HomeMy WebLinkAbout9i ReAnalysis2 TQ NWCrossing WatercourseCompliance ltr w responses 10_13_20
_______________________________________________________________________________
1
Danielle Garber, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Bozeman
20 East Olive St.
PO Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771
October 7, 2020
RE: ReAnalysis (2a): Northwest Crossing Wetland and Watercourse Regulation Conformance
Applicant Responses 10/13/2020
______________________________________________________________________________
Dear Danielle,
The Northwest Crossing Subdivision proposed site plan submittal was reviewed by TerraQuatic (TQ) on
December 30, 2019 for adherence to City of Bozeman watercourse regulations. Responses to the TQ analysis
were submitted by Morrison Maierle in the document “responses to Comments January/February 2020” along
with a revised February 2020 2018 delineation report. On April 15, 2020 TerraQuatic (TQ) issued a re-
analysis of the resubmittal.
Information requested in the TQ April 15 analysis was submitted to the City and sent to TQ at the end of
August 2020; Proponent responses to the TQ 4/15/20 analysis was dated 7/21/20. In error, this response was
not identified by TQ within the August submittal information and therefore the 8/28/20 TQ analysis did not
reflect efforts by the project Proponents to supply the requested information.
Items listed in the TQ April 15, 2020 analysis that were deemed Inadequate Responses as of 4/15/20 are in
red font. Proponent responses written on 7/21/20 are copied below the TQ 4/15/20 analysis; responses that
remain Inadequate or Incomplete are listed in orange font.
➢ Delineation Report
Response Adequate: Drawing C120 (9-24-19) has been revised and project proponents purport that
CAD files include data that differentiate between channel and wetland areas. An updated delineation
report (2_2020 revised 2018 report) was provided to the City reflecting length and acreages of
waterways and wetland acreages.
(#1. Omitted, former response Adequate.)
2. The aquatic resources map included in the report requires the following edits (but not limited to):
o TQ 10/7/20 Analysis: Response Adequate:
(See revised 7/21/20 2018 delineation report for specific information, Proponent’s
response not repeated below.)
• Information provided in the February 2020 revised 2018 delineation report are adequate.
• Off-site wetlands have been identified.
• The roadside ditch along East Baxter ROW has been delineated and is considered a
wetland (100% vegetated).
ReAnalysis (2a): Headwaters Academy, Inc. Wetland and Watercourse Regulation Conformance October 7, 2020
_______________________________________________________________________________
2
➢ Exhibit: 5 MSP1.5 Homestead Park Vision
1. It is unclear throughout exhibit 5 MSP1.5 Homestead Park Vision where Zone 2 Watercourse
Setback limits occur.
o TQ 4/15/20 Analysis: Response Inadequate: Regarding Baxter Creek aquatic resources:
with the exception of trail locations, no other amenities, such as that provided for Baxter Ditch
(playgrounds, picnic areas, etc) has been provided for the Baxter Creek area (wetlands, buffer
zones or watercourse).
Proponent 7/21/20 Response:
Detailed design for any crossings, enhancements or amenities along Baxter Creek to be provided
at time of site plan submittal for development of parcels adjacent to Baxter Creek.
TQ 10/7/20 Analysis: Incomplete due to design still in progress. Clarify ground materials
with design review and/or recreation committees. If there are no impermeable surfaces, such
as. e.g. pavers, concrete or asphalt, then design of these areas within Zone 2 are acceptable.
A brief watercourse regulation analysis will be required when development site plans
are submitted to the City.
RESPONSE: Understood. Information will be provided at the appropriate time as part of
other entitlements process and not part of the MSP as it is not required at this time.
2. It appears that some areas of Zone 2 will be utilized by homeowners (as indicated by perpendicular
trails (?) leading to the main trail)? How will these areas be protected from fill?
o TQ 4/15/20 Analysis: Response Inadequate: Information for Baxter Creek, Baxter Ditch,
or irrigation ditch along north boundary not available to date.
Proponent 7/21/20 Response:
Detailed design for any crossings, cut of fill along watercourses to be provided at time of site
plan submittal for development of parcels adjacent to watercourses.
TQ 10/7/20 Analysis: Incomplete due to design still in progress. Illustration of permanent
impact illustration to watercourse setbacks are required.
A brief watercourse regulation analysis will be required when development site plans
are submitted to the City.
RESPONSE: Understood. Information will be provided at the appropriate time as part of
other entitlements process and not part of the MSP as it is not required at this time.
3. The intent of Zone 1 is to leave unmaintained, except for weed control, will Zone 1 be left
unmowed?
o TQ 4/15/20 Analysis: Response Inadequate: Information not available to date.
Proponent 7/21/20 Response:
Proposed maintenance in Zone 1 to be consistent with City requirements. Further detail on
maintenance to be provided at time of site plan submittal for development of parcels adjacent to
watercourses.
TQ 10/7/20 Analysis: Incomplete due to design still in progress.
A brief watercourse regulation analysis will be required when development site plans are
submitted to the City.
ReAnalysis (2a): Headwaters Academy, Inc. Wetland and Watercourse Regulation Conformance October 7, 2020
_______________________________________________________________________________
3
RESPONSE: Understood. Information will be provided at the appropriate time as part of
other entitlements process and not part of the MSP as it is not required at this time.
4. Are there stormwater treatment facilities within the watercourse setback?
Proponent 7/21/20 Response:
Stormwater facilities are only included within the outer 20’ setback. This setback and proposed
stormwater locations are shown on MSP exhibits.
TQ 10/7/20 Analysis: Response Adequate.
➢ Exhibit: Northwest Crossing Landscape Framework
1. No watercourse setback planting plan was included in the submittal for either Baxter Ditch or
Baxter Creek (Zone 1: 100% of area shall be planted with 1 shrub/10ft; and 1 tree/30ft of channel
bed).
o TQ 4/15/20 Analysis: Response Inadequate: Information not available to date for any
watercourse areas.
Proponent 7/21/20 Response:
Detailed design for landscape and planting within watercourses shall be in compliance with City
requirements. Additional detail will be provided at time of site plan submittal for development of
parcels adjacent to watercourses.
TQ 10/7/20 Analysis: Incomplete due to design still in progress.
A brief watercourse regulation analysis will be required when development site plans are
submitted to the City.
RESPONSE: Understood. Information will be provided at the appropriate time as part of
other entitlements process and not part of the MSP as it is not required at this time.
2. What grass species will be used in the watercourse setbacks?
o TQ 4/15/20 Analysis: Response Inadequate: Information not available to date.
Proponent 7/21/20 Response:
Seed mixes and detailed design for landscape and planting within watercourses shall be in
compliance with City requirements. Additional detail will be provided at time of site plan
submittal for development of parcels adjacent to watercourses.
TQ 10/7/20 Analysis: Incomplete due to design still in progress.
A brief watercourse regulation analysis will be required when development site plans are
submitted to the City.
RESPONSE: Understood. Information will be provided at the appropriate time as part of
other entitlements process and not part of the MSP as it is not required at this time.
➢ Environmental Permitting
1. The design plans indicate Baxter Creek and Baxter Ditch wetland and streambed crossings.
Have Section 404, MDEQ 401, or MT310 permits been acquired?
o TQ 4/15/20 Analysis: Response Inadequate: Applications have not been submitted to date.
Several crossings are proposed for all watercourse, and likely also the irrigation feature along
the north boundary.
ReAnalysis (2a): Headwaters Academy, Inc. Wetland and Watercourse Regulation Conformance October 7, 2020
_______________________________________________________________________________
4
Proponent 7/21/20 Response:
• It is known that impacts to wetlands and waterways require permitting from various federal,
state and local agencies. It is anticipated that the following permits will be required for impacts
to delineated wetlands and waterways within the subject property:
o Section 404 permit from the USACE
o 310 permit from the Conservation District
▪ The conservation district performed a site visit to determine if the historic “swale” feature
was still present and would be considered jurisdictional on July 7, 2020. They have determined
that this historic drained feature is not jurisdictional and does not convey water.
o 318 Permit from the DEQ for temporary increases in turbidity associated with culverts that
are likely to be installed.
• It is not possible to submit permits for this project until exact resource impacts are calculated.
As the project becomes more fully developed, resource impacts will be calculated and permits
will be applied for from the appropriate agencies that manage these resources.
TQ 10/7/20 Analysis: Incomplete due to design still in progress.
A brief watercourse regulation analysis will be required when development site plans
are submitted to the City.
(#2 omitted; no floodplain permit required; site is not within a floodplain.)
The following statement from the TQ 4/15/20 Analysis will remain in place:
Additional Issues (9/3/20 and 10/7/20):
A. Park Inclusion Waiver Request: A stream corridor that has been enhanced to satisfy City of
Bozeman Watercourse planting plan regulations would not qualify the area as critical wildlife habitat.
Given these type of small stream corridors are within urban settings, avian and small mammals
species would undoubtedly use the corridor if enhanced with at least 30 percent hydrophytic shrub
and tree cover (willows, dogwood, cottonwood), fruit-bearing upland shrubs (chokecherry and service
berry), and aspen. However, in urban settings these corridors would likely act as a “population sink”,
e.g. a nest established by a waterfowl species within the corridor would likely be predated by
domestic animals (cats, dogs). Increasing the use of the park by including more benches, trail
crossings, work out and play stations, would negate wildlife habitat value. I do not recommend
allowing the watercourse and buffer corridor be included as part of the parkland dedication. The
corridor will be protected by the Army Corps and Engineers, the Conservation District, and the City
of Bozeman; no other preservation advantages would be gained by qualifying the area as a critical
wildlife habitat.
B. RESPONSE: A waiver is no longer being requested.
C. If the drain tiles illustrated on exhibit C120 have been disturbed and wetland features are developing,
a site visit is warranted. Please contact me to establish a time to examine the site.
Questions regarding the enclosed reanalysis and summary may be directed to: (406) 580-6993 or
lbacon@terraquaticllc.com. I am available for meetings with the developer, City Planners, or to attend
Commission meetings.
I formally send forth an apology to the City and project Proponents for missing the 7/21/20 responses to the
TQ 4/15/20 Analysis. Thank you for your patience.
ReAnalysis (2a): Headwaters Academy, Inc. Wetland and Watercourse Regulation Conformance October 7, 2020
_______________________________________________________________________________
5
Sincerely,
Lynn M. Bacon, PWS
TerraQuatic, LLC
614 west Lamme Street
Bozeman, MT 59715
(406) 580-6993lbacon@terraquaticllc.com