design criteria including average and peak flows were provided in previous sections. The proposed sewer mains will conform to the State's minimum vertical and horizontal separation criteria from water mains. The proposed conventional gravity sewer collection system is to be constructed to City of Bozeman and the 61h Edition of Montana Public Works (MPW) standard specifications. The sewer mains shall be SDR 35 Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) pipe. All manholes shall be standard concrete manholes spaced no more than 400 feet apart. 7 SITE INFORMATION (11.17) The development is bounded by Cottonwood Street (principal arterial) to the east, Baxter Lane (minor arterial) to the north, Laurel Parkway (collector) to the west and West Oak Street (principal arterial) to the south. The proposed development is currently undeveloped agricultural land which slopes gently to the north with existing grades of less than 4% and mostly Meadowcreek, turner and Amsterdam silt loam soil deposits (USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey). See the soils report located in Appendix D for details. 8 ALTERNATIVE SELECTION/ANALYSIS (11.18) No proposed alternatives were considered 9 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (11.19) There are no expected environmental impacts from this sewer main extension, as the City of Bozeman Wastewater Treatment Plant has more than adequate capacity for this extension. 4 APPENDIX A r 90 h}y j Uj OAT. Z W Z- a = BAXTER LN ,, �� W w OAK —ST� > !i a w w 12 1— C > 2 PROJECT Z z L? r O z LOCATION 0 DURSTON RD p W U. 3 is Z � Z ' �w BABCOCK ST ,. W MAIN S r O , a .' F~- O - f v (HUFFINE LNj d e w COL = > � w GARFIELD ST Q � 2 _ w LINCOLN ST ij' j 111 APPENDIX B BAXTER LANE(100'ROW) M h OS 3 r, t i 0.3 AC 1.7AC L K 1.3AC 2.3AC II OS 5 r' 0.5 AC 10.0 AC o OS 4 15.6AC Q r 1.7AC jar J 'r LAND USE SUMMARY ' �' S.9Ac �, A 10.1 AC 10.1 AC TOTAL `' I� J +,, �r B 12.2 AC 12.2 AC TOTAL Q C/D/E 15.9 AC 15.9 AC TOTAL J OS 6 6.6 AC OS 2 H Ir F F 9.9AC 1.0AC 9.9AC `�, 1.0AC ' 7.OAC y G 15.5 AC H 7.0AC 37.7ACTOTAL DELINEATED .UA v K 2.3AC WETLAND BOUNDARY 8.6AC PARCEL L 1.3 AC \� . -_ J» '"' o BOZEMAN SPORTS M 1.7AC 50'WETLAND '' PARK I 10.0AC SETBACK � � �, ` , _N 1 5.9 AC N 6.6 AC 49.1 AC TOTAL ^` 4 'j 1 B O 0 8.6 AC ' ' CID/E ;. 12.2AC o O P 18.0 AC 15.9 AC it O TOTAL 125.0 AC z 1 1.8AC t V 2 1.0 AC P 3 0.3AC 18.OAC OS 11 4 1.7AC 1.8AC 5 0.5 AC A } 6 1.0 AC OS 7: 10,1 AC y 7 2.9 AC r s TOTAL 9.2 AC WEST OAK STREET(125'ROW) WETLANDS TOTAL 26.4AC39 TOTAL 160.6 AC 3ENERALNOTES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC LAUREL GLEN - -- USES ALLOWED WITHIN EACH DEVELOPMENT PARCEL,REFERENCE"LAND USE CHART. SUBDIVISION PHASE 2 DEVELOPMENT PARCEL ACREAGE AND SHAPES MAY BE ADMINISTRATIVELY VARIED UP TO 20%. FLANDERS CREEK FUTURE HIGH ACCESS POINTS AND ROADS SHOWN ARE CON- CEPTUALAND SUBJECT TO CHANGE DURING SUBDIVISION SCHOOL THE MASTER SITE PLAN,SITE PLAN,OR PLAT APPROVAL PROCESS. NORTHWEST CROSSING FRAMEWORK PLAN 01 200' 400' 800' • DESIGN OR 11Planning I Landscape Architecture I Branding J � JJ NOKKIS DESIGN Planning I Landscape Architecture Branding Densities/Lot Sizes/Block Frontages The following Land Use chart identifies five(5)categories for the range of land uses proposed for Northwest Crossing. These categories are subject to further consideration as preparation of the Master Site Plan continues. Land Use Chart Development Uses Building Height Block Frontage Parcel Max. A Commercial uses emphasis,with high 60 feet(5 stories) Emphasis on landscaped block density residential and mixed-use frontages(storefront block frontage residential uses permitted,civic uses may also be used based on adjacent building use and design merit B Commercial uses,high density 45 feet(4 stories) Emphasis on landscaped block residential uses(including (relaxation frontages(storefront block frontage townhomes with 5 or more attached needed) may also be used based on adjacent units per building),parks&open building use and design merit) space C/D/E High density residential emphasis 45 feet(4 stories) Landscaped block frontages with commercial/mixed-use permitted (relaxation (storefront block frontage may also be (including townhomes with 5 or more needed) used based on adjacent building use attached units per building),single and design merit) family attached/detached residential, parks&open s ace F, G, H, K, L& M Medium to high density residential& 45 feet(4 stories) Landscaped block frontages small-scale commercial using typical (relaxation (storefront block frontage may also be REMU standards(densities 5-10 needed) used for multi-family areas only based residential units per gross acre), on adjacent building use and design multi-family(5 units or less),single merit) family attached/detached residential, parks&open s ace I,J, N,0& P Low to high density residential 35 feet(3 stories) Landscaped block frontages (densities 3-8 residential units per gross acre),including multi-family (duplex or triplex),single family attached/detached residential, parks &open space. High density residential to be considered on Development Parcel P. APPENDIX C osol M �I //( �\ �-�-��1-s;-=1--+s+ts--�-► I .' L K, �I' SS8 15 INCH 35+0 SS10-15 INCH 4 2.3 AC '. 8 8 $ 8 + + m 1.3 AC I � o sH,�,l+-+ems nS 5 ✓1 10.0AC G II 0.5AC / �� 7, D� 15.5AC fI 26+ , f �5.9�AC235++0 JA 2.o �S�9-S -INCH17 -- - - 6.6 AC - ^� H L 9.9AC 1PC, � TO Al If.. of, 6 \ - - z _ , s+• S---�- I -n' I 1.0 AC op Q SS6-15 INCH 8.6 AC2 200 10D 0 200 400 �..-; \ I I SCALE IN FEET � - ._ �0''• �� _ � /-' + Y + of £ .� N i-1,22��C f } 1I SS4-15INCH I��1 o' 15_9AC n � , H / I/ u 101,AC 2.9 AC V 1 _ ---- --- - --j EX MANHOLE RIM:4716.53 EXISTING GRADE INV IN:4709.71 4730 _ EX INV OUT:4708.91 4730 PROK SED FI 41SHEC GRAD V- 5'COV R 4720 — 4720 200 100 0 200 400 HORIZ SCALE IN FEET 20 10 0 20 40 4710 4710 VERT.SCALE IN FEET 4705Y ONnY Nnf�l �Nny IN (AODD NnN rNn(') mINI,d• IN OtN0 Nnr lNn7 YNn Nn NNn Nn Nnn Nn n Nn NNn Nn NN (I1�iVl QNn rn .NG NN N^ nWN mNn 0N tNn.1 $ nv ^n Nnn Nno mN Nnv n m mn u n nn $ pn 0 Nn n 0n 9 n Oi O f0 Gr�D mmn mn nO Nn rN; 0 fis0 Nn NI`` Oi On N O N n Cf On n Nn GnO OPn1 n (O r N nn nNN $ ind 0 td n 4705 mm0nl id !N Nm d ON NM fd 0 n nI <v N a J Y Y NY 4 V Y Y Y 4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y V Y Y Y Y Y Y 9 4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 4Y i w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w ww 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 8+00 7+00 8+00 8+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 18+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 28+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00 35+00 38+00 37+00 38+017 39W0 40+00 41+00 42+00 43+00 44+00 45+00 48+0048+81 GENERAL NOTES • 2880 Technology Blvd West DRAWN BY: CJF PROJECT NO. �0 Morrison Q NORTHWEST CROSSING 1. PIPE SLOPE IS 0.1545 Bozeman.MT 59718 DSGN.BY: - 5659.003 2. PROPOSED FINISHED GRADE HAS 6 COVER OVER PIPE 406.587.0721R.BY: MEE BOZEMAN MONTANA M a i e r e ® vn v.m-m net APPDATE: 032019 3. MANHOLES HAVE A PIPE DROP OF 0.1' FIGURE NUMBEP. engineers•surveyors•planners•scientists UTILITY CONCEPT PLAN covvaionr o I,rona�sownuicn�,u�..2ols N:156591003_AnderwnVACAD%ConmptlEXHIBITSISEWER PROFILE.dwg Plotted by reline saucier on Aug1272019 APPENDIX D USDA United States h product of the National Custom Soil Resource Department of Cooperative Soil Survey, Agriculture a joint effort of the United Report for NRCS States Department of Agriculture and other Gallatin County Federal agencies, State Natural agencies including the Resources Agricultural Experiment Area, Montana Conservation Stations, and local Service participants Klein Anderson n'q 1 �1 7 1 sn 1 - 6 r 2 8.000 ft August 3, 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.nres.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nres/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=nres) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist(http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nres142p2_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 SoilMap.................................................................................................................. 8 SoilMap................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 MapUnit Legend................................................................................................ 11 MapUnit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Gallatin County Area, Montana.......................................................................13 5313—Amsterdam silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes...................................... 13 448A—Hyalite-Beaverton complex, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes....................................................................................................14 451 C—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 509E—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 Custom Soil Resource Report 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 6 Custom Soil Resource Report identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. 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 Z Z !V V ? a v OOBO909 ODL0909 0090909 0090909 OOPOW9 00m909 OOZ0909 OO10904 0000909 0059mg MSS JIT � M.955 aTST 8 8 u u a R p2d q i N O N u N [' O A U) o � N 73 U � C 3 .. " CL a� a 0 a a a a z--;i;jc M.51.TTT M.51 oITT OO80909 OOLD909 OtT3090S 07;0309 000090S OOMM9 00z304 OOW909 0000909 0066909 z, z ry m v - � a a a y D ED � V © } y ❑ 0 a � Cn N Cn CO Cn Cn o a mm X T O j m N Dlom m N f m o 'Oo o co 0m2 v>_cOn c_-C3n' ac-N �fDD a O s x ET -= O N = Dm O O m m m a < < w n O O m < m O os -n a O F o m o m m m o' D v -o cn M C �o o m p m a (n Q) - . - (D m 'D N a o p > nm TD O m N N O O Y r m CD m O O T o Z d v m a 0 d Cn d > y a m o -o CD d o m 0 m Z 4. O 3 -o Cn y D o wwm m m r a m C7 a w j G O N (O N N (O a (D (n � T O rF N F N m O p OG N C 3 N N N V/ Q 0 N 0 c 1 C) CT N CD p r�- U 3 a � N cn cn cn o -i o D n a C� cn 3 � N m I m v, o co s o o 0 00 � 3. � � —'.co U m N (D 0 — Z — 3 N• C ry y �•a O Q C nOj N ,0.. (D y N .Np CD (o m _ ov o3 1< c ma m N � � Ncoo c (D `° d m j Oo oaao rno oa DZ ma CD CD � 4. 0 � � j. � m3 cn ooy. 3y � s m o � (D .� N.0 ww 3 me K CD m3 � (D (n c ioomao °' mom; OD ' v; cww = m 1Z � �'�, z ova �' (D C N (p O 3 ((D fu N 61 N(O (D (D CL S (D`G S (n ,� 7 ((n Q O -1 O m N 0) (p (O 3 O (� O O a fD ^ o FT o- - 3 CZ ? = a� a Cr :3 CDs w Q �(D o', o Dm 6 � m a) (D oa 3 cf) ~' E CD r r a mo �wcd o` � • � < o � O ?' 0. 3amy3 m m n`G m Q Q oCD Ct) CD n - CD -o u3a D °1OQZ m s a CD nom a in CD Z N 3 o 3o om < = CD -n c m o s < '<3ao $ ac mo > o m 0(o o > y0 aD N Dp N 0 T Q' � o CDm (D p m N ' ic D m (D so< (D O N m fl. a a D (D (n3 o (D ( z QZ � O 0 � o > No3m CD CD n� n Oa OD m �- CD m mna O ° c `D dOO'N D o Z 3 v o v v :3o a 3 0 7• N N 3' �. ""`N n m (D 3 O nI 01 (D 3om o 3cNo z m (DNo3 Q 9 c N �i Q o 0— 0. a a � F N (D Q m am (D ono nm ? N d � N o. m < N CD o n Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 53B Amsterdam silt loam,0 to 4 24.6 15.0% percent slopes 448A Hyalite-Beaverton complex, 30.9 18.8% moderately wet,0 to 2 percent slopes {� 451 C Quagle-Brodyk silt loams,4 to 8 2.5 1.5°Jo percent slopes [45313 Amsterdam-Quagle silt loams,0 3.7 2 2% to 4 percent slopes 457A Turner loam,moderately wet,0 38.1 23.2% to 2 percent slopes 509E Enbar loam,0 to 4 percent 1.6 1.0%� slopes —�- 510B Meadowcreek loam,0 to 4 45.4 27.6% percent slopes 537A Lamoose silt loam,0 to 2 17.5� 10.7% percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 164.4 100.0°Jo 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 11 Custom Soil Resource Report 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. 12 Custom Soil Resource Report 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 waterstorage 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 13 Custom Soil Resource Report 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. 14 Custom Soil Resource Report 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 15 Custom Soil Resource Report 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. 16 Custom Soil Resource Report 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 waterstorage 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 17 Custom Soil Resource Report 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. (R044XS69OMT) Hydric soil rating: No 45313—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. 18 Custom Soil Resource Report 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 waterstorage 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 19 Custom Soil Resource Report 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 mmhosicm) 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. 20 Custom Soil Resource Report 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 21 Custom Soil Resource Report Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Subirrigated (Sb) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS359MT) Hydric soil rating: No 50913—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 22 Custom Soil Resource Report Ecological site: Subirrigated (Sb) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS359MT), Bottomland (R044BP801 MT) 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 23 Custom Soil Resource Report 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 24 Custom Soil Resource Report 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 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.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ n res/detai I/national/soils/?cid=n res 142 p2_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:H www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nresl42p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nresl42p2_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.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/ ho me/?cid=n res 142 p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 27 Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nres142p2_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.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/? cid=nres142p2_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/lnternet/FSE—DOCUMENTS/nrcsl42p2_052290.pdf 28