Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity and Naiad Response to MM comments 4-3-261 MEMO From: William Kleindl, Naiad Aquatic Consultants To: Mikaela Schultz, City of Bozeman Date: April 3, 2026 RE: Response to MM Comments on Laurel Meadows. 1. Topic: A functional assessment of the wetland, made in compliance with an assessment tool currently accepted by USACE and/or the State of Montana Review Comment: Yes presented, but I do not agree with the scoring. See extended notes below. Response: In the report, I presented a comparison between pre-project Wetland 3, Current Wetland 4 + Baxter Creek, and the Mitigated Wetland+Wetland 4 and Baxter Creek because they are geographically proximate, as they will certainly share subsurface hydrology. I have updated the MWAM Form and the table in the report to reflect just the presumed conditions of the mitigated wetland. Naiad Response: The total area on the impacted wetland is 2.58 acres and the wetland mitigation site is 2.60 acres. Therefore, MM is essentially proposing a 1:1 replacement ratio. In 2005, Montana USACE recommended a 2:1 replacement ratio for newly created (permittee-driven) on-site, in-kind mitigation (1:1 is allowed if the replacement is in an established bank). This matched the current requirements for the USACE Omaha district (https://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory- Program/Nebraska/Mitigation/Permittee-Responsible/ ). The purpose of these ratios is to reduce the risk of failure in newly created wetlands. A document from WA-State states that: “Studies prior to 2005 showed that about half of mitigation projects failed. Generally, the risk of failure was compensated in permits by requiring more area of mitigation with a basic ratio of 2:1. Two acres of mitigation were required for every acre of impact. Since 2005, several studies suggest that mitigation is improving, and the rate of failure is closer to 25%. As a result, the risk of failure has been reduced in the calculations. The basic ratio to account for the risk of failure is 1.5:1 instead of 2:1.” This assumes they replace the system ‘in-kind’, meaning the wetland type and its functions are replaced at that ratio. And the are referring to ‘improved mitigation’ that implies that the plants, water, and soils are established following best practices. If that is in place, then I would be satisfied with a replacement ratio of 1.5:1 for this project. 2 Other jurisdictions (WA State, for instance) allow for replacement ratios to consider functional capacity units (FCUs = function x area). MM is asking to use this FCU approach. Table 7 in the Section 3.4 (Mitigation Rations and Functional Replacement) of the Mitigation Plan, compares the FCUs lost in Wetland 3 (5.16) and those replaced in Wetland 4 (6.44). They never propose a replacement ratio, but Table 7 implies a replacement ratio of 1.25 FUCs. First, MWAM is a course assessment and should be used in combination with the mitigation plan details, including adequate design for water, plants, soil, and necessary maintenance. That said, I do not agree with the assessment scores that led to this implication. My calculations of Wetland 3, based on data provided in the wetland delineation report, and the Mitigation Wetland, based on plan sets, give me different scores (Below). Wet 3 FCU Mit FCU delta Listed/Proposed T&E Species habitat 0 0 0 0 0 MT Natural Heritage Program Species Habitat 0.1 0.258 0.1 0.26 0.002 General Wildlife Habitat 0.4 1.032 0.4 1.04 0.008 General Fish Habitat 0 0 Flood Attenuation 0 0 Short and Long Term Surface Water Storage 0.6 1.548 0.6 1.56 0.012 Sediment/Nutrient/Toxicant Removal 1 2.58 1 2.6 0.02 Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization 0 0 Production Export/Food Chain Support 0.4 1.032 0.4 1.04 0.008 Groundwater Discharge/Recharge 0 0 Uniqueness 0.3 0.774 0.3 0.78 0.006 Total Function 2.8 7.224 2.8 7.28 0.056 Recreation/Education Potential 0.2 0.52 0.52 Total Function and values 2.8 7.224 3 7.8 0.576 • 12i Disturbance needs to consider 500 feet of edge, which should be moderate for both WL3 and the Mitgation site. • 14Cii should be high, not excellent. 14Ciii should 0.4, that should be the score of wetland 3 and the mitigation site with a rank of M • 14F mitigation site is 2.6 and only a small portion is inundated. Acre feet of storage will need to be calculated at most the score is 0.4 IMO but no more than 0.6. • 14G the area has potential for runoff, no outlet, evidence of surface water, so each would score a 1.0 • 14L there is no outlet or fish for both, bio activity should be M • 14Lii should therefore be 0.4 for both. • 14K each wetland type are common and have a score of 0.3 3 The wetlands will be the same in terms of functions according to the MWAM tool, with a slight increase in FCU due to the 0.02-acre increase, but essentially a replacement ratio of 1:1. There is an increase in the replacement ratio to 1.1:1 when including education. This is much different than the ~4:1 ratio of functions originally proposed. And not sufficient for a replacement ratio for either function or area. City Response – The City supports a 1:1 replacement ratio. Further discussion of functional units should be addressed with stage 3 infrastructure review. See memo from engineering dated April 3, 2026. 2. Topic: A narrative description of how the applicant will first avoid and, if avoidance is not possible, minimize and mitigate impacts to wetlands and watercourses. Review comment: Much of the fill of Wetland 3 is to create open space, there is no discussion of the need for the fill in the open space. Response: A robust discussion on Avoidance and Minimization Measures is provided in Section 2.2 of the Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report (Report). Section 2.3 of the Report provides a bulleted list of why Wetland 3 requires filling to achieve project goals. Although the existing wetland is primarily located within open space, its position conflicts with the site’s required grading, especially given the high groundwater table, which requires importing substantial fill. Even if the wetland were avoided, the required setbacks would make several adjacent lots unusable and restrict the planned subdivision layout. Naiad Response: Approved. Topic: If development activities are proposed in or adjacent to watercourses of wetlands, the following additional information is required in the wetlands and watercourse delineation report: Review comment: No site plan with table provided on plan set, but a table was provided in the report. No list of proposed impacts on plan set, but a table is provided in the report. Buffers and setbacks are not provided on a plan devoted to wetlands alone. Wetland 4 continues off-site to the east, and the buffer appears to continue to the SE corner. Response: These tables are now on Drawing D-1. Naiad Response: Approved 3. Topic: Identify proposed mitigation consistent with the priorities listed in 38.610.100 and the rationale for the applicant’s preferred mitigation. 4 Review comment: See extended notes below Response: The project owner has elected to mitigate proposed wetland impacts on site in accordance with Sec. 38.610.100 (1). “Impacts must be mitigated on-site where feasible to do so.” This is also discussed in Section 4.4 of the Report. Naiad Response: Approved 4. Topic: A description of the proposed mitigation 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. Review comment: Setback and buffers are not provided. Earlier comments suggested moving the trail from the east of the mitigation site to the west side to avoid buffer impacts. But the trail remains on the east side. Response: Setbacks are buffers are depicted on Drawings D-1 and D-2. In discussions with the City of Bozeman on February 26, 2026, it was decided that the trail was an amenity to the community and would remain where depicted on the drawings. The trail is gravel and is permeable. Naiad Response: We need consensus on the buffer width for the mitigation site. For isolated wetlands, which this mitigation site is, the code (38.610.080.B) says, “Minimum Wetland Buffer. All development must provide a minimum wetland buffer of 25 feet... The review authority may require a larger wetland buffer based on the wetland delineation report.” As this is a wetland in its inception, a larger buffer will protect it from disturbances from upslope sources. I recommend 50. City Response: The City supports a minimum buffer width of 25’. 5. Topic: An analysis of the anticipated post development hydrologic and soil conditions on the project site hydrologic and soil conditions of the mitigation wetlands abased 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. Review comment: See extended notes below Response: Temporary monitoring wells will be installed to monitor water levels within the 5 mitigated wetland for 5 years, as required by City code. Please see the Report Section for a discussion of soil nutrients in post-development conditions. Naiad Response: These should be on plan with typical specifications and methods for monitoring these should be described prior to approval. City Response: The final mitigated wetland performance monitoring plan and specifications should be submitted and reviewed with Stage 9 infrastructure final review and acceptance. A complete and compliant monitoring plan must be in place prior to the Citys formal acceptance and certification subdivision infrastructure. See memo from engineering dated April 3, 2026. 6. Topic: A planting plan and schedule by proposed community type and hydrologic regime, size and type of plan material to be installed, spacing of plants, typical clustering patterns, total number of species by community type, timing of installation, nutrient requirements, watering schedule, weed control, and, where appropriate, measures to protect plants from damage. Review comment: Not provided Response: The majority of this information was provided within the landscaping plans that were attached as Appendix H of the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and discussed in narrative format in Section 6 of the report. • Planting plan and schedule by proposed community type and hydrologic regime – See Landscaping Plan (L001) • Size and type of Plant Material – See Landscaping Plan (L001) • Spacing of plants and typical clustering patterns – See Landscaping Plan (all pages) • Total Number of species by community type – see Landscaping Plan (L001) • Timing of Installation – Discussed in Section 6.4 of the Report Ideal timelines: o Seeding in the fall with the soil temperature around 60 degrees. o Wetland sod transplanting will occur in the early spring o Other plantings will occur in the spring/early summer or fall. • Nutrient requirements – See Landscaping Plan (Site Soil Prep on L001) • Watering Schedule – Depicted in Landscaping Plan L601 and discussed in Section 6.4.1 of the Report. Approximately 20-30 gallons a week for wetland trees and 10-15 gallons per shrub. Irrigation will likely occur 3 to 4 times a week for 60 minutes. 6 • Weed Control – See Noxious Weed Management Plan (via Project Dox) • Measures to Protect Plants from Damage – See note under Plant Schedule- Parks Phase 1 in the Landscaping Plan Naiad Response: Not acceptable. • hydrological zones not provided in L001 • There is an obligate plant in the buffer plant list. This is an wetland obligate. • Most of the site is turf salvaged from Wetland 3, which, according to the data sheet, is dominated by Typha latifolia, which would require inundation to survive, and Phalaris arundinacea, which is a non-native. Both tend to form monocultures and will outcompete most planted herbaceous species. • I still have not seen details on soil depth, and make up content within the wetland area. The report simply says “graded and amended,” and “onsite soils.” Most wetland mitigation fails due to poorly designed wetland soil. Nor have I seen a mention of soil salvage from Wetland 3. City Response – The landscaping plans submitted with the preliminary plat application are subject to further review in coordination with the wetland mitigation plan. Landscaping and planting plans should be re-submitted with stage 3 infrastructure review to determine final design and compliance with the mitigation efforts. See memo from engineering dated April 3, 2026. 7. Topic: 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 Review comment: Inadequate, See extended notes below Response: The report has been updated with “The mitigated wetland will be monitored for a minimum of 5 years. Additional years may be required by the City if performance standards are not met.” Temporary monitoring wells will be installed to monitor water levels within the mitigated wetland for 5 years, as required by City code. Naiad Response: I recommend that all monitoring, including the wells, matches the language in their previous sentence. 8. Topic: 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 7 80% a survival of the planted shrubs and trees” Review comment: Inadequate, see extended notes below Response: The mitigation performance criteria is modeled after US Army Corps of Engineers and Montana Department of Transportation Approach as referenced in Section 7 of the Report: Performance Standard Success Criteria Wetland Characteristics Meet the three parameter criteria for hydrology, vegetation, and soils as outlined in the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and 2010 Mountains, Valleys, Coast Region. Wetland Hydrology Soil saturation present for at least 12.5 percent of the growing season Hydric Soil Hydric soil conditions present or appear to be forming Soil is sufficiently stable to prevent erosion Soil is able to support plant cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Achieved where the combined absolute cover of facultative or wetter species is ≥80 percent Montana State-listed noxious weeds do not exceed 10 percent aerial cover. Planted trees and shrubs will be considered successful where they exhibit 60 percent survival after 5 years. Open Water It is the intent of the project to provide open water during spring and early summer within the excavated depression. As the growing season progresses and the groundwater levels recede, it is anticipated that the vegetation will germinate within the depression. Open water with submerged or floating vegetation will be considered successful. 8 Upland Buffer Noxious weeds do not exceed 5 percent cover within upland buffer areas. Upland buffer must have at least 50 percent aerial cover of non-weed species by end of monitoring period. Weed Control Will be based upon annual monitoring of the site to determine weed species and degree of infestation within the site. Weed control will be provided in accordance to the approved Gallatin County Noxious Weed District Noxious Weed Management Plan for Developments by an approved weed treatment contractor. Naiad Response: Not acceptable • There needs to be delineation of the site at year 1, 3, and 5. The wetland should be 2.6 acres or larger. • Wetland hydrology meets that criteria in all wells within the wetland area, not overall. • How will “appears to be forming” measured? My previous comments provided details. • There should be no noxious weeds present within the mitigation area. • Upland buffer, 100% native plants are required. • Weed control is not a success criteria; it is a maintenance plan. City Response: The final mitigated wetland performance monitoring plan and specifications should be submitted and reviewed with Stage 9 infrastructure final review and acceptance. A complete and compliant monitoring plan must be in place prior to the Citys formal acceptance and certification subdivision infrastructure. See memo from engineering dated April 3, 2026. 9. Topic: 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. Review comment: Not provided. 9 Response: The boundary of the existing wetlands were surveyed by a Licensed Surveyor. The buffer areas were established in CAD by measuring the appropriate distance from the surveyed boundary to the required buffered space. Locations of the existing wetlands and buffers; the proposed location and acreage of wetlands and buffer impacts; and the location of proposed wetland and buffer mitigation areas can be found on the following figures within the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan: Drawings D-1 and D-2. Naiad Response: Approved 10. Topic: 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. Review Comment: Not provided Response: Half-foot contour intervals are provided on Drawing D-2. Naiad Response: Approved 11. Topic: A description of ongoing management practices that will protect and maintain any nonimpacted wetland areas and the proposed mitigation wetland, watercourse and buffer areas. Review Comment: Not provided Response: All other wetlands are protected under existing deed restrictions. The Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Laurel Meadows Subdivision Exhibit C – Park and Open Space Maintenance Plan provides details on the on-going maintenance practices that will occur within City Parks. With the creation of the City-Wide Park Maintenance District, the City of Bozeman maintains responsibility for all maintenance of recreation and other facilities within dedicated parks. The neighborhood associated will be responsible for liability insurance, local taxes, and maintenance of recreation and other facilities in the Open Spaces, including within limitation common properties, paths and trails, facilities, centers, and adjacent sidewalks and/or landscaping in street boulevards. The Declaration of Protective Covenants available in City of Bozeman Project Docx Portal for this project. Naiad Response: See Makaela’s response City Response: See parks comment 12. Topic: 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. 10 Review comment: Not provided for Wetland 4 and associated ditch. Response: As a part of the City of Bozeman’s Ditch Noticing process (BMC38.360.280), Morrison-Maierle reviewed the Agricultural Water User Facilities and water rights associated with the subject property. Based on the findings documented in the Agricultural Water User Facility memo, the following information is highlighted: • No known water rights are associated with the subject property except for the stock water rights owned by the landowner. • The property contains a relic private irrigation ditch that is abandoned and non- operational. It runs along the west side of Baxter Creek and has no source flow or outflow. The ditch infrastructure is deteriorated and does not convey water. • Baxter Creek and associated wetlands will remain undisturbed. There are no proposed impacts to Baxter Creek or the remnant private ditch. • The Montana DNRC Water Rights Query System shows that the only active water rights on the property are for stock use • A Ditch Notice letter was sent to Farmers Canal Company was sent on November 11, 2025. No response was received. • The Agricultural Water User Facility Memo is available for reference in the City of Bozeman Project Dox Portal for this project. Naiad Response: If the city is satisfied. 13. Topic: An as-build plan of the affected area within six months of completion. Review comment: Not mentioned. Response: It is affirmed that an as-built plan of the affected area will be submitted within six months of completion. Naiad Response: Approved 14. Topic: 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. Review comment: Not provided on plan Response: Watercourse setbacks are measured from the ordinary high-water mark on the following Drawings D-1 and D-2. Naiad Response: Approved 15. Topic: 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. 11 Review comment: Not provided on plan Response: There is not a defined floodplain associated with Baxter Creek as it has not been mapped as part of the FEMA process. Morrison Maierle surveyed the 40-acre property, including the waterways with GPS survey equipment. Cross sections were developed approximately every 100 feet along each waterway in AutoCad. Bentley Flowmaster V10.02 was used to analyze each cross section to determine the water surface elevation for the given flow rate. The water surface elevation was then mapped in AutoCad to show the extents of flooding in the current condition and areas that will require grading. All of these data, including maps and former studies are included within the Flood Hazard Report for West Park Subdivision (now Laurel Meadows) dated May 2, 2022 and is available for reference in the City of Bozeman Project Dox Portal for this project. Naiad Response: If the City is satisfied. 16. Topic: The setback must incorporate a minimum 50-foot wetland setback from the delineated boundary of any wetlands adjacent to the watercourse. Review Comment: Not provided on plan Response: A 50-foot setback from the delineated boundary of wetlands adjacent to Baxter Creek is indicated on the Drawing D-1. Naiad Response: A wetland line on the neighbor's property to the east should be estimated. I recommend following the edge as an extension of the wetland edge as shown in Figure 2 of the wetland report. This is required in 38.710.120.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…” Then a 50-foot setback should be added to that estimated edge capture any potential setback on the property east of the mitigation site. City Response: Preliminary Plat Sheet 003 shows a 25’ setback off the subject property line and covenant dedication of deed restriction. The City supports the setback from the property line. 17. Topic: On-site stormwater treatment facilities may be located in Zone 2 Review comment: Not provided on plan. Additionally Wetlands 2 and 5 are considered stormwater but no details are provided. Response: Stormwater treatment facilities are identified on Drawing D-1 Wetland Overview. Additionally, as-builts for Wetlands 2 and 5 in Appendix E of the Report. 12 Naiad Response: I do not see the outfalls from the site ponds or how Wetland 2 and 5 are connected to the site infrastructure. I will leave it to the city for their satisfaction. City Response: Outfalls fall under the purview of stormwater review. See Ref#61. Additional outfall review will take place at Stage 3 infrastructure design review. 18. Topic: Trails, and trail-related improvements, such as benches and trail signage, may be placed in Zone 2. Review comment: Earlier comments suggested moving the trail from the east of the mitigation site to the west side to avoid buffer impacts. But the trail remains on the east side. Response: In discussions with the City of Bozeman on February 26, 2026, it was decided that the trail was an amenity to the community and would remain where depicted on the drawings. The trail is gravel and is permeable. Naiad Response: Approved. 19. Topic: 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; Review comment: Earlier comments suggested moving the trail from the east of the mitigation site to the west side to avoid impacts. But the trail remains on the east side. No details are provided and plantings on the NE portion of the site adjacent to Wetland 4. Response: In discussions with the City of Bozeman on February 26, 2026, it was decided that the trail was an amenity to the community and would remain where depicted on the drawings. The trail is gravel and is permeable. Naiad Response: Approved. 20. Topic: 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. Review comment: Earlier comments suggested moving the trail from the east of the mitigation site to the west side to avoid impacts. But the trail remains on the east side. No details are provided and plantings on the NE portion of the site adjacent to Wetland 4. Response: Setbacks are buffers are depicted on Drawings D-1 and D-2. In discussions 13 with the City of Bozeman on February 26, 2026, it was decided that the trail was an amenity to the community and would remain where depicted on the drawings. The trail is gravel and is permeable. Naiad Response: Approved. 21. Topic: 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. Review comment: Earlier comments suggested moving the trail from the east of the mitigation site to the west side to avoid impacts. But the trail remains on the east side. No details are provided and plantings on the NE portion of the site adjacent to Wetland 4. Response: In discussions with the City of Bozeman on February 26, 2026, it was decided that the trail was an amenity to the community and would remain where depicted on the drawings. The trail is gravel and is permeable. Naiad Response: Approved. 22. Topic: Construction must be capable of withstanding 100-year flood events Review comment: Contingent on floodplain analysis Response: There is not a defined floodplain associated with Baxter Creek as it has not been mapped as part of the FEMA process. Morrison Maierle surveyed the 40-acre property, including the waterways with GPS survey equipment. Cross sections were developed approximately every 100 feet along each waterway in AutoCad. Bentley Flowmaster V10.02 was used to analyze each cross section to determine the water surface elevation for the given flow rate. The water surface elevation was then mapped in AutoCad to show the extents of flooding in the current condition and areas that will require grading. All of these data, including maps and former studies are included within the Flood Hazard Report for West Park Subdivision (now Laurel Meadows) dated May 2, 2022 and is available in the City of Bozeman ProjectDox Portal. Naiad Response: Approved if the city is satisfied 23. Topic: 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 improvements. Review comment: Contingent on floodplain analysis. Response: No watercourse crossings are proposed therefore a bank stabilization plan 14 for watercourse crossings is not required. Naiad Response: Approved. 24. Topic: 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 comment: Wetlands 2 and 5 are considered stormwater, but no details are provided. No details on stormwater plan. Response: Stormwater treatment facilities are identified on Drawing D-1: Wetland Overview. Additionally, as-builts for Wetlands 2 and 5 are available in Appendix E of the Report and the Storm Water Design Report for Laurel Meadows Subdivision dated November 2025 is available in the City of Bozeman Project Dox Portal for this project. No untreated stormwater will discharge directly into a watercourse. Naiad Response: See comment above. 25. Topic: 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. Review comment: See detailed notes below Response: The entire property is managed under an approved noxious weed management plan signed by the landowner and the Gallatin County Noxious Weed Board. Within the covenants, the following language exists: A weed control program will be developed that conforms to the requirements of the City of Bozeman, Gallatin County Weed Control Board Supervisor, and NRCS. This program will consist of an annual visit in June to spot spray where necessary, including trails and sidewalks. Weeds will be sprayed by a licensed contractor, according to industry and local standards, on a regular basis, using appropriate applications and products. The utmost care will be taken to protect water sources, park users and adjacent property owners. The City of Bozeman shall be notified of all applications of pesticides and/or herbicide on public lands. Signs shall be posted prior to application in appropriate and noticeable locations identifying the product applied and the date applied. Signs will remain in place for a minimum of two days after treatment. Records shall be maintained in accordance with State of Montana Pesticide Act, Administrative Rule 4.10.207 and copies submitted to the City of Bozeman Parks Division. Naiad Response: Approved. 15 26. Topic: Zone 1 must be revegetated with new or existing materials suited for riparian area based on the following….. Review comment: Because the buffer/setbacks are not clearly established on the plan, I cannot determine. However all plants labeled wetland/storm area enhancement are native except for Penstemon eatonii, which is not native to Montana. Response: Penstemon eatonii is removed from the species list. All buffers and setbacks are clearly labeled in the Landscape Plans. Naiad Response: Approved. 27. Topic: 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. Review comment: Because the buffer/setbacks are not clearly established on the plan, I cannot determine. However all plants labeled wetland/storm area enhancement are native except for Penstemon eatonii, which is not native to Montana. Response: Penstemon eatonii is removed from the species list. All buffers and setbacks are clearly labeled in the Landscape Plans. Naiad Response: Approved. 28. Topic: Use of native grasses, forbs, sedges, trees, and other herbaceous plants in areas of disturbance within the watercourse setback is required. Review comment: Because the buffer/setbacks are not clearly established on the plan, I cannot determine. However all plants labeled wetland/storm area enhancement are native except for Penstemon eatonii, which is not native to Montana. Response: Penstemon eatonii is removed from the species list. All buffers and setbacks are clearly labeled on Landscaping Plans. Naiad Response: Approved. 29. Topic: The functions and values described and as determined by a USACE accepted method of functional assessment of the wetland that may be affected by the proposed regulated activity; 16 Review comment: See extended notes below Response: In the report, I presented a comparison between pre-project Wetland 3, Current Wetland 4 + Baxter Creek, and the Mitigated Wetland+Wetland 4 and Baxter Creek because they are geographically proximate, as they will certainly share subsurface hydrology. I have updated the MWAM Form and the table in the report to reflect just the presumed conditions of the mitigated wetland. Naiad Response: See my comments above on replacement ratio and assessment results. 30. Topic: The extent and permanence of adverse effects of the regulated activity on the wetland as any associated watercourse. Review comment: Not provided. Response: The proposed regulated activity will result in the complete, permanent fill of one isolated wetland (Wetland 3). This impact is localized and confined to the wetland area being filled and does not extend to Baxter Creek or any associated watercourse, as Wetland 3 has no hydrologic connection to the creek or its adjacent riparian wetlands. The permanence of the impact is limited to the filled wetland footprint. Although the impact is permanent, it is being fully mitigated onsite, consistent with City of Bozeman’s preferred mitigation approach, which prioritizes on-site replacement of wetland functions and values before considering off-site mitigation. The onsite mitigation area has been designed to replace and enhance hydrologic, vegetative, and habitat functions, and is located adjacent to existing wetland and riparian resources, thereby increasing functional connectivity and long-term ecological value. Short-term construction-related disturbances (e.g., temporary soil exposure, vegetation removal, minor sedimentation potential) will be minimized through BMPs and will dissipate once grading and revegetation are complete. No adverse effects, temporary or permanent, are expected to occur to Baxter Creek or its hydrologically connected wetland systems. Overall, while the fill of Wetland 3 is a permanent impact, the ecological loss is fully offset through on-site compensatory mitigation, ensuring no net loss of wetland function and long-term protection of watercourse resources. Naiad Response: Approved once we finalize the mitigation plan. 31. Topic: The applicants demonstration that any unavoidable adverse impacts on the wetland may have been minimized. 17 Review Comments: See extended notes below Response: Unavoidable impacts to Wetland 3 have been minimized through a combination of site design choices, preservation of high-value wetlands, functional justification, and on-site ecological restoration that provides substantially greater long- term wetland function than the impacted wetland. Naiad Response: Approved once we finalize the mitigation plan 32. Topic: The applicant’s demonstration that the activity will result in minimal impairment to any wetland function, including plant, animal or other wildlife species listed as threatened, endangered under federal low or species of concern, potential concern or species of the state: Review comments: See extended notes below Response: Morrison Maierle prepared a wildlife assessment for the Laurel Meadows Subdivision property. The memo concluded that the absence of T&E species and critical habitat, lack of suitable habitat for species of concern, a creation of a wetland mitigation site, and the incorporation of basic tenants of FWP-recommended protective design measures demonstrates that the proposed subdivision will result in minimal impairment to area wildlife communities and habitat. The Wildlife Assessment at Laurel Meadows technical memo dated March 2026 is available for reference in the City of Bozeman Project Dox Portal for this project. Naiad Response: Approved once we finalize the mitigation plan 33. Topic: 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 report. Review comment: Not provided on plan Response: Wetland Buffers are reflected on the following Drawings D-1 and D-2 and the Landscaping Plan set. Naiad Response: Approved for all wetland 1. 34. Topic: 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. 18 Review comment: Because this is a mitigation site, the site should consider a 50-foot buffer to protect the new wetland as it develops. Response: There is a 25-foot buffer around the mitigated wetland, as required by the City code. While not a “formal” buffer, the buffer itself is surrounded by City park land. No development, other than that for recreation, will occur within the City park property. This maintains the hydrologic integrity of the site while minimizing disturbance from development pressures. The mitigation site is not directly connected to the Baxter Creek wetland complex and is therefore not required to maintain a 50-foot buffer. Naiad Response: A wetland line on the neighbor's property to the east should be estimated. I recommend following the edge as an extension of the wetland edge as shown in Figure 2 of the wetland report. This is required in 38.710.120.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…” Then a 50-foot setback should be added to that estimated edge capture any potential setback on the property east of the mitigation site. City Response: Preliminary Plat Sheet 003 shows a 25’ setback off the subject property line and covenant dedication of deed restriction. The City supports the setback from the property line. 35. Topic: Modifying proposals for waste disposal, stormwater or water supply facilities. Review comment: Stormwater details is not provided Response: Stormwater treatment facilities are identified on Drawing D-1: Wetland Overview. Additionally, as-builts for Wetlands 2 and 5 are available in Appendix E of the Report and the Storm Water Design Report for Laurel Meadows Subdivision dated November 2025 is available for reference within the City of Bozeman ProjectDox Portal for this project. Naiad Response: See note above on stormwater 36. Topic: 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. Review comment: inadequate Response: All other wetlands are protected under existing deed restrictions. The Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Laurel Meadows 19 Subdivision Exhibit C – Park and Open Space Maintenance Plan provides details on the on-going maintenance practices that will occur within City Parks. With the creation of the City-Wide Park Maintenance District, the City of Bozeman maintains responsibility for all maintenance of recreation and other facilities within dedicated parks. The neighborhood associated will be responsible for liability insurance, local taxes, and maintenance of recreation and other facilities in the Open Spaces, including within limitation common properties, paths and trails, facilities, centers, and adjacent sidewalks and/or landscaping in street boulevards. The Declaration of Protective Covenants are available for reference within the City of Bozeman ProjectDox Portal for this project. Naiad Response: See Mikaela’s Response. 37. Topic: 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. Review comment: inadequate Response: All other wetlands are protected under existing deed restrictions. The Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Laurel Meadows Subdivision Exhibit C – Park and Open Space Maintenance Plan provides details on the on-going maintenance practices that will occur within City Parks. With the creation of the City-Wide Park Maintenance District, the City of Bozeman maintains responsibility for all maintenance of recreation and other facilities within dedicated parks. The neighborhood associated will be responsible for liability insurance, local taxes, and maintenance of recreation and other facilities in the Open Spaces, including within limitation common properties, paths and trails, facilities, centers, and adjacent sidewalks and/or landscaping in street boulevards. The Declaration of Protective Covenants are available for reference within the City of Bozeman ProjectDox Portal for this project. Naiad Response: See Mikaela’s response. 38. Topic: Requiring erosion control and storm water best management practices (BMPs) Review comment: Contingent on SWPPP Response: The selected contractor will be responsible for applying for coverage under the General Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction Activity (MTR100000). A Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) will be developed and administrated by certified staff. Naiad Response: If the city is satisfied. 20 39. Topic: Modifying the project design to ensure a reliable source and flow of water to the regulated wetland. Review comment: See Comment below Response: The project involves the establishment of a depressional wetland to replace the depressional wetland that is being filled. The source of hydrology to this wetland is groundwater to the wetland that is being filled and the wetland that is being established is groundwater. Groundwater is also the source of hydrology to the created wetlands associated within Bronken Park. Historic groundwater monitoring indicates that groundwater will be a reliable source of water to the mitigated wetland site. The hydroperiod is discussed in Section 5 of the Report. Hydrology is discussed in Section 4.2 of the Report. Naiad Response: Approved. 40. Topic: Requiring or restricting maintenance of a regulated wetland area for the purpose of maintaining wetland functions: Review comment: Deed restriction, but detail on protective covenants are not provided. Response: The Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Laurel Meadows Subdivision Exhibit C – Park and Open Space Maintenance Plan provides details on the on-going maintenance practices that will occur within City Parks. With the creation of the City-Wide Park Maintenance District, the City of Bozeman maintains responsibility for all maintenance of recreation and other facilities within dedicated parks. The neighborhood associated will be responsible for liability insurance, local taxes, and maintenance of recreation and other facilities in the Open Spaces, including within limitation common properties, paths and trails, facilities, centers, and adjacent sidewalks and/or landscaping in street boulevards. The Declaration of Protective Covenants are available for reference within the City of Bozeman ProjectDox Portal for this project. Naiad Response: See Mikeala’s response. 41. Topic: 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). Review comment: See comments below Response: The mitigation site will be monitored for 5 years. 21 Naiad Response: Language should match the language in the response number 8. 42. Topic: Requiring that all reasonable effort be made to limit indirect impacts to vegetation and hydrological connectivity in the site design. Review comment: Not provided Response: The current vegetation on the subject property is mainly noxious weeds and tall tumble mustard. Additionally, a large part of the mitigation area is a large borrow- pit. The current vegetation will be disturbed and the site will be revegetated and treated for noxious weeds. Hydrological connectivity will be maintained by maintaining permeable surfaces for recreation installations within the mitigation buffer and the surrounding Park area. Naiad Response: This response addresses current conditions, not future efforts to limit indirect impacts. City Response: Indirect impacts including but not limited to lighting, snow storage and trash should be considered and reviewed with stage 3 infrastructure design review. 43. Topic: Impacts must be mitigated on-site where feasible to do so. Using an approved wetland function 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. Review comment: Inadequate Response: In the report, I presented a comparison between pre-project Wetland 3, Current Wetland 4 + Baxter Creek, and the Mitigated Wetland+Wetland 4 and Baxter Creek because they are geographically proximate, as they will certainly share subsurface hydrology. I have updated the MWAM Form and the table in the report to reflect just the presumed conditions of the mitigated wetland. Naiad Response: See my comments above on replacement ratio and assessment results.