Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20-RMF-Wetland Review Comment Responses encompass design inc 1535 liberty lane suite 110b missoula mt 59808 O: 406.540.4437 1 Date: December 2nd, 2025 Attn: Alicia Paz-Solis, City of Bozeman 20 E. Olive St. Bozeman, MT 59771 RE: Rocky Mountain Flats SP – Wetland Review (Application #25296) Dear Alicia, Our team has reviewed the comments from your review of the Wetland Report that we submitted to the City of Bozeman. We have provided revisions to our original supplemental document “17-RMF-Wetland Review” and are providing this letter with our comment responses below. Along with the City of Bozeman Review Comments and our team’s comment responses, this letter includes (2) appendices to address comments. The attached appendices include: Appendix A: Letter Describing Communication with USACE in Regards to Approval of Jurisdictional Determination Appendix B: Professional Qualifications for Briana Schultz (Wetlands Consultant) To further address the comments, we are also uploading a copy of the Montana Joint Permit Application for Proposed Work in Montana’s Streams, Wetlands, Floodplains, and Other Waterbodies. This file is named “21-RMF Joint Permit Application”. Please note that we are requesting that the formal “determination of watercourse status issued by the Gallatin County Conservation District” be a condition of the Site Plan Review Approval as there is a planned meeting for December 18th. Please reach out to myself, Bryan Topp (406-451-9103), or Briana Schultz (406-539-7244) with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Bryan Topp, Project Architect, AIA, NCARB bryan@encompassdesigninc.com 406-451-9103 Comment Number Code Section Code Requirement 38.220.130.A (a.2) an Approved Jurisdictional Determination provided by USACE review comments pending reply Per conversation with USACE, these wetlands are jurisdictional. See below (Appendix A) for information pertaining to communication with USACE and backup data for the nearby Range 5 (4840 Fowler Lane) property. The canal and ditch on the 5532 Fowler Lane is interconnected with the canal and ditch that was determined to be jurisdictional at Range 5 and this has been confirmed with USACE. (a.6) review comments There is a map in the delineation report, but these features do not follow through the site plans reply See updated maps in the Wetland Delineation Report (17-RMF-Wetland Review) and the Joint Permit Application (21- RMF Joint Permit Application). There are no wetlands north of the driveway. These wetlands were previously impacted by Buffalo Run. (a.8) A determination of watercourse status by GCCD. review comments pending reply Application has been made and will be reviewed by GCCD at 12/18/2025 meeting. We would like the site plan review to be conditioned with the watercourse determination. (a.9)A narrative description of how the applicant will first avoid, and if avoidance is not possible, minimize and mitigate impacts to wetlands ad watercourses. review comments It appears that avoidance is not taken into consideration reply City of Bozeman is requiring road widening, therefore it is not possible to avoid these impacts. 3a review comments See above comment regarding maps reply See updated maps in the Wetland Delineation Report (17-RMF-Wetland Review) and the Joint Permit Application (21- RMF Joint Permit Application). 3b All indirect impacts must be summarized in a narrative section of the application. review comments It appears that avoidance is not taken into consideration and that all impacts will be direct. reply Impacts are unavoidable because their purpose is required road widening. 3c Application materials for all applicable permits identified in 38.220.020 review comments We require a copy of he MT Joint Application Permit and all other required 38.220.020 reply Joint Permit Application has been uploaded (21-RMF Joint Permit Application) 3d Wetland review checklist with each element confirmed as complete review comments Some elements were not addressed. Other elements reported as "not applicable" are not justified. reply See updated wetland review checklist (17-RMF-Wetland Review) 4(a.1) Mitigation Report review comments reply See updated wetland review checklist (17-RMF-Wetland Review) 4 (a.2-c) Mitigation Report review comments The location and methods of mitigation were not specified. reply Wetlands will be mitigated at UMMB in Twin Bridges, MT unless the Indreland MB in Bozeman comes online prior to need of wetland mitigation credits. Comment Number Code Section Code Requirement 38.410.100.D review comments Buffers and setbacks not provided reply This is an irrigation facility, not a watercourse. Setbacks do not apply to irrigation facilities. 4 Rocky Mountain Flats SP - Wetland Review Comment Responses (Application #25296) 2.a-2.d 2 3 Table 1. 38.220.130 Comments on Submittal Materials for Review of Activities in or adjacent to wetland and watercourses Table 2. 38.410.100 Comments on Watercourse Setbacks Comment Number Code Section Code Requirement 2 Qualifications review comments Provide qualifications for wetland professional reply See below (Appendix B) 2, 3 review comments reply Wetlands will be mitigated at UMMB in Twin Bridges, MT unless the Indreland MB in Bozeman comes online prior to need of wetland mitigation credits. 4.a The applicant's demonstration that any avoidable adverse impacts on the wetland and have been minimized: review comments See comments above reply Impacts are unavoidable as the City is requiring a road to be widened, and these are unavoidable impacts. 4.b.1&2 review comments reply This informtaion is in the provided wetland delineation report on page 5. (17-RMF-Wetland Review) review comments Buffers and setbacks not provided. reply This is an irrigation facility, not a watercourse. Setbacks do not apply to irrigation facilities. review comments I do not see how downgradient hydrology to other regulated wetlands will be maintained. reply Downgradient hydrology and wetlands were previously impacted by Buffalo Run. review comments The location and method of mitigation were not specified reply Wetlands will be mitigated at UMMB in Twin Bridges, MT unless the Indreland MB in Bozeman comes online prior to need of wetland mitigation credits. review comments It appears that avoidance is not taken into consideration and that all impacts will be direct reply Impacts are unavoidable as the City is requiring a road to be widened, and these are unavoidable impacts. review comments The location and method of mitigation were not specified reply Wetlands will be mitigated at UMMB in Twin Bridges, MT unless the Indreland MB in Bozeman comes online prior to need of wetland mitigation credits. 38.610.030.A 38.610.080.A 38.610.100.A-B 38.610.030, 38.610.080, 38.610.090, 38.610.110 38.610.080.B & 38.610.090A 38.610.090.I 38.610.090.K 38.610.090.L Table 3. 38.610.030, 38.610.080, 38.610.090, and 38.610.100 Additional Material for Regulated Activities in Wetlands November 17, 2025 Bryan Topp Encompass Design Inc. 1535 Liberty Lane 110B Missoula, MT 59808 Subject: Rocky Mountain Flats SP – Wetland Review (Application #: 25296) Dear Bryan, The City has reviewed the submitted Wetland Report and associated materials for the Rocky mountain Flats Site Plan. Based on the City’s review and the finding of the third-party wetland consultant, the submittal is inadequate and does not meet all applicable requirements of BMC 38.220, 38.410, and 38.610. Several required elements are incomplete or have not been provide. Please address the enclosed comments and submit all revisions and responses through ProjectDox with your next resubmittal. These comments are also saved in the City Documents folder for this project. Thank you, City of Bozeman MT Alicia Paz-Solis, EI | Transportation and Engineering (406) 582-2976 cc: Bailey Minnich, Development Review Planner City Documents folder (ProjectDox for Rocky Mountain Flats SP #25296) T:\ZONING\Site Plans Rocky Mountain Flats SP – Wetland Review Comments (Application #: 25269) Table 1. 38.220.130 Submittal materials for review of activities in or adjacent to wetlands and watercourses (updated 11/1/25) Code section Code Requirement Submitted 38.220.130.A An applicant for a permit under this chapter on a site where wetlands and/or watercourses may be present or adjacent to the subject property must submit a wetlands and watercourses delineation report, including the following information: 1 If wetlands or watercourses are not present on or adjacent to the subject property, a letter signed by a qualified wetlands professional must be submitted to the city certifying there are no wetlands or watercourses within the subject property or adjacent to the property and describing the methods used to determine that wetlands or watercourses do not exist on or adjacent to the property. N/A Review Comments Wetlands are present. 2 If a wetland or watercourse is present or adjacent to the property, a wetland and watercourse delineation report must be submitted to the city. When required to determine the wetland or watercourse location and function, the delineation report must consider land outside the boundary of the property proposed for development. a. The wetland and watercourse delineation report must include the following, which must have been developed within five (5) years of the date of the submission of the report: (a.1) Wetland and watercourse descriptions; Yes Review Comments (a.2) An Approved Jurisdictional Determination provided by the USACE; No Review Comments Pending (a.3) A functional assessment of the wetland, made in compliance with an assessment tool currently accepted by USACE and/or the State of Montana; Yes Review Comments (a.4) All data collected must support accurate confirmation of the three positive wetland indicators as included in the definition of wetland at 38.700.210; Yes Review Comments (a.5) Wetland and watercourse acreages as determined by a licensed surveyor (the review authority may approve the use of other survey-grade GPS methods); Yes Review Comments Rocky Mountain Flats SP – Wetland Review Comments (Application #: 25269) Code section Code Requirement Submitted (a.6) Maps that depict property boundaries, watercourse centerlines, ordinary high-water marks delineated in accordance with the procedures specified in the current version of the Ordinary High Water Mark Field Delineation Manual for Rivers and Streams sanctioned by the USACE Omaha District, watercourse setbacks, delineated wetland boundaries and buffers, and wetland acreages; Inadequate Review Comments There is a map in the wetland report, but these features do not follow through the site plans. The wetland/ditch features are on 004-C2.0 Existing Conditions plan sheet, but they are not correctly labeled. The map in the wetland report labels the wetland/ditches. Still, the wetland north of the existing driveway is not labeled on the site map, nor is there hatching indicating whether it is a wetland, although the line work indicates that it was surveyed. There is no legend on the site map as well. Buffers and setbacks are not provided on any of the maps. There is no reference to the USACE 2025 OHWM manual. (a.7) Wetland data forms (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers data forms) Yes Review Comments (a.8) A determination of watercourse status issued by the Gallatin County Conservation District; and No Review Comments Pending? (a.9) A narrative description of how the applicant will first avoid and, if avoidance is not possible, minimize and mitigate impacts to wetlands and watercourses. No Review Comments It appears that avoidance is not taken into consideration. 3. If development activities are proposed in or adjacent to watercourses or wetlands, the following additional information is required in the wetlands and watercourse delineation report: a. A site plan consisting of an accurate scaled drawing which shows: the boundaries of the subject property; delineated wetland and watercourse boundaries; wetland buffer boundaries; watercourse setbacks; and all existing and proposed structures, roads, trails, and easements. The site plan must provide a table of existing wetland jurisdictional status, acreage and respective functional classes for each wetland, previously required wetland buffers and acreage for each wetland, and linear feet of all watercourses. In addition, all direct impacts to wetlands, watercourses, setbacks, and buffers must be depicted and summarized in a table on the site plan. The summary table must include: the wetland/watercourse identification number; labeling of the corresponding wetland buffer or watercourse setback with its width and acreage; the acreage of the subject property and of each wetland, watercourse, and wetland buffer or watercourse setback; notation of the wetland jurisdictional status; proposed impacts within all wetland buffers and watercourses setbacks; and, proposed mitigation methods and acreages. Inadequate Review Comments See comment above regarding maps b. All indirect impacts must be summarized in a narrative section of the application. No Review Comments It appears that avoidance is not taken into consideration and that all impacts will be direct c. Application materials for all applicable permits identified in 38.220.020. No Rocky Mountain Flats SP – Wetland Review Comments (Application #: 25269) Code section Code Requirement Submitted Review Comments We require a copy of the Joint Application for Proposed Work in Montana’s Streams, Wetlands, Floodplains, and Other Water Bodies and all other related permits articulated in 38.220.020. d. A wetland review checklist with each element confirmed as complete. Inadequate Review Comments Some elements were not addressed. Other elements reported as ‘not applicable’ are not justified. 4. Mitigation Report. If, in review of the required submittal materials, the review authority determines adverse impacts to wetlands or watercourses will occur, the following information must be submitted to the city in the form of a mitigation report: a. The mitigation report must: (a.1) Identify proposed mitigation consistent with the priorities listed in 38.610.100 and the rationale for the applicant’s preferred mitigation. Inadequate Review Comments In the wetland checklist, the proponent states that mitigation requirements are ‘not applicable’ with our justification or detail. All mitigation code requirements below have not been addressed. There is a comment that portions of the wetlands will be filled by the widening of Fowler, but these are not on plan, and an impact table is not provided. Nor is there an assessment of responsibility for the mitigation of this future fill. (a.2) Include the following: the name and contact information of the applicant; the name, qualifications, and contact information for the primary author of the mitigation report; a description of the mitigation proposal; a summary of the direct and indirect impacts; identification of all local, state, and federal wetland or watercourse-related permits required for the proposed mitigation; and a vicinity map for the project. No Review Comments The location and method of mitigation were not specified. (a.3) An assessment of existing conditions in the area of the proposed mitigation, including vegetation community structure and composition, existing hydroperiod, existing soil conditions, and existing wetland functions. No Review Comments The location and method of mitigation were not specified. (a.4) An assessment of the potential changes in wetland hydroperiod for the proposed project. No Review Comments The location and method of mitigation were not specified. (a.5) A description of the proposed mitigation actions for wetlands, watercourses, setbacks, and buffer areas, and how the design has been modified to first avoid, and if avoidance is not possible, then minimize or reduce impacts to the wetland hydroperiod. Provide specifications for all proposed compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands and their buffers, and to watercourses and their setbacks. Include a map and table with all proposed mitigation areas and their required buffers. No Review Comments The location and method of mitigation were not specified. (a.6) Field data that documents the existing conditions of the proposed mitigation sites. No Review Comments The location and method of mitigation were not specified. Rocky Mountain Flats SP – Wetland Review Comments (Application #: 25269) Code section Code Requirement Submitted (a.7) An analysis of the anticipated post development hydrologic and soil conditions on the project site hydrologic and soil conditions of the mitigation wetlands based on the proposed mitigation (e.g., data that demonstrate hydrologic conditions (e.g. piezometer data, staff/crest gage data, hydrologic modeling, visual observations; data that demonstrate soil conditions (e.g., data from hand-dug or mechanical soil pits or boring results). The applicant may not rely on NRCS soil survey data for establishing existing conditions. No Review Comments The location and method of mitigation were not specified. (a.8) A planting plan and 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 damage. No Review Comments The location and method of mitigation were not specified. (a.9) A mitigation monitoring plan must include a period of not less than five years and establish the entity responsible for long- term operations, maintenance, and monitoring and the methods the applicant will use to ensure the mitigation meets the objectives established by the plan. No Review Comments The location and method of mitigation were not specified. (a.10) Wetland mitigation performance criteria for mitigation wetlands and buffers (measurable standards reflective of expected development goals established for each year after the mitigation site is established, e.g., "At the end of five years, there will be an 80 percent survival of the planted shrubs and trees"). No Review Comments The location and method of mitigation were not specified. (a.11) Contingency plans which clearly define courses of action or corrective measures if performance criteria are not met, including strategies for adaptive management and change in mitigation option and the entity responsible for implementing any required contingency plans. No Review Comments The location and method of mitigation were not specified. b. The mitigation report must include scaled plan sheet(s) for the mitigation plan. The scaled plan sheet(s) must contain, at a minimum: (b.1) The surveyed edges of existing wetlands and buffers; the proposed location and acreage of wetlands and buffer impacts; and the location of proposed wetland and buffer mitigation areas. No Review Comments The location and method of mitigation were not specified. (b.2) Surveyed topography at half-foot contour intervals in the area of the proposed mitigation if any grading activity is proposed in the proposed mitigation area. No Rocky Mountain Flats SP – Wetland Review Comments (Application #: 25269) Code section Code Requirement Submitted Review Comments The location and method of mitigation were not specified. (b.3) Provide an existing and proposed mitigation design cross-section for the wetland and/or buffer proposed mitigation areas. No Review Comments The location and method of mitigation were not specified. c. A description of ongoing management practices that will protect and maintain any nonimpacted wetland areas and the proposed mitigation wetland, watercourse, and buffer areas. No Review Comments The location and method of mitigation were not specified. 38.220.130.B If agricultural water user facilities are present, then the development application must include application materials required pursuant to 38.220.060, 38.360.280, and 38.410.060. No Review Comments The location and method of mitigation were not specified. 38.220.130.C An as-built plan of the affected area within six months of completion. No Review Comments The location and method of mitigation were not specified. Table 2. Sec. 38.410.100 Watercourse Setbacks (updated 11/1/25) Code section Code Requirement Submitted 38.410.100.D The requirements of this section may not be less restrictive than the requirements of the city floodplain regulations or any other applicable regulation of this chapter. 1 The watercourse setbacks must be measured from the ordinary high-water mark as defined in 38.700.090 and as depicted on Figure 38.410.100-1. When no ordinary high-water mark is discernible, the watercourse setback must be measured from the top of the watercourse bank. No Review Comments Buffers and setbacks are not provided 2.a.(4) All watercourse setbacks must be extended as necessary to address the following additional requirements; (4.a) The setback must extend to the delineated boundary of the regulated flood hazard area pursuant to 38.600.130.B where the regulated flood hazard boundary is larger than the setbacks established in this subsection D.2.a (see Figure 38.410.100-2); No Rocky Mountain Flats SP – Wetland Review Comments (Application #: 25269) Code section Code Requirement Submitted Review Comments Buffers and setbacks are not provided (4.b) The setback must incorporate a minimum 50-foot wetland setback from the delineated boundary of any wetlands adjacent to the watercourse. A larger setback may be established per 38.610. A wetland is adjacent to a watercourse when some or all of the wetland lies within the required watercourse setback. Figure 38.410.100-3. No Review Comments Buffers and setbacks are not provided 2.c Allowed encroachments. The watercourse setback is divided into two zones. Zone 1 consists of the 60 percent of the setback closest to the watercourse, and Zone 2 consists of the 40 percent of the setback furthest from the watercourse. The following describes exceptions for development in Zone 1 and Zone 2 (1) On-site stormwater treatment facilities may be located in Zone 2. No Review Comments Buffers and setbacks are not provided (2.c.(2.a)) Trails, and trail-related improvements, such as benches and trail signage, may be placed in Zone 2; No Review Comments Buffers and setbacks are not provided (2.b) Limited, non-looping developed spur trails to the edge of the watercourse may cross all zones. Benches and limited informational/interpretive signage may be placed in Zone 1 at the terminus of spur trails No Review Comments Buffers and setbacks are not provided (2.c) Due to topography, avoidance of wetlands, or geographical constraints, portions of non-spur trails may be placed in Zone 1. Trail construction within Zone 1, inclusive of watercourse crossings and spur trails may not exceed the length of 300 percent of the width of the applicable watercourse setback per 500 lineal feet of watercourse No Review Comments Buffers and setbacks are not provided (2.d) All trails must be constructed to minimize bank instability, sedimentation, nutrient and pollution runoff. Trails must be aligned to minimize damage to plant and wildlife habitat; and No Review Comments Buffers and setbacks are not provided (2.e) Trails crossing the watercourse and trail-related bridge structures may be located within all zones provided that the appropriate local, state and federal permits are obtained. No Review Comments Buffers and setbacks are not provided (2.c.(3.a)) Crossings of active transportation pathways, utility lines, or similar public construction must be minimized to the greatest extent feasible while still complying with other applicable standards of this code No Review Comments Buffers and setbacks are not provided Rocky Mountain Flats SP – Wetland Review Comments (Application #: 25269) Code section Code Requirement Submitted (3.b) Crossings with direct angles (90 degrees) must be used to the greatest extent feasible instead of oblique crossing angles; No Review Comments Buffers and setbacks are not provided (3.c) Construction must be capable of withstanding 100-year flood events; and No Review Comments Buffers and setbacks are not provided (3.d) A bank stabilization plan for all watercourse crossings must be prepared and approved by the review authority prior to site preparation and installation of the improvement. No Review Comments Buffers and setbacks are not provided (2.c.(4)) Outlets from stormwater treatment facilities may pass through all zones, provided that all required permits are obtained. Stormwater facilities must be designed to prevent the discharge of untreated stormwater directly into a watercourse. Review Comments Buffers and setbacks are not provided (2.c.(5)) Ongoing control of noxious weeds by the property owner is required and activities required within limits outlined in any approved noxious weed control plan may occur in all zones. No Review Comments Buffers and setbacks are not provided 2.d To ensure watercourse setback function, a setback planting plan must be prepared by a qualified landscape professional and must be reviewed and approved by the review authority prior to the commencement of development or site preparation. The plan must include a schedule, and plantings must be depicted on the plan as follows (1) Zone 1 must be (re)vegetated with new or existing native materials suited for a riparian area based on the following. One hundred percent of the disturbed areas of Zone 1 must be planted with a ground cover of native riparian trees, sedges, forbs, and grasses suited for the area. In addition, a minimum of one shrub for every ten linear feet and one tree for every 30 linear feet of the watercourse must be planted along each side of the watercourse. Grouping or clumping of trees and shrubs as appropriate in a riparian area is encouraged. Species that are appropriate to the soil hydrologic conditions are required. Tree and shrub species selected must be suitable for the climate and for planting in a riparian area with an emphasis on native species. Incorporation of existing healthy vegetation of types required in this section within the setback planting plan is encouraged. No Review Comments Buffers and setbacks are not provided (2) Zone 2: Disturbed areas of Zone 2 must be revegetated with new or existing native grasses suited for the area. plantings in this area must be maintained in a natural state consistent with the approved setback planting plan and managed for good plant health. No Review Comments Buffers and setbacks are not provided (3-5) Criteria under special exemptions. Rocky Mountain Flats SP – Wetland Review Comments (Application #: 25269) Code section Code Requirement Submitted (6) Use of native grasses, forbs, sedges, trees, and other herbaceous plants in areas of disturbance (e.g., bridges, culverts, utilities installation, trails) within the watercourse setback is required No Review Comments Buffers and setbacks are not provided Table 3. Sec. 38.610.030, 38.610.080, 38.610.090, and 38.610.100 Additional Submittal Materials for Regulated Activities in Wetlands (updated 11/1/25) Code section Code Requirement Submitted 38.610.030.A If site conditions exist that indicate wetlands could potentially be present on the property, the review authority may require the following to be provided with the submittal of an application for development: 2 A qualified wetland professional is an individual with a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a water resource-related field, five years' experience in a wetland-related field, and/or a professional wetland scientist certification. Inadequate Review Comments Provide this information. Once we are satisfied that these criteria are met, we will maintain a roster of qualified personnel. If you are on that roster, we will not ask for this information again. 38.610.080.A The review authority may approve an application under this division 38.610 after having considered the applicant’s documentation of: 1 The functions and values described in 38.610.030 and as determined by a USACE accepted method of functional assessment of the wetland that may be affected by the proposed regulated activity; Yes Review Comments 2 The extent and permanence of adverse effects of the regulated activity on the wetland and any associated watercourse; Inadequate Review Comments It appears that this will be a complete filling of wetlands and waterways. No evidence is provided for the maintenance of downgradient flow paths. 3 Any proposed mitigation, and No Review Comments See comments above 4.a The applicant’s demonstration that any unavoidable adverse impacts on the wetland have been minimized; No Review Comments See comments above 4.b.1&2 The applicant’s demonstration the activity will result in minimal impairment to any wetland function, including Plant, animal, or other wildlife species listed as threatened, endangered under federal law or, species of concern, potential concern, or species of the state: No Review Comments The activity will result in impairment to all wetland functions; however, there are no impacts to listed species. These are listed in the wetland evaluation form. In the future, this needs to be in the narrative of the report. Rocky Mountain Flats SP – Wetland Review Comments (Application #: 25269) Code section Code Requirement Submitted 38.610.080.B Minimum Wetland Buffer. All development must provide a minimum wetland buffer of 25 feet from the edge of the delineated wetland, wherein any disturbance to the wetland buffer, including construction activities, is prohibited. The review authority may require a larger wetland buffer based on the wetland delineation report. No Review Comments Buffers and setbacks are not provided 38.610.090 The review authority may require mitigation as provided for in 38.610.100 and impose conditions of approval for proposed regulated activities that are necessary to mitigate impacts to wetlands, or which are necessary to mitigate infringement upon wetlands and wetland buffers, or negative indirect or direct effects on the functionality of wetlands and wetland buffers. Conditions of approval may include but are not limited to, the following: A Notwithstanding the minimum wetland buffer, requiring a wetland buffer of a size appropriate for the proposed activity and the regulated wetland, as determined by the review authority; No Review Comments Buffers and setbacks are not provided B Requiring structures to be appropriately supported and elevated or otherwise protected against hazards; Yes Review Comments Following the total filling of wetlands, this issue will be mute. C Modifying proposals for waste disposal, stormwater, or water supply facilities; Yes Review Comments Following the total filling of wetlands, this issue will be mute. D Requiring protective covenants between the landowner and the city regarding the future development, use, and subdivision of lands, including but not limited to the preservation of undeveloped areas as open space and restrictions on vegetation removal; Yes Review Comments Following the total filling of wetlands, this issue will be mute. E Requiring a protective covenant between the landowner and the city stating the measures that will be taken to protect all water resources, mitigation, and buffer areas; Yes Review Comments Following the total filling of wetlands, this issue will be mute. F Requiring erosion control and stormwater best management practices (BMPs); Yes Review Comments There is an existing stormwater design, but I do not see how downgradient hydrology will be maintained. I also assume that a SWPP will be provided. I will not review that plan. G Clustering structures or development; Yes Review Comments Following the total filling of wetlands, this issue will be mute. H Restricting fill, deposit of soil, and other activities which may be detrimental to a wetland; Yes Rocky Mountain Flats SP – Wetland Review Comments (Application #: 25269) Code section Code Requirement Submitted Review Comments Following the total filling of wetlands, this issue will be mute. I Modifying the project design to ensure a reliable source and flow of water to the regulated wetland; Inadequate Review Comments I do not see how downgradient hydrology to other regulated wetlands will be maintained. J Requiring or restricting maintenance of a regulated wetland area for the purpose of maintaining wetland functions; Yes Review Comments Following the total filling of wetlands, this issue will be mute. K Requiring a mitigation monitoring report to be submitted to the review authority (the period and frequency of the reporting will be determined on a case-by-case basis); and Inadequate Review Comments The location and method of mitigation were not specified. L Requiring that all reasonable effort be made to limit indirect impacts to vegetation and hydrological connectivity in the site design. No Review Comments It appears that avoidance is not taken into consideration and that all impacts will be direct 38.610.100.A Adverse wetland impacts must be mitigated regardless of wetland jurisdictional status in the following order of priority except as may be required or authorized by the USACE for wetlands within USACE jurisdiction: 1 Impacts must be mitigated on-site where feasible to do so. Using an approved wetland functional assessment methodology, the replacement function and value of the on-site mitigation wetland must meet or exceed the functions and values of the impacted wetland. If conditions are not suitable for establishing on-site mitigation, the review authority may authorize an alternative mitigation as described in subsections A.2-6. On-site mitigation must be conducted in accordance with methods and standards established by the USACE. Factors the review authority may consider in determining feasibility of on-site mitigation include but are not limited to: available area; the availability and reliability of water to serve the mitigation site; soil and vegetation types; wetland size and functional class; existing and future land use; compliance with adopted land use plans; and the city’s current and future planned transportation network. No Review Comments The location and method of mitigation were not specified. 2 If mitigation is not suitable on-site, impacts must be mitigated through the purchase of wetland mitigation credits from a wetland bank authorized by the USACE and which is located within the East Gallatin River watershed. No Review Comments The location and method of mitigation were not specified. 3 If an authorized wetland bank is not available in the East Gallatin watershed, impacts must be mitigated through the purchase of wetland mitigation credits from a wetland bank authorized by USACE and which is located within the Gallatin River watershed; . No Review Comments The location and method of mitigation were not specified. Rocky Mountain Flats SP – Wetland Review Comments (Application #: 25269) Code section Code Requirement Submitted 4 If a wetland bank is not available within the Gallatin River watershed, the developer must provide a proportional payment to an in-lieu fee wetland mitigation provider authorized by the USACE to develop wetland mitigation projects within the Gallatin River watershed; and No Review Comments The location and method of mitigation were not specified. 5 Gallatin River watersheds, the developer must obtain wetland mitigation credits from the geographically nearest wetland bank authorized by the USACE. No Review Comments The location and method of mitigation were not specified. 38.610.100.B The city commission may, pursuant to Resolution, establish standards that: 1 Require a decrease in the compensatory value of mitigation bank credits as distance to the bank increases from the location of wetland adversely impacted; and No Review Comments The location and method of mitigation were not specified. 2 Ensure the amount of mitigation credits or acreage of wetland mitigation required are reasonably related to the area and functional class of the impacted wetland. No Review Comments The location and method of mitigation were not specified. PO BOX 1424 BOZEMAN, MT 59771 406.539.7244 briana@sundogeco.com To: Maddy Mason BlueLine Development 2432 Kemp Street Missoula, MT 59801 From: Briana Schultz Sundog Ecological Inc. PO Box 1424 Bozeman, MT 59771 Date: December 2, 2025 Subject: 5532 Fowler Lane Jurisdictional Waterway/Wetland Status Ms. Mason A jurisdictional determination (JD) was issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on June 24, 2024, for the Range 5 project, located approximately 0.75 miles north of the proposed Rocky Mountain Flats project. The accompanying documentation confirms that the West Gallatin Canal and Middle Creek Ditch laterals (WL 1 and WL 2) are considered jurisdictional. The West Gallatin Canal and Middle Creek Ditch laterals exhibit similar locations and flow patterns on the Rocky Mountain Flats project as observed on the Range 5 Project. These ditches are interconnected, supporting their classification as jurisdictional features. Additionally, I have discussed this matter extensively with Timothy McNew, Senior Project Manager at the Army Corps of Engineers and Project Manager for the Range 5 project. He has indicated that the ditches on the Rocky Mountain Flats project would be subject to the same Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) issued in 2024. If you have any questions, comments, or need further information, please get in touch with me. I can be reached at briana@sundogeco.com or (406) 539-7244. Thank you, Briana Schultz Attachments: NWO-2023-01707-MT_20240628_AJD-Letter NWO-2023-01707-MT_20240628_AJD-MFR_pre-2015_jurisdiction_post-Sackett DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT MONTANA REGULATORY OFFICE 100 NEILL AVENUE HELENA, MT 59601-3329 June 28, 2024 SUBJECT: NWO-2023-01707-MT – 4840 Fowler Lane – Approved Jurisdictional Determination Ms. Brianna Shultz Sundog Ecological, Inc. P.O. Box 1424 Bozeman, Montana 59771 Dear Ms. Schultz: This letter is in response to the request received on October 16, 2023 for an approved jurisdictional determination for the proposed 4840 Fowler Lane project. The site is located in Section 23 of Township 02 South, Range 5 East, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. Your request has been assigned the Corps Regulatory File Number referenced above. Please reference this file number on any correspondence to us or to other interested parties when referencing this project or concerning this request. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344) and structures or work in, over, and under navigable waters of the United States under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 U.S.C. 403). The implementing regulations for these Acts are published in the Code of Federal Regulations at 33 CFR parts 330-332. Based on our evaluation of the information provided and other available information, we have determined the following resources are jurisdictional: W1, W2, and W3. The attached approved jurisdictional determination provides rationale for why these aquatic resources meet the definition of waters of the United States. Based on this determination, a Department of the Army permit is required for the discharge of dredged or fill material into these aquatic resources. This determination does not eliminate requirements to obtain any other applicable federal, state, tribal, or local permits. Attached to this letter is the approved jurisdictional determination for your project site. This jurisdictional determination is valid for a 5-year period from the date of this letter, until June 28, 2029, unless new information warrants revision of the determination before the expiration date. If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR part 331. Enclosed you will find -2- a Notification of Administrative Appeal Options and Process and Request for Appeal (NAO-RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination, you must submit a completed NAO-RFA form to the address listed on the form. For an NAO-RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is completed, that it meets the criteria for appeal under 33 CFR 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAO-RFA. Should you decide to submit an NAO-RFA form, it must be received at the Division Office by August 26, 2024. It is not necessary to submit an NAO-RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this letter. In the event that you disagree with this approved jurisdictional determination and you have new information not considered in the original determination, you may request reconsideration of this determination by contacting this office prior to initiating an appeal. To request this reconsideration based upon new information, you must submit the new information to this office so that it is received within 60 days of the date of the NAO-RFA. The Corps’ Omaha District, Regulatory Branch is committed to providing quality and timely service to our customers. In an effort to improve customer service, please take a moment to complete our Customer Service Survey found on our website at https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/. If you do not have Internet access, you may call and request a paper copy of the survey that you can complete and return by mail. Additionally, further information regarding the Omaha District Regulatory Program can be obtained by visiting our website at https://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Program/. If you have any questions concerning this jurisdictional determination, please contact the Montana Regulatory Program at the above address, by phone at (406) 441-1375, ext. 1375, or by email at Montana.Reg@usace.army.mil and reference file number NWO-2023-01707-MT. Sincerely, Benjamin N. Soiseth Chief, North Dakota Section Enclosures DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT MONTANA REGULATORY OFFICE 100 NEILL AVENUE HELENA, MT 59601-3329 CENWO-OD-RMT June 24, 2024 MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD SUBJECT: US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023) ,1 NWO-2023-01707-MT, 4840 Fowler Lane Property Development 2 BACKGROUND. An Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) is a Corps document stating the presence or absence of waters of the United States on a parcel or a written statement and map identifying the limits of waters of the United States on a parcel. AJDs are clearly designated appealable actions and will include a basis of JD with the document.3 AJDs are case-specific and are typically made in response to a request. AJDs are valid for a period of five years unless new information warrants revision of the determination before the expiration date or a District Engineer has identified, after public notice and comment, that specific geographic areas with rapidly changing environmental conditions merit re- verification on a more frequent basis.4 For the purposes of this AJD, we have relied on section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA),5 the Clean Water Act (CWA) implementing regulations published by the Department of the Army in 1986 and amended in 1993 (references 2.a. and 2.b. respectively), the 2008 Rapanos-Carabell guidance (reference 2.c.), and other applicable guidance, relevant case law and longstanding practice, (collectively the pre-2015 regulatory regime), and the Sackett decision (reference 2.d.) in evaluating jurisdiction. This Memorandum for Record (MFR) constitutes the basis of jurisdiction for a Corps AJD as defined in 33 CFR §331.2. The features addressed in this AJD were evaluated consistent with the definition of “waters of the United States” found in the pre-2015 regulatory regime and consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Sackett. This AJD did not rely on the 2023 “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States,’” as amended on 8 September 2023 (Amended 2023 Rule) because, as of the date of this decision, the Amended 2023 Rule is not applicable in this state due to litigation. 1 While the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett had no effect on some categories of waters covered under the CWA, and no effect on any waters covered under RHA, all categories are included in this Memorandum for Record for efficiency. 2 When documenting aquatic resources within the review area that are jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act (CWA), use an additional MFR and group the aquatic resources on each MFR based on the TNW, interstate water, or territorial seas that they are connected to. Be sure to provide an identifier to indicate when there are multiple MFRs associated with a single AJD request (i.e., number them 1, 2, 3, etc.). 3 33 CFR 331.2. 4 Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-02. 5 USACE has authority under both Section 9 and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 but for convenience, in this MFR, jurisdiction under RHA will be referred to as Section 10. CENWO-OD-RMT SUBJECT: Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), NWO-2023-01707-MT 2 1. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS. a. Provide a list of each individual feature within the review area and the jurisdictional status of each one (i.e., identify whether each feature is/is not a water of the United States and/or a navigable water of the United States). i. W1, jurisdictional, adjacent wetland (Section 404) ii. W2, jurisdictional, adjacent wetland (Section 404) iii. W3, jurisdictional, adjacent wetland (Section 404) 2. REFERENCES. a. Final Rule for Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers, 51 FR 41206 (November 13, 1986). b. Clean Water Act Regulatory Programs, 58 FR 45008 (August 25, 1993). c. U.S. EPA & U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States (December 2, 2008) d. Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. _, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023) e. 2008 Rapanos Guidance 3. REVIEW AREA. Review area is approximately 20.52 acres near the City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana in Section 23, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, Latitude 45.653821° North, Longitude -111.080756° West; Boundary map (as KML file) for review area is attached. 4. NEAREST TRADITIONAL NAVIGABLE WATER (TNW), INTERSTATE WATER, OR THE TERRITORIAL SEAS TO WHICH THE AQUATIC RESOURCE IS CONNECTED. The Gallatin River is the nearest Section 404 TNW. 6 5. FLOWPATH FROM THE SUBJECT AQUATIC RESOURCES TO A TNW, INTERSTATE WATER, OR THE TERRITORIAL SEAS. W1, W2, and W3 are connected to West Gallatin Canal via UT of Baxter Creek and unnamed laterals. W1 abuts UT of Baxter Creek, which flows for approximately 0.44 miles, passing through one culvert under Stucky Rd (approximately 95ft in length). W2 and W3 abut unnamed laterals of 6 This MFR should not be used to complete a new stand-alone TNW determination. A stand-alone TNW determination for a water that is not subject to Section 9 or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA) is completed independently of a request for an AJD. A stand-alone TNW determination is conducted for a specific segment of river or stream or other type of waterbody, such as a lake, where upstream or downstream limits or lake borders are established. CENWO-OD-RMT SUBJECT: Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), NWO-2023-01707-MT 3 the West Gallatin Canal. W2 flows for 0.41mi, passing through one culvert under Stucky Rd (approximately 85ft in length) and another culvert approximately 600ft north of Stucky Rd (approximately 25ft in length). Water from W3 flows for approximately 0.42 miles, passing through one culvert under Stucky Rd (approximately 65ft in length). At approximately 0.38mi north of the project boundary, all three flow paths converge. From this point, the converged flow path (West Gallatin Canal) flows for approximately 0.63mi, passing through four culverts, measurements of which are approximately 45ft, 25ft, 65ft (under W. Lincoln St), and 30ft in length, and at which point, the West Gallatin Canal flows under Farmers Canal through a ~125’ siphon connector near the intersection of Technology Blvd & Fowler Ave. The West Gallatin Canal continues north, northwest for ~4mi through pipes and culverts as follows (from south to north): a. ~60’ – Access to Business b. ~140’ – US Highway 191 c. ~20’ – Walking Path d. ~85’ – Laramie Dr e. ~85’ – Fallon St f. ~85’ – Laredo Dr g. ~80’ – Golden Valley Dr h. ~85’ – Ravalli St i. ~30’ – Walking Path – W. Babcock Fields j. ~60’ – Walking Path – W. Babcock Fields k. ~165’ – Parking Lot – W. Babcock Fields l. ~130’ – W. Babcock St m. ~90’ – Meagher Ave n. ~90’ – W. Broadwater St o. ~75’ – Cascade St p. ~20’ – Walking Path q. ~20’ – Walking Path r. ~795’ – Under and along Durston Rd s. ~105’ – Annie St t. ~90’ – Renova Ln u. ~120’ – W Oak St v. ~285’ – Ferguson Avenue w. ~265’ – Baxter Ln x. ~105’ – Equestrian Ln West Gallatin Canal converges with Baxter Border Ditch at Equestrian Ln. Baxter Border Ditch then continues north, northwest for ~4.16mi through pipes and culverts as follows (from south to north): a. ~25’ – walking path b. ~80’ – Kimberwicke St c. ~40’ – Farm Access CENWO-OD-RMT SUBJECT: Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), NWO-2023-01707-MT 4 d. ~30’ – Farm Access e. ~30’ – Farm Access f. ~35’ – Hidden Valley Rd g. ~25’ – Private Access h. ~25’ – Private Access i. ~30’ – Farm Access j. ~100’ – E. Valley Center Rd k. ~180’ – Interstate 90 (I-90) West Gallatin Canal converges with McDonald Creek ~1,315ft northwest of the I-90 culvert. McDonald Creek then flows north, northwest for ~1.36mi through culverts as follows (from south to north): a. ~30’ – Railroad Tracks b. ~100’ Frontage Rd c. ~20’ – Farm Access d. ~40’ – Farm Access McDonald Creek converges with Hyalite Creek ~1.0mi east of the Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport. Hyalite Creek then continues north for ~3.32mi, passing through one ~35’ culvert under Airport Road, before converging with the E. Gallatin River. The E. Gallatin River flows ~18mi north, northwest before converging with the Gallatin River, a Section 404 TNW, ~2.25mi north of the town of Manhattan. The locations of the culverts, pipes, and the flow paths discussed above are shown on the attached KML file. 6. SECTION 10 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS7: Describe aquatic resources or other features within the review area determined to be jurisdictional in accordance with Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Include the size of each aquatic resource or other feature within the review area and how it was determined to be jurisdictional in accordance with Section 10. N/A 8 7. SECTION 404 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS: Describe the aquatic resources within the review area that were found to meet the definition of waters of the United States in accordance with the pre-2015 regulatory regime and consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett. List each aquatic resource separately, by name, consistent with the naming convention used in section 1, above. Include a rationale for each 7 33 CFR 329.9(a) A waterbody which was navigable in its natural or improved state, or which was susceptible of reasonable improvement (as discussed in § 329.8(b) of this part) retains its character as “navigable in law” even though it is not presently used for commerce, or is presently incapable of such use because of changed conditions or the presence of obstructions. 8 This MFR is not to be used to make a report of findings to support a determination that the water is a navigable water of the United States. The district must follow the procedures outlined in 33 CFR part 329.14 to make a determination that water is a navigable water of the United States subject to Section 10 of the RHA. CENWO-OD-RMT SUBJECT: Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), NWO-2023-01707-MT 5 aquatic resource, supporting that the aquatic resource meets the relevant category of “waters of the United States” in the pre-2015 regulatory regime. The rationale should also include a written description of, or reference to a map in the administrative record that shows, the lateral limits of jurisdiction for each aquatic resource, including how that limit was determined, and incorporate relevant references used. Include the size of each aquatic resource in acres or linear feet and attach and reference related figures as needed. a. TNWs (a)(1): N/A b. Interstate Waters (a)(2): N/A c. Other Waters (a)(3): N/A d. Impoundments (a)(4): N/A e. Tributaries (a)(5): N/A f. The territorial seas (a)(6): N/A g. Adjacent wetlands (a)(7): W1 (totaling approximately 2.027 acres) and W2 and W3 (totaling approximately 0.054 acres) have been evaluated as palustrine emergent wetlands with a continuous surface connection to a TNW via requisite RPWs. W1 was assessed and determined to be a wetland adjacent to an RPW (UT of Baxter Creek), while W2 and W3 were assessed and determined to be wetlands adjacent to laterals of the West Gallatin Canal. UT Baxter Creek intersects with the West Gallatin Canal (Lat 45.660232, Long. - 111.082630), which flows north and continues under Farmers Canal through a siphon connector, with an option of an off-loader structure directly into Farmers Canal. The West Gallatin Canal then continues north northwest through a series of pipes, culverts, and occasionally daylights until it intersects with the Baxter Border Ditch, which is considered as a relocated perennially stream (Lat 45.702230, Long. -111.098682). From this point, Baxter Border Ditch continues flowing north where it intersects with Aajker Creek and then converges with McDonald Creek (Lat. 45.748854, Long. -111.127368). McDonald Creek continues north until in converges with Hyalite Creek (Lat 45.764848, Long. -111.127151). Hyalite Creek continues north until in intersects with the East Gallatin River (Lat 45.793874, Long -111.127986). The East Gallatin River is a tributary with the Gallatin River, a tributary of the Missouri River, a Section 10 TNW. The Farmers Canal flows northeast into a series of pipes and culverts where it then intersects with Mandeville Creek (Lat. 45.703305, Long. -111.055501) which then continues north where it intersects with the East Gallatin River (Lat. 45.703305, CENWO-OD-RMT SUBJECT: Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), NWO-2023-01707-MT 6 Long. -111.055501). The East Gallatin River is a tributary with the Gallatin River (a Section 404 TNW). These flow paths were evaluated utilizing Google Earth Pro aerial imagery (2014 – 2023) and data from Bozeman Infrastructure Viewer, along with USGS’s National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) Digital Elevation Model (DEM), and 3DEP Hillshade layers, and USFWS’s National Wetland Inventory (NWI) dataset within the Corps’ National Regulatory Viewer (NRV), and it was determined that these features maintain relatively permanent flows, as water was evident in the channels for all years of aerial imagery reviewed, as well as maintain a continuous surface connection to a TNW (the Gallatin River) via culverts and RPWs as discussed above and in Section 5. 8. NON-JURISDICTIONAL AQUATIC RESOURCES AND FEATURES a. Describe aquatic resources and other features within the review area identified as “generally non-jurisdictional” in the preamble to the 1986 regulations (referred to as “preamble waters”).9 Include size of the aquatic resource or feature within the review area and describe how it was determined to be non-jurisdictional under the CWA as a preamble water. N/A b. Describe aquatic resources and features within the review area identified as “generally not jurisdictional” in the Rapanos guidance. Include size of the aquatic resource or feature within the review area and describe how it was determined to be non-jurisdictional under the CWA based on the criteria listed in the guidance. N/A c. Describe aquatic resources and features identified within the review area as waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA. Include the size of the waste treatment system within the review area and describe how it was determined to be a waste treatment system. N/A d. Describe aquatic resources and features within the review area determined to be prior converted cropland in accordance with the 1993 regulations (reference 2.b.). Include the size of the aquatic resource or feature within the review area and describe how it was determined to be prior converted cropland. N/A e. Describe aquatic resources (i.e. lakes and ponds) within the review area, which do not have a nexus to interstate or foreign commerce, and prior to the January 2001 Supreme Court decision in “SWANCC,” would have been jurisdictional based solely on the “Migratory Bird Rule.” Include the size of the aquatic resource or feature, and how it was determined to be an “isolated water” in accordance with SWANCC. N/A 9 51 FR 41217, November 13, 1986. CENWO-OD-RMT SUBJECT: Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), NWO-2023-01707-MT 7 f. Describe aquatic resources and features within the review area that were determined to be non-jurisdictional because they do not meet one or more categories of waters of the United States under the pre-2015 regulatory regime consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett (e.g., tributaries that are non-relatively permanent waters; non-tidal wetlands that do not have a continuous surface connection to a jurisdictional water). N/A 9. DATA SOURCES. List sources of data/information used in making determination. Include titles and dates of sources used and ensure that information referenced is available in the administrative record. a. Office evaluation conducted on February 22, 2024 b. July 2023 Aquatic Delineation Report for 4840 Fowler Lane, delineated by Sundog Ecological, Inc. on May 31, 2023. c. Google Earth Pro 2014 - 2023 Assessed February 22, 2024; KML File (NWO-2023-01701-MT) is attached and is also located in the administrative file. d. USACE – National Regulatory Viewer – Montana, https://arcportal-ucop-corps.usace.army.mil/s0portal/apps/experiencebuilder/experience/?id=9e1a61cbac2341d1b75b58c6ffa5a5ca&page=Montana Assessed February 22, 2024 e. USGS Advanced Map Viewer, https://apps.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ Assessed February 22, 2024 f. USFWS NWI Wetlands Mapper, https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/ Assessed February 22, 2024 g. USGS StreamStats, https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/ Assessed February 22, 2024 h. Bozeman Infrastructure Viewer https://gisweb.bozeman.net/Html5Viewer/?viewer=infrastructure Assessed February 22, 2024 10. OTHER SUPPORTING INFORMATION. N/A 11. NOTE: The structure and format of this MFR were developed in coordination with the EPA and Department of the Army. The MFR’s structure and format may be subject to future modification or may be rescinded as needed to implement additional guidance from the agencies; however, the approved jurisdictional determination described herein is a final agency action. City of Bozeman, Montana, Maxar, Microsoft, Sources: Esri, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA, Intermap and the GIS user community, Esri Community Maps Contributors, Bozeman GIS, Montana State Library, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/ NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, City of Bozeman, Montana, Earthstar Geographics, Montana State University, Bozeman GIS, Montana State Library, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS¯ Legend Culvert W1 W2 W3 4840 Fowler Lane Project Boundary NWO-2023-01707-MT June, 2023 Legend Culvert Project Boundary W1 W2 W3 600 ft N➤➤N Image © 2024 Airbus Image © 2024 Airbus Image © 2024 Airbus NWO-2023-01707-MT Flow Path to E. Gallatin River Legend Baxter Border Ditch Culverts E. Gallatin River Farmers Canal Siphon/Connector Gallatin County Waterways Hyalite Creek McDonald Creek Project Boundary W1 Flow Path/UT of Baxter Creek/West Gallatin Canal W2 Flow Path W3 Flow Path 2 mi N➤➤N Image © 2024 Airbus Image © 2024 Airbus Image © 2024 Airbus CULVERT W3 W1 W2 Property/Project Boundary Bozeman GIS, Bureau of Land Management, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, USGS, EPA, USDA, USGS National Map 3D Elevation Program (3DEP). January 16, 2024., Esri, HERE, iPC, USGS TNM – National Hydrography Dataset. Data Refreshed January, 2024., Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency µ 0 0.1 0.20.05 mi Legend Coordinate System: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Projection: Mercator Auxiliary SphereMap Center: 111.080845°W 45.653298°N Map Created by: Hadden J. Carlberg Date: 2/22/2024NWO-2023-01707-MT µ 0 0.4 0.80.2 mi Legend Coordinate System: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary SphereMap Center: 111.080302°W 45.663383°N Map Created by: Hadden J. CarlbergNWO-2023-01707-MT Date: 2/22/2024 Montana State University, State of Montana, Esri, HERE, Garmin, iPC, USGS National Map 3D Elevation Program (3DEP). January 16, 2024., Montana State University, Bozeman GIS, Bureau of Land Management, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, USGS, METI/NASA, EPA, USDA, USGS TNM – National Hydrography Dataset. Data Refreshed January, W1W2 Culvert W3 Project/Property Boundary NWO-2023-01707-MT USGS The National Map: Orthoimagery and US Topo. Data refreshed August, 2023. USGS National Map 3D Elevation Program (3DEP). January 16, 2024. USGS The National Map: National Hydrography Dataset. Data Lines Override 1 Override 2 Override 3 Override 4 normPointStyle 1708620846908r7299892532436654_1 style30 style20 1708620846908r7299892532436654_0 falseColor0 falseColor2 Waterbody - Large Scale Estuary Ice Mass Lake Pond Playa Reservoir Swamp Marsh Area - Large Scale Area of Complex Channels Area to be Submerged BayInlet Bridge CanalDitch DamWeir Flume Foreshore Hazard Zone Inundation Area Lock Chamber Rapids SeaOcean Special Use Zone Spillway StreamRiver Submerged Stream Wash Water IntakeOutflow Flowline - Large Scale Perennial Intermittent Ephemeral Artificial Path Canal Ditch Coastline Connector Pipeline Underground Conduit Flow Direction Connector CanalDitch Underground Conduit StreamRiver StreamRiver - Perennial StreamRiver - Intermittent StreamRiver - Ephemeral Pipeline Artificial Path 3DEP Elevation - Auto Contours 0 255 2/22/2024, 11:02:11 AM 0 0.1 0.20.05 mi 0 0.2 0.40.1 km 1:9,028 USGS NWO-2023-01707-MT USGS The National Map: Orthoimagery and US Topo. Data refreshed August, 2023. USGS TNM – National Hydrography Dataset. Data Refreshed January, 2024. normPointStyle 1708620846908r7299892532436654_1 style30 style20 1708620846908r7299892532436654_0 falseColor0 falseColor2 Waterbody - Large Scale Estuary Ice Mass Lake Pond Playa Reservoir Swamp Marsh Area - Large Scale Area of Complex Channels Area to be Submerged BayInlet Bridge CanalDitch DamWeir Flume Foreshore Hazard Zone Inundation Area Lock Chamber Rapids SeaOcean Special Use Zone Spillway StreamRiver Submerged Stream Wash Water IntakeOutflow Flowline - Large Scale Perennial Intermittent Ephemeral Artificial Path Canal Ditch Coastline Connector Pipeline Underground Conduit Flow Direction Connector CanalDitch Underground Conduit StreamRiver StreamRiver - Perennial StreamRiver - Intermittent StreamRiver - Ephemeral Pipeline Artificial Path 2/22/2024, 11:44:40 AM 0 0.55 1.10.28 mi 0 0.85 1.70.42 km 1:36,112 USGS NWO-2023-01707-MT U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team,wetlands_team@fws.gov Wetlands Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Lake Other Riverine February 22, 2024 0 0.5 10.25 mi 0 0.85 1.70.425 km 1:31,559 This page was produced by the NWI mapper National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. PO Box 1424 Bozeman, MT 59771 :: 406.539.7244 :: briana@sundogeco.com EXPERIENCE Principal | Sundog Ecological, Inc., Bozeman, MT 01/2015 to Present ▪ Practicing conservation ecology in riverine, wetland and riparian ecosystems ▪ Conducting aquatic delineations for enhancement, restoration and development projects ▪ Conducting stream and riparian habitat surveys to produce outcomes reporting. ▪ Design and implementation of revegetation strategies for enhancement, restoration and development projects. ▪ Environmental Permitting (Federal, State, County and Local Entities) Supervisor | Gallatin County Conservation District, Manhattan, MT 12/2021 to term end 12/2028 ▪ The conservation district’s role is to identify the natural resource concerns and issues within Gallatin County, MT and determine how to best address them. ▪ Gallatin Conservation District works with Natural Streambed and Land Preservation ACT (SB310), agriculture, irrigation, local conservation advocacy, education/outreach workshops and tours, weed and pest management and many other areas of natural resources. Board Member | Gallatin Local Water Quality District, Bozeman, MT 03/2022 to Present ▪ Conducted stream and riparian habitat surveys, wetland delineations and monitoring. ▪ Produced outcomes reporting in the form of technical and final report documents. Revegetation Coordinator (Volunteer)| Mandeville Creek Restoration, Bozeman, MT 05/2015 to 12/2018 ▪ Planning, implementation, maintenance and monitoring of revegetation efforts associated with stream restoration of Mandeville Creek at Bozeman High School Stream Restoration Associate | Confluence Consulting, Inc., Bozeman, MT 06/2011 to 01/2015 ▪ Conducted stream and riparian habitat surveys, wetland delineations and monitoring. ▪ Produced outcomes reporting in the form of technical and final report documents. Graduate Teaching Assistant | Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 05/2008 to 12/2010 ▪ Participated in the development of teaching objectives, guidelines, outcomes measurement, teaching and grading of 300+ students throughout the school year. ▪ Responsible for the management and oversight of teaching assistants and graders. ▪ Member of Campus Sustainability and Advisory Council (CSAC). Associate | Gillilan Associates, Inc., Bozeman, MT 05/2004- 12/2004 ▪ Stream, wetland and riparian restoration, implementation and monitoring. ▪ Spring creek ecosystems research including locating and investigating spring creeks throughout Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming Research Assistant | Bio Regions International, Bozeman, MT May 2001-July 2001 ▪ Community wealth profile assessment in Hokkaido, Japan and Darhad Valley, Northern Mongolia. ▪ Project design for testing fencing functionality in sand dune areas to increase plant establishment in the Darhad Valley region, Northern Mongolia EXPERTISE • Aquatic (Wetland/Watercourse) and Riparian Delineations • Environmental Permitting (Federal, State and Local Entities) • Ecosystem Inventories and Habitat Assessments PO Box 1424 Bozeman, MT 59771 :: 406.539.7244 :: briana@sundogeco.com • Aquatic (Wetland/Watercourse) and Riparian Delineations • Environmental Permitting (Federal, State and Local Entities) • Subdivision Planning and Permitting for Aquatic Resources • Site Evaluation and Monitoring Development and Implementation • Riparian and Wetland Restoration Design and Construction • Revegetation Planning, Implementation, Maintenance and Monitoring • Ecosystem Inventories and Habitat Assessments • Aquatic Resource Inventory and Management EDUCATION, CERTIFICATIONS AND TRAININGS M.S. Land Resources and Environmental Science | Montana State University, Bozeman MT 2012 B.S. Land Rehabilitation, Soil Science Emphasis | Montana State University, Bozeman MT 2003 Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) | 11/2014 to Expires March 2027 Electrofishing Safety and Policy | Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Wetlands Regulation | Montana Department of Environmental Quality Basic Wetland Delineation with Field Practicum| Wetland Training Institute Wetlands Regulation and Permitting | Montana Department of Environmental Quality NRCS Riparian Assessment and MDT Wetland Functional Assessment Training SUNDOG ECOLOGICAL INC., PROJECT EXPERIENCE EXAMPLES Targhee Creek Aquatic Restoration, Island Park, Idaho 2023-Current. Conducted aquatic resource delineation and planned revegetation on 12 miles of stream channel and associated areas. Successfully submitted 404, 401, and related permits for restoration. Urban + Farm Subdivision, Bozeman, MT, 2020-Current. Conducted aquatic resource delineation on the Urban Farms Subdivision for environmental permitting through Federal, State and local entities. Planned restoration of approximately 1,000 feet of stream channel and wetland/riparian restoration associated with it. Sundog will conduct project oversite during the channel restoration and revegetation process and conduct all required monitoring and outcomes evaluation. Glen Lake Outfall Reconfiguration, Bozeman, MT, 2020-2022. Conducted aquatic resource delineation on Glen Lake Outfall to connect with a previously completed section of ditch within the Manley Road Reconfiguration Project. North Cottonwood Creek Restoration, Wyoming 2019-2022. Conducted aquatic resource delineation and planned revegetation on 12 miles of stream channel and associated areas. Successfully submitted 404, 401 and related permits. Manley Road Reconfiguration, Bozeman, MT 2019-2020. Conducted aquatic resource delineation, reporting and permitting on the Glen Lake Outfall and associated ditches and wetlands for improvements on Manley Road. Rocky Creek Restoration, Bozeman, MT, 2018-2019. Due to channel manipulation, floodplain farming, and floodplain encroachment, Rocky Creek in Gallatin Valley suffered a tremendous loss to its historic channel and floodplain processes. A large restoration project was designed to improve water quality while enhancing wildlife habitat. Rocky Creek restoration included excavating and establishing wetland swales, stabilizing an eroding PO Box 1424 Bozeman, MT 59771 :: 406.539.7244 :: briana@sundogeco.com toe slope threatening farming activities, installing a beaver analog structure and reactivating an abandoned channel. Dry Creek Fish Passage, Belgrade, MT 2017. A fish bypass channel was built to reconnect Dry Creek with the East Gallatin River. Sundog conducted aquatic resource delineation, reporting and permitting. Dry Creek Restoration, Belgrade, MT 2016-Present. Restoration of Dry Creek in the Gallatin Valley, MT is a multiphase approach that includes streambank stabilization and channel narrowing on multiple sections of stream channel. All projects require aquatic delineations and habitat assessments along with wetland and revegetation design, implementation and monitoring. Long Creek Restoration, Centennial Valley, MT, 2016- 2020. Conducted aquatic resource delineation and monitoring on Long Creek for The Nature Conservancy of MT. Bull Run Creek Restoration, Belgrade, MT, 2016-2023. Conducted aquatic resources delineation along Bull Run Creek and associated property for stream restoration and infrastructure development. Successfully submitted permits to multiple agencies. Mandeville Creek Restoration, Bozeman, MT, 2015-2021. Spearheaded revegetation planning, implementation and monitoring efforts along Mandeville Creek at Bozeman High School. BRIANA SCHULTZ PROJECT EXPERIENCE (OUTSIDE OF SUNDOG ECOLOGICAL INC.) Montana Department of Transportation Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Term Contract, 2013-2015. Conducted comprehensive environmental monitoring and wrote technical monitoring reports for 29 mitigation wetland projects. Montana Department of Transportation Stream Mitigation Monitoring Term Contract, 2013-2015. Established and conducted stream monitoring requirements and wrote technical monitoring reports on stream mitigation sites throughout Montana. Montana Department of Transportation Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Term Contract, 2010-2012. Wrote technical monitoring reports of 23 wetland mitigation sites throughout Montana. Reviewed field data and interpreted results. Upper Missouri River Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank, Twin Bridges, MT. 2011-2012. Conducted stream channel cross-section and longitudinal profile surveys, performed culvert inventory, and monitored discharges at 14 locations and assisted in wetland delineations as part of stream and wetland mitigation banking plan on the Hamilton Ranch near Twin Bridges, MT.