Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout014.04 - Appendix L.7 - TerrAquatic Approval Letter ________________________________________________________________________ 1 July 25, 2024 Danielle Garber Senior Planner, Community Development City of Bozeman 20 East Olive St. PO Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59771 RE: Davis Lane/Virga Capital (Turnrow) FINAL Aquatic Resource Regulation Analysis ______________________________________________________________________________________ Dear Ms. Garber, I have reviewed the Davis Lane 115-acre Virga Capital (Turnrow) development aquatic resource documents submitted to the City on February 14 and July 18, 2024. submittal you emailed to me June 6, 2023. In February 2024 I reviewed a wildlife report and no responses to those comments have been submitted to me for final review. A wildlife survey would be appropriate to conduct at this time: note, disturbing nesting migratory bird species during any construction work (i.e. destroying eggs, young, or adults) is a violation of the federal Migratory Bird Species Act. The following comments are the result of the second aquatic resource regulation adherence analysis. Functional assessments of two waterways: Completed. City of Bozeman watercourse or wetland regulation documents • Completed (the form MM devised with regulations and columns for Yes/No/NA/Notes is very useful, thank you.) Zone 1 Plantings • A plan has been submitted by Design 5 that includes appropriate hydrophytic and native upland (chokecherry) shrubs). Trail Surfaces within Zone 2 Setback At the corner of Davis Lane and Valley Center Road a portion of the trail will be surfaced with hardscape (concrete) for safety reasons. This is acceptable per acceptance of City Planners. Investigation of swale as a potential agricultural wetland • According to the submitted USACE data forms soils exhibited no hydric indicators and some test pits had inadequate positive hydrologic indicators. Vegetation was not considered because of agricultural planting (barley). Though I agree with the final analysis that the swale is not an agricultural wetland, I do not agree with the hydrologic indicator assessment for the following reasons: 1) Groundwater monitoring well data are erroneous because the wells are not within the swale; data collected from wells within the swale in the early growing season would have shown saturation within 12 inches of the surface for several weeks. Davis Lane/Virga Capital (Turnrow) Second Aquatic Resource Regulation Analysis July 25, 2024 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 2 2) At each data point within the swale two or more positive secondary hydrologic indicators should have been acknowledged (checked on COE data form). Whether or not some indicators were not visible in mid-summer when the investigation was conducted, visualizing what was occurring during the early growing season is imperative. When we conduct any type of delineation, though timing varies from April-May through after the growing season ends, we must scientifically visualize conditions of the site during other times of the year. 3) The lack of wetland signatures in USFWS NWI data or MNHP wetland mapping data is irrelevant. The agricultural field has been in this location for likely many decades, perhaps half a century or more, and the fact that no wetland signatures were included in either of these two data sources has no bearing on whether this site would or would not classify as an agricultural wetland. 4) Vegetation species that are not included in indicator manuals are considered Upland. This UPL rating should be applied to each data form. Also, vegetation should be marked as Problematic on all forms. 5) During the initial investigation, more data points should have been placed in other areas throughout the site, e.g., the southwest corner and any other areas that may indicate water flow across the landscape (linear swale-like features, dark green signatures on aerial imagery, etc.). TQ USACE Data Analysis, in conclusion: • Vegetation: agricultural (UPL) and not considered in the analysis. • Hydrology: Two or more positive secondary indicators occur within the entire swale (observed during my site visit in May 2024 and past year observations) and would likely have been saturated within 12 inches of the soil surface during the early growing season in most years. • Soils: Nonhydric at all test pits, • Conclusion: Because of positive hydrologic indicators, the presence of hydric soils within part or all of the swale would have resulted in the classification of this swale to the outer boundary of the hydric soils as an agricultural wetland. However, the lack of hydric soils indicates that the swale is not an agricultural wetland. I will not require resubmittal of these data forms to correct errors but advise correction when these forms are submitted to the USACE during the permitting process. Environmental Permitting • Section 404, MT 310, 318/401 permits/certificates are required once the development proposal has been accepted by the City of Bozeman. Please let me know if you have any questions at (406) 580-6993. Sincerely, Lynn M. Bacon, PWS TerraQuatic, LLC 1336 Cherry Drive Bozeman, MT 59715 tqbacon@gmail.com (406) 580-6993