HomeMy WebLinkAbout605 E Bryant - WETLAND RESPONSES
Nakeisha Lyon October 12, 2023
City of Bozeman
20 East Olive Ave
Bozeman, Mt 59771
RE: 605 E Bryant Site Plan Aquatic Resource Review (#23-182)
Ms. Lyon:
On October 2, 2023, I was asked to review potential impacts on aquatic resources and their
setbacks of the 605 E Bryant site plan (#23-182) for the City of Bozeman (COB). This report,
intended to help you with your planning and permitting process, consists of only my
professional opinion. I am not an engineer; therefore, the following thoughts and
recommendations must be carefully considered by planners and approved by licensed
engineers and architects. I want to provide you with my review of the materials required for
permitted activities within the City’s aquatic resources.
Below is a list of salient requirements for a review of potential impacts on aquatic resources
and their setbacks. Because the Sundog evaluation of aquatic resources stated that no
wetlands are present and there are no direct impacts to Bozeman Creek are stated in the plan
set, many of the items below will not be applicable and will be marked so. However, there
are potential impacts within the setbacks, and I provide comments to those below.
Because there are no wetlands on site, the requirements within the following sections do not
apply:
• Sec. 38.220.020 and 38.220.130 ‘Submittal Materials for Regulated Activities in
Wetlands’
• Sec. 38.610.090. – ‘Wetland permit conditions’
Sec. 38.410.100. – Watercourse setback Pertinent sections Items in red need a response.
Below are my comments on the specific elements of this section.
A. Where a development is crossed by or is adjacent to a watercourse, the developer
must mitigate the impacts of the development on the watercourse. This mitigation may
not be less restrictive than the requirements of the city floodplain regulations or any
other applicable regulation of this chapter. The purpose of this mitigation is bank
stabilization; sediment, nutrient and pollution removal; and flood control.
1. Setback for developments granted preliminary plan or plat approval prior to
July 10, 2002. These provisions apply to all developments granted preliminary
plan or plat approval prior to July 10, 2002, including applicable subdivision
exemptions:
a. Setbacks. A minimum 100-foot setback must be provided along both
sides of the East Gallatin River. A minimum 35-foot setback must be
provided along both sides of all other watercourses.
The August 1, 2023, Sundog report states the following:
“Based on attached plating documents, this property was platted prior to (July 10)
2002, therefore it should have a setback of 35 feet in accordance with BMC Section
38.410.100.1.a.”
However, the attached Subdivision Plat of Industrial Properties J-42 is not dated. I am
informed that the property does not need a new plat therefore is not required to have a 75-
foot setback according to BMC Section 38.410.100.2.c.(2).
• Please provide proof of the date on the Subdivision Plat of Industrial Properties J-42
Assuming the plat is dated before July 10, 2002, then the following additional sections of
code applies:
Sec. 38.410.100.A.1.a.(1) A portion of the required setback, immediately adjacent to the
ordinary high water mark, must be left in a natural vegetative state as follows:
(a) East Gallatin River—50 feet.
(b) Other watercourses—Five feet.
• Ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and top of bank (TOB) are not present on plan
sheet 007 CL.3, therefore, the 35-foot setback line cannot be confirmed. Measuring
the setback line on sheet 007 CL.3 with an engineer’s scale shows the western 35-foot
setback would start in an area near the eastern line marked ‘Approx. Floodway
Boundary per 2021 FIS Shapefile’ which, assumingly, is beyond the eastern side of
the Bozeman Creek.
(2) No fence, residential or commercial structure, fill material, parking, or other similar
improvements shall be located within required watercourse setbacks.
• The proposed stormwater pond is mostly within the setback and within Zone 1 of the
setback.
(3) All watercourse setbacks must be measured from the ordinary high water mark as defined
in section 38.700.140. When no ordinary high water mark is discernible, setbacks must be
measured from the top of the stream bank.
• Please include OHWM and/or TOB
• Clearly set 35-foot setback from OHWM or TOB.
• Extend the linework beyond the property boundary to the north.
o The lines marked ‘Approx. Floodway Boundary per 2021 FIS Shapefile’ show
the floodway bending to the west near the northern property boundary, this is
inconsistent with aerial imagery.
Final comment: Planting plan
• What are the unmarked blue dashed lines?
• Salix alba is non-native - https://plants.usda.gov/home/plantProfile?symbol=SAAL2
• Cornus baileyi is a synonym of Cornus sericea, a native plant.
Both pages of plat J-42 have been uploaded, showing a recorded date of December 23, 1977.
Plans have been updated with corresponding information per civil engineer and surveyor.
No fill material is included, as noted on plans, so this code reference does not apply.
This information has been provided by civil engineer.
Removed.
Salix lucida muhl specified.
Noted and commented on landscape plan.
I hope this brief review is helpful for your decision process. I will be happy to provide more
detailed information or discuss my opinions anytime.
Sincerely,
Naiad Aquatic Consultants, LLC.
William Kleindl, PhD, PWS