HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.8.0_RESPONSE_Wetland Comments-DONEPOWER ENGINEERS, INC.
5 WEST MENDENHALL SUITE 202 BOZEMAN, MT 59715 USA
PHONE
208-659-8403
SLC 199-1336 165150 (2020-06-24) EN
July 31, 2020
RE: Bozeman East Mixed Use: Wetland and Watercourse Review Response
The following are comments and responses to comments received from the City of Bozeman on March 26, 2020 regarding wetland and watercourse regulations.
1. A condition of the 404 Permit is to purchase mitigation credit from a mitigation bank. No confirmation that mitigation credits have been purchased to date. No jurisdictional aquatic resources may be filled until the documentation of the purchase has been provided to the
USACE Montana Regulatory Office.
Response Adequacy: Unknown. This documentation was not found within the submittal, please email to lbacon@terraquaticllc.com (TQ will forward to the City).
Response to 1. Please see attached Notification of Acceptance of Liability for Mitigation Requirement US Army Corps of Engineers File Number NOW-2013-02110-MTB dated 1/12/18.
2. All maps that illustrate the 50-foot watercourse/wetland setback require illustration of the 30- and 20-foot zones.
Response Adequacy: Inadequate. Example drawings of concern: C100_Existing Site Features + Topography – 02-14-2020.pdf, EX-1 Conceptual Site Plan 02-14-2020.pdf, and all landscape designs, there
appears to be mistakes in the lines: A. Zone 1 does not appear to accurately parallel the wetland boundary. Therefore, it is unknown if Zone 2 is completely accurate.
REQUIRED: Watercourse lines, if in error, require adjustment on all plan sheets (e.g. all landscape, plan sheet, etc. illustrations). REQUIRED: All aquatic resources (wetland and channel) and watercourse buffer zones should be illustrated on all maps, not just topo lines as they are difficult to read and provide no real data regarding aquatic resources and buffer zone locations. Use
different types/colored lines and/or call-outs to differentiate between wetland,
channel, Zone 1 and Zone 2 boundaries.
Response to 2.A. All aquatic resources and watercourse buffer zones have been depicted on all applicable maps with distinct labeling to provide differentiation between resource types and
watercourse boundaries including Zone 1 and Zone 2 boundaries.
B. Is all of Trail within Zone 2, or some in Zone 1? What length is in Zone 1 and how was that allowance calculated? Response to 2.B. The trail/bridge has been designed to avoid Zone 1 with exception of one perpendicular stream crossing.
July 31, 2020
SLC 199-1336 165150 (2020-06-24) EN PAGE 2 OF 5
C. What is happening in this area illustrated by red polygon in map insert below? Is the setback zone impacted?:
(illustration removed from comment) **REQUIRED: Explanations must be provided wherever the watercourse setback zones are impacted, whether the impact is within code regulations, or they are not. If
not, the impact must be omitted (redesigned), or a variance or relaxation must be sought, and the impact mitigated.
Response to 2.C. The area illustrated by the red polygon in the map insert provided in the letter dated 3/26/2020 is part of the trail/boardwalk and stream crossing. This boardwalk will impact Zone 2 and a portion of Zone 1 with the bridge designed perpendicular to watercourse to minimize impacts. 3. All aquatic resources within and beyond 50 feet of the property boundary require delineation to enable mapping of watercourse/wetland setback zones. Response Adequacy: Inadequate.
A. If neighboring property is inaccessible, an off-site delineation must at least be attempted. In this area it would not be difficult to accomplish given proximity of the off-site channel and wetland fringe to the property line, especially once grass seed heads are visible.
Response to 3.A. POWER Engineers, Inc. completed an on-site wetland delineation of remaining stream and wetlands around southeast corner of the site within 50’ of property boundary,
including the off-site, neighboring property. Field surveys were conducted in accordance with the “Routine Onsite Determination Method” described in the USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0, 2010). Aquatic resource boundaries were surveyed using a Trimble GeoXH global positioning system unit with sub-meter accuracy and that data were incorporated into current site plans (including a
site development re-design to remove infrastructure from watercourse/wetland setback zones. B. The far southeast corner is obviously in violation given the watercourse can be seen
from that corner (see red line on map insert below): development appears to be proposed up to the edge of channel and thus the development is impacting the watercourse buffer. In addition, there is likely at least a small wetland fringe in this area from which the buffer should be measured.
B.1. Will there be an additional wetland impact in this area? (illustration removed from comment) REQUIRED: Conduct an on- or off-site delineation, provide methods of this
delineation (if off-site), establish watercourse buffer zones, request variance or relaxation, etc. if the watercourse buffer impact is proposed (see #2 “*REQUIRED”
July 31, 2020
SLC 199-1336 165150 (2020-06-24) EN PAGE 3 OF 5
above), and if wetland fringe is to be impacted, apply for an addendum to the Section 404 Permit.
Response to 3.B. Please see response to 3.A. An additional on-site wetland delineation was
completed throughout the southeast corner of the project area/neighboring property and surveyed aquatic resources have been incorporated into the new site development plans. This area of question (including a City-required emergency access) has been redesigned to minimize impacts to watercourse setbacks. There will be no additional impacts to the watercourse or adjacent wetlands within this area.
C. The southeast parking lot (or disturbed area?) may be within this off-site
watercourse/wetland fringe buffer zone (see red line on map insert below): (illustration removed from comment) REQUIRED: Delineate this area on- or off-site, establish watercourse buffer zones, request variance or relaxation, etc. (see #2 “**REQUIRED” above).
Response to 3.C. Please see response to 3.A. Delineation completed; required emergency access/parking area has been redesigned to minimize watercourse setback impacts. Small
unavoidable impact anticipated to Zone 2 with City concurrence that this impact is necessary to accommodate the emergency access. The total area that impacts Zone 2 is 320.6ft2.
3. Aquatic resources occur within 50 feet southeast of the project site. All resources in
this area require formal delineation and the watercourse/wetland setback mapped accordingly (area in vicinity of yellow line). If the proposed development west of the (red) boundary is within the watercourse setback, a variance (or relaxation) and mitigation may be required to impact the setback. (The original map insert was not reposted in this document, the insert has been updated below to illustrate the
following comments). Response Adequacy: Inadequate. A. See #3 above.
Response to 4.A. Please see response to 3.A B. According to C100 Existing Site Features and Topography 05-29-19.pdf a portion of the off-site aquatic resources were in fact delineated (see map insert below, red oval).
Response to 4.B. Remaining aquatic resources in proximity to project have been delineated and surveyed boundaries with watercourse setbacks have been incorporated into new development
plans.
B.1. Given these data are available, why weren’t the buffer lines extended into the black polygon area (see map insert below)?
Response to 4.B.1 Please see response to 4.B.
July 31, 2020
SLC 199-1336 165150 (2020-06-24) EN PAGE 4 OF 5
B.2. These wetland fringe and buffer zone data could be extended to southeast corner (see map insert below, yellow polygon) using off-site methods by standing outside of boundary, aerial photography, etc. Explain methods used to conduct this
delineation. Response to 4.B.2. Please see response to 3.A. B.3 Was access actually requested from these southeast property owners, or was it assumed?
(illustration removed from comment) Response to 4.B.3. Please see response to 3.A. 5. Watercourse tree and shrub plantings are required along “Walton’s” ditch; no planting plan was included in the submittal. Response Adequacy: Inadequate. MM Response: “A WATERCOURSE PLANTING PLAN HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN THE LANDSCAPE PLANS, SEE SHEET L1.03, L1.10 AND L1.14 FOR MORE DETAILS. SHRUB/TREE SPECIES WILL BE PLANTED AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF BOZEMAN
REGULATIONS ALONG WALTON’S STREAM DITCH, SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR
MORE DETAIL”. A. The species are not appropriate for watercourse areas. In fact, all proposed species (followed by map symbol) require dry to very dry habitat and two are not
native (or naturalized) to the Gallatin Valley: ceanothus (CU-native, requires dry habitat), yucca (YG-native, requires very dry habitat), amur maple (GI-from asia, dry habitat), Saskatoon serviceberry (AL-native, requires dry habitat), sagebrush (AA-native, requires very dry habitat), skyline honeylocust (GT-native to central
U.S., requires dry habitat). A.1. The proposed Zone 1 woody species plantings are unacceptable. Reason warrants that species along a watercourse should tolerate water. Regulations do require native or naturalized species.
A. 2. Revise watercourse woody species. Landscaping for the general development is not the same as landscaping within Zone 1 of the watercourse buffer (i.e. fulfilling the general landscaping requirement will not automatically fulfil watercourse woody
species planting requirements). Please put effort into naturalizing the Zone 1 watercourse buffer with appropriate woody species (e.g. native willows, cottonwood, aspen, dogwood, alder).
Response to 5.A.1 & 2. The watercourse woody species planting plan has been revised to include native willows, cottonwood, aspen, dogwood, alder.
July 31, 2020
SLC 199-1336 165150 (2020-06-24) EN PAGE 5 OF 5
B. How were the quantities calculated (nonirrigated: 1 shrub/10 feet of watercourse, 1 tree/30 feet; plants may be grouped)? Provide these calculations and a new species list.
Response to 5.B. Quantities updated and calculations provided on landscape plans. 6. Important additional delineation report information: 1) Walton’s ditch appears to convey Farmers’ Canal water, in addition to natural flows. The species smooth
brome (Bromus inermis) is rated UPL (upland species) as of Lichvar 2016. Response Adequacy: Adequate.
If you have any questions regarding the information being provided, please contact me at (208)
288-6581.
Sincerely,
Erik S. Nyquist
Professional Wetland Scientist