S Carter G Burgess
388.1 Categorical
Toceps exclusion for RS
1996 382-1(5)4 Perna
Canyon-north t
secondary highway
382f Sanders
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
for
RS 382-1 (5) 4
Perma Canyon - North
Secondary Highway 382
Sanders County, Montana
Control No. 2026
4 ! O W - '
M0N1
HLLF
Submitted Pursuant to:
23 CFR 771.117(d)
and
ARM 18.2.261 Sections 75-1-103 and 75-1-201, MCA
Submitted By:
CARTER & BURGESS, INC.
for the
MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
August 1996
Montana State Library
3 0864 1006 1812 6
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
for
RS 382-1 (5) 4
Perma Canyon - North
Secondary Highway 382
Sanders County, Montana
Control No. 2026
Submitted Pursuant to:
23 CFR 771.117(d)
and
ARM 18.2.261 Sections 75-1-103 and 75-1-201, MCA
Submitted By:
CARTER & BURGESS, INC.
for the
MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
August 1996
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2012 with funding from
Montana State Library
http://archive.org/details/categoricalex10126cart
Table of Contents
CE Concurrence Request Letter to FH WA 1
Section 1 : Impact Areas with No Adverse Effect 4
Section 2: Impact Areas with Minor Effect 7
Section 3: Permits Required 8
Figure 1 — Regional Map 2
Figure 2 — Area Map 3
Appendix A: Agency Correspondence
Appendix B: Biological Resource Report
B.1: Wetland Finding
Figure 3 - Wetland Locations BRR - Page 1 5
B.2: Approximate Wetland Boundaries on
Preliminary Plan
B.3: COE Routine Wetland Delineation Forms and
MDT Wetland Site Evaluation Forms.
■.■■■:■■.'.■:■■.■■/■■
:;:•:•:■:•:■:■:■:
::■::-:■:■:■
mm
m
<
x
u.
:■■■.■:■: <,
©
*>¥
31$
$??&
.v->;;.
WSSfSS&Bxm
August 16, 1996
Mr. Jerry J. Cloud, Acting Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
301 So. Park, Drawer 10056
Helena, MT 59626
Subject: RS 382-1 (5) 4
Perma Canyon - North
Control No. 2026
This is a request for the FHWA's concurrence that this proposed project meets the criteria
for classification as a Categorical Exclusion under the provisions of 23 CtR 77 1.1 17(d).
This proposed action also qualifies as a Categorical Exclusion under the provisions of ARM
18.2261 (Sections 75-1-103 and 75-1-201, M.CA.). See Figure 1 for a project location map.
This proposed project consists of a 45 mm (0.15 foot) overlay, improvement of clear zones,
minor widening, mail box turnouts and minor slope flattening. No horizontal or vertical
realignments are proposed. A finished surface width of 12 meters (23.6 feet) is proposed, to
place this overlay on the existing 6 meter (20 feet) top. The project area is rural with several
residences located within 15 to 46 meters (50 to 150 feet) of the right-of-way, with the
closest residence located within about 15 to 18 meters (50 to 60 feet) of the existing right-of-
way. The proposed project would require acquisition of approximately 1.28 hectares (3.17
acres) of additional right-of-way. No existing structures would be displaced as a result of the
proposed project
The location of this project is Secondary Highway 382 in Sanders County on the Flathead
Reservation from MP 3.9, extending 11.4 kilometers (7.1 miles) to MP 11.0. See Figure 2
for a project area map.
The intent of this project is to prolong the useful life of the pavement, improve the roadway
and to enhance safety while utilizing the present-traveled-way (PTW) to achieve a 80
kilometers per hour (50 mph) design speed.
Project
Area
NO SCALE
Perma Canyon - North
REGIONAL MAP
Figure 1
End
Project
FLATHEAD
INDIAN
RESERVATION
CopP?dQe Gu!^~-
Begin
Project
LEGEND
HKjHWAY
PAVED ROAD
=— GRAVEL ROAD
DfflT ROAD
CREEK
1 mile
l.l.l
I-1- 1
1km
<■'
Perma Canyon - North
AREA MAP
Figure 2
Mr. Jerry J. Cloud, Acting Division Administrator
August 16, 1996
Page 5
from scour. There are areas within the proposed project limits (Station 80 + 50)
where Camas Creek is in close proximity to the roadway. Riprap revetment is planned
for this area to protect the roadway embankment against scour. No changes to the
existing culverts is part of this proposed project, nor are any new culverts proposed.
Based on the fact that the culverts associated with this roadway are sufficiently
protected against scour, the potential for future culvert failure during a flood of the
magnitude of a 50-year event is not expected.
The project will involve the following:
• Slope flattening / minor fills along the existing highway alignment within the
floodplain. Tnis material will be composed earthen fills.
• Riprap (rock) revetment placed on the roadway side slopes in areas susceptible
to scour during flood events. The majority of this work will occur within the
estimated floodplain but not in the active channel.
• It is expected that minor realignment of the active channel will occur in the area
of Station 80+40 left to Station 80+60 left. The slope is expected to be armored
by riprap (rock) revetment to resist scour of the roadway subgrade.
This proposed project will not promote or encourage development within this delineated
floodplain, nor increase flood liability hazards from its construction. This proposed project
is therefore considered to be in compliance with E.O. #11988.
Historical/Cultural Resources - A Cultural Resource Inventory Report, dated November
21, 1995, was prepared by a cultural resource consultant Two sites, the Barth Residence
(24SA386) and the School, Gym, and Teacherage (24SA392), are recommended as eligible
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The Montana State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) has concurred with these recommendations of eligibility (see
correspondence in Appendix A). A recommendation for a determination of no effect to
the two eligible sites was made to the SHPO. The SHPO has concurred with the
determination of no effect (See correspondence in Appendix A.) MDT will notify the
Kootenai and Flathead Cultural Committees two weeks prior to the start of project
construction.
Mr. Jerry J. Cloud, Acting Division Administrator
August 16, 1996
Page 4
Section 1: Impact Areas With No Adverse Effect
This proposed project has been evaluated for, and does npj have any adverse effect on the
following environmental areas of concern:
Hoodplains (E.0. 11988/FEMA) USDOT - 4(f)/NL&WCF - 6(f) Act
Hazardous Waste Air Quality
Historical/Cultural Resources Social/Economic/ Environ. Justice (E.0. 12898)
Changes in Land Use T&E Species
Hazardous Waste - Rural Secondary Highway 382 follows the canyon as does the
recently terminated Yellowstone Petroleum Pipeline, until crossing this road at
approximately milepost 2. Precipitating this termination was the 1992 discovery of a
37,878 liter (10,000 gallon) spill which entered Camas Creek some 3.2 km. (2 mi.) west
of milepost 8. Though not a concern for this specific project due to the distance of the
event from Secondary Highway 382, this event contaminated roughly 6.4 km (4 mi.) of
creek and associated habitats. (Jackson, pers. comm.).
Flnndplains - The Camas Creek floodplain has not been delineated, therefore detailed
floodplain information is not available. Camas Creek has a history of flooding with the last
substantial flood occurring on February 24, 1986. The flow of this flood was 42 cubic
meters (1,400 cubic feet) per second. MDT estimated it to be a 125-year flood. The
roadway has been protected with riprap revetment in numerous locations through the
Canyon. The proposed work will include a new roadway surface pavement and safety
improvements such as slope flattening. The proposed project is not expected to involve any
crossings of the creek or fills of the magnitude that would affect the current 100-year
floodplain. Therefore, it is expected that the project will have a negligible effect on the
water surface profile and the area inundated by the 100-year event
Secondary Highway 382 closely parallels Camas Creek through Perma Canyon. Flows
of 3,200 cfs during a 1988 flood resulted in the failure of a culvert that was under
construction by MDT. Three culverts were constructed in 1988. All three culverts
were installed with concrete edge protection to prevent scour around the ends of the
culverts. At the time of the flood in 1988 the concrete edge protection of one of the
culverts had not been completed. This culvert was washed out in the flood. The other
two culverts that had been completed remained intact. After the 1988 flood event in
the following year the roadway was constructed between the Flathead River and Mile
Post 4. Riprap revetment was placed in areas to protect the roadway embankment
Mr. Jerry J. Cloud, Acting Division Administrator
August 16, 1996
Page 7
Section 2: Impact Areas With Minor Effect
The proposed project will have a minor effect on the following environmental area(s):
Stormwater Runoff - Additional impervious surfaces, including mailbox turnouts, will
be constructed as part of the proposed project. The increase in surface runoff is
expected to be insignificant, due to the relatively small amount of impervious surface
added as part of this project.
Wetlands/Section 404 Clean Water Act - A total of 024 hectares (0.59 acres) of wetlands
will be subject to unavoidable impacts of this project A full description of wetland impacts
and potential mitigation is provided in the Wetlands Finding, included as part of the
Biological Resource Report in Appendix B.l of this document
Air Quality - There will be minor, temporary increases in dust during the construction
phase of this project. This proposed project is located in a Class I Air Shed on the
Flathead Reservation (McQoud, pers. comm.). As such, this proposed project is not
covered under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency' s Final Rules of November 24,
1993 on Air Quality conformity. Therefore, this proposed project complies with the intent
of Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act as amended 42 U.S.C 7521(a).
Noise - There will be minor, temporary noise impacts to nearby residences during the
construction phase of this project. Design year noise levels will not exceed the Noise
Abatement Criteria (23 CFR Part 722). Traffic noise level increases will be
insignificant with the construction of this project. See Helm memo dated February 5,
1996 in Appendix A.
Utilities - The project will require relocations of telephone and electric utilities in many
areas.
Stream Preserv./Water Quality - Within the project limits, Secondary Highway 382
parallels and crosses tributaries of Camas Creek. The Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribes (CSKT) adopted water quality standards and anti-degradation policy in 1995 and
have classified Camas Creek as a B-l waterbody. Streams with this classification are
suitable for drinking, culinary or food processing purposes, after conventional treatment;
bathing, swimming, and recreation; growth and propagation of salmonid fishes and
Mr. Jerry J. Cloud, Acting Division Administrator
August 16, 1996
Page 6
In addition, if any cultural resources are found during construction, work shall stop and the
MDT archaeologist or historian will be contacted, who will then consult with both the
Flathead and Kootenai Cultural Committees.
Changes in Land Use - This project will not induce substantial land use changes or
promote unplanned growth. There will be no substantial effects on access to adjacent
properties or present traffic patterns.
Social /Economic/Environmental Justice - The proposed project will not affect, separate,
or isolate any distinct neighborhoods, low income groups, ethnic groups, or other
specific groups of people. No displacements or relocations will be caused by the
project. A short-term benefit that may be derived from this project is employment for
some area residents during construction.
USDOT - 4(0/NL&WCF - 6(f) Acts - The proposed project will not require the use of
any publicly owned land from a public park, recreational area, wildlife and waterfowl
refuge lands or historic sites, therefore a 4(f) statement will not be required. No Land
and Water Conservation Funds have been used on any properties subject to impact by
this project, therefore no 6(f) impacts will result from project implementation.
Threatened/Endangered Species - The U.S. Department of the Interior's Fish & Wildlife
Service (USF&WS) was contacted for identifying Federally-listed
Threatened/Endangered Species under Section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act (16
U.S.C 1531 - 1543). The following Threatened/Endangered Species were identified by
both the USF&WS, and the Biological Resources Report (BRR) (see Appendix B) as
being in the vicinity of this proposed project:
The following Threatened/Endangered Species may occur in the general project area:
The peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus^ is an endangered raptor species in
Montana.
The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is a threatened raptor species in
Montana.
The CSKT recommends placement of wildlife crossing signs at each end of Perma Canyon
as described in the BRR. The project is not likely to adversely affect either the peregrine
falcon or the bald eagle, provided that certain measures are implemented as described in
the BRR.
Mr. Jerry J. Cloud, Acting Division Administrator
August 16, 1996
Page 9
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribal Aquatic Lands and Conservation
Ordinance.
This proposed project will require the following permits under the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C 1251 -1376):
A CSKT Tribal 401 Certification.
A Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army - Corps of Engineers. The COE
will determine if this proposed project qualifies for a "Nationwide" 404
permit under the provisions of 33 CFR 330. .. .._-:^
In accordance with 7-22-2152, and 60-2-208 MCA., MDT will re-establish a permanent
desirable vegetation community along all areas disturbed by the proposed construction. A
set of revegetation guidelines will be developed by MDT that must be followed by the
contractor. These guidelines will be in conformance with the Sanders County Weed
Control Permit Application. In addition, MDTs efforts will be coordinated with the
CSKT 1993 Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan to ensure compatibility. These
specifications will include instructions on seeding methods, seeding dates, types and
amounts of mulch and fertilizer, along with seed mix components. Seed mixes include a
variety of species to assure that areas disturbed by construction are immediately stabilized
by vegetative cover. The Seeding Special Provisions developed for this proposed project
will be forwarded to the Sanders County Weed Board for approval.
Americans With Disabilities Act - Does not apply to this project.
Approximately four construction permits will be needed for this proposed project,
requiring about 023 hectares (0.57 acres).
A news release will be submitted to the local newspaper.
The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes have been requested to be a Cooperating
Agency on this proposed project under the provisions of 23 ChK 771.111(d).
In accordance with 23 ChK 771.117(a). this action will neither individually or cumulatively,
have any significant environmental impacts. Therefore, we are requesting FHWA's
concurrence that this proposed project is properly classified as a Categorical Exclusion.
Mr. Jerry J. Cloud, Acting Division Administrator
August 16, 1996
Page 8
associated aquatic life, waterfowl and furbearers, and agricultural and industrial water
supply.
There may be some sedimentation which could occur as a result of construction
activities; however, with implementation of standard procedures designed to protect
water quality during and after construction as described in the MDT Highway
Construction Standard Erosion Control Work Plan, any impacts associated with
sedimentation will be alleviated.
All work will also be in accordance with the Water Quality Act of 1987 (PJL 100-4), as
amended. —
An Erosion Control Plan will be prepared for this proposed project. Best Management
Practices will be included in the design of this Plan using guidelines as established in
MDTs Highway Construction Standard Erosion Control Workplan. The objective is to
niinimize erosion of disturbed areas during and following construction of this proposed
project
Prime & Unique Farmlands - This proposed project will impact 1.0 hectare (2.4 acres) of
land designated as prime when irrigated by the US Department of Agriculture's Natural
Resource Conservation Service. A Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form (#AD-
1006) was completed for this proposed project in accordance with the Farmland Protection
Policy Act (FPPA - 7 U.S.C. 4201, et seq.). The Total Points for this proposed project's
Site Assessment Criteria are less than 160. Therefore, under 7 CFR 658.4(c) no additional
consideration for protection is necessary. A copy of this form is contained in Appendix A
Section 3: Permits Required
Permits Required - The following permits will be acquired prior to any relevant
disturbance:
A Notice of Intent for Storm Water Discharges under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit (PL 92-500) will be
required with the US Environmental Protection Agency for the control of
stormwater runoff.
An ALCO Permit Number 87A will be required by the Confederated Salish and
Kootenai Tribes. This proposed project will be in compliance with the
Mr. Jerry J. Cloud, Acting Division Administrator
August 16, 1996
Page 10
A\. /\
A'
pbel M. Marshik, P.E., Manager
environmental Services
Concur
Date £-22^
Federal Highway Administration
"ALTERNATIVE ACCESSIBLE FORMATS OF THIS
DOCUMENT WILL BE PROVIDED ON REQUEST."
JMM:GS:jl:
Attachments
cc: James Weaver, PJE. - District Administrator
Carl S. PeiL, P.E. - Preconstruction Engineer
Joseph P. Kolman, PJE. - Bridge Engineer
Thomas E. Martin, P.E., Chie£ Right-of-Way Bureau
David W. Jensen, Supervisor - Fiscal Programming Section
Mark A Wissinger, PJE., Supervisor - Contract Plans Section
Joel M. Marshik, PJE., Manager - Environmental Services
Jeanette Lostracco, AICP, Carter & Burgess, Inc.
aso-scs.ixm
I . UCpaX *-...^-.
„- /.,»--_-^-.«
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Date of Land Evaluation Request 12/18/95
Name of Project Perma Canyon North, MT 382
Federal Agency Involved USDoT -
Federal Highway Administration
Proposed Land Use Highway Right-of-Way
Sanders County, Montana
PART II fTo be competed by SCS)
Date Request Received by SCS
Doea the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farm.
(If no, the FPt>A does not apply - do not complete additional parts of 1
Acres
Irrigated
Land?
:his farm.)
Yes No
o a
Average Farm
Size
Major Crop {a}
Farmable Land in Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres : %
Amount Of Farml
in FPPA
and as Defined
\
Acres :
at ion Returned
Name of Land Evaluation System Used
Name of Local Site Assessment System
Date Land Evalu
by SCS
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Alternate Site Rating
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
A. Total Acres to be converted directly
2.4
B. Total Acres to be converted indirectly
0
C. Total Acres in Site
2.61
PART IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime *nd Unique Farmland
8. Total Acres Statewide and Local Important Farmland
C. Percentage of Farmland in County or Local Govt., unit to be
converted -
D. Percentage of farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Si
relative value*
use or higher
PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion Relative
Value of Farmland to be converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site Assessment
Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.6(b))
Max.
Pts.
1. Area Nonurban Use
15
15
2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use
10
10
3. Percent of Site Being Farmed
20
15
4. Protection Provided by State and Local Govt.
20
0
5. Distance from Urban Builtup Area
N/A
—
6. Distance to Urban Support Services
N/A
—
7. Size of present farm unit compared to average
10
0
8. Creation of nonfarmable farmland
25
0
9. Availability of farm support services
5
0
10. On- farm investments
20
7
11. Effects of conversion on farm support services
25
0
12. Compatibility with existing agricultural use
10
0
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
160
47
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative value of farmland (From Part V)
100
100
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local site
assessment)
160
47
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines)
260
147
Site Selected: Existing Corridor
Date of Selection
12/18/95
Was a Local Site Assessment Used? Yes X
No □
Reason for Selection: Site A: Since the total socre is less than 160, no further sites need to be considered as stated in CFR
658.4(c), Part (2) - page 27725 of Vol. 49 FR f 130: "Sites receiving a total score of less than 160 be given a minimum level of
considerations for protection and no additional sites be evaluated.*
(See instructions on reverse side)
Form AD-1006 (10-83)
Montana Department
of Transportation
27C1 Prosnect Axer.js
PC £c\ 201001
Hfr'-"-3 h'iJ 59620-1001
'■■arc Raacot. Coven- y
DEG 1*1995
November 27, 1995
COP/
Paul Putz
State Historic" Preservation Office
1410 ^Avenue
P.Oygox 201202
Helena, MT 59620-1202
Subject: RS 382-1(5)4
Perma Canyon - North
Control No. 2026
Mr
W 2 S i
ftec
CONCUR
DATE
£$g!5gHE
Enclosed is the cultural resource report, CRABS and site forms'Tor the above
project. Kathy McKay recorded twelve historic sites, two of which, the Barth
Residence (24SA386) and School, Gym and Teacherage (24SA392), she
recommends as eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C. We agree with her
recommendation and request your concurrence. McKay also recorded a section of
the old county road (24SA384). Because of the Historic Roads and Bridges
Programmatic Agreement, no Determination of Eligibility is necessary.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 444-6258.
Trtjyi /pcULe
<T
SA
IS
6S
Jon Axline, Historian
Environmental Services
Enclosures
cc: James Weaver, P.E., Missoula District Administrator
Carl Peil, P.E., Preconstruction Bureau
Gordon Stockstad, Resources Section
Jeannette Lostracco, Carter-Burgess
Terry Tanner, Flathead Culture Committee
Clarinda Burke, Kootenai Culture Committee
w/attach.
J • £.-;...i
■ :i f -•
OF THE FLATHEAD NATION
P.O. Box 278
Pablo, Montana 59855
(406) 675-2700
FAX (406) 675-2806
Joseph E. Dupuis - Executive Secretary
Vern L. Clairmont - Executive Treasurer
Bemice Hewankom - Sergeant-at-Arms
April 18, 1996
Jeanette Lostracco
Carter & Burgess, Inc.
216 16th Street Mall
Denver, Colorado 80202
TRIBAL COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Rhonda R. Swaney - Chairwomar
Michael T. Pablo - Vice Chairman
Carole J. Lankford - Secretary
Henry "Hank" Baylor - Treasurer
Donald "Donny" Dupuis
Michael Durglo, Jr.
Mary Lefthand
Wm. Joseph Moran
Elmer "Sonny" Morigeau
Gary Stevens
RE: Draft Categorical Exclusion for Montana Department of Transportation,
Perma Canyon-North Project
Dear Ms. Lostracco:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Categorical Exclusion document for the
Montana Department of Transportation's Perma Canyon - North project. These are our
comments:
Water Quality. The Confederated Salish and Kootenia Tribes (CSKT) adopted surface
water quality standards and antidegradation policy in 1995. Under the water quality
standards Camas Creek is a B-l waterbody. MDOT will need to address how they
intend to maintain the criteria and water quality for B-l streams. The CSKT have
authority for Section 401 Certification under the Clean Water Act. Tribal 401
Certification should be included under permits required.
Wetlands. In 1993 the Montana Department of Transportation and Confederated Salish
and Kootenia Tribes entered into a memorandum of understanding for mitigation of '
unavoidable impacts to wetlands by highway construction. The MOU should be
included in the discussion under Wetland AvoidanceT-The functions of the unavoidably "~r
impacted wetlands should also be assessed and reported as" well as any cumulative
^ALCO Pennit^TheShdfeline Protection office has identified concerns with the
: --proximity" of the highway to Camas Creek between Station 80 and Station 8 1 . Flows of
7-3200cfs.during 1988 resulted in the failure of culverts placed by^MDOT. An assessment
^ ofthe potential for' culvert failure during flood events should be included^, • :r*"-"V ;: -'f^ -f
-Weed Management/ In 1 993 the Tribes adopted an Integrated Noxious Weed - "'-- .
^Management Plan. MOOT will need to coordinate their seeding^provisiori with the Tribal ~
"plan to erisiire^ompatability.v^^- ;^7-r-. «S2^gs^£^:i^ ' />. ; .'^M yZc^~4-i£ '■■ ■'.-.- '--.
.t- -
"-^: • ~.
"_L- c'—- x';
MASTER FILE
COPY
Montana Department of Transportation
Helena, Montana 59620-1001
Memorandum
To: Karl M. Helvik, P.E., Supervisor
Environmental Engineering Section
From: Cora G. Helm
Hazardous Waste Section
Date: February 5, 1996
Subject: NO NEED FOR. NOISE ANALYSIS
Perma Canyon -N
RS 382-1(5)4
CN 2026
The proposed highway project is not a Type I project --
there will be no significant changes in the horizontal or
vertical alignment, no additional through traffic lanes, nor
does it involve construction of a highway on a new location
-- therefore, there is no need for a noise analysis (23 CFR
Part 772.5(h) and 772.7(a)).
CGH : env
Montana Department
of Transportation
April 24, 1996
2701 Prospect Avenue
PO Box 201001
Helena MT 59620-1001
RECEIVED
MAY 08 1996
tNVIRONMENTAL
MM
MASTCRTILEl
COPY
may i -
Paul Putz
State HistoriC'Preservation Office
1410 8t]KAvenue
P.O. Box 201202
Helena, MT 59620-1202
Subject: RS 382-1(5)4
Perma Canyon - North
Control No. 2026
DATE^Afcy^StGKED1
ClAjksttsU<_J
Enclosed is the site form for the Coppedge Gulch Bridge (24SA403) for your files.
The bridge is located within the above project area. We have no record of this
bridge in our files. Because Montana Secondary Highway 382 was added to the
FAP system relatively recently, this bridge has not been assigned an MDT
identification number or been inspected by the Department. It is my guess, that
since it is located on the Flathead Reservation, that is was likely designed and built
under the auspices of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. No matter, the bridge is
included under the Historic Roads and Bridges Programmatic Agreement and no
determination of eligibility is necessary.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 444-6258.
Jem Axline, Historian
Environmental Services
Enclosure
cc: Gordon Stockstad, Resources Section
Jeanette Lostracco, Carter-Burgess
'io
02
Of
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Wildlife. The Tribal wildlife program concurs with the findings of the wildlife
assessment and recommends placement of wildlife crossing signs at each end of Perma
canyon.
If you have any questions regarding these comments please contact Janet Camel,
Resource Planning Coordinator, (406) 675-2700 ext. 597.
Sincerely,
CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES
Rhonda R. Swaney
Chairwoman, Tribal Council
*i
?euJ>
Montana Department 2701 Prospect Avenue *JLjkl Mdrc RscicoL Governor
of Transportation PO Box 201001 '» /
Helena MT 59620-100]
J
/%
June 10, 1996
JUN 1 9 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL
Paul Putz
State Historic Preservation Office
1410 8th Avenue
P.O. Box 201202
Helena, MT 59620-1202
Subject: RS 382-1(5)4
Perma Canyon - North
Control No. 2026
Enclosed is the Determination of Effect for the above project Based on the
proposed plans, we have determined that the project would have No Effect to the
NRHP-eligible Barth Residence (24SA386) and the School, Gym and Teacherage
(24SA392); we request your concurrence.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 444-6258.
Jon Axline, Historian
Environmental Services
Enclosure
cc: James Weaver, P.E., Missoula District Administrator
Carl Peil, P.E., Preconstruction Bureau
Joel Marshik, P.E., Environmental Services
Gordon Stockstad, Resources Section
Tony Incashola, Flathead Culture Committee
Patricia Hewankom, Kootenai Culture Committee
An ►ousrf OoporittPHf Cmoittyn
It*:
o
tc
O
O
y>
"5
o
m
,:l
X
c
a>
ID*
Ififc
<
■
:o:-:-:<;N-' •
■;»
..■'■'■ ■'■
...
Ill-
::'>¥:, y
:: :::'::x:-y
HI
%<»:¥:
...
• .' •
MM]
MM
yX-Jyyy.
BRR - Page 1
Perma Canyon - North
Biological Resource Report
Executive Summary
The Montana Department of Transportation's Perma Canyon North project proposes
to widen 11.4 kilometers (7.1 mi.) of existing Secondary Highway 382 to a finished
width of 7.2 meters (23.6 ft.). The final design is also expected to include such safety
enhancements as slope flattening and the improvement of clear zones.
The project is not likely to adversely affect the endangered peregrine falcon, the
threatened bald eagle, or their associated habitats. Further, the action is considered to
have no effect for the remaining threatened and endangered species in this portion of
the state. Because of the area's potential foraging opportunities for various birds of
prey, biological requirements call for the avoidance and minimization of impacts to
Camas Creek wetland and riparian habitats, with raptor-proofing of all utility
relocations made part of Perma Canyon North.
Also discussed are the related fisheries concerns for a resident population of
Westslope cutthroat within the potentially involved portions of Camas Creek. Aside
from this trout species, there are no other sensitive plants or animals of concern likely
to be affected by the project. Mention is made, however, of the numerous crossings of
bighorn sheep nearer Perma Canyon, as they could relate to construction traffic.
The most substantial biological concern is for the protection of water quality
throughout planning and construction, especially for those lands nearest Camas Creek.
Reporting of wetlands is addressed in a separate Wetland Finding.
Introduction
The following report discusses the terrestrial and aquatic resources present in the
vicinity of Perma Canyon and Camas Prairie Basin. Biological resources are
addressed, as are the possible impacts from proposed construction activities. This
report is based on a field survey conducted on the 22nd of September 1995,
correspondence and consultation with the Natural Resources Department of the
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, federal and state agencies, and a review of
pertinent literature.
BRR - Page 2
General Area Description
Perma Canyon, from its juncture with the main Flathead River, thence north through
Camas Prairie Basin to the town of Hot Springs, serves to describe the broader area. It
is also within the reservation boundaries of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribes.
The overall topography of the canyon is modest in comparison to adjacent ranges
within the Lolo National Forest, and more typically arid as well. Its formation, though
not directly affected by past glaciations, was nonetheless influenced by the draining of
glacial Lake Missoula some 15,000 years ago.
Rural Secondary Highway 382 follows the canyon as does the recently terminated
Yellowstone Petroleum Pipeline, until crossing this road at approximately milepost 2.
Precipitating this termination was the 1992 discovery of a 10,000 gallon spill which
entered Camas Creek some 3.2 km. (2 mi.) west of milepost 8. Though not a concern
for this specific project, this event tragically contaminated roughly 6.4 km (4 mi.) of
creek and associated habitats. (Jackson, pers. comm.).
Residential development throughout the canyon and basin is very minimal as
evidenced by the few scattered farms committed to irrigated and dryland
haying/grazing practices. Canyon areas west of the road are tribally managed as a
Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep conservation area; a similar conservation area exists
for Rocky Mountain elk east of Highway 382. Lastly, no 6(f) lands are known to be
located within the vicinity of this project
(McDonald, pers. comm.).
Project Description
Situated within Sanders County, the proposed project begins within the canyon at
milepost 3.9 and extends northerly for 11.4 kilometers (7.1 mi.) to milepost 11.0. The
project area is comprised of both lightly timbered/shrubby canyon terrain and the
more open topography of Camas Prairie Basin. Classified by MDT as a major
collector, this section of two-lane highway briefly approaches Camas Creek early in the
project where recommended widening could possibly involve adjacent wetlands.
The stated purpose of the project is to develop a paved width of 12 m. (23.6 ft), as
opposed to the existing 6 m. (20 ft.) top, through bituminous overlay and minor
widening. There are no major deviations from the existing alignment. Enhancement
to overall safety is expected to be accomplished by minor slope flattening and
BRR - Page 3
vegetation removal within the clear zones. The various mailbox turn-outs and
approaches are to be paved, with existing stockpasses perpetuated as necessary.
The project will require the acquisition of new right-of-way in addition to telephone
and electrical utilities relocation in many areas. No prime or unique land/aquatic
resources should be affected by this action.
Study Methods
Agency Consultation and Literature Review
Information pertaining to endangered, threatened, sensitive and rare wildlife, fish,
herptiles, and vegetative species was sought from the Confederated Salish and
Kootenai Tribes (CSKT), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MDFWP), and the Montana Natural
Heritage Program (MNHP). A literature review was conducted and the Montana
Rivers Information System (MDFWP 1993) queried to gather biological resource data
for Camas Creek.
Field Survey
A field survey was conducted on September 22nd, 1995 by both walking and driving the
11.4 kilometer (7.1 mi.) route. Vegetation communities, wetlands, wildlife, and
possible fisheries resources, as well as habitat utilization were evaluated.
Study Results
Resource Classifications
The following section describes the various biological resources just mentioned and
assesses the possible impacts that may occur as a result of the proposed project. Rare
and sensitive species as listed by the Montana Natural Heritage Program and the
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks are addressed. Those species
monitored by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and listed as endangered or
threatened under the Endangered Species Act are considered separately within this
report.
BRR - Page 4
Biological Resources
Vegetation
The transition from dry, brushy foothills to arid, prairie basin typifies the immediate
project area. Portions nearer the canyon are steep, shaled, and commonly vegetated
with such species as serviceberry, snowberry, spotted knapweed, and various native
bunchgrasses. The riparian cover along Camas Creek lends the greater plant diversity
with the presence of black hawthorn, serviceberry, woods rose, snowberry, big-leafed
sage, occasional willow, and two noxious weeds- spotted knapweed and Canada thistle.
Wetland species common to the creek are hardstem bulrush, broad-leaved cattail,
pondweed, beaked sedge, redtop bentgrass, and wet-site bluegrasses. Sagebrush
communities mixed with Sandberg's bluegrass and crested wheatgrass are more
common to the broad expanses of the basin where skirting existing agriculture.
Right-of-way areas are typically vegetated in noxious weeds and the introduced smooth
bromes and bunchgrasses of earlier stabilization efforts. As is common in more arid
climates, the most significant vegetative communities are associated with the creek.
Sensitive Species of Concern. A review of the Montana Natural Heritage Program's
elemental occurrence listings reveals no known sensitive plant communities within the
immediate project area. However, approximately 1.6 km. (1 mi.) beyond the project's
northern terminus exists a community of dwarf woolly-heads. Accordingly, avoidance
of any dry, vernal pools- the preferred habitat- along Highway 382 is recommended.
Two additional sensitive species further removed from the project, yet south of Hot
Springs, are slender hareleaf and the white-margined knot-weed; their communities
distant enough to preclude impacts from Perma Canyon North.
Wildlife
Perma Canyon and Camas Prairie Basin host a diverse array of wildlife, though
perhaps not as diverse or densely populated as more lush habitats within the Flathead
River corridor. For example, some furbearers such as fisher, pine marten, mink, and
river otter are very uncommon or absent. Beaver, however, do occur within Camas
Creek.
Mentioned earlier were the surrounding tribal management areas for elk and bighorn
sheep. White-tailed and mule deer are also common to the area, as is the occasional
moose.
BRR - Page 5
The list of large carnivores includes mountain lion, black bear, bobcat, coyote, and
possibly the foxes and lynx. Presence of gray wolf or grizzly bears within the project
vicinity is considered to be transitory and quite rare (Shelley, pers. comm.).
A significant population of raptors utilize the general area to include bald eagles,
peregrine falcon, and osprey- more commonly along the main river corridor- in
addition to the larger buteo hawks, accipiters, and kestrels. Such corvids as ravens,
crows, and magpies are also present. Much like raptors and the occasional waterfowl,
neotropical (song) birds are another of the more visible user groups, particularly within
the riparian areas of the canyon.
Upland gamebirds, such as mountain grouse, are not especially abundant to the area,
however tribal study and consideration is currently being given to the reintroduction of
the Columbian race of sharp-tailed grouse within the basin (Hath, pers. comm.).
This survey, having been conducted in late September, precluded sightings of
amphibians and reptiles, though several species are known to occur in the project area.
Their association with habitats largely removed from the roadway should negate the
possibility for significant impacts; consultation with the various agencies did not
suggest any specific herptile involvement or conflict within the highway corridor.
Construction activities adjacent to Camas Creek have the potential to impact all
aquatic dependent populations through the degradation of water quality. These,
however, can be mitigated by the use of appropriate construction practices.
The paucity of functional habitats immediately along the existing highway already
reduces the potential for significant wildlife impacts. This is due in part to the limited
presence of brushy cover within the ROW, which can often be an attractant to many
users such as songbirds and deer. MDTs intention in improving these clear zones is to
reduce this attraction for wildlife while increasing the sight distance for motorists.
Minor loss of brushy cover and the short term displacement of various songbirds and
small rodent-like mammals will result from highway widening and improvement of
clear zones.
One such species, the western bluebird, may suffer undue impacts with improvement of
clear zones unless its artificial nest boxes located along existing ROW fencing are
perpetuated. Since depressed bluebird populations are benefiting from these nesting
box programs throughout this portion of the state, it is strongly recommended that the
existing boxes in the vicinity of milepost 4 be shifted to newly constructed ROW
fencing.
BRR - Page 6
Another biological concern is for the numerous crossings of bighorn sheep within
Perma Canyon as they could possibly relate to future construction traffic. On the day
of survey, a young bighorn ram was observed to bolt in front of a motorist near
milepost 2.5. The resigning of this crossing area for bighorn sheep is recommended, if
at all possible.
Sensitive Species of Concern
Following a review of the various sensitive species listings and consultation with tribal
and state wildlife biologists, there appear to be no sensitive wildlife species threatened
by the proposed action. The project area could possibly host the Townsend's big-eared
bat and the LeConte's sparrow, however no documentation exists for their presence
(Flath, pers. comm.). In light of the available information and project scope, no special
restrictions are being requested for sensitive wildlife species during the period of
construction.
Fisheries
A tributary of the Flathead River, Camas Creek is a perennial stream paralleling
Highway 382 throughout much of the canyon. Within the project area, the creek
displays its closest association to highway along the first kilometer, beginning at
milepost 3.9. At the time of survey, this portion of creek was experiencing
intermittency, with hardstem bulrush and broad-leaved cattail communities separating
the pooled areas. The greater potential for stream involvement appears to be at
stations 240 to 243-Left and 263 + 70-Left (Redmond, pers. comm.).
In spite of the limited flows and atypical appearance, the creek still supports a resident
population of Westslope cutthroat trout, presently a sensitive species of concern within
the state. This indigenous population persists primarily within the lower reaches of
Perma Canyon; however, it will typically travel upstream during spring runoff to access
reaches within the project area. Eventually, these same fish are believed to attempt a
return to the lower portions of Camas Creek. Those that do not do so, remain as
temporarily isolated populations until the next high water event. Adults within the
population are generally less than 15 centimeters (6 in.) in length (Dos Santos, pers.
comm.).
The hydrology of Camas Creek has been largely affected by the activities of beaver
within the past several decades. Favored by the decline in fur trapping, beaver
numbers have slowly increased along the drainage where sustained by quaking aspen
BRR - Page 7
communities. Their dams are likely promoting area wetlands as well as influencing fish
habitat and passage.
Due to the significance of this sensitive species and the macro-invertebrates within the
system upon which it depends, avoidance and minimization of impacts to Camas Creek
are recommended for both the design and construction phases of this project. It is for
these same reasons that protection of water quality again becomes imperative. MDT
recognizes these concerns in stating their intent to avoid and minimize impacts where
possible early within the project design (Foy, pers. comm.).
Threatened and Endangered Species
Eleven species within Montana have been classified by USFWS as either threatened or
endangered. Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended,
activities conducted, sponsored, or funded by federal agencies must be reviewed for
their effects upon species federally listed or proposed for listing as threatened or
endangered. The endangered species are the gray wolf, peregrine falcon, whooping
crane, black-footed ferret, pallid sturgeon, white sturgeon, and Interior least tern. The
continental populations of grizzly bear, bald eagle, piping plover, and a sole plant
species, the water howellia, are listed as threatened.
Of these species, the Interior least tern, black-footed ferret, whooping crane, piping
plover, and water howellia are not considered to be endemic to the project area. Two
additional species, the gray wolf and grizzly bear, are generally considered to occur
with such extreme infrequency in the project area that they are also precluded from
any anticipated impacts (Becker, pers. comm.). Under these premises, and following
personal communications and literature review, it is determined that implementation
of the proposed action will have no effect on any of these seven species. The
remaining two in need of consideration are the threatened bald eagle and the
endangered peregrine falcon.
Bald Eagle
Analysis. Bald eagles occur in the general area as migrants, winter residents, and in
one known instance as a nesting pair some 6.4 km. (4 mi.) southeast of milepost 3.9.
Although their presence is largely associated with the Flathead River and its
floodplains, the birds can be expected to forage within the immediate project area;
roadkills and natural carrion, as well as the wetlands of Camas Creek, are a likely
attractant to various birds of prey. There are no habitat features such as loafing or
BRR - Page 8
perch sites within the project area, as are found along the Flathead, to concentrate bird
numbers.
Mitigation /Coordination Measures. In that the year-round presence of bald eagles
within the project's vicinity is recognized, yet given the nature of their use within the
immediate project area, the following measure is required to ensure that impacts are
minimized:
• All powerline relocations shall be constructed and raptor-proofed in
accordance with Raptor Research Report No. 4 (Raptor Research
Foundation, 1981).
This measure would also benefit many raptors not protected by the ESA, most notably
the larger buteo hawks. Raptor-proofing is a policy currently being applied by the
Montana Department of Transportation.
Though vehicle-killed deer and mountain sheep do not appear to be a problem in the
area, their removal from the highway would further reduce this imperilment for both
eagles and hawks.
Determination of Effects. Based on the above, it is determined that implementation of
the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the bald eagle.
Peregrine Falcon
Analysis. Though nearly extirpated, the peregrine falcon continues to be a traditional
resident of the Intermountain West, as recovery programs begun in the 1970's
determinedly restore the bird over much of its range. One such program happens to be
in its second year in the Clear Creek drainage several miles south and west of the
highway project (Ball, pers. comm.). Peregrine use of the overall area, aside from
activity surrounding this hack site, is still likely to be transitory with f oragings probable
among wetland and riparian habitats.
Possible nesting territories for peregrines have been occasionally rumored for nearer
locations along the Flathead River, though none are presently documented. This may
be partially explained by the possibility of adult pairs attempting to establish nesting
territories, perhaps without success.
Mitigation/Coordination Measures. Because of utility relocations and the need to
preserve area wetlands and riparian covers essential to the success of the dear Creek
BRR - Page 9
hacking program, the following measures are required to ensure that impacts are
minimized:
• Any necessary powerline relocations shall be constructed and raptor-proofed
in accordance with Raptor Research Report No. 4 (Raptor Research
Foundation, 1981).
• Avoidance and minimization of the wetland and riparian areas associated
with Camas Creek should be effected wherever possible.
•
It is recommended that "wildlife crossing" signs be placed at each end of
Perma Canyon.
Determination of Effects. Based on the above, it is determined that implementation of
the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the peregrine falcon.
BRR - Page 10
References
Alt, David & Hyndman, Donald. 1986. Roadside Geology of Montana. Mountain
Press Publishing Co. Missoula, Montana. 427 pp.
Ball, Sue. Tribal Wildlife Biologist. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. Pablo,
Montana. Telephone conversation of 6 December 1995.
Becker, Dale. Tribal Wildlife Program Manager. Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribes. Pablo, Montana. Telephone conversation of 4 December 1995.
Dos Santos, Joe. Tribal Fisheries Program Manager. Confederated Salish and
Kootenai Tribes. Pablo, Montana. Telephone conversation of 6 December
1995.
Flath, Dennis. Non-Game Biologist. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and
Parks. Bozeman, Montana. Telephone conversation of 6 December, 1995.
Foy, Dennis. Lead Designer. Montana Department of Transportation, District One.
Missoula, Montana. Telephone conversation of 6 December 1995.
Jackson, J. Lloyd. Shoreline Protection Administrator. Confederated Salish and
Kootenai Tribes. Pablo, Montana. Personal communications and telephone
conversation of 4 December 1995.
McDonald, Mary Ellen. Recreation Specialist. Montana Department of Fish,
Wildlife, and Parks. Helena, Montana. Telephone conversation of 4 December
1995.
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 1994. Locations of bald eagle
nesting territories of record, August 1, 1994. Bozeman, Montana. Unpublished
data.
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 1993. Montana Rivers Information
System. Helena, Montana.
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 1995. Latest revision of Species of
Special Interest or Concern within Montana. Bozeman, Montana. 7 pp.
Montana Natural Heritage Program. 1995. Elemental occurrence listings for sensitive
plant and animal species of concern. Helena, Montana.
BRR-Pagell
Redmond, Matt C. Environmental Planner. Carter & Burgess, Inc. Denver,
Colorado. Phone conversation of 6 December 1995.
Shelley, Kevin. Wildlife Biologist. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Kalispell, Montana.
Telephone conversation of 4 December 1995.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. November 22, 1993 list, narrative, and statewide
distribution map of threatened and endangered species to be considered
relative to highway projects throughout Montana. Helena, Montana.
Referenced Species
BRR - Page 12
Common Name
Genus and Species
Fauna
Bald eagle
Beaver
Black bear
Black-billed magpie
Black-footed ferret
Bobcat
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse
Common crow
Common raven
Coyote
Fisher
Gray wolf
Grizzly bear
Interior least tern
Lynx
Mountain Hon
Mule deer
Osprey
Peregrine falcon
Pine marten
Piping plover
Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep
Rocky Mountain elk
Townsend's big-eared bat
Western bluebird
White-tailed deer
Whooping crane
Westslope cutthroat trout
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Castor canadensis
Ursus americanus
Pica pica
Mustela nigripes
Lynxrufus
Tympanuchus phasianellus col
Corvis brachrhynchos
Corvis corax
Canis latrans
Martes permanti
Canis lupis
Ursus arctos horribUis
Sterna albifrons
Lynx canadensis
Felis concolor
Odocoileus hemionus
Pandion haliaetus
Falco peregrinus
Martes americana
Charadrius melodus
Ovis canadensis
Cervus elaphus
Plectotus townsendii
Sialia mexicana
Odocoileus virginianus
Grus americana
Salmo clarkii
BRR - Page 13
Common Name
Genus and Species
Flora
Beaked sedge
Big-leafed sagebrush
Black hawthorn
Bluebunch wheatgrass
Bluegrass sp.
Broad-leaved cattail
Canada thistle
Crested wheatgrass
Dwarf woolly-heads
Hardstem bulrush
Pondweed sp.
Redtop bentgrass
Sandberg's bluegrass
Serviceberry
Slender hareleaf
Smooth brome
Snowberry
Spotted knapweed
Wheatgrass sp.
White-margined knotweed
Willow sp.
Woods rose
Carex rostrata
Artemisia tridentata
Crataegus douglasii
Agropyron spicatum
Poa sp.
Typha latifolia
Cirsiwn arvense
Agropyron cristatwn
Psilocarphus brevissimus
Scirpus acutus
Potamogeton sp.
Agrostis alba
Poa sandbergii
Amalanchier alnifolia
Lagophylla ramosissima
Bromus inermis
Symphoricarpos albus
Centaurus maculosa
Agropyron sp.
Polygonum polygaloides
Salix sp.
Rosa woodsii
c
C
i£
88
I
X
IC;
o
Q.
a
BRR - Page 14
Perma Canyon - North
Wetland Finding
Introduction
This wetland finding was prepared for the proposed improvements to Highway 382,
known as the Perma Canyon North project. Wetland delineations were conducted in
accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetlands Delineation
Manual (COE 1987). The USGS 7.5 minute quadrangles including Camas Prairie and
Markle Pass Montana were used for general information related to the project area
and its surroundings. Site specific reconnaissance, including aerials and as-built
drawings of the site portraying the topography, existing road centerlines, and specific
roadway elements was provided by Montana Department of Transportation (MDT).
Figure 3 is a vicinity map showing the general locations of wetlands. Approximate
boundaries (not surveyed limits) of wetlands are outlined on the as-built drawings
included in Appendix B.2.
The following description is the result of field work conducted at the Perma Canyon
North project area on October 9th 1995. The goal of this field investigation was to
collect soil, vegetation and hydrologic data to map the location of the wetland / non-
wetland areas within any potential disturbance area, and thus provide a complete three
parameter delineation. All wetlands within the existing right-of-way were delineated
and mapped. Where pertinent, additional information and comments regarding the
conditions immediately outside the right-of-way are included to provide a more
complete description of the entire hydrologic system.
Site Description
Location
The project area is contained within a linear corridor approximately 24.4 meters (80
feet) wide by 11.5 kilometers (7.1 miles) long beginning at an elevation of
approximately 793 meters (2,600 feet) and ending at an approximate elevation of 861
meters (2825 feet). The project area is located 6.3 kilometers (3.9 miles) north of
Highway 200 along Highway 382 within Camas Creek Basin in Sanders County,
Montana on the Flathead Reservation.
Geomorphology
The topography and geomorphic features surrounding the project area are the result of
past glaciation and current water erosion. Broad U-shaped valleys, basins and gorges
FLATHEAD
WETLAND
SITE #1
INDIAN
RESERVATION
Coppe.d9e GuLCtLf-
LEGEND
HK3HWAY
PAVED ROAD
=— GRAVEL ROAD
= am road
CREEK
1 mile
i I i
I-1- 1
1km
«r
Perma Canyon - North
WETLAND LOCATIONS
Figure 3
BRR - Page 16
are relics of glaciation. The gently rolling hills located at the north end of project are
giant ripples created by water from Glacial Lake Missoula flowing over Markle Pass to
the north.
The project area traverses two distinctly different geomorphologic settings. The
southern end of the existing road travels north from Montana 200 through a gorge
created by Camas Creek. This gorge, cut into a small ridge of shale that divides the
Flathead River Valley to the south from the Camas Prairie Basin to the north. Thus,
the southern end of the project travels through a steeply sloping narrow canyon with
recent alluvium collected in the bottom of the valley. Camas Creek at this location is a
2.4 to 3.6 meters (8 to 12 foot) wide channel carried in a deeply cut and currently
eroding arroyo. For most of its course at this location the flow line of the creek is 1.5
to 3.0 meters (5 to 10 feet) below the highly erosive perpendicular cutbanks.
The northern 8 kilometers (5 miles) of the project is located on an open montane
basin. This basin is completely contained with no other hydrological inlets. Surface
flow within the basin is ephemeral and concentrates in sinuous rivulets that eventually
join Camas Creek. Enough ground and surface water concentrates at Camas Creek
that it becomes a perennial stream just above the entrance to the gorge. Camas Creek
is listed on the Camas Prairie USGS quadrangle as a perennial watercourse in the
southern half of Camas Prairie Basin through the gorge and ephemeral in the northern
half. This was verified in the field.
In both of the settings the road occupies a relatively low place in the landscape roughly
parallel to Camas Creek. The existing road is roughly parallel to the flow of rivulets
and Camas Creek. Although the surrounding area is arid to semi-arid, receiving only
35.5 cm to 46 cm (14 to 18 inches) of precipitation annually, portions of the study area
are situated to receive or conduct any of the moisture that eventually falls.
Vegetation
The general upland vegetation along the Perma Canyon North project area is typical of
disturbed roadside vegetation. Within the right-of-way and invading into the adjacent
fields are species typical of revegetation activities and invaders that come in as a result
of disturbance. Species such as Western Wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii) and Thick-
Spike Wheatgrass (Agropyron dasystachyum), Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea
maculosa), Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), Clasping Pepper Grass (Lepidium
perfoliatum), Smooth Brome (Bromus inermis) and Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) make
up the greater part of the vegetative cover within the right-of-way. Adjacent to the
right-of-way are mixed fields. Some of these fields are currently in cultivation, some
BRR - Page 17
have been cultivated and are laying fallow and some are still natural stands of Big
Sagebrush (Artemesia tridentata).
Wetland vegetation within the project area is a mix of distributions that range from
natural plant associations to 100% monocultures of planted species. Wetland #1 at
the extreme north end of the project is vegetated by a swath of Canary Reed Grass
(Phalaris arundinacea) that covers the flat bottom of the roadside "borrow ditch". The
toe of slope of the road fill and the grade change marking the undisturbed area of the
adjacent field create a very specific vegetation break on both sides of the Reed Canary
Grass (Phalaris arundinacea) culture.
Farther south along the Camas Creek wetland (sample sites #2 and #4), the
vegetation is a much broader mix of OBL and FACW species. Although Camas Creek
is a wetland along its length through the canyon parallel to the roadway, some portions
are vegetated in a more naturally undisturbed fashion. Most of the wetland is 1.5 to 2.4
meters (5 to 8 feet) below its adjacent grade and only Cattails (Typha latifolia) can be
readily seen from the road. Close inspection also revealed Softstem Bulrush (Scirpus
validus), Sedges (Carexsp.) occasional Willows (Salixsp.) and, on the slightly higher
ground, Quaking Aspen (Populus tremuloides).
Finally, wetland sample site #3 is not inundated or saturated year around and is
vegetated primarily by Quaking Aspen (Populus tremuloides) and Hawthorn (Crataegus
douglasii).
Soils
Information relating to soils was provided by the USDA Natural Resource
Conservation Service, Plains, Montana Field Office. The soils located within the study
area are generally silt loams or gravelly loams depending on the location. These soils
were derived from either lacustrine and/or alluvial deposits reworked and deposited by
recent glaciation.
Sample sites were taken within the mapped boundaries of the following 2 map units:
Map
Symbol
Map Unit Name
Drainage Class
25 1A
Horseplains Fine Sandy Loam, Gravelly Substratum
0 to 2% slopes Occasionally Flooded
Somewhat Excessively
Drained
56A
Bowlake Gravelly Loam, 0 to 2% slopes
Well Drained
BRR - Page 18
At most of the sample pit locations the map unit was confirmed within some variations
of texture and color. Some of the upland sample pits were dug near, or on, the side
slopes of the road fill. In these situations it was difficult to determine whether or not it
was the confirmed map unit due to the fact that the map units in these areas are
potentially gravelly lower in their profile.
Hydrology
Wetlands along this project were grouped into three specific categories based on the
interpreted origin of their hydrology, These three categories are as follows:
Hydrologic Source
Sample Sites
Included
Wetland Type
MDT
Rating
Borrow Ditch
#1
Freshwater Emergent
IV
Camas Creek
#2, #4
Freshwater
Emergent/Riparian
n
Forested Channel
(East Side)
#3
Forested Riparian
m
Borrow Ditch (Milepost 10.3 to 10.6)
The hydrology for this wetland at the north end of the project is supplied by natural
precipitation surface runoff that is channeled by means of twin culverts and grading to
a relatively flat borrow ditch extending approximately 320 meters (1,050 feet) from Big
Gulch Road to the north end of the project. The ditch is approximately 4.5 meters (15
feet) wide and an average of 3.4 meters (11 feet) from the edge of the existing road.
The water from runoff ends up here and without any observed outlet must percolate
through to the existing water table.
Camas Creek (Milepost 4.0 to 4.7)
Camas Creek flows south out of Camas Creek Basin and is the concentration point for
the entire basin. Upstream toward the middle of the basin, the stream is too
ephemeral to support wetland growth but down in the steeper sections of the canyon,
where it comes close to the study area, it has a small perennial flow. The flow moves
through a highly braided flat streambed of soil substrate, actively cutting down and
back and forth across the valley. The emergent vegetation crowds the channel from
wall to wall throughout most of this length with slightly drier species rooting in the
braided islands. It appears to be inundated or saturated permanently.
BRR - Page 19
Forested Channel (East Side) (Milepost 4.4 to 4.5)
On the east side of the existing alignment, as it passes through the steeper portions of
the canyon, a natural channel appears immediately adjacent to the right-of-way. This
channel seems to have been interrupted and graded over inside the right-of-way under
the original or subsequent construction. This discontinuous channel receives surface
runoff from the surrounding hillsides. The channel is approximately 3 meters (10 feet)
wide by 122 meters (400 feet) long and empties back out into a sheet surface flow
inside the right-of-way and then disappears. The area is temporarily flooded during
portions of the growing season as a result of precipitation events.
Wetland Functions Impacted
General. The impacted functions of wetlands within the Perma Canyon-North project
are generally limited and not significant. This is in part due to the nature of the
wetlands affected and in the character of the design. There are no places where the
expected design entails breaching or crossing the wetland/riparian corridor(s). This
eliminates the possibility of compromising the viability of the corridor as habitat and
for flood storage or conveyance. Since the corridor will remain generally intact, the
impacts are evaluated on the percentage of the wetland which may be taken and
whether or not the portion taken significantly differs from the entire wetland. For
example, taking the only canopied area from a wetland may cause greater impacts even
if the areal extent is small. This is not the case with any impacts in the Perma Canyon-
North project.
Specific Impacts
Site #1. Functions impacted at Wetland Site #1 are negligible. This incidental
wetland has an overall MDT rating of IV. Even though it is likely that 100% of the
wetland may be impacted, the functions removed are not significant. This is a
monoculture of grasses that provides little or no habitat value, minimal species
diversity, and very little of a number of other characteristics. It is not unique and
provides no recreation or educational potential.
Sites #2 and #4. Functions impacted at Wetland Site #2 and #4 are low to moderate.
Although this is an important wetland with an MDT ranking of II, the small extent of
impact reduces the overall removal of functions. This is further mitigated by the fact
that where the impact would take place at site #2, the wetland disturbed is of lesser
value than other areas of the wetland. At this location, the stream course is braided
BRR - Page 20
and is still upstream of the deep arroyo contained portion. One of the branches of the
stream flows in and out under the right-of-way fence. The vegetation and habitat
where it flows out is more disturbed and of less value than the other channels.
Evidence of grazing tracks as well as the haphazard distribution of plants and proximity
to the roadway reduces the functions at this point. The area of impact is only a very
small percent of the overall wetland.
Site #3. Functions impacted at Wetland Site #3 are also low. This is the only wetland
area in the project with a heavy canopy. This wetland, while valuable, is again only
impacted slightly with regard to functions. This is due to the impacts occurring at the
lower end of the wetland where there is less habitat value and little tree canopy.
Where these impacts take place, the wetland has flowed out into the borrow ditch and
is another monoculture of Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea). It is likely that
only this area will be impacted and little or no trees will be removed. The impacts to
functions are then reduced.
Proposed Action
The proposed project will include an overlay, minor widening and slope-flattening. No
horizontal or vertical realignments are proposed.
Wetland Avoidance
A recommendation will be made to the MDT to avoid these areas in their design
wherever possible, especially in regard to the Camas Creek areas. Unavoidable
impacts to wetlands will take into consideration the memorandum of understanding
between MDT and CSKT specifically written to address impacts due to highway
construction.
Conclusion
Wetlands associated with Camas Creek are of fairly high quality and provide habitat in
a rather arid setting. These wetlands are also the closest to the existing right-of-way
and even enter the existing right-of-way for a short distance. The steep sided arroyo
like conditions of Camas Creek, restricts the wetlands to a very specific edge where it
parallels the existing alignment through the canyon. This distinct edge follows the
right-of-way fence varying from 0.3 or 0.6 meters (1 or 2 feet), to 3 or 3.7 meters (10 or
12 feet) outside and west of the right-of-way
BRR - Page 21
The entire 11.5 kilometer (7.1 miles) of the project was walked or driven investigators
looking for hydrologic and/or wetland vegetative cues. All topographical low sites
such as stock crossings were investigated. In those areas that met the vegetative and
hydrologic criteria, soil samples were taken and Routine Wetland Determination
Forms filled out. MDT wetland site evaluation forms were filled out for each of the
three distinct wetlands identified in the hydrology section. Once a wetland
determination was made the boundaries were measured and mapped in relation to the
centerline of the existing roadway. These measured sketches were recopied and areas
of impacts were calculated. As a result, 0.24 hectares (0.59 acres) of wetlands were
determined to be impacted due to proposed improvements. Temporary impacts to
approximately 800 square meters (2,880 square feet) of wetlands will also occur due to
project construction activities.
No cumulative impacts to wetlands are expected due to the distance of other MDT
projects from this proposed project.
Refer to Preliminary Plans in Appendix B.2 for approximate boundaries of wetlands
impacted. Appendix B.3 contains the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Forms and MDT Wetland Site Evaluation Forms.
Mitigation
No potential wetland mitigation sites were identified in the area adjacent to Secondary
Highway 382. It is proposed that mitigation for this project be combined with a
mitigation site constructed for another MDT project on the Flathead Reservation.
Plant List
BRR - Page 22
River Hawthorn
Columbia Hawthorn
Wood's Rose
Toad Rush
Spotted Knapweed
Clasping Pepper Grass
Kentucky Bluegrass
Western Wheatgrass
Reed Canary Grass
Softstem Bulrush
Quacking Aspen
Black Cottonwood
Smooth Scouring Rush
Needle Spike Rush
Beaked Sedge
Common Mullein
Cheat Grass
Big Sagebrush
Smooth Brome
Bull Thistle
Wheat
Crateagus douglasii
Crateagus columbiana
Rosa woodsii
Juncus bufonius
Centaurea maculosa
Lepidium perfoliatum
Poa pratensis
Agropyron smithii
Phalaris arundinacea
Scirpus validus
Populus tremuloides
Populus trichocarpa
Equisetum laevigatum
Eleocharis acicularis
Carex rostrata
Verbascum thapsus
Bromus tectorum
Artemisia tridentata
Bromus inermis
Cirsium vulgare
Triticum aestwum
BRR - Page 23
Bibliography
Alt, David and Donald W. Hyndman. 1986. Roadside Geology of Montana.
Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula, Montana.
Hanson, Paul L. et al. 1995. Classification and Management of Montana' s Riparian
and Wetland Sites. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station School of
Forestry, The University of Montana. Missoula, Montana. Miscellaneous Publication
No. 54, pp. 646.
Harris, Robert. Wildlife and Fisheries Biologist. Turnstone Biological. Briefing
meeting October 6, 1995.
Lackschewitz, Klaus. 1991. Vascular Plants of West Central Montana - Identification
Guidebook. USDA Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station General
Technical Report INT-277. pp. 648.
Reed, P.B. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest
(Region 9). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 89 pp.
Natural Resource Conservation Service, Sanders and Parts of Lincoln and Flathead
Counties, Montana Soil Survey, specific information request October 10, 1995. Plains,
Montana Field Office.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. COE Wetlands Delineation Manual. Wetlands
Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1. Department of the Army. Waterways
Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers. Vicksburg, Mississippi.
c
ft
<0
°
*c
CD
O
co
i
to
is;
I
CM
d
x
c
a.
<
P/w Z^n/A^rir £/a#fc. bX*^
?*£: f&froi
STATE | PROJECT NUMBER SHEET NO.
PERU* Canyon - north
0 «s
rx
•©
<D
CO
UPLAND -*j"
53 «%«
SEC 12
°G ®o 0^
<3©G
>&
-• P^fcy ^-■••■-.•■".T.-r-" '; wg^JgZ^i
rr ~}#" — * j>* "is" so- w '"" Qivjl""^" — "^
6 O
LONG OftSH *
cor slops c#rctf Po/kIT-
CH^NA/CL CHfiNSE.
US. K
T «
t •ZIO.U n
£ ■iS.Min
s »o.oa z
WETLAND *2>
PMEILDl
9i
! Hi
m
PROJECT NUU8CT SHEE
PERUA CANTON - NORTH
in
10
«0
10
oo
10
6 m PtRM\T
10
-Z-
cn
<0
SEC 14
O
r-
FARU FIELD AfP. LT.
171*13
coimrr no. app. kt.
:::'.:'.'..'.'..H.4:..ot:-As.:s. _ i:::;::::::::::::*««"-'«"™:::
........... IK Ttl nL ICL tAj""ICI
SEC II
<m fEftMIT
-Wt TtL nt
1EL Ttl»
SEC 13
SI,
'"?£*.
S SEC 12
ITI*J«
out m x-w
t.« ■ acu
<M
rO
i0
SEC II
.vietv-ANo^
SEC 12
'^^' ic*. ^
PREILDIilflDNARV
T3
C
€3
<©
£
k. :
o
LL
C
o
♦3
E
C
o
•M*»';".
C
"3
o
•o
«
c
3
JT
:"<5:i
♦3
>
©
iU
5
55
♦3
T5
D
C
O
<0
AC
*+*;
©
LU
O
5
o
f-
• ,;* i
o
to
'-'■•to '■
3
m
X
m-
c
|f§|
<D
v^::x;:v:
a
x:::::>:£>::
Q,
<
£:?x-S:-x
:::::x-x-x-x-x-x<->:-:-x
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987.COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) -:
Project/Site: Tgg-Tnv- upl^D **=!£>"
Applicant/Owner: MPT"
Investigator: ggr^pMb /(-Cg^Ng"
V
Date: ''Id-I- ^<
County: -SArVPE-i?^
State: MT
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
(fep No
Yes
Yes /N
Community ID:
Transect ID:
Plot ID: pg^ gj
VEGETATION
V
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Dominant Plant Soecies
9.
10.
Stratum Indicator
i.P<?AI*fcTr>ms Hf f5^j4-
2.A(r»iOPyc.orJ 5mirwil ■ hf FAd-J
3.A/oPC^VP0»JPrV<)y<>TA^YiyM ^ FAZ-D -
4.
11.
12.' '
13.
•
5.
6.
14.
7.
'is.
16. '
8.
»
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). .. _ ...
<r sbi*
Remarks: _
^
HYDROLOGY
-'•'- ' .•••" •••••
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream. Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs .
/ Othar
* No Recorded Data Available _. .. - — • .
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ....-,..
Primary indicators: , ..
" Inundated . r
Saturated in Upper 1 2 inches
_ ...._.. -Water Marks - -- ■»_• • - •
Drift Lines
___ Sediment Deposits
__ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Date
FAC-NeutroI Test
__ Other t£xplatn in Remarks)
Held Observations: *
Depth of Surface Water: jf\ G"-)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: "? IB On.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: ^ (in.)
Remarks: Ut? 1 0 VAC MP%
SOILS
(£<!/AJ :
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): "FfovJ \'l &£2^L ^A feiX /J?A/^ £>-
Taxonomy (Subgroup): f^lkO? Cf\jQC Ag£? tjL&ZDLL'S
Drainage Class: Wg?^ P2A/UPrT>
Field Observations .
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes/^NoJ
Profile Description: r- .'.'. „ . .„
Depth Matrix Color
(inches) Horiton (Munsell Moist)
J£2L
- \2>
6-/4
• -- .
7.^¥tL S/Z.
10 P.
fe/1
-.- . - .--• r .
,- ..
— -'•' ' "
-
• - -
Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist)
Mottle . Texture. Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
■ &Qfc,r>
FlLL-
((r
PL\
pft
- CLt<y
LdA.*A
) -
OL7i.Y
Lu;i.M
-• .-- ■
..,_.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
___ Hisoc Epipedon *"
Sulfidic Odor . .
__ Aquic Moisture Regime
.Reducing Conditions _~
y Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
'«'• rv*'-'
_ Concretions
. High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
• Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
mmmm Listed on National Hydric Soils List .
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: QrE^v o-tzt-otst^iT
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophyte Vegetation Present? " Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? \(^). No
(Circle)
."-. ..." (Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? \ . Yes /fJoJ
Remarks:
S^MFL^ flW*Tr
>hJ ^t>HSrJFttU-"^^^^'^sL&^^^- -
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987XOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: "PgCVfrfc - " Qm<>i,g "±JJ^
Applicant/Owner: f*1i>T" •
Investigator: ' iSpr-PHp^T? SJ55 5
Date: ' //? - 7- ^^"
County: San/deeS
State: KIT
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
Community ID:
Transect ID:
Plot ID: \A)er*\
VEGETATION
V
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1.HUPK k-CnWDlrJhrtA W \'ti . ±)
2.
Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator
9.
10.
3.
11.
4.
12.
5.
13.
6.
14.
7.
'is.
8.
16. "'•
■>
Percent of Dominant Spacies that are OBL FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-}. M'>%
Remarks: BorTO/,A 6oe4l0iJ D/rc„ IOq% p^^s m^j0Cu6 r^ fer o^vster^ ~^^
TLlH-^OiS L&Kn, iu£ ft^rr j3crTOK OF Thlt± PIT2-H .
HYDROLOGY
...,r-T _;■■ ■ -..•; •. ■ .. ■
__ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
__ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
/ Other ''■ ' "
v No Recorded Data Available _. .. - — •
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: .....
Primary Indicators: . ..
inundated . «. __. .t
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-^WaterMarks --• . -•
f'urift Lines
Sediment Deposits
^ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondervjndicators (2 or more required):
i/^Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
^__ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
__ Other |£xplain in Remarks)
Raid Observations: *
Depth of Surface Water: ^A (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >'&> fin.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: '$ (in.)
-_. . . . -.- -.:-■ • ■• ■ ••-•- "• •- • ■ - - "
Remark. • A ^HDrT p*Wf A^AY flU* 7Hl6 fS.Q*?t>V> TATCri ]^J riH
ZvUDrf FlZDtA -[)-(£ *JHDi£ -3KSitJ Ok) V/ET PTP&Z. WST . ^Oiu UA£ hiof
^A.TVpATep SOT ve&t hfiD&T.
SOILS
(SU>K)
Map Unit Name
(Sariesand Phase): ^SOVOl^^^'^gAV^Ly ' \JDkiA ~~D~7/lr> Drainage Class: ' WS?X T72Nk)€D
'■'-''•■ _. . Field Observations . ^~\
Taxonomy (Subgroup): fg|^ VQ £iM£/£ Ag6l X ggfrL-LS Confirm Mapped Type? (YtsJ No
Profile Description: — ■_'...._ . .._
Depth Matrix Color
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
XiJL
£-8
....
7SJ&
Ah
7,<iw
Alo
?.<-¥©
ki% -
— •'•' ' -
... —
■ - ■
Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist)
■7'6yh
5/Z-
7.5^
6/z
•- . • — .
•■ - • .
Mottle -Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0fUxt*O«C- Mf'
Cm. Disrjfit'
- Q_t.r loam,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
__ Histosol
Histic Epipedon *"
Sulfidic Odor .
___ Aquic Moisture Regime "',.„,.
___ Reducing Conditions _~ -'
\/ Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors
_ Concretions
^ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
• Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
___ Listed on National Hydric Soils List . .
Other (Explain in Remarks)
^re.7\py L'ou>tz 6>v/<v>ik
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophyte Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Yea; No (Circle)
(0 No
res) No
(arete)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? \ /Yes) No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987XOE Wetlands Delineation Manual) .-:
Project/Site: "P&raiu- wpu^jo. -a-z-B.
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator: 'v'irr
r-AOT
t^crp-x \tr
Ic
Date:
County: £?/ s^lt'^
State: M.r
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? 0(£s) No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes (No1 "
Is the area a potential Problem Area? _ Yes (ijcy>
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
Community ID:
Transect ID:
Plot ID: up
7.B
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
2. fcfVfcoPfnmJ smitmm . /-/ f?AZ,L>
3. Fbfc. pl?ML-MSIS r-/ F&^U-h
4.
Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator
9.
10.
11.
12.
5.
13.
6.
14.
7.
'15.
S.
16. "'•
-
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC * t~r*\*\
(excluding FAC-). ^ OQ fo
Remarks: ^^^
HYDROLOGY
....... . ... . ..... .. .
__ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
__ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
____ Aerial Photographs
y Other "''
J^No Recorded Data Available _ — •
Wedand Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated ... rf..,
_ Saturated in Upper 1 2 Inches
— LWatar Marks - - -• • - •
Drift Lines
__ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wedands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Held Observations: *•
Depth of Surface Water: *VA (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: ? ' 2> (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 7 ' & (in.)
Remarks: /../-> pp/.-/»AFV tz. Sfe./cu^A'J-Y ikUkca. i3X, . 5/.'-:T-f -5.--? «J .' •; .-/.j;
SOILS
ts^t
Map Unit Nome 6eA«^L^UB$TJ?NTN)VA
(Series and Phase); £&J22£3ZMM&3£!£^ ^HJtH lOK^ Dfainage Class: ^YC.f^X^L^ VV^H^l
___ '---'••■ . _ _. Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): £tH£,)P TV Pi £ /g^P fLUl/^^TS Confirm Mapped Type? (^Yes) No
Profile Description: — •_"..... . .„ ..v.z. ... ■ , - ... \— r. . _. . _•.-..- --
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle , Texture, Concretions,
finches) Horiron (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moistl Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
Q'-\
I'll. .-
...
\.oyrz
5/3.
-.-.• =
. ,. ..
:.' . "
.. —
■ - -
0(2Xr. M/\T
■SAAJPV LO&AA.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Hi sue Epipedon *"
Sulfidic Odor .
_ Aquic Moisture Regime ',.,,_.. ...
mm__ Reducing Conditions ~ -
___ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
_ Concretions
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
• Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
__ Listed on National Hydric Soils List . .
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: QCv Sfc/*PLE , VfFfitV CT tflfr&ffjfc
b-nWEL- I5a5/^b £'U_ fV|AV. B£T lfOLUUTX?E> C'=>HNJ£&F[XAKr)hlii)
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophyte Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
'Ye«/Ns> (Circle)
Yes*
Yes
' (Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? . . Yes
<£>
Remarks:
.' : i
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987XOE Wetlands Delineation Manual) .-:
i ; — c '
Proiect/Siterf^A^A - (JfirU'JO #2.^
Date: '/o-'?- ;T
County: ■?</ > \~-_ ~i <, •
State: KT7
Applicant/Owner: f\-rrr
Investigator: tv^/v-nt-. //t",>^
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? (xe.s^ No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes (No)'
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes (Np)
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
Community ID:
Transect ID:
Plot ID: n«r *7a
VEGETATION
V
Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum
2.Sr.l RPUS ^'.0!'5 M
3.Rce»fc. i/i/ryst^s i / -SH
4. PT/ tin<rt/"A/?7-$ £ /-j /•,, j l £.r?"» J5 H' ""
5. .l^vJO.K "B, ,r> • <• \< -H
6. CTpi.JKi^Tiiv LA&JUntcnjrA Ll
7.
S.
Indicator
rx/aJ
Dominant Plant Soecies
9.
10.
11.
12.' "
13.
14.
'is.
16.
Stretum Indicator
'■
'.. •
Percent of Dominant Spades that are OBL FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC*).
.-.>52>%.
Remarks: j LU0jts6: S)f-v*i.iT friiU-Oto
Sute/ c^
HYDROLOGY
-'•: ? ■.•••■ ••-•
_ Recorded Deta (Describe in Remarks):
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: .....
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Primary Indicators:
_ Aerial Photographs
_ Inundated . ~
Other
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
A No Recorded Data Available .... — . — •
_ ^"-WaterMarks . - -■• ■ ■- •
_ Drift Unas -•■•.•;
_ Sediment Deposits
Raid Observations: "•
K. Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: /ty (in.)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
_ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 1 2 Inches
Watsr-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: > ; °> (in.)
_ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutrel Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: J '3 (in.)
__ Other t£xplain in Remarks)
Remarks: U~'jlo~ \)cb. »*> CHt.rJ/Jc_ £>>Tt»)/*
i-/..:^ •■■•.• -K arrr' TChiLC f^" AAi=i ^;-~^ ".c-^-:k--i vl^ ..5.^r
-i. *••■.-'. •■-.*: nyc-r ricrJ/'-h, ■' ;/■: ~':s<cs* -:"-- .-r.".' ".'.•- f-".; '-: c ^ ^(Trr-ri^-
/UWDATE75 P)2 MOST* /VT "TUP" A&DVIk) la 'P*- 7V>>J
SOILS
(Z*ik)
Map Unit Name. _ £l?A^UX ^<$L&STZXrV><\ O^a DCCK&ttH/SLl>( FtCCPcX>
(Series' and Phase): ^Qg»^£^>jig ^//J^SA^bS1' L^AM Drainage Class: &'^nJD'( "DPAiVPp
•-'■ - — - - Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Pfe/^/P T/Plt V&7Of:Ll\/&JTS Confirm Mapped Type? ^eT^No
Profile Description: :
Depth
(inches) Horizon
9- |4
Matrix Color
(Munsell Moist)
70 Ve. -3/2. ■■
io.vr< 5/r.
to ^ g/6
Mottle Colors MottJe , -Texture. Concreu'ons,
(Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
LnMA ^H/i^ OR(TkKiic')
■ /Qyrvik/8 -■ -/am. Disrit)t..r • - fcct/A
r^piogL jMcmoro
Hydrie Soil Indicators:
Histosol
__ Histic Epipedon *"
Sulfidic Odor .
__ Aquic Moisture Regime '„«.,_
Reducing Conditions " -
y/Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors
_ Concretions
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
■_ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Listed on Local Hydrie Soils List
_ Listed on National Hydrie Soils List .
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
(,RAvtrL si-££- 3fc- FA/rz^V 6oov> McrrruO^
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophyte Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydrie Soils Present? .
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetiend?
(Circle)
Remarks: JHtS SM^iPlX' yfr&P^ ' Lhi AA> ' {\&Z£HZ> -0D6"C JLKSTTZLfc^l A -f 120*4- - --
~TU&. UtyV\i>%*kj&- w.h?j Ajjpr><ee chwhsu cvzpbvtlx i vjjjj p/srgE> ■
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
. . (1987.COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: " Vt gA^^ c ht Mod - 'J~V\ L* ) 6 lj^2 ""
Applicant/Owner: MTPT
Investigator: "ggpMo/Ju>/ k'geto^
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? (YgxNi
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes<
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes /No^
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
Date: ' \Q- \± - ^
County: •S.Ajjrjxrz^
State: klT"
Community ID:
Transect ID:
Plot ID: yWUr-*,
1
VEGETATION*
p
Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator
2.
Dominant
9.
10.
Plant Soecies
Stratum Indicator
3.
11.
4.
12." '
-
5.
13.
6.
14.
7.
'is.
8.
16.
-'.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-).
-3D7»
*mi" *'SKKVL^ T?v^©rJ \U<>\T>£ 1Z£>\d
'""S
HYDROLOGY
..,,..-. . - ....
___ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream. Lake, or Tide Gauge
/ Aerial Photographs
/ Other
v No Recorded Data Available _. ..-.--
■ •
Wedand Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
__ Inundated
Saturated in Uppor 12 Inches
— - ^ Water Marks ,-.
Drift Lines
___ Sediment Deposits
_ Drainage Patterns in Wedends
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
_ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
1 2 Inches
Raid Observations: *
Depth of Surface Water: /A
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
f.n.)
On.)
(in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: "? ' %
Remarks: jjp \WQ\C- ATI? f?*>
SOILS
Map Unit Name v
(Series and Phi'sriHftZJz'PLNfiZ j£M£j^± il£L /^A^
Taxonomy (Subgfoup):ygl^?fP TYfl/J )(~^OFU^gVT^
Drainage Class: F^U^^-J\^V>{ DPAik)rt\
Field Observations . ^^
Confirm Mapped Type? /res, No
Profile Description: — .•■„.* -.-.z. ....
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
(inchest Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist)
£L
V.
'A
-.4
4-/8
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance /Contrast Structure, etc.
^pr-r jAtnr&L
L/^LtK.
t>fax?s uchtA
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon v
Sulfidic Odor .
Aquic Moisture Regime ',,,,.
mmmm Reducing Conditions _"-
___ Giayed or Low-Chroma Colors
_ Concretions
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
• Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Listed on National Hydric Soils List . .
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
ftO A\cn«Vfc'
:•«.£»-"
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophyte Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Yes ( No JCircle)
Yes"
Yes /
;;" : . ,_. ". "..." (Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? '~'[ Yes (No \)
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACc 3/92
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987.COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: 'pg^y^ ct,>->Toro . u?e-tli->>c> *>Lj^pCc ir3>
Applicant/Owner: ; H E7T""
Investigator: gePMr<UP
[EEkJzC
Date: ' b - M -7-5~
County: f^/kjJp>eT?<>
State: mT~
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? C^Yes} No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes^Nj-T
Is the area a potential Problem Area? _ Yes^No,
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
Community ID: .
Transect ID:
Plot ID: \Mrrr^3
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator
i . CXZfirrkgZ* & vtx/h u& ti SH FAc*
2. PTH- )LUS ■7&&rAiJLTXV5g> T f?/*C*
4.
Dominant Plant Soecies
9.
Stratum Indicator
10.
11.
12.'
13.
5.
6.
14.
'15.
7.
8.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-).
> SD% '.
Remarks: TZbBS La? 3" TD IQ" QtUPEfi*
'""S
HYDROLOGY
-'••-
___ Recorded Date (Describe In Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
___ Aerial Photographs
/ Other
v No Recorded Data Available ... . - -~- •
WerJend Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
— ^WaterMarks »-. • -•
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
^Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
jQxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
^^Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Field Observations: *
Depth of Surface Water: /A (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: > '» On.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: '< ° On.)
Remarks: ]/&!>{ P/^>77 N ' C?T~ Ulk^NcTL
SOILS
Map Unit Name * *" ^
(Series and Phase): UTW&PPl&lll'^ tf tj£'*Z> AUt?i U?AM
Taxonomy (Subgroup): PJUMT? ^V\L~Y&Z6FL.\)\/£*}TZ3
Drainage Class: FXCh&MASUX pVA
Field Observations . -, ->.
Confirm Mapped Type? ^Yes^No
Profile Description: --
Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions.
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moistl Abundance /Contrast Structure, etc.
Depth
(inches)
Q-'\
Horizon
hi-
S-:5
-■'•■'-• .'.'•'•■
... . .
iDHci
*>li
\o vp~
*l\
.-.- -.■ • :
-- "■' ' ■
- —
• ■
QC/Z UXT
Sftv,iH?Y i ^AM
Sj^fjpv/ ucyy}
*£>
Hydric Soil Indicators:
__ Histosol
Histic Epipedon *"
___ Sulfidic Odor .
__ Aquic Moisture Regime ',,„,_,.
__>Reducing Conditions " -'
* Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
_ Concretions
. High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
■_ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Listed on National Hydric Soils List .
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophyte Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
ei) No (Circle)
es\ No
. "'...' (Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wedand7 ./"Yesy No
Remarks:
V£tr£>~UDOt>~ iPCTL^z?
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
. (1987.COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 'Q^QUL QaJrgjO - QPlh)^j?t
Applicant/Owner: f/|p>T~
Investigator: IZg^f/, Pr.i> / KtggrVeT
T
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed {Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
Date: ' \Q- 14 -1£
County: £>htJX>VZ*,
State: MT"
(^5>N
Yes
Yes
Community ID: ■
Transect ID:
Plot ID: \)Vl^
VEGETATION
D
Dominant Plant Soeciea Stratum Indicator
1."££Ot/!'J<> /fJj^r/ll^ rJ (J^U
2. nj&DiOYA v/ulaXtzf^ H f^A^b/
3.
Dominant Plant Soeciea
9.
10.
Stratum Indicator
11.
4.
12.
■ - ■■ -
5.
13.
6.
14.
7.
'15.
8.
16.
-.-.
-
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). ..
^-.sb*?* '.
Remarks: -p^nj^^-jp ftJV ' hV&P F^£>M jZDlfJ ■
^
HYDROLOGY
..,,..„
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream. Lake, or Tide Gauge
y Aerial Photographs .
jS Other "
No Recorded Data Available - -—
Wedand Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
— ■_ Water Marks -
_ Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
___ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
__ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other tExplain in Remarks)
12 Inches
Held Observations:
Depth of Surface Water:
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
Depth to Saturated Soil:
*& On.)
> /j fin.)
*'-'3 (in.)
Remarks: J\\\y_[_ q.\ -rp(.|.-
MO tuvif hjovz I
Y-5' ASti
/e- r^u^ji^h vjh-TttZ-
SOILS
( 757 A )
Map Unit Name v ^ y
(Series and Phase): HPg6tTPJ*M Hfe T^/ JVg SK'StX LtM
Taxonomy (Subgroup): P<2>AlP TM'Pl^" X^^UJlftQMT^
Drainage Class: ' fZMJ&>\ UCL.Y -pg/yLrjb
Field Observations ^-^»
Confirm Mapped Type? /rtsjNo
Profile Description: --
Depth
(inches) Horizon
Matrix Color
(Munsell Moist)
Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist)
Mottle .Texture. Concretions,
Abundance /Contrast Structure, etc.
LOtjLA
tAfOp^U^VA
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon *"
Sulfidic Odor
__ Aquic Moisture Regime ',.,,.
___ Reducing Conditions _" -
____ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
_ Concretions
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
__ Listed on National Hydric Soils List .
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: ^ UJT>l£MPZ&
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophyte Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Y«s fNoj (Circle)
Yes qg)
Yes /NV
...... "".'.' (Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wedend? . . Yes No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987.COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 'PEftM^Y KMVo^- (T> gru>y-.4M-
Applicant/Owner: MlXf" ;
Investigator: gp^MPAa? Arg^tJg^
Date: "iD'-K-'7^~
^ArQ-PfcTlZ^
County
State: KIT""
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed {Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
Community ID:
Transect ID:
Plot ID:
yjR-r**^
VEGETATION
D
Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum
3. CAfZCy. "2c*T7Z /VTT* v\
4. -foR j>LU=S T77fcM lLTTDISSS "f~
5. SAUX -£*p. -&H
6.
7.
8.
Indicator
DBi_
Dominant Plant Soecies
9.
10.
Stratum Indicator
11.
12.'
13.
'
14.
. -
'15.
"' . "
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-).
>£Z>%
Remarks:
"^
HYDROLOGY
..... r .....
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream. Lake, or Tide Gauge
/ Aerial Photographs .
/ Other "
l^No Recorded Data Available .- - .— •■-
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ....
Primary Indicators:
iXjnundatad ' ,
^Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
— WaterMarks • -•••
Drift Lines . •-,
Sediment Deposits
_ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Field Observations: ~
,t|
Depth of Surface Water: I fin.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: O (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: O (in.)
:. . . .- -.;?■■ . . r _-.-. - " . - S. -
Remarks: ScnXO^ OT K&V£><0
SOILS
1^ia;> :
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase);^gP^plA7K>4" £Tfj£""5Ak>E>V | ON-A
Taxonomy (Subgroup): TH"FY^ f&ZJlFL \jjt?h?T*?
Drainage Class: &r H<&\\j£El ,^ Z7&AJDCZ
Field Observations . y^~\
Confirm Mapped Type? r^^jLsXNo
Profile Description: -- ....... . .t_ . - - . . -. ... . _•-•- - - "
Depth Matrix Color Monle Colors MortJe .Texture. Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moistl Abundance /Contrast Structure, etc.
hzll
76YX AID
7<
vc
sk.
- ... . . •
n<z.f~.
//AT
dLh«
LDkM
^KtJD^ CL*« <LZW\
. ._ .
-.-•
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
fctfstic Epipedon **
w/Sulfidic Odor .
Aquic Moisture Regime ',,,,.
freoucino Conditions _~ -
• Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
_ Concretions
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
• Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ~ C$£P No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ^Yjm) No
Hydric Soils Present? V"^*J No
(Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetiend? . Tfjtjt No
Remarks: \}0e^UH)j^s .fi£Z&pS ~M\£ WtfO+A- -$?•-+*> ■*&.&(&'&
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
MDT WETLAND SITE EVALUATION FORM
(Revised June 22, 1994)
Number.
-. g^> 3^7- - / (sld
Evaluadoo Date; /P-/4-*?g' Evaluatorls): "EgtT/l QhSC>/ kT£&^J&' Site Name(s): lVerTLAl^t>'f~>AMPt JT ^/
Site Location. h4T~ 2 S 2- KlOIZTH . ftf= "Pg^MA M7",
Esdmated Total Wetland SUe:*^ / f^rAZlZ'
.Estimated SUe Within Proposed ROWi
Conddom Ourlnt Svaluadoni "p^gT^-Y /X-IX^PS'
Wedand ClaislflcaUon (from MDT Weuand Qasriflcadon Scheme)
i Water Retime (t.f.,
Permanendy flooded)
Wedand Type (e.g., Mirth)
Dominant Speclei
Modifier (e.g.. Impounded)
and/or Descriptor
% of Wedand
temp. F-lwve£>
^eiz^e^r HivzA
PUNJVfr fiitzvtJbihJAiEA
0WK7ZTD prTZH
/OO^
Brief Descrlpu've Summary: BotZg^ijJ T7tTZ~f-i \k>\gTLA!^t>
Wedand Type(s) Is (ire) locally (circle): Rare >Cormnojv' Abundant
funedont and Values Assessment
I. Wedand Site (All the criteria throuthout the assessment refer to the Jlje of the entire wetland.)
Sit
> lOxm
0 to 10 acres
1 to S acres
< 1 *rt
&2B
-10
-5
-3
6>
Caicul. Rjtlnt Point Value
Score- (circle) -(circle)
1 . Low (£}_J
3- Moderate -3
S- High -5
10- Except. -10
2. Habitat Plverslry (function of wetland type diversity and presence of open water component,)
# of Wetland Types
(not Including open water rvp«t)
a 3 types
2 type*
* 1 type
( I Multiply 1)
Score Score Open Water
- S 2 - Present
-3 CS^ Absent
Calculated Score -
Caicul. Ratine Point Value
Score- (circle) -(c|rf<)
I - Low {\yj
2-3- Moderate -3
5-6- HIth -S
10- Except. -10
3. Food Chain Suppon (Function of habitat diversity [HD] and wedand we)
M0 Radni
,i HI abovel
Low
Moderate
HIth
Exceptional
(I Multiply i)
Score Score
-2 3j
-3
-4
<§
Hit
> 5 acrei
1-5 xres
< 1 acre
Calculated Score -
4. Habitat for Fcderaiiy-lUted Endonttred. Threatened. Proposed, or Candidate (CI or C2) Species
Wedand Receive*! Score
Regular use by such species or Is desltnated critical habitat -10
Occasional use (e.t.. Infrequent, sporadic use) - S
Incidental uit (e.g., chance, Inconsequential use) - 3
No known or suspected use /*0/
Caicul. Rating Point Valur
Score- (circle) -(circle)
1-2- Low <£p
3-9- Moderate -3
10-15- HIth -5
20a Except. -10
Caicul. Radnt
Point Valu-
Score- (circle)
■idrcle)
0- None
(~oJ)
3 - Moderate
ij
S - Hlth
• 5
10- Except
-10
under #4 above.)
Caicul. Radnt
Point Vali
Score- (circle)
-Jclfcle)
0- None
t^>;
1- Low
-i
3 - Moderate
-3
S- High
-S
'lbltat for Species Rated *SI *. *S2*. or 'S3' by the Monmu Natural HerlUte Program (Not Includlnt those addressed under **4 above.)
Werund Provides:
breeding or other crucial habitat
Habitat that is used refutarly
Habitat (hat Is used occasionally (e.g.. Infrequent, sporadic use)
Hablut that is used Incidentally (e.t., chance, Inconsequential use)
Mo known or suspected habitat
Score
-10
■s
-3
4)
rr
6. Oner.il Wildlife M Flth Habitat (Non-TME)
Criteria I (apply to each rroup)
" -uncial or iljninont uie - S
jjIooji or moderate use - M
litti t or no perceived u»« - L
J4_ Songbirds
L-. Raptors
L^ Waterfowl
U" Marsh fit Shore birch
M Rodents tt IruectJvom
U Carnivores
L^ Unfuljiti
L Herpdles
t^ Fish
(_. Invertebrates
Criteria II (apply to entire, rroup)
1 6 S's or a 8 M's
3-5 S's or o-7 M'J
1-2 Si a 3-5 Ml
No Ss and, t 2 M'J
Calculated Score
Score
.10
-5
&
Cilcul.
ScQ/T-
I -
J-
5-
10-
Ratlnj Point Val
(Circle) "(circle)
Low Q)
Moderate -J
Hlrh -5
Except -10
7. flood Control at Storage (function of floodwaier proximity, wetland liie, vegeudve composition, and flow mtrlcrion; Appllei only to iltes within a
a discernible floodplaln [based on floodwaier proximity, flood deposits, F EMA maps, etc.); If does not apply, Point Value li 0.)
Wetland Sl?f
> S acres
1-5 acres
< 1 acre
(I Multiply 1)
-3
©
Flow Restriction
Outlet restricted or absent
Outlet unrestricted
Vetetative Compoiltlon
> 50% forested or Jhrub or combination
1 0-50% foretted or ihrub or combination
< 1 0% forested or shrub or combination
Calculated Score (A ♦ B)<
Olcul.
Radng Point Vol
Score -
(clrclel -(clrclel
0-
None -0
2-3-
Low • 1
4-8-
Moderate(«T)
I0-lo-
Hlih -5
17-
Except -10
8. Sediment Filtration and Wjter Purification (Function of proximity to potential sediment/pollutant jource and emenjent vegetative component)
•'♦llnood to Receive Sediment/Pollutants
.(unii j| xcumulationi evident or likely
Moderate accumulation! evident or likely
Accumuladom not evident and unlikely
(I Multiply 1)
Score Sxore
^0.5 t-
Calculated Score
Emergent Vetetative Component
> 50% emergtnt
10-50% emenjent
< 1 0% emenjent
_£
Cilcul. Ratine. Point VaJ
Score- (circle.) - (circle.)
,5-1.5- Low -I
2- J- Moderate -J
5- 10- High (mp
9. trotion Control (Flow or wave dissipation; applies only If lite b on ihorellne of lake [tubiect to wave action], river,
itream, or other defined drain**; If does not apply, Point Value is 0.)
Sire of Rooted Vetetative Component Score
> 5 acres -5
1-5 acres -3
< I acre - I
Calculated Score -
Cilcul.
Radng Point Val
Scgre-
(circle) -jdgle)
0-
None (£0^
1-
Low -1
J-
Moderau -3
5-
High -5
10. Nutrient Cvdint (Potential to accumulate, proceu, and export nutrients (expressed as organic matter].
(1 Multiply I)
Ort.wlc Matter Accumulation
Substantial accumulation evident
Lkde to no accumulation evident
Score
Score Proxlmlry to Other Aquadc Habiuts
3 • Adjacent or condfuous to other aquatic habitats
("T^ Isolated basin
Calculated Score - ^>
Olcul. Rating Point Val
Score- (circle) -(circle)
I- Low
3- Moderate 1
9. High -5
£>
1 1. Groundwater Diichame/Rechanzt
Wetland:
' . li a known discharge or recharge area
occun Immediately below a dam
C H a suipected discharge or recharge
Criteria
A, 8, or C true
-5
in* due to:
D. has *n outlet, but no Inlet
D true, all ochea false -3
A-P false. /O
Caicul. Radng Point V*
Score- (circle) -(e'rele
I- Low Q)
3 - ModerateiT
5- High -5
1 2. Uniqueneti (Function of relative abundance of wetland type In Montana and replacement potential of ecological function!.)
Frequency of Occurrence In Montana
Rare
Common
Abundant
(1 Multiply I)
Score
S-
&
Score
Replacement Potential
Irreplaceable ecological functions
Ecological functions replaceable with difficulty
Ecological functions readily replaceable
Calculated Score - "Z-*-"
Caicul.
Ridng Point Va
Score-
(circle) -(Circle
1-2-
LOW <m±J
34-
Moderau -3
9-10-
High -5
15-
Except -10
' J. Recreation/Education Potential (Subltctive assessment of potential for boating, hunting, blrdwitchlng, photognphy. md other reertadon/educadon
jctivitiet; remember to consider xcess restrictions,)
(1 Multiply I)
Recmrion Potential Score Score
High -3 5-
Moderate -2 3-
Lo» £) <0
Education Potential
High
Moderate
Low
Caicul. Radng Point V
Score- (circle) -jtlrrl
1-2- Low (£lJ
3-6- Moderate -3
Function K Value Summary and Overall Wetland Rating
for Wetland Slteft): Wt?Tli>jJD ^rAVUT^ \
Function K Value Parameters
Point Values
Ratings
1. Wetland Size
1
LDVJ
2. Habitat Diversity
_L
LD\ft)
3. Food Chain Support
/
U>\fiJ
4. T&E/Propojed/Candldate Species
Habitat
0
uo>Je?
5. MNHP Species Habitat
0
biOkig
6. General Fish K Wildlife Habitat
/
LOW
7. Flood Control fit Storage
3 ■
HOT?
8. Sediment Filtration
5"-
hi6rt
9. Erosion Control
0
wou^r-
10. Nutrient Cycling
3
Hop
1 1. Groundwater Discharge/Recharge
1
L&VJ
12. Uniqueness
i
LDVJ
13. Recreation/Education Potential
1
LV\rJ
TOTAL POINT VALUE
IB
Overall Wetland Rating (Circle appropriate category based on the criteria outlined below):
1 II III ny
Category 1 Wetland • Must satisfy one of the following criteria:
♦ Total Point Value of 65 or more; 2£
♦ "Exceptional" ratings for T&tE/Proposed/Candldate Species Habitat or Flood
Control fit Storage fir Uniqueness.
Category II Wetland - Does not satisfy criteria for Category 1 and:
♦ Total Point Value of 40 • 64; or
♦ "Exceptional" ratings for MNHP Species Habitat or General Wildlife tt Fish
Habitat; qt
♦ "High" ratings for Food Chain Support or Uniqueness.
Category 111 Wetland • Does not satisfy criteria for Category 1, Category II, or Category IV.
Category IV Wetland - Does not satisfy criteria for Category 1, Category II, or Category III and:
♦ Total Point Value less than 26; and
♦ "Low" ratings for Wetland Size and Habitat Diversity.
MDT WETLAND SITE EVALUATION FORM
(Revised June 22, 1 99A)
^ZtZmi -VttM* CA^VvJ Numb«n_J<^ ZfiZ " / (gJt 4
Evaluation Date: J2ZJ±£21 JWtoMorWi gCPMQJP I K&xJg' SlteName(s): l^gTLA^ "pAr/.R^ 2-tT
udmated Total Wetland SUe: > iD NWCZ Esdmated Su* Within Proposed ROW,
Conditions During Evaluation: 'PfZ-Tl^t' QUKjMV
Wtdind Classification (from MDT Wetland Classification Scheme)
Wicer Regime (e.g.,
Permanenfly Wooded)
IffegM Efcg^s^
Wedand Type (e.g., Mirth)
^€g£rf^T~h7^gffl
i^g^i ypvM 'fin^^i^z^^srMAi^M
Dominant Species
-Twh£; StivroS
-rmjujz
Modifier (e.g.. Impounded)
and/or Descriptor
Kipaz/mJ
ZAPWlftlJ
% of Wedand
?0 7c
-g0?o
Abundant
Wetland Type(s) h (art) lfifjllY. (drcle)t Rare g^wnmon}
trlff Descriptive Summary: VlVMlkJ UJgT7VWD ffJ SO^KB^ £&ggVg
functions and Values Assessment
I. Wedand Slie (All slie crlierii throughout the assessment refer to the slje of the entire wetland.)
Silt
> 10 acres
6 to 10 acres
1 to 5 acres
< I xre
-5
-3
.1
2. Hjfigai Diversity (function of wetland rype dvenlry and presence of open water component)
f of Wetland Typ«
(not Including ooen water (Ypeil
»3typ«
2typ«
* I type
(l Multiply 1)
Score Score
Open Water
Present
Absent
Calculated Score
.t>
3. Pood Chain Suppon (function of hablut diversity [HD] and wedand tiie)
wo Rating (i Multiply i)
,i HI afrYfi tea Jwi
low - 1 (jy
Moderate - 2 3 -
High (£P 1 -
Exceptional «4
Sju
> 5 acres
1-5 xret
< I acre
Calculated Score
zjzz.
4. Hablut for federally-fisted Endaniered. Threatened Proposed, or Candidate (CI Of C2) Specks
Wedand Becelvfst
Retular use by such species or Is detonated critical hablut
Occident uie (e.g.. Infrequent, sporadic use)
Incidental use (e.g., chance, Inconsequential use)
No known or suspected use
Score
-10
-5
CjIcuI. Ratine Point Value
SCOfT- (Circle) -(clrctel
I - Low -I
3. Moderate -3
S- High -^
10- Except ^0/
Calcul.
Rjtlnf Point VjI
Score -
(circle) -(circle)
1-
Low -1
2-3-
Moderate -3
5-4-
High (£p
10-
Except. -10
Gilcul. fcating Point Value
Score- (circle) - (circle)
1-2- Low -I
3-9- Moderate -3
10-15- High /^IP
20.
Except.
>10
•ihlut for Species Hn.d 'SIV 'it', c* •«' bv the Mony» jjajyfj! Herltaee Program (Not Including those addressed under *4 above.)
Wnljnd Provlorti
treectnt or other crucial hablut
Hablut (hat It used regularly
Hablut that Is used occasionally (e.g., Infrequent, sporadic use)
Hablut that is used Incldenully (e.g., chance, Inconsequential use) {jj/
No known or sutpected hablut ■ °
;core
-10
-5
-3
Calcul.
Ratlng
Point Value
Score -
0-
3-
S-
(circle)
None
Modera
High
-(circle)
-0
-S
10-
Except.
-10
under *M above.)
Calcul.
Radnr
Point Valu«
Scon?-
0-
1-
3-
(Circle) -Idrclj]
None -0
Low gp
Moderate -3
5-
10-
High
'Except
-S
-10
i. Ccnfr.ll Wildlife M Hih Habitat (Non-TME)
CrlierO I (apply to each group)
' untlil or significant use -S
clonal Of moderate use - M
litde or no perceived use = L
j4 Songbirds
U_ Raptors
U- Waterfowl
U Marsh U Shorebird*
M Rodents «( Insecdvores
_M Carnivores
M Ungulates
-g> Herpdle*
M Invertebrate^
Criteria II (apply to entire group)
a 6 S's or * 8 M's
J.S S#s or o-7 M's
1-2 S"$ or 3-5 M"s
No s'» and * 2 Hl
Calculated Score » -?
Jfore
-10
-5
aicui.
Point Valgt
- (circle)
I-
3-
$o
10-
Raung
(circle) •
LOW -I
Moderate £T)
High
Lxcepc.
. 5
.10
7. noo&BSSlV&nu (Funcdoo of noodwater proximity, wedand to, vegetadve condition, and now re^cdon, *»*"^£"££ '
TcttrnaM, Aoodplaln [based on noodwater proximity. Hood deposits, FEMA map,, etc.); If does not apply, Point V«fc* u 0.)
(I Multiply 1)
Wetland SlTf
> 5 acrei
1-5 acres
< I acre
How Restriction
Outlet restricted or absent
Outlet unrestricted
Veteutlve Composition
> 50% forested or shrub or comblnadon
1 0-50% forested or shrub or combination
< 1 0% forested or 5hrub or comblnadon
Calculated Score (A +
■)- it-
Cilcul.
Radnf
Point Valu
Score-
(circle!
■ (circle)
0-
None
-0
2-3-
Low
• 1
4-8-
I0-lo-
Moderate -3
High (-7)
17-
Except.
-to
8. cement Filtration and Water PurWcatlon (Function of proximity to po«nda) sediment/pollutant source and emergent vegetative component)
• ~«Hhood to Receive Sediment/Pollutants
.scandal accumulauons evident or likely
Moderate accumulations evident or likely
Accumuladont not evident and unlikely
(l Multlpty I)
-0.5 l -
Calculated Score
Emergent VeflUuve Component
> 50% emergent
|f>50% etneriem
< 10% emergent
G~
Calcul. Rating
Score- (Clrcjej
.5-1.5- Low
2-3- Moderate -
5-10- High
Point Vali
-Mult)
£>
9. Erosion Control (Flow or wave dissipation; applltt only If site is on shoreline of lake [sub|eci to wave acdonj, river,
stream, or other defined drainage; If does not apply. Point Value Is 0.)
Sire of Rooted Veteutlve Component
> 5 acres
1-5 acres
< I acre
XT
10. Nutrient Cycling (Potendal to accumulate, process, and export nutrients (expressed » ortanlc matter).)
Qn.inlc Miller Acrumulatipn
Substandal accumulation evident
Little to no accumulation evident
(I Multiply I)
Score Jgg Proximity to Qrher Aauadc Habitats
aQ ( ±J Adjacent or contiguous to other aquatic habitats
-1 ( s Isolated basin
Calculated Score -__/ ^_______
1 1. Groundwater Dischjrtf /Recharge
Werland:
' . Is a known discharge or recharge area
occurs Immediately below a dam
C is a suspected discharge or recharge
area due W.
D, has an outlet, but no Inlet
Criteria
A, 8, or C true
D true, all others false
A-D false.
Calcul. Rating Point Vali
Score- (circle) -(circle)
0- None -0
I - Low - 1
3- Moderate -3
5 . High r'-T
CaJcuL Radng Point Vali
Score- (circle) -(circle)
I - Low - 1
3- Moderate -J_
9- High /•* )
Calcul. Radng Point Val
Score- (circle) -(drclel
l . Low - 1
3- Moderate -i
5- High (^f)
1 2. Uniqueness (Function of relative abundance of wedand type In Montana and replxement potential of ecological functions.)
(1 Multiply I)
Frequency of Occurrence in Montana Score Score Replxement Potential
HJrt -3 5- Irreplaceable ecological functions
Common /£p /O Ecological functions replaceable with dlfflculty
Abon<Jwt .| 1- Ecological functions readily replaceable
Calculated Score - (/>
Calcul. Radng Point VaJ
Score- (circle) ■ fettle)
1-2- Low m)^\
J4- Moderate <-^ 7
9-10- High -T
15- Except. -10
• 3. Rerreadon/Educa.lon Potential (Sublecdve assessment of potendal for boating, hunting, birdwatchlng. photography, and other recreadon/educadon
actMiies; remember to consider access rwtrictlonj.)
(iMuldptyl)
Becrnrlon Potential Score Score
High -^
Moderately
Low -I
I-
F-ducatlon Potendal
High
Moderate
Low
u
Calcul. Radng Point V i
Score- (circled -(circle
1-2- Low ml
3-0- Moderate (£jy
915- High ^T
Function fit Value Summary and Overall Wetland Rating
for Wetland Sltc(t): (^K/VS CO^K \Aj£TlA*fc> ^ ^
Function fit Value Parameters
Point Values
Ratings
1. Wetland Size
10
e*C&PT~
2. Habitat Diversity
s~
Hl£rf
3. Food Chain Support
S
Hi&rf
4. TfitE/Proposed/Candldate Species
Habitat
3
MOV
5. MNHP Species Habitat
/
L-D^J
6. General Fish &c Wildlife Habitat
3
MOZ>
7. Flood Control fit Storage
cT
Ht&H
8. Sediment Filtration
5"
HI6H
9. Erosion Control
rT
H(6>H
10. Nutrient Cycling
5~
Hl&H
1 1 . Groundwater Discharge/Recharge
5~
Hi&rt
12. Uniqueness
3
f-/tor>
1 3. Recreation/Education Potential
5
HOP
TOTAL POINT VALUE
572
Overall Wetland Rating (Circle appropriate category based on the criteria outlined below):
I ZkT) III IV
Category 1 Wetland • Must satisfy one of the following criteria:
♦ Total Point Value of 65 or more; SL
♦ "Exceptional" ratings for TatE/Proposed/Candldaie Species Habitat or Flood
Control fit Storage 2£ Uniqueness.
Category II Wetland • Does not satisfy criteria for Category 1 md:
♦ Total Point Value of 40 • 64; or
♦ 'Exceptional* ratings for MNHP Species Habitat or General Wildlife fit Fish
Habitat; fir
♦ "High" ratings for Food Chain Support or Uniqueness.
Category III Wetland • Does not satisfy criteria for Category I, Category II, or Category IV.
Category IV Wetland - Does not satisfy criteria for Category 1, Category II, or Category III and.:
♦ Total Point Value less than 26; and
♦ "Low" ratings for Wetland Sire and Habitat Diversity.
MOT WETLAND SITE EVALUATION FORM
(Revised June 22, 1994)
Prat
l~t Name. fa?t/lK QttM^tL
Number:
, T^> 5BZ- - / C*)
fvihudon Pitt: ID -\4-S\'Z~ Evaluatorls): TZe&WO*Z?he'&rKi&' Site Namc(i)i lAJSTLP^Jry *=>?\M?Lg 3
Esdm>ted Total Wetland Slit; 3 A^tZ-fc^ _
Condldont Purine Evaluation. t7T7-TL'1(' 6l O UPf
Jidmated She Within Proposed ROW._
Wedand Classification (from MPT Wetland Classification Scheme)
Water Retime (e.f.,
I Perroanendy flooded)
temP fasvogo
rf&nv ^i^nr?rv
Wetland Type (e.g., Mann)
ggfZfc?fry2 vezjwa*>
gHgp^fc^T MA<?</f
Wedand Type(j) U (art) locally (drcle)t Rare Atommorr' Abundant
/Common'
Dominant Species
P0vo\aj5 iver*\Ajcia*-
V\r(KLN?lJ> SWWtvfc/A
Modifier (e.g., Impounded)
and/or Descriptor
^/PA^/AA/-
BtLHUhWO V[7CJ(
% of Wetland
&c%
tO^O
ertef D«criPti»e Summaiyq&g j± h &2%gSIB2lk!E2&t££D& 5^A^r "2t&31GJ£2£J£S.
! uncdoru and Value* Assessment
1 . Wedand Sl»e (All the criteria throughout the atteiiment refer to the ll:e of the entire wetland.)
Sit
> 10 acres
6 to lOacrtt
1 to J acres
< I acre
ten
-10
-1
Calcul. Rating Point Value
Score- Idrtle) -(circle)
I m LOW m I
3- Moderate^T)
5- High -5
10- Except. -10
I 2. habitat OlvenlCY (function of wedand rype diversity and pretence of open water component)
» of Wetland Typet
(not Includlne ooen water typei)
a 3 types
2cyp«
t I type
(I Multiply 1)
Score Score
-5 2-
Open Water
Present
Absent
Calculated Score
i=-2.
Calcul.
Ratlng Point Value
Score -
(circle) -(circle)
1 -
Low -1
2-3-
Moderately1
5-6-
High -S
10-
Except. - 1 0
3. Pood Chain Support (Funcdon of habitat divenity [HD] and wedand lize)
M0 Radng (I Multiply i)
■' U '»**<' tea issts
Low - 1 S-
Moderate ^p <5"
High
Exceptional
-3
-4
1<
sja
> 5 acres
1-5 acres
< 1 acre
Calculated Score - (y
Calcul. Riling Point Value
Score- (circle! - (circle)
1-2- Low -I
3-9- Moderate £j)
10-15- High -5
20- Except -10
■4. Habitat for Federally-listed Endantered. Threatened. Proposed, or Candidate (CI Of C2) Species
Wetland 8ecflvett
Regular use by such species or Is designated critical habitat
Occasional use (e.g.. In/refluent, sporadic use)
Incidental use (e.g., chance, Inconsequential use)
No known or suspected use
Score
-10
-5
Calcul.
Score-
0-
3-
5-
10-
Radng Point Value
(circle) -(circle)
None -0
Moderat^J)
High -5
Except -10
•>fe!ai
for Species Rated 'Si V 'St', or 'S3' by the Montana Natural Herltaee Program (Not Including those addressed under #4 above.)
Wetland Provloest
treeding or other crucial habitat
Habitat that Is used regularly
Habitat that Is used occasionally (e.g., Infrequent, sporadic use)
Habitat that is used Incidentally (e.g.. chance, Inconsequential use)
No known or suspected habitat
Score
-10
&>
-1
-0
Calcul. Radng Point Value
Score*
0-
I-
3-
5-
10-
Klrck) -(circle)
None -0
Low -I
Moderate<f£)
High - S
•Except -10
4. CtntiJ WMtift K Flih Habitat (Non-TME)
Criteria I (apply to IKS grow)
' undal or significant uj« - $
.olonal or moderate use - M
little or no perceived me » L
i.d- Songbirds
V _ Raptors
IS Waterfowl
t^ Marsh «i ShoreWrds
fM Rodents M InsectJvores
f-/\ Carnivores
£\ Unfuljtti
U H«rpdl«
u nth
U^- Invertebrates
Criteria II (apply 'Q entire troup)
i 6 S'j of i 8 M'J
3-5 S's or 6-7 M"t
1-2 Ss or 3-5 Ms
No s'j and » 2 m'j
Score
.10
• 1
Olculaced Score
-.Ji.
Calcul.
S<2S"
I-
3-
5 =
10-
RaUng Point Vaiu?
(Circle) -'drcltl
Low "I
Moderau {])
High -5
Except - 10
7. ^ConrrCK Stor.ee (Function of Ooodwater proximity, wedand site, vegetative composition, and How r^cdon, ^"^ *» T* JJ ?
TSwmW, noodplaln (bawd on floodwaur proximity, flood deposits, FEMA maps, eu.); If doe, not apply, Point Value U 0.)
(i Multiply 1)
Wetland Site
> S acre}
1-5 acres
< I acre
Score
-5
&
.1
Flow Restriction
Outlet mtrlcud or absent
Outlet unrestricted
Score
2-
I-
Score
-2
Veteutlve Composition
> 50% forested or shrub or combination
1 0-50% forested or shrub or combination
< I C>% foroUd or shrub or combination
Calculated Score (A ♦ B)- \0
Gilcul.
Score-
0-
2-3-
4-8-
10-16-
17-
Radng
(clrclel
None
Low
Point VjIu-
■tSJSfcl
-0
-I
Moderate -3
Win (£p
Except. -10
8. W.mentnitrati™ and Water Purification (Function of proximity to potential sediment/pollutant source and emergent vegeUdve component)
•* «llhood to Receive Sediment/Pollutants
.lundal xcumulauons evident or likely
Moderate accumulations evident or llkety
Accumulations not evident and unlikely
(I Multiply I)
Score Score
-2 dj
tfp 3-
-0.5 1 -
Calculated Score
Emergent Vegetative Component
> 50% emergent
10-50% emenent
< 10% emergent
-2
9. Erosion Control (Flow or wave dissipation; applies only If site is on shoreline of lake [sub|ect to wave aedonj, river,
stream, or other defined drainage; If does not apply, Point Value is 0.)
Sire of Rooted Veteudve Component
> 5 acre j
i-5 acres
< I acre
Score
-5
-3
-I
Calculated Score
Calcul.
Ratlng
Point Vaiu
Score-
IcJrsM
-(clrclt)
.5-1.5-
Low
-1
2-3-
5-10-
Moderate -I
Hlfh /^5)
Calcul.
Radng
Point Vali
Score «
0-
(circle)
None
-(circle)
1-
Low
•1
3-
Moderau -3
5-
Hlch
-5
10. Nutrient Cycling (Potential 10 accumulate, process, and export nutrient* [expressed * organic marterj.)
Organic Matter Accumulation
Substantial accumulation evident
Little to no accumulation evident
(1 Multiply I)
Score Score Proximity to Other Aauadc Habitats
-3 3- AdLKent or contifuoui » other aquatic habluu
£p Qp Isolated bosln
Calculated Score - I
Calcul. Rating Point Vali
Score- (circle) ■(circle)
I. Low &J
3. Moderau -3
9- High -5
) I. Groundwater Discharge/Recharge
Wetland:
• . Is a known discharge or re charge area
occurs Immediately below a dam
C. ii a suspected discharge or recharge
area due ten
Criteria
A, 8, or C true
D true, all others false
A-D false.
Scot*
■ 5
-3
Cakul. Rating Point Vali
Score- Mrc'f. -(circle)
I . LOW (m\)
3- Moderate -3
5. High -5
D. has an outlet, but no Inlet
1 2. Unlauenest (Function of relative abundance of wetland type In Montana and replacement potential of ecological functions.)
Frequency of Occurrence In Montana
Rare
Common
Abundant
(t Multiply I)
Score Score
-3 5-
@ J
I
Replacement Potential
Irreplaceable ecological functions
Ecological functions replaceable with difficulty
(\j) Ecological functions readily replaceable
Calculated Score - ^-
Calcul. Raring Point Vali
Score- (circle) -(circle)
1-2- Low
3-6- Moderate
9-10- High -5
IS- Except. -10
t -1
• 3. ^adon/Fduratlon Potential (Sublective assessment of potential for boating, hunting, birdwatchlng. photography, and other recreation/education
activities; remember to consider access restrictions.)
(1 Multiply 1)
Berrfsrlon Potential Score Score
High -3 5-
Moderate -2 Q/
Low £p
1-
Educatlon Potential
High
Moderau
Low ^
Calculated Score -~2_
CalcuL Radng Point Va
Score- fclrcle) -(clrclt
1-2- Low -I
34- Modtrau(£j/
9-15- Hlrh -5
Function K Value Summary and Overall Wetland Hating
for Wetland Sltefs); \M?flAl>Jp ^f/lpLg ^3
Function a. Value Parameters
Point Values
Ratings
1. Wetland She
Z>
^Dt?
2. Habitat Diversity
3
M£>P
3. Food Chain Support
3
HOV
4. TfitE/Proposed/Candldate Species
Habitat
3
HOV
5. MNHP Species Habitat
3
MOV
6. General Fish fit Wildlife Habitat
3
Mop
7. Flood Control fit Storage
5~
H[&H
8. Sediment Filtration
5~
Hihtl
9. Erosion Control
0
UCP€
10. Nutrient Cycling
(
UduJ
1 1 . Groundwater Discharge/Recharge
1
U>uJ
12. Uniqueness
J_
uouJ
13. Recreation/Education Potential
3
MOT?
TOTAL POINT VALUE
34-
Overall Wetland Rating (Circle appropriate category based on the criteria outlined below):
1 II fill) IV
Category 1 Wetland • Must satisfy one of the following criteria:
♦ Total Point Value of 65 or more; pi
♦ "Exceptional* ratings for T&E/Proposed/Candldate Species Habitat or Flood
Control fit Storage fir Uniqueness.
Category II Wetland • Does not satisfy criteria for Category 1 ajjd.:
♦ Total Point Value of 40 • 64; or
♦ "Exceptional" ratings for MNHP Species Habitat or General Wildlife fit Fish
Habitat; 21
♦ "High" ratings for Food Chain Support or Uniqueness.
Category III Wetland - Does not satisfy criteria for Category 1, Category II, or Category IV.
Category IV Wetland - Does not satisfy criteria for Category 1, Category II, or Category III aod:
♦ Total Point Value leu than 26; and
♦ "Low" ratings for Wetland Size and Habltai Diversity.
Hearth OifOXop^
Function fit Value Summary and Overall Wetland Rating
for Wetland Sited): WbTlAlOP ^Nf/lPLg ^3
Function fit Value Parameters
Point Values
Ratings
1. Wetland Size
Z
^KOV
2. Habitat Diversity
3
M£P
3. Food Chain Support
3
HOV
4. TfitE/Proposed/Candldate Species
Habitat
3
HOV
5. MNHP Species Habitat
•3
Mov
6. General Fish fit Wildlife Habitat
3
Hop
7. Flood Control fit Storage
5~
H[&H
8. Sediment Filtration
5"
Hibtl
9. Erosion Control
0
/U/?*J£
10. Nutrient Cycling
(
LojaJ
1 1 . Groundwater Discharge/Recharge
1
u>uJ
12. Uniqueness
_L
uooJ
13. Recreation/Education Potential
3
M£>£>
TOTAL POINT VALUE
3-r
Overall Wetland Rating (Circle appropriate category based on the criteria outlined below):
1 II (ill) IV
Category 1 Wetland • Must satisfy one of the following criteria:
♦ Total Point Value of 65 or more; pi
♦ "Exceptional" ratings for TfitE/Proposed/Candldate Species Habitat or Flood
Control fit Storage oi Uniqueness.
Category II Wetland • Does not satisfy criteria for Category 1 and.:
♦ Total Point Value of 40 - 64; or
♦ "Exceptional" ratings for MNHP Species Habitat or General Wildlife fit Fish
Habitat; o_r
♦ "High" ratings for Food Chain Support or Uniqueness.
Category III Wetland - Does not satisfy criteria for Category 1, Category 11, or Category IV.
Category IV Wetland - Does not satisfy criteria for Category 1, Category II, or Category III and.:
♦ Total Point Value less than 26; and
♦ "Low" ratings for Wetland Slie and Habitat Diversity.
'
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11