The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About072 Response to Naiad Aquatic wetlands comments _____________________________________________________________________________ 1 October 18, 2022 Lynn Hyde, Development Review Coordinator City of Bozeman Planning Department 20 East Olive Avenue Bozeman, MT 59771 RE: Response to June 24, 2022 Naiad aquatic resource review letter for Shady Glen. ____________________________________________________________________________ Dear Lynn, The following is a listed response to the “missing” items listed in the June 24, 2022 Shady Glen Subdivision Aquatic Resource Review (#22293-94) document: Required [Missing] Items: (1) Functional Assessments: As explained in the TerraQuatic letter to Sara Rosenberg dated March 8, 2021: “Given wetland impact was reduced through Avoidance and Minimization from 0.74 to 0.091 acre (NOTE: this impact acreage was further reduced to 0.087 acre), decrease in wetland function is deemed not a concern by TerraQuatic Wetland Scientist. Functional Assessments will not be provided.” FA will NOT be completed for this minuscule quantity of wetland impact. (2) Wetland Checklist: Items provided. Site Plan with proposed activities, ratings, impacts etc.: See Exhibit B in submittal File No. 55b, all items included except FA,; not necessary per wetland scientist. There is no impact to a high class wetland (e.g. a fen). Indirect Impacts: Not a concern for this project given miniscule impacts (0.091 acre). Mitigation: For wetland impacts are not required by the City of Bozeman or the Army Corps of Engineers. All impacts are proposed for jurisdictional wetlands, which is handled by the USACE. Regarding mitigation for requested setback impact (decrease 50-ft setback to 35 feet): The developers have required fencing on all lots adjacent to wetland. These fences will create a barrier, eliminate potential encroachment, and prevent the already prohibited yard waste from Shady Glen Response to Aquatic Resource Review October 18, 2022 _____________________________________________________________________________ 2 being dumped into the wetland. The developers have also prohibited the use of phosphorous and nitrogen fertilizer use in the backyards. It must be noted that the subject property is situated between an industrial park which includes body shops and a golf course. The impact of the 15-foot reduction of wetland setback is miniscule in comparison with neighbors. Also of note, the previous owner donated an area in the southwest corner of the subject property for the city to build a detention basin for the adjacent industrial park. A greater reduction of wetland buffer width has been previously allowed by variance in other projects in Bozeman with similar wetland situations (see Kagy Gardens for example) Source, type of fill: See Section 404 application. (3) Impacts to jurisdictional (i.e. federally-regulated) or City-regulated wetlands: There are no impacts to non-federally-regulated wetlands. Isolated wetlands do not exist on this property. All impacts are proposed (and PERMITTED) on Jurisdictional wetlands which ONLY the USACE regulates. For JD impacts, City steps back and does not further “regulate”. For this reason, no further explanations will be provided for this item (3). Review Standards 1. (Avoidance) and 2. (Minimization) were reviewed in the original Bridger Meadows submittal. Almost 0.1 acre of wetland-3 and 0.145 acre of wetland-1 (east side of pond) were proposed for impact. Public Interest: (a) Public need: Bozeman is a fast-growing city with a severe housing shortage, especially for affordable housing. The City has targeted infill residential development and affordable housing as two very high priority issues to address. The Shady Glen project would provide both in an infill area (recently annexed and surrounded by the City), with easy access to existing streets and utilities. It is in the public interest to develop this property; the development has been thought out to minimize impacts while providing the much-needed home sites. Wetland Permit Conditions Wetland buffer (setback) impacts have been added to Exhibit C. Floodplain Impacts: The permit Case No. 21-08-0816C, approval dated 7/30/21 (the CLOMR approval does not expire). Protection of undeveloped areas: Undeveloped areas within Shady Glen would be well protected by turning it into a large (over 7-acre) wildlife preserve. Trails are not being added within the refuge, human visitation is limited to viewpoints near its perimeter. Shady Glen Response to Aquatic Resource Review October 18, 2022 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3 Language concerning vegetation protection, deeds, covenants: Covenants are a form of deed restrictions applicable to all lot owners in the development. The covenants include restrictions designed to protect the wildlife refuge including the wetlands within it. These are essentially “deed restrictions.” Development and Structures: Current configuration of Lots 3 and 4 is incorporated into 404 and CLOMR permits, both of which have been approved at the federal level; any changes would require additional costs, both in terms of time, engineering and permitting. However, should the City Commission conclude that further reduction of impacts to wetland 3 are a necessary condition of approval, we would be open to the rearrangement of these lot lines to accomplish this objective. Sediment control plan: A sediment and erosion plan is the responsibility of the earthwork contractor, who will not be selected until sometime after the project is approved by the City. Knowledge of means and methods, construction sequence, schedule, locations of stockpile, staging areas, office trailers and concrete wash areas, and many other variables, is vital to preparing a workable plan. “10 and 11”: There are no recommendations regarding maintaining wetland 3 hydrology; it has been created by the malfunctioning stormwater pond north of the property line. Five areas where design needs further clarification: Area 1: Description of this area has been clarified in the application materials. It is not a wetland mitigation area. Mitigation is not required and is not proposed. This area will be excavated primarily to remove an artificial fill (old railroad bed) that juts out into the otherwise natural floodplain and to use the material as floodplain fill in other areas. There is an additional benefit of offsetting floodplain capacity impacts resulting in a net increase in flood storage capacity. “Wetland expansion area” is the area where, in an effort to provide conditions conducive to natural enhancement and regeneration of wetland species, vegetation and sod mats will be transplanted from wetland impact areas and re-planted at an elevation close to that of the nearby established wetlands. It is a voluntary effort and is not required to be successful. There are no pipes in Area 1. Area 2: The impact to Wetland 3 is 0.035 acres, not 0.33 acres. This is a small impact to a wetland that is not within the watercourse setback or wetland buffer associated with the East Gallatin River, and was artificially enhanced or created by subsurface flows from an unmaintained, malfunctioning stormwater detention pond that exists north of this wetland. Wetland impacts were minimized over several iterations of lot layouts and kept to the minimum possible site-wide while helping the City of Bozeman provide much-needed residential infill housing. Area 3: Moving the utility crossing is not feasible because it is centered in an existing easement that is aligned to connect a proposed sewer main to an existing sewer manhole in Boylan Road. Shady Glen Response to Aquatic Resource Review October 18, 2022 _____________________________________________________________________________ 4 Area 4: The underground stormwater chamber system requires a surface discharge. The surface discharge pipe is intentionally within the setback because of its invert elevation which dictates where it needs to discharge. The discharge pipe is a solid, watertight pipe. It cannot discharge at a higher elevation than is currently proposed. Area 5: The previous plan is not applicable. Retention ponds by definition do not have an outfall; they retain water for evaporation and infiltration. The landscape plan indicates only native seed mix within the wetland buffer except for in the pond bottom which, again by definition, will not discharge surface water and therefore will not impact the existing wetlands. The non-native species were selected to be successful in the wetter environment of the pond bottom.