HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-01-23 Public Comment - W. Kleindl - Suggested updates on COB Wetland CodeFrom:William Kleindl
To:Agenda
Subject:Suggested updates on COB Wetland Code
Date:Wednesday, February 1, 2023 9:11:33 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello, I am your wetland consultant and spend a lot of time looking at our city's code on
sensitive aquatic areas. I have put together a few suggestions for your code update regarding
these areas. Please have a look and feel free to reach out to me with questions.
Bill
Wetland Code Comments
DIVISION 17. - WETLANDS REVIEW BOARD
Sec. 2.05.2900. - Established—Powers and duties.
I recommend that the Wetland Review Board section be held in reserve. I served that board
for a while and although I see the value of a citizen board. However, we provided the
professional services I had previously been paid for as a consultant in Seattle and am
currently paid for by the City. The services are professional and should be a paid position.
That is unless the WRB addresses issues other than compliance with the code. If that is the
case, there should be a clear distinction between the two responsibilities.
DIVISION 38.210. - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC),
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (DRB), ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW
STAFF (ADR), WETLANDS REVIEW BOARD (WRB), BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT (BOA) JURISDICTION AND SCOPE OF AUTHORITY
Sec. 38.210.010. - Purpose of DRC, DRB, ADR, WRB, and BOA.
As above and with all other references to WRB.
Section 38.220.130 Submittal materials for regulated activities in wetlands.
(A.3) states – If in the preparation or review of the required submittal materials it is
determined that there are unavoidable impacts to wetlands and/or watercourses that
will require a Federal Clean Water Act permit, then the following information must be
submitted to the city for all federal jurisdictional and city-regulated wetlands
(see section 38.700.210 for definition) in a compensatory mitigation report:
This is important. The Definition of WOTUS (Waters of the US) is in flux, and many wetlands
within the City are not under federal jurisdiction. Those that are will be mitigated for in a
local wetland bank and will not require all of these documents unless they are under a size
threshold. Those that are under that size or those that are solely under the City’s jurisdiction
would require the requested documents. However, the city may want to have some say
about the quality of the banks or in-lieu fee mitigation, but the Corps of Engineers and an
inter-agency team generally vet these projects. Therefore, this line should read –
If, in the preparation or review of the required submittal materials, it is determined
that there are unavoidable impacts to wetlands and/or watercourses that will requirea Federal Clean Water Act permit, then the following information must be submitted
to the city for all federal jurisdictional and city-regulated wetlands (see section
38.700.210 for definition) in a compensatory mitigation report:
1. For all impacts that require a federal Clean Water Act permit: i. The name and contact information of the applicant; the name,
qualifications, and contact information for the primary author of the
compensatory mitigation report; a description of the proposal; a
summary of the direct and indirect impacts and proposed mitigationconcept; identification of all the local, state, and federal
wetland/stream-related permit required for the project; and, a
vicinity map for the project.
ii. Receipt of mitigation purchased from a wetland bank or In-lieu fee
program. (not sure of the exact language here).
iii. If the federal Clean Water Act permit does not require mitigation,
then the applicant must submit the material in section (b) below.
2. For all city-regulated wetlands that do not require a federal Clean Water Act
permit (see section 38.700.210 for definition):
i. Current list
Lastly:
1. I think we should look at buffer/setback impacts. If the setback is impacted, but the
wetland/watercourse is not, then I am not clear on how these setback impacts aremitigated.
2. The city takes jurisdiction over isolated wetlands. However, a setback is not required
on these wetlands. It may be time to talk about setbacks in these systems? But that
discussion may be more than just a code update. 3. Finally, this is not a code change. Still, the City planning department should develop a
template for long-term site monitoring and assessment that includes reasonable and
consistent performance standards, accepted techniques to monitor those and
reasonable and consistent contingency approaches if the standards are not met, andan overall management plan to meet the requirement that remaining and mitigated
wetlands maintain their wetland functions. Each permit package that is submitted has
a wide range of such proposed approaches. Some are excellent, but many are not and
will result in long-term detrimental impacts on Bozeman's water resources. Irecommend that Lynn Bacon and I, your current wetland consultants, draft this
template.
--
William Kleindl, Ph.D.
President Society of Wetland Scientists
LRES - Montana State University
406-599-7721
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Albert Einstein