The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About9b NWX COB DRC Wetland Worksht 12-30-19 ______________________________________________________________________________________ 1 City of Bozeman Development Review Conformance: Wetland and Watercourse Regulations Worksheet Project: Northwest Crossing Subdivision Conformance Review by: Lynn Bacon, PWS, TerraQuatic, LLC Date Received: 12/19/19 Date Review Completed: 12/30/19 ______________________________________________________________________________________ The following worksheet was compiled by TerraQuatic (TQ), LLC from the City of Bozeman, Chapter 38 Unified Development Code*. The worksheet is compiled of city wetland and watercourse regulations and designed to expedite analysis of development review conformance. Most regulation descriptions were condensed for the purposes of brevity and analysis. All references to wetlands and watercourses in other Articles or regulations may not be included in this document because of redundancy. Responses of “yes” or “no” in the “Answer” column do not necessarily imply noncompliance. To indicate compliance, a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer is in black font; unknown or noncompliance findings are in red font. Blue font indicates a response that must be made by the city review authority and may have no bearing on aquatic resource regulation conformance. Quick-summary reference tables have an orange heading to assist the city with expedient conformance analysis; gray headings are detailed regulation tables. ARTICLE 19. – PLAN REVIEW. Section 38.19.090 – Plan Review Procedures Answer Comments D. Step 3 Review of Applications Acceptability and adequacy of application 1. [Paragraph 2] After the application is deemed to contain the required elements and to be acceptable, it shall be reviewed for adequacy. A determination of adequacy means the application contains all of the required elements in sufficient detail and accuracy to enable the review authority to make a determination that the application either does or does not conform to the requirements of this chapter and any other applicable regulations under the jurisdiction of the city. TQ: Does the submittal adequately contain all elements in accordance with city wetland and watercourse regulations? No See attached analysis summary letter and items in red below. Abbreviations: TQ: TerraQuatic (Lynn Bacon) ARTICLE 19. – PLAN REVIEW. Section 38.19.100 – Plan Review Criteria Answer Comments A. In considering applications for plan approval under this chapter, the review authority and advisory bodies shall consider the following criteria. 3. Conformance with all other applicable laws, ordinances and regulations. TQ: Does the submittal conform with city wetland and watercourse regulations? No See attached analysis summary letter and items in red below. Abbreviations: TQ: TerraQuatic (Lynn Bacon); USACE-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers * https://www.municode.com/library/mt/bozeman/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH38UNDECO, site accessed March 13, 2017. Northwest Crossing Subdivision December 30, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________________________ 2 ARTICLE 30. – WETLAND REGULATIONS Section 38.30.080 – Review Standards Answer Comments A. Review authority may approve, conditionally approve, or deny an activity in a regulated wetland. --- (See complete 38.30.080 table below for complete analysis of this regulation.) 1. Has the applicant demonstrated all adverse wetland impacts have been avoided? No Four Baxter Ditch crossings are excessive. 2. Has the applicant demonstrated that adverse impacts have been minimized (re: function, TES, SOC)? No 3. Has the applicant demonstrated that the project is in the public interest, having considered and documented: Unknown Abbreviations: TQ: TerraQuatic (Lynn Bacon); USACE-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ARTICLE 42. – DEFINITIONS Section 38.42.3220 – Watercourse Answer Comments Any stream, river, creek, drainage, waterway, gully, ravine or wash in which some or all of the water is naturally occurring, such as runoff or springs, and which flows either continuously or intermittently and has a definite channel, bed and banks, and includes any area adjacent thereto subject to inundation by reason of overflow. In the event of a braided or other multiple channel configuration of a watercourse, the area of the watercourse shall be that area lying between the two outermost high-water marks, as defined in this chapter. The term "watercourse" shall not be construed to mean any facility created exclusively for the conveyance of irrigation water or stormwater. Yes There are three (3) streambeds within the project site, only two were separately and partially discussed in the report. ARTICLE 42. – DEFINITIONS Section 38.42.3240. – Wetland Answer Comments A. Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions, and meet the established criteria (dominance of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, positive hydrologic criteria). Yes Incomplete: wetlands within 50 feet beyond the project boundary have not been identified (if there are none, state as such). Northwest Crossing Subdivision December 30, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________________________ 3 ARTICLE 23. – DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Section 38.23.100. – Watercourse Setback Answer Comments A. Does the development cross a watercourse? 1. Was the development granted preliminary plan or plat approval BEFORE 7/10/2002? No a. Required Setbacks: - East Gallatin-100ft; - All Other Watercourses – 35 ft; - (1) Area immediately adjacent to the OHWM left in natural vegetative state: - (a) East Gallatin: 50 ft - (b) All Other Watercourses: 5 ft - (2) No fence, residential or commercial structure, fill material, parking, other similar improvements shall be located within required watercourse setbacks. - (3) All watercourse setbacks shall be measured from the OHWM. If indiscernible, setbacks shall be measured from the top of the streambank. 2. Was the development granted preliminary plan or plat approval AFTER 7/10/2002? - a. & b. Has the developer appealed or applied for any variances pertaining to watercourse setbacks? c. Setbacks on both sides of watercourse: (1) East Gallatin River: 100 ft DNA (2) Sourdough Creek: 75 ft DNA (3) Other Watercourses: 50 ft Yes There are three, only two were differentiated; this issue requires resolution. (4) Setback Extensions: (a) setback shall extend to delineated 100-year floodplain if larger than 2.c. setbacks; Unknown Floodplain boundary not provided on watercourse setback maps; this issue requires resolution. (b) setback shall be extended by the width of immediately adjacent fringe wetlands; Unknown Unknown if all setback areas have been preserved (e.g. no buildings or other hardscape) along all three stream channels. Unknown where stormwater facilities will be located relative to setback zones. (c) area of slope greater than 33% shall not be counted towards setback requirement; and, Unknown (d) setback shall extend 50 ft beyond the perimeter of connected wetlands. Unknown Unknown if there are wetlands within 50 feet beyond the property boundary. (5) All watercourse setbacks shall be measured from the OHWM. If indiscernible, setbacks shall be measured from the top of the streambank. DNA All watercourses include a wetland fringe. d. No fence, residential or commercial structure, fill material, parking, other similar improvements shall be located within required watercourse setbacks, unless approved through, and in conformance with, a variance or deviation process. Unknown Zone lines are difficult to read on design maps; improve drawings. e. Exceptions (setback zones): Zone 1: 60% of the area closest to OHWM; Zone 2: 40% of area furthest from OHWM -- Northwest Crossing Subdivision December 30, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________________________ 4 ARTICLE 23. – DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Section 38.23.100. – Watercourse Setback Answer Comments (1) Zone 2: On-site stormwater facilities; Unknown SW facilities in Baxter Creek vicinity not well (or at all) illustrated on submitted maps. Unknown if SW facilities are proposed for the unnamed stream channels along west property boundary. (2) Trails and trail-related improvements (a) Zone 2: trails, signage, benches Yes Trails are located within Zone 2. (b) Zone 1: limited non-looping spur trails to the water’s edge, interpretative signs, benches at terminus; No Maps do not illustrate this is the case. (c) Zone 1 special circumstances (topography, avoidance of wetlands, other constraints: <300% watercourse setback per 500LF watercourse (includes spurs, etc, and applies per side) No (d) Sedimentation, bank instability, pollution runoff, etc minimized? Unknown Unknown if an NOI or SWPPP has been submitted. (e) Crossings allowed in all zones, must have all applicable local, state, federal permits. No There are four (4) proposed Baxter Ditch crossings and no crossings have been proposed for the unnamed systems along the west property boundary. Four crossings appear excessive. Are culverts proposed through trail fill areas that cross watercourse wetland fringe (especially where width exceeds 15 feet)? Culverts preserve wetland hydrology and allow floodwater to pass under trail berm to supply water to downstream floodplain wetlands. Unknown if crossings are proposed for unnamed stream channel along west property boundary. (3) Streets, sidewalks, utility crossings (a) minimized? No Three (3) Baxter Ditch trail crossings is excessive. Unknown if crossings will be proposed through unnamed stream channels along west boundary. (b) crossings at 90 degrees where feasible? Yes (c) crossings withstand 100-year flood event? Unknown Information/mapping of floodplain lines is required. (d) grading and drainage designed to prevent untreated stormwater from entering watercourse? Unknown Information/mapping required. (e) bank stabilization plan approved by the City for all crossings? Unknown Information/mapping required. (4) Stormwater treatment facilities may pass through all zones, are all pertinent permits acquired to discharge to a watercourse? Unknown Information/mapping required. (5) Is there a noxious weed control program in place (acceptable in all zones)? Unknown Information/mapping required. f. Setback Planting: submitted and approved by City planning department (including schedule and plantings indicated on plan)? ___ (1) Zone 1: 100% of area shall be planted with native new or existing grass/forb species; 1 shrub/10ft; and 1 tree/30ft. No No planting plan submitted for any of the three stream courses. (2) Zone 2: new or existing grass species. No Species not submitted. Northwest Crossing Subdivision December 30, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5 ARTICLE 23. – DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Section 38.23.100. – Watercourse Setback Answer Comments (3) Will setback zones be maintained? Is planting zone irrigated or woody species fenced? If so, quantities may be reduce to 1 shrub/20 ft, 1 tree/60 ft. [(4) Note: there are no size requirements.] No Plan not submitted, unknown if plantings will be irrigated. (5) Was the site seeded as soon as was feasible to prevent noxious weed invasion and soil erosion? Unknown Site not under construction to date. (6) Where all plants/seeds native to Gallatin Valley? Unknown Naturalized to the Gallatin Valley is acceptable. (7) Were native species used in all disturbed areas (crossings. trails, utilities)? Unknown Naturalized to the Gallatin Valley is acceptable. g. Were any other areas in zone 1 or 2 disturbed other than those above in 2.e. and f. of this section? Unknown Site not under construction to date. 3. Other Provisions: a. Were watercourse setbacks depicted on preliminary and final plats and plans? Yes Requires bolder lines/ or hatching to increase visibility and analysis of setback regulation adherence. b. Does the site include agricultural activities, which have not been abandoned for >180 days? Unknown Abbreviations: COB-City of Bozeman; DNA-Does Not Apply; OHWM-Ordinary High Water mark; NA-Not available ARTICLE 30. – WETLAND REGULATIONS Section 38.30.010. – Title and Applicability Answer Comment The City of Bozeman’s regulations pertain to direct hydrologic connection to “waters of the U.S.” (those wetlands that connect to a federally-regulated stream or river directly or via a series or watercourse, wetlands or ditches), and also to isolated wetlands with no direct connection to a water of the U.S. and exhibit positive wetland indicators for all three wetland parameters. The provisions contained in these regulations do not apply to wetlands created by a wholly manmade water source used for irrigation purposes or stormwater control. Yes Unknown All features within the property boundary are jurisdictional. It is unknown if aquatic features occur within 50 feet beyond the property boundary; this issue requires attention. Are there wetlands within the proposed project area that are known jurisdictional wetlands? If so, list identification/Cowardin type. Yes Riverine; dominant wetland fringe is emergent; this information is important to planting plan issues. Are there wetlands within the proposed project area that are known nonjurisdictional wetlands? If so, list identification /Cowardin type. No Unknown if wetlands within 50 feet outside of the property boundary exist, and if so, if they would qualify as nonjurisdictional. A. Were wetlands discovered during the development review process? Yes Abbreviations: COB-City of Bozeman; DNA-Does Not Apply; OHWM-Ordinary High Water mark; WL-wetland; USACE-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Northwest Crossing Subdivision December 30, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6 ARTICLE 30. – WETLAND REGULATIONS Section 38.30.030. – Application of Wetland Regulations Answer Comment A. Were wetlands (as defined by Section 38.42.3240) discovered during the development review process? Yes 1. Was a delineation conducted according to the 1987 and 2010 USACE manuals? Yes 2. Did a qualified professional conduct the delineation? Unknown Author of report not stated. B. Are the isolated wetlands < 400 sqft? If so they are exempt, unless: Unknown An NWI wetland area in the east half of the site was not examined (or was and not discussed in the report). Areas outside and within 50 feet of the boundary were not investigated (if they occur, they may potentially be nonjurisdictional). 1. Does the wetland provides habitat for TES? Unknown 2. Does the wetland provides habitat for state SOC or under review by the state? Unknown C. Have the setback requirements of 38.23.100 been addressed? No See above. D. Does this Article repeal, abrogate, etc and existing laws or deed restrictions? Unknown Does this Article impose more stringent restrictions that those already imposed on the property? Unknown Does this Article impose more stringent restrictions than the USACE under the 404 CWA? Unknown Abbreviations: COB-City of Bozeman; DNA-Does Not Apply; OHWM-Ordinary High Water mark; CWA-Clean Water Act; WL-wetland; USACE-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; TES-Threatened Endangered Species (Federally-listed); SOC-Species of Concern (State-listing) ARTICLE 30. – WETLAND REGULATIONS Section 38.30.050. – Wetlands Determinations Answer Comment A. Wetland boundaries are determined in accordance with Federal manuals? Yes B. Electronic and printed delineation report and raw data (if required) provided to the COB by the developer? No Incomplete: see analysis letter for required edits to the report. Abbreviations: COB-City of Bozeman; DNA-Does Not Apply; OHWM-Ordinary High Water mark ARTICLE 30. – WETLAND REGULATIONS Section 38.30.060. – Regulated Activities Answer Comment A. No regulated activities shall occur within a wetland (Sec.30.010) without approval by the review authority. Will any of the following activities (but not limited to) occur and reduce the size, or decrease the function of a wetland: --- 1. Placement of any materials (sand, gravel, organic material, water)? Yes Four crossings are proposed for Baxter Ditch. No designs have been proposed for the two stream channels along the west boundary. 2. Construction, installation, placement of any structure (trail, building, boardwalks, etc)? Yes See above. 3. Removal, dredging, etc. of any materials? Yes See above. 4. Removal of existing vegetation? Yes See above. 5. Alteration of water table? Yes See above. 6. Alteration of drainage patterns, flood retention, change in topography, etc. by any means? Yes See above. [B. Allowed activities, 1-10: maintenance if activity does not alter wetland size or function: weed control, road/utility maintenance, ag practices, outdoor rec, scientific/education, pruning, mowing, debris removal, etc.] Unknown Abbreviations: COB-City of Bozeman; DNA-Does Not Apply; OHWM-Ordinary High Water mark; WL-wetland Northwest Crossing Subdivision December 30, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________________________ 7 ARTICLE 30. – WETLAND REGULATIONS Section 38.30.060. – Regulated Activities Answer Comment ARTICLE 30. – WETLAND REGULATIONS Section 38.30.070. – Application Requirements and Procedures for Activities in Wetland Areas Answer Comment A. Review. All proposals shall be reviewed by review authority, and --- A functional assessment prepared for all wetlands. No C. Submittal Materials. Have all materials as required by 38.41.130 been submitted? No Abbreviations: COB-City of Bozeman; DNA-Does Not Apply; OHWM-Ordinary High Water mark; TBD-To Be Determined ARTICLE 30. – WETLAND REGULATIONS Section 38.30.080. – Review Standards Answer Comment A. Review authority may approve, conditionally approve, or deny an activity in a regulated wetland. --- 1. Has the applicant demonstrated all adverse wetland impacts have been avoided? No 2. Has the applicant demonstrated that adverse impacts have been minimized (re: function, TES, SOC)? No 3. Has the applicant demonstrated that the project is in the public interest, having considered and documented: No a. The extent of the public need for the proposed regulated activity; No b. The functions and values as determined by a state accepted method of functional assessment of the wetland that may be affected by the proposed regulated activity; No c. The extent and permanence of the adverse effects of the regulated activity on the wetland and any associated watercourse; No d. The cumulative adverse effects of past activities on the wetland; and No e. The uniqueness or scarcity of the wetland that may be affected. No Abbreviations: COB-City of Bozeman; DNA-Does Not Apply; OHWM-Ordinary High Water mark; TBD-To Be Determined; TES-Threatened Endangered Species (Federally-listed); Species of Concern (State-listing); SOC-Species of Concern (State-listing) ARTICLE 30. – WETLAND REGULATIONS Section 38.30.100. – Appeals Answer Comment Depending upon the application procedure involved, decisions related to the approval or denial of regulated activities proposed for regulated wetland areas may be appealed in accordance with the provisions of article 35 of this chapter. No Not to date. Abbreviations: COB-City of Bozeman; DNA-Does Not Apply; OHWM-Ordinary High Water mark; TBD-To Be Determined ARTICLE 30. – WETLAND REGULATIONS Section 38.41.130. – Submittal Materials for Regulated Activities in Wetlands Answer Comment A. Required submittal materials: --- 1. Has a wetland and watercourse delineation been submitted to the COB if aquatic resources are present? If no resources, has a letter been submitted stating that no resources occur within the subject property? Yes See analysis letter delineation report deficiencies. a. If resources, does the delineation report include the following information: Northwest Crossing Subdivision December 30, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________________________ 8 ARTICLE 30. – WETLAND REGULATIONS Section 38.41.130. – Submittal Materials for Regulated Activities in Wetlands Answer Comment (1) aquatic resource descriptions; No Incomplete regarding number of stream channels and their descriptions, NWI investigation, and potential wetland areas 50 ft beyond the property boundary. (2) Functional assessments; No (3) Wetland type (e.g. Cowardin, HGM); Yes Fringe area (emergent) should be discussed or included in “Riparian” designation. (4) Wetland acreages; Unknown Unknown if wetland acreages include streambed area (should not); confirm acreages. (5) Maps: property boundaries, wetland, watercourse boundaries and acreages; No See analysis letter regarding delineation map deficiencies. (6) USACE data forms. Yes 2. If activities are planned in and/or adjacent to aquatic resources, is the following information included?: --- a. A site plan with the following: property boundary; aquatic resource boundaries; buffer boundaries; wetland functional ratings; linear feet of all watercourses; existing and proposed structures, roads, trails, easements; No Incomplete. (1) Direct acreage impacts to all aquatic resources; acreages for all buffers; JD status; mitigation acreages; No No environmental applications have been submitted to date. (2) Summary of all indirect impacts (dewatering, shading from boardwalks, etc); No b. Map of mitigation areas and buffers with corresponding table of acreages, functional assessment gain; DNA c. Source, type, transport, disposal of fill materials; No No environmental applications have been submitted to date. d. Names and addresses of property owners within 200 ft of subject property; No No environmental applications have been submitted to date. (1) Copies of 404 and 401 permits; No No environmental applications have been submitted to date. (2) Copies of 310 Permits; No (3) Floodplain determinations; No (4) All other state, federal permits pertaining to wetlands; No No environmental applications have been submitted to date. (5) USACE JD determinations; No No environmental applications have been submitted to date. (6) All other state joint applications. No No environmental applications have been submitted to date. 3. If there are unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional and city-regulated wetlands, the submittal must include the following: --- a. Was a compensatory mitigation report submitted? The mitigation proposal should include following: No Not to date; unknown if mitigation will be required. If onsite mitigation is conducted, the following information would be required. (1) Applicant contact information; report author contact info; summary of indirect and direct impacts; proposed mitigation concept; identification of required permits; project vicinity map; (See above.) (2) Description of existing aquatic resources; surveys; FA; (See above.) (3) Assessment of changes to wetland hydroperiod, how to minimize; (See above.) (4) Description and map of mitigation and buffer areas; (See above.) (5) Assessment of existing conditions in area of proposed mitigation (veg, soil, hydroperiod, wetland functions); (See above.) Northwest Crossing Subdivision December 30, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________________________ 9 ARTICLE 30. – WETLAND REGULATIONS Section 38.41.130. – Submittal Materials for Regulated Activities in Wetlands Answer Comment (6) Field data to support #5 above; (See above.) (7) Planting schedule by community type, hydrologic regime, size, species plant materials, plant spacing, quantities, hydrologic requirements and measures taken to support, weed control, plant protection (e.g. fencing) [80% of seeded or planted must be native species]; (See above.) (8) Mitigation monitoring must be at least 3 years and an invasive vegetation management plan must be in place; (See above.) (9) Mitigation performance criteria for wetlands and buffers must state specific goals and timing; (See above.) (10) Contingency plans must be clearly stated in the event mitigation criteria goals and timing are not met. (See above.) b. Scaled plan sheets must include the following: ---- (1) Existing and proposed aquatic resource impacts and mitigation boundaries; (See above.) (2) Surveyed topography at 1- to 2-ft intervals and cross-sections of proposed mitigation aquatic resources and buffers; (See above.) (3) Required buffers for existing and mitigation aquatic resources. (See above.) c. Discussion of management practices that will protect and maintain nonimpacted and mitigation aquatic resources and their buffers. (See above.) Abbreviations: COB-City of Bozeman; DNA-Does Not Apply; OHWM-Ordinary High Water mark; TBD-To Be Determined; JD-USACE Jurisdictional; CWA-Clean Water Act; FA-functional assessments; WL-wetland; USACE-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; TQ-TerraQuatic ARTICLE 41. – SUBMITTAL MATERIALS AND REQUIREMENTS Section 38.41.020. – Streambed, Streambank, and/or Wetland Permits Answer Comment A. Environmental permitting requirements, copies of permits, or communications indicating said permit is not required (concerning wetlands or watercourses). --- 1. Montana Stream Protection Act (SPA 124 Permit). Administered by the Habitat Protection Bureau, Fisheries Division, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. No Not to date. 2. Stormwater discharge general permit. Administered by the water quality bureau, state department of environmental quality. No Not to date. 3. Montana Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act (310 Permit). Administered by the board of supervisors, county conservation district. No Not to date. 4. Montana Floodplain and Floodway Management Act (Floodplain Development Permit). Administered by the city engineering department. No Not to date. 5. Federal Clean Water Act (404 Permit). Administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. No Not to date. 6. Federal Rivers and Harbors Act (Section 10 Permit). Administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. No Not to date. 7. Short-term Water Quality Standard for Turbidity (318 Authorization). Administered by state department of environmental quality. No Not to date. Northwest Crossing Subdivision December 30, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________________________ 10 ARTICLE 41. – SUBMITTAL MATERIALS AND REQUIREMENTS Section 38.41.020. – Streambed, Streambank, and/or Wetland Permits Answer Comment 8. Montana Water Use Act (Water Right Permit and Change Authorization). Administered by the water rights bureau, state department of natural resources and conservation. --- Abbreviations: USACE-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; DEQ- MT Department of Environmental Quality Other important regulations to consider during project conformance analysis: ARTICLE 41. – SUBMITTAL MATERIALS AND REQUIREMENTS Section 38.30.090. – Wetland Permits Conditions A. The review authority may recommend conditions of approval for proposed regulated activities, and the city may conditionally approve proposed regulated activities, subject to the following conditions: 1. Requiring the provision of a wetland buffer of a size appropriate for the particular proposed activity and the particular regulated wetland area; 2. Requiring that structures be appropriately supported and elevated and otherwise protected against natural hazards; 3. Modifying waste disposal and water supply facilities; 4. Requiring deed restrictions or covenants regarding the future use and subdivision of lands, including but not limited to the preservation of undeveloped areas as open space and restrictions on vegetation removal; 5. Restricting the use of an area, which may be greater than the regulated wetland area; 6. Requiring erosion control and stormwater management measures; 7. Clustering structures or development; 8. Restricting fill, deposit of soil and other activities which may be detrimental to a wetland; 9. Modifying the project design to ensure continued water supply to the regulated wetland; and 10. Requiring or restricting maintenance of a regulated wetland area for the purpose of maintaining wetland functions. 11. A yearly mitigation monitoring report to be submitted to the review authority on a yearly basis, with the due date to be determined on a case-by-case basis. 12. A deed restriction to be filed with the county clerk stating the measures that will be taken to protect all water resources, mitigation, and buffer areas in perpetuity. 13. That all reasonable effort has been made to limit indirect impacts to vegetation, faunal interspersion and connectivity, and hydrological connectivity in the site design (e.g., any structures, boardwalks, viewing platforms, or bridges, which are constructed within wetlands will have at least a two-foot space between the bottom chord of the structure and the wetland surface elevation to limit shading impacts and allow wetland vegetation to persist). 14. The review authority may recommend conditions to mitigate for locally-regulated (wetlands not connected to a water of the U.S.) infringement upon watercourses, buffers, or negative indirect or direct effects on the functionality of wetlands, watercourses or buffers. Abbreviations: USACE-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; DEQ- MT Department of Environmental Quality Analysis completed by: ______________________________________________ _________12/30/19______________________________ Date