Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout(13a) Wetlands Review TQ City Submittal BridgerCenter revised 05-14-2021____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 Bridger Meadows Subdivision/PUD City of Bozeman Watercourse Regulations Adherence Submitted By: Lynn Bacon, PWS, Bridger Meadows Subdivision/PUD Project Consultant Date: 9/8/20 _____________________________________________________________________________________ Project Introduction The proposed Bridger Meadows Subdivision/PUD has gone through two iterations. The first project iteration (Exhibit C, see “Previous Grading Limits” line) included a city park within the interior of the property. Because the City requires adjacent access to a city park, Shady Glen Lane was initially designed along the east edge of the wetland-1/pond complex. Under this design, the extensive Shady Glen Lane road slope would have impacted 0.47 acre of the wetland-1/pond complex, including more than 50 percent of the pond and all of wetland-3 would have been impacted. The entire upland aspen community north of where wetlands-1 and 2 conjoin would also have been removed. The project is classified as a subdivision/PUD (current design, Exhibit C). The central open area of the property will now be designated as 7.54-acre wildlife refuge that will be contiguous with the parkland along the East Gallatin River; this designation would not require adjacent access per City regulations. This reclassification has allowed the relocation of Shady Glen Lane to the east property boundary. (During the previous review, Bozeman Parks rejected the proposed park and requested cash-in-lieu,) The relocation of the Lane has also enabled adjustment of the cul-de-sac further east and avoiding most of wetland-3. House lots are now proposed along the west side of the Lane and east of the wetland-1/pond complex. This design would result in no impact to the wetland-1/pond complex. A full or partial relaxation of the watercourse setback is being requested in the vicinity of some lots to allow avoidance of wetland-1 impact and minimization of impact to wetland-3. The new design would also help preserve the aspen community north of the wetland-1 and wetland-2 intersection. Project proponents were encouraged by TerraQuatic to first avoid, then minimize impacts to aquatic resources to the maximum extent possible given this is the dictate of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The original design (see Exhibit C, “Previous Grading Limits” line), in following City regulations regarding park access would have resulted in 0.74 acre wetland impact and a road within the wetland- 1/pond complex watercourse setback (no setback would have been in vicinity of wetland-3 because the entire wetland would have been impacted). The project redesign, though impacting watercourse setbacks if relaxation is granted, results in total project impacts of 0.078-acre wetland impact (see 404 application map, Exhibit B). Benefits include designation of the 7.54-acre wetland/upland forest as a wildlife refuge adjacent to the Glen Lakes Rotary Club trail system and open space, preservation of most of the aspen grove near the wetland-1/2 intersection, and preservation of over 60 percent of wetland-3. Sec. 38.30.080. - Review standards. A.The review authority may approve, conditionally approve, or deny a regulated activity in a regulated wetland if: 1.The applicant has demonstrated that all adverse impacts on a wetland have been avoided; or Wetland impacts have been decreased from Former Design: 0.74 acre to Current Design 2: 0.078 acre. Bridger Meadows Subdivision/ PUD City of Bozeman Water Course Regulation Adherence Submittal June 22, 2020 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2 The applicant has demonstrated that adverse wetland impacts have been avoided or minimized. The activity will result in minimal impact or impairment to any wetland function. And the activity will not result in an adverse modification of habitats for, or jeopardize the continued existence of, the following: a.An upland aspen community would have been removed if the previous grading lines had been implemented (Exhibit C). The current design (Exhibit C) has much less effect on the aspen community. b.Plant, animal or other wildlife species listed as threatened or endangered (TES) by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; and/or DNA c.Plant, animal or other wildlife species listed as a species of concern (SOC), species of potential concern, or species on review by the state department of fish, wildlife and parks and the state natural heritage program; or DNA 3.The applicant has demonstrated that the project is in the public interest, having considered and documented: a.The extent of the public need for the proposed regulated activity; The infill project eliminates a county “island”, reducing sprawl and unnecessary traffic by providing housing near job sources. 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; Impacts have been limited to 0.078 acre; no functional assessment is necessary given the minor wetland impact. d.The extent and permanence of the adverse effects of the regulated activity on the wetland and any associated watercourse; The 0.078-acre impact would be permanent (Exhibit B). e.The cumulative adverse effects of past activities on the wetland; and This area of Bozeman is in the vicinity of the East Gallatin River and includes a housing subdivision, a golf course, and a trail system along the river. f.The uniqueness or scarcity of the wetland that may be affected. Wetland-3 is the only aquatic feature proposed for impact (0.06 acre). The wetland is downslope of a malfunctioning stormwater pond on the golf course. Groundwater is high in this area because the pond is nearly 100 percent vegetated with shrubs and emergent vegetation and the bottom appears silted. Implementation of the previous grading limits would have resulted in the impact of the entire wetland (0.22 acre). Wetland-3 is a very common wetland comprised of hydrophytic grass and sedge species. (Ord. No. 1645, § 18.56.080, 8-15-2005; Ord. No. 1693, § 19(18.56.080), 2-20-2007; Ord. No. 1761, exh. K(18.56.080), 7-6-2009; Ord. No. 1945 , § 10, 4-25-2016) Bridger Meadows Subdivision/ PUD City of Bozeman Water Course Regulation Adherence Submittal June 22, 2020 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 3 Sec. 38.30.090. - Wetland permit 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; No watercourse (or floodplain) buffer would be included in Lots 4, 5, 6, 8 through 14. 2.Requiring that structures be appropriately supported and elevated and otherwise protected against natural hazards; Structures will be protected from flooding in accordance with City of Bozeman Floodplain Regulations and Design Standards. Compacted fill material will bring finished grade of the street and residential building pads above the base (100-year) flood elevation, and the lowest floor elevation of structures are required locally to be two feet or more above this elevation. Electrical, heating and plumbing systems will be flood-proofed in accordance with local and federal regulations. 3.Modifying waste disposal and water supply facilities; Gravity sewer collection and domestic water supply pipe systems will be constructed in accordance with state and local requirements including leak testing. These systems are protected from flood impacts by the compacted fill material. Service lines will be flood-proofed in accordance with the UPC (Uniform Plumbing Code). 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; The HOA Covenants address future use and wetland protections (see #7 below). 5.Restricting the use of an area, which may be greater than the regulated wetland area; City of Bozeman watercourse 50-foot wide setbacks along connected wetlands are greater than federal USACE restrictions. 6.Requiring erosion control and stormwater management measures; During construction, soil will be retained on the site using stabilization measures such as erosion control blankets on steep slopes and native seeding throughout. Storm runoff will be treated before it leaves the site using silt fence, temporary diversion ditches, sediment traps, temporary construction entrance/exit or other temporary storm water BMPs. Stormwater outfalls will include riprap for erosion protection. Native grasses will remain in place permanently, or as individual lots are developed, the native vegetation will be replaced with permanent landscaping and hard surfaces that will be maintained by the homeowners and/or the Homeowners Association. 7.Clustering structures or development; Previously proposed location of Shady Glen Lane would have been located along the east side of the wetland-1/pond complex. The road slope would have resulted in a 0.45-acre impact to wetland-1/pond complex and completely impacting wetland-3. By moving the Lane to the east (current design, Exhibit C) and clustering homes along the edge of the upland meadow and east of wetland-1/pond complex, wetland impacts to wetland-1/pond complex decreased to 0 acre and only 0.07-acre impact of wetland-3. Because of this change, however, a relaxation of setbacks in some lots would be requested. Informational posts along lots lines adjacent to wetlands and areas of partial setbacks would be installed to inform owners of the valuable adjacent habitat. In Bridger Meadows Subdivision/ PUD City of Bozeman Water Course Regulation Adherence Submittal June 22, 2020 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 4 addition, the HOA covenants will dictate that no dumping of vegetation or animal waste, or any other type of impact, is allowed beyond the informational posts. 8.Restricting fill, deposit of soil and other activities which may be detrimental to a wetland; Proposed wetland fill has been decreased from 0.74 acre to 0.078 acre. The wetland edge within four house lots will be posted and identified as wetland area and not disturbed in perpetuity. 9.Modifying the project design to ensure continued water supply to the regulated wetland; and Wetland-3 will still receive groundwater from the golf course stormwater pond and its outlet. The pond will also receive rerouted stormwater from the French drain ditch along the east side of the property lessoning flow into the failed detention basin. 10.Requiring or restricting maintenance of a regulated wetland area for the purpose of maintaining wetland functions. The area of wetland-3 not impacted by fill associated with house lot #4 will not be further impacted to create a wetland buffer, an antithesis to wetland avoidance as required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Instead a post with a sign that states, to the effect of, “Wetland Preservation Boundary” will be installed along house lots 4, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 12 to prevent lot owners from adding any materials (e.g. fill, lawn clippings, leaves, etc.) to the wetland in perpetuity. These rules will be written into the Design Review Guidelines. Property owners of lots 8, 13, 14, and 15 who own dogs will be required to install a fence along the back of the lot to prevent dogs from entering the Bridger Meadows Wildlife Preserve wetland buffer. 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. DNA 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. DNA 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). Wetland impacts are limited to 0.07 acre of wetland-3. By grading and filling the 0.07 acre of the eastside of the wetland, the hydrology of the remaining wetland may be interrupted. This issue in not a concern to the consulting wetland scientist (L. Bacon, TerraQuatic) given the wetland has grown 200% in the last 5 years because of the malfunctioning stormwater basin. Also, less water will be entering the golf course stormwater basin because Bridger Meadows will be directing most of the stormwater into the wetland-1/pond complex. 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. DNA Sec. 38.30.070. - Application requirements and procedures for activities in wetland areas. C.Submittal materials. The information required in 38.41.130 shall be submitted for all regulated activities proposed for regulated wetland areas. Bridger Meadows Subdivision/ PUD City of Bozeman Water Course Regulation Adherence Submittal June 22, 2020 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 5 See Sec. 38.41.130 responses below. Sec. 38.41.130. - Submittal materials for regulated activities in wetlands. (Submitted or Not Submitted or Does Not Apply and Why) A. All parties applying for activity permits proposing action affecting federal, state or city regulated wetlands, watercourses and/or buffers within the city limits shall submit the following information to the water review board: 1. A wetland and watercourse delineation report must be submitted to the city for all projects, if aquatic resources are present. If no aquatic resources are present, a letter shall be submitted to the city stating that there are no water resources within the subject property. a. This wetland and watercourse delineation report shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) Wetland and watercourse descriptions; Submitted by TerraQuatic, LLC. (2) Functional assessment, as determined by a state-accepted functional assessment method, i.e., Montana Department of Transportation (Berglund and McEldowney 2008) or Montana Department of Environmental Quality (Apfelbeck and Farris 2005); Not necessary given 0.078-acre impact. (3) Wetland types, as determined by a state-accepted functional assessment method (i.e., Cowardin et al 1979); Submitted. (4) Wetland acreages (by a licensed surveyor); Submitted. (5) Maps with property boundaries, wetland and watercourse boundaries and acreages; and Submitted. (6) Wetland data forms (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers data forms). Submitted. Sec. 38.41.130. - Submittal materials for regulated activities in wetlands. 2. If activities are planned in and/or adjacent to aquatic resources the following information is required: a. A site plan which shows the property boundary; delineated wetland and watercourse boundaries; buffer boundaries; and all existing and proposed structures, roads, trails, and easements. The site plan will include a table of existing wetland functional ratings (omitted) and acreage, required buffers and acreage, and linear feet of all watercourses and ditches. Submitted. (1) All direct impacts to wetlands, watercourses, and buffers shall be highlighted and summarized in a table on the site plan. The water resource and buffer summary table shall include wetland/watercourse identification number; corresponding buffer width and acreage; total site, wetland, watercourse, ditch, and buffer acreages; jurisdictional status; impacts to all water resources and buffers; and, mitigation types and acreages. Bridger Meadows Subdivision/ PUD City of Bozeman Water Course Regulation Adherence Submittal June 22, 2020 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 6 See Exhibit C, watercourse setbacks along site wetlands. Bridger Meadows is requesting a complete relaxation of the watercourse setbacks from Lots 4, 10, 11 and 12, and a partial relaxation for Lots 3, 5 through 9, 13 and 14. (2) All indirect impacts (e.g., shading from boardwalks or public utility well drawdown) shall be summarized in the document. None. b. Include a map with all proposed mitigation areas and their required buffers. The map will include a table of mitigation wetland type and acreage and required buffers and acreage. DNA Describe the functional unit gain of the wetland mitigation (as determined by a state-accepted functional assessment method). DNA c. The source, type and method of transport and disposal of any fill material to be used, and certification that the placement of fill material will not violate any applicable state or federal statutes and regulations as listed in section 38.41.020. Excavators and bulldozers will be used to excavate and place soil and aggregate materials. To minimize ground disturbance, excavators will be used to reach, rather than drive through, adjacent wetlands and water bodies. Trucks will be used to transport soil and aggregate materials to and from the site via upland areas. Compaction equipment will also be used. The Contractor will be required to meet all applicable regulations regarding transport and disposal of any fill material. d. The names and addresses of all property owners within 200 feet of the subject property. The names and addresses shall also be provided on self-adhesive mailing labels. Enclosed with 404 Application. e. Copies of the following: (1) Any Clean Water Act (CWA) section 404 and 401 permits; Enclosed Joint Application 404/401 (2) Any MT 301 permits; DNA (3) Any floodplain determinations for the proposed site known to the applicant; Soil disturbance for the proposed development includes cut and fill areas within the 100-year floodplain fringe of the East Gallatin River; refer to FEMA floodplain map numbers 30031C0808D and 30031C0809D. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) will be submitted to FEMA and the City Floodplain Administrator as part of the subdivision application, to be followed by a LOMR after fill excavation and placement work is performed and certified. (4) Any other applications, state or federal, for wetlands permits regarding the proposed site; A SWPPP would be required. Not enclosed with this submittal. Bridger Meadows Subdivision/ PUD City of Bozeman Water Course Regulation Adherence Submittal June 22, 2020 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 7 (5) Any U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional determinations regarding wetlands on the proposed and adjacent site; and All aquatic resources within the subject property are jurisdictional. The USACE made an official determination two years ago that wetland-3 was jurisdictional because of “Adjacency” issues; there is no surface connection to a water of the U.S. However, current new rulings may negate that ruling; This issue will be revisited with the USACE during the 404 application process. this issue will be appraised again given new rulings have occurred since that determination. (6) If relevant, any MT state joint applications for the proposed project site. See above. g. A completed wetland review checklist. Submitted. 3. If in the preparation or review of the required submittal materials it is determined that there are unavoidable impacts to wetlands and/or watercourses that will require a Federal Clean Water Act permit, then the following information will be submitted to the city for all federal jurisdictional and city-regulated wetlands (see section 38.42.3240) in a compensatory mitigation report: Mitigation not required for <0.1 acre impact. a. The descriptive portion of the compensatory mitigation report shall include, at a minimum: (1) The name and contact information of the applicant; the name, qualifications, and contact information for the primary author of the compensatory mitigation report; a description of the proposal; summary of the direct and indirect impacts and proposed mitigation concept; identification of all the local, state, and federal wetland/stream-related permit required for the project; and, a vicinity map for the project. (2) Description of the existing wetland, watercourse and buffer areas that will be impacted including area based on professional surveys; dominant vegetation; and functional assessments and wetland ratings for the entire wetland and the portions proposed to be impacted. (3) An assessment of the potential changes in wetland hydroperiod for the proposed project and how the design has been modified to avoid, minimize or reduce impacts to the wetland hydroperiod. (4) A description of the proposed conceptual mitigation actions for wetland, watercourse and buffer areas. Provide specifications (including buffers) for all proposed mitigation for wetland/watercourse/buffer impacts. Include a map with all proposed mitigation areas and their required buffers. (5) An assessment of existing conditions in the zone of the proposed mitigation including vegetation community structure and composition, existing hydroperiod, existing soil conditions, and existing wetland functions. (6) Provide field data that was collected to document the existing conditions of the proposed mitigation sites and on which the future hydrologic and soil conditions of the mitigation wetlands are based (e.g., hydrologic conditions: piezometer data, staff/crest gage data, hydrologic modeling, visual observations; soil conditions: data from hand-dug or mechanical soil pits or boring results). Do not rely on soil survey data for establishing existing conditions. (7) A planting schedule by proposed community type and hydrologic regime, size and type of plant material to be installed, spacing of plants, "typical" clustering patterns, total number of each species by community type, timing of installation, nutrient requirements, watering schedule, weed control, and where appropriate measures to protect plants from destruction. Native species shall comprise 80 percent of the plants installed or seeded within the mitigation site. (8) The mitigation monitoring plan should include a period of not less than three years, and establish the responsibility for long-term removal of invasive vegetation. (9) Wetland mitigation performance criteria (measurable standards reflective of expected development goals established for each year after the mitigation site is established, i.e., "At the end of three years there will be an 80 percent survival of the planted shrubs and trees.") for mitigation wetlands and buffers, a monitoring schedule, reporting requirements to the city, and maintenance schedule and actions for each year of monitoring. (10) Contingency plans which clearly define course of action or corrective measures needed if performance criteria are not met. b. The scaled plan sheets for the compensatory mitigation must contain, at a minimum: (1) Existing wetland and buffer surveyed edges; proposed areas of wetland and buffer impacts; and, location of proposed wetland and buffer compensation action. (2) Surveyed topography at one- to two-foot contour intervals in the zone of the proposed compensation actions if any grading activity is proposed in the compensation area. Provide existing and proposed mitigation design cross section for the wetland and/or buffer compensation areas. (3) Required wetland buffers for existing wetlands and proposed mitigation areas; c. A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect and maintain the nonimpacted and mitigation wetland, watercourse and buffer areas in perpetuity. 1. A description of the proposed activity. Aquatic resource impact activity for the current design Exhibits B (404 application map) and C is limited to 0.078 acre, a 0.67-acre decrease from previous grading limits (see legend, Exhibit C). Impacts would occur to wetland-3, a wetland that has been at least enhanced, if not created, because of the malfunctioning stormwater basin in the golf course to the north. 2. A description of why avoidance and less damaging alternatives have been rejected, if applicable. Two designs have been submitted for the Bridger Meadows project. The previous grading limits would have resulted in approximately 0.74-acre wetland impact (Exhibit C). The current would result in 0.078 acre impact. The previously grading limits would have impacted all the watercourse setback along wetland-1 (because of Shady Glen Lane placement adjacent to what was going to be a city park), and 0.47 acre of wetland- 1, including half of the pond. The entire wetland-3 (0.22 acre) would have been impacted. The current design has moved Shady Glen Lane to the east, which has eliminated wetland-1/pond impacts, however the watercourse setback would be affected. A relaxation of the setback requirement along house lots 4, 5, 6, 8 through 14 is being requested. Wetlands-1 and 3 would not be filled to create an upland watercourse buffer. 3. Wetland delineation report complying with the requirements of Section 38.30 BMC. 4. A site plan which shows the delineated wetland boundary, the property boundary, all existing and proposed structures, streets and hardscape including sidewalks and pathways, watercourses and drainage ways on and within 100 feet of the property. Include the date of preparation and any revisions and north point indicator. Suggested scale of 1 inch to 20 feet, but not less than 1 inch to 100 feet. The wetland boundary must be keyed to a wetland delineation report. Submitted. 5. The exact locations and specifications for all proposed regulated activities and the direct and indirect impact of such activities. Submitted. 6. The source, type and method of transport and disposal of any fill materials to be used, and certification that he placement of fill material will not violate any applicable state or federal statutes and regulations. Unknown at this time. 7. Copies of any Section 404 wetland permits submitted or already obtained for the site. A copy of the application has been submitted. 8. Any historical information regarding wetland permitting or mitigation on the site. None. ______________________________________________________________________________________ 1 Jurisidctional City of Bozeman Development Review Conformance: Wetland and Watercourse Regulations Worksheet Project: Bridger Meadows, PUD Conformance Review by: Lynn Bacon, Consultant for Bridger Meadows Date Received: Date Completed by Wetland Consultant: September 8, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________________________ 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. DNA: Does Not Apply TBD: To Be Determined 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? All items have been answered. Please refer to Exhibit B (404 app map) and Exhibit C, and the three enclosed watercourse regulation documents. 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? All items have been answered. Please refer to Exhibit B (404 app map) and Exhibit C, and the three enclosed watercourse regulation documents. 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. PROJECT NAME September 8, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________________________ 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? 2. Has the applicant demonstrated that adverse impacts have been minimized (re: function, TES, SOC)? 3. Has the applicant demonstrated that the project is in the public interest, having considered and documented: 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. * * The shallow open water pond within the wetland-1 complex outlets to a braided shallow outflow system that sheets in some areas across the surface. The outflow eventually connects to the East Gallatin River. * Along the east side of the project site is a stormwater ditch that outlets into a storm basin on the golf course north of the property. The ditch crosses back through the property in the northwest corner. 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 PROJECT NAME September 8, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________________________ 3 ARTICLE 23. – DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Section 38.23.100. – Watercourse Setback Answer Comments A. Does the development cross a watercourse? No A utility line crosses the stormwater ditch along east boundary, the ditch does not qualify as 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? Yes a. & b. Has the developer appealed or applied for any variances pertaining to watercourse setbacks? No Technically not a subdivision variance, but a PUD relaxation. Will request a relaxation of setbacks along jurisdictional wetlands. c. Setbacks on both sides of watercourse: (1) East Gallatin River: 100 ft (2) Sourdough Creek: 75 ft (3) Other Watercourses: 50 ft Yes Applies to wetlands within the project. (4) Setback Extensions: (a) setback shall extend to delineated 100-year floodplain if larger than 2.c. setbacks; Yes Done (b) setback shall be extended by the width of immediately adjacent fringe wetlands; * A relaxation of watercourse setbacks (along connected wetlands) is being requested for several lots, see submittal docs.) (c) area of slope greater than 33% shall not be counted towards setback requirement; and, DNA (d) setback shall extend 50 ft beyond the perimeter of connected wetlands. * *See above (2a & b). (5) All watercourse setbacks shall be measured from the OHWM. If indiscernible, setbacks shall be measured from the top of the streambank. * * TQ did not characterize the pond outflow as a “watercourse”. The wetland fringe within the area of the outflow exceeds the width of the outflow, the setback is measured from the edge of wetland. 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. * A relaxation will be requested, see watercourse regulation adherence documents. e. Exceptions (setback zones): Zone 1: 60% of the area closest to OHWM; Zone 2: 40% of area furthest from OHWM (1) Zone 2: On-site stormwater facilities; * See above. (2) Trail Improvements: (a) Zone 2: signage, benches; DNA PROJECT NAME September 8, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________________________ 4 ARTICLE 23. – DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Section 38.23.100. – Watercourse Setback Answer Comments (b) Zone 1: limited non-looping spur trails to the water’s edge, interpretative signs, benches at terminus; DNA (c) Zone 1 special circumstances (topography, avoidance of wetlands, other constraints: <300% watercourse setback per 500LF watercourse (includes spurs, etc, and applies per side) DNA (d) Sedimentation, bank instability, pollution runoff, etc minimized? Yes A SWPPP will be established. (e) Crossings allowed in all zones, must have all applicable local, state, federal permits. DNA (3) Streets, sidewalks, utility crossings DNA (a) minimized? (b) crossings at 90 degrees where feasible? (c) crossings withstand 100-year flood event? (d) grading and drainage designed to prevent untreated stormwater from entering watercourse? (e) bank stabilization plan approved by the City for all crossings? (4) Stormwater treatment facilities may pass through all zones, are all pertinent permits acquired to discharge to a watercourse? Yes (5) Is there a noxious weed control program in place (acceptable in all zones)? Yes No impact will occur that results from stormwater management, see Exhibit B. f. Setback Planting: submitted and approved by City planning department (including schedule and plantings indicated on plan)? DNA (1) Zone 1: 100% of area shall be planted with native new or existing grass/forb species; 1 shrub/10ft; and 1 tree/30ft. DNA (2) Zone 2: new or existing grass species. Where preserved zones are disturbed, they will be revegetated (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.] DNA (5) Was the site seeded as soon as was feasible to prevent noxious weed invasion and soil erosion? * * Areas would be revegetated as soon as is feasible. (6) Were all plants/seeds native to Gallatin Valley? * * They will be native to the valley. (7) Were native species used in all disturbed areas (crossings. trails, utilities)? * * They will be naturalized within the state of Montana, although certain species would be avoided (e.g. crested wheatgrass). g. Were any other areas in zone 1 or 2 disturbed other than those above in 2.e. and f. of this section? * * All setback zones that extend within private property will be disturbed if the relaxation is allowed. 3. Other Provisions: a. Were watercourse setbacks depicted on preliminary and final plats and plans? Yes PROJECT NAME September 8, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5 ARTICLE 23. – DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Section 38.23.100. – Watercourse Setback Answer Comments b. Does the site include agricultural activities, which have not been abandoned for >180 days? No 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. -- Are there wetlands within the proposed project area that are known jurisdictional wetlands? If so, list identification/Cowardin type. Yes See TQ wetland summary. Are there wetlands within the proposed project area that are known nonjurisdictional wetlands? If so, list identification /Cowardin type. No See TQ wetland summary. A. Were wetlands discovered during the development review process? Abbreviations: COB-City of Bozeman; DNA-Does Not Apply; OHWM-Ordinary High Water mark; WL-wetland; USACE-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 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? Yes Lynn Bacon, TerraQuatic, LLC B. Are the isolated wetlands < 400 sqft? If so they are exempt, unless: No 1. Does the wetland provides habitat for TES? No 2. Does the wetland provides habitat for state SOC or under review by the state? No C. Have the setback requirements of 38.23.100 been addressed? Yes Indicated on Exhibit C; a relaxation will be requested, see enclosed regulation adherence documents. D. Does this Article repeal, abrogate, etc and existing laws or deed restrictions? No Does this Article impose more stringent restrictions than those already imposed on the property? No Does this Article impose more stringent restrictions than the USACE under the 404 CWA? No 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) PROJECT NAME September 8, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6 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? Yes 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 0.07 acre in wetland-3, 0.008-acre ditch crossing along east side of property. 2. Construction, installation, placement of any structure (trail, building, boardwalks, etc)? No Fill to level the back (west) side of Lot 4 3. Removal, dredging, etc. of any materials? No 4. Removal of existing vegetation? Yes 0.07 acre in wetland-3, 0.008 wetland-4. 5. Alteration of water table? Unknown Filling wetland-3 will bury the highwater table in wetland-3. This wetland receives groundwater from the malfunctioning stormwater pond on the golf course north of the property. In the 5 years I have been familiar with this property, this wetland has grown in size, become wetter, and includes a higher percentage of OBL species. 6. Alteration of drainage patterns, flood retention, change in topography, etc. by any means? Yes The pre-construction floodplain line extends into Lots 4, 5, and 6. Grading will alter the floodplain line. [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.] Abbreviations: COB-City of Bozeman; DNA-Does Not Apply; OHWM-Ordinary High Water mark; WL-wetland 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 Not necessary given wetland impact has been decreased from 0.74 acre to 0.078 acre. C. Submittal Materials. Have all materials as required by 38.41.130 been submitted? Yes 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. --- Answers to this Article is included are included in the Wetland Checklist document PROJECT NAME September 8, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________________________ 7 ARTICLE 30. – WETLAND REGULATIONS Section 38.30.080. – Review Standards Answer Comment 1. Has the applicant demonstrated all adverse wetland impacts have been avoided? Yes This first project design would have impacted 0.47 acre of the wetland-1/pond complex, including more than 50 percent of the pond. Wetland-3 would have been completely impacted. Total Design 1 impacts would have been 0.74 acre. The current Design-2 would impact only 0.07 acre. 2. Has the applicant demonstrated that adverse impacts have been minimized (re: function, TES, SOC)? DNA 3. Has the applicant demonstrated that the project is in the public interest, having considered and documented: ---- a. The extent of the public need for the proposed regulated activity; Yes One lot would impact wetland-3 (0.07-acre), otherwise, by redesigning the project, federally- protected wetland impact would decrease from 0.74 acre to 0.078-acre. 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 Not necessary, wetland impact extremely small. c. The extent and permanence of the adverse effects of the regulated activity on the wetland and any associated watercourse; Yes 0.07 acre of wetland-3 will be permanent, Section 404 application is enclosed. d. The cumulative adverse effects of past activities on the wetland; and No No history on this specific property. e. The uniqueness or scarcity of the wetland that may be affected. No Wetland-3 is not unique, includes nonnative and native species. 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. DNA 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 a. If resources, does the delineation report include the following information: --- (1) aquatic resource descriptions; Yes (2) Functional assessments; No Not necessary given very small proposed wetland impact. (3) Wetland type (e.g. Cowardin, HGM); Yes (4) Wetland acreages; Yes (5) Maps: property boundaries, wetland, watercourse boundaries and acreages; Yes (6) USACE data forms. Yes 2. If activities are planned in and/or adjacent to aquatic resources, is the following information included?: PROJECT NAME September 8, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________________________ 8 ARTICLE 30. – WETLAND REGULATIONS Section 38.41.130. – Submittal Materials for Regulated Activities in Wetlands Answer Comment 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; Yes (1) Direct acreage impacts to all aquatic resources; acreages for all buffers; JD status; mitigation acreages; Yes No mitigation necessary. (2) Summary of all indirect impacts (dewatering, shading from boardwalks, etc); DNA b. Map of mitigation areas and buffers with corresponding table of acreages, functional assessment gain; DNA c. Source, type, transport, disposal of fill materials; Unk Unknown at this time d. Names and addresses of property owners within 200 ft of subject property; Yes Enclosed in 404 Application (1) Copies of 404 and 401 permits; Yes (2) Copies of 310 Permits; DNA (3) Floodplain determinations; (4) All other state, federal permits pertaining to wetlands; Yes* A SWPPP will be required, not enclosed at this time. (5) USACE JD determinations; Yes Enclosed. (6) All other state joint applications. Yes A Floodplain Application is being addressed by Morrison Maierle. 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: DNA (1) Applicant contact information; report author contact info; summary of indirect and direct impacts; proposed mitigation concept; identification of required permits; project vicinity map; Yes (No mitigation necessary.) (2) Description of existing aquatic resources; surveys; FA; Yes (No FA, not necessary.) (3) Assessment of changes to wetland hydroperiod, how to minimize; * Not necessary. (4) Description and map of mitigation and buffer areas; DNA (5) Assessment of existing conditions in area of proposed mitigation (veg, soil, hydroperiod, wetland functions); DNA (6) Field data to support #5 above; DNA (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]; DNA (8) Mitigation monitoring must be at least 3 years and an invasive vegetation management plan must be in place; DNA (9) Mitigation performance criteria for wetlands and buffers must state specific goals and timing; DNA (10) Contingency plans must be clearly stated in the event mitigation criteria goals and timing are not met. DNA b. Scaled plan sheets must include the following: DNA (1) Existing and proposed aquatic resource impacts and mitigation boundaries; DNA PROJECT NAME September 8, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________________________ 9 ARTICLE 30. – WETLAND REGULATIONS Section 38.41.130. – Submittal Materials for Regulated Activities in Wetlands Answer Comment (2) Surveyed topography at 1- to 2-ft intervals and cross-sections of proposed mitigation aquatic resources and buffers; DNA (3) Required buffers for existing and mitigation aquatic resources. DNA c. Discussion of management practices that will protect and maintain nonimpacted and mitigation aquatic resources and their buffers. DNA 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. DNA 2. Stormwater discharge general permit. Administered by the water quality bureau, state department of environmental quality. No Pending (see engineering documents) 3. Montana Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act (310 Permit). Administered by the board of supervisors, county conservation district. DNA 4. Montana Floodplain and Floodway Management Act (Floodplain Development Permit). Administered by the city engineering department. Yes Enclosed application. 5. Federal Clean Water Act (404 Permit). Administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Yes Enclosed application. 6. Federal Rivers and Harbors Act (Section 10 Permit). Administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Yes Enclosed application. 7. Short-term Water Quality Standard for Turbidity (318 Authorization). Administered by state department of environmental quality. Yes Enclosed application. 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: PROJECT NAME September 8, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________________________ 10 ARTICLE 41. – SUBMITTAL MATERIALS AND REQUIREMENTS Section 38.30.090. – Wetland Permits 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: ______________________________________________ _________________9/8/20_______________________ Date FIGURE NUMBER © PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY: DSGN. BY: APPR. BY: DATE: COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC.,2021 N:\5311\001.01 - PUD\ACAD\Exhibits\5311-001_WETLAND MSTR-Impacted.dwg Plotted by cody farley on May/11/2021 engineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle 2880 Technology Blvd West Bozeman, MT 59718 406.587.0721 www.m-m.net 5311.002 EX. B DS BOZEMAN MONTANA EXHIBIT B - AQUATIC RESOURCES IMPACT MGH BRIDGER MEADOWS SUBDIVISION MGH 05/2021 DELINEATED WETLAND BOUNDARY LEGEND ESTIMATED WETLAND BOUNDARY WETLAND - 1 (EST. 1.11 AC.) WETLAND - 2 (EST. 1.87 AC.) WETLAND - 3 (0.22 AC.) WETLAND - 4 (0.01 AC.) WETLAND - 4a (0.05 AC.) NWW-1 NWW-1a EXISTING STORM WATER BASIN 30' UTILITY EASEMENT UPLAND AREAS NWW-1 (EST. 30 L.F., 3' WIDE) NWW-1a (EST. 75 L.F., 3' WIDE) DP EST. = ESTIMATED AC. = ACRES NWW = NON-WETLAND WATERWAY L.F. = LINEAR FEET DP = USACE DATA POINT LOCATION DP-1w DP-1u DP-3u DP-2w DP-4w DP-4u DP-3u DP-3w DP-4A-w DP-4A-u AQUATIC RESOURCE IMPACTS SHEET FEATURE LENGTH (LF)AREA (ACRE) NONWETLAND WATER WAY (NWW) 1 NWW-1 30.00 0.002 1 NWW-1a ---- TOTAL 30.00 0.002 WETLAND (WL) 1 WL-1 0.044 1 WL-3 0.035 1 WL-4 0.010 TOTAL 0.089 GRAND TOTAL 30.00 0.091 NOTE: DELINEATION CONDUCTED 10/05/2018 AND 04/27/2019 BY TERRAQUATIC, LLC.1 - WETLAND 4 SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" PROPOSED GRADING LIMITS SEE DETAIL 1 - LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 6 LOT 7 LOT 8 LOT 9 LOT 10 LOT 11 LOT 12 LOT 13 LOT 14 LOT 15SHADY GLEN LANE B O Y L A N R O A D LOT 16 N0°31'15"E 787.96'S89°41'20"E28.44'SHADY GLEN LANE12S D 12 S D [] [][][] [][]GWGWGWGWGW GW GW GW GW GW GW GW GW GW GW GW GW GW GWBRIDGERMEADOWSWILDLIFEREFUGE FIGURE NUMBER©PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:DSGN. BY:APPR. BY:DATE:COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC.,2021N:\5311\001.01 - PUD\ACAD\Exhibits\Exhibit-C.dwg Plotted by cody farley on May/11/2021engineers surveyors planners scientistsMorrisonMaierle2880 Technology Blvd WestBozeman, MT 59718406.587.0721www.m-m.net5311.001EX. CBRIDGER MEADOWS SUBDIVISIONBOZEMANMONTANAEXHIBIT C - PROPOSED SITE EXHIBITCJFMGHMGH05/20215010025500SCALE IN FEETLOT 1CURRENTLY PROPOSEDGRADING LIMITSWETLAND - 3IMPACT AREA = 0.033 AC.WETLAND - 4IMPACT AREA = 0.010 AC.NOTE: DELINEATION CONDUCTED 10/05/2018 AND 04/27/2019 BY TERRAQUATIC, LLC.100-YR FLOODWAYLEGEND100-YR FLOODPLAINEXISTING WETLANDSLOT 2LOT 3LOT 4LOT 5LOT 6LOT 7LOT 8LOT 9LOT 10LOT 11LOT 12LOT 13LOT 14LOT 1550.0' WETLANDBUFFER LINEWETLANDS IMPACTSPREVIOUSLY PROPOSEDGRADING LIMITSCURRENTLY PROPOSEDGRADING LIMITSPREVIOUSLY PROPOSEDGRADING LIMITSPREVIOUS GRADING LIMITSWETLAND - 1IMPACT AREA = 0.044 AC.PROPOSED WETLANDBUFFER LIMITSLOT 16 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 Technical Memorandum To: Tom Murphy Bridger Center, LLC 1450 Cherry Drive Bozeman, MT 59718 From: Lynn Bacon, PWS TerraQuatic, LLC 614 West Lamme Street Bozeman, MT 59715 Date: June 24, 2019 Subject: Bridger Center Wetland and Nonwetland Waterway Delineation ________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0 INTRODUCTION Bridger Center is a vacant 12-acre property located west of Birdie Drive and Boylan Road and east of the East Gallatin River in Bozeman, Montana (SWNWSE Section 31, Township 1 South, Range 6 East; Figure1). The property is comprised of East Gallatin riparian forest and approximately six acres of hay meadow. The Village Green, Bridger Creek Subdivision and Bridger Creek Condominiums border the east and northeast side of the property, respectively. The Story Mill Spur Trail borders the east and north property boundaries. A man-made stormwater/groundwater drainage ditch is located east of the project boundary between the east segment of the spur trail and Boylan Road sidewalk. Groundwater is collected by French drain pipes under the east segment of the spur trail and outlets into the west-middle side of the ditch. Stormwater from the curb and gutters east of the project site empties into the south end of the ditch. The ditch outlets to a stormwater pond north of the subject property and north segment of the spur trail. The 2013, 2018 and 2019 delineations were conducted in various segments of the subject property. The large wetland/upland riparian forest in the southwest corner of the property will not be affected by the proposed work. Wetland/upland boundaries were estimated in this area to satisfy City of Bozeman requirements. The south edge of this riparian forest was officially delineated to define the outer limits of the wetland complex. Areas 50 feet west of the west boundary were included in the delineation investigation area to insure City of Bozeman wetland buffer regulations area incorporated into the proposed development design. The man-made stormwater pond north of the property and the stormwater/drainage ditch east of the property were not delineated given the City of Bozeman does not require 50-foot setbacks along stormwater facilities. However, a 60-foot reach of the ditch was delineated to facilitate permitting for a future utility crossing. Bridger Center Wetland and Nonwetland Waterway Delineation June 24, 2019 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2 Figure 1. Bridger Center Property, Bozeman, Montana (estimated property boundary is indicated by the red polygon). 2.0 METHODS 2.1 Wetland Delineation Wetlands were originally delineated in late August/early September 2013 using the 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast (Version 2.0) (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] 2010). At that time the 2013 National Wetland Plant List was used to determine vegetation indicator status (Lichvar et al. 2013). Because the project site took several years to be annexed into the City of Bozeman, the wetland delineation data expired in September 2018. Therefore, on June 6, 2018 the site was revisited to verify wetland boundaries and all previously-collected vegetation data were updated according to the 2016 National Wetland Plant List (Lichvar 2018). Wetlands-1 and 2 remained stable and wetland-3 had increased in size. In October of 2018 wetland-3 was redelineated. The wetland has grown in size because the stormwater pond north of the property is malfunctioning: the pond has less than one foot of free-board because of excess sediment retention and is 80 percent vegetated with cattail (Typha latifolia) and willow (Salix spp.). In April 2019, areas within 50 feet of the west boundary and the south edge of the wetland/upland riparian forest complex were delineated. The neighboring stormwater pond outlet channel and its wetland fringe (wetland-4A) were also redelineated in April, 2019. Wetland/upland boundaries within N Bridger Center Wetland and Nonwetland Waterway Delineation June 24, 2019 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 3 the internal area of the forest complex were estimated in June 2019. Data points (DP) in all years were established within each wetland and adjacent nonwetland area. At each data point wetland indicator data were collected and analyzed using USACE wetland determination data forms. 2.2 Nonwetland Waterways Nonwetland waterways are those scoured portions of river, stream, or ditch-associated habitat that are not vegetated with emergent species (erect, rooted, herbaceous wetland plants). Waterways, whether ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial, typically exhibit scour or areas denuded of vegetation as a result of flowing water over the soil surface. Areas of ponded water with no emergent vegetation are also considered nonwetland areas. The perimeter of all waterbodies and the ordinary high water marks of all channels were surveyed and areas or linear feet quantified. 3.0 RESULTS A wetland (WL) and nonwetland waterway (NWW) delineations was conducted by TerraQuatic, LLC in August/September 2013, June/October 2018, and in April 2019. The aquatic resources delineation map is included in Exhibit A (Appendix A). All wetland features were photographed (Appendix B). The only aquatic feature illustrated on Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP 2019) wetland and riparian map is the shallow wetland pond (wetland -1) (Appendix C). Wetland determination data forms are included in Appendix D. 3.1 Wetlands The Bridger Center project site is comprised of 3.26 acres of wetlands within the investigation boundary. Four wetland systems and one nonwetland waterway were delineated. Identification number, wetland acreages, data point number, and general characteristics of these wetland features and nonwetland waterways are listed in Table 3.1. Wetland-1 is a diverse palustrine emergent (PEM) community with an aquatic bed (less than 2-foot deep shallow open water). The west edge of wetland-1 forms the east edge of the wetland-2 wetland/upland riparian complex. This east boundary line was “informally” delineated to satisfy City of Bozeman wetland regulation requirements. A formal delineation, i.e. creation of data points and conducting a formal line survey, of this interior area would be extremely difficult because of its jungle characteristics. Because no disturbance will occur in this area, the aerial delineation was deemed adequate to satisfy City regulations. The informal delineation was conducted by traversing wetland/upland boundary lines while scribing the limits of dominant hydrophytic vegetation communities on an aerial photograph. The west edge of wetland-1 will not be disturbed by the proposed development. Wetland-2 is a palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS) community within the southwest corner of the subject property. The east edge of this wetland/upland riparian complex is defined by the west edge of wetland-1. Internal wetland/upland boundaries were unofficially delineated; no impacts are proposed within the interior of this riparian complex. The interior riparian complex will be preserved for wildlife habitat and remain undisturbed. Bridger Center Wetland and Nonwetland Waterway Delineation June 24, 2019 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 4 Table 3.1. Bridger Center Aquatic Resources Delineation Summary Wetland (WL) Acreage Wetland Data Point Cowardin Type1 Likely JD Status2 Hydric Soil Indicators3 Hydrologic Source Description and/or Dominant Vegetation Species WL-1 1.11* DP-1w PEM Yes F3 groundwater (likely East Gallatin aquifer) reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW), beaked sedge (Carex utriculata, OBL), woolly sedge (C. pellita, OBL), wheat sedge (C. atherodes, OBL), round-fruit rush (Juncus compressus, OBL), Baltic rush (J. balticus, FACW), dagger-leaf rush (J. ensifolius, FACW), chairmaker’s club-rush (Schoenoplectus americanus, OBL), spreading bent (Agrostis stolinifera, FAC), broad-leaf cat-tail (Typha latifolia, OBL), common spike-rush (Eleocharis palustris, OBL), sandbar willow (Salix exigua, FACW), alder (Alnus sp.) WL-2 1.87* DP-2w PSS Yes F3 groundwater (likely East Gallatin aquifer) alder, red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea, FACW), spreading bent, reed canary grass WL-3 0.22 DP-3w PEM Unknown Other groundwater (from malfunctioning off-property stormwater basin) spike-rush, Kentucky bluegrass, Nebraska sedge (C. nebrascensis, OBL), field meadow-foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis, FAC) WL-4 0.01 DP-4w PSS Yes off-property stormwater ditch (NWW-1) fringe Sandbar willow, quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides, FAC), knotweed (Persicaria maculosa, FACW), leafy tussock sedge (Carex aquatilis, OBL) WL-4a 0.05 DP-4w-1 PSS Yes F6 off-property stormwater pond outlet (fringe along NWW-1a: collects water from stormwater ditch NWW-1/WL-4 system) balsam popular (Populus balsamifera, FAC), red-osier dogwood (no emergent vegetation) TOTAL 3.26 Nonwetland Waterway Acreage6 Linear Feet6 - Likely JD Status2 - Hydrologic Source Notes NWW-1 0.0007 30 - Unknown - street and french drain stormwater OFF PROPERTY: connects to the East Gallatin River NWW-1a 0.0003 75 - Unknown - stormwater collection pond (from NWW-1 channel) connects to the East Gallatin River 1 PEM-Palustrine Emergent; PSS-Palustrine Scrub-Shrub (Cowardin et al. 1979; MNHP 2018) 2 USACE makes the final jurisdictional (JD) determination. 3 F3 – Depleted Matrix; F6-Redox Dark Surface; Other – see USACE Data Forms for reasoning. * Areas estimated based on “informal” wetland determination boundaries inside of the wetland/upland riparian complex. Bridger Center Wetland and Nonwetland Waterway Delineation June 24, 2019 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 5 Wetland-3 is an isolated PEM wetland. This wetland is surrounded by upland and has grown at least 100 percent in five years because of groundwater influences from the malfunctioning and unmaintained stormwater basin north of the property. The basin is choked with sediment and at least 80 percent vegetated with willows and cattail. Wetland-3 is in close proximity (50 feet) to the stormwater basin outflow that connects to the East Gallatin River. Wetland-4 is the PSS fringe along the stormwater/drain ditch located along the east side of the subject property. The ditch enters the malfunctioning stormwater basin north of the property. Wetland-4a is the fringe along the stormwater basin outflow. 3.2 Nonwetland Waterways NWW-1 is the stormwater/drain ditch west of Boylan Road and the property boundary and NWW-1a is the stormwater basin outlet channel. The stormwater conveyance system connects to the East Gallatin River. NWW-1 was delineated in the event a foot bridge is required at this location. 4.0 SUMMARY An estimated 3.26 acres of wetlands and 75 feet of stormwater channelbed occur within the subject property. Off property 30 feet of stormwater/drainage channelbed is located immediately east of the property. No MT310 would be required to impact either of the channelbed because they are not perennial or intermittent streams but arise from stormwater collection. A Section 404 Permit would be required to impact all jurisdictional features; it is unknown if the USACE/EPA would qualify wetland-3 or any of the stormwater features (wetlands-4/4a) as jurisdictional. A site visit will be scheduled during the summer of 2019 to make these determinations. Noxious Weed control has been conducted for the last several years and is ongoing. Bridger Center Wetland and Nonwetland Waterway Delineation June 24, 2019 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 6 5.0 REFERENCES Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Site accessed December 2012: http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/wetlands/pdfs/wlman87.pdf. Lichvar, R. W. 2013. National Wetland Plant List: 2013 Wetland Ratings. Phytoneuron 2013-49:1- 241. July 17, 2013. ISSN 2153 733X. Lichvar, R.W., M. Banks, W.N., W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 Wetland Ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30:1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X. Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP). 2019. Wetland and Riparian Mapping http://mtnhp.org/mapviewer/?t=8 . U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J.S. Wakely, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2019. Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Gallatin County Area, Montana. Site accessed April 2019: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx .