Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStory Mill Ecological Restoration Project - Site Plan MaterialsStory Mill Ecological Restoration Project Site Plan Application  1    City of Bozeman Site Plan Review - Attachment Story Mill Ecological Restoration Project July 2014 Introduction The Trust for Public Land, in partnership with the City of Bozeman and other stakeholders, is creating a new 54-acre community park at the confluence of Bozeman Creek and the East Gallatin River. The vision for the Story Mill Community Park is a predominately natural park that retains the open space and scenic character of the site and that is inspired by the theme of rivers and water systems. This site plan application is specifically for the ecological restoration of the project area, and does NOT include park infrastructure. Park planning is undergoing a public planning process that is beginning this summer 2014. Because of its’ unique location at the confluence of Bozeman Creek and the East Gallatin River, the emphasis of ecological restoration at the site is on wetland, riparian, and floodplain systems that have been manipulated and modified in this area since the founding of Bozeman in the mid 1800’s. The overarching ecological goal for the project is: In consideration of site constraints and other project goals, restore and protect on-site natural processes necessary for a functioning riparian and wetland system. This goal is supported by the following five ecological objectives: E-1. Provide hydrologic connectivity between stream floodplain and wetlands to maximize riverine and wetlands habitat diversity. E-2. Remove river process constraints and non-natural features to the extent possible in the context of land ownership and access. E-3. Remove or modify drainage and excavated features that disrupt and diminish groundwater-dependent wetland extent and functioning to restore wetland functions to the extent site constraints allow. E-4. Demonstrate improved water quality (temperature, nutrients and sediment measures). E-5. Restore native plant diversity (upland, wetland and riparian communities) and minimize invasive plants. Restoration actions described in this application and depicted in accompanying figures (see Appendix A) and plan sheets (see Appendix D) are designed to achieve one or more of the ecological objectives listed above. Existing conditions of the project site are captured in the photos provided in Appendix F. Story Mill Ecological Restoration Project Site Plan Application  2    SITE PLAN CHECKLIST The following items relate directly to the City of Bozeman’s site plan checklist. A. Design Review Board Site Plan Review Thresholds The project is a wetland and riparian restoration project, consequently it does not exceed any of the thresholds requiring review by the design review board. B. General Information 1. A location map, as well as several other maps are included in the Appendix A. 2. List of names and addresses of property owners. LISA SEBENA LEWIS & CLARK MOTEL BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3359 BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SOUTHWEST MONTANA 600 BRIDGER DR BOZEMAN, MT 59715-2233 GREGORY R & MELINDA G PONCELET 209 CEDAR ST BOZEMAN, MT 59715-2446 B & K HOLDINGS LLC PO BOX 93 BOZEMAN, MT 59771-0093 JACK R ZIEGLER 703 BRIDGER DR BOZEMAN, MT 59715-2207 D & F INDUSTRIES INC 4610 ALEXANDER ST BOZEMAN, MT 59718-1953 BIRDIE CORNER CONDO MASTER GENERAL DELIVERY BOZEMAN, MT 59715 SEOB LLC 7585 SHEDHORN DR BOZEMAN, MT 59718-7560 SUNNYSIDE PROPERTIES LLC 412 BOGART PL BOZEMAN, MT 59715-4805 TIM P MATZINGER 12477 SPRINGHILL RD BELGRADE, MT 59714- 8406 CLIFFORD K & SALLY FRANKLIN CHRISTIE 1015 E GRIFFIN DR BOZEMAN, MT 59715-2259 WAKE UP INC 1019 E GRIFFIN DR BOZEMAN, MT 59715-2259 AMERICAN BANK PO BOX 1970 BOZEMAN, MT 59771-1970 BARNARD LAND & LIVESTOCK LP PO BOX 362 BOZEMAN, MT 59771-0362 IDAHO POLE COMPANY 5501 PACIFIC HWY E STE 2 FIFE, WA 98424-2526 AMANDA DRYSDALE 701 N ROUSE AVE APT 3 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-2980 TIMOTHY BARNARD PO BOX 99 BOZEMAN, MT 59771-0099 JOSEPH D MAHURIN 1606 GOLD AVE BOZEMAN, MT 59715-2488 SPARKY BOY ENTERPRISES INC 1612 GOLD AVE BOZEMAN, MT 59715-2488 605 BRYANT LLC 2215 WES DAVIS RD BELGRADE, MT 59714- 8640 WHITEFISH L P VI PO BOX 713 BOZEMAN, MT 59771-0713 ANDERSON TRUST DTD 3/31/2004 5622 SOUTHALL TER IRVINE, CA 92603-3516 HUMAN RESOURCE DEV COUNCIL OF DIST IX 32 S TRACY AVE BOZEMAN, MT 59715-4659 JULIAN JR & MAUREEN E DEGIDIO 30 PTARMIGAN RD BOZEMAN, MT 59715-9339 WILLIAM HARSTON 621 BRIDGER DR BOZEMAN, MT 59715-2205 JOEL & ESTHER S PETERSON 1013 L ST BOZEMAN, MT 59715-2437 Story Mill Ecological Restoration Project Site Plan Application  3  4. The plan sheets and maps all have scale bars. 5.Plans were prepared in May and June 2014. 6. All maps have north arrows and scale bars. 7. Plan sheets in Appendix D are at a scale of 1 inch = 60 feet. 8.Parcel Size: Parcel Name Gross Acres Square Feet North Parcel (comprised of 3 sub-parcels) 20.783 905,307 South Parcel (comprised of 3 sub-parcels) 25.736 1,121,060 Triangle Parcel (comprised of 2 sub-parcels) 7.377 321,342 TOTAL 53.896 2,347,709 9. Not applicable – this is a wetland restoration project, not a building or subdivision. 10a, 10b, and 10d. Not applicable – this is a wetland restoration project, not a building or subdivision. The Story Mill Community Park planning process is just getting started. Specific elements, including size and location of parking, restrooms, trails, and other park related amenities will be decided through a public planning process. 10c. 100% of the restoration project is considered a park or open space area or recreation facility. 11. Not applicable – this is a wetland restoration project, not a building or subdivision. We are working with Montana Crane Service (Greg Poncelet) on the removal of the garage on the Triangle Parcel and the farmstead buildings. The upper portions of the two pole barns in the farmstead complex are being removed by Kevin Huyser, a neighbor, for re- use elsewhere. We are waiting to receive the approved demolition permits from the City of Bozeman to proceed with the building removal and expect to have all the buildings removed by mid-late August. 12.Not applicable – this is a wetland restoration project, not a building or subdivision. 13.Not applicable – this is a wetland restoration project, not a building or subdivision. 14.See Soil Map and related information in Appendix B. Because the goal of the project is ecological restoration, all soil types in this area are suitable for restoration purposes. 15.Building design information is not applicable to this wetland restoration project. Story Mill Ecological Restoration Project Site Plan Application  4    16. A temporary facilities plan is not applicable to this wetland restoration project. 17. The Story Mill Vegetation Management Plan is included in Appendix C. 18. Supplementary documents pertaining to property owners associations and covenants are not applicable since this is a wetland restoration project and not a subdivision. 19. A draft Stormwater Management Permit Application has been prepared and will be submitted to the MT DEQ and the City of Bozeman by the selected contractor prior to construction activities. C. Site Plan Information 1. Topographic contours at 1-foot intervals are included on the plan sheets in Appendix D.   2. Adjacent streets and street right-of-ways are not applicable to this wetland restoration project. 3. On-site streets and rights-of-way are not applicable to this wetland restoration project. 4. Ingress and egress points are not applicable to this wetland restoration project. Construction routes are shown on the restoration activities map in Appendix A. 5. Traffic flow on-site is not applicable to this wetland restoration project. 6. Traffic flow off-site is not applicable to this wetland restoration project. 7. Existing utilities are depicted on the plan sheets provided in Appendix D. 8. Surface waters, including floodplains, streams, ponds, and existing wetlands are shown on the maps provided in Appendix A and in the plan sheets provided in Appendix D. A floodplain analysis report has been submitted to the City’s floodplain administrator for review and permitting. 9. Grading and drainage plans are provided in the plan sheets in Appendix D, including storm water erosion control best management practices. 10a. Bozeman Creek and the East Gallatin River are named and identified on plan sheets in Appendix D, on the maps provided in Appendix D, and within the stormwater management plan application being provided to the MT DEQ and the City of Bozeman prior to construction. Story Mill Ecological Restoration Project Site Plan Application  5  10b. Downstream conditions of the Bozeman Creek and the East Gallatin River are similar to those currently found onsite – which is a modified, encroached upon floodplain and channelized stream channels. These conditions are considered normal for urban streams. The East Gallatin River becomes more and more natural as it moves northwest away from the urban influence of Bozeman proper. 10c. Other than water rights and total maximum daily load restrictions currently in place for Bozeman Creek and the East Gallatin River, no other restrictions are known to occur downstream of the project area. The northernmost extent of the controlled groundwater area (CGA) for the Idaho Pole Company occurs on the southern portion of the Triangle Parcel. The CGA limits the establishment of new groundwater wells and the refurbishment of old groundwater wells. 11. Significant rock outcropping or slopes greater than 15% do not occur on the project area, except for streambank slopes, which are very short. 12. No sidewalks or walkways are included as part of this wetland restoration project. Trails will be included as part of the Story Mill Community Park, but their locations have not been determined yet. 13.Handicapped accessibility is not applicable to this wetland restoration project, but will be an important consideration in the development of the Story Mill Community Park as that begins its public planning process. 14.Fences and walls are not included in this wetland restoration project. 15. Exterior signs are not included in this wetland restoration project. 16.This project is primarily a grading project to restore site hydrology in order to restore floodplain connectivity and wetlands on the site. For this reason a large amount of refuse is not expected to be generated. However, all inappropriate fill materials (e.g., sidewalk rubble, old machinery) that are discovered and removed will be temporarily stored within the fill repository and staging areas indicated on the restoration activities map in Appendix A. The contractor will be responsible for hauling these materials to the landfill for proper disposal. This also holds true for day to day trash generated onsite – the contractor will be responsible for cleaning and disposing of all litter and trash and maintaining a clean project area. 17.A site plan is included as a map showing restoration activities in Appendix A, as well as on individual plan sheets in Appendix D, which show grading and specific details for site restoration. 19. The func the land is cu rest 20.A m vege 21. Sno 22. Zoni Base map 23. Exis 24. The Hist purpose an ctions relate developmen dscaping pla urrently und oration are ap of the ex etation spec ow storage p ing in and a source: City of sting zoning Story Mill E toric Distric nd intent of t ed to natura nt of landsca ans will be d dergoing a p included wi xisting veget cies occurrin plans are no around the p f Bozeman, note g is shown in Ecological R ct shown in this project al wetlands, aping plans developed a public plann ith the site tation comm ng on the sit ot applicabl project area e that the red bo n item 22 ab Restoration dark green St 6  is ecologica riparian ar is not need s part of the ning process plans in Ap munities is p te is include le to this we is provided oundary is the C bove. project area in the cente tory Mill Ec al restoratio reas and flo ded nor desir e Story Mill s. Revegeta ppendix D. provided in ed in Appen etland resto d below. City’s boundary. a includes a er of the im cological Res Site Pla on of the pro oodplains. In rable. How l Communit ation plans f Appendix A ndix E. ration proje a portion of t age below. Story Mill Pr storation Pr an Applica ocesses and n this contex wever, ty Park, whi for ecologica A. A list of t ect. the Story M roject Area roject ation  xt, ich al the Mill   Base map A prelim in 2007 a is entitle When re a much l the repor demolish Property river, ea more det page 67, National consider The City Property previous the gara the two p neighbor from the building 25. Majo Story  (dark  source: City o minary cultu as part of th ed Cultural eviewing the larger area rt (pages 7, hed as part y) on the Sou st of feature tail beginnin where they l Register of ed historic. y is currentl y (SMC-2) an sly, we are w ge on the Tr pole barns i r, for re-use e City of Boz s removed b or public fac Mill Historic D green)  of Bozeman ural resource he Story Mil Resources I e report plea than our re 8, and 10), of the Park uth Parcel, e 12b (rende ng on page y recommen f Historic P ly reviewing nd for the s working with riangle Par in the farms elsewhere. zeman to pr by mid-late cilities are i District  es report wa ll PUD. Th Inventory of ase keep in storation pr and the figu process inc and the rec ering plant) 48 thru pag nded that th laces. The r g demolition torage gara h Montana cel and the stead compl We are wa roceed with August. included in St 7  as developed is report is f the Story M mind that t roject area. ure on page clude SMC-2 ctangular st ) on the Tria ge 61. Eligib is site/struc rectangular n permits for age on the T Crane Serv farmstead b ex are being aiting to rece the building a map in Ap tory Mill Ec d as part of on file with Mill Center, the area cov If you refer e 11, the stru 2 a-d (McKi torage garag angle Parce bility discus cture is not r storage ga r the McKin Triangle Par vice (Greg P buildings. T g removed b eive the app g removal a ppendix A. cological Res Site Pla f the Blue Sk h the City of Gallatin Co vered by thi r to Table 1 uctures tha nzie-Brown ge on the ea el. SMC-2 is ssions for SM eligible for arage is not nzie-Brown rcel. As disc Poncelet) on The upper p by Kevin Hu proved dem and expect t St Re ar storation Pr an Applica ky developm f Bozeman a ounty, Mont s report cov 1 and Table at would be n Homestead ast side of th s described i MC-2 are on listing on th old enough Homestead cussed the remova portions of uyser, a olition perm o have all th tory Mill Ecol estoration pr rea  roject ation  ment and tana. vers 2 of d he in n he to be d al of mits he ogical  roject  Story Mill Ecological Restoration Project Site Plan Application  8    26. The parkland provision to density changes is not applicable to this wetland restoration project. 27. Affordable housing requirements are not applicable to this wetland restoration project. D. Landscape Plans As described previously under item C-19, the purpose and intent of this project is ecological restoration of the processes and functions related to natural wetlands, riparian areas and floodplains. In this context, the development of landscaping plans is not needed nor desirable. However, landscaping plans will be developed as part of the Story Mill Community Park, which is currently undergoing a public planning process. Revegetation plans for ecological restoration are included with the site plans in Appendix D. These include the use of native upland, riparian, and wetland seed mixes, and willow cuttings. No irrigation is planned or required. Story Mill Ecological Restoration Project Site Plan Application  A-1 APPENDIX A ‐ FIGURES  Story Mill Ecological Restoration Project  Bozeman, Montana  Construction Route/Access Restoration Activities Floodplains Schools Trails Bike Lanes Bike Routes Shared Use Paths Roads ALLEY DRIVEWAY UNK Parks Open Space Aerial Photo (5/12/12) Red: Band_1 Green: Band_2 Blue: Band_3 City of Bozeman GIS http://gis.bozeman.net/aspnet_client/ESRI/WebADF/PrintTaskLayoutTe... 1 of 1 7/2/2014 4:15 PM Major Public Facilities Story Mill Ecological Restoration Project Site Plan Application  B-1 APPENDIX B – SOIL INFORMATION  Story Mill Ecological Restoration Project  Bozeman, Montana  6 Mill DitchEast Gallati n R i v e r Bozeman CreekL StStory Mill RdGriffin Dr Rouse AveBridger Dr Boylan Rd Hillside Ln Gold AveBirdie DrOak St Bond St Bryant St Pe a r S t Birch St Bo h a r t L n Bridger Canyon RdPar C t Paradise Vista RdEdgerly LnBridger View Trai l e r C t Commercial Dr Bri d g e r V i ew T r a i l e r C tRouse AveBridger View Trailer Ct407A UL 523A 512B 606A 542A 65C267E 614F 509B509B497600 497600 497800 497800 498000 498000 498200 498200 498400 498400 498600 4986005059800 5059800506000050600005060200506020050604005060400506060050606005060800506080050610005061000506120050612000 600 1,200 1,800300Feet010020030050Meters± 45° 42' 22''111° 0' 58''45° 41' 26''111° 0' 58''45° 41' 26'' 45° 42' 21''111° 1' 57''111° 1' 57''Map Scale: 1:8,140 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map—Gallatin County Area, Montana (Story Mill Project Area) Natural ResourcesNatural ResourcesNatural ResourcesNatural Resources Conservation ServiceConservation ServiceConservation ServiceConservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 7/5/2013 Page 1 of 3 MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Units Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Gully Short Steep Slope Other Political Features Cities Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Map Scale: 1:8,140 if printed on A size (8.5" × 11") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 12N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area, Montana Survey Area Data: Version 16, Apr 18, 2012 Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 8/27/2005 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Soil Map–Gallatin County Area, Montana (Story Mill Project Area) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 7/5/2013 Page 2 of 3 Map Unit Legend Gallatin County Area, Montana (MT622) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 65C Bigbear loam, 4 to 8 percent slopes 6.7 2.1% 267E Roy cobbly clay loam, 15 to 60 percent slopes 6.7 2.1% 407A Sudworth-Nesda loams, 0 to 2 percent slopes 80.8 25.3% 509B Enbar loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 3.1 1.0% 512B Enbar-Nythar loams, 0 to 4 percent slopes 44.0 13.8% 523A Enbar-Nythar loams, cool, 0 to 4 percent slopes 46.5 14.5% 542A Blossberg loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 40.1 12.5% 606A Bandy-Riverwash-Bonebasin complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes 42.8 13.4% 614F Adel loam, 15 to 60 percent slopes 2.9 0.9% UL Urban land 46.0 14.4% Totals for Area of Interest 319.6 100.0% Soil Map–Gallatin County Area, Montana Story Mill Project Area Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 7/5/2013 Page 3 of 3 Story Mill Ecological Restoration Project Site Plan Application  C-1 APPENDIX C – VEGETATION  MANAGEMENT PLAN  Story Mill Ecological Restoration Project  Bozeman, Montana  STORY MILL VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN Prepared For: Trust for Public Land 111 South Grand Avenue. Ste 203 Bozeman, MT 59715 Prepared By: TerraQuatic, LLC 614 West Lamme Street Bozeman, MT 59715 lbacon@terraquaticllc.com June 5, 2013 Story Mill Vegetation Management Plan June 5, 2013 i Contents (Table is hyperlinked, point to chapter and left click) 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Story Mill General Vegetation Communities ........................................................................... 1 1.2 Story Mill Noxious and Invasive Species ................................................................................ 3 1.3 Vegetation Management Areas ................................................................................................. 3 2.0 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT GOALS ................................................................................. 4 3.0 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT METHODS AND TIMING .................................................. 4 3.1 Selected Control Methods ......................................................................................................... 5 3.1.1 Biocontrol .......................................................................................................................... 5 3.1.2 Mechanical Control ............................................................................................................ 5 3.1.2.1 Mowing ........................................................................................................................ 5 3.1.2.2 Clipping....................................................................................................................... 6 3.1.2.3 Hand-digging .............................................................................................................. 6 3.1.2.4 Goat Grazing ............................................................................................................... 6 3.1.2.5 Solarization ................................................................................................................. 7 3.1.3 Chemical Control: Selective Herbicide Application.......................................................... 7 3.1.5 Cultural Control ................................................................................................................. 8 3.2 Other Vegetation Management Tasks ....................................................................................... 8 4.0 2013 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT: 2013 SELECTED VEGETATION MANAGEMENT METHODS ............................................................................................................................................. 9 4.1 Management .............................................................................................................................. 9 4.2 Control Methods ....................................................................................................................... 9 4.2.1 Biocontrol .......................................................................................................................... 9 4.2.2 Mechanical Control ............................................................................................................ 9 4.2.3 Chemical Control: Selective Herbicide Application........................................................ 10 4.2.4 Cultural Control ............................................................................................................... 11 5.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT: 2013 Completed Tasks ............................................................ 11 6.0 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 11 6.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 12 APPENDIX A: Story Mill Vegetation Management Plan Feasibility Research APPENDIX B: State of Montana Noxious Weed Species APPENDIX C: Story Mill Vegetation Management Timetable (Interactive Excel Sheet) Story Mill Vegetation Management Plan June 5, 2013 ii List of Figures Figure Number Title Page Figure 1 Story Mill Vegetation Management Areas 2 List of Tables Table Number Title Page Table 1.1 Noxious Weed Species within the Story Mill Property 3 Table 3.1 Story Mill Target Vegetation Species and Biocontrol Species 6 Table 3.2 Story Mill Herbicide and Mowing Treatment Schedule 7 Table 4.1 Story Mill Selected Herbicide and Mowing Treatment Schedule, June 5, 2013 10 Table 5.1 Vegetation management Tasks Completed To Date, 2013 11 Story Mill Vegetation Management Plan June 5, 2013 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION One of the primary goals of Trust for Public Land (TPL) is to provide wholesome landscapes for the public to enjoy. The Story Mill property has a long history of small-scale ranching, grazing, animal processing, and private housing. The land has been altered to accommodate all of these uses, with the installation of driveways, a recreational trail, fishing access, fencing, manmade ditches and a pond, and infrastructure (e.g. power, septic, water). As a consequence of these activities and lack of weed management in recent years, several species of weeds and undesirable plant species have proliferated. However, the Story Mill property is also comprised of healthy and diverse native and acceptable non-native plant communities. Prior to engaging in wetland and other property restoration activities, TPL has initiated the development of a Story Mill Vegetation Management Plan. A feasibility study regarding various vegetation management methods was conducted by TerraQuatic (TQ), LLC in April, 2013 (Appendix A). The feasibility study was conducted by contacting several individuals, businesses, and agencies regarding various vegetation control methods. In addition, the feasibility study included preliminary costs of considered methods, contact lists, contact comments and recommendations, environmental concerns, general management issues, and contractor availability. A Vegetation Management Areas map (Figure 1) was also developed to enable management planning based on community types, historic and proposed use. The Story Mill Vegetation Management Plan is an outgrowth of the feasibility study and of discussions that followed between TQ, TPL and their ecological consultants. The plan is intended to be a “living document”. Therefore, vegetation management decisions, and thus timetables, areas treated by certain methods, and any portion of the information provided in the following document may change throughout the 2013 growing season. These changes will occur as a result of control methods initiated throughout the season and TPL’s rapidly morphing future plans for the Story Mill project site. Section 4.0, 2013 Plan In Action: Management and Selected Control Methods will be altered and dated as conditions change on the property or new information becomes available. 1.1 Story Mill General Vegetation Communities Native and acceptable non-native plant species communities occur in all areas of the Story Mill property. Native species include quaking aspen (Populous tremuloides), cottonwood (P. balsamifera), red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolinifera), willow (Salix sp.), cattail (Typha longifolia), and several species of sedge (Carex sp.) and rush (Juncus sp.) (River Design Group 2012). Less desirable species includes the invasive reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), a hydrophytic grass species that has a questionable native status, though it was collected by Lewis and Clark in Montana (Lesica 2012). Cattail may also be undesirable when it forms thick, impenetrable monocultures and thus excluding other native species. Acceptable non-native species within the Story Mill property have likely been present since the valley was colonized and may serve a variety of purposes. For example, smooth brome (Bromus inermis), timothy (Phleum pratense), and orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata) are generally observed in non-wetland areas, and have widely been used for grazing purposes and hay production. Redtop (Agrostis stolinifera) is a grass species that is frequently observed in emergent wetlands and along Story Mill Vegetation Management Plan June 5, 2013 2 Story Mill Vegetation Management Plan June 5, 2013 3 stream fringes. The seed head of redtop is slightly red, and is attractive in the landscape, though it has a fairly low riparian plant community (soil) stability rating (NRCS 2012). 1.2 Story Mill Noxious and Invasive Species Plants determined as noxious weeds by the State of Montana are prevalent within the Story Mill property. The State of Montana categorizes noxious weeds by a Priority listing (Appendix B, Gallatin County Weed District 2012); 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B are classified as state-listed noxious weeds. Priority 3 noxious weeds are not state-listed but may have negative impacts and cannot be intentionally sold or spread. Priority 4 noxious weeds are Gallatin County-Listed species. Six state-listed noxious weeds and one county-listed noxious weed have been identified on the Story Mill property to date (Table 1). Table 1.1 Noxious Weed Species within the Story Mill Property1 Common Name Scientific Name Priority Listing2 Canada Thistle Cirsium arvense 2B Common Tansy Tanacetum vulgare 2B Hoary Alyssum Berteroa incana 2A Hounds Tongue Cynoglossum officinale, 2B Leafy Spurge Euphorbia esula 2B Poison Hemlock Conium maculatum County-listed Spotted Knapweed Centaurea maculosa 2B 1 Known to date. 2 Appendix B; USDA 2010. Oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum, 2B) may also be present within the property boundaries (unconfirmed). Other invasive species observed on the property include scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium) and burdock (Arctium sp.). A thorough vegetation inventory has not been conducted at this time and may be warranted to aid in future vegetation management and restoration activities. 1.3 Vegetation Management Areas The Story Mill property was divided into four different vegetation management areas to facilitate planning and management of control methods (Figure 1). Each area was further subdivided to further refine control methods based on specific goals, vegetation community composition, and target species: Area 1: Former trailer park area (1a); field south of former trailer park (1b); riparian forest along East Gallatin River (1c) Area 2: Future wetland restoration area (2a); riparian forest along East Gallatin River (2b; includes property between solid Story Mill boundary line and dotted line at river’s edge , property owner has given TPL permission to address weed issues in this area); potential future community garden (2c); willow community along Bozeman Creek (2d) Area 3: Trail head vicinity, field north of historic animal processing facility, facility driveway, level field east of facility (3a); area immediately surrounding facility (3b); willow community and East Gallatin River riparian forest (3c) Story Mill Vegetation Management Plan June 5, 2013 4 Area 4: Recreational trail along railroad track: this area is under the jurisdictional of Gallatin County Weed District and will not be included in Story Mill weed control tasks at this time. 2.0 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT GOALS The main goal of TPL is to establish a vegetation management plan that will enhance desirable vegetation and decrease undesirable plant species (noxious weeds and other invasive species) to the extent practicable. The specific future usages of the property will include bird watching, recreation (e.g. walking, picnicking), scientific exploration and education (e.g. Montana Outdoor Science School, MOSS), community gardening, and other uses. Vegetation management will prepare the area for future restoration activities and public use. Overall primary and immediate goals are listed below: Primary concerns include, but not limited to: o Environmental health and safety; o Preservation of desirable vegetation (e.g. native and some non-native desirable species); o Enhance current vegetation function within the ecological system; o Provide noxious and invasive weed education; o Economics; o Decrease populations of noxious and other undesirable invasives; o Increase native vegetation diversity; and, o Maintain a positive public image. Immediate vegetation management goals include, but not limited to: • Initiate vegetation management control methods according to the scheduled events calendar; • Conduct monthly adaptive management area visits with TPL staff to refine management plan according to goals and observed progress; and • Submit 2014 Vegetation Management Plan in spring of 2014 after area is assessed by weed management team. 3.0 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT METHODS AND TIMING TerraQuatic contacted several company owners/operators and local agency personnel regarding feasibility of conducting certain vegetation management methods on the Story Mill property. Several different vegetation control methods were discussed with TPL and their consultants. Selected control methods are discussed in the following sections. Methods such as controlled burning, sheep grazing, property-wide herbicide application (broadcast), hand excavation, and hand pulling were deemed inappropriate for a variety of reasons. These reasons varied widely and are bulleted below:  controlled burn: difficult to control, area is close to the interstate (smoke hazard), and high potential to cause smoke damage to neighboring properties;  property-wide herbicide application: unnecessary environmental exposure (i.e. insects, non- targeted forbes, and woody vegetation);  sheep grazing: overgrazing potential to desirable species (i.e. woody vegetation);  hand-pulling: this method is ineffective for most species and in some cases increases plant productions (e.g. if leafy spurge root structures break the root nodes will reproduce new individuals). Story Mill Vegetation Management Plan June 5, 2013 5 Prior to initiating any vegetation control methods or property activities, the vegetation and TPL project management teams should communicate planning requirements to avoid scheduling conflicts. 3.1 Selected Control Methods The selected vegetation control methods include biocontrol, selective herbicide application, mechanical (selective hand pulling and mowing), goat grazing, and cultural (e.g. planting cover crops in bare areas). Each method is reviewed and timing explanations provided. A timetable is provided to summarize task initiation and completion dates (Appendix C). 3.1.1 Biocontrol Integrated Weed Control (IWC) has offered to provide a limited number of insects for distribution during summer 2013 at no charge to TPL. Depending on the life cycle of each species, availability may occur from late June through late September. Since biocontrols have been used for more than 20 years in the Gallatin Valley, it is assumed that populations of most biocontrol insects are currently established on the property at this time. The release of additional insects has been shown to provide increased control of target noxious weeds. IWC will monitor target weeds and their biological control agents, make recommendations for enhancing insect populations, and release those insects as available and as needed (Table 3.1). Typically it takes three to ten years to see the results of biocontrol releases. Though 100% control is not feasible, biocontrol may significantly decrease the number and viability of targeted noxious weed species, allowing native species to become the more dominant members of the plant community. Noxious weeds on disturbed land may require a longer timeframe for control. Herbicides may be used in addition to biocontrol without inhibiting the effectiveness of the biocontrol agents. The proper timing of herbicide application can increase the effectiveness of certain biocontrol species. IWC will work with the vegetation management team and herbicide applicators to provide advice and tips to maximize the success of biological, chemical, and cultural weed control strategies and methods. Biocontrol efforts can be continued every year. 3.1.2 Mechanical Control Mechanical control is the physical disturbance of the plant and includes methods such as mowing, clipping, hand-pulling, or plowing. At this time, three mechanical methods will be used on the Story Mill property: mowing, clipping, and hand-digging. It is important to use mechanical control wisely, as disturbance can lead to higher densities of invasive species and wider areas of infestation. In regard to clipping or mowing, if the flower heads are nearly in bloom, they may mature wherever they dropped. Millions of seeds could then migrate from the site by wind or by clinging to the clothing of workers or in the fur of animals, and efforts will have been wasted. 3.1.2.1 Mowing Areas that cannot be sprayed because of the possible future use will be mowed to provide short-term noxious weed control. The potential future garden space (Figure 1, Area 2c) located on the southwest side of the property and adjacent to Bozeman Creek will be mowed at least two times Story Mill Vegetation Management Plan June 5, 2013 6 Table 3.1. Story Mill Target Vegetation Species and Biocontrol Species1 Plant Species Biocontrol Species Comments Canada Thistle stem gall flies (Urophora cardui) currently on site; will monitor and move galls around area to insure coverage stem mining weevils (Hadroplontus litura) currently on site; will monitor and enhance population Common Tansy none no biocontrol available Houndstongue houndstongue root mining weevil (Mogulones cruciger) not permitted in the U.S., but is moving down from Canada Leafy Spurge leafy spurge root mining weevils (Aphthona species) only a limited population of spurge on the property: may be on site, will monitor and enhance population leafy spurge stem/crown mining and girdling beetle (Oberea erythrocephala) may be on site, will monitor and enhance population leafy spurge gall tip midge (Spurgia esulae) may be on site, will monitor and enhance population Spotted Knapweed knapweed root boring weevils (Cyphocleonus achates) currently on site; will monitor and enhance population knapweed seed head weevils (Larinus minutus/obtusus) currently on site; will monitor and enhance population 1 From Cyndi Crayton, Integrated Weed Control: http://www.integratedweedcontrol.com/. during the 2013 growing season. This area is comprised of 100% common tansy cover, and because of its possible future use, it will not be sprayed with a chemical herbicide that leaves a residual. Other areas that may be mowed during the 2013 growing season may include portions of Area 3a (a potential substitute community garden area) and Area 1b. Other areas may be mowed as usage plans develop over the 2013 summer. Dynamecc Property Services will be conducting all mowing tasks (see Tables 3.2 and 4.1). 3.1.2.2 Clipping The Montana Conservation Corps (MCC) has offered to assist TPL with vegetation and property management tasks during the week of June 10, 2013. Because of the potential for certain herbicides to translocate (be absorbed by adjacent vegetation), herbicide will not be used along the edge or interior area of riparian zones. MCC will conduct hand clipping of tansy within these areas where practicable (Figure 1, Areas 1c, 2b, 2d, and 3c). Plant reproductive structures (flower heads) of Canada thistle within these areas will be removed from the plant stalk and left in place. 3.1.2.3 Hand-digging Houndstongue and burdock within forested and shrub riparian areas will be excavated by MCC during their June 10 work week. This method is feasible for these species because they have taproots, and breaking the root accidently does not cause regrowth when most of the root is removed. 3.1.2.4 Goat Grazing Goats are not known to consume vegetation as close to the ground as other grazers (e.g. sheep). They are browsers and can be trained to preferentially eat many noxious species. They are also herded so that they are never in an area long enough to eat desirable species. The only known company offering goats for grazing hire is in Wyoming (Ewe4ic Ecological Services, http://www.goatseatweeds.com/). Transportation costs are prohibitive at this time. For this Story Mill Vegetation Management Plan June 5, 2013 7 reason goat grazing will not be included during the first few months of the 2013 growing season. Positive Table 3.2 Story Mill Herbicide and Mowing Treatment Schedule1 Area 2013 Priority Acres Method Herbicide Mowing Method Timing Spraying Cost Timing Mowing Cost June Sept 1a 17.0 mostly spot spray June/Sept $1,200 $600 1b 4 7.6 boom spot spray June/Sept $400 $200 July/as needed $700/mow 1c* 3 2.7 spot spray June/Sept $180 $90 2a 1 14.0 spot spray June/Sept $850 $425 2b* 3 3.0 spot spray June/Sept $150 $75 2c^ 2 3.2 every 3-4 weeks $1,200 2d* 1.4 spot spray June/Sept $150 $75 3a 2 (only trail entrance) 3.5 spot spray June/Sept $200 $100 July/as needed $315/mow 3b 3.3 spot spray June/Sept $200 $100 3c 3 4 2.2 spot spray June/Sept $130 $65 TOTAL $3,460 $1,730 $2,215 (minimum) 1 Ryan Meccage, Dynamecc Property Services: http://www.weedcontrolmt.com/. * Areas 1c, 2b, 2d and 3c are riparian areas and will be judiciously treated with herbicide only in areas on top of the streambank and not in the translocation zone of another desirable plant species. aspects of this method and the company that offers this service is the high degree of animal management they offer. The area of grazing would be controlled using movable electric fencing; grazing within reach of woody vegetation would be prevented (e.g. riparian areas). The animals would be almost constantly attended, their progress closely monitored, and penned in a controlled enclosure at night. The management of manure, and thus high nitrogen source, would be easy to accomplish because of the nightly enclosure routine and would not lend to an increase in plant biomass during our initial efforts to management vegetation species. 3.1.2.5 Solarization Covering small portions of Area 2c (tansy area) with black plastic may be attempted after one to two mowings as a trial to test its efficacy in killing this species. This process would require considerable time to produce results, possibly two or more years. Research ongoing regarding the effectiveness of this method on tansy. 3.1.3 Chemical Control: Selective Herbicide Application Spot and boom spraying will be used within areas where treatment will not hamper other activities such as wetland restoration plantings, 2013 planned recreation activities, or future property use (e.g. Story Mill Vegetation Management Plan June 5, 2013 8 community garden). In general, herbicide treatment will not interfere with recreational activities after a prescribed waiting period; potential activities for the 2013 summer should be reviewed with the vegetation management team to avoid conflicts with herbicide treatment schedules. Dynamecc Property Services has offered its advisory services throughout the vegetation management feasibility and management planning. A treatment schedule, method (herbicide or mowing), and general cost table has been developed for these treatment methods (Table 3.2). Vegetation management team meetings will be conducted mid-summer to determine what treatments will be required in late summer and/or mid-fall 2013. 3.1.5 Cultural Control Areas that have no vegetation as a result of vegetation management will be seeded with a cover crop (e.g. sterile wheatgrass) and native grass species (mixture pending: native wheat and rye grasses). Biocontrols cause weeds to be less competitive and less vigorous. These "empty niches" should be filled with seeding of desirable species to avoid the colonization by yet another invasive species. Tansy seems to flourish where Canada thistle has been controlled and field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis, 2B) tends to come in after spurge has been controlled. If spring rains are still occurring during the MCC work the week of June 10, seed will be raked into areas that were excavated. Otherwise, seeding will occur in October prior to snow cover. Treatment of other areas with no vegetation that present weed problems (e.g. hardscape around animal processing facilities) will require further discussions with TPL to determine future planning and cost- effectiveness of revegetating prior to initiating those plans. If Area 2c is treated with clove oil and acetic acid, this area will require yearly seeding with an annual species until the community gardens are developed. 3.2 Other Vegetation Management Tasks Prior to mowing Area 2c, MCC will sweep the site and remove debris (fence posts, wire, etc.) to create a safe area for the mower and equipment. Debris will be conveyed to the central driveway where it will be loaded and taken to a waste facility. Debris sweeps may be conducted property wide depending on time availability and TPL’s priority list. Another important concern is the disturbance that may occur to the Story Mill property during activities not controlled by TPL, such as trail work and disturbances caused by utility companies. The TPL and vegetation management team should be involved with any activities within the property that involves ground disturbance and request to be involved in mitigation efforts. Story Mill Vegetation Management Plan June 5, 2013 9 4.0 2013 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT: 2013 SELECTED VEGETATION MANAGEMENT METHODS The following section summarizes the selected weed control methods, timing, and estimated costs as appropriate using bullets for quick reference. This section will change over time as methods are refined and funding becomes available. Added tasks or information will be dated; undated lines were listed on June 5, 2013. 4.1 Management o TPL has contracted TerraQuatic, LLC to conduct vegetation management tasks. o These tasks include: writing the management plan (30 hours) and conducting field oversight, attending management meetings, continued research into control method effectiveness, and other associated tasks (30 hours). 4.2 Control Methods Four weed control methods have been selected for use within the Sotyr Mill property: biocontrol, mechanical control (mowing, clipping and possibly goat grazing and solarization), chemical control and cultural control. 4.2.1 Biocontrol • Integrated Weed Control will offer its services pro bono and donate biocontrol insects to TPL as they become available and other clients’ sales become finalized. • Insects will be distributed from mid-summer (July) to early fall (September). • IWC staff will make routine site visits to determine biocontrol effectiveness and needs, and attend vegetation management site meetings. 4.2.2 Mechanical Control Mowing  Mowing will be conducted in Area 2c several times during the 2013 growing season at approximately $300 per mowing event or up to $1,200 (estimate and as needed); 2c is the tansy-infested area and possible future garden space.  A small portion of Area 1b may be mowed in July to enhance the establishment of education centers, such as temporary canopies or tents, tables, or chairs; would likely be less than $100. Clipping  MCC will be onsite during the week of June10; there will be two 6-person crews and each crew will have 2 crew leaders for a total of 16 workers.  MCC will clip tansy in riparian areas where spot spraying is not possible (under tree and shrub drip lines).  Crews will excavate houndstongue and burdock, hand broadcast seed into disturbed spots and rake into the top layer of soil. (TPL/TQ will provide the seed.) Story Mill Vegetation Management Plan June 5, 2013 10  [Additional MCC task, non-weed control: MCC will also conduct a rapid sweep of Area 2c, using a 16-person line, to insure area is free of debris that could damage mowing equipment.]  Cost of MCC is $5,000 for 5 work days. Goat Grazing o At this time no goat grazing is planned. Solarization  Research is ongoing whether solarization in Area 2c is feasible.  If the method is used, it will be done so as a trial and only a small area will be covered with heavy-ply black plastic (e.g. 10’ x 10’).  Cost of materials and labor unknown at this time. 4.2.3 Chemical Control: Selective Herbicide Application  Dynamecc Property Services will conduct tasks listed in Table 4.1 that are in BOLD RED font. Changes to this task table throughout the year will be indicated by a different font color and footnoted.  June 5, 2013 task list for 2013 treatments is estimated at $3,990. Table 4.1 Selected Herbicide and Mowing Treatment Schedule, June 5, 20131 Area 2013 Priority Acres Method Herbicide Mowing Method Timing Spraying Cost Timing Mowing Cost June Sept 1a 17.0 mostly spot spray June/Sept $1,200 $600 1b 4 7.6 spot spray June/Sept $400 $200 July/as needed $700/mow 1c* 3 2.7 boom spot spray June/Sept $180 $90 2a 1 14.0 spot spray June/Sept $850 $425 2b* 3 3.0 spot spray June/Sept $150 $75 2c^ 2 3.2 4 times $1,200 2d* 1.4 spot spray June/Sept $150 $75 3a 2 (only trail entrance) 3.5 spot spray June/Sept $200 $100 July/as needed $315/mow 3b, 3c 3 <3.3 spot spray June/Sept $200 $100 4 2.2 spot spray June/Sept $130 $65 TOTAL $1,860 $930 $1,200 GRAND TOTAL $3,990 1 Ryan Meccage, Dynamecc Property Services: http://www.weedcontrolmt.com/; RED FONT indicates action plan as of June 5, 2013. * Areas 1c, 2b, 2d and 3c are riparian areas and will be judiciously treated with herbicide only in areas on top of the streambank and not in the translocation zone of another desirable plant species. Story Mill Vegetation Management Plan June 5, 2013 11 4.2.4 Cultural Control o MCC crews will hand broadcast seed into disturbed spots and rake into the top layer of soil. o TPL/TQ will provide the seed (dominant native or acceptable nonnatives that are currently on the property). o Other areas of disturbance or weed-treated spots may require seeding as summer progresses. However, unless water is available seeding will have to be postponed until fall and further weed control performed in those bare areas as needed. 5.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT: 2013 COMPLETED TASKS The following section is a list of vegetation management tasks completed to date and by which firm; this table will be updated as tasks are completed. Table 5.1 Vegetation management Tasks Completed To Date, 2013 Date Company Area Treatment June 10-14 MCC 1c, 2b, 3c (a portion of the East Gallatin River south of the bridge) Clipping tansy and Canada thistle; excavating houndstongue and burdock June 20 DPS 2c mow June 23 TQ 2c Solarization trial, ~10’x6’; photos taken July 11 DPS 1b, 2a: pathways; 2a: tent site Mowed for education classes July 15 DPS 2a, 2b and to East Gallatin bank spot spray 6.0 SUMMARY The intent of the Story Mill Vegetation Plan is to create a living document that will adapt to changing site conditions and evolving Trust for Public Land’s development plans. Section 4.0, 2013 Plan In Action: Management and Selected Control Methods will be altered and dated as conditions change on the property or new information becomes available. After considerable feasibility research, several control methods were chosen for various reasons, including environmental concerns, economics, and public image. A Story Mill site map was developed to aid in the management of several of the different ecological communities within the property boundaries. Though there are seven known noxious weeds and several undesirable invasives, the property also includes a viable riparian and wetland community. Care must be taken to preserve these areas and any seed bank that is likely present. A thorough vegetation species survey may be useful for future restoration and vegetation management planning. Methods of vegetation control include biocontrol, chemical control (selective herbicide application), mechanical, and cultural. Treatment times are discussed in each section presented above and presented in a Vegetation Management Timetable in Appendix C. Mid-summer and fall meetings Story Mill Vegetation Management Plan June 5, 2013 12 will be scheduled with TPL and vegetation management team members to discuss progress and adaptive management strategies. 6.0 REFERENCES [See Appendix A for feasibility research references.] Lesica, P. 2012. Manual of Montana Vascular Plants. B. Lipscomb (ed.), Botanical Research Institute of Texas, Fort Worth, Texas. River Design Group. 2012. Wetland Delineation report, Story Mill Project Site, Bozeman, Montana. July 2012. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2012. Riparian Assessment, Using the NRCS Riparian Assessment Method, Environment Technical Note No. MT-2 (Rev. 1). U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Montana Noxious Weed List, September 2010: http://agr.mt.gov/agr/Programs/Weeds/PDF/weedList2010.pdf. Site accessed May 29, 2013. APPENDIX A ___________________________________________________________ Story Mill Vegetation Management Plan Feasibility Research _________________________________________________________________________________ TerraQuatic, LLC April 25, 2013 1 STORY MILLS VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN FEASIBILITY RESEARCH [The following information is not in its final phase and is not to be used as such - TQ, Lynn Bacon.] I. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT GOALS To decrease undesirable plant species (noxious weeds and other invasive species) while increasing desirable plant species to the extent practicable. Primary concerns include, but not limited to: 1. Environmental health and safety; 2. Desirable (e.g. native) vegetation preservation; 3. Increase function of vegetation within the ecological system; 4. Noxious and invasive weed education; 5. Native vegetation diversity; and, 6. Maintain positive public image. Immediate vegetation management goals include but not limited to: 1. Conduct initial vegetation control method feasibility research (following outline); 2. Conduct final feasibility research as a result of April 25, 2013 meeting; 3. Submit preliminary vegetation management plan (discuss submittal date at today’s meeting); 4. Initiate control actions for spring 2013; 5. Submit Final vegetation management plan (discuss submittal date at today’s meeting) ; and, 6. Initiate control actions for fall 2013. II. STORY MILLS VEGETATION MANAGEMENT AREAS TQ (Lynn Bacon) developed a draft vegetation management area map (Figure 1) to facilitate the Story Mills Vegetation Management Plan Feasibility Research meeting to be held on April 25, 2013 with Maddy Pope (TPL) and Tom Hinz (Consultant). Sub-areas were delineated in anticipation of the need to use different vegetation control methods in some of these zones. Area 1: Former trailer park area (1a), field south of former trailer park (1b), riparian forest along East Gallatin River (1c) Area 2: Future wetland restoration area (2a), riparian forest along East Gallatin River (2b), potential future garden (2c), willow community along Bozeman Creek (2d) Area 3: Trail head vicinity and field north of slaughter facility driveway (3a), level field east of facility (3b), area immediately surrounding facility (3c), willow community and East Gallatin River riparian forest (3d) Area 4: Trail along railroad track TerraQuatic, LLC April 25, 2013 2 III. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT METHOD FEASIBILITY RESEARCH TQ contacted several company owners/operators and local agency personnel regarding feasibility of conducting certain vegetation management methods on the Story Mill property. The following methods were researched for feasibility, general costs, and environmental concerns (see Table 1a and 1b for summary of the information provided in Sections III and IV). • Herbicide Application – Ryan Meccage, Dynamecc Property Services, (406) 570- 0413, meccager@hotmail.com, http://www.weedcontrolmt.com/ John Ansley, Gallatin County Weed Control District, (406) 582-3265 Kristen Obrien, MT Department of Agriculture, (406) 587-9067 • Grazing – Lani Malerg, Ewe4ic Ecological Services, (970) 219- 0451, ewe4icbenz@aol.com, http://www.goatseatweeds.com/ Riley Wilson, Woolly Weed Eaters, (406) 685-3342 • Prescribed Burning - Jason Shrauger, Bozeman Fire Chief, (406) 582-2350 jshrauger@bozeman.net Craig Campbell , DNRC Land Office, (406) 556-4507ccampbell@mt.gov • Physical Removal – MCC (Maddy has contact info) • Biocontrol – Cindy Crayton, Integrated Weed Control, (406) 580- 7874, http://www.integratedweedcontrol.com/ • General Vegetation Management Christopher Mahoney, NRCS, Christopher.Mahony@mt.usda.gov IV. RESEARCH SUMMARY AND TERRAQUATIC RECOMMENDATION • Herbicide Application  Ryan Meccage (Dynamecc Property Services) - Ryan would be able to treat the entire Story Mills project site using herbicide or mowing methods. TQ Recommendation – - Given TPL is early in the development process, I believe mowing would be a good option in select areas (e.g. Areas 1b, portions of 3). TerraQuatic, LLC April 25, 2013 3 - Spraying at this time may hamper TPL efforts to do other restoration work in some areas (Area 2a?). - There may be areas that TPL would be comfortable with spraying (Area 1b?). - Once TPL understands the timing and extent of the Story Mill development goals, they will be able to make more informed decisions regarding where herbicides may be safely used, if desired. - Ryan is very easy to work with from my past experience (sensitive wetland spraying), he understands the sensitivity of the project site, and would take great care to preserve non- target species (e.g. broadleaf wild flowers and woody vegetation).  John Ansley, Gallatin County Weed Control District - John provided general advice regarding herbicide application; however he did advise that spraying the tansy in the garden area intensely for 2 years may not cause undue harm to future plans for a garden in this area if done so several years in the future (5+?). I did not find support for this method from the MT Department of Ag or from Dynamecc (Ryan did provide a rough cost for spraying, but does not recommend). TQ Recommendation – - Avoid spraying tansy in areas that could be used for vegetable gardens. - It may be worth checking with this group again to see if they have any public programs/funding available for weed control.  Kristen Obrien, MT Department of Agriculture - Kristen supplied general advice regarding chemical usages on the property. She sent me some information that needs to be read and deciphered regarding safety of chemicals and where they should/should not be sprayed. • Grazing  Lani Malberg, Ewe4ic Ecological Services - Out of Cheyenne, WY - Would like to know specific TPL goals, she emphasized the need to understand these goals so the proper grazing plan could be employed. - Mentioned that it would be beneficial to remove organic matter off of the property (manure from overnight pen); the site would not benefit from a high dose of nitrogen. - Treatment with grazing goats would require 2 to 3 times in one year, and decrease following years. - Also stressed that any treatment is not end all-be all; takes time and management. - General method is to concentrate animals in small electric enclosures, she stays with the animals and monitors closely. - Stated she can get the animals to eat the standing tansy biomass in the potential future garden area, very confident she could eliminate this stand in a few years. - To graze in Montana there are hoops to jump, literally, crossing the border, may require quarantine time. TerraQuatic, LLC April 25, 2013 4 TQ Recommendation – - Lani offers goats to control undesirable vegetation. She is very tuned into the difference and breadth in the terms ‘desirable’ and ‘undesirable’. She is a botanist by training, and understands that once the goats have removed the above ground portion of the undesirable plant, a competing species needs to be planted to begin to out-compete those undesirables. Evidently she does also apply seed to begin this process. In general, I was impressed with this company and her methods. - The items mentioned are sound and fit into my ecological and environmental training. - If there are quarantine issues, this would mean critical delays to spring treatment.  Riley Wilson, Wooly Weed Eaters - Out of Harrison, MT - Uses sheep to control unwanted vegetation. - Uses electric fencing to keep animals in areas of desired control for 3 days at a time, does not stay on site during that time. TQ Recommendation - -Sundance Springs uses this company to graze their parks. I did not contact them to ask about their satisfaction level; will do so if TPL wishes to explore this method in more depth. - I do not support leaving the animals unattended for 3 days between moving fencing. - Sheep may also consume too much of a plant, which is good for undesirables, but not desirable plants. - They are quite affordable, but the animal management method is not acceptable. - Sample of agreement terms is unacceptable. • Prescribed Burning  Jason Shrauger, Bozeman Fire Chief - A visit was paid to the station to inquire about reputable companies who conduct prescribed burning. The chief knows the property well. In general he did not discourage a prescribed burn and if this method is used, he requested that TPL and the burn company work closely with the fire department. - The chief did not know of any companies that could do the work. - Only conduct a burn if wind is from the west to avoid smoke entering storage units.  Craig Campbell, DNRC Land Office - Contact was made but did not follow-up per TPL request. TQ Recommendation – -TPL does not want to employ this vegetation control method; no further investigation on this method will be conducted. - Burning vegetation simply removes top biomass, though very useful in areas where there is an overabundance of thatch (which is the case in Area 2). - However, having animals use this biomass for consumption is a good recycling of nutrients and organic matter. TerraQuatic, LLC April 25, 2013 5 • Physical Removal  MCC -TPL would like to use MCC to conduct physical removal of undesirable plant species. - MCC is available 2 weeks in early summer. - Cost very reasonable. - Using MCC will begin to develop a good relationship with this organization. TQ Recommendations – - Removal of isolated tansy plants in future wetland restoration area would be feasible. - Removal of any dead tansy biomass in potential future garden location would be extremely labor intensive. Although depending on which method of control is used in this area, MCC may be of help. - Removal of tansy inflorescence in aspen and willow areas, along creeks, other areas as determined by TPL. - Removal of any noxious weed inflorescence would be feasible. - Digging any other weeds species, or pulling, is risky and can cause more damage than good, though it is often used for knapweed. If the root breaks when pulling it is wasted effort. • Biocontrol  Cyndi Crayton, Integrated Weed Control - Biocontrol insects are likely already onsite, but she is amenable to adding a few more insects. - Benefits would be limited because biocontrol already present on site. - There are likely knapweed weevils already on site. - Already Canada thistle galls on site. - There is no control for tansy. - No permitted houndstongue biocontrol in MT. - Spurge population is limited, but could send out 3 insects for this species. - Advised that cover species be planted as undesirable species are removed from site; annual grains acceptable. TQ Recommendations – - Adding more biocontrol, if Cyndi believes it would be worth their time and effort, would be advisable. - Did not discuss cost. TerraQuatic, LLC April 25, 2013 6 • General Vegetation Management  Chris Mahoney, NRCS - Maddy will continue working with this contact. TQ Recommendations – - Chris mentioned that the NRCS has vegetation management templates that would enable TPL to use for grants. These templates would also assist the vegetation management team and prevent duplication of effort. V. DRAFT VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN, 2013 This section intentionally left blank: for notes regarding, e.g. TPL vegetation management goals, management timing, appropriate methods, future research, management plan requirements and submittal timing, etc. APPENDIX B ___________________________________________________________ State of Montana Noxious Weed Species _________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX C ____________________________________________________________ Vegetation Management Timetable _________________________________________________________________________________ Double left click on the excel table below and the interactive table will open and allow scrolling. Entries in GREEN have been accomplished. (wells) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 DPS Spray?Audubon? 8 AM (wells) 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 (wells) 30 JULY 1 2 3 4 5 6 DPS - Mow 2c and other areas, sites ready? IWC - biocontrol enhancement available? (wells) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 (wells) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Mangement Team Field Meeting? (wells) 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 (wells) 28 29 30 31 Story Mill Ecological Restoration Project Site Plan Application  D-1                  APPENDIX D – PLAN SHEETS  Story Mill Ecological Restoration Project  Bozeman, Montana       Story Mill Ecological Restoration Project Site Plan Application  E-1                 APPENDIX E – EXISTING VEGETATION  LIST  Story Mill Ecological Restoration Project  Bozeman, Montana    Story Mill Ecological Restoration Project Site Plan Application E-1  Table E-1. Plant Species Observed on the Story Mill Project Area (Surveyed by Ms. Andrea Pipp on July 23, 2013) (Page 1 of 10) Species Common Name NativityWetland Indicator* Upland Herbaceous Upland herbaceous Homestead Riparian Riparian Riparian Wetland Wetland Aspen Forest Notes Parcel       South Triangle South South North Triangle South Triangle South   TREES                           Acer species maple seedlings unknown ‐‐‐       IF           Seedlings of less than one foot observed in several places, but mature tree/shrub not observed. Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash native FAC      IF               Juniperus scopulorum Rocky Mountain juniper native  ‐‐‐       VC             Probably a couple of juniper varieties or species are present at homestead. Malus species crab apple unknown  ‐‐‐       IF             Probably a horticultural species. Populus balsamifera cottonwood native FAC      VC VC VC VC       Hybrids may be present. Populus tremuloides quaking aspen native FACU   IF F IF         VC In Upland Herbaceous‐Parcel 3 it is found along Story Mill Road. Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas‐fir native FACU      F               Salix fragilis  weeping willow exotic FAC      VC VC VC VC       May be hybrids with S. alba. Sorbus species mountain ash unknown  ‐‐‐       IF             Probably a horticultural species.                                       SHRUBS                           Alnus incana speckled alder native FACW       VC F            Story Mill Ecological Restoration Project Site Plan Application E-2  Species Common Name NativityWetland Indicator* Upland Herbaceous Upland herbaceous Homestead Riparian Riparian Riparian Wetland Wetland Aspen Forest Notes Parcel       South Triangle South South North Triangle South Triangle South   Cornus sericea syn. C. alba, C. stolonifera red‐osier dogwood native FACW       F F F   IF   Population seems suppressed. Lonicera species honeysuckle unknown ‐‐‐           F       Probably a horticultural species. Prunus virginiana chokecherry native FACU IF IF VC VC   VC      IF Species or variety at homestead may differ from other parcels.  In Upland Herbaceous‐Parcel 3 it forms a row at the southeast boundary. Rhus trilobata skunkbush sumac native  ‐‐‐       IF               Ribes aureum golden currant native FAC      F F   IF         Ribes species currant unknown  ‐‐‐       F F   IF         Rosa acicularis prickly rose native FACU IF                   Rosa woodsii Woods' rose native FACU      IF F F IF      F   Salix boothii Booth's willow native FACW IF   IF VC VC IF F       Salix exigua streamside or coyote willow native FACW       F VC IF IF F   VC in southwest portion of Parcel 1. Salix lutea yellow willow native OBL       F      F       Symphoricarpos occidentalis western snowberry native UPL F   F F F F     F   Syringa species Lilac exotic  ‐‐‐       VC                                                     FORBS                           Achillea millefolium common native FACU IF                    Story Mill Ecological Restoration Project Site Plan Application E-3  Species Common Name NativityWetland Indicator* Upland Herbaceous Upland herbaceous Homestead Riparian Riparian Riparian Wetland Wetland Aspen Forest Notes Parcel       South Triangle South South North Triangle South Triangle South   yarrow Arctium minus lesser burdock exotic UPL IF F IF F   F         Asteraceae Aster Family unknown  ‐‐‐       IF             Possibly a horticultural species. Berteroa incana hoary alyssum exotic (State noxious)  ‐‐‐ IF F IF   IF           Brassicaceae Mustard Family unknown ‐‐‐             IF        Capsella bursa‐pastoris Shepherd’s purse exotic FACU IF                   Carduus nutans musk thistle exotic (County noxious) UPL   F               Primarily in the driveway. Centaurea maculosa spotted knapweed exotic (State noxious)  ‐‐‐ F F                 Cirsium arvense Canada thistle exotic (State noxious) FAC VC VC VC VC      VC   F   Cirsium vulgare bull thistle exotic FACU IF      IF   IF IF        Conium maculatum poison hemlock exotic (State noxious) FAC   IF       IF       Border of upland and riparian habitats. Cynoglossum officinale hound's‐tongue exotic (State noxious) FACU F F F     F     IF   Epilobium ciliatum fringed willowherb native FACW             IF         Story Mill Ecological Restoration Project Site Plan Application E-4  Species Common Name NativityWetland Indicator* Upland Herbaceous Upland herbaceous Homestead Riparian Riparian Riparian Wetland Wetland Aspen Forest Notes Parcel       South Triangle South South North Triangle South Triangle South   Euphorbia esula sulfur cinquefoil exotic (State noxious) ‐‐‐       F IF       IF Only in southeastern portion of Riparian Parcel 1. Galium aparine stickywilly native FACU   IF IF               Geum macrophyllum  large‐leaved avens native FAC             IF        Glycyrrhiza lepidota licorice‐root native FAC         F IF         Heracleum lanatum  syn. H. maximum cow parsnip native FAC IF      IF         F   Hesperis matronalis dames rocket; mother‐of‐the‐evening exotic FACU       IF             Iva xanthiifolia  syn. Cyclachaena xanthiifolia carelessweed native FAC           IF         Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce exotic FACU IF IF                 Lamiaceae Mint Family unknown  ‐‐‐       IF             Possibly a horticultural species. Lemna minor duckweed native  OBL             F       Lepidium draba  syn. Cardaria draba whitetop exotic (State noxious)  ‐‐‐ F                   Leucanthemum vulgare  syn. Chrysanthemum leucanthemum oxeye daisy exotic (State noxious) FACU       IF IF       F   Linaria vulgaris  yellow toadflax exotic (State noxious)  ‐‐‐    F     F            Story Mill Ecological Restoration Project Site Plan Application E-5  Species Common Name NativityWetland Indicator* Upland Herbaceous Upland herbaceous Homestead Riparian Riparian Riparian Wetland Wetland Aspen Forest Notes Parcel       South Triangle South South North Triangle South Triangle South   Lotus corniculatus bird's ‐foot trefoil exotic FAC      F             Occurs along driveway bordering Upland Herbaceous Parcel 1. Lysimachia ciliata fringed loosestrife native FACW       IF   IF         Matricaria matricarioides  syn. M. discoidea pineapple weed exotic FACU   IF                 Medicago lupulina black medick exotic FACU   IF          IF        Melilotus officinale yellow sweet clover exotic  FACU   IF   IF IF           Mentha arvensis field mint; American wild mint native FACW       IF      F       Plantago major common plantain exotic FAC             IF        Polygonum (aviculare) (prostrate) knotweed exotic (FAC)   IF          IF      Near wetland/upland edge Polygonum amphibium  syn. Persicaria amphibia water smartweed native OBL       VC      F       Potentilla anserina  syn. Argentina anserina common silverweed native OBL       F      IF        Ranunculus acris tall buttercup exotic (State noxious) FAC IF        IF   IF   IF Would be good to get a 2nd opinion on species.  Story Mill Ecological Restoration Project Site Plan Application E-6  Species Common Name NativityWetland Indicator* Upland Herbaceous Upland herbaceous Homestead Riparian Riparian Riparian Wetland Wetland Aspen Forest Notes Parcel       South Triangle South South North Triangle South Triangle South   Ranunculus sceleratus celery‐leaved buttercup native OBL             IF        Rorippa curvipes bluntleaf yellowcress native FACW             IF        Rumex crispus curly dock exotic FAC   IF   IF      IF        Rumex fueginus  syn. R. maritimus golden dock native FACW             IF        Silene latifolia  syn. Lychnis alba white campion exotic  ‐‐‐    IF       IF       Occurs on bank where overstory vegetation has been removed. Silene vulgaris maidenstears exotic  ‐‐‐    IF                 Sisymbium species mustard exotic  ‐‐‐ IF IF IF               Solanum dulcamara climbing nightshade exotic FAC           IF         Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod native FACU         IF           Sonchus species   exotic ‐‐‐             IF        Tanacetum vulgare common tansy exotic (State noxious) FACU VC VC VC VC VC VC F IF IF   Taraxacum officinale common dandelion exotic FACU F F VC VC      F       Thlaspi arvense field pennycress exotic UPL IF IF                 Tragopogon dubois western salsify exotic  ‐‐‐ IF IF   IF              Story Mill Ecological Restoration Project Site Plan Application E-7  Species Common Name NativityWetland Indicator* Upland Herbaceous Upland herbaceous Homestead Riparian Riparian Riparian Wetland Wetland Aspen Forest Notes Parcel       South Triangle South South North Triangle South Triangle South   Trifolium repens white clover exotic FAC             IF        Urtica dioica stinging nettle native FAC IF          IF         Verbascum thapsus common mullein exotic FACU   IF IF               Verbena bracteata prostrate or carpet vervain exotic FAC   IF               Occurs in driveway bordering Upland Herbaceous Parcel 1 and in Parcel 3.                                       GRASS / GRASS‐LIKE                           Agropyron repens  syn.  Elymus repens quack grass exotic FAC VC VC VC VC VC VC  VC IF F   Agrostis stolonifera redtop exotic FAC       VC VC VC VC VC F   Alopecurus arundinaceus creeping meadow foxtail exotic FAC       VC VC VC VC VC     Alopecurus pratensis field meadow foxtail exotic FAC                   Suspected to occur, but not observed on July 23, 2013. Bromus (carinatus)  syn. B. (marginatus) California or mountain brome  native ‐‐‐       F F           Bromus inermis smooth brome exotic FAC VC VC VC VC VC VC         Bromus japonicus Japanese brome exotic  ‐‐‐ IF IF               near wetland/upland boundary Bromus tectorum cheatgrass exotic (State regulated)  ‐‐‐    F                  Story Mill Ecological Restoration Project Site Plan Application E-8  Species Common Name NativityWetland Indicator* Upland Herbaceous Upland herbaceous Homestead Riparian Riparian Riparian Wetland Wetland Aspen Forest Notes Parcel       South Triangle South South North Triangle South Triangle South   Calamagrostis stricta slimstem reedgrass native FACW             F       Carex aquatilis water sedge native OBL             IF        Carex microptera small‐wing sedge native FACU             IF        Carex nebrascensis Nebraska sedge native OBL       IF      VC F     Carex pellita  syn.  C. lanuginosa woolly sedge  native OBL             F       Carex praegracilis clustered field sedge native FACW F           F       Carex vesicaria blister sedge native OBL             IF        Catabrosa aquatica water whorlgrass native OBL             IF        Dactylis glomerata orchard grass exotic FACU IF   VC F             Eleocharis palustris common spikerush native OBL             F       Equisetum arvense field horsetail native FAC       F F IF F F     Equisetum hyemale tall scouring rush native FACW IF           IF        Glyceria grandis American mannagrass native OBL             IF        Hordeum brachyantherum meadow barley native FACW             F        Story Mill Ecological Restoration Project Site Plan Application E-9  Species Common Name NativityWetland Indicator* Upland Herbaceous Upland herbaceous Homestead Riparian Riparian Riparian Wetland Wetland Aspen Forest Notes Parcel       South Triangle South South North Triangle South Triangle South   Hordeum jubatum foxtail barley native  FAC   F IF         IF        Juncus balticus  syn. J. arcticus Baltic or Arctic rush native FACW       F      F F     Juncus compressus roundfruit rush exotic OBL IF      F      F       Juncus ensifolius swordleaf or dagger‐leaf rush native FACW       IF             Juncus interior inland rush native FAC       F             Juncus longistylis long‐style rush native FACW       IF             Juncus nodosus knotted rush native OBL       IF             Pharlaris arundinacea reed canarygrass native FACW IF      F F IF VC VC     Phleum pratense common timothy exotic FAC VC F   F      F   F   Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass exotic FAC      VC F      F   F   Scirpus mircrocarpus  small‐fruited, red‐tinge, or panicled bulrush native OBL             F       Typha latifolia broad‐leaf cat‐tail native OBL             VC                                              Story Mill Ecological Restoration Project Site Plan Application E-10  Species Common Name NativityWetland Indicator* Upland Herbaceous Upland herbaceous Homestead Riparian Riparian Riparian Wetland Wetland Aspen Forest Notes Parcel       South Triangle South South North Triangle South Triangle South   VINE                           Clematis ligusticifolia western white clematis native FAC           F         Polygonum convolvulus black bindweed exotic ‐‐‐       F               *Wetland Indicator: Lichvar, R.  2012.  The National Wetland Plant List.  ERDC/CRREL TR‐12‐11.  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions  Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, New Hampshire.  Obtained at <http://rsgisias.crrel.usace.army.mil/NWPL>. Occurrence: VC = Very Common occurrence F = Frequent occurrence IF = Infrequent occurrence Nomenclature follows:  Lesica, P.  2012.  Manual of Montana Vascular Plants.  Brit Press, Fort Worth, Texas. No rare plants observed.       Story Mill Ecological Restoration Project Site Plan Application  F-1                   APPENDIX F ‐ PHOTOGRAPHS OF  EXISTING CONDITIONS  Story Mill Ecological Restoration Project  Bozeman, Montana             Facing dow fill and car Facing sou garage ‐ no Facing dow 104 on the wnstream at th garage.  (4/14 th, upstream a ote tansy in for wnstream at Ea e Triangle Parce he floodplain e 4)  at the area beh reground. (7/1 ast Gallatin Riv el.  (7/13)  ncroachment b hind the car  13)  ver cross‐sectio St F-2 by Facing d garage o Fill mate bank flo on Facing e Triangle tory Mill Ec downstream at on the Triangle erial dominate oodplain of the east from left b e Parcel.  (7/13 cological Res Site Pla t the incised ch e Parcel.  (7/13 ed by weed spe e Triangle Parce bank at cross‐s )  storation Pr an Applica hannel below t 3)  ecies on the lef el. (4/14)  ection 104 on  roject ation   the car  ft  the      Facing we on the Tri Facing no floodplain Facing up South Par est from right iangle Parcel. rth at south e n restoration  stream (sout rcel to be stab  bank at cros   (7/13)  end of car gar will occur (4/ heast) at righ bilized (7/13) s‐section 104 rage where  /14).  ht bank on  .  St F-3 4 Facing s side of  Facing d section Facing d Parcel t tory Mill Ec south at filled Triangle Parc downstream   103 on the S downstream  to be rehabili cological Res Site Pla d floodplain a cel to be resto at East Gallat South Parcel.  (north) at rig itated (7/13). storation Pr an Applica area on the w ored (4/14). tin River cros  (7/13)  ght bank on S   roject ation   west  ss‐ outh      Facing no right bank A segmen (7/13)  Facing eas existing co slough are rth at stream k, across from nt of Bozeman st from near  onditions of t ea on the Sou mbank rehabil m the South P n Creek on th Bozeman Cre the future Bo uth Parcel. (7/ itation area o arcel (7/13).  e South Parce eek showing  zeman Creek /13)  St F-4 on    Concret River on el.  A segm just dow k  Facing w on right backwa tory Mill Ec te rubble in t n the South P ment of Bozem wnstream fro west toward  t, at area tha ater slough ar cological Res Site Pla the channel o Parcel.  (7/13) man Creek on  om last photo Bozeman Cre t will be the B rea – South P storation Pr an Applica of the East Ga )  the South Pa o.  (7/13)  eek, storage s Bozeman Cre arcel.  (7/13) roject ation   llatin  arcel,  sheds  ek         Facing sou the South Facing no houses th (7/13)  Facing sou for floodp Ditch  uth from pon h Parcel that w rth at drainag hat will be fille uth at the we plain restorat d outlet at ex will be reconf ge ditch north ed to restore  est side of the ion‐ North Pa xisting pond o figured. (7/13 h of the farm  site hydrolog e area targete arcel.(Aug 201 St F-5 on  3)  Facing S from th gy.   Facing s for floo ed  13)  Facing d section Outle tory Mill Ec SW at drainag he pond outle south at the e odplain restor downstream   101 on the N et cological Res Site Pla ge ditch drain et – South Par east side of th ration‐North  at East Gallat North Parcel.  storation Pr an Applica ning northwa rcel. (7/13)   he area targe Parcel.(Aug 2 tin River cros  (7/13)  Ditch  roject ation   rd  eted  2013)  ss‐     Concrete  the East G Facing sou on North  Facing no North Par   rubble used f Gallatin River  uthwest at th Parcel. (4/14 rth at the pro rcel. (4/14)  for bank stab on the North he proposed s )  oposed spoil p ilization alon h Parcel.  (7/1 spoil pile area pile area on  St F-6 g  13)  Facing u for ban on the  a Facing w North P Facing s North P tory Mill Ec upstream, ex k stabilizatio North Parcel. west at the p Parcel. (4/14) southwest at Parcel. (4/14) cological Res Site Pla xample of con n along the E .  (4/14)  proposed spoi   t the propose   storation Pr an Applica ncrete rubble  ast Gallatin R il pile area on d staging are roject ation   used  River  n  a on