5A - Recommendation to City Council on proposed changes to the Wetlands Protection Ordinance CITY Ol+' BOULDER
PLAN N [NG BOARD AGENDA TTEM
MEETING llATE: January 22, 2009
AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and recommendation to City Council on proposed changes
to the Wetlands Protection Ordinance (Chapter 9-3, B.R.C.) including:
1. Use requirements, standards far permit review and variance process; and
2. Mitigation policy.
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Ruth McHeyser, Executive Director of Community Planning
Maureen Rait, Executive Director of Public Works
Susan R.ichstone, Long Range Planning Manager
Jeff Arthur, Engineering Review Manager
Bev Johnson, Environmental Plamier
Katie Knapp, Civil Engineer II
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
"1'he purpose of this item is for Planning Board to make a recommendation to City Council on the
following proposed changes to the Wetlands Protection Ordinance (Chapter 9-3, B.R.C):
1. Use requirements, standards for permit review and variance process under athree-zone
system; and
2. Mitigation policy.
Staff is developing revisions to the Wetlands Protection Ordinance in three phases:
Phase I: Identify Issues, Clarify Objectives and Develop Preliminary Approaches
(November 2007 -June 2008)
Phase II: Refine Approaches and Develop Policy Options (June -December 2008)
Phase III: Develop Draft Ordinance (January -April 2009)
Staff is completing Phase II of the project and will begin Phase III after receiving feedback from
Planning Board on January 22. Following the board meeting, staff will draft a proposed
ordinance for Planning Board and City Council consideration in March and April of this year.
At its November 20, 2008 meeting, Planning Board supported the following proposed changes to
the Wetlands Protection Ordinance:
• A three-zone regulatory system;
• Revisions to the intent of the ordinance and definition of a stream, wetland, and water
body;
AGENDA ITEM ~ Page 1
• New methodology for categorizing wetlands, streams, and water bodies and proposed
buffer widths
At the November board meeting, staff presented a preliminary use chart under athree-zone
system. The prapvsed use restrictions in the chart either exempted certain activities or required
permit review. Feedback from the public during the public review period in September and
October indicated wide support for athree-zone system because it would be less restrictive of
activities in the outer buffer. Some stakeholders, however, were concerned that less restriction in
the outer buffer may result in more cumulative impacts tv the resource. Concern was also
expressed that the proposed use requirements did not provide enough clarity about certain uses.
In response to this feedback, Planning Board supported further refinement of the use chart to
respond to these concerns.
Staff has refined the use chart to prohibit some major activities in the wetland, stream, water
body or inner buffer (Attachment A) and developed a proposed variance process to allow
certain prohibited activities under hardship conditions. Staff is also presenting proposed changes
to the compensatory mitigation requirements in the ordinance.
Following Planning Board's recommendation on the refined use chart, variance process and
mitigation requirements, staff will provide City Council with an update on the revision project
through the Weekly Information Packet (WIP). Staff will also begin drafting an ordinance for
review and recommendation by Planning Board in March 2009 and consideration of adoption by
City Council in April and May. The draft ordinance will include the broad policy changes that
have been reviewed by Planning Board to date and also address outstanding administrative issues
including permit requirements, review standards, review process and fees, and variance
procedures.
The public can follow the Wetlands Protection Ordinance Revision Project by referring
periodically to the following website:
www.boulderplandevelop.net >Wetlands Protection Program
QUESTIONS:
The following is a list of questions to guide Planning Board's discussion of this item:
1. Does the board agree with the proposed use requirements and permit review standards?
(Attachments A and B)
2. Does the board agree with the proposed variance process? (page S)
3. Does the board agree with the proposed changes to the mitigation policy? (page 6)
PUBLIC COMMENT Ah1ll I'RO('ESS:
An open house was held on January 7, 2009 to get feedback on the proposed use requirements
variance process, permit standards and mitigation policy. Six people attended the meeting.
Written comments from some of the attendees are included in Attachment E. Staff has
addressed some of these comments in the proposals included in this memo. Comments from
landowners at previous neighborhood meetings are included in Attachment F.
AGEtiDA ['I'N;M ~ Pale 2
STAFF RF,COMYII+JNDATION:
Staff recommends that Planning Board recommend to City Council the following direction for
changes to the Wetlands Protection Ordinance:
1. Adopt proposed use requirements identifying prohibited, conditional, and allowed uses
by activity; and permit review standards. (Attachments A and B)
2. Adopt a variance process for prohibited activities under unusual hardship situations.(page
5)
3. Adopt a revised mitigation policy with different compensation requirements for streams,
wetlands and water bodies and higher requirements for rare orhard-to-create
wetlands.(page 6)
ANALYSIS:
A. Buffer 'Lone Approach and Use Restrictions
Feedback from landowners, internal stakeholders and environmental groups in fall 2008
indicated wide support for changing the ordinance from aone-zone to a three-zone system.
Stakeholders felt that athree-zone system would best meet the~project objectives of
providing more flexibility and clarity about allowed, permitted, or prohibited uses.
During the public review period last fall, staff presented a proposed use chart for athree-a_one
system that eithex allowed certain activities or required some level of permit review. No uses
or activities were strictly prohibited under that proposal. While there was wide support for a
three-zone system, some stakeholders felt that activities with significant impacts to streams,
wetlands or water bodies should be strictly prohibited. These stakeholders felt that stricter
prohibitions on some activities would better meet the objectives of providing additional
clarity and better long-term protection of the resource.
At its November 20, 2008 meeting, Planning Board supported further refinement of the use
chart to address concerns from stakeholders (see Planning Board minutes in Attachment D).
In general, the board felt that the use chart should provide more clarity about use restrictions
but also flexibility for unusual circumstances through either a development review or
variance process. The board also felt that use restrictions should respond to concerns about
the high cost of a permit for minor activities.
A revised use chart is presented in Attachment A. The proposed restrictions in the chart are
based on the following general concepts:
1. Prohibit activities in streams, wetlands, and water bodies and/or the inner buf#'er
that have the greatest amount of impact and are not necessary to provide a
community service. For example, activities in the wetland, stream or inner buffer such
A(XF.NnA I'TF,M ~ Pa e 3
as new buildings or additions, driveways, patios, and parking lots would be prohibited
and require a variance for the activity to occur.
2. Require development review (llK) for major activities that: l) could result in
significant impacts but are necessary to provide a community service or to prevent
greater long-term impacts to stream, wetlands or water bodies; 2) may occur if they
are appropriately designed and located to avoid or minimize impacts; or 3) would
require mitigation of direct or indirect impacts to a wetland, stream, or water body.
For example, activities in the wetland, stream or inner buffer such as major vegetation
changes, retaining walls, bridges, underpasses, utility infrastructure and flood
improvements would require a permit through the city's current development review
process.
3. Reyuire administrative review (AK) for activities that: 1) can be reviewed more
quickly and under more specific standards than a development review project; 2)
are relatively small in size and generally have less impact on wetlands, streams, and
water bodies; or 3) typically result in only temporary impacts. Activities in the inner
buffer such as small mechanical units or structures, new fences, access paths and minor
vegetative removal would require a permit through a shortened and Less expensive review
process.
4. Require notice only (Exempt - N) to the permit administrator of public activities
that do not require a permit but may be in the community interest. (The purpose of
the notice is to ensure communication between city departments on certain public
projects.)
5. Fxempt activities that have little to no impact on the resource or would be difficult
to enforce. All activities except those resulting in a significant amount of impervious
surface in the outer buffer zone would be exempted from the ordinance.
B. Standards for Review and Permit Issuance
Currently, all permit applications are reviewed through the discretionary standards of
"avoidance, minimisation, or mitigation." Issues were raised in the early phases of the
revision project about the lack of clarity in applying those performance standards to all
activities. Concerns were raised that landowners would be required to pay a significant
review fee without any assurance that a permit would be issued.
Staff has outlined a proposed set of standards for review of activities in each zone of a three-
zone buffer system (Attachment B). These proposed standards are based on standards that
typically have been applied to discretionary review applications since the ordinance was
adopted in 1992, and on a general understanding of activities that can impact an adjacent
wetland, stream or water body. These standards would be applied to a proposed activity
through either administrative review or development review. 1f an application is required to
be reviewed under the development review process, the standards of "avoidance,
minimization, or mitigation" would also be applied. In other words, an application must first
AGENDA ITEM Pale 4
show that avoidance was not feasible before the zone standards are applied to a proposed
activity.
C. Variance Process
Staff is proposing that some activities in the wetland, stream, water body or inner buffer be
prohibited. Prohibited activities are those that generally have a major cumulative impact on
wetlands, streams, and water bodies. Staff recognizes, however, that there may be hardship
situations on some properties and that some landowners may need to vary that restriction.
The proposed approach to varying a use prohibition is to provide for an efficient (staff-level
approval) and relatively inexpensive process with high standards for approval The variance
approach outlined below is derived from both the current floodplain variance requirements
(subsection 9-3-7, B.R.C., 1981) and the requirements for varying a development standard
through the Board of Zoning Adjustment (subsection 9-2-3, B.R.C., 1981):
1. A person wishing to conduct an activity that is prohibited within a zone and feels that the
restriction causes unreasonable hardship may apply to Planning and Development
Services for a variance. Staff would review the application and grant a variance (at the
staff level) only if it finds that the application satisfies one of the two following criteria:
Criterion A: Physical Conditions of the Property
• There are unusual physical circumstances or conditions, including, without limitation,
irregularity, narrowness or shallowness of the lot, or exceptional topographical or
other physical conditions peculiar to the affected property; and
• Because of these physical circumstances or conditions the property cannot reasonably
be developed or utilized.
Criterion 13: There is a physical disability affecting the owners of the property or any
member of the family of an owner who resides on the property which impairs the ability
of the disabled person to utilize or access the property;
2. For all variance approvals, the applicant would need to show that, considering the functions
of the wetland, stream, or water body, the variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief.
3. For publicly-funded projects, a variance may be issued if the city manager finds that the
project is in the community interest and part of an approved master plan or capital
improvements program.
4. A variance decision by staff would be subject to call-up by planning board or appeal to the
board.
D. Permit Fees
Planning Board and the public have raised concerns over the past few years about the high
cost of permits for minor activities. Under the city's cost recovery policy, wetland permits
AGF,NDA 17'GM Paee 5
are considered a private good in that the private landowner benefits from the permitted use.
Wetland permit costs, therefore, are 100% recovered from the applicant through permit fees.
With the proposed changes to the use requirements and the addition of defined criteria for
review, staff is anticipating a lower cost for administrative review permits. Development
review permits, however, will continue to cost more due to amount of staff time involved in
review and inspection. Overall, fewer activities will require a full development review or
any review at all compared to the current ordinance resulting in substantially less overall cost
to the landowner for most activities.
Although staff wilt finalize actual permit fees in drafting a proposed ordinance, the following
is a comparison of the current fees with estimated fees under a new ordinance:
Current Fees Preliminary Estimate of New
Fees
Simple wetland permits $580 n.a.
Administrative Review n.a. $50 - $500
Standard wetland permits $2,315 $2,000 - $3,000
(Development Review)
Review of application
revisions $175 No change
Mitigation plan $582 + base permit fee +
review city's direct cost plus 20 /o for No change
consultant review of the plan
Stream, wetland or water body $3,148 + city's direct cost for No change
boundary determination consultant review
Wetland functional $210 + city's direct cost for tbd
evaluation consultant
Variance n.a. $1,500 - $2,000 + permit fee
E. Mitigation Poticy
One of the objectives of the revision project is to define mitigation requirements that are
achievable and help to insure the goal of no net loss of wetland acreage and func~~ti``o~~'n in the
AGENDA I"['EM Jt`1 Page 6
Boulder Valley. Under Boulder's wetlands ordinance, certain activities that result in an
impact to a wetland may be permitted if the wetland impacts are "mitigated" by creating or
restoring another wetland. A wetland created to replace the lvss of another is referred to as a
"compensatory wetland" or "compensatory mitigation."
The science of compensatory wetland creation is complex and imperfect and does not always
result in a satisfactory replacement of the functions of destroyed wetlands. Research over the
years has found that created wetlands can be reduced in size from an vriginal plan because of
inaccuracies in project design or changes in anticipated supporting hydrology. In order to
insure "no net loss" of wetland acreage, many jurisdictions arvund the country (including the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers which administers the federal law) often require a
compensatory wetland to be larger than the destroyed wetland. Boulder's current ordinance
requires applicants to create compensatory wetlands at a ratio of 2:1 (e.g. two acres of new
wetland for every acre destroyed). The city's current ordinance also emphasizes that a
compensatory wetland be located on the same site and "in-kind" (similar plant eommtuuties
and functional values) as the destroyed wetland.
The success of a created wetland is mostly dependent upon the availability of a water source
to support the wetland. If a new wetland is created at the same site at a 1:l ratio, one can
assume that there is no change of use in the water to support the compensatory wetland.
I-Iowever, to create a new wetland at a size higher than a 1:1 ratio, a supplemental water
source is needed. Likewise, if a compensatory wetland is constructed in a different drainage
basin than that of the orilrinal wetland, a supplemental water source is also needed.
Under Colorado state law, any new use of water or development of a new "well" (exposure
of water to the surface) requires submittal of a water augmentation plan to the Office of the
State Engineer. The augmentation plan must show that the appropriate water rights are
available for the new use of the water. Water sources in this region vary substantially in their
nature, location, appropriated use, cost, and ownership and have a significant bearing on the
adequacy and appropriateness of a water supply for compensatory wetland mitigation.
Consequently, the rights to the new use of water will generally be difficult to obtain and can
result in several years in water court just to obtain junior rights to support a new wetland.
This past fall, staff completed an evaluation of the ecological success of wetland mitigation
projects in Boulder under a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(Attachment C). The purpose of the study was to see if the city is meeting its goal of "no
net loss" of wetland acreage and function. Although the sample size of the study was small
relative to the number of wetland permits issued since 1993 (20 out of 110), conclusions
from the study provide some insights to the city's success in meeting its wetland protection
goals. Conclusions from the study led to the following guiding principles for the city's
proposed compensatory mitigation policy:
Guidins~ Principles for Mitigation Polic
1. Mitigation of impacts to streams and water bodies is generally more successful than
wetland creation or restoration.
AGENDA I'CEM ~ Page 7
2. Mitigation ratios higher than 1:1 are necessary to ensure success of wetlands but not
necessarily for streams and water bodies.
3. The city's mitigation policy should emphasize in-kind and in-basin creation or restoration
to protect functions within subbasins.
4. Disincentives through higher mitigation requirements should be applied to wetlands that
are rare orhard-to-create.
Proposed Mitigation Policy
With the above principles in mind, staff is proposing a revised mitigation policy for the
city's ordinance. Under the new proposal, compensation for destroyed streams, wetlands,
or water bodies would have to meet the following ratios:
TABLE 3-1: WETLAND COMPENSATION
(Ratios indicate the amount of stream, wetland, or water body area to be restored or created
compared to the wetland area destroyed or impacted)
Impacted Resource Enhancement* Restoration** Creation***
Streams and water bodies 1:1 1:1 1:1
Wetlands 1:1 1.5:1 2:1
Rare or hard-to-create 1 5:1 2:1 2.5:1
wetlands
• Stream compensation would be based on linear feet of channel. Wetland and water
body compensation shall be based on total surface area.
• Higher wetland compensation ratios may be applied to mitigation that is outside the
sub-basin of and not in-kind to the original wetland.
• A combination of creation, restoration, and enhancement for direct impacts that meets
the above compensation requirements maybe considered under the following
conditions:
o Water rights decreed for agricultural use within the subbasin are
unavailable;
o Created, restored, or enhanced wetlands are all within the basin of the
original wetland; and
o "I'herc is a high potential for long-term success of mitigation.
*Enhancement means activities conducted in existing wetland or other aquatic resources
which inrrease one or more ecological functions.
AGENDA ITEM ~ Page 8
**Restoralion means re-establishrnent of wetland and/or other aquatic resource
characteristics and fisnctions at a site where they have ceased to exist, or exist in a
substantially degraded state.
***Creation means the ectuhlishment of a wetland or other aquatic resource where one
did not formerly exist.
NEXT STEPS:
After receiving Planning Board's recommendation on the revised use chart and mitigation
policy, staff will begin Phase III of the project. Phase III will involve the following steps:
1. Development of a draft ordinance and revised regulatory maps.
2. Public review and comment on the ordinance (March 2009).
3. Planning Board review and recommendation on a draft ordinance and revised maps
(March 2009).
4. City Council consideration of adoption (April and May 2009)
Approved By:
Ruth cI-Ieys~r Executive Director of Cormnunity Planning
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Current and Proposed Use Restrictions
B Proposed Standards for Administrative Review and Development Review
C: Report: "An Evaluation of the Ecological Success of Wetlands Mitigation
Projects in Boulder, Colorado
D: Planning Board minutes from November 20, 2008
E: Public comments from the January 7, 2009 open house
F: Public comments from neighborhood meetings in fall 2008
AGENllA ITEM ~~t Pagc 9
' ~ ATTACHMENT A
Current and Proposed Use Restrictions
A. Activities Exempted in All 'Cones.
] . Land uses existing prior to adoption of a new ordinance.
2. Construction of an addition to or replacement of an existing principal building that
flocs not result in an increase in impervious surface area in the zone.
3. Temporary objects (e.g. planters, garden furniture), including temporary irrigation
systems.
4. Maintenance of an existing impervious or pervious surface not involving expansion
of the existing surface area.
5. Minor vegetation removal.
6. Weed management consistent with state and county laws.
7. Maintenance activity to repair or prevent the deterioration, impairment or failure of
any previously constructed building, structure, road, underpass or built public facility
including the replacement of structural components. (Does not include complete or
partial replacement of existing facilities or reconstruction if it materially enlarges or
expands a facility or structure.)
8. Removal of vegetation or debris from built structures in order to maintain its ,
structural integrity and function.
9. Herbicide and pesticide application. -
l 0. Continuing agricultural practices (harvesting of hay, pasturing of livestock).
1 1. Outdoor recreation involving minimal or no harm or disturbance to a wetland (e.g.
fishing, birdwatching, hiking, boating, and swimming).
12. Education, scientific research or fie]d surveying.
B. F,mergency Exemptions.
1. Trees or other live vegetation posing an immediate threat to the public or property.
2. Utility line breaks.
3. Emergencies related to natural hazards (flood, fire, wind)
agenda (iem ~ S~; _ ~ ~--L=,.~
C. Current and Proposed Use Restrictions by Zone.
Types of Land Use Activities Current Wetland, Inner Outer
Stream, or Buffer Buffer
Water (Category A) (Categories
Body A and B)
Buildings, Additions, or Other Structures
1. Construction of a new or an addition to a principal
building and any attached structure (e.g. decks, DR Prohibited Prohibited AR/DR'"
carports, balconies) that results in an increase in
impervious surface area in the zone.
2 Construction of a new accessory or minor structure
(e.g. mechanical equipment, sheds, signs, decks,
ramps, permanent recreational structures, hot tubs, DR Prohibited Prohibited AR/DR"
gazebos) covering a total surface area of 25 square
feet or more.
;i. Construction of a new accessory or minor structure
(e.g. mechanical equipment, sheds, signs, decks,
ramps, permanent recreational structures, hot tubs, DR Prohibited AR F_xerr~pt
gazebos) covering a total surface area of less than
25 square feel.
Construction of a new fence. DR Prohibited AR Exempt
5. Replacement or repair of an existing fence. DR AR Exempt ~xenipt
Pavement, Surfacing, Trails
6. Construction of new or expansion of existing
impervious surface (e.g. parking lots, driveways, ,
utility pads, or patios) covering a total surface area DR f rohibited DR AR/DR`
of 25 square feet or more.
7. Construction of new pervious surface covering a DR Prohibited AR Exempt
total surface area of 25 square feet or more.
C-
~~~a J --~_lL_
8. Surface grading involving 25 square feet or more
surface area (including construction of new or DR DR AR AR
expansion of existing play fields, terracing, etc.)
9. Surface grading involving less than 25 square feet
surface area (including construction of new or DR nR Exempt Exempt
expansion of existing play fields, terracing, etc.)
10. Construction of r~ew paths, trails, or steps for DR AR AR Exempt
private use.
11. Temporary access roads associated with a public DR DR AR Exempt
improvement or maintenance project.
Landscaping and Landscape Maintenance
12. Major vegetation removal. DR UR AR Exempt
13. Minor vegetation removal. DR Exempt Exempt F_xempt
14. Addition of new plant material in a total area of 25% DR DR AR Exempt
or more of the zone.
15. Addition of new plant material in a total area of less DR AR AR Exempt
25 /o of the zone.
16. Construction of a retaining or other landscape wall. DR DR DR Exempt
17. Installation of a permanent landscape irrigation DR AR AR Exempt
system.
18. Lghtinq DR Prohibited AR Exempt
19. Stormwater detention or retention facilities for new DR Prol~ibi!ed Prohibited DR
development
Agendal~~#
Stream Channel and Flood Improvement Projects
20. Water quality treatment facilities associated with DR DR AR AR
flood or stream improvement project.
21. Construction of a new, addition to, or replacement
of a bridge, underpass, culvert crossing or trail DR DR DR Exempt
related to public improvements project.
22. Repair of a utility line, not involving complete DR AR Exempt~N Exempt
replacement.
23. Installation, complete replacement or relocation of
surface or subsurface utility lines, pipes, culverts, DR DR AR Exempt-N
storm drains, inlets or stormwater quality facilities.
24. Installation or replacement of overhead utility lines AR AR Exempt-N
through underground directional boring. DR
25. Stream channel widening, regrading, or pR DR AR
reconstruction; or new drop structure installation. DR
?_6. Rernoval of sediment in a stream channel or outlet DR AR AR Exempt
~rrithout altering existing side slopes or banks.
'I.7. Drop-structure repair or replacement in existing
location without enlargement of the existing Exempt-N AR Exempt Exempt
structure and following best management practices.
28. Stream bank or slope stabilization. DR DR AR AR
7J. Alteration of surface or subsurface hydrology
through draining, ditching, trenching, impounding,
pumping or flooding (including perrnanent or DR DR DR AR
temporary dewatering for a structure or
construction).
Development Review is required if proposed activity would result in a cumulative total of 20% or
more impervious surface in the zone.
Key to Abbreviations in Chart:
,~e~~da Item ~ ~ ~ # ~.3
P Prohibited: (Appeal through Planning Board -must show economic
hardship.)
DR Development Review: 3-4 week staff-level review and decision based on
performance criteria. (Planning Board call-up.)
AR Administrative Review/Conditional Use: Staff level review and decision (no
Planning Board call-up). Proposed use must demonstrate compliance with
specific development standards or best management practices. Processes for
review include:
• "Over the counter" permit or;
• 1-2 week track
Exempt-N Exempt with notice: 2-week advance notification of activity is required.
Work may eoznmence only after city has given written clearance of the
activity. (For public projects only)
Exempt Exempt: The use is exempted from permitting. No notice or permit is
required.
D. Proposed New Definitions
1. Vegetation Removal -Major means:
a. clearing of woody and non-woody vegetation canopy cover or herbaceous ground
cover that does not meet the definition of minor vegetation removal;
b. removal of any native (indigenous) annual or perennial woody or non woody species
within the riparian area;
c. pruning, trimming, cutting off, or removal of greater than 25 percent of the crown of
any tree within athree-year period; or
d. clearing of 20% or more horticultural landscaping within a zone.
2. Vegetation Removal -Minor means:
a. routine trimming of plant material;
b. pruning of tree branches totaling less than 25 percent of the crown within a tlv-ee-year
period;
c. removal ofnon-native invasive species of brush, annual or perennial vegetation, and
herbaceous grass species that out compete or suppress existing native vegetation
provided that sufficient vegetation remains to prevent erosion (bare soil shall not be
left exposed); or
d. clearing of less than 20% of herbaceous or woody groundcover within a zone if
combined with the replanting of new vegetation following the "City of Boulder
Revegetation Guidelines."
/tgenda Item ~ _ J
~ _ P ~
ATTACIIMF.NT B
Proposed Standards for Administrative Review and Development
Review
For an activity requiting review, the following standards would need to be met in order for a
permit to be issued.
Standards for all permitted activities:
A. Anew structure or surfacing should not result in a significant change to the hydrology
affecting the stream, wetland, or water body. Percolation of storm runoff on-site through
vegetated swales, permeable paving materials, or other similar methods to slow and clean
nutoff being discharged directly into the wetland or stream may be required as part of the
permit. Direct impermeable connections (e.g. drain pipes, culverts) to the stream or
wetland would not be allowed.
B. Minimization: 711c applicant would demonstrate that the activity is designed and located
to minimize direct or indirect impacts to the adjacent wetland, stream or water body.
C. Mitigation: The applicant would demonstrate that unavoidable direct and indirect impacts
to vegetation, pervious surface, or hydrology affecting the adjacent wetland can be
suecessfiilly mitigated through design of the activity or by compensating for the impact
on another portion of the property.
D. Restoration of Tempoz-aty Impacts: The applicant would demonstrate that direct,
temporary impacts to a wetland, stream, water body, or inner buffer will be successfully
restored.
E. Application of Best Management Practices: The applicant would demonstrate
compliance, at a minimum, with all apl>Iicable city rules concerning best management
practices as described in the "City of Boulder Best Management Practices" manual.
Standards for the Outer Zone:
A. Impervious surface coverage: ~1ny new structure, expansion of an existing structure, new
surfacing or expansion of an existing surface that result would result in a cumulative total
of 20% or more impervious surface in the outer zone would provide mitigation in either
the inner or outer buffer for the loss of pervious surface.
~,~enda Item # _ ~ ~ _ Page # l~
Standards for the Inner 'Lone:
A. Channel bank protection or stabilization would be required to utilize "natural" or "soft"
techniques that involve landscaping with appropriate native plants to the maximum extent
feasible rather than hardened structures.
B. New property line fences would only be allowed if the activity does not result in impacts to
the functions of wetland or stream (in particular, the movement of wildlife or aquatic plants
and animals) or involve the significant removal of vegetation.
C. Surface grading involving 25 square feet or more surface area (including construction of new
or expansion of existing play f elds, tera•acing, etc.) would only be allowed i f it is in
conjunction with another permitted activity in the zone.
D. AlI new plant material adjacent to wetlands or water bodies or along the banks of a stream
should be consistent with the City of Boulder, Best Management Practices: Revegetation
Guidelines. Mitigation monitoring for restoration projects may be required by the city
manager.
E. Major removal of native vegetation would be allowed under certain limited conditions to
prevent noxious weed infestation, allow for native habitat restoration (provided that erosion
control measures are implemented and the cleared area is replanted/reestablished and seeded
with appropriate native species to reduce the potential for erosion), or for other permitted
projects.
F. New steps, path or other minor access to or over a creek on private property would he
allowed as long as there is no more than a single access on an individual property, the path is
designed to have minimal impacts, and the path and area of impact does not exceed 2 '/z feet
in width.
G. New lighting would be reyuired to be directed away from the streams, stream banks or
wetlands (while meeting the design standards under the city's outdoor lighting ordinance).
Standards for the wetland, stream or water body:
A. All new plant material would be required to be consistent with the City of Boulder, Best
Management Practices: Xevegetation Guidelines or as approved by the city manager.
Mitigation monitoring may be reyuired by the city manager.
B. Replacement or repair of an existing fence would be allowed as long as the replacement is
generally in the same location, of similar design, and would not result in additional impacts
to the wetland, stream, or water body.
/;;ends Item ~ J~ ~eg~
C. Channel bank protection or stabilisation would be required to zitili•re "natural" or "soft"
tecluliques that involve landscaping with appropriate native plants to the maximum extent
feasible rather than hardened structures.
D. New steps, path or other minor access to or over a creels on private property would be
allowed as long as there is no more than a single access on an individual property, the path is
designed to have minimal impacts, and the path and area of impact does not exceed 2 '/2 feet
in width.
Standards for Development Review:
For activities requiring development review, the city manager, the planning board, or the city council
would continue to evaluate a wetland permit application based on the following standards:
A. Avoidance: The applicant has demonstrated that all adverse impacts on a wetland, either
directly or through its associated buffer area, have been avoided through a reduction in the
size, scope, or density of the project or a change of project configuration or design;
B. Unavoidable Impacts: If avoidance is not feasible, then the applicant has demonstrated a]1 of
the following:
1. Minimization: The applicant has demonstrated that any direct or indirect adverse impact
on a wetland or its associated buffer area has been minimized to the maximum extent
feasible, the activity will result in minimal impact or impairment to any wetland function,
and the activity will not jeopardize the continued existence of habitat for the following
species:
(a) Plant, animal, or other wildlife species listed as threatened or endangered by
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service;
(b) Plant, animal, or other wildlife species listed by the Slate of Colorado as rare,
threatened or endangered, species of special concern, or species of
undetermined status;
(c) Plant, animal, or other wildlife species listed in the Boulder County
Comprehensive Plan as cz-itical; and
(d) Plant, animal, or other wildlife species listed in the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan as a Species of Local Concern.
2. Mitigation Demonstration: The applicant has demonstrated that unavoidable direct and
indirect impacts can be successfully mitigated based on the submission of a mitigation
plan.
A'1"I'ACI MEN'I' C
An Evaluation of the Ecological Success of
Wetland Mitigation Projects in Boulder, Colorado
ti
.,Y. , -
~t2='
y~f
-~ti ..~~tf- h 1 t
. ~ ~
ss~' ~ - 'J
~ r~
w ~ ~ ~y~ it t tF ,i~T~ iti
' i (A{
, r ~
~r ~~':t~a,
Prepared by:
Donald R. D'Amico
City of Boulder Oc~en Space and Mountain Parks Department
66 South Cherryvale Road
Boulder, Colorado 80303
(720) 564-2055
damicod@ci.boulder.co.us
and
Claudia Browne
Biohabitats Inc.
1752 Platte Street
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 477-0660
cbrowne@biohabitats.com
October 31, 2008 Federal Grant # USEPA104(b)(3) CD998004-10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION 6
1.1. Projec# Goals 7
2. OVERVIEW OF CITY OF BOULDER WETLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM 7
3. METt-IODS.--• ......................................................................................................................9
3.1. Site Selection 9
32. Field Assessment 11
4. RESULTS 13
4.1. Achieved Wetland Area 13
4.2. Wetland Plant Community Types 16
4.3. Hydrology .....................................................................:....................................................18
4.4. Watershed Area 19
4.5. Wetland Functions 20
4.6. Summary of Field Assessments 21
5. DISCUSSION 21
5.1. Ecological Success 21
5.2. Program Administration 24
5.2.1. Permitting & Recordkeeping 24
5.2.2.Monitoring and Data Management 25
5.2.3. Compliance & Measures of Success 25
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 26
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Locations of the 20 wetland mitigation sites evaluated in this study 10
Figure 2. Comparison of Required to Achieved Mitigation Areas '14
Figure 3. Comparison of Achieved Mitigation Areas and 15
Figure 4. Percent of Required Area Achieved by Age of Site 15
Figure 5. Overall success of 20 mitigation sites in Boulder based on achieved area . 16
Figure 6. Percent of impacted and achieved wetlands by hydrogeomorphic classification.......... 19
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Mitigation Ratios for Wetland Creation Versus Restoration Projects ...............~......:....9
Table 2. Brief Description of wetland functions .................................................................12
Table 3. Proposed and achieved mitigation areas .............................................................14
Table 4. Plant Community Types at Mitigation Sites ..........................................................17
Table 5. Distribution of Wetlands by Watershed ................................................................18
Table 6. Distribution of mitigation sites by watershed .........................................................19
Table 7. Number of wetland mitigation sites meeting permitted success criteria ......................21
APPENDICES
A. Field Data Forms
8. Summary Tables
C. City of Boulder Wetland Protection Ordinance
Completed data forms for each of the 20 mitigation sites evaluated in this study are
available as a separate document.
~;a~Ja itet~ h` ~
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The overall goal of this project was to evaluate the ecological success of wetland
mitigation projects permitted by the City of Boulder. The project is also intended
to help EPA Region VIII meet its Wetland Program goal of improving the
effectiveness of compensatory mitigation by providing the agency with a local
example of how compensatory mitigation addresses the loss or gain of wetland
acreage and ecological function. Additionally, the project will provide
recommendations to Boulder's wetland regulators on how to improve their wetland
protection program to better ensure no net loss of wetland acreage and function.
Field work for this project was conducted in 2005 using a modifed wetland
assessment method developed by the Ci#y. Twenty sites were selected for
inclusion in the project based on the age of the site (>5 years since completion)
and availability of sufficient permit paperwork. Only 20 sites (18%) of the City's
111 wetland permits met both of these criteria. Our initial finding was similar to
other studies that found the absence of adequate recordkeeping limited the
ability to evaluate the success of mitigation projects and the effectiveness of
mitigation programs.
Data collec#ed during the feld assessment were used to evaluate the success at
the mitigation study sites based primarily on mitigation area achieved and
wetland functions. For the 20 mitigation sites included in this assessment,
approximately 15 acres of mitigation were required for nearly 10 acres of
wetlands impacted. This resulted in an overall ratio of required mitigation to
impacted wetland area of approximately 1.5:1. Approximately 19 acres of
wetlands were created or restored through mitigation resulting in an actual
mitigation ratio of 1.9:1. This is 27 percent greater than the acreage required in
all the permits and demonstrates an overall net gain in wetland acreage for the
20 ~:tudy sites. ~ .
At the site level, the requirement for mitigation area was met or exceeded at only
nine (45%) of the 20 mitigation sites. At three (15%) of the sites, no mitigation
activity (e.g., planting, grading, boundary stakes) was apparent. Eight sites (40%)
achieved a portion of their required mitigation area.
Plant communities in mitigation sites tend to differ from those in impacted
wetlands, with a 38 percent decline in palustrine emergent plant communities.
While functions appear to be maintaining or improving, the loss of wetlands in
three of the seven watersheds suggest functional losses may be occurring on a
watershed scale.
We assessed which wetland functions improved and which degraded across all
sites by counting the number of mitigation sites where a function improved,
declined or stayed the same. Eight of the 11 functions improved or remained the
C'.
r;~~nda Item ~ J~_ Page
t
same indicating that overall the goal of no net loss of functions appears to have
been achieved over the study sites.
On asite-specific basis, 11 of the 16 mitigation wetlands had a net gain in
wetland functions, and one had no change. This indicates that most of the
mitigation sites met the City's no net loss goal for functions. Our review of
changes in functionality was not weighted to account for achieved mitigation size
and thereby allow a more detailed evaluation of net loss or gain in functions by
area. Additionally, functional losses occurred when off-site mitigation resulted in
a loss of wetland area in three of the seven watersheds where mitigation projects
occurred.
Recommendations for improving the mitigation program to befter ensure no net
loss of wetland acreage and function include:
A. Watershed Planning
• Conduct awatershed-scale analysis of wetlands and anticipated
wetland foss to develop a more watershed-directed mitigation program.
• Consider mitigation banks in certain watersheds where impacts to
wetlands are too great.
B. Mitigation Plan Requirements
• Clarify and strengthen mitigation plan requirements to:
o provide more specific information about hydrology and water
availability (including off-site factors that could alter hydrology)
to ensure that proposed wetlands are placed in suitable
locations;
o include surveys of topography and grading plans (consider
requiring 1 ft contours in mitigation areas);
o provide a clear and thorough mitigation plan manual and
checklist; grid
o review mitigation requirements in the city code and consider
changes to improve clarity, consistency, and completeness.
• Standardize plant community classifications and mapping method for
both impacted and created communities in GIS.
• Vary mitigation ratio requirements according to wetland plant
community type on project sites and location of mitigation site in the
watershed. Consider requiring higher mitigation ratios for wetland
types that are most "at risk" and are more commonly impacted (i.e.,
herbaceous emergent (palustrine) wet meadow), are more difficult to
successfully restore or create or provide high functional benefits.
B. Monitoring
Develop a mitigation monitoring program to better evaluate whether
the goals of no net loss of acreage and function are being met and to
ensure that as-built conditions match mitigation plans.
C. Recordkeeping
• Improve consistency of recordkeeping by providing a template format
for applications.
• Centralize and systemize record-keeping.
• Develop an electronic tracking system for monitoring.
D. Staffing & Compliance
• Increase staff time allocations to allow for installation inspections as
well as follow-up, improved project tracking and education.
• Standardize inspection procedures to increase the attention given
to ensuring as-built conditions match mitigation plans.
E. Functional Assessments (long-term).
• Develop functional assessment methods that are quantitative and
repeatable.
1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Boulder, Colorado, has developed policy, ordinances and regulations
to preserve and protect its wetlands and other natural resources. These local
environmental regulations were enacted to meet shortfalls in state and federal
mandates and regulations which did not adequately protect the City's natural
resources.
The City of Boulder's Wetland Protection Ordinance (§9-3-9, et. seq., B.R.C.,
1981) was adopted on January 1, 1993 to strengthen federal regulations
provided in the 1972 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.} and to maintain a
goal of no net loss of wetland acreage and function. The ordinance requires the
City to issue a permit before certain activities can occur in a wetland or buffer area.
One of the main goals of the ordinance is "no net loss" of wetland acreage or
function. The City has identified activities that result in unavoidable wetland
impacts, including the loss of wetlands. Consequently compensatory mitigation
plays a major role in the implementation of the ordinance.
The City of Boulder may condition wetland development permits with wetland
mitigation requirements when activities that impact wetlands are deemed
unavoidable. However, a comprehensive evaluation of the success of
compensatory mitigation projects has not been performed. This project
evaluates whether compensatory mitigation is helping to meet the wetland
protection goals of the City of Boulder and EPA.
There has been growing concern in recent years over the lack of effectiveness of
wetland mitigation projects (NRC 1992, 2001, Zedler 1996, Gwin et. al. 1999).
Poorly sited and designed mitigation projects, lack of monitoring, improper
hydrology, incomplete projects, and poor recordkeeping have ail contributed to the
uncertainty of compensatory mitigation as a viable means of preventing the loss of
wetiar~ds and wetland functions. ~
Between 1992 when the City adopted its ordinance and 2005 when this study was
conducted, approximately 111 permits requiring mitigation had been issued. White
some of these permits required the applicant to monitor the project for a number of
years, others did not. Also, very few projects have been evaluated to determine
whether acreage or functional goals were met. Because wetland permit
applications and mitigation projects are evaluated on a case-by-case basis,
cumulative impacts to wetlands in Boulder have not been considered and are likely
to go unnoticed.
A comprehensive evaluation of the success of wetland mitigation projects is needed
to help meet Boulder's no net loss goal for wetland acreage and function. Such an
evaluation will help Boulder determine whether compensatory mitigation is a
viable means of preventing the loss of wetland acreage and function. This
-~r~claitc3~It._~~_._~~+~ ~
evaluation will also help the city effectively administer its Wetland Protection
Ordinance and better achieve its no net loss goal.
1.1. Project Goals
The overall goal of this project is to evaluate the ecological success of wetland
mitigation projects permitted by the City of Boulder. Success is defined herein as
meeting wetland permit requirements for size and function. The project is also
intended to help EPA Region VIII meet its Wetland Program goal of improving
the effectiveness of compensatory mitigation by providing the agency with a local
example of how compensatory mitigation addresses the loss or gain of wetland
acreage and ecological function. Additionally, the project will provide
recommendations to Boulder's wetland regulators on how to improve their wetland
protection program to better ensure no net loss of wetland acreage and function.
2. OVERVIEW OF CITY OF BOULDER WETLAND PROTECTION
PROGRAM
Since 1970, the City of Boulder and Boulder County have jointly adopted a
comprehensive plan that guides land use decisions in the Boulder Valley. The
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan is a tool designed to protect the natural
environment of the Boulder Valley while fostering a livable, vibrant and
sustainable community. The comprehensive plan establishes several
mechanisms for managing growth and promoting a sustainable environment. A
primary tool for managing growth in the Boulder Valley is the acquisition of open
space through the City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks Department.
The City is distinguished from many other cities because it owns and manages
over 43,000 acres of protected land in and around the city.
Boulder's wetiar~ds protection program began as a set of goals and policies in the ~i
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The Boulder City Council adopted the
following goal in February of 1992:
Protect al! wetlands in the Boulder Valley. This goal aims to ensure "no net
loss" of wetland acreage or function. Since the city does not have the
implementation techniques necessary to protect all wetlands outside the city
limits, at a minimum, significant wetlands outside the city and inside the
Boulder Valley should be protected. The city of Boulder will be held to the
standard of protecting all wetlands on city lands and for city projects both
inside and outside the city limits.
Boulders Wetlands Protection Program is amulti-faceted approach to the goal of
wetland protection. The implementation techniques listed below are all ways of
achieving the no net loss goal of the program.
~
_
. implement an ordinance establishing a local wetland permitting
program.
• Negotiate agreements to protect wetlands in the ownership of other
governmental entities in Boulder.
• Buy significant wetlands.
• Provide public education and technical assistance to encourage
property owners to preserve, enhance and restore wetlands through
voluntary compliance.
• Review new public projects and the maintenance of existing capital
facilities to preserve wetlands or require mitigation.
• Preserve, restore and enhance wetlands on City owned or managed
land.
• Work to establish appropriate valuation for properties that commit to the
preservation of wetlands.
• Encourage Boulder County to develop a wetland protection program
consistent with City goals and assist in its efforts.
In 1988, the City completed an advanced identification (ADID) of wetlands in the
Boulder area (Cooper 1988). ADiD of wetlands is a planning process used to
identify wetlands and other waters and categorize them as either suitable or
unsuitable for the discharge of dredged and fill material. This ADID provided a
foundation on which to base future City wetland regulations. The City also
developed Recommended Wetland Mitigation Guidelines and Wetland Mitigation
Design Standards and Specifications (Cooper 1991) and Wetland Best
Management Practices (City of Boulder 1995) to improve the quality of mitigation
projects required by city code.
The City of Boulder wetland Protection Ordinance was adopted by City Council on
December 1, 1992, and became effective on January 2, 1993 (Appendix C). The
.ordinance is~ dart of the.land use.section of the city's laws~and requires a permit for
certain activities taking place in a wetland or its buffer area. The ordinance has~fi~ur
major components:
1. Scope/mapping
2. Regulated activities
3. Process
4. Compensatory mitigation.
An applicant for a wetland permit must first demonstrate that all adverse impacts
to wetlands have been avoided by reducing the size, scope, density,
configuration or design of the project. If the applicant can demonstrate that
avoidance is not feasible, they must show that adverse impacts have been
minimized to the maximum extent feasible and the activity will result in minimal
impact or impairment to any wetland area or function. tf the applicant can
demonstrate that adverse impacts to wetlands are unavoidable, the city may
issue a wetland permit requiring compensatory mitigation. Mitigation goats are
project specific and are defined in the permit. Mitigation monitoring requirements
are established by the City and can range from two to five years.
3. METHODS
3.1. Site Selection
At the outset of the project, we examined all available wetland permit files to
identify permits that required wetland mitigation, including creation, restoration
and enhancement. Two main selection criteria were then used to identify sites to
evaluate for this project. The selected sites had to: 1) have sufficient information
in the file to allow a detailed site evaluate and 2) have been completed for at
least 5 years. We chose to focus on the sites 5-years or older as they
presumably would have fulfilled their moni#oring requirements and would thus be
released from any further regulatory requirements. As a result, the mitigation
sites evaluated for this study should not be considered a random sample of all
sites and thus are not necessarily representative of a!I wetland mitigation sites.
The City of Boulder's wetland ordinance regulates direct and indirect wetland
impacts, where indirect impacts refer to buffer areas surrounding wetlands. The
ordinance defines a buffer area as "an area around a wetland within which
activities are likely to have an adverse impact upon wetland functions". Impacts
to buffer areas were not included in this study. Mitigation ratios of 1:1, 1.5:1 or
2:1 (mitigated impacted) are required depending on the significance of the
wetland, permanence of impacts, and the type of mitigation proposed (Table 1).
Table 7. Mitigation Ratios for Wetland Creation Versus Restoration Projects
miti ated:im acted
_ _ J~_ S~ ificant Wetlands Other Wetlands
. - C~~ation 2:1 1.5:1
Restoration 1.5:1 1:1
From Chapter 9-3-9, B.R.C. 1981. (See § 9-16 for "significant wetland" definition)
During the permit review, we found that of the 111 permits issued, 69 had
mitigation projects that met the criteria of being five years or older. However, only
36 of the 111 permits had sufficient paperwork on file for the evaluation. Twenty
sites (18% of the permits) fit both the criteria, and as a result these sites were
selected for inclusion in this project (Figure 1). Although some of the project
sites are outside the Boulder city Limits, they are located on city-owned land or
were associated with city-funded projects and thus were subject to city
regulations.
r,-i'! lUtll ~
i'.1~~3 ~
Figure 1. Locations of the 20 wetland mitigation sites evaluated in this study.
tFR
TkAryO CREEK -
98-05 ~ -1, c~ _
~ I 94-17
7 9 i~ ~ - 94-01
12<, REEK -
~ ~ 99-07 i Oho } J~O~R ' _
F ~ n _ a
i ~ ,
cp~i~ C'" I ;fig -112 .~11 ~ o -
-
~ CREEK f
'
OoJ~~~ 99-04~ e' 97.02 J~ : .
t~G~~ 99-08 ~ ~
G _
O
J~o~Q' ` '1. ~e''',~, i '
S
O f'
• Wetland Mitigation Sites -
Creeks u o ~ , s n
Boulder City Limits Miles iv
;I;ii I'~~'ul'1 .u _ ~ a~jN r~ r
3.2. Field Assessment
Field work was conducted between June 20, 2005 and September 28, 2005. The
objective of the field assessment was to evaluate if no net loss was achieved for
the study sites based on size, function, and in-kind replacement. Each of the 20
mitigation sites was inspected to verify that the mitigation wetlands had been
constructed, to determine the size and type of wetland restoration or creation,
and to collect data on hydrology, soils, vegetation and functions. General site
description information for each mitigation project was recorded as were the
disturbance regime and wetland history when known. Invasive plant species
were listed and classified as either low or high cover. Digital photographs were
taken to illustrate pertinent aspects of the mitigation.
Plant communities in each mitigatian site as defined by the United States
National Vegetation Classification (USNVC) (Anderson et al. 1988, Grossman et
al. 1998} and detailed in Carsey, et al. (2003) were listed and assessed
individually. A five square meter releve plot was placed subjectively within each
representative plant community and species composition and percent cover were
recorded (Kent and Coker 1992). There was some .difficulty reconciling the
impacted vegetation types originally described in the permits with the current
national vegetation classification. As a result, the plant community in each
mitigation site was categorized by wetland system and class (Cowardin et al.
1979} and compared to the proposed system and class.
We examined soils for the presence of hydric soils. Munsell Soil Color Charts
(Munsell Color,1994) were used to determine the color of the B horizon in 12-
inch deep soil pits. Soils that were gleyed, had bright mottles and/or low matrix
chromas, or exhibited other hydric soil characteristics (Federal Interagency
Cor~;~~tittee `or Wetlands Delineation;1989) were c:onsiderec`_hydric.~
Hydrological characteristics were also examined in the soil pits to determine
whether wetland hydrology existed on the site. The presence of suffcient
wetland hydrology was based on the direct observation of depth to free water or
saturated soil and indirect indicators such as hydric soils and hydrophytic
vegetation. In addition to field observations, monitoring reports were reviewed
for documentation of the presence of hydric soils and hydrology. It was beyond
the scope of this project, however, to review precipitation data from immediately
prior to and during the field work to evaluate the influence of recent climatic
conditions.
We performed a qualitative assessment of 13 wetland functions for each
mitigation site. Methods followed Cooper (1988) as modified from Adamus and
Stockwell (1983}. Functional assessments using this methodology are required
by the city of Boulder when assessing wetlands prior to impacts and evaluating
the functioning of mitigation projects.
We evaluated the following functions for each wetland: ground water recharge,
ground water discharge, flood storage, shoreline anchoring, sediment trapping,
nutrient retention and removal (long and short term), food chain support
(downstream and within basin}, and habitat (fish and wildlife}. Active and passive
recreation were also evaluated at each site but were not included in the analysis.
Table 2 provides a brief description of the 11 functions that were included in the
assessment.
Each of these functions was ranked on two different scales. The first scale ranks
the intensity with which that function was performed by the wetland in its current
condition on a scale of 1-5. A rating of 1 indicates that that function was not being
performed and could not be performed by that particular wetland. A rating of 5
indicates the function was performed to a very high degree. The second ranking
system is used to indicate the surveyor's confidence in the ranking. This ranking
system is based on a three fetter scale; "a", "b", "c". A rank of "a" was given if the
rating was very certain. A rank of "b" was given if the rating was relatively
certain, and a rank of "c" was given if there was great uncertainty in the degree to
which the function was being performed. No functional assessment was
performed if observations of vegetation, soils and hydrology indicated the area
was not a wetland.
Table 2. Brief Descri tion of Wetland Functions ,
Wetland Functions Description
Groundwater rechar e Infiltration of surface water to roundwater
Groundwater discharge Movement of groundwater to ground surface, generally
throu h see s or s rin s
Flood storage/floodflow Ability to reduce or alter the extent or duration of
alteration floodin , includin throu h subsurface stora e
Shoreline anchoring/stabilization Increased resistance to erosion
Sedirni;nt tra ~~rn /retention Je osition and accumulation of sedir:;ent articles
Nutrient retention (long term) Removal and storage of inorganic compounds such as
nitro en and hos horous enerall in wood lants
Nutrient retention (short term) Removal and storage of inorganic compounds such as
nitrogen and phosphorous generally in herbaceous
_ lants
Food chain support (export) Organic material production such as leaf litter which is
carried downstream
Food chain support (in basin) Organic material production such as leaf litter which
remains onsite
Fish habitat/aquaticdlversity Provision of open water, good water quality, structural
diversity
Wildlife habitat Structural diversity, vegetation and connectivity
offering a variety of generic habitat benefits far food
and shelter
Wetland boundaries were mapped with a Trimble Geo III handheld Global
Positioning System (GPS) unit or drawn onto 2003 high-resolution true color
aerial photographs and later digitized in GIS. All field evaluations were
performed by the same personnel to ensure consistency:
Data were entered on field data forms (Appendix A). Wetland mapping data were
imported into ArcGIS software (ESRI) after each field evaluation to calculate the
boundary of each mitigation site. Spatial data and information from the field
evaluation were summarized and tabulated in an Excel spreadsheet. The
success of each wetland mitigation site was assessed by comparing the
impacted wetland to the mitigation wetland for size, vegetation, hydrology and
function. Vegetative composition and cover at each mitigation site were
compared to the plant species and communities proposed in the mitigation plans
and evaluated on site. Another summary table was prepared to compare
wetland functions of impacted and mitigation wetlands.
Several uncertainties arose during this evaluation that limited our ability to fully
evaluate and accurately compare sites including:
• Determining the boundaries of mitigation areas when a project area
was not well defined (on the ground or in the permit) and/or as-built
drawings were not provided;
• Distinguishing and mapping Hydrogeomor-phic (HGM) categories
and plant communities in the impacted areas, particularly when a
complex mosaic occurred; and
• Interpreting hydrology was difficult in the absence of more
information about long-term site conditions (e.g., to understand
seasonal fluctuations in the local water table) and without a more
thorough assessment of how recent climatic conditions had
influenced site hydrology.
4. RESULTS
The field inspections evaluated 20 mitigation projects selected for this review.
The following subsections summarize the results for size, vegetation, hydrology,
and function. Summary tables of the wetland characteristics and functional
evaluations are provided in Appendix B.
4.1.Achieved Wetland Area
For the 20 mitigation sites included in this assessment, approximately 15 acres of
mitigation were required for almost 10 acres of wetlands impacted.
Approximately 19 acres of wetlands were mitigated through creation, restoration,
and enhancement. This is 27 percent greater than the wetland area required by
all the permits and 53 percent greater than the wetland area impacted (Table 3,
Figure 2). Mitigation wetlands ranged in size from 0.01 to 11.5 acres, and the
largest site accounted for 61 % of the achieved mitigation acreage. Fourteen of
the 20 mitigation wetlands were less than ane acre (Figure 2).
Table 3. Pro osed and achieved miti ation areas
Wetland Mitigation Total Number of Acres Avg. Acres Per Site
Acrea a Assessment _
Direct Impacts 9.78 0.49
Required by Permit 14.92 0.75
1.5 : 1
Established /Successful 18.97 0.95
(0.39 if largest site
excluded
Overall Success Ratio 1.9 : 1
Overall success percentage 127%
"Overall success percentage is calculated as Established acreage/Acreage required by permit.
Figure 2. Comparison of Required to Achieved Mitigation Areas
12-
11 - - - ¦ Achieved Mitigation
10 -
9 ¦ Required Mitigation
8 - -
7 -
6 -
Q 5- - -
4 - y-
3 - -
2 -
1
0
co c.o cD cfl cfl co co co co co co o co co cn co co ca co co
.tom w ~ ~ o0 ou cfl u7 0o w w ~t w oo co ~ oo ~ cfl
O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
N V cD N .A Uo C5~ Ul C~ N ~A N N ~ ~ W OD V
Permit Number
The overall ratio of required mitigation to impacted wetland area was
approximately 1.5:1 (Table 3). The actual mitigation ratio was 1.9:1 (achieved to
impacted}. Although several sites were able to establish more than double their
required ratios (Figure 3), most of these sites were very small. If the largest
mitigation site (WP# 94-01) is excluded from the analysis, then the achieved to
required success ratio for the study sites was 1:1.
Figure 3. Comparison of Achieved Mitigation Areas and
Ratios of Achieved to Impacted Wetlands
12 - - 5 0 -
11 - 4.5
10 -
4.0
9- - -
8 - - 3.5
7 - - - - 3.0 x
~ 6 - - 2.5 p
Q 5 - - - - - 2.0 ~
4 - -
3 - - 1.5
2 _ - - _ 1.0 ~ Achieved
1 _ - _ - _ _ _ - 0.5~ Mtigation Area
0 0.0
co cfl co co m co co co co cfl cfl co cfl cfl
V' ~ 4° R' ~ ~P 4' 4' ;
i R' 4' t' C0 v ~f' ®Ratio of
iv v cO tv ~ °w ~ ° ~i r°v ~ N ~ °w °cu °v Achieved to
Impacted
Permit Number
A slight positive correlation was observed between the age of the mitigation site
and achieved area (Figure 4). Sites that established greater than 200% of their
required mitigation occurred at 5, 7, 8, and 10 year old mitigation sites.
" ~ F~ure 4 -Percent of Required Area Achieved b}t Age of..Site
400
350 -
300 - _ -
Q 250 ~ - -
m 200 ~
~ 150 -
100 - - ~ _
50 - ? - -
~ 0 =
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Age of Mitigation Site (years)
The requirement for mitigation area was met or exceeded at nine (45%) of the 20
mitigation sites. At three (15%) of the sites, no mitigation activity (e.g., planting,
grading, boundary stakes) was apparent. It is unknown if mitigation was
1te~ fr ~ ~
attempted and failed or if the work was never initiated at these sites. Eight sites
(40%) achieved a portion of their required mitigation area, and of these, three
sites achieved less than 50% and five sites achieved between 50-99% of their
proposed acreage (See Figure 5 and Table B1, Appendix B).
Figure 5. Overall success of 20 mitigation sites in Boulder based on achieved area
¦ Successful
25 Mitigation
)r t.:
t
r
-.~f~;r~` "'ti3'.=fi ? Pb Mitigation
;t~u~''~ 15%
4 Partial
Establishrr~nt
15% (yip%~
E7 Partial
Establisherrpnt
15% (50-90%)
These results show that although only nine mitigation sites achieved their
mitigation acreage requirements, no net loss of acreage was achieved for the
study group due to the higher success at a few sites. For example, sites #94-01
and #94-17 exceeded their required mitigation acreages by 3.77 acres and 1.73
acres, respectively (Figure 2).
-4.2,Wetland Plant Community Types -
For the 20 study sites, there were 44 wetland plant communities in the 'stnpacted
wetlands, and 40 wetland plant communities proposed for the mitigation sites.
Thirty-eight plant communities were established in the mitigation wetlands, of
which 37 were wetland communities. See Table 4 for types of plant communities
on the impacted and mitigation sites.
This evaluation indicates a 13 percent decrease in the overall number of wetland
plant communities within the study sites. The majority of impacted sites were
composed of herbaceous emergent palustrine wetland vegetation (including wet
meadow) (26 communities}, which declined by 38 percent to 16 communities.
The number of open water and aquatic wetland communities also decreased.
Collectively, Two of the three riverine plant community types (herbaceous
emergent, forested, and scrub-shrub) more than double (from 4 to 9) (Table 4).
lip ~ ~ f ~ ~ i~
Table 4. Plant Communit T es at Miti ation Sites
Plant Community Classif+cation Number of Number of Number of
(Cowardin classes and systems Communities Communities Communities
and USNVC community t es Im acted Pro osed Established
Herbaceous Emergent (Riverine)
• reed canarygrass 3 2 6
• arctidmountain rush
Herbaceous Emergent
(Palustrine)
• cattail
• reed canarygrass
• three-square 26 22 16
• redtop
• knotweed/mesic graminoids
• prairie cordgrass
• common spikerush
• arctic/mountain rush
• annual rush
Scrub Shrub (Riverine)
• sandbar willow shrubland (mesic 1 8 3
and barren apes
Scrub Shrub (Palustrine)
• sandbar willow shrubland (mesic 4 4 2
and barren t es
Forested (Riverine)
. plains cottonwood-(peachleaf
willow)/sandbar willow woodland 8 4 9
• narrowleaf cottonwood/sandbar
willow'woodland
• crack willow woodland
A uatic not communit t ed 1 0 0 _
Open Water
• flowing 2 0 1
• standin
U land Ve elation 2 0 1
Totals 44 40 38
To further assess if proposed wetland plant communities met mitigation goals for
in-kind replacement, we evaluated consistency between specified and achieved
vegetation. Based on the field evaluation, less than six sites (27%) were found to
have the species specified in the mitigation plan present in noticeable quantities.
Herbaceous emergent palustrine and scrub shrub (palustrine and riverine)
communities had the lowest rates of establishment:
While the number of plant communities is one measure of diversity, it does not
reflect the distribution and area of coverage of replacement vegetation types.
However, plant community mapping of the impacted wetlands lacked sufficient
detail to allow a comparison of plant communities by type. This data gap is due
in part to the variation in plant community descriptions used in the wetland permit
applications and the lack of details in planting plans, as-built drawings, and
monitoring reports.
f
ti
4.3. Hydrology
Of the 20 study sites, we found direct evidence of wetland hydrology at 12 sites.
Two additional mitigation sites had sufficient hydrology on only part of the sites.
Wetland hydrology was likely present at one other site but could not be sampled
due to access limitations. At two locations, a portion of the mitigation area was
achieved based on the presence of desired vegetation, even though no direct
evidence of sufficient hydrology was observed.
Hydrologic characteristics can also be evaluated by comparing impacted and
mitigation wetland communities based on their broad hydrogeomorphic (HGM)
classifications (Brinson 1993)(Table 5). More than half of the impacted and
mitigation sites (and 37% by area) included in the study were categorized as
riverine systems in low elevation floodplains (R4 and R5). By area, the majority
of impacted and created wetlands were depressional (D2, D3 and D5; about
60%) (Table 6).
Table 5. Distribution of Wetlands b Watershed
Hydrogeomorphic Impacted % of Total Achieved % of Total
T e of Wetland Classification Acres Im acted Acres Achieved
Permanently or semi- Depressional 2 (D2)
permanently flooded basin
including pond margins
0.59 6.04% 12.45 65.6%
Seasonally flooded basin, dry Depressional 3 (D3)
for long periods
_ 0.04 0.37% 0.08 0.44%
Intermittently flooded basin, or Depressional S (D5)
largely barren of vegetation
5.20 53.2% 0.06 0.30%
Low elevation. site with high - f Flats (F1) ~ -
.
u wafer table, saline - - _ ~ _ .
0.34 3.5% 0.18 0.95%
Stream,steep gradient reaches Riverine 4 (R4)
on large rivers,
0.21 2.15% 0.22 12%
Low elevation floodplain on Riverine 5 (R5)
mid to high order stream,
perennial flow
3.39 34.6% 5.99 31.5%
Low elevation meadows with Slope 4 (S4)
seasonally high water table
0.01 0.09% 0 0.00%
Figure 6. Percent of impacted and achieved wetlands by hydrogeomorphic
classification
70% _ _
60% _ _ of Total Mrpacted
¦ % of Total Achieved,
50% - -
40% - -
30% -
20% - -
0%
DS R5 D2 F1 R4 D3 S4
4.4. Watershed Area .
In addition to the total achieved wetland area, study sites were grouped by
geographic area to evaluate the success of mitigation projects by watershed and
to determine whether landscape scale changes to wetlands were occurring.
Table 6 shows the distribution of the sites by general watershed.
Table 6. Distribution of mitigation sites b watershed
Wetland Mitigation No. of No. of Acres Acres Acres
by Drainage Basin Sites Mitigation impacted successfully gain
Impacted Sites mitigated (loss) for
study
sites
Four-Mile Creek 4 2 3.93 1.20 (2.73)
• Bear Canyc: ;Creek 1 1 0.02 0.07_ U.05 .
Boulder Creek 6 6 4.25 15.14 10.89
Left Hand Creek 2 2 0.35 0.24 0.12
South Boulder Creek 5 5 1.08 2.06 0.98
(includes one on Dry
Creek
Skunk Creek 1 1 0.03 0 (0.03)
Wonderland Creek 3 3 0.11 0.27 0.16
Mitigation at site #94-01 in the Boulder Creek watershed was for combined impacts at 3 sites
two impacted areas were within the 4-Mile Creek watershed and one was in the Boulder Creek
Watershed.
As Table 6 shows, the study mitigation sites are distributed across the City in
seven different watersheds. The wetland areas in three of these watersheds,
Four-Mile Creek, Left Hand Creek and Skunk Creek, declined by 2.73 acres,
0.12 acres and 0.03 acres, respectively. The remaining four watersheds showed
a net gain in wetland area ranging from 0.05 acres in the Bear Canyon Creek
watershed to 10.89 acres in the Boulder Creek watershed. Without knowing the
.,-y
wetland acreage present in each of these watersheds, it is not possible to
determine the overall gain or loss in wetland area from each watershed.
Nevertheless, our results suggest a net export of wetlands from some
watersheds may be occurring.
4.5. Wetland Functions
We compared wetland functions for 16 of the 20 study sites where functional
evaluations were performed prior to impacts. At three sites, functional
evaluations could not be performed because mitigation was not completed. One
site lacked a functional evaluation of the impacted wetland. For nine of the 16
sites, pre-mitigation evaluations were submitted by the applicant and covered
only the impacted project area. For seven of the 16 sites, however, earlier
evaluations by the City were used that covered the larger wetlands within which
each project was located.
Changes in the ecological functioning of a wetland can be observed by changes .
in the total or average scores of functions or by the numbers of functions that
change. In this study, the total and average scores of all functions at a site are
less informative than relative indications of improvements or declines. This is
because of the qualitative nature of the assessment techniques used and scores
can change depending on the difference between the boundaries of the impacted
wetlands and the mitigation sites. Therefore, this study counted the number of
functions that changed in individual wetlands as well as how individual functions
changed across multiple wetlands to evaluate overall wetland functioning.
We assessed which functions improved and which degraded across all sites by
coup#ing the number of mitigation sites where a function improved, declined or
stayed the same. Six of the 11 functions showed a net improvement across all
sites._ These include ground water recharge, flood storage, long-term and short-
. . ae'rm nuu ient~~-biPntion, and downstream and within. basin -food chain support.
Sediment trapping and fish habitat showed no net change over the 16 sites.
Ground water discharge, shoreline anchoring and wildlife habitat exhibited a net
decrease across the 16 sites (see Table B2 in Appendix B). In summary, eight of
the 11 functions (73%) improved or remained the same indicating that overall the
goal of no net loss of functions appears to have been achieved aver the 16 study
sites.
At the site level, however, the results are more difficult to interpret. Because
post-mitigation evaluations can show scores for certain functions improving while
others decrease, we looked at net gains and losses of functions at each
mitigation site. The results show 11 of the 16 mitigation wetlands had a net gain
in wetland functions, and one had no change. This indicates that 75 percent of
the sites rnet the City's no net loss goal for functions (Table B2 in Appendix 6).
Four of the mitigation sites showed a net decline in wetland functions. In all of the
cases where a net decrease in functions was indicated, the pre-mitigation
evaluations had covered larger wetland areas and therefore may have included
:.i~tir i~;~ `J~-~l ---fit?
areas of higher functionality than the smaller mitigation site. However, our review
of changes in functionality was not weighted to account for achieved mitigation
size and thereby enable a more detailed evaluation of net loss or gain in
functions by area.
4.6. Summary of Field Assessments
Our evaluation of 20 wetland mitigation sites permitted under the City of
Boulder's Wetland Protection Ordinance suggests that the success of meeting
the City's goals of no net loss of acreage and function is mixed and depends on
the evaluation criteria that are used. Overall, no net loss of acreage was
achieved for the 20 study sites, primarily because of the success of a few of the
larger mitigation projects. However, many of the individual mitigation projects did
not meet the goal of no net loss of acreage and/or achieve their required acreage
(See Table 7).
Functions were generally maintained or improved for the 20 study sites.
However, functions were not weighted by area, and therefore, the overall net
gain or loss of functions cannot be determined. Additionally, functional losses
occurred when off-site mitigation resulted in a loss of wetland area in three of the
seven watersheds based on the mitigation wetlands included in this study.
Table 7. Number of wetland mitigation sites meetingpermitted success criteria
Permitted Success Criteria Number of
(as required by individual permit) Sites % of Sites
Size Miti ation Acrea e Achieved 7 37
Ve etation Cover Achieved 17 85
Vegetation -Presence of Plant Species 6 30
S ecified in Permit
=.urology ~ . - - . 16 80 '
Ecolo ical F=unctions maintained or im roved ~ 12 of 16 75
5. DISCUSSION
5.1. Ecological Success
Overall, 1.9 acres of wetlands were created or restored for every acre impacted
for the 20 sites we evaluated although this is primarily the result of higher than
required mitigation success at a few larger sites. Most of the mitigation sites
(55%) did not achieve the acreage required in the permit. Our findings are similar
to others that have shown small mitigation sites typically are not as successful as
larger mitigation sites and mitigation banks.
The projects evaluated for this study established 127 percent of the total
mitigation acreage required in the permits. These results are similar to those
reported by Kettlewell et al. (2008) which showed a net gain in wetland area as a
3
r.j' '
result of mitigation for permitted projects. However, our results differ from many
other studies that show a loss in wetland acreage when compensatory mitigation
is used to offset losses from permitted projects. A study of compensatory
mitigation in Indiana showed 44 percent of required wetland mitigation acreage
had been achieved (Robb, 2001 Similarly, Brown and Veneman (2001) found
that approximately half of wetland mitigation projects in Massachusetts were
successful. Other studies found successful mitigation ranged from 38 percent in
Ohio (Wilson and Mitsch, 1996) to 91 percent in Oregon {Gavin and Kentula,
1990).
Our results are also similar to other studies that have evaluated the success of
individual wetland mitigation projects. Johnson et al. (2002) found that 58
percent of projects in Washington established the acreage required in the
permits. Sixty-seven percent of projects in New England met permit conditions
and were considered successful (Minkin and Ladd, 2003).
Wetland plant communities were present on the majority of mitigation sites
{85%). However, wetland community types were not mapped at the impacted
wetlands. As a result, an assessment of the overall net loss or gain in acres by
vegetative {or community) type could not be made.
The results of this study suggest certain wetland vegetation types are more
difficult to mitigate than others. For example, herbaceous emergent palustrine
and scrub/shrub (palustrine and riverine) community types had low success as
measured by the proposed versus established communities. In addition, certain
wetland vegetation types may be replacing others as evidenced by the decline in
palustrine emergent plant communities by 38 percent (from 26 to16). Thirty
percent of the sites were found to have the plant species specified in the
mitigation plans present in noticeable quantities.
Y~'... Wit' tom. lam. ~ r . .~Ji.
The number of `open waterand aquatic wetland communities also decreased."'"
Our results differ from other studies that show open water habitats replacing
forested/scrub-shrub habitat (Kettlewell et al. 2008). The opposite trend in
Boulder is likely related to Colorado water law which requires evaporative losses
from wetland mitigation projects to be augmented with adjudicated water rights
when mitigation ratios exceed 1:1. In addition, in regions where availability of
water is not an issue and site hydrology may be influenced by an excess of
water, wetland mitigation efforts often time result in open water and aquatic
habitats.
Plant communities in mitigation sites differed from those in impacted wetlands in
a number of studies. Brown and Veneman (2001) reported that most impacts to
wetlands in Massachusetts occurred to forested wetlands but the vast majority of
mitigation projects were designed to produce scrub/shrub, wet meadow, or some
other wetland type. Kettlewell et at. (2008) also reported a change in wetland
vegetation types when impacted and mitigation wetlands were compared in the
Cuyahoga River watershed, Ohio. However, unlike our study, they found an
increase in open water/emergent wetlands and a decrease in area of scrublshrub
and forested wetland types. These differences are likely due to the unique
regional characteristics of wetlands and different regulatory requirements across
the country.
Sufficient wetland hydrology was found at most of the mitigation sites in this
study. The mitigation sites in riverine settings appeared to have higher success
rates based on plant community types achieved. For palustrine wetlands that
were targeting groundwater, the failure to meet acreage requirements could be
associated with insufficient or inaccurate groundwater data used in mitigation
planning and/or inadequate grading. The largest depressional wetland that was
successful is located adjacent to Boulder Creek where shallow alluvial
groundwater is present and data from groundwater monitoring wells were
collected for several years prior to project implementation. City-wide groundwater
data are not detailed enough to identify recent trends. However, a recent
groundwater study for a City park project found that increased development and
changes in recharge, drawdowns from sump pumps, and the recent drought
contributed to a lowering of the water table (Biohabitats, 2008). These alterations
may be occurring regionally and throughout the City, and may suggest the need
to alter strategies for planning palustrine wetland mitigation sites where
groundwater will be the main water source.
The mitigation study sites were distributed in seven watersheds. Our evaluation
found that four of the watersheds had mitigation projects that equaled or
exceeded the impacted wetland area. However, in the remaining three
watersheds, wetlands were exported from the watershed resin#ing in a net Loss in
wetland acreage. Kettlewel) et al. (2008) also reported a net export of wetlands
from the Cuyahoga River watershed in Ohio resulting in the loss of function and
,.~;ea from some hydrologic units. Given~that.the ecological services wet;a:^,,d~
provide are very site specific, the foss of wetland area in three watersheds
suggests a decline in ecological functions may be occurring on a watershed
scale.
The majority of mitigation sites showed a net improvement in function.
Additionally, most of the functions improved or stayed the same across all the
mitigation wetlands that were evaluated. However, observing functional changes
alone does not adequately take into account the importance of the size and
location of mitigation wetlands. The National Research Council (2001) expressed
concerns that the no net loss goal for functions may not be met because the
presence of a compensatory wetland alone does not necessarily mean the
ecological functions of the original wetland have been restored. Our study
shares this uncertainty about whether the City of Boulder is meeting the no net
loss goal for ecological functions and whether some wetland functions,
particularly wildlife habitat, are being lost or degraded more than others.
,,~;i a
~ ~ ~
The current study did not include a detailed evaluation of the cause of the
deficiencies at the mitigation sites. Based on our experience and the results of
other similar studies (NRC 2001 likely causes of low mitigation success include
insufficient hydrologic data, inadequate grading and planting plans, and fhe lack
of oversight during project construction (i.e., improper grading that results in too
dry or too wet sights, improper planting techniques that lead to high mortality,
etc.
5.2. Program Administration
Evaluating the ecological success of wetland mitigation projects in the City of
Boulder was complicated by administrative issues, particularly recordkeeping
deficiencies. Our study found that the City's wetland protection program would
benefit from modifications that would improve the permitting and recordkeeping
process as discussed below.
5.2.1. Permitting & Recordkeeping
Only 32 percent of the available permits had sufficient paperwork to be included
in this evaluation. Sufficient paperwork refers to presence of a permit
application, permit, adequate map or location information, as-built drawings and
a mitigation plan. The formats of the applications varied widely, including the
level of detail provided in the mitigation plans. The contents of the files also made
it difficult to retrieve information. In many cases, follow-up information was
missing including "as built" drawings, monitoring reports, and responses to
unsatisfactory monitoring reports. Additionally, some fles could not be located
and as a result their associated projects could not be included in this study.
There have been severs! program coordinators at the City over the years, and
files were maintained in individual offices rather than in a central permit filing
location. In some instances, it appears that when individuals moved or stored
files. information on the program .was misplaced. Our findings strongly suggest .
an improved fling system should~be established and maihfained~in the future:"'`°
This is consistent with other studies where a lack of adequate information on
mitigation projects has hindered the evaluation of project success (NJDEP,
2002).
For the most part, mitigation sites were designed to meet the goal of restoring or
creating wetlands in-kind. However, several plans lacked detailed mapping to
confirm that the topography and hydrology would support the specific plant
species and communities that were proposed. Only four (20%) of the permit files
included as-built drawings although there was no documentation showing the as-
built conditions were met.
Brown and Veneman (2001) reported that there was a significant relationship
between the completeness of mitigation plans and the likelihood of a successful
project. Our study only included those permits with sufficient paperwork to
review, and did not evaluate this relationship. It is unknown, therefore, if the
study sites are somewhat weighted toward the more successful sites, or if they
are representative of the large number of permits that could not be reviewed
because of incomplete paperwork.
5.2.2. Monitoring and Data Management
No inspection forms were found to suggest that City staff visited wetland
mitigation sites during construction to confirm that grading, planting or other tasks
specified in the mitigation plans were performed. Eight (40%} of the files
contained monitoring reports, and only two of the eight sites that were monitored
achieved their required areas. The monitoring reports were generally not detailed
enough to describe the effects of precipitation, supplemental watering, weed
control or other maintenance activities that may have occurred. We found
evidence of implementation of monitoring suggestions at only one site. Partial
implementation of monitoring suggestions appeared to nave occurred at two
additional sites.
5.2.3. Compliance & Measures of Success
The City of Boulder's Wetlands and Floodpiain program oversees reviewing
wetland permit applications, issuing permits and overseeing compliance with
mitigation plans. Currently, one staff person divides his/her time between the
wetland and floodplain responsibilities, with wetlands allocated approximately 25
percent of the time. The applicant is given the responsibility of notifying the
Coordinator when the project is complete, scheduling the wetland mitigation
inspection and monitoring the mitigation site for compliance with the wetland
permit. In many instances, notifications do not occur, inspections do not occur,
and/or recommendations are made with no follow through. There are no
established procedures to guide the applicant and the Coordinator in how to
resolve follow-up issues. As a result of limited time and unclear procedures, the
compliance portion of the program is not effective.
' '
- In the absence or more information on monitoring, project maintenance, and
compliance, it is not possible to fully evaluate why 11 of the 20 sites failed to
achieve the required wetland areas. Given that vegetation and soils are related
to and largely dependent on hydrology, it is likely that the hydrology was missing
from the mitigation sites that were not successful. Detailed precipitation data
were not reviewed as part of this evaluation, and it is unknown to what extent
failure to achieve the target area of wetland mitigation was a consequence of low
precipitation. However, the five-year period preceding the evaluation was one of
the driest in Colorado's history (NOAH, 2008}, and it is possible that precipitation
was a factor in the lack of success at some study sites. Nevertheless, the fact
that some of the mitigation sites exhibited wetland hydrology demonstrates that
precipitation alone cannot explain the failure of some sites.
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The City of Boulder's wetland protection program is succeeding at some sites
and failing at others with an overall no net Toss in acreage based on the sites
reviewed for this study. Plant communities in mitigation sites tend to differ from
those in impacted wetlands, with a 38 percent decline in patustrine emergent
plant communities. While functions appear to be maintaining or improving, the
loss of wetlands in three of the seven watersheds suggest functional losses may
be occurring on a watershed scale. Programmatic issues are limiting the City's
ability to better evaluate the effectiveness of the program. Nevertheless,
Boulder's wetland regulators can improve the mitigation program to better ensure
no net loss of wetland acreage and function by considering the following:
A. Watershed Planning
• Conduct awatershed-scale analysis of wetlands and anticipated
wetland loss to develop a more watershed-directed mitigation
program.
• Consider mitigation banks in certain watersheds where impacts to
wetlands are too great.
B. Mitigation Plan Requirements
• Clarify and strengthen mitigation plan requirements to:
o provide mare specific information about hydrology and water
availability (including off-site factors that could alter
hydrology) to ensure that proposed wetlands are placed in
suitable locations;
o topography and grading plans (consider requiring 1 ft
contours in mitigation areas);
provide.a>elear~nd thorough mitigation plan manual and
checklist; and
o review mitigation requirements in the code and consider
changes to improve clarity, consistency, and completeness.
• Standardize plant community classifications and mapping method
for both impacted and created communities in GIS.
• Vary mitigation ratio requirements according to wetland plant
community type on project sites and location of mitigation site in the
watershed. Consider requiring higher mitigation ratios for wetland
types that are most "at risk" and are more commonly impacted (i.e.,
herbaceous emergent (palustrine) wet meadow), are more difficult
to successfully restore or create or provide high functional benefits.
C. Monitoring
• Develop a mitigation monitoring program to better evaluate whether
the goals of no net loss of acreage and function are being met and
to ensure that as-built conditions match mitigation plans.
~:u3,r.
D. Recordkeeping
• Improve consistency of recordkeeping by providing a template
format for applications.
• Centralize and systemize record-keeping.
• Develop an electronic tracking system for monitoring.
E. Staffing & Compliance
• Staff time allocations need to be increased to allow for installation
inspections as well as follow-up, improved project tracking and
education.
• Standardize inspection procedures to increase the attention given
to ensuring as-built conditions match mitigation plans.
F. Functional Assessments (long-term)
• Develop functional assessment methods that are quantitative and
repeatable. The methods currently used by the City of Boulder for
assessing the ecological functions of wetlands were developed
prior to the ordinance during the ADID process in 1987. The
method is qualitative and dependent on the expertise and
experience of the person performing the assessment. This can
lead to variability in results that can make it difficult to compare
impacted sites with mitigation sites and determine whether
functions are being lost. A number of functional assessment
procedures have been developed and tested in recent years.
These should be evaluated and tested to determine which best fits
the City's needs.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 8 grant number CD998004-10. The City of Boulder Open Space and
Mountain Parks Department and Planning and Development Services
Department provided additional financial and logistic support. We are grateful to
Megan Bowes for collecting and compiling al! data for this study and to Marianne
Giolitto for assisting in data compilation and review. Jeff Arthur, Alan Carpenter,
Terry Doss, Beverly Johnson, Katherine Knapp and Alex May reviewed and
significantly improved earlier drafts of this manuscript-
REFERENCES
Adamus, P.R. and L.T. Stockwell. 1983. Method for wetland functional
assessment. Volume I: Critical review and evaluation concepts. Federal Highway
Administration Report No. FHWA-IP-82-23.
Anderson, M., P. Bourgeron, M. T. Bryer, R. Crawford, L. Engelking, D. Faber-
Langendoen, M. Gallyoun, K. Goodin, D. H. Grossman, S. Landaal, K. Metzler,
K. D. Patterson, M. Pyne, M. Reid, L. Sneddon, and A. S. Weakley. 1998.
International classification of ecological communities: terrestrial vegetation of the
United States. Volume II. The National Vegetation Classification System: list of
types. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia, USA. 502 p.
Biohabitats, Inc. 2008. Potential future management options for Thunderbird
Lake, City of Boulder, Colorado (and subsequent unpublished groundwater
evaluation).
Brinson, M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. Wetlands
Research Program TR-WRP-DE-4. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Brown, S.C. and P.L.M. Veneman. 2001. Effectiveness of Compensatory
Wetland Mitigation in Massachusetts, USA. Wetlands 21:508-518.
Carsey, K., G. Kittel, K. Decker, D.J. Cooper, and D. Culver. 2003. Field guide to
the wetland and riparian plant associations of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage
Program, Fort Collins, CO.
•.Cit~.~ of Boulder PJar.ning Department. 1995. Wetland ,protection program hest,
management practices. First Edition.` Wetland Publicatio?~ Series No. 5.' ' ~ ~
Boulder, CO.
Cooper, D. 1988 Advanced identification of wetlands in the City of Boulder
Comprehensive Planning Area. City of Boulder Planning Department. Boulder,
CO.
Cooper, D. 1991. Recommended wetland mitigation guidelines and wetland
mitigation design standards and specii'ications for the City of Boulder, Colorado.
Wetland Publication Series No. 2. Boulder, CO.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. FWS/OBS-79/31.
,i i
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetlands Delineation.1989. Federal Manual
for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S, Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and U.S.D.A. Sod Conservation Service, Washington, DC. Cooperative
technical publication. 76 pp. appendices).
Grossman D.H., Faber-Langendoen D., Weakley A.S., Anderson M., Bourgeron
P., Crawford R., Goodin K., Landaal S., Metzler K., Patterson K.D., pyne M.,
Reid M., and Sneddon L. 1998. International classification of ecological
communities: terrestrial vegetation of the United States. Volume.l, The National
Vegetation Classification System: development, status, and applications. The
Nature Conservancy: Arlington, VA.
Gwin, S.E. and M.E. Kentula. 1990. Evaluating design and verifying compliance
of wetlands created under Section 404 of the Ciean Water Act in Oregon.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/600/3-90/061.
Gwin, S.E., M.E. Kentula, and P.W. Shaffer. 1999. Evaluating the effects of
wetland regulation through hydrogeomorphic classification and landscape profiles.
Wetlands 19: 477-489.
Jennings, M., O. Loucks, D. Glenn-Lewin, R. Peet, D. Faber-Langendoen, D.
Grossman, A. Damman, M. Barbour, R. Pfister, M. Walker, S. Talbot, J. Walker,
G. Hartshorn, G. Waggoner, M. Abrams, A. Hill, D. Roberts, and D. Tart. 2003.
Guidelines for describing associations and alliances of the U.S. National
Vegetation Classification. The Ecological Society of America, Vegetation
Classification Panel, Version 3.0 November 2003. 100 pp. Appendices).
Johnson, P'~F,.;"D_ t: -Mock, A. McMillan, ir. ~Driscnli, and T. Hruby. 2002.
Washington State wetland mitigation evaluation study: phase 2: evaluating
success. Publication No. 02-06-009. Washington State Department of Ecology,
Olympia, WA, USA.
Kent, M. and P_ Coker. 1992. Vegetation description and analysis: A practical
approach. Belhaven Press, London, England.
Kettlewell, C.I., V. Bouchard, D. Porej, M. Micacchion, J.J. Mack, D. White, and
L. Fay. 200$. An assessment of wetland impacts and compensatory mitigation in
the Cuyahoga River watershed, Ohio, USA. Wetlands. 28:57-67.
Minkin, P. and R. Ladd. 2003. Success of corps-required wetland mitigation in
New England. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District, Waltham,
MA.
Munseil Color. 1994. X-Rite Company. Grand Rapids, MI.
National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of aquatic ecosystems. National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C..
National Research Council, Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses. 2001.
Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act. National Academy
Press, Washington D.C..
Robb, J.T. 2001. Indiana Wetland Compensatory Mitigation: Area Analysis.
Indiana Dept. of Environmental Management, Indianapolis, IN.
Wilson, R.F., and W.J. Mitsch. 1996. Functional Assessment of Five Wetlands
Constructed to Mitigate Wetland Loss in Ohio, USA. Wetlands 16:436-451.
Zedler, J.B. 1996. Ecological issues in wetland mitigation: an introduction to the
forum. Ecological Applications 6:33-37.
Appendix A. Field Data Forms
N~etlrrnr! f
valt~atiun Fornr
(Page I of _ )
Wetland Investi ator: Date:
Site; Name:
[-ovation:
Photos
Pile #'s _
Gatcra! Photo LUCBIIOnS and I)irectiotts: -
GPS
ProXKS or GEO 1[1 (}-'or Plots) GPS'd or Drawn (for mapping.,)
Descri tion,•Size, Disturbance; I3istor
(icnClal S1tC DctiCr:l~hr~u iu:. luc~ nearest roads, lanc;nurrt,s, t•, pc i~C~~e!land, how funned, cer t
Site (acres : Pcrinteter (fret): Ratio: -
U1sRtrbancC }Zeglme (duration, ;ntensay, and type of unnattual disturbances):
Wetland Histor (navel nuae, etc.):
Wetland l~liti ation Success. Criteria
Permitted Size Achieved Y / N I lydrology Sufficient (Y / N')
Vc ~etative Cover .~~hieved Y / N) S~cr.ics Shccitied Present (Y / N) _ _ _ _
II nn ;;'r,it chau~es ~:~ay taa!:;::!~:. i*npru:~cnrrnh w rke site (re-, change rn hydn>li>r;y, wae.! ::~~rtrolj-
Wetland Classification Cowardin and HG
System: I'alu:~r;ne Lacustrinc Riverine
Subsystem (none for p;duarute): Lower perennial upper perennial [nt~nnit:ent Ltntnetic Littoral
Class: Kock bottom lJnconsolidated bottom /lquatic bed Unconsolidated shore
Streambed Emergent wetland Scnib shrub wetland Forested wetland
Water Kegime: Saturated Prrttancntly flooded Intermittently flooded Intcrntittcntly exposed
_ Semi ~~ennanrntl~_I':ucuied Seastma!ly (]nrril~sl ~l'em~t~rari;v I:u~,t1~:,1
Overall H drulo
Wetland Oribin: _ Natural A~riculUual I ]rbani7ndustrial Minin _
Water Source: I'tmd (St i nr GK) Ditch (SlJ tv l il~) (~n~ck (Sl1 rat G1:) Re~,~rvoir SU or GR )
_ _ _ _R_unt~ff(L)11 orOpenland) Dtrcct Prc~i~;itation IiW~I• Other:
Ilydr: o~eriod: P;:nmancnl/Perennial Seasonal/Intermittent Tcm tl ctrat•"v/e thetmeral
Ytax 1)~h of Surf. Water ~n.)_ Min. Depth to tiatur:rtcd_toil (in-): Min. Depth n1' Prce Water (in-):
i! ~ ~ !
Wetland # (Page 2 of_ )
functional Assessment
Function Katin~ _ Confidence Comments
Groundwater Rechar e
Groundwater Dischar e
Flood Stora e
Sediment "I'ra in
Shoreline Anchorin
Active Recreation
Passive Recreatiottlf~erita e
Fish Habitat
Wildlife habitat
Food Chain Support
Downstream out-basin)
Food Chain Su tort within basin
Nutrient Retention lon -term
Nutrient Ketention (short-term)
Comments (cg., wildlife species, tadpoles, amphibians, rare plants, etc.}:
Rating: 1=no, 2=low, 3- medium, 4=high, 5 very high Confidence: a=low, b-medium, c =high
Ttital:Vegefation ~ - ~ -
%,'l'ocal Ve elation Cover: % Unvegetatcd: % Open Water:
i~oxiotts '~~'ecds: .Locations mapped if populations arc, high tlcnsity `
Pl:ult SD~CICS IC.U no.~iuus weed lititine) IoW }ll£;h F'lani S CCIeS lOW hl }7
I3reca arvcnsis 13)
Di sacus fullonum B
Elaea nus an ustifolia B
1T_es~erusmatronalis (B) _
Lythrum salicaria (A
Tamarix ramosissirna {B+
Conuncnts:
Ma ed Vegetation
Cutnnltutft • I; COntmuttity "Type (bnct'description, dominant spp., etc.) "Total % Cover
Comments:
'
Wetland # (Page 3 of_ )
Soils, H droloRy and Vc ctation Anal sis
Comnninil _I,y~: Cover: Community tl:
Soils
(soil characierist~cs observed immediately below the A honzon or al 10 inches, whichever is shallower)
Texture Histosol >2o35°i° ono (Y N) Gley (Y N) Gley Depth _ _
MaMx/B hor. Color Hydric Soil (Y N) Mottle % _ Mottle Color
Concretions (Y N) Oxidized Rhizospheres (Y N) I {ZS Odor (Y N )
Comcncnts:
Hydrology
Depth of s?trface water' Depth oC Crce water (or > 12") Uepth to saturated soil' _ (or > l2")
Sediment deposits (Y N) Oxidized root channels
Y N) Watermaricsl (Y N) Drift lines' (Y N )
Comments:
Ve CtatlUn 25m= frame)
S ccics Covcr Class S ecies Cover Class
Rock (over 2 cm diameter)
Litter
Bare Ground
Covcr Class: 1 = 0-l, 2 = 1-5, 3 = 5-25 4 = 25-50, 5 = 50-75, 6 = 75-95, 7 = 95-10U
A endix B. Table 1. Summa data from 20 wetland miti ation sites evaluated for this stud .
Acret of Roquirod To41 Araa o/ Y. of Required SpeUaa Impacted Impacbd Propotod ProDOaatl Community
PermO Ape Obect MIUpa4on $ucuu4W MlnpateO Afros Vop COVCr SpeGnod Nydroldpy Impedod Community Community Community Community CommuNly
Typa(1) Community Impacted Proposed MGM Typo(s) Walenned
Humber (yoara) M:tlgatlon Typa Impacts (afros) Mil (ecres) Acnleved AChleved7 Pr•son17 $uMciont7 Typo(7) Type(2) Type(J) Type(1f
Type(2) Achlawd Type(2) Achlaved HGM Type(s) HGM Type(s) Achiwa0 Impadwtl
e • poaC -aa o. n
couonwxd•non•netme setlge a wd'pw ron.nmroe
'9]•02 ;uA c'onron CC? Ou 0 0 No ~'o" Iv:A npanan wa:oemM n•roacoous vn. oJ:and rpann^ R9 RS RS Bounder Creoa
prGbpOly no
c.U dup undo aandwr
mbeled rap praat ana lao maces undav wino cmbnwcoaw.:aw Warwono^d
93.06 t2 veal:dn 0096 C t9 026 137 Yes Rp trespass and o•aquaFC n•rbac»u> commanl mNb:end anNbtend woodUnO 02 02 G2 Cr.
ro co orr upon ut r app+orwn-
• pvm
w:ID« woo'~Y SOdya IawNCaituro , roed a woo'ry LOdgo :OltcnwOCtl:ba pralnO Cdtlgnea SauU EGU:tler
93n2 5 uoeton 0.93 t6G 173 lile vas vos.- woodmna}, yot eauod nemaeoous no:nacaaua rasson nertaeeoua horoacoon nrbar w~uow nemaeoaut RS
RS 0.5 Croot
art:C Na usn•^r
ea • Ou a
Inreo•tquore provie reed sD \arwn r , ROpel
9s-01 D droaUpn 5 79 7 77 tt 5a 149 Yos 2 or G vas c4tNiLbv:Nan M1orbKeeus norDpcadus cen7 :ans aauolk notbacooua norp•;.•WS cauau tie/beCeoul
DS D2 C2 end Jo • t r
• mna pema
catonwooa• rnttonwood- on•nnrm r,oerinn
94-11 tC ronle•ntan 0 0a4 0 04a 0.052 119 /ro no Ye: non•nawo n anon weoclano (peechbol enokecMr pare ao:, waoo:7:d R5 RS RS
ficu~nor Creole
a n :tip, Cpen Owes), ODen p n:na
water (nn1C/K Weler omorponl aO;bnwd0tl•
94.77 70 reslaal9n 094 132 ]053 277 Yet ves Yos eme•genl webnnd oabcwt fdnannal.:ad wnUand (peacnaal R$ RS R9 Baap•r Crook
o rata p•a:no snot or
wdq.- compmss• wwow'mac SCUIn Baudor
97.02 9 «aabdn 0022 O.ODe 009J 69 Yas No Vss rnasm-sea os-NSnes sp:ksrusn arctic n.rsn rnm~no.d RS RS RS Cmo.
ns.~ws -t rot:
droalcn and
9andDpr W. ID« Ntn Wnarypfatn
97-08 G ennancomen~ 6018 0,016 007 399 Voa No Yos uD~and bwNOSfture msses nnruDland +onacoa_s norDOC•cus RS RS RS BoerCroos
p ma co o: ac ~~oo norm ea parr ea mt co on
«eappr:onnnnce wUlowYtendDar w:I:b« collonwopLlna COIlpnwo0alta Ipaacmoal
97-DD 9 moot O.GS 072 056 7E Yes No woodland nObar va~trw neiar wabw W.nowYnendbar RS RS R5 ano'e Cr
sa 7pa• <cmmon
w9bwNNa:y sIDkoruan Soutn Boubsr
5a•ei 7 «oatOn 3676 0012 009] 115 Yes Yon_ YCS wool ssd onerba:sn:a rNbrasks norbeceous O] DS DJ Crook
yos ro: p~a~'.a mra0 u~ bnr 'a ur
onnancement c:murel~ ro cottonwpcd• narbaceaua w~.lcw :nano sandbar wpbs F7 pn~). O9 f 7 (vo:0, p5 Ft (Ire~O. DS le0 Hand
9907 and ron!oralws O.Ots 0 021 0056 757 vos no p,ponon Ir•ootdupre norbadeoas poecnlear neadew nr„pie>d aa90rast tnluD4nd (npanan)?
(nponnnl7 Ir'pn'an)7 C•oea
praine Nr+Cper uadt Dant CO .M
road canarypres+ SanCCnr wubw CSIIn! COrOgrass wrlow wiLOwrsandca• (psicn:eaf
99.06 <roal.On G64 Of4 02: a2 yot he Yoa neroaceous sNUp'Antl Mrbadecus na'Caceeus anNb'ana w:'IOw vn~to'« aandpar RS R5 R5
B0~'•aer Cree\
xnspi e
wNatpress- arctic roan Left None
9G06 7 retta~atgn 0 34 0 J4 0 •9 5) vos :iG r:o Aep.aaVt sod o ne!bxeoua NeOrosia neroodoous F 1 Or $a7 F 1 Or $:7 F : a $•t>
C•ee\
raeo tun as aer
craalicn aro umlaurrusn nun vnibw omertnnl renarygraat Crow' Dry
99.11 ms:anten 0055 009) O.On t3 Nb No ros aandwr w:!Iew snNaand nerbacooua neroaceoua aNUblantl «ennnes remo<o~ t 027 D27
027 Creot7
ooa.an or
• rep roan-p-an.e
roelvaton 6 unaryyrass catbd•OWNan sandbar welDw ca:dpresa• ce0ar' van
198.12 6 anbnC•menl 0 U 67 G 64 40 yes Yo! vas NU'.te narnace0ua nD!bnGCOUS n•mx•ouf a1+Nblendn ar:1.c Nnn nerbicoout C27 027
027 a Anle
ccr.-na.nv
sandbar wnaw' uPlenO
59.04 S rostpretbn OG34 0052 0 0 Yas No f:rA non-notrv. tips; ion woodlac0 :nnrDland npanan RS R5 R: Sauna Creo.
nano Oa pigs
cree!ipn AM cotMnwbod/anndpar w.l•Ow Cdtlon~ )D~laa DOxe'Oer ldndpar w«~dw wnCner wale
SSOG a roabromr• 021 04: 0.22 52 No a.:a vos Yas - Ro vrood'arw rdbar w.aow woodland fnNblanC anrYplpnd R4 R4 Ra 3ou:em
Gee\
:ofd tan0 it
canarygrotz hfd norsoloA wdbwra¢PC canarygrast WoMenOnd
9907 S drnal,pn 00023 OG3n6 O.G1 2'7 van r:o Yos orcpc Nan Mrbncedus narbaceous no2acooua Nsn anrupWntl nerpaceoua R9 R9 RS Cr
ma p:a ns reef UnprypraaY
dreefien an0 Unaygraat- e'cl.d Nan nOpdpla.n wet CAI!onWdyd• arCl. Nan $CUIn BDVid01
9908 6 rOalarel~on G.ti 0 rJ8 0.13 27 VOS fA0 Vas nrDCi bang (arC.~c roan) nprpe:00us moadow (Gae Cn(enl n•rbaCDOUt RS S37 R5
a•a Cook
_1101-0a 5 croa:.on COC52 OC99 0 0 yr Vo t,.:A amnrp•nl scn, 'aw1:Ca::u'• Wondsnond
_ Daicn:•a•w~'<w wr ownd NruD I Srassas $4 03> 657 Cr
Totsl 9.78 fa.92 1657
~ c
. '~l AYera a D.e9 1 Sl 7.9a
rl
I`/
!'1.
.I
Appendix B. Table 2. Functional evaluations for 16 wetland mitigation sites.
Ground Grountl HuVlent Nutrient Food Chaln Food Chafo i funcllom Nel geln or bye
Watwr Water Flood Shor•Ilne .edlmm! Retenllon• Wtantlon• Support- Support- Nabltat • Haol{et- i Functlom that M Functtona of
wetland
Permll i Recharge Dlachsrge Storeq• Anchorlnq Trapplnq Lonp Term Short Term Downstream wlthtn BseM fleh Wlldllfe Net Increased d•cnaeed unchanged funcll
n
r`•prcjecl
9]-06 Corns 2 ~ 2 3 3 ] 2 t 2 2
Pofl•prD,uc: Net .
scores 2 2 ] 1 2 ] ] t s J i t 5
ro•Drotuc: -
9].12 scores 3 t c a 1 S a 3 ] 2 1 2
oel•ProlOn Net
fcwes 3 ~ 4 t i a a 3 5 t a 5 5 0
Pre•P'oloc:
score> 2 2 2 t 3 ]
94.07 Poatgro,eC 2 2 t 2 Nat •
scorns s 2 5 1 2 s 5
5 2 4 5 e t 2
Pre-projec: -
9a-t• acorns ] 2 3 5 3 3 a 4 a s
oost-prosy
Net
acmes 2 ~ s S 2 5 ] a a 2 s ].5 ] 2 5
r•-Pro{ea
97-02 scores 3 ] i 5 3 s 3 3 ] 2 ]
?osi-oroioct
Net•
Ko~ca 4 2 a a 2 e 3 a ] 1 2 a S
are-prO1e C2
97-Ce scores 2 a 2 2 ] a 1 2 3
aaI-pep OCl
No Change
srr_res ] 2 2 2 a ] i 2 2 3 2 7
ora•project
97.09 acmes 1 ] 3 ] 2 2 2 3 7 1 2
PDSt-PfD;ect \et
swraa 2 4 3 - ] a 3 3 1 2 a 1 g
' re-project - -
9B•02 oat
project a 4.5 1 C a.5 2 t Nel
1r.OrH a i 4 7 < 4 5 3 5 1 2 5 a 2
Pre-pro,•ct
98A] Kar•e 2 2 a ] a a 7 < 4
p_a. Net
scores 2 2 3 ] 3 2 3 5 3 2 1 7 t 6 a
ars-P'o,eC'.
9B-os swree t t t s ? 2 2 2 2 t a
ost•pro;ect Ne{
zcor•s 2 ] a s 4 5
t
re-proect a ] a a 0 t
98-08 scores 7 e 2 t 2 2 3 t 2 t ]
aos•pro!oC Nee.
scores ] ].S 2 5 t t ] 2 ] t 2 a ] a
P•a-pro;oct
9B•1t scprea 2 2 S 3 ] 4 3 ] t ]
Pcst.pro;ect NC{ -
sccrna 2 1 2 2 2 2 ] 35 2 7 ] t 7 ]
_ Pro•c r~,e<I
scores 2 ] J ].S 2 ] 2 _
~ 98-12 ostpro;sct ] 2 ~ Net
Kwos j < 4 a i 4 a 3 a 1 ] 8 t 2
_ re•prOjee2
98.06 Koros 2 2 ].S 3 2 2 s 5 6.5 a.5 4.5
Post-pro;ep Nel
scores 2 3 ] 2 2 2 ] 2 t ] 0 5 6
- - are•prged
99-07 scores 2 a 2 ] 1 1 2 2 t ]
cross ] 2 3 2 2 ] 2 2.5 2 ? 7 2 2
aro-prgec2
~1~ 99-0a :cross t S 2 2 2 2 a 3 i s
oaf-pegs Nel •
Korea 2 2-p 3 2 7 ].S i 2 3 B 4
r ynetrD~f :nal
_ crsssaa B t0 S S t0 9 7 7 5 ]
_ o ^•~~„auo u t 6 a 6 5 2 2 2 6 5 B
^ so 5 9 6 4 6 7 3 0 S
I,~e•~rcrcnsr ~~r I 2
'oerea;e r
~J vtlu ~.C '~~cllnn Net • Not Net • NN • o chena• Nel • Net • Net • Nal •
no Chan • Net
Appendix C. City of Boulder Wetland Protection Ordinance
9-3-9 Wetlands Protection
(a) Legislative Intent:
(1) It is the intent of the city council in enacting this section to preserve, protect and enhance wetlands. The
council finds that wetlands are indispensable and fragile natural resources with significant development
constraints due to high groundwater, flooding, erosion, and soil limitations, and tl2at development activities may
threaten wetlands. The preservation of wetlands under this section is consistent with the goal of wetland
protection set forth in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
(2) The city council finds that many wetlands have been lost or unpaired by draining, dredging, filling,
excavating, building, polluting, and other acts. Piecemeal and cumulative losses destroy or diminish the functions
of the remaining wetlands.
(3) The city council finds that it is necessary for the city to ensure protection far wetlands by discouraging
deveioprnent activities in wetlands and those activities at adjacent sites that may adversely affect wetlands. When
development is permitted and the destz-uction of wetlands cannot be avoided, the city council finds that impacts on
wetlands should be minimized and mitigation provided for unavoidable losses.
(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent irrigation companies from diverting and carrying water
under their historic water rights or owners of such rights frozT~ exercising those historic rights.
(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent compliance with applicable state or federal statutes and
regulations.
(b) Scope and Application: It is not the intent of this section to prohibit all activities within the regulated areas,
but rather to encourage avoidance of regulated activities within the regulated area and to require a permit or best
management practices in regulated areas.
(I) Regulated Area: This section applies to the following:
(A) Areas within the city shown on the wetlands maps adopted pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, as
amended;
(B) All wetlands on city owned or managed lands inside or outside the city limits;
(C) All city activities affecting wetlands inside or outside of the city limits;
(D) Buffer areas associated with all of the above.
(2) exempt Wetlands: Isolated wetlands with a sire of less than four hundred square feet, regardless of property
boundaries, are exempt from this section unless the wetland site provides habitat for the following species:
(A) Plant, animal, or other wildlife species listed as threatened or endangered by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service;
(B} Plant, animal, or other wildlife species listed by the State of Colorado as rare, threatened or endangered,
species of special concern, or species of undetez-rnined status; or
(C) Plant, animal, or other wildlife species listed in the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan as critical; and
(D) Plant, animal, or other wildlife species listed in the I3ouldcr Valley Comprehensive Plan as a species of local
concern.
(3) Most Stringent Restrictions Prevail: It is not intended that this section repeal, abrogate, supcrsccie, or impair
any existing federal, state, or local law, easement, covenant, or decd restriction. However, if this section imposes
greater or more stringent restrictions, the provisions of this section shall prevail. Specifically, if an applicant for a
wetlands permit pursuant to this section also acquires authorisation under section 404 of the Clean Water Act
from the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the applicant shall meet any greater or more stringent
restrictions set forth in this section in addition to and independent of the restrictions ol'such permit.
(c) Wetlands Mapping and Evaluation:
(1) Wetlands Maps: The wetlands maps and wetlands evaluations are hereby adopted and will be maintained on
file in the planning department.?
(2) Significant Wetlands: Significant wetlands are designated on the adopted wetlands maps. Wetlands are
defined as significant according to the definition set forth in chapter 9-16, "Definitions," B.R.C. 1981.
(3) Wetland Functional Equivalents: At the request of the applicant or an interested party and after payment of the
fee, if any, prescribed in section 4-20-53, "Wetland Permit and Map Revision Fees," B.R.C. 1981, by the party
initiating the request, or at the city manager's initiative, the city manager will perform a wetland functional
evaluation. Functional evaluations shall be determined or modified in accordance with the description of wetland
functions in the report entitled: Advanced Identification of Wetlands in the City of Boulder Comprehensive
Planning Area (1988), by D. Cooper, Ph.D.
(4) Wetland Boundary Determination:
(A) Wetland boundaries may be modified by ordinance by means of the performance of a wetland boundary
dcternination. Wetland boundary determinations shall be performed in accordance with the procedures specified
in the Federal Manual For Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (January, 1989) Interagency
Cooperative Publication, Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency, and Department of Army,
Soil Conservation Service or defined in chapter 9-16, "Definitions," B.R.C. 1981. The methodology for a
"comprehensive" wetland boundary determination shall be used for all wetlands under this section.
(B) At the request of the applicant or an interested party and after payment of the fee, if any, prescribed in section
4-20-53, "Wetland Permit and Map Revision Fees," B.R.C. 1981, by the party initiating the request, or at the city
manager's initiative, the city manager will perform a wetland boundary determination.
(5) Wetland Buffer Area Detern~ination: The extent of wetland buffer areas shall vary according to wetland
function and shall include areas adjacent to the wetland that arc necessary to preserve the natural water source of
the wetland, or necessary for the protection of animal and plant habitat associated with the wetland. In the
absence of a specific bufifer area determination, the buffer area for significant wetlands shall be fifty feet from
each point on the wetland boundary, and the buffer area for alt other wetlands shall be twenty-five feet from each
point on the wetland boundary.
(C) Annexation: Prior to annexation, all wetlands and buffer areas on the property to be annexed shall be mapped
by the city after the fee prescribed in section 4-20-53, "Wetland Permit and Map Revision Fees," B.R.C. 1981, is
paid and according to the procedures set forth in this section. 'I'bis mapping shall include a functional evaluation
of the wetlands pcrf~rn~ed by the city. The approved mapping and evaluation shall be adopted as an update to the
wetlands maps as a part of the annexation ordinance.
(d) Regulated /~ctivitics:
`A
I l ~J
(1) All Activities Are Regulated: No person shall conduct any regulated activity within a regulated area without
first obtaining a wetland permit or meeting the requirements of this section. No person shall violate any provision
of this section or any requirement of any wetland permit.
(2) Activities Requiring a Wetland Permit: Except as provided in paragraphs (d)(3) and (d)(4) of this section, any
activity in a regulated area requires a wetland permit. The application requirements, process, standards, and
conditions for all types of wetland permits are provided in section 9-2-h, "Development Review Application,"
B.R.C. 1981. Activities that require a wetland permit include, without limitation:
(A) Placement, removal, excavation, or dredging of any material, including, without limitation; any soil, sand,
gravel, mineral, aggregate, or organic material;
{B) Construction, total reconstruction ar replacement, installation, erection, expansion, enlargement, or placement
of any obstruction, development, facility, utility, road, surface improvement, public infrastructure, building, or
structure;
(C) Removal of any existing vegetation or any activity which may cause any damage, deterioration, or loss of
vegetation in a wetland;
(D) Alteration of the surface and subsurface hydrology, water table, or water quality by any means, including,
without Iitnitation, draining, ditching, trenching, impounding, flooding, or pumping; and
(E) Disturbance of existing surface drainage characteristics, sedimentation pasterns, flow patterns, or flood
retention characteristics by any means, including, without limitation, grading and alteration of existing
topography.
(3) Activities Exempt From a Wetland Permit Requiring Best Management Practices and Notification: Subject to
the application of best management practices as set forth in paragraph (d)(5) of this section and provision of
notice as set forth in paragraph (d)(6) of this section, the activities listed in this paragraph are permissible in a
regulated area as long as such activity does not significantly alter the function of the wetland:
(A) "Maintenance" as defined in chapter 9-16, "Definitions," B.R.C. 1981;
Ongoing or periodic activities impacting created or rec?~eated wetlands as authorized pursuant to the issuance
of a wetlands permit under this section, including; :without limitativn;~the removal vf~~si~lrand~ediment from water:
quality facilities;
{C) Maintenance of an existing farm or stock pond, irrigation ditch, fence, or drainage system;
(D) Weed control consistent with state and county laws;
(F,) Continuation of existing agricultural practices such as the cultivation and harvesting of hay or pasturing of
livestock, or a change of agricultural practices which does not result in an increase in impact to the wetland
function; and
(F) Revegetation of wetlands or buffer areas consistent with the city's revegetation rules.
(4) Activities Exempt Frorn a Wetland Permit: The following activities are allowed within a regulated area and do
not require a permit if they do not reduce the extent of a wetland or significantly reduce the degree to which a
wetland performs any firnction:
(A) Outdoor recreation, such as fishing, birdwatching, hiking, boating, and swimming, so long as they dv not
harm ar disturb the wetland;
(B) Education, scientific research, or field surveying;
(C) Minor improvements and landscape maintenance within a buffer area but outside the boundaries of a wetland,
including, without limitation, the pruning of trees, mowing of grass, and removal of dead vegetation and debris;
and
(D) Removal of debris and maintenance of vegetation and wildlife habitat subject to the application of best
management practices as set forth in paragraph (d)(5) of this section.
(5) Application of Best Management Practices: Where required under the provisions of any wetland permit or as
set forth in paragraphs (d)(3) and (d)(4) of this section, the application of'best management practices shall
comply, at a minimum, with all applicable city rules concerning best management practices as described in
chapter 9-16, "Definitions," B.R.C. 1981.
(6) Notice of Regulated Activities: Except for emergency maintenance activities required for the immediate
protection of life, safety, or property, or to restore essential public services, written notice of activities listed in
paragraph (d)(3) of this section, shall be provided to the city manager at least two weeks prior to the
commencement of work. The written notice shall include a full description of the activity, including duration and
extent of impacts, and confirmation from a qualified wetland biologist that the activity will not significantly alter
the function of the wetland. Work tnay commence only after the city manager has given written clearance for the
activity. Written notice of any emergency maintenance activity shall be provided immediately following the
activity.
(e) Wetland Permit and Wetland Boundary Determination Applications:
(1) Information Required: ~An applicant shall file a complete application for a simple wetland permit, a standard
permit, or a wetland boundary determination on a form provided by the city manager. The application shall
include, at a minimum, the following information:
(A) Payment of the required application fees as set forth in section 4-20-53, "Wetland Permit and Map Revision
Fees," B.R.C. 1981;
(B) The name, address, and phone number of the applicant; and
(C) The location of the proposed activity and the address or legal description of the affected property.
(2) Simple or Standard Wetland Permit Application: An application for a simple or standard wetland permit shall
include the following information in addition to that listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section:
(A) A detailed description of the proposed activity and how the application meets all applicable review criteria;
(R) A site plan which illustrates the regulatory wetland boundary and wetland buffer area as set forth in
subsection (b) of this section; the property boundary and the proposed area of impact; and all existing and
proposed structures, roads, improvements, watercourses, and drainageways on and adjacent to the property; and
(C) A report prepared by a qualified wetland biologist, which includes:
(i) Identification of the exact locations and specifications of all regulated activities;
(ii) An evaluation of the direct and indirect impacts of such activities;
(iii) A description of the types and sizes of wetlands and buffer areas that will be impacted by the regulated
activities;
-
(iv) An evaluation and analysis of the proposed activities and all alternatives considered with respect to wetland
protection standards as set forth in subsection (g) of this section, including a description of why avoidance of
regulatory wetland areas and less damaging alternatives have been rejected by the applicant;
(v) Any applicable field investigation, monitoring, and clearances for critical species which may be impacted by
the proposed activities;
(vi) A description and specifications for best management practices to be applied as part of the proposed
activities;
(vii) The source, type, and method of transport and disposal of any fill material to be used. Certification that
placement of the fill material will not violate applicable state and federal statutes and regulations also shall be
required; and
(viii) A mitigation plan as set forth in subsection (i) of this section, prepared by a qualified wetland biologist
where required to mitigate direct or indirect impacts to wetland areas as a result of the proposed activities.
(3) Wetland Boundary Deterrnination: An application for a wetland boundary determination shall include the
following information in addition to that listed in paragraph (e)(1) of this section:
(A) A site plan showing the exact location of the current regulatory wetland and buffer areas; and
(B) A wetland boundary determination performed by a qualified wetland biologist in accordance with the
procedures specified in the Federal Manual For Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (January,
1989), Interagency Cooperative Publication: Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency, and
Department of the Army, Soil Conservation Service or a request to the city for a wetland boundary determination.
(4) Simple Wetland Permits:
(A) In determining whether a proposed activity is eligible for a simple wetland permit, one of the following shall
apply to the activity:
(i) The activity will occur only in the wetland buffer;
(ii).The activity wi.l! permanently impact no more than four hundred square feet of~F.he mapped wetland area; or
(iii) The activity will temporarily impact no more than ten thousand square feet of a mapped wetland area, not
including the buffer.
(B} If the proposed activity involves total replacement of an existing improvement, the footprint of the existing
stnrcture is not included in the four hundred square feet of the calculated area of disturbance:
Process For Simple Wetland Permits, Standard Wetland Permits and Wetland Boundary Determinations:
{ 1) Acceptance of Application: Applicants for simple wetland permits or standard wetland permits shall submit an
application as set forth in subsection (e} of this section. Upon receipt of an application, the city manager will
review the application for completeness. A wetland permit application will be accepted when the city manager
determines that it is complete. Such determination shall be made within five to ten days of tlae submission of the
application.
(2) Notification: Upon acceptance of a complete application, public notice will be provided according to the
requirements shown in section 9-4-3, "Public Notice Requirements," B.R.C. 1981, using Public Notice'1'ype 5.
. -
(3) Simple Wetland Permit Review: The city manager will consider all comments on a simple wetland permit
application and may require the applicant to resubmit for a standard wetland permit based on the nature and
extent of public input.
(4) Permit Decision: "l'he city manager will review all simple permit and standard permit applications in
accordance with subsections (g), (h), and (i) of this section, and shall approve a permit, approve a permit with
conditions or deny the application. Standard permits shall be final fourteen days after issuance. Simple permits
shall be final upon issuance.
(5) Referrals, Call-Up or Appeal:
(A) Simple Wetland Permits: For simple wetland pern~its, there shall be no referrals, call-ups or appeals. An
aggrieved party may resubmit an application for a standard wetland permit and proceed pursuant to that process.
(B) Standard Wetland Application: 1'he city manager may refer any standard wetland application directly to the
planning board for a decision.
(C) Permit Decisions: "1`he city manager shall forward all standard wetland permit decisions to the planning board.
Within fourteen days of the decision, the planning board may call-up, or any aggrieved party may appeal, the city
manager decision. Procedures for call-up and appeal shall follow the requirements of section 9-4-4, "Appeals,
Call-Ups and Public Hearings," B.R.C. 1981.
(6) Wetland Boundary Determination Process:
(A) The city manager shall review the application in accordance with subsection (c) of this section, and may
recommend to the planning board the proposed boundary change, recommend the proposed boundary change
with modifications, or not recommend the proposed boundary change.
(B) Proposed wetland boundary changes shall be referred to the planning board for public hearing and
recommendation to city council. Wetland boundary changes are final after the effective date of an ordinance
passed by city council.
(7) Coordination With Other Development Reviews: The city manager may coordinate the application review
process with other development review processes.
(8) Amendment Procedures:
(A) Changes to conditions of an approved permit or changes to an approved mitigation plan may be approved by
the city manager without submittal of a new application if such changes are minor. Applicants for a minor change
t~~ a wetland permit must pay the fee for a simple wetland permit as prescribed in section 4-20-53, "Wetland
Permit and Map Revision Fecs," B.R.C. 1981. All minor changes to the permit shall be noted, signed, and dated
on the approved permit.
(B) If an applicant proposes to amend an approved permit and the proposed amendment is not considered minor
under subparagraph (f)(8)(A) of this section, the applicant must submit a complete application and pay the fee for
a standard wetland permit as prescribed in section 4-20-53, "Wetland Permit and Map Revision Fecs," B.R.C.
1981.
(g) Standards I~or Wetland Permits: The city manager, the planning board, or [he city council shall evaluate a
wetland permit application based on the following standards:
(1) Avoidance: The applicant has demonstrated that all adverse impacts on a wetland, either directly or through its
associated buffer area, have been avoided through a reduction in the sire, scope, or density of.the project or a
change of project configuration car design;
(2) unavoidable Impacts: If avoidance is not feasible, then the applicant has demonstrated all of the following:
(A) Minimization: The applicant has demonstrated that any direct or indirect adverse impact on a wetland or its
associated buffer area has been minimized to the maximum extent feasible, the activity will result in minimal
impact or impairment to any wetland function, and the activity will not jeopardize the continued existence of
habitat for the following species:
(i) Plant, animal, or other wildlife species listed as threatened or endangered by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service;
(ii) Plant, animal, or other wildlife species listed by the Stag of Colorado as raze, threatened or endangered,
species of special concern, or species of undetermined status;
(iii) Plant, animal, or other wildlife species listed in the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan as critical; and
(iv) Plant, animal, or other wildlife species listed in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan as a Species of Local
Concern.
(B) Public Interest Review: 'the applicant has demonstrated that the project is in the public interest, considering:
(i) The extent of the public need for the proposed regulated activity;
(ii) The functional values of the wetland that may be affected by the proposed regulated activity;
(iii) The extent and permanence of the adverse effects of the regulated activity on the wetland, either directly or
through its associated buffer area;
(iv) The cumulative adverse effects of past activities on the wetland, either directly or through its associated
buffer area; and
(v) The uniqueness or scarcity of the wetland that may be affected.
(C) Mitigation Demonstration: The applicant has demonstrated that unavoidable direct and indirect impacts can
be successfully mitigated based on the submission of a mitigation plan in conformance with the standards
outlined in subsection (i) of_this-section. - _ . _
(h) Wetland Permit Conditions:
(1) Permit Conditions: "The city manager, the planning board, or the city counci] may attach such conditions to the
granting of a wetland permit as are reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes of this section. To the extent
necessary for the regulated activity to take place without adverse impact on the wetland, such conditions may
include, without limitation:
(A) Requiring that strucriires be elevated on piles and otherwise protected against natural or man-made hazards;
(B) Modifying waste disposal and water supply facilities;
(C) Requiring deed restrictions concerning future use and subdivision of lands, including, without limitation,
preservation of undeveloped areas as open space and restrictions on vegetation removal;
(D) Restricting the use of an area, which may be greater than the regulated area;
(E) Requiring erosion control and storm water management measures;
(F) Clustering structures;
(G) Restricting fill, deposit of soil, and other activities which may be detrimental to a wetland;
(H) Modifying the project design to ensure continued water supply or other necessary protections for the purpose
of maintaining wctland functions;
Requiring or restricting maintenance of a regulated area for the purpose of maintaining wetland functions; and
(J) Requiring submission and approval of a mitigation plan as set forth in subsection (i) of this section.
(2) Financial Guarantee: The city manager will require a financial guarantee in an amount, and with surety and
conditions, sufficient to secure compliance with the conditions and limitations set forth in the permit. The
financial guarantee may be any of the options set forth in sections 9-2-20, "Required Improvements and Financial
Guarantees," and 9-12-13, "Subdivider Financial Guarantees," B.R.C. 1981.
(i) Mitigation Plan:
(1) Mitigation Plan Required: As a condition of a wctland permit issued under this section, the city manager, the
planning board or the city council may require a mitigation plan. A mitigation plan requires the applicant to
engage in the restoration or creation of wetlands in order to offset, in whole or in part, the losses resulting from
that applicant's actions. This mitigation plan shall not be an alternative to the standards set forth in subsection (g)
of this section, but shall be used only to compensate for unavoidable losses. In making a determination of whether
a mitigation plan will be required, and the degree to which it is required, the following factors will be considered:
(A) The type and value of the altered wetland's functions, the functions and associated resources to be impaired or
destroyed as a result of the proposed regulated activity, and the ecological equivalency of the restored or created
wctland. In considering whether cite restored or created wctland is the ecological equivalent to the wetland
impaired or destroyed, the city manager will accept an evaluation of functional values comparing the wetland
impaired or destroyed and the proposed restored or created wetland using the Advanced Identification of
Wetlands in the City of Boulder Comprehensive Planning Area (1988), by D. Cooper, Ph.D., or the Wetlands
Replacement Evaluation Procedure (1992), by F,nvironmental Concern Inc., or the Wetlands Evaluation
Technique (1987), issued by the United States Department of the Army, or similar techniques. In interpreting the
provisions of this section, the plaruting board may adopt design standards;
(E3) The type, size, and location of the. altered wctland and gains or losses of this particular type of wctland in the
liuulder Valley planning area and in the area of the altered wctland; and
The cost and probability of success of the mitigation measures.
(2) Mitigation P]an Requirements:
(Aj A mitigation plan shall contain:
(i) An evaluation of all of the factors set forth in paragraph (i)(1) of this section;
(ii) "Che location and ownership of the proposed mitigation site;
(iii) M evaluation of the suitability of the proposed mitigation site for establishing the restored or created
wctland;
(iv) 'fhe source and ownership of any water to be used for establishing or maintaining the restored or created
wetland;
(v) A description of the sizes and types of wetlands to be impaired or destroyed and restored or created;
(vi) "The site hydrology of the restoration or creation area;
(vii) A maintenance program for a period of not less than five years, including, without limitation, weed control,
litter and debris removal, watering, repair of water control structures, maintenance of vegetation and wildlife
habitat, and clearing of culverts;
(viii) A description of any critical elements and possible problems that may influence the success of the project;
(ix) A timetable for construction and monitoring;
(x) A monitoring program; and
(xi) A demonstration of fiscal, administrative, and technical competence to successfully execute the overall
project.
(B) The guidelines for the selection of a location for a wetland restoration or creation project will consider the
following order of geographic preferences in the context of the goals of this section:
(i) On-site;
(ii) Adjacent to the site;
(iii) Within the watershed of the existing wetland;
(iv) Within the Boulder Valley planning area; or
(v} 1n unusual cases, outside the Boulder Valley planning area.
(C) In a mitigation plan, replication of the same or greater wetland functional value is required, unless a wetland
of a different type or in a different location is justified based on the functions and values of the wetland which is
proposed to be altered.
(D) The guidelines for wetland compensation indicating the amount of wetland area to be restored or created
compared to wetland area destroyed or impaired are as in table 3-1 of this section.
TABLE 3-'1: WETLAND COMPENSAT[ON
SignificanF Wetlands Other rx'~tlands
Creation 2:1 1.5:1
Restoration 1.5:1 1:1
Lower or higher ratios may be considered if justified. laor example, lower ratios may he considered f'or the
following:
(i) Demonstrated long-term success of similar restoration or creation plans;
(ii) In-kind restoration or creation rather than out-of--kind;
(iii) On-site mitigation rather than off-site;
(iv) Similarity of functions in the restored or created wetland compared to the wetland functions destroyed or
impaired; and
(v) Prompt replacement of wetland functions.
(3) Mitigation Banking Program: Upon adoption of a wetland mitigation banking program by the city council, if
the city manager, the planning board or the city council determines that the public interest is better served, a fee
may be accepted in lieu of direct action on.the part of the applicant to initiate a wetland restoration or wetland
creation project to offset wetland destruction or impairment from the permitted activity. Pees for compensation of
wetland destruction or impairment will be set based upon the amount that would be required to perform
equivalent wetland restoration or creation. Such fees shall be held for the express use of wetland restoration and
creation projects, including, without limitation, the acquisition of water rights for the use of compensatory
mitigation.
(4) Financial Guarantee: Prior to receiving a final certificate of occupancy, the applicant and any successor owner
of any portion of the property subject to a wetland permit shall either complete the mitigation or provide a
financial guarantee in an amount sufficient to guarantee the performance of the mitigation plan. If a building
permit is not required for a proposed activity, a financial guarantee is required prior to issuance of a wetland
permit. The guarantee shall be in an amount necessary to secure the full costs, as deternlined by the city manager,
of construction and monitoring as described in the approved mitigation plan. 1'he city manager will annually
review the guarantee to assure that it meets the full current cost ot'constnrcting the improvements whose
installation it secures. The manager may require the applicant to amend the guarantee to meet such current costs.
The financial guarantee may be in any of the forms as described in subsection 9-12-13(f), B.R.C. 1981. If the
financial guarantee is in the form of the escrow of flrnds, the city manager will take the measures described in
subsection 9-12-13(g), B.R.C. 1981, to ensure that the funds are maintained in an appropriate manner.
(j) Mitigation Monitoring and Release of Mitigation Plan Responsibilities:
(1) The applicant and any successor owner of any portion of any property subject to a wetland permit is
responsible for the implementation of any related wetland mitigation plan for up to five years from the date of
completion of construction and planting of all vegetation required by the plan and acceptance of such construction
and planting by the city manager.
(2) Any failure of a mitigation plan during the five-year monitoring period shall be remedied by the applicant and
any successor owner of any portion of the property, who shall be jointly and severally liable to the city for the
costs of such remedy. Any such failt?re shall trigger a new guarantee period of equivalent length. The city
manager will release the financial guarantee at the end of the monitoring period if the original goals of the plan
have been achieved.
(k) Expiration of Wetland Permit:
(1) A wetland permit expires three years after the date of final approval, if:
(A) A building permit has not been issued and constnuction has not commenced; or
(B) No building permit is required and construction has not commenced.
(2) Por good cause, an applicant or any successor owner of any portion of land subject to a wetland permit may
request an extension of an original permit by filing an application with the city manager prior to the expiration
date of the permit, for up to an additional three year period. The city manager may deny the request if good cause
is not shown, if the original intent of the permit is altered or extended by the renewal, or if the applicant failed to
abide by the terms of the original permit.
(1) Enforcement:
(1) In order to carry out the provisions of this section, the city manager may cuter upon private land not otherwise
open to the public in a reasonable and lawful manner, with reasonable notice to the owner or manager of the
property during reasonable business hours for the purposes of inspection and observation.
i~t
(2) If denied access to any property or building, the city manager may apply to the municipal court for a search
warrant or administrative inspection warrant.
(3) The city manager may suspend or revoke a wetland permit pursuant to the procedures set forth in sections 4-1-
10, "Revocation of Licenses," and 4-1-11, "Revocation Not Exclusive Penalty," B.R.C. 1981. Permits may be
suspended or revoked for a failure to comply with the provisions of the permit.
(4} In addition to other remedies, the city manager will have the following powers:
(A) In the event of a violation, the city manager will have the power to issue an appropriate order to any person
responsible for a violation of this section and to the property owner. In the order, the manager may specify the
initial corrective measures required, including, without limitation, wetland restoration and creation measures for
the destroyed or impaired wetland. If the responsible person or property owner does not complete such measures
within the time required by the order, or request an administrative hearing by the city manager within seven days
of the issuance of such order, the city may restore the affected wetland to its prior condition and restore or create
other wetlands for the purpose of offsetting losses sustained as a result of the violation. The person responsible
for the original violation and the property owner shall be liable to the city for the cost of such actions in addition
to any fines that may be levied by the municipal court for violating this section.
(B) If any property owner fails or refuses to pay, when due, any charges imposed pursuant to this section, the city
manager may charge the costs against the financial guarantee, pursue other collection remedies, and certify due
and unpaid charges, including interest, to the Boulder County Treasurer to be levied against the person's property
for collection by the county in the same manner as delinquent general taxes upon such property are collected, as
provided by section 2-2-12, "City Manager May Certify Taxes, Charges, and Assessments to County Treasurer
For Collection," B.R.C. 1481.
(C) To guide wetland restoration and wetland creation actions, the city manager may order the violator to develop
and amend a plan as described in subsection (h) of this section.
(m) Emergency Exemption: The city manager may suspend any portion of this section in the event of an
emergency situation which thzeatens irreparable harm to the health, safety or welfare of the inhabitants of the city
or the city's planning area or to the city's environment.
(n) Regulations: The city manager may adopt rules and regulations that tl:e manager dete.~-cnines ale reasonably
necessary to implement the requirements of this section.
ATTACHMENT D
CITY OI' QOULDER
DRAM1'
PLANNING I30AIZD ACTION MINUTES I+~R PUBLIC
HEARING ITEM #13
November 20, 2008
A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years)
are retained in Central Kecords (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also
available on the web at: http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
KC Becker
Willa Johnson
Andrew Shoemaker
Phil Shull, Chair
Adrian Sopher
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Bill Ilolicky
Elise Jones
STAFF PRESENT:
David Gehr, Assistant City Atton~ey
Kuth McI}eyser, Executive Director of Community Planning
Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner
Susan Richstone,
Katie Knapp,
Stacy Cole, Acting Reservoir and Aquatics Coordinator
Beverly Johnson,
Frank Young,
Glenn .Magee,
Susan Honse, Administrative Assistant
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, P. Shull declared a quorum at 6:09 PM and the following business was conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3. Pt1BLIC PAR'l,1CIPn'I'ION
None
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOAR.I) CALL-UPS
S. AC'T'ION ITF,MS
A. Public hearing and recommendation to City Council on proposed policy options for
changing the Wetlands Protection Ordinance (Chapter 9-3, B.R.C.) including:
1) definitions for wetlands, streams, and water bodies;
2) a methodology for categori~cing wetlands and determining buffer widths;
and
3) anew buffer zone approach.
Case Manager: Beverly Johnson
Staff Presentation
S. Richstone, 13. Johnson and K. Knapp presented the item to the board.
Public Hearing
Patty Angerer, 2225 Bluebell Avenue, Slcunk Creek, Boulder spoke in support of the
proposed three-zone system and expressed concerns over enforcement.
Barb Kostanick, 355 W Arapahoe Lane, Boulder spoke in support of the proposed
three-zone system and asked clarification as to rebuilding homes in the buffer if a
catastrophic loss occurs.
Alan Olson, 497 Arapahoe, Bvulder spoke in support of the proposed three-zone
system.
Tom Blumenthal, 351 W Arapahoe Lane, Boulder, spvke in support of the proposed
tlu-ee-zone system and asked clarification as to rebuilding homes in the buffer if a
catastrophic loss occurs.
Chris Vincent, 1213 17`h Street, Boulder spoke in support of the proposed three-zone
system and asked about specific timelines.
B. Johnson replied that the city will end phase two by end of February 2009 and further
stated t}le city would like to finalise an ordinance and have it adopted by June 2009.
Craig Bundy, 74.5 Jonquil Place, Boulder spoke in support of the proposed three-zone
system and preferred a setback from the wetland being no greater than the property line.
Board Discussion
A. Sopher asked staff to address enforcement issues that Patty Angerer raised.
K. Knapp stated that the neighbor took a fence down and provided a suz-vey to staff that
indicated the fence was six feet within their property line. P. Angerer applied for a
permit to repair the fence however, the fence was to be rebuilt in another location and
therefore was not deemed a "repair." P. Angerer has since gone through an adverse
possession case and won, and therefore was able to show ownership of the property and
has since been ~,~ranted the permit.
W. Johnson asked if there is a map, or overlay, within our system to use as a guide for
any kind of changes on property and asked if they are enforced on a consistent basis.
K. Knapp stated that the wetlands and flood maps are used to check every application,
consistently.
W. Johnson stated that there seem to he conflicts within the chart.
B. Johnson acknowledged the conf]icts and indicated that staff is working on resolving
those conflicts.
W. Johnson asked if therr is a limit to only wind, fire or flood as slated in the
memorandum, page
D. Gehr stated that terminology is used by way of example and further stated the
provision in the nonconformance regulation has a list that states "in another calamity or
act of God".
P. Shull asked about damage due to age such as collapse or deterioration.
D. Gehr said the code states that one can take a building that is unsafe and put it back to
a safe state.
A. Shoemaker asked about the additions that do not enlarge the existing footprint.
B..Johnson stated that a wetland permit isn't required if the addition isn't enlarging the
existing footprint.
W. Johnson supported the three-•rone system.
P. Shull agreed and further suggested that use restrictions can be defined.
A. Sopher asked if Mr. Olson was concerned with the added sentence in statement 4,
which states in part; activities that destroy or diminish the quantity, guulity and
biological diversity of wetlands, streams, water bodies and adjacent buffers because that
would include preexisting homes of things that would destroy and diminish.
Mr. Olson acknowledged that is one example and felt that the overall tone of the
legislative intent is prejudicial against single-family homes although it was designed to
reign in developers. I le further stated that the property owners are stewards of their land
and felt there should be more balance to the private property owners in the ordinance.
P. Shull asked Mr. Olson to give his opinion as to why the residences of West Arapahoe
neighborhood have taken on the wetlands management issues more dramatically than
other neighborhoods that are also tied to Boulder Creek. He also appreciated that the
residences of West Arapahoe have been positive and civil in their discords and said the
outcome of the ordinance will be better because of that.
Mr. Olson stated that the Wcst Arapahoe area is one of the oldest neighborhoods in
13oulder and has a very unique topography. Nineteen out of the 33 homes are in the
buffer lone. He further stated that even if their area was grandfathered he didn't feel a
strong sense that the property owners would not, at some point, be in violation of the
usage of our properties.
P. Shull asked staff to confirm if this area is a unique condition and questioned if a subset
of regulations should be applied to West Arapahoe.
K. Knapp stated that because of the slope there are some unique features. She further
stated some examples of that would be the large grade change and it being one of the
most used sections of I3ouldcr Creek for recreation. She added that this area is more
regulated than others and there are a Iot of discussions about exempting private pathways
to the creek on their properties. She said research doesn't support ending the buffer at the
top of the steep slope.
Joanna Seiler, 4S5 Arapahoe, Boulder, responded to the earlier question from P. Shull
of why West Arapahoe is unique. She provided a photo of• the property taken in 1894
after- the flood. She explained that the photo shows the elevation and unique features of
the property and further stated that she feels the SO ft. buffer zone is taking away her
property rights, the property she pays taxes on.
W. Johnson stated that the discussions on legislative intent have been instructive and
helpful. She suggested a fi fth category acknowledging the balance of property rights,
'C" Y
because otherwise we wouldn't be providing exceptions in the third zone. She stated that
most of the city was built before we contemplated buffer zones and there may be an
intrinsic conflict.
A. Sopher supported W. Johnson's suggestion and did not believe that the ordinance
addresses the property owners concerns over use of their existing residences. He said the
issue of balance should be addressed.
ll. Gehr said the suggestion was consistent in the intent.
P. Shull asked if the board had suggestions on definitions, legislative intent, or items
listed under the staff recommendation.
W. Johnson recommended adding in the earlier discussion of balance.
A. Sopher questioned whether item 2 was previously done in the mapping and asked if it
was now being rolled into the ordinance.
B. Johnson stated that the ordinance describes a new method of categorizing wetlands
and said staff would come back with new maps and new buffer areas. She said there are
currently 25 ft. and 50 ft. buffer areas on the adopted maps based on the significance of
the wetland, however, very few buffer areas are 25 ft. She added that several buffer areas
would be reduced to 25 ft. since more wetlands will fall into category B.
P. Shull asked for clarification on whose charge it would be to change from category A
to B and vise-versa. Fle presumed if it is the charge of the municipality it would be over
the objections of the property owner adjacent to that group.
B. Johnson stated the city would only be inclined to do so under a request by a group of
land owners or with a major remapping of the whole system. She did not anticipate the
city initiating a functional rc-evaluation of an individual wetland or stream without a
request from landowners.
P. Shull stated the board concurs with the overall objective to protect a resource and said
there is a need to balance property owner's rights and usage.
B. Johnson asked if the board is recommending that staff review and refine the three-
zone system.
W. Johnson stated that the three-zone system better addresses the objectives with less
digression and less cost and would be more clear.
K. Beelccr asked if there was an appeals process or variance.
S. Riehstone acknowledged there would be an appeals process.
P. Shull stated that we should be working out the nuances by reviewing the ordinance
line by line and work toward a standard.
K. Becker asked if it would be possible to place a cap on mounting permit fees.
A. Sopher stated that the ordinance should be clear and concise io inform the property
owner of what is approvable and what is not. lle added that the ordinance should state the
appeals and variance process clearly.
P. Shull stated that the fees have not been established.
B..lohnson said once the process is in place, staff will be able to determine the cost
recovery. She said the fees will then be recalculated.
P. Shull stated that the board is very sensitive to keeping the costs affordable.
A. Sopher stated that the ordinance should be general enough where it can be reasonably
interpreted .
- . G-
' City of Boulder ATTACHMENT E
Revisions to the Wetlands Protection
, Ordinance .
~o` January 7, 2009
o~ eoJ
Open House
Comment Form
Do you have any comments on the proposed changes to the Wetlands
• Protection Ordinance?
_ ~ -
r~ ~ 5 ice, ~ ~G/1 (c~
~ ~
c ~
~ ~ . ~ ~
Other suggestions for changing the ordinance'?
r~
Questions or issues that you would like addressed later in the process/? ----1--
~ ~ f~~ - ~ -,S~c~r n' _ ~C.~ } ~ ~C~c~Gr~v/1-e.f~ ~iJ7
-
s~ ~ ~v ~
Please use the back of this form for additional comments.
Web site: www.boulderplandevelop.net >Wetlands Protection Program
Please leave this comment form at the welcome table.
You may also send your comments or questions by e-mail to wetlands@bouldercolorado.gov or mail to the City of Boulder,
Planning and Development Services, c/o Bev Johnson, P.O. Box 79~, Boulder, CO 80306 or ca113o3-44-3272•
If you would like to be notified about this project in the future, please subscribe to the~'nds. wetlands"email list, L
Name GCu~ l~C/'1 G~ :J ~ tj C~~( W/-~ IZ'~1C~ ~ ~1~I1 rl~'~
Street Address, Zip ~-1 ~ ~ ~ ~
Phone u ~ I ~ ~ ~
F.-mail I
~ ~ v
.
• ~ City of Boulder
Revisions to the Wetlands Protection
, ~ Ordinance
~o`` January 7, 2009
~°J Open House ,If~I
~J1~
Comment Form
Do you have any comments on the proposed changes to the Wetlands
Protection Ordinance? 1~5~0( t-o Ka~'ie ~ru?
~ ~so plea 5c re-~~r fo m (e }~c~ d u ~J , Pry
Ilc ~~J 'I~rn~~ e~q}~d e DS+ has man r~h~b~~-cd r ac~ivifics in -}he s-~r~a~? ~h~nn~~,
Con,~~ycf~urt -~IaUd ~or~t?ol ~w~?yvtMrn~ D?Q?f~fs o(~~n ~n~v)yr : anv elr~+mf5 -~ha~ a« na~J
PrOh~~~ SUt~1 as rv~s~r'aclt~ p~ nfv ~ re ~,t,~,w~ of l~olh~rnanrc cttrt~~ '~r+ir~5 ~urFulc,
~ q~ir rrrhu e?~~ IgndSra ~mun(io ~ ~ M ~fdhi~iil~i~E ~hf',c A ~ y~rin a vu ian~L ~ou1J ~e..
Ytti c r~ e ~ y rrc~sc o Ic, Whch ~"hec Qr~ dons as ~~i~ o~F- A_ IG~~{_r slr~a?~ ~hunnc~-
a r Other ~ gg
stions
for c~haiiging the ordin~anc'e~ hi 6i +
~I ~ _ j~rcc~ de~he ?'r1Wr.1~~(_ I41(~ ~ -
j ~-v,~~~tArr ~i MrY nr (/n ~Afc v?tit/I~ .Sr~ari~ ~I S~"il~ ~JG X~t~,~~ 11~~
~ ~y - "For `c~isiihu ~'-('oi~d consul str~ic~~~v~s'' s~dr M~N~t ~cmv~nl ~shp~ ld b~ cxaw~~ f
Questions or~ssues that you wotild lze addressed later in the process?
~`2G - m oar s~lrc~w? ~r,k si~abiirzah~or~ is d one ih . -}ht ~tcum - ~ 0~+1~ A ih~l!~~ a'F. bR ?
f
rrhl p /tftcr %vK
r VV h~ ~ 1~ ~hti p~otcss -~r ~G ~'sih u ~ da hn~"hi
s dab o n ~ ~ 5 ~ P~__ cd
Sari usrn rt~ You may we+t~ to make Somme Gt~„ e~- -
~ y
Please use the back of this form for additional comments.
Web site: www.boulder~landevelo .net >Wetlands Protection Program
Please leave this comment form at the welcome table.
You may also send your comments or questions by e-mail to wetlands@boulderc:olorado.gov or mail to the City of Boulder,
Planning and Development Services, c/o Bev .Iohnson, P.O. Box 79i, Boulder, CO 80306 or call go3-4~}1-3272•
If you would like to be notified about this project in the future, please subscribe to the " ds-wetlands"email list:
Name C(t, ~ira~h ~1 r~~~ rains r I~ad Con 1e I Uist-rrc~'
Street .Address, 'Lip ~•~i$D W, ~GT'~ g 15G B , Dr~vc rn Sv 2 ~
Phone X03- `l55- 6 Z~~ -
r.--mail C rNOh d c
~7 f~ !
~I'~ '~ht fi Grl~4h QrCLf T -roc ~ GVl ~ ~ ~<Vrc~~7 i5 IU ?(l1lC-
~8~ fond'! ~ w~ nfcJ "~D YtMvyC d2a~ `Fr~cs ~~ul- GVG
s~-~,n~mu or ~al~ing - X10-4 st.~rc h«,~ ~hi~, ,~s ~vv~~~
01 ay.J fat r
~Mt ~ t~) ~ s f ~ 5 d ~°V a
rot t C'Ii" - caw ~u~rt. Vna, ~-clnav~c,
ot` ,rn~t-r r.~ ~ ~ ~o-r '~Yur~ °I C `~l V1 U °1~ y~lrol~
C+~ 5 v 1M l` ~ ?
City of Boulder
Revisions to the Wetlands Protection '
, Q Ordinance
~o` ]anuary 7, 2009
o~
Open House
Comment Form
Do you have any comments on the proposed changes to the Wetlands
Protection LLrdinance? t f n/~
~ r ^ h (lL \ I ` I- ~ C-k ?1 C.'- l`~.F n r }I ~ : ~ iV ~,rF T~) r l Cj' S ~~i'~nl,iw ~ t ~Ji 71 1' i:+~2.
(1 ii f,~~ Zl% C;2 5~~~ ~^"Xi l~> ~l~". iG~`~1/ J l~ ~n(;.~Z ~.ft~t%~ ~a2~=a.-J -
Il")~:,~ ~.iu~~' Cv~trt;t ~'~rr;~t-r4 n.,~ Ofil,zr 11~c,,:r4Ln~t~t pr~'t
J3_S l?uy'~Z ~`S~f(~-f~,~ R_' {e;-n~;
c- ~-Ir--
r't~' ^+~--C ~hrJ 'Jlli f~ ~I Z h~ brt~~ - vi~.tL.F, C,;;,f , ;
t5t-11-~ 1(i+v citjt^l S
Cc(L~S for ~ l%n~ ~"1~2 fl,'~
m~~~ b~:-,K. 5 t•uh r .~,<<.-.,, ; , ~ .a f.~~ c; ~~t ~ r~~ -i hUr ~~c: ~c,r2('-y
Other suggestions for changing the ordinance? -';,~u,z`Ur ~'~--trv~~•~ 41~.~ s'~'r~.~'•.{
J ~J ~ ~ (-'G~r-1;( ~r~ ~=lt--~ 'c.-~~~e~~ 4!hlJ (t(,'t.~t..~l f'h.,i C.'C..y A ~..~c:1VEl - V'as~.'r.a.+~~ pn~~
~4.. r~ j1(L~SCr't-`~ ~ 1-2. ~t 1.2 f:~i-(1~ S~:r' -:,~l--~f~~
~ t-t'..~rU-w-.: ~(-C7G-.: ~,r,
Questions or issues that you would like addressed later in the process?
Please use the back of this form for additional comments.
Web site: www boulderplandevelop.net >Wetlands Protection Program
Please leave this comment form at the welcome table.
You may also send your commeirts or questions by e-mail to wetlands f~bouldercolorado.gov or mail to the City of Boulder,
Planning and Development Services, c/o Bev Johnson, P.O. Box 79i, Boulder, CO 80306 or call 303-441-3272•
If you would like to be notified about this project in the future, please subscribe to the "pds-wetlands" email list.
Name r'~ l ~ (,-2.nk; - C ~~c; „s ~
Street Address, Zip i`Sy ~ t«~u ly ~l ~u `f ` ~ ~ ~ ~
Phone ~ ~ 3' ~ t
E-mail ~ enlc..t ~ ` . „~.x:.vtx~, c irh
- ~ z
e43•'l`~ - ~•K,tj~. .~Gne. .~_:.`t c~ ~LS< '•Lti1Y:c••h.•! M ~,~^<.l iYw-~ tyrn+ ~u lk (erv~
C-~:~.-, C~•,~~5 C;.p. Ii~Fc ~ C.-t~ v ~~k~ ti-k-. F'+vL~ ).{.}S). ~~'~.c,l~ it~
fL1i ~'~SA I J k~:,n(? C
~,~u ,aL
ill f~:,'f' C~z~-:~.~1n~ ~ 5 kx.~,s, W~~I~.,, ~ 5 t~ f 21~,-i ~ f~. i l.~ C. -ter
nn l /~?s
f~1 U $1 l/ Y'r` r~S~ ~im.~ ore ~'rPt.-f : Lk-¢ ~{t.-~ k'nFv.~•c~+oAw t~'e wt I1 liJ
J V p,
v
• ~y ~Sc` ~t 1~'. C 1 Gr; `r r r •tr ~•1f~~, s 1.~.~2-~{, ~ f i, ~ ~,~:Li~Ic~S i- S ~-~~r
r ~ ,
V lC1/ ~1,(%1 ~(~'~l fj..'lu+~cn (..'Pl~t:n ~(•?)i(/.•~: -t'.1 C•'1/ v~n~lli ,~~+-4 C!/~? (~iL.n~J (~!~~i,'+-~J
U
ATTACHMENT F
Public Comments from Neighborhood Meetings in Fall 2008
Wetlands ~1,rapahoe Neil;hborhood Meeting
City of Boulder-Summazy Notes prepared by Teresa
"Tuesday 10/21/08 from 6 to 8 pm
Most property owners favor 3 zone approach. Wetland boundary adjacent to Boulder Creek,
inner protected buffer zone (narrow width}, outer buffer zone (exempt from all permits).
Exclude existing structures & existing activities (grandfather provision that runs in perpetuity
with the land).
Issues:
• Whole community benefits from Boulder Creek. Yet, City's pays nothing to cover
wetlands costs/permits. Residential property owner has l 00% burden/cost.
• No value to excessive time spent by private property owners.
• "Taking" of our private property rights. Restricts use of our private property.
• Some homeowners own land underneath Creek to the north side of the creek. Whole
community benefits. Property owner pays real estate taxes on public land. Half of the lot
included in buffer lone. I lomeowner taxed 100%. Need to reduce real estate property
taxes. Not able to use 100% of own private property.
• Wetland boundaries are not clearly identified. Needs clarification:
? Wetland boundary plus 50 foot buffer?
? Low/high water mark? Average water mark'?
•3 Regulatory boundary too large.
F_.dge of wetland & each buffer zone. Where does each line begin & end?
Maps ignore topography.
• (ardinance (law) needs to be written in a way the property owner can understand.
• Exempt activities in outer buffer zone. Get "big brother" government out. of our
backyards.
• Clear line between no permit & permit. Eiizninate gray areas-City notice w/ review.
• Certain square footage in outer buffer zone should be exempt.
• Land use activities need clarity.
• Pervious surfaces in homeowners backyards. 100% burden on residential property
owner. No mention of industrial & commercial use.
• Double standards. Federal/State & School Districts are exempt.
• City continues to chip away at our private property rights w/ reg~r.rlatory lines.
• Will wetlands restrictions be placed on title policy?
• Is a survey or (ILC} improvement location certificate required for each zone?
• Pezmit private property owners. Yet, tubers on creek not regulated.
~3
• City does not maintain their own property. ~ North side of Creek is "bare". No vegetation.
Issues:
• Exempt normal homeowner activities to maintain/z-epairnur existing structures. Need a
homeowner safe harbor. Location should be visible in safe zone.
• Put measuring tape 2.5' from creek for outer buffer zone.
• Map by reach.
• Adjust measurement to average height of the creek.
• Need goad faith standard/presumption for homeowners in inner zone.
• Complete exemption for outer zone 2U% or less of land.
• Redo maps for unique topography of Creek.
• Need cast effective way to move forward.
• Inner buffer zone protected slope. Outer buffer zone no permits & restrictions.
• Intensity of public use on Creek not addressed.
Staff chart (matrix):
Incansistent. Not practical. Does not address top 30 things a normal homeowner needs to do.
• #8 should be exerrzpt. Pervious surfaces should be exempt.
• #10 & #11 exemption. Not realistic. 2 feet by ] 0 feet wide is only 20 square feet.
• #7 & #18. Inconsistent regarding outer buffer zone.
• #12 & #13 arbitrary.
• #13. What about dead tree limbs in the creek?
• #15. What about maintenance of retaining walls?
City of Boulder-Summary Notes of Wetlands Arapahoe Neighborhood 10/21 /08 meeting (2
pages) taken by Teresa & edited by Gail Gordon, neighbor.
City of Boulder Wetlands Arapahoe Neighborhood Meeting
West Senivr Center
Tuesday 10/21 /08 from G to 8 pm
Meeting conducted by: Jeff Arthur, City of Boulder Engineering Review Manager, 303-441-
4418, arthurj@bouldercolorado.gov. City notes taken by Teresa. Meeting notes (6 pages) taken
& prepared by Gail Gordon, neighbor.
Ed Heath: Are these the permit costs?
Jeff Arthur: Yes, City has 100% cost recovery policy on wetlands. (Property owner bears
100% cost of~wetland permit. City cost to hire City consultants, City/Staff cost to prepare for
Planning Board & City Council meetings.)
Al Olson: City restricts use of our own prvperty, yet Boulder Creek benefits entire
community. Property owner has 100% burden of cost. Zero value for all the time spent by
prvperty owner. No City response in-kind.
Joanna Seiler: City takes away our property rights. Pay twice w/ wetland permit fees.
Jeff Arthur: What is community role in paying for Creek?
Al Olson: City needs to revisit permit cost.
Jeff Arthur: Not a grading (scale) of permit costs nvw. At a minimum, small projects should
not pay.
Al Olson: 19 of 30 lots (private property owners) from 6`f' Street west on Arapahoe Ave pay
(real estate) property taxes on land underneath of Boulder Creek that extends to north side of
Creek. % of our lots (on south side of Creek) arc in wetland buffer zone. In this 3 block area,
property owners are good stewards of land. Yet, involuntarily dedicate''/z our lot to outer buffer
zone.
Jeff Arthur: Should Community pay for benefits of Creek?
Joanna Seiler: We pay twice. 1 s` real estate property taxes, 2"`~ wetland permit & back part of our
lots restricted in buffer zone.
Jeff Arthur: C;ity wetland 10/6/08 open house, maybe 12 people attend. Two mile creek
property owners (Craig Bundy & Dick Blumenhein), their properties (dry stream) nvw being
removed from wetlands maps/ordinance. 1-low define stream.
Al Olson: Boulder Creek gets drainage from Canyon Blvd & Chautauqua.
S:\PLANIPB-ITEMSIMEMOS\bjwetlands 1.22.09.doc AGENDA 1'I'1~:~1I f3 Pa£c 2G_ . ; ~
Wetlands Arapahoe Neighborhood Meeting 10/21/08
Jeff Arthur: Consultant (City hired Alan Carpenter) to go back & look at smaller streams
(wetland {unctions). Reduce buffer zone from 50' to 25' for nonsignificant streams. Most
property owners favor 3 zone approach. What permits & work in zones.
AI Olson: Does inner buffer match wi Federal zone`? Is 3 zone approach favored by City
Counci I?
Jeff Arthur: Not sure.
Gail Gordon: Wetlands maps are inaccurate, ignore topography of land.
Wilson Crumpacker: Will property will grandfathered if sold?
Ed Heath: Whez•e is {ruler line? How measure`? Some consultants have measured buffer
zones (on south side of creek) from Arapahoe Ave at the sidewalk by the street. Does not make
sense.
A] Olson: I am representing 4 tots (1 neighbor to east, 1 neighbor to west that owns 2 lots)
plus our own property. We favor 3 zone approach, but concern w/ over regulation. 2U sq feet-
too small size.
Jeff Arthur: 20 sq feet-size of encroachment.
AI Olson: page 19. Build in outer zone 20% w/out permit.
Jeff Arthur: #10 & #I 1, 7 & #14. Not consistent.
Gail Gordon: Get rid of exempt w/ notice. Not truly exempt. No justification in Staff's writeup
for how 30% or 20 square feet came about.
Jeff Arthur: Most properties already covered by other regulations. Permit for new
development, Iloodplain.
Barb Kostanick: My house is landmarked. It takes a lot time to submit a 20 page paint
application. Permit fees not cost effective. Not easy to go thru all different levels of City
review. Are these reviews necessary? Declare activities exempt. Chart inconsistent #?7 (utility
pad not exempt), yet #I8 mechanical exempt.
AI Olson: High public impact w/ Boulder creek users. City not address industrial,
commercial development. City focus 100% unfair]y on residential property owners.
Gail Gordon: Double standards. Federal/State properties & School Districts exempt, yet they
have high public impact.
S:(PLAN\PB-ITEMSIMEMOS\bjwetiands 1.22.09.doc AGENDA C'I'EIk~ Page
Jeff Arthur: I re~eivcd phone calls from Lovedy (Barbateili) and Buff (Elting). They are
concerned that only developers can afford to pay the permit costs/fees. Long-time property
owners are not protected, unaffordable.
Joanna Seiler: Wetlands too restrictive for homeowner. Who is going to police our backyards?
Jeff Arthur: Most properties subject to other permits (existing laws other than wetlands}.
Barb Kostanick: Do we need improvement location certificates (ILC) & surveys?
Computer maps not clear on location of lines. This adds to our time & costs. We want to put in
A/C unit. Exactly where?
AI Olson: Should have good faith standard for homeowners.
Jeff Arthur: Maps done by aerial photo. Measure SO' from sidewalk. Consultant (Alan
Carpenter) made some map changes. Steep slope, greater risk.
Al Olson: Bev Johnson's argument "baloney" on slope. We have heavy vegetation, no
sediment into Creek w/ our limited use. Neighbors property to east (Gary & Nancy Carlston)
have a storm. drain that dumps water into Creek from .5' Street.
Jeff Arthur: We are not sure how to do wetlands w/ a cheap, easy solution.
Gail Gordon: City has not spent any money. Maps start at highest & widest point. Creek
already has a natural I S to 20 foot buffer zone at lowest & narrowest point.
Al Olson: Adjust 25 foot buffer. Define where it starts. Good faith judgment by property
owner. Outer buffer should be completely exempt.
Jeff Arthur: 1f below < 20%, something other than 0%. How much is existing encroachment.
Maps not being enforced.
T3arb Kostanick: Property owner safe harbor. Visible within the zone; to prove our property
right. Must be practical.
Jeff Arthur: Aerial maps. Suzy/shade, not sole standard. I-low to keep ii simple.
Al Olson: Homeowner should be able to z-un a tape down our stream bank.
Barb Kostanick: Average high water mark is current definition. Have to hire sciezztists.
Too technical- Where do they start to measure?
Al Olson: No clue when measure high water mark from sidewalk on Arapahoe street.
.Barb Kostanick: "I'oo expensive for survey. Visual map.
5:11'LAN\PB-ITEMSIMEMOS\bjwetlands 1.22.09.doc AGENDA I"TI+:1<,L~1 Pa~e~~
' Joanna Seiler: City regulatory power over reach. Back '/2 part of our lot is a public park w/
heavy use. Our neighborhood is pushing back.
Al Olson: Is any Council member (Planning Board, City Staff person) subject to wetlands?
Arbitrary law, single out residential property owners unfairly. No mention of commercial
development.
Jeff Arthur: Different impacts between residential & commercial. Pap/scrape &
redevelopment very different.
Al Olson: Statute already on book. Unfair.
Barb Kostanick: Ordinance should address 30 things a homeowner normally has to do.
Replace our deck, replace pillar supporting deck. tt2 & #4 inconsistent.
AI Olson: Deck should be exempt since on pillars. Deck already protects the slope. #8. We
should be able to have a path (steps) to the creek (our south side). Unlimited public access on
north side of Creek (public park Iand).
Wilson Crumpacker: We care about the Creek & maintain our ecological strcarn bank. 1-Ieavy
vegetation, flood protection. City pollute creek w/ Library (parking lot) runoff.
Jane Ann I Iebert: Need common sense approach. No vegetation on north bank of Creek,
bare, pollute w/ pets, tubers. City requires us to get a permit, but does not regulate all the iubers
going down the Creek.
Barb Kostanick: Our backyard has pervious surface. Residential vs. commercial
development. We go down the creek bank maybe once a month. We do not want administrative
review. #12. < 30%. What if tree branch falls dawn? Step back & ask "Where have problems
been?" Stream bank erosion, maintain retaining walls.
Jeff Arthur: City has policy to let Boulder Creek flood.
Wilson Crumpacker: Improve habitat w/ dead trees. Cottonwood trees 100-120 years old. City
not planting new trees & managing. Need to maintain integrity of stream bank.
Jeff Arthur: Common sense approach. ,
Barb Kostanick: City tightly regulate stream bank & wetland. Our concern is our houses.
City make a List of "top 30 things" any homeowner needs to do to their house & exempt w/ no
review. Permit only if expand existing footprint of structure.
Jeff Arthur: 'Trade off: Stream bank to top bank.
Joanna Seiler: City not measure. "I'op of slope is our property right.
Jeff Arthur: Ownership of stream, conservation easement.
S:IPLAN\PB-ITEMS\MI~;MOS\bjwetlands 1.22.09.doc AGLNllA ITEN1~,1i~ Pa~~
Wilson Crumpacker: What about environmental group like Trust for Public Lands?
Al Olson: I am not in favor o{. a conservation easement. It is our private property. City
already taken our land. We pay real estate taxes on land underneath Creek that continues in
perpetuity. We want reduction in our property taxes for the wetland area. Our concern is that
wetlands ordinance/boundary shows up on title policy & further restricts our use.
Jeff Arthur: City restricts use by zoning. Verify w/ City Attorney.
Barb Kostanick: Our house landmark status shows up on the title policy. Different uses &
intensity. Our side Creek (south) has low impact. Ordinance is one-size fits all. High
recreational use & public access on north side of Creek bank that is bare.
Wilson Crumpacker: T:nvironmental concerns need to balance w/private property.
Al Olson: It is our private property. Favor 3 zone approach. Exempt normal activities.
Cost. Where is end of buffer'? Need different approach.
. Jeff Arthur: Spilt between zones. Maybe inner buffer zone 15 feet restricted & outer buffer
zone 35 feet.
Teresa: Where are boundaries?
Ed ILeath: This table is 20 sduare feet.
Jeff Arthur: Next Arapahoe wetlands meeting is "Thursday 10/30/08. Teresa to type up her
notes 8c send to Jeff by c-mail to distribute to everyone.
Meeting attended by following Arapahoe nei hbors:
Wilson C,rumpacker 3l 5 Arapahoe Ave #304 at Shadow Creek Condos representing 24 units.
AI Olson 497 Arapahoe Ave
Al Olson w/ 3 proxy votes (Gary & Leslie Lacy 485 Arapahoe Ave, Gary & Leslie Lacy 495
Arapahoe Ave, Gary & Nancy Carlston 515 Arapahoe Ave)
3oanna Seiler 455 Arapahoe Ave
Ed I-Leath 465A Arapahoe Ave
Farb Kostanick 355 West Arapahoe Lane
Jane Aral Hebert 363 West Arapahoe Lane
Gail Gordan 377 West Arapahoe Lane
Phone call to Jeff Arthur from Lovecly Barbatelli 44l Arapahoe Ave
Phone call to Jc{f Arthur from Buff 1-,ling 555 Arapahoe Ave
S:\I'I_,AN\PB-ITEMS\MI~,MOS\bjwetiands 1.22.09.doc AGENDA ITE;iVli Page