The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-22-25 Public Comment - K. Berry - 25.05.22 Urban Parks and Forestry Board MeetingFrom:Katherine Berry To:Bozeman Public Comment; Lilly McLane; Holly Hill Subject:[EXTERNAL]25.05.22 Urban Parks and Forestry Board Meeting Date:Thursday, May 22, 2025 12:00:37 PM Attachments:25.05.22 Urban Parks and Forestry Board Public Comment.pdf 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. Thank you for your consideration, please see the attached comment letter. Best,Gallatin Watershed Council -- Katherine Berry, Water Policy Manager Gallatin Watershed Council www.gallatinwatershedcouncil.org | katherine@gallatinwatershedcouncil.orgCell: 860-558-3323 To: Urban Parks and Forestry Board From: Gallatin Watershed Council Date: May 22nd, 2025 Re: PRAT Plan Implementation Dear Urban Parks and Forestry Board, The Gallatin Watershed Council is writing to urge the consideration of edits to the Unified Development Code (UDC) that are directly and indirectly related to the goals and strategies of the PRAT Plan. There are opportunities in this process to: 1.to adopt innovative standards outlined in the PRAT Plan, such as allowing watercourse setbacks and wetlands to contribute to parkland dedication requirements, and requiring a parkland and natural resource analysis, and 2.improve clarity and coordination in the development process to better protect natural resources that allow our parks and open spaces to thrive. Water should be a clear priority from the onset of the development process to reflect our community’s vision as outlined in the PRAT Plan. Under Goal 4: Steward and sustain natural resources across the parks and trails system, the PRAT Plan emphasizes the connection between our water resources and our park system. Wetlands, watercourses, irrigation ditches, and stormwater facilities are a connected network within the City that provides trout spawning habitat, attracts birds, safely mitigates flooding, conveys water to downstream users, and protects water quality. Our parks rely on the functionality and connectivity of these systems. Under the existing code we are missing the opportunity for more coordinated protection. Despite federal and local regulations, the default for development is often mitigation rather than avoidance of impacts to wetlands and riparian areas. We don’t believe this practice matches what our community wants, nor does it align with the Commission’s priorities. The update to the UDC and the integration of the PRAT Plan presents an opportunity to flip the paradigm and incentivize avoidance as much as possible. We have attached opportunities (Appendix A and Appendix B) where we seek to integrate the goals of the PRAT plan into the UDC to take a holistic approach to building and sustaining a thriving park system built around our natural resources. Thank you for your work in this process and building a resilient future. Thank you, Gallatin Watershed Council The Gallatin Watershed Council guides collaborative water stewardship in the Gallatin Valley for a healthy and productive landscape. www.gallatinwatershedcouncil.org Appendix A: Implementation of PRAT Plan Recommendations into the UDC 1. Allow watercourse setbacks, wetlands, and other priority conservation lands and similar acreage to contribute to park dedication requirements in new developments, as outlined in strategy 4.3.3. 2. Require a parkland and natural resource analysis - including a water resource delineation - as an initial step during the development review process as outlined in strategy 4.3.4. This will align “parks concept plans” with existing wetlands and riparian areas. Planning for the connection and continuity of sensitive lands is integral to their value and ability to provide ecosystem services such as wildlife habitat and flood control. Consider including this step as a pre-application requirement. A logical first step in the development process is to determine site conditions that significantly impact site layout and building constraints. Publicly available maps of streams, ditches, and wetlands are infamously inaccurate when it comes to site planning. The desire is to ensure that applicants are guided down the correct regulatory pathway as early on in the development process as possible so as to avoid situations where protecting natural resources is at odds with a plan that is already far underway and which can result in difficult negotiations, conflict, costly changes, and unnecessary impacts. 3. Provide adequate technical capacity as outlined in strategy 4.6 to identify natural area parks and guide the protection of wetlands and watercourses throughout the development process. Water resources are highly technical and nuanced, both scientifically and how they are regulated. The UDC refers to a “review authority” for water resources, without specifying what this means. Currently, a “Wetlands” or “Sensitive Areas Report” is supposed to be provided by a water resources specialist contracted by the City. In several cases, it seems this review may not actually be getting done and that planning staff are not always aware of this step. Previously, reviews were conducted by a “wetlands review board,” but no “wetlands review board” exists today. 4. Develop a Watercourse and Wetland Landscape Design and Maintenance manual as supplemental guidance to the codes in the UDC, as advised in strategy 4.1. The Landscape and Irrigation Standards for New Development focuses entirely on upland conditions and drought-tolerant species. It would be helpful to have similar design guidance available for wetter landscapes to communicate a clear vision for these natural areas, and to streamline the design and review process. The Gallatin Watershed Council guides collaborative water stewardship in the Gallatin Valley for a healthy and productive landscape. www.gallatinwatershedcouncil.org Appendix B: Addressing PRAT Plan goals throughout the UDC 1. Coordinate with other departments at the onset of the development process in site planning and design. Stormwater facilities offer opportunities to promote the use of native vegetation (as is strategy 4.5.2) to improve water quality, as well as offer co-benefits. The UDC outlines that stormwater retention or detention ponds can not be designated as parkland unless approved by the review authority and designed and constructed to the city's adopted standards for joint park/stormwater control use. At this time, there are no such adopted standards, and it is recommended that they be developed as a resource to encourage more multi-functional open spaces. 2. Clarify regulations and reporting requirements for wetlands and watercourses to improve enforcement and usability of the UDC. The regulatory language throughout the Code for the identification and protection of natural resources is confusing for all involved, despite best intentions. There are several inconsistencies throughout the UDC describing the burden of proof required to document the presence of water resources and proposed impacts. There is also significant overlap and several opportunities to streamline the site inspections, application requirements, and review of wetlands and watercourses. 3. Define subjective terms. Terms of particular concern that leave the codes susceptible to being applied inconsistently are: “unavoidable impacts,” “wetland review authority,” “public interest,” “to the greatest extent feasible,” and “wholly human-made water source.” It seems most impacts are justified as an “unavoidable impact” and in the “public interest” under the need for affordable housing. Many wetlands are deemed “human-made,” with no defined historical context. After all, the whole Valley used to be one big beaver-dam-wetland-complex. 4. Increase watercourse buffers to match scientific best practices. Healthy streams need space to space to flood, erode, and grow native streamside vegetation in order to: 1) safely convey high flows with limited damage to property and infrastructure, 2) slow and store water, 3) support a healthy fishery, 4) provide critical wildlife habitat, and 5) maintain clean water. Best practices recommend maintaining a vegetated buffer on either side of a watercourse of 100’ for small streams, 150’ for medium-sized streams, and 300’ for rivers. These recommendations are a synthesis of scientific literature from Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks Recommendation for Subdivision Development in Montana, Montana Department of Environmental Quality Scientific Recommendations on the Size of Stream Vegetated Buffers, and the East Gallatin Channel Migration Report. 5. Apply 100’ setbacks to wetlands. Watercourse buffers are currently extended around wetlands that are immediately adjacent to streams, but isolated wetlands do not receive the same treatment. Sec. 38.610.090. - Wetland permit conditions require the “provision of a wetland The Gallatin Watershed Council guides collaborative water stewardship in the Gallatin Valley for a healthy and productive landscape. www.gallatinwatershedcouncil.org buffer of a size appropriate for the particular proposed activity and the particular regulated wetland area.” No guidance for buffer width is provided, and in practice, buffers are not being applied. The Gallatin Watershed Council guides collaborative water stewardship in the Gallatin Valley for a healthy and productive landscape. www.gallatinwatershedcouncil.org