HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Workshop Minutes 10.29.2013 MINUTES
COUNCIL WORKSHOP
OCTOBER 29, 2013 6:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
A Council Workshop was held in the Council Chambers and called to order by Mayor Ken Olson at
6:30 p.m. on October 29, 2013.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
_x Emelie Eaton _x_ Doug Poehls
x Bruce McGee _x_ Mark Mace
Scot Stokes _x_ Chuck Dickerson
Tom Nelson x Bill Mountsier
OTHERS PRESENT:
Heidi Jensen, CAO Monica Plecker, City Planner
Public Input (three - minute limit):
Citizens may address the Council regarding any item of City business not on the agenda. The duration for an individual
speaking under Public Input is limited to three minutes. While all comments are welcome, the Council will not take action
on any item not on the agenda.
There was no public input.
General items
• Laurel Ambulance Service: Appointments of Eric Needham and Bill Lohrenz
Mayor Olson stated that the appointments will be on the November 5 council agenda.
Executive Review:
• Discussion — Quarterly Finance Report
Clerk/Treasurer Shirley Ewan distributed and presented the Quarterly Finance Report. She spoke
regarding the bank reconciliation, which is done at the beginning of every month. Currently, the city
has $12,063,121.70 in several banks and in the STIP program in Helena.
Shirley explained the next page regarding the actual revenues versus the actual expenditures for the
first quarter of fiscal year 2013 -2014. The funds were listed in the first column, the revenues received
year -to -date were listed in the next column, and the budget for the revenues was in the third column.
The fourth column showed that the revenues received are at 13 %. With one -fourth of the year gone,
this should be at 25 %, but the tax revenues have not been received yet. The next three columns were
the expenditures year -to -date, the budgeted expenses and the expense percentage of the budget. At
this time, it should be 25% in revenues and expenditures. The revenues are at 13% and the
expenditures are at 13 %, which is unusual because expenditures are usually higher at this time of year
and the revenues usually run ahead of the expenditures. Because of the large projects that are going
on, they are higher this year.
The next sheet was a graph comparison of 1s Quarter 2012 -2013 vs. ls Quarter 2013 -2014. The
Solid Waste Fund had a big expenditure for a new truck last year.
Council Workshop Minutes of October 29, 2013
Shirley reviewed a report that she gave to the Budget/Finance Committee on October 7 The Library
Aid Grant has received more revenues to date than expected. Federal Equitable Sharing is 145% and
is determined by the drug and property seizures by the Feds.
Funds that are expended higher than 25% include the Comp Insurance Fund, which is at 92% because
the premium is paid in August of each year. The Elena Park Maintenance District is at 45% spent,
due to the purchase of the lawnmower and the planting of the grass. The 911 Fund is 47% spent since
the maintenance contract was paid at the beginning of the fiscal year.
Since July P the Street Maintenance Fund spent $39,510.02 and the Riverside Park project cost
$38,095.77. Elena Park Maintenance District spent $9,088.00 for a lawnmower. Expenditures for the
SID CIP sidewalk project on Cottonwood Avenue are at $24,323.21 to date. The irrigation system in
Elena Subdivision will eventually be rolled into SID No. 114, which will be expended out of the
capital program. Revenues will pay the premiums to the bonding company out of the 3500 debt
service fund.
In the Water Department, $189,266 has been spent for the plans and designs for the water intake, as
well as a small excavator to do water valves and risers.
The Sewer Department has spent $453,313.30 mostly for the rehab project for the sewer plant and one
payment has been made to Williams Brothers.
Shirley spoke regarding the status of various positions in the city.
Emelie asked regarding the Progress Payment of $6,400 to Robert Peccia and Associates for the
Transportation Study. The Transportation Study is budgeted for $80,000 and the contractor is still
working on the project.
Monica explained that the Transportation Plan should be completed around the first of the year. A
second public meeting is scheduled on Monday, November 18 at 6:00 p.m. in the council chambers.
Mayor Olson thanked Shirley for her presentation.
• Discussion — Growth Management Policy
Monica Plecker gave a PowerPoint presentation regarding the draft Growth Management Plan. A
copy of the presentation is attached to these minutes.
Monica spoke regarding the plan development, plan area, included elements, purpose of the GMP,
plan implementation, demographics, housing, economic development, existing and future land use
plan and the goals of the plan.
The goals of the Growth Management Plan include:
1. Historic Resources: "The City of Laurel will be a community that supports a healthy mix of
historic preservation and new growth."
2. Natural Resources: "The City of Laurel will achieve a balanced and sustainable use of natural
resources in the community."
3. Housing: "The City of Laurel will have neighborhoods that offer stable, yet diverse housing
options."
2
Council Workshop Minutes of October 29, 2013
4. Economic Development: "The City of Laurel will be a community with a sustainable, diverse
economy that can weather national economic fluctuations."
5. Utilities and Infrastructure: "The City of Laurel will maintain an efficient, adequate safe
drinking water and wastewater system that meets the long -term needs of the community."
6. Transportation: "The City of Laurel will maintain a safe and efficient transportation system
(including rail and air) that meets the local needs."
7. Community Facilities: "The City of Laurel will meet the facility needs and maintain a high
quality of service to the community."
8. Land Use: "The City of Laurel will be a community with a mix of land uses that maintains a
diverse tax base and supports a high quality of life."
Mayor Olson thanked Monica for her presentation.
• Discussion — Speed Limit Recommendations
Heidi spoke regarding the letter from MDT that had an attached speed study. The city asked MDT to
do a speed study on East Railroad Street, which is in city limits, and then adopted the speed study.
This study is for West Railroad, which is out of city limits. The County Commissioners will possibly
adopt the plan in the next sixty days. On the map, Heidi pointed out the different speed limits that go
out of the city and coming into the city.
Doug suggested talking to MDT about fixing the road as it is in bad shape.
• Resolution — Noxious Weed Management Plan
Heidi explained that she and Mayor Olson recently attended a meeting where the County Weed
District Supervisor, Jim Visser, spoke. His presentation was on goat head weeds and how they have
become a noxious weed and are spreading rapidly. There was a demonstration on how many millions
of seeds are held in every pod and he asked for countywide support to eliminate it. The resolution is a
formality and the letter asks the city to designate someone to attend a countywide discussion in the
spring to address the weed issues. The city's representative, if the council agrees to it, would be Keith
Kolstad, the code enforcement officer.
• Resolution — Purchase mitigation credits for the south bank restoration project
Heidi stated that she previously presented some maps to the council regarding where the mitigation
credits would be spent on a ranch along the Yellowstone River. This was the most economical and
fastest way for the city to come into compliance with the Army Corps and their requirements for such
a large construction project. EcoAsset is the company that actually sells the credits and then has the
work completed on the ranch. The agreement is for $49,100 for the actual credits and $ 1,363.90 for
the administration fees. The city has to purchase the credits and then submit copies of the resolution,
the signed agreement and the check to the State FEMA office in Helena in order to be reimbursed for
the amount. The cost was included in the project worksheet and the full project amount has been
deposited from the Federal FEMA account into the State FEMA account and they expect the city to
draw upon it.
• Ordinance — Animals
o Animal cruelty discussion— (Emelie Eaton)
Heidi stated that a public hearing was held on the dog issue over a year ago. The issue was then
turned over to the Emergency Services Committee and they worked on it over a year. The city
attorney reviewed the ordinance, made the changes requested by the committee, and then presented it
3
Council Workshop Minutes of October 29, 2013
to the Emergency Services Committee, which recommended moving forward with the draft
ordinance. Recently, information about animal cruelty and firearms was received from Council
Member Eaton. Heidi talked to the city attorney about the information and adopting or amending the
ordinance to include the MCA 45 -8 -211, as stated in Council Member Eaton's information. The
attorney also informed Heidi that the discharge of BB guns, high- powered BB guns, air rifles, air
pistols and crossbow bolts is currently allowed in the city limits. Since Riverside Park is in the city
limits, not allowing shooting would affect events.
Chuck spoke about the definition of "at large ", which is "referring to any animal off the premises of
the owner and not under the direct control of the owner by leash, cord, chain or other similar device."
Chuck has heard that police officers say it is acceptable if a dog or animal is within voice command,
but that is not what the ordinance says. He hopes that the code would be considered by the
department upon approval of this ordinance.
Mayor Olson stated that it is clearly stated in the ordinance and any violations or complaints should
be handled by the police department or reported to city hall to insure that the ordinances of the city
are followed.
Emelie explained that she did not intend to hold up the draft ordinance with her proposed changes.
She suggested that the issues of cruelty to animals and the discharge of certain firearms could be
considered by the Emergency Services Committee after the new ordinance change has been adopted.
Doug spoke regarding Section 6.16.040 Cruelty to animals prohibited. It states: It is unlawful for any
person to knowingly or purposely inflict pain upon or injure any animal within city limits." The issue
is that what one person thinks is cruel to an animal may not be the same for someone else. He leaves
his dog outside all winter long, but the dog is used to it and it is not cruel. But another person might
have a smaller dog that could not be out in subzero temperatures. There are some subjective issues
that cannot be addressed in the ordinance and have to be addressed by an officer that sees and presents
evidence in court to substantiate the cruelty. Regarding the $500 fine, Doug stated that is the
maximum fine the judge can give because Laurel is not a court of record. The court would have to
become a court of record in order to increase fines to $1,000.
Emelie explained that the city judge often has to refer to MCA, so her suggestion was to include
MCA in the Laurel Municipal Code instead of making the judge revert back to MCA.
Doug agreed and said there were already some places in the ordinance that reverted to MCA.
There was further discussion regarding the $500 fines, the City Court not being a court of record, the
suggestion to move forward with the current draft ordinance, the city attorney's wish to review the
council's discussion and submit a recommendation, and the need to have staff review and present
information regarding Emelie's proposals to the Emergency Services Committee at a future date.
• Council Issues:
o Lease Task Force update
Heidi stated that the Lease Task Force has not met, as she is having a hard time finding a contractor to
do the small construction projects. She will continue to work on it.
o Update on 2011 Yellowstone River flooding event
4
Council Workshop Minutes of October 29, 2013
Heidi mentioned that the council received an update during tonight's tour of the project sites. During
today's conference call with FEMA, some information came out that will facilitate more in -depth
discussion tomorrow. Great West Engineering informed the city today that their projected completion
start for the final project is now into 2015. Heidi stated that this project was supposed to be
completed by 2015 and the proposed timeline is unacceptable to staff.
Bruce expressed frustration with the timeline and stated that time does not seem to be of the essence
when it comes to this project.
Doug asked how much the city has spent on engineering costs on this project so far.
Heidi answered that hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent.
Mayor Olson stated that the engineering firm needs to understand that the council, not just the mayor
and CAO, is concerned and frustrated about the project timeline.
Doug stated that, as the council president, he is very frustrated with the length of the process. Even
though this is a $1.5 million project, it should not take this long. Once the plans were finalized for the
wastewater project, the project moved forward and should be completed in six months. This process
is already two years down the road.
Heidi explained that the weir project and lowering of the intake and the heads was the last report the
council formally received from Great West Engineering. Once that alternative was denied by all State
agencies, the project changed from a $1.5 million project to a $10 to $20 million project. Heidi stated
that the project needs to move forward faster. Great West proposed 23 different alternatives and the
city is still waiting for a good product six months later, which is unacceptable. The city found out in
July that the State denied the city to proceed forward with any type of weir. The Mayor gave Great
West Engineering a deadline of November to return with a final solution and the engineers informed
them today that it would be the first of the year. That is unacceptable.
Doug spoke regarding the rejection of the alternatives by all of the State agencies, the suggestion that
the State representatives are not engineers but have the power to deny the proposed alternatives, and
the idea that the city's engineers should ask the State officials to propose a viable solution or to step
aside and allow the city's engineers to get it done,
Bruce stated that it is very frustrating for him to hear citizens complain about taxes and high water
rates after discovering that this situation could have been taken care of years ago with a plan and a
weir installed in the river at a fraction of the current cost.
Heidi gave an update on the Laurel Urban Renewal Agency's proposal to contract with some
economic development staff. The TIF District was created over six years ago and has not really
produced a lot of viable projects or economic growth and development in the area. Staff worked with
Big Sky Economic Development Authority (BSEDA) for a year to create a formal partnership as a
contractor to work with the city for this purpose, but that has not happened. Staff previously worked
with Steve Zeier when he worked for BSEDA. He then worked for the City of Billings as the TIF
coordinator for the East Billings Urban Renewal Area and the South Billings Urban Renewal Area.
Steve has a lot of experience working with TIF Districts to create a master plan and recruit business.
Steve is starting his own consulting business, and staff and LURA are interested in a contract with
5
Council Workshop Minutes of October 29, 2013
Zeier Consulting to complete a master plan and to create economic development in the TIFD. Most
communities have someone to work on economic development in their TIF Districts, as it is difficult
for city staff to do so.
There was further discussion regarding whether the current ordinance allows the position.
Heidi explained that the board does not have any administrative authority but the board makes
recommendations. The contractor would be contracted with the city, would be paid out of the TIFD
fund, and would be accountable to the city and council.
Mayor Olson spoke regarding the creation of the TIFD in 2007. Since half of the 12 -year term of the
TIFD has expired, some ideas and tools are needed to implement ideas and tools that would help the
city's growth, as the TIFD is supposed to capture the increment and improve the city's economic
development.
Other items
There were none.
Review of draft council agenda for November 5, 2013
There were no changes.
Attendance at the November 5, 2013 council meeting
All council members present will attend.
Announcements
Doug thanked everyone for their concern over the last couple weeks.
Chuck reminded the council that daylight savings time ends this weekend.
Bill expressed thanks for tonight's tour of the projects, as it was great to see the projects and the
various stages of completion.
Bruce asked regarding the status of the proposed annexation of Main Street between Alder and
Locust.
Monica and Chief Musson have discussed the annexation issue and Monica called MDT and has
talked to the city attorney. In the past, the annexations have been county roads so the city needs
permission from MDT since this is a state route. She is currently working with MDT to get a letter of
support for the annexation.
Emelie mentioned that the clock is hung in the council chambers again.
Emelie asked regarding the Christmas tree recycling project. She had previously asked whether or not
the city wanted to participate in it because the committee was not getting communication from the
Public Works Department. The container will be located at the same site and the business is very
supportive of the project. Emelie asked for an answer before the meeting next Monday.
Mayor Olson will get an answer to her by Monday.
6
Council Workshop Minutes of October 29, 2013
Emelie spoke regarding the pictures Kevin Burson emailed the council showing the dust that was
kicked up along West Railroad Street. She recently told Kevin that she understood there was no way
the city could mitigate the amount of dust or control Schessler's and she encouraged him to contact
the DEQ. Emelie explained her communication with Air Quality Control and Riverstone Health
regarding the issue.
Mayor Olson suggested that Mr. Burson could contact Heidi so she can use the city's available
resources to help the citizen.
The council workshop adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cindy Allen
Council Secretary
NOTE: This meeting is open to the public. This meeting is for information and discussion of the Council for the
listed workshop agenda items.
7
10/30/2013
PAINTING A BRIGHTER
TOMORROW
Laurel Growth Management Plan 2030
City of Laurel Planning Department.
sw w`��ra ':"*.-1T5V-AtIOROtiweiv x w t max.
Plan Development
In March of 2012, an eight R K Committee
Mrr. . Ken Olson Mayor
member advisory committee was Mr. Dan Koch Planning Board
created to update the City's plan. Mr. Dennis Eaton Planning Board
The City of Laurel Planning Mr. Dick Fritzler Planning Board
Department staffed the Mr. Greg Nelson Planning Board
Ms. Judy Goldsby Planning Board
undertaking. Mr. Tim Bronk Laurel School District
Ms. Monica Plecker City Planning Department
1
10/30/2013
1111111111111111111111.11111111111111
Plan Development
c.t.„Cf Motet
Growth Management Plan
Preneet Mmelone
. menm
2011 2013
lb*
Met Aso. May 404 220. 0220 /3201 O. 410122 1/04. 020. /24122 Ms. 1202. ..rt .. . 22
. 11243440
2 2 .' " 2 2 111111111111111111•111111111111= -----'-
amen
73 eamommems
• I
2 3 1,1,1
2 7 0124/24, '
33 Dentostap1423/1144443
122342.1.1013044, i 1 ail
metmei Mame CMOAMMIMMKIC Me ame atitte. ,
1 , /
- - • .. . •
Plan Area
,,..
. ...
. _
. . ,1:7,-1, ,,,_____••• - ,_,
E.71t4 - - -. • ,- - -
., _. '. -....,•- i
. .
.-----
7 _, ‘
, ,.........-
‘ ,-- -
•. ,„
_ • • - i
,---- , I
! ,
cp.—......„. ,.. i•- , f ------.- • -,
0 i 0 i _ _ _• __ _..._j . i E
•.._ _-----7...,.= -1 i . , ...."..'"' „?'
2
10/30/2013
Included Elements
• Foreword
• Historic Resources
• Natural Resources
Demographics
Housing
• Economic Development
• Utilities and Infrastructure
• Transportation
• Community Facilities
• Land Use Plan
Purpose of the GMP
i
h
"re 84 Now
I S Ip h
/
4
o FST �� g T 0 .
3
10/30/2013
Plan Implementation
The t4r a lane, wa be a commonly what ma:maen a dnene tax base a.
supports a high quaky of Me .
re achnne des pat the folic.. cntnal factors most be accomplished
:esrare ar.c uce an +emr.
1,0er.um:ad uv pox.. trw Mona a Pala.. tax base
ux improve romans, b ne resource. env., tt
xeng n prospective wanrssrs ad wale.
balance of s a aesnoPmenr aw ensna4men4i prmeetion.
byroad, meting map' lane uu demons ant8 Cawon. aroping those that mf)rt 'am w ous,
u.esprxtlge consMUencec
Ensure that aK grope.. to tine. tile c• vateM Wdec 5.181181 11•3.15 the mac and
f hors axe pekoes of each piss erne
nse.. and enhance a us., ao� 1 Sww,t,:Kar ado +am w. pa,a:a that PA01ty me5ror- s�wtav
,ue the cuthee 0 01.851 mrnhem e a nnpwn,an:+e Moments
se'.e a. enna
of the Laura' G•ones Management Man. .+
Counc
2 gallon
s'e t tom". Mg an for �wth Management rd'rprrrropment &MaM arn and as the MuN Growth P4 � floanf C .,
C r,
3 reudeu iansm ,m
es 0l :WNncanertu are low u
.esidan wq
ul uses uus
6666 0
t 60s a r t 81 st1.5 ____.— - _
• and go
M&Idra o teraer wt wsmva Caw.' t -a,
ad eammMexeMaed ae..atnt m+er o wo•.,
5 Enhance ddentaan and SE a a cable Cpr aamry
6 Seek fonditg tolmae.nens 8.546,910, rmprwementt M 12005 &
Pha Wps.
l GG tott tra r<
eae<aangosiwy W .W USeda. X . . � Win wr,O
+ncNdmsparcei inning andnlrasWCture data . NOR Won
8 Develop ndmpkme vg dwu to prSlwr At chore r n pia �8
6666 of se 0t,Lf Laura_ _.
9
06.1.1C1 J8150165165 and cann.ay orpntaatins to 80.rm,g 145
.0ernesst tne land use einnent of the laurel Groans Management Goner men.
Mao arnate 5a'. �.
6 Comm n
Groups
nab 1 .11= venal 5
MMUm 11641 r veva 510
Low w• sews 50-
Demographics
8,000
s,t1a
8,197 -1.0%
7.000
6,355 8000
5685
6,000 5,005
5,000 .1 601 6 656 05800
g
7.
s 8,658 — 7,801 -.75%
. 6 4000
x.754 7000.
3,000 Z 564
slag
000 6500 -
1. 000 Source aS Genus Bureau
0 n A n M P n n ry n n ry
4
10/30/2013
Demographics
Figure 3.4
Population by Age Group 1990 - 2010
MO
1800
16x3)
N l.:00 Air mum
712W f
o low
m BW
E
A I Ail r .,
Ark. d . r--% y r_
. 0......,..„.....e._., : '
Will .
0 -4 5 -19 20 -2 5-0 45 -64 65-84 85s l 7^
Age Group ;32., J . .. ,: ,,,.%'.... ■ 1990 • 2000 2010 Source: O S Census Bureau 1 .... --' '1 r t ` --1 . '
' 1 ran"
O'
City of laurel
Housing Rousing at a Glance
Number of Units
Owner 285C
Housing Stock Occuped
Year 8 of Total Units %of Total Rental 160
Units Total 3010
2000 -2010 196 6.5 Single Family %of Total Units
1990 -1999 391 13.0 Dwelling 67.2'
1980 1989 ale 12.4 2 Units 6.0'6
Q.570 -1979 783 26 3 4 Units 3.1'.
1960 -1969 183 6.1 5 9 Units 6.1%
1950 -1959 397 13.2 10 or more 17.7%
1940 -1949 251 8.3 Housing
Before 1939 435 15.5 Cost'
Source us Cert.. uurrau. acs Median
Value
Household
Sue' 2 4:
Regional Rousing Values Household
Median Value 40.90
.v: a'av Income
.a.,re $141,000 Mortgage'
Median 51,02+
Billings 0169 non .
Yellowstone County Occupancy Typos ,t
inane US Census Bureau.Aa Number of Units $59t
Year 2010 2000
Owner ew
Occupied 2,850 2,451 ion
Rental 160 123 cemmumna,,,.„
Total 3,010 2,574
•
5
10/30/2013
Hsi jsinn
iraill
! � 4 moon
r. S
If, f YI
� t
r /
4
Housing
City of Laurel, Montana
Projected! opulation and Demand for Housing
2010 2020 2030
Total Housing Population New Population New
Units Increase Units Increase Unit
75% Population
Increase 3.010 521 221 1083 460
1.0% Population
Increase 703 299 1479 629
Notes: Based on 2 -35 persons per hnuschOlo
6
10/30/2013
Economic Development
00:1101NIOnthafeCtIVOSMS
Octon .. a Orlant 3401 809
LOO6 1
737 21.7
543 16.0 I
12.6 I
1
Dpi %of Pop
44
62
3 7
17 4
1.0
.,---- r
1 i
--.' ' 4-- - 4 - ---- N .. • -
0 ', t ......
— ,..., •........ 3 4
. t
- _
Existing and Future Land Use Plan
...............
, 1
...... , , _
, ,._, 5
L i.
r t.
1 _
i ,-
1 i
- ,
.,---.--
7
10/30/2013
Goals
Historic Resources: "The City of Laurel will be a
community that supports a healthy mix of historic
preservation and new growth."
Natural Resources: "The City of Laurel will achieve a
balanced and sustainable use of natural resources in the
community."
Housing: "The City of Laurel will have neighborhoods that
offer stable, yet diverse housing options."
Economic Development: "The City of Laurel will be a
community with a sustainable, diverse economy that can
weather national economic fluctuations."
Goals
Utilities and Infrastructure: The City of Laurel will maintain
an efficient, adequate safe drinking water and wastewater
system that meets the long -term needs of the community.
Transportation: "The City of Laurel will maintain and safe
and efficient transportation system (including rail and air
that meets the local needs"
Community Facilities: "The City of Laurel will meet the
facility needs and maintain a high quality of service to the
community."
Land Use: "The City of Laurel will be a community with a
mix of land uses that maintains a diverse tax base and
supports a high quality of life.
8
10/30/2013
QUESTIONS?
9
Administrative Process 1 1
ri
he mitigation bank is operated through an administrative management rtnership
i t i a t � n ban k
between Beartooth Mitigation Bank, LLC and Eco Asset Management, LLC . pa Companies
m g
and individuals Interested in taking advantage of this opportunity are typically going .
to be permittees under the 404 regulatory program who have been directed tQ:,mitlgate for
project impacts. Utilizing credits from the Upper Yellowstone Mitigation Bank is a relatively
simple process — identify the mitigation bank during the permit application process as
the source of mitigation credits and, after the permit Is issued, execute a credit purchase , eartooth Mitigation, LLC has partnered with the Lazy EL Ranch Corporation near Roscoe, Montana to sponsor
agreement with the Bank sponsors the Upper Yellowstone Mitigation Bank, providing credit for both wetland and stream impacts within a broad
t
- i service area in south central Montana. The sponsor will restore and enhance up to 80 acres of wetlands, and
Following payment of the credit fees, the Bank's ledger will be updated and a copy forwarded I over 50,000 linear feet of streams including Morris Creek, Ingersoll Creek and West Rosebud Creek. The project lies
to the permitting district of the Corps of Engineers referencing the permit number and in the Stillwater Basin of the Upper Yellowstone Major Watershed and represents a significant contribution to the
types /numbers of credits debited from the Bank for the permittee's project. ALL LIABILITY, habitat resources of the Greater Yellowstone
RESPONSIBILITY, COSTS, ETC. FOR THE MITIGATION CREDITS FROM THE BANK ARE ENTIRELY Ecosystem in Carbon and Stillwater Counties.
BORNE BY THE BANK SPONSOR. Once payment is made, the permittee has no further The Bank has been approved by the U.S.
obligations to the Corps for the mitigation project, EVER. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. EPA, U.S. Fish . i ..
and Wildlife Service, Montana Department 1 r
of Environmental Quality and the Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. --.. 1 ,,,„
Vital C
1 Statistics Mitigation banking is the creation, restoration
+
and /or protection of areas of wetlands and ' Upper Yellowstone 4
PHASE! 10TAl BItNt< streams in advance of, and as an offset 13
Wetland credits: 21.9 Wetland credits: 47.9 1 `'
Stream credits: 31,084 Stream credits: 211,000 T (mitigation) for, anticipated impacts to these
resources within the same watershed. The
banking option
Wetland credit. types — Herbaceous, scrub - shrub, and forested mitigation g p provides a means of
Stream credit types —Stream Orders 1 through 8 advance planning that makes the permitting Geographic
process more predictable and !minimizes time - Service Area
and costs. In addition, all of the permittee 's
liabilities for mitigation are transferred to the
Bank as part of the process.
u � Mitigation banking differs from other forms of mitigation in three
contact V s " s key aspects. First, banked wetlands and streams are developed in
advance of, or concurrently with, anticipated impacts in the area so
General questions about the bank: Specific questions about credit availabilityJpricln : 11 that fully functional habitat areas are in place by the time impacts
David Patrick Kent Carter I... ...• occur. Second, banks are typically large areas which provide credits
Ph: 406.422.5209 Ph: 406 209.8325 . for numerous contemplated impacts, as opposed to the typical
Fax: 888.470.2824 Fax: 888.470,7824 * „ impact -by- impact process associated with conventional wetland
permitting. Finally, once the permittee and Bank Sponsor have
c4,Eirick @eco asset.com Ise r,t @car i Er ecosvt.corn A - come to agreement, all of the permittee's liabilities and obligations
www.beartoothrriitigstion.com k : <
- associated with producing the mitigation transfers to the Bank.
\ r a
,_ .. WWw.beartoothmircgorion.com
t
�.:,.
5 '
'A he Upper Yellowstone Mitigation Bank has been authorized by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha � ure Phases
District, to serve as a stream and wetland mitigation bank within an expanded Upper Yellowstone Major oo• •••on_
Watershed Basin in south - central Montana. The purpose of the bank is to provide compensatory mitigation uture phases of the Bank will include restoration and enhancement
�
for projects which impact wetland and /or stream resources where the Corps of Engineers and /or the Montana N . of West Rosebud Creek, a large, freestone creek system with
DEQ have jurisdiction. As development activities affect the natural resource base in this major watershed basin, ---= 4 —° d similar character to the Stillwater and Yellowstone Rivers to
the proactive restoration of Morris Creek (Phase I), West Rosebud Creek (Phase 11), and Ingersoll Creek (Phase 011) i • which it is tributary. Also in a future phase is Ingersoll Creek, a small,
and adjacent riparian and wetland habitats creates an opportunity for advanced mitigation of those impacts under .. ,-.,.:...1,11 -
„ � , �
, ' input to the larger Yellowstone River system.
•• , e i,
There are approximately 80 acres of impacted wetlands and 10 miles of degraded stream areas ,. /
including over four miles of West Rosebud Creek, a large portion of Morris Creek and the • "�•.ot” * '
headwater area of Ingersoll Creek which will be enhanced and restored. Stream ti • 0 ' 4; " . .�
restoration and enhancement activities will focus on areas of bank erosion, >r ∎ 1; ' • A
overwidened channels and significant sources of thermal pollution, which , r � " ; ..� •�• Mitigation banks "are committed to a unique concept for restoring
is disruptive to fish breeding and hold -over capacity. ' •'• C. .„ s` and conserving America's wetlands and other natural resources - a
• `,• concept that unites sound economic and environmental practices"
Morris Creek _ Phase ! .• _ . r ,. Nations! Mitigation Banking Association
e
A
large portion of Morris Creek is contained /. ./� .,:
within the Lazy EL Ranch, where :.� •• ,/
-
stream function has been affected by a , ` , R , or 4 'f.'
combination of agricultural activities and beaver ° °'�"••' •. .� i
,r <,�,
influence (both historic and active). These /• ' f
How the Bank is Valued
Ks. _
impacts have significantly altered the natural f
/.
�••"' °• he U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determines the
channel stability, leaving only small portions of 1 ;',' % • 7
channel features intact. The existing channel also •
: " ,r ` ` it - -; ' Bank's "value" by quantifying the created or restored
contains areas where the channel has become i . `� ' i wetland and stream functions in terms of "credits ". A
disconnected from its historic floodplain, which
t f • "' "Mitigation Banking Instrument" establishes the Bank's goals,
. ,
limits the stream's ability to properly distribute • 1,, ownership, location, size, wetland and stream types included,
energy during storm events. . trading area, crediting methods and accounting procedures,
r " performance and success criteria, monitoring and reporting
Several wetlands, particularly those along Morris .4 " #' protocol, contingency plans, financial assurances, long -term
Creek, have been established due to beaver activity. responsibility, etc. Subsequent permit applicants proposing
These wetlands create unique diversity that is la wetland and stream impacts must first meet all other normal
beneficial both hydrologically and biologically. - - permitting requirements imposed by state and federal
• The creation of beaver ponds is important in the - agencies, such asavoidar4ce and minimization of impacts, prior
< A4 r' .f
formation of new wetland and riparian areas. to proposing mitigation. Once the mitigation step is reached,
These environments are vital to the continued however, purchase of Bank credits is a simple and efficient
persistence of a variety of plant and animal species means of obtaining final approval for a permit. Permittees
in addition to maintaining the water quality and I Mitigation books increase rcobgico/Ixneffts simply reach a financial agreement with the Bank, and then
save money for project applicants, and improve
quantity within streams. These areas will be e>ficencies in application and permitting withdraw credits from the Bank based on anticipated impacts
enhanced and protected as part of the Bank. processes." associated with their development activities.
Washington State Deportment of Ecology