Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNaiad_25799_Review_1-27-26 Mikeala Schultz January 27, 2026 City of Bozeman 20 East Olive Ave Bozeman, Mt 59771 RE: Sensitive areas review of permit material for Laural Meadows (#25-799) Ms. Schultz, On June 24, October 10, December 6th, 2022, January 27, July 7, September 25, November 24, 2023, and on January 9, 2024, I provided a review of the potential impacts to aquatic resources from the development of the West Park Subdivision (#22178) for the City of Bozeman (COB). Since that time, this project has been renamed and issued a new permit number, now called Laural Meadows (#25799). On January 12, 2026, I received the 336 page permit materials for Laural Meadows. Here, I provide a review of potential impacts on sensitive aquatic areas and proposed mitigation measures. This review incorporates new material. This letter-report reviews those materials and is intended to help you with your planning and permitting process. It is based solely on my professional opinion. I am not an engineer; therefore, the following thoughts and recommendations must be carefully considered by planners and approved by licensed engineers and architects. This review is of the materials required for permitted activities within the city’s aquatic resources. The tables below reflect the updated 2025 City of Bozeman code for wetlands and waterways. Several elements of this code articulate the city's authority to regulate these resources and are not listed below. Other elements outline the information required from a proponent to obtain permission to conduct activities in and around these resources. The code specific to these is listed below, along with a check to determine whether the information was provided and whether it is adequate to meet the intent of the regulations. Following this check are specific comments from the reviewer. I recommend resolving the items in red. Table 1. 38.220.130 Submittal materials for review of activities in or adjacent to wetlands and watercourses (updated 11/1/25) Code section 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 that 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 on-site. 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 wetland delineation report was conducted on 7/21 and is valid until 7/26. Because this was reviewed earlier, I will accept this as is. But in the future, the wetland practitioner must adhere to the USACOE manual to determine whether Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) or Thick Dark Surface (A12) is present. (a.2) An Approved Jurisdictional Determination provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); Yes Review Comments An AJD was provided for Wetland 3 only, dated 12/9/21, and it is valid until 12/9/26. After that time, the area will need to be redelineated, and another AJD will be required. (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; Inadequate Review Comments Yes presented, but I do not agree with the scoring. See extended notes below. (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 Code section 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; Yes Review Comments (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 N/A Review Comments No impacts to watercourses (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. Inadequate Review Comments 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 area. 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: a. · 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: o the wetland/watercourse identification number; labeling of the corresponding wetland buffer or watercourse setback with its width and acreage; o the acreage of the subject property and of each wetland, watercourse, and wetland buffer or watercourse setback; o notation of the wetland jurisdictional status; o proposed impacts within all wetland buffers and watercourses setbacks; and, o proposed mitigation methods and acreages. Inadequate Review Comments 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 provided in 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. Code section Submitted b. All indirect impacts must be summarized in a narrative section of the application. Yes Review Comments c. Application materials for all applicable permits identified in 38.220.020. Yes Review Comments d. A wetland review checklist with each element confirmed as complete. Yes Review Comments 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 See extended notes below (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. Yes Review Comments (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. Yes Review Comments (a.4) An assessment of the potential changes in wetland hydroperiod for the proposed project. Yes Review Comments (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. Inadequate Review Comments 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. Code section Submitted (a.6) Field data that documents the existing conditions of the proposed mitigation sites. Yes Review Comments (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. Inadequate Review Comments See extended notes below. (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 Not provided (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. Inadequate Review Comments See extended notes below. (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"). Inadequate Review Comments See extended notes below. (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. Inadequate Review Comments See extended notes below. 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 Not provided Code section Submitted (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 Review Comments Not provided (b.3) Provide an existing and proposed mitigation design cross-section for the wetland and/or buffer proposed mitigation areas. Yes Review Comments 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 Not provided 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 Not provided for Wetland 4 and the associated ditch 38.220.130.C An as-built plan of the affected area within six months of completion. No Review Comments Not mentioned 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 Not provided on plan The following apply to all developments. a. Setbacks. The following setback requirements must be met: 1) East Gallatin River. A minimum 100-foot setback must be provided along both sides of the East Gallatin River. Code section Code Requirement Submitted 2) Sourdough/Bozeman Creek and Bridger Creek. A minimum 75-foot setback must be provided along both sides of Sourdough/Bozeman and Bridger Creeks. 3) Other watercourses. A minimum 50-foot setback must be provided along both sides of all other watercourses. 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); Inadequate Review Comments Not provided on plan (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. Inadequate Review Comments Not provided on plan 2.c Allowed encroachments. The watercourse setback is divided into two zones. Zone 1 consists of 60 percent of the setback closest to the watercourse, and Zone 2 consists of the remaining 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 Not provided on plan. Additionally, Wetlands 2 and 5 are considered stormwater, but no details are provided. (2.a) Trails, and trail-related improvements, such as benches and trail signage, may be placed in Zone 2; Inadequate Review Comments 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. (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; Inadequate Review Comments 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. No details are provided for trail system and plantings on NE portion of the site adjacent to Wetland 4. (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; Inadequate Review Comments 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. No details are provided for trail system and plantings on NE portion of the site adjacent to Wetland 4. (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 Inadequate Review Comments 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. No details are provided for trail system and plantings on NE portion of the site adjacent to Wetland 4. Code section Code Requirement Submitted (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. N/A Review Comments (3.a) (Street) 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; Yes Review Comments No impacts from road crossings. (3.b) Crossings with direct angles (90 degrees) must be used to the greatest extent feasible instead of oblique crossing angles; No Review Comments No impacts from road crossings. (3.c) Construction must be capable of withstanding 100-year flood events; and Inadequate Review Comments Contingent on floodplain analysis (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. Inadequate Review Comments Contingent on floodplain analysis (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. Inadequate Review Comments Wetlands 2 and 5 are considered stormwater, but no details are provided. No details on stormwater plan (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. Inadequate Review Comments See detailed notes below 2.d Setback planting. 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. Inadequate Code section Code Requirement Submitted Review Comments Because 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. (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. Inadequate Review Comments Because 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. (3-5) Criteria under special exemptions. (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 Because buffer/setbacks are not clearly established on plan, I cannot determine. However, all plants labeled Wetland/Storm Area Enhancement are native except for Penstemon eatonii, which is not native to Montana. See the remaining sections of this code for other exemptions, relief, and restrictions 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: 1 & 2 Wetland delineation must be prepared by a qualified wetland professional. 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. Yes Review Comments 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; Inadequate Review Comments See extended notes below. 2 The extent and permanence of adverse effects of the regulated activity on the wetland and any associated watercourse; Inadequate Review Comments Not provided. 3 Any proposed mitigation, and Inadequate Code section Code Requirement Submitted Review Comments See extended notes below. 4.a The applicant’s demonstration that any unavoidable adverse impacts on the wetland have been minimized; Inadequate Review Comments See extended notes below. 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, or species of concern, potential concern, or species of the state: Inadequate Review Comments See extended notes below. 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. Inadequate Review Comments Not provided on plan 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; Inadequate Review Comments Because this is a mitigation site, the site should consider a 50 foot buffer to protect the new wetland as it develops. B Requiring structures be appropriately supported and elevated or otherwise protected against hazards; Yes Review Comments C Modifying proposals for waste disposal, stormwater, or water supply facilities; Inadequate Review Comments Stormwater detail is not provided. 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; Inadequate Review Comments 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; Inadequate Code section Code Requirement Submitted Review Comments Deed restriction, but detailed on protective covenants are not provided. F Requiring erosion control and stormwater best management practices (BMPs); Inadequate Review Comments Contingent on SWPP G Clustering structures or development; Yes Review Comments H Restricting fill, deposit of soil, and other activities which may be detrimental to a wetland; Yes Review Comments I Modifying the project design to ensure a reliable source and flow of water to the regulated wetland; Inadequate Review Comments See comments below J Requiring or restricting maintenance of a regulated wetland area for the purpose of maintaining wetland functions; Inadequate Review Comments Deed restriction, but detailed on protective covenants are not provided. 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 See comments below L Requiring that all reasonable effort be made to limit indirect impacts to vegetation and hydrological connectivity in the site design. Inadequate Review Comments Not provided. 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. Inadequate Review Comments See comments below Code section Code Requirement Submitted 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. N/A Review Comments Mitigation will occur on-site. 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; . N/A Review Comments Mitigation will occur on-site. 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 N/A Review Comments Mitigation will occur on-site. 5 If a wetland in-lieu fee provider authorized by the USACE is not available within the Gallatin River watersheds, the developer must obtain wetland mitigation credits from the geographically nearest wetland bank authorized by the USACE. Inadequate Review Comments Mitigation will occur on-site. 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 N/A Review Comments Mitigation will occur on-site. 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. Inadequate Review Comments See detailed comments below. The following are detailed comments on the mitigation design related to the code sections: 38.220.130.A.1.a.3, 4 and 7-11; 38.410.100.D.2.c5; 38.610.080.A.1, 3 and 4; 38.610.090.I and K; and 38.610.100.A.1 and 2. These comments are for the Laurel Meadows Wetland Mitigation Report. · Section 1.3.2 – “The recreated wetlands will establish a biological connection to the existing deed-restricted wetland.” o The ‘biological connection’ is never defined in the document. It appears that the mitigation wetland is separated from wetland 4 by over (how many) feet on the property with a berm, trails, and play areas. o This is a fundamental concept for the mitigation and is integral to the calculation of the compensatory mitigation of lost function and area. This concept required a more descriptive defense. · Section 3.1. Mitigation Objectives Wetland Hydrology – “Areas defined as wetlands would require 19 days of inundation or saturation within 12 inches of the ground surface to meet the hydrology criteria and performance standards.” o This would meet the minimum standard of 12.5% of the growing season for wetland hydrology in the 1987 manual. This may be satisfactory for Facultative wetland (FAC) plants. However, this may not be sufficient for a facultative wetland (FACW) or obligate (OBL) wetland plants. o A detailed planting plan with zones of FAC, FACW, and OBL wetland plants was not provided. Consider the objective of the mitigation is to maintain the hydrology of the zones and ensure plant community survival. · Section 3.1. Hydric Soil Development – “Because typical hydric soil indicators may require long periods to form, a lack of distinctive hydric soil features will not be considered a failure if hydrologic and vegetation success is achieved.” o I did not see any details on soils for the mitigation site except for a sheet in the parks plan that talked about 12 inches of topsoil. More details on soils and soil amendments is required. o It is stated that sod will be salvaged from Wetland 3. Consider salvaging wetland soil from Wetland 3. Proper soil amendments are crucial for mitigation success. See: o McKinstry, M.C. and Anderson, S.H., 2005. Salvaged-wetland soil as a technique to improve aquatic vegetation at created wetlands in Wyoming, USA. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 13(5), pp.499-508. o Stauffer, A.L. and Brooks, R.P., 1997. Plant and soil responses to salvaged marsh surface and organic matter amendments at a created wetland in central Pennsylvania. Wetlands, 17(1), pp.90-105. o Scott, B., Baldwin, A.H., Ballantine, K., Palmer, M. and Yarwood, S., 2020. The role of organic amendments in wetland restorations. Restoration Ecology, 28(4), pp.776-784. o And many more · Section 3.3. Mitigation Area Design – “This buffer will help intercept and treat any incidental overland stormwater that bypasses the planned stormwater management system, further supporting water quality and hydrologic function.” o It appears that a 25-foot buffer was selected. It appears that buffer joins with the 50-foot setback on the eastern portion of the area. However, the buffers are not well displayed on the plan sets. o Unless you can defend a 25-foot buffer that will ‘support wetland functions,’ consider extending the buffer to 50 feet. This is a novel and new system that will take decades to establish; a larger buffer can help facilitate that process. o In earlier comments, I recommended moving the trail on the east side of the mitigation site moved to west side to avoid impacts to both the mitigation and Wetland 4 buffer. · Section 3.3. Mitigation Area Design – “The constructed wetland ground surface will be graded to ensure root access (within 12 inches) to the groundwater year-round.” o This may be different for planting zones of FAC, FACW, and OBL. More detailed information is required. o Sheet D-1 has a cross-section that creates a saturated bowl with an unsaturated berm between the wetland and the open water feature. Please explain the reason for that. · Section 3.4 – Mitigation Ratios and Functional Replacement o I do not agree with the calculations for the functional assessment and the Functional Capacity Units (FCU) of Wetland 3 and the Mitigation areas. o I do not agree with the calculations FCU lift of 33.59, resulting in a replacement ratio of ~6.6:1 for the Mitigation areas. o Below are the calculations provided and my questions: Wet 3 Wet 4 Post delta Listed/Proposed T&E Species habitat 0 0 0 0 MT Natural Heritage Program Species Habitat 0.25 0.157 0.8 0.643 How will this increase? General Wildlife Habitat 0.25 0.785 4 3.215 How will this increase? General Fish Habitat 0.785 4 3.215 The site is isolated. How will this increase? Flood Attenuation 1.25 6.4 5.15 The site is isolated. How will this increase? Short and Long Term Surface Water Storage 1.5 1.25 8 6.75 The site is isolated. How will this increase? Sediment/Nutrient/Toxicant Removal 1.5 0.875 5.6 4.725 Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization Production Export/Food Chain Support 1 1.25 7.2 5.95 The site is isolated. How will this increase? Groundwater Discharge/Recharge Uniqueness 0.5 0.628 3.2 2.572 How will this increase? Recreation/Education Potential 0.235 1.6 1.365 How will this increase? 5 7.215 40.8 33.585 o I do not agree with the calculations of the FCU for Wetland 3. It appears that an area of 2.5 acres rather than 2.58 acres was used. o Mitigation Wetland is combined with Wetland 4, to achieve a FCU change pre- and post-mitigation FCU scores. But the Mitigation Wetland is not connected to Wetland 4, therefore, it would not affect General Fish Habitat and Flood Attenuation. o My close calculations of Wetland 3 and the Mitigation Area, based on the information provided, resulted in a replacement ratio of ~1:1. o A detailed explanation, with close adherence to the MWAM manual, of the scores provided in Table 7 is required to justify an intended replacement ratio of 6.6:1. · Section 3.4 – Mitigation Ratios and Functional Replacement o I do not agree with the calculations for the functional assessment and the Functional Capacity Units (FCU) of Wetland 3 and the Mitigation areas. Section 6 – Planting Pan · The primary objective of the mitigation project is to establish a functioning depressional wetland that supports the structural characteristics of a palustrine system. o This is in contradiction of the FA · Native species must comprise 80 percent of the plants installed or seeded within the mitigation site. o The plan proposes a non-native willow and poa. o No planting schedule or plan view zonation planting with a schedule of species and their wetland indicator status is provided. o No plant density by zone is provided. o This needs to be 100% native. o An as-built is required following installation · The wetland basin will be graded to promote seasonal inundation in the early growing season, with adjacent areas designed to remain saturated within the rooting zone for prolonged periods. o I agree, but this is in contradiction to earlier statements about the mitigation objective. · The 25-foot buffer will be planted with native herbaceous vegetation and supplemented with clustered woody shrubs and trees to provide structural diversity, filter overland flow, and improve habitat connectivity with the adjacent conservation area. o See note above regarding buffer size. · The wetland buffer zone will encompass 25 feet at the wetland perimeter. Disturbed or bare areas within the buffer will be planted with the species listed in Table 10, in accordance with the landscape architect's plans provided in Appendix H. o I think it is Table 11? o Some of the plant pallet is incorrect for the upland buffer as they contain non-natives. · Sod transplanting is suggested, but there needs to be a timing schedule relative to the filling of Wetland 3 and other construction activities. o Strongly consider soils salvage as well. o Consider salvaging Willow species native to the site and vicinity are used for willow cuttings. o Consider preventing the establishment of cattail monocultures through key plantings of containerized, competitive plant species, and creating deeper water areas (>3 ft deep). · “All plants within the planting plan were selected by a landscape architect (Design.5) and are native to southwest Montana.” o Not plants are native to Montana. Section 7 Monitoring and Performance Standards · Section 7.1 - Five-year monitoring o It should be stated that there is a minimum of 5-years of monitoring. Additional years may be required if performance standards are not met. · Section 7.2 - Wetland Hydrology · Soil pits excavated to evaluate groundwater levels should extend to at least 18 inches below the ground surface. o There is a discussion of shallow monitoring wells later in the document. Consider permanent (the length of the monitoring period) distributed shallow monitoring wells. This may be better, as 2 times a season for 5 years on the same transect leads to disturbed soils along that line. That disturbance may disrupt local hydrology. · Success is determined as - Evidence of at least one primary hydrology indicator, or two secondary indicators throughout the mitigation area. o There will likely always be 2 secondary indicators because of the planting and the topography. There needs to be primary indicators to ensure plant survival. · Stable hydrology within the excavated depression, supporting establishment of hydrophytic vegetation. o Stable hydrology needs to be defined Wetland Soil · Consider Soils from Wetland 3 should be salvaged and reused here. · Hydric soil indicators may take longer than five years to fully establish; however, soils must support hydrophytic vegetation and demonstrate early-stage hydric characteristics when feasible (e.g., redox features, organic accumulation in upper horizons). o There are other means of determining if reduction is taking place, Alpha-alpha for instance. Also - Indicators of Reduction in Soils (IRIS), which are a 50-cm by 7.5-cm strip of white rigid PVC film coated with manganese oxide pain. o See indicator c4 o See problematic soils in the manual · A lack of fully developed hydric indicators will not be considered a failure if hydrology and vegetation standards are met. o See above. Wetland Vegetation · At the end of Year 3, ≥80% of total vegetative cover within the mitigation area should consist of hydrophytic species (OBL, FACW, FAC). o Aerial cover, not total veg cover. o Consider the following: 1. Species Composition and Dominance · The average of all quadrat plots must comprise at least 50 percent gross (absolute) MT-native hydrophytic vegetation cover by the final monitoring year. · Hydrophytic vegetation must comprise a minimum of 90 percent of the dominant species as determined from the average of all wetland sample points. 2. Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) · Wetlands will demonstrate a mean coefficient of conservatism (mean C) that meets or exceeds the 2020 mean C for hydrophytic species of 3.78 by the final monitoring year. See: o https://mtnhp.mt.gov/resources/ecology/wetlands/docs/LEVEL3.pdf o https://mtnhp.org/reports/BOT_Cvalues_MT_Flora_2017.pdf Area · Open water will maintain the intended depressional wetland configuration o Reword, what if it becomes emergent – at the fringe? · The surrounding buffer must maintain ≥50% cover of non-weed species by Year 5. o Should be in plants, and 100 % cover is required. Weeds · Noxious weeds will not exceed 10% aerial cover within the wetland or buffer by the end of Year 5. o Consider the following: If noxious weed cover across the site exceeds 15%, the FMU generation will be reduced per the MWAM methodology. o Consider the following performance standards in other states (e.g., https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-10/Env-Wet- MitWritingStandards.pdf), I recommend the following: o “Performance Measure (All years) Montana State-listed or county-listed (https://fieldguide.mt.gov/displayInv.aspx?id=NOX) Priority 1A and/or Priority 1B weeds: Dyer’s Woad, European Common Reed, Medusahead, Yellow Starthistle, Blueweed, Bohemian Knotweed, Giant Knotweed, Japanese Knotweed, Rush Skeletonweed, and Scotch Broom observed in any area of the mitigation site must be eradicated. (Eradicating weeds means eliminating the plants, including plant roots). All occurrences shall be immediately reported to the site manager, and an eradication program will be initiated within 30 days of the report. o Priority 2 weeds (https://fieldguide.mt.gov/displayInv.aspx?id=NOX) required eradication or containment where less abundant following the subdivision’s weed management plan. o Priority 3 weeds or other species of concern will include less than 10% cover in all intended wetland and buffer zones.” · Annual weed management is required throughout the monitoring period. · Conduct functional assessment at each monitoring period to ensure FCUs are met. Actual functional mitigation units generation meets or exceeds the projected FCUs based on the 2008 MWAM (Berglund and McEldowney 2008). Field documentation · Photograph established photo points during each visit to document annual changes. o Photo points should be on plan and permanent throughout the monitoring period. · Collect spatial data with industry-grade GPS with sub-meter accuracy (meets USACE standards), and post-process with ESRI’s ArcGIS Pro. o What is industry grade? State if you are using either map-grade or survey grade and what post-processing will you use? see https://www.esri.com/~/media/files/pdfs/partners/hardware/why-postprocess.pdf Maintenance and adaptive management. · Contingency plan o The city may require additional years of monitoring. · Post-monitoring period maintenance, deed restrictions, etc. o Details are required of long-term maintenance of the site. I look forward to the next iteration of this permit package. I hope this brief review is helpful in your decision-making process. I would be happy to provide more detailed information or discuss my opinions at any time. Sincerely, Naiad Aquatic Consultants, LLC. William Kleindl, PhD, PWS Notes