HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-15-25 Public Comment - K. Berry, Gallatin Watershed Council - City Commission Meeting, 8_19, Gallatin Water CollaborativeFrom:Katherine Berry
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Cc:Lilly McLane; Holly Hill
Subject:[EXTERNAL]City Commission Meeting, 8/19, Gallatin Water Collaborative
Date:Friday, August 15, 2025 10:56:58 AM
Attachments:Policy Memo - UDC Streams and Wetlands.docx (1).pdfCollaborative Cover Letter- Streams & Wetlands Policy Memo.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 for Commissioners.
Best,
Gallatin Water Collaborative
-- Katherine Berry, Water Policy Manager Gallatin Watershed Councilwww.gallatinwatershedcouncil.org | katherine@gallatinwatershedcouncil.org
Cell: 860-558-3323
To: City Commission
From: Gallatin Water Collaborative
Date: August 15, 2025
Re: The City of Bozeman Unified Development Code Update
Dear Commissioners,
Stakeholders of the Gallatin Water Collaborative have carefully reviewed Bozeman’s
development code for opportunities to improve watershed stewardship within the City
and the Gallatin Watershed as a whole, and urge you to consider the recommendations
provided in the attached ‘Streams and Wetlands Policy Memo.’
The Gallatin Water Collaborative is a group of nearly 50 stakeholders that are working
together to protect, enhance and restore water resources in the Gallatin Valley. Over the
past several years we have been listening to and working with many different groups
that interact with the UDC, such as developers, consultants, city staff from multiple
departments, conservationists, and agricultural irrigators. The ‘Memo’ reflects the
collective expertise and experience of our stakeholders to make good urban watershed
stewardship the clear and intuitive path through the development process.
With two significant code update processes happening simultaneously, some
recommendations may be more appropriate for the UDC Update or the Wetlands Code
Update. Our intent is not to prescribe where each change belongs, but to offer clear,
actionable guidance that supports better water resource management as Bozeman
continues to grow. We encourage you to consider where each recommendation fits
within these two update processes and make connections between these efforts to
ensure a comprehensive and holistic approach.
In general, the recommendations are categorized into three themes:
First, prioritize impact avoidance and ecological enhancement of streams and
wetlands in the development process. Make this a central theme throughout the
UDC, so that it is clear to anyone who picks up the document that this is a guiding
principle in land use decisions, and so that we are leveraging incentives from
departments such as parks, stormwater, and transportation to maximize buildable land
while protecting contiguous open space around high-value sensitive lands. Establish
setbacks for all streams and wetlands (regardless of their federal status) and ensure
that setback widths reflect scientific guidance for protecting their full ecological value as
critical natural infrastructure. Require an aquatic resources delineation by a qualified
professional (including streams, wetlands, and irrigation ditches) at the pre-application
stage, or at minimum, strongly recommended with clear language that developers
assume all risk if later assessments reveal impacts due to incomplete mapping. Finally,
the UDC should codify adequate technical capacity on staff to guide development,
review applications, assess impacts, and perform inspections, ensuring streams and
wetlands receive the same level of professional oversight as other critical public
resources.
Second, minimize impacts with care by allowing reduced stream and wetland
setbacks through a scientifically robust risk assessment. For projects that propose
impacts within the established stream and wetland setbacks, developers must
characterize the potential functional value of the resource, the proposed disturbance
and associated risks, and the measures to minimize and mitigate any adverse impacts.
The City should adopt standardized evaluation criteria for considering reduced setback
widths to ensure consistent and transparent decision-making that protects the public
interest.
Third, mitigate adverse impacts locally. Support the development of a federally
accredited wetland mitigation bank in the East Gallatin Watershed to be available for
wetland impacts administered by the US Army Corps of Engineers. For wetland impacts
that fall within the City’s jurisdiction, create a standardized mitigation process, using
mitigation as a tool to invest in the retention and enhancement of stream and wetland
ecosystem services for the benefit of Bozeman residents and the health of the
watershed.
The following memo provides a more detailed outline of these recommendations and
integrates them into each relevant section of the UDC. It also provides context for how
we arrived at these recommendations, including an analysis of scientific best practices
and our City’s current strengths and vulnerabilities.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and continued work to build a more sustainable
community.
Sincerely,
The Gallatin Water Collaborative
Sierra Harris
Greater Yellowstone Coalition
Sharon Brodie
Four Corners Foundation
Katherine Berry
Gallatin Watershed Council
Lilly McLane
Gallatin Watershed Council
Jared Trilling
Gallatin Watershed Council
Patrick Byorth
Trout Unlimited, Inc.
Connor Parrish,
Gallatin Home Rivers Initiative
Trout Unlimited, Inc.
POLICY MEMO
To: Gallatin Water Collaborative Members
From: Gallatin Watershed Council
Date: 8/01/2025
Re: The City of Bozeman Unified Development Code Update - Streams and Wetlands
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................3
The Gallatin Water Collaborative.............................................................................................3
The Unified Development Code...............................................................................................3
ISSUE ANALYSIS..........................................................................................................................5
What does good urban watershed stewardship look like?.......................................................5
Looking to the past as a lesson for the future....................................................................5
Understanding best management practices......................................................................6
Where are our strengths and vulnerabilities?..........................................................................9
Strengths............................................................................................................................9
Vulnerabilities...................................................................................................................11
RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................13
Conceptual Recommendations..............................................................................................14
First, prioritize impact avoidance and ecological enhancement.......................................14
Second, minimize impacts carefully.................................................................................16
Third, mitigate adverse impacts locally............................................................................16
Recommendations by Code Section.....................................................................................16
CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................20
INTRODUCTION
The Gallatin Water Collaborative (The Collaborative) is an initiative that brings stakeholders
together in their efforts to protect, enhance, and restore water resources for the future of
people and wildlife in the Gallatin Watershed. Recognizing policy as an impactful tool that can
enact landscape-scale change, The Collaborative is considering Bozeman’s Unified Development
Code Update (UDC) as an opportunity to improve watershed stewardship within the City and
the Gallatin Watershed as a whole.
1
This policy memo outlines recommended updates to the UDC related to streams and wetlands.
These natural systems—streams, rivers, wetlands, floodplains, riparian zones, and adjacent
uplands—work together to provide clean water, support fish and wildlife, safely convey
floodwaters, and slow and store runoff. They also offer valuable recreational opportunities and
contribute to our mental and physical well-being. Bozeman, built on a high groundwater table
and surrounding three major waterways—Bozeman Creek, Bridger Creek, and the East Gallatin
River—faces considerable flood risks to homes, businesses, property, and infrastructure. The
way we manage land and water in the city not only shapes the quality of life for Bozeman
residents but also affects the broader Gallatin Valley ecosystem. Laced with spring creeks and
wetlands, and at the intersection of several wildlife corridors, Bozeman plays a key role in
sustaining everything from spawning trout to migrating sandhill cranes.1 We also have many
downstream neighbors that rely on access to cold, clean water. Therefore, the goals of the
recommendations are to ensure:
1. Streams and wetlands are an amenity to the City of Bozeman, providing beautiful spaces
and critical ecosystem services to downtown and residential neighborhoods;
2. The waters that pass through the City of Bozeman are stewarded to serve the greater
Gallatin Watershed community of people and wildlife.
The following sections provide background on the UDC and the Collaborative’s priorities. An
issue analysis then explores what effective urban watershed stewardship looks like to support
the goals outlined above, and Bozeman’s current strengths and vulnerabilities. This analysis sets
the foundation for the recommendations, which are first introduced conceptually and then
organized by article, division, and section of the UDC. Recommendations are grouped into three
categories, listing ideas for how to:
1. Prioritize impact avoidance and ecological enhancement of streams and wetlands in the
development process;
2. Carefully consider and minimize impacts when they are necessary and appropriate; and
3. Mitigate adverse impacts locally.
This is a critical moment to influence policy. Once code revisions are adopted, the public’s ability
to promote best practices on individual projects becomes significantly limited. The authority of
staff and the Commission is based solely on regulatory compliance, and there are state-imposed
limits on public engagement during application review. It also takes significant capacity for
individuals and organizations to keep track of the large volume of project proposals. With this
1 City of Bozeman, and Gallatin County. Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan. 26 December
2023.
2
update, we have an opportunity to be proactive and make the protection, enhancement, and
restoration of critical lands an integral component of growth and development.
BACKGROUND
The Gallatin Water Collaborative
The Gallatin Water Collaborative (The Collaborative) formed in 2021 to coordinate efforts to
protect, enhance, and restore water resources and secure a future for people and wildlife in the
Gallatin Watershed. We formed because our community depends on and cares deeply about
the health of our water resources. As our community and climate change, we recognize the
need to make management decisions in consideration of the watershed as a whole, and with
the understanding that our actions are interconnected. The Collaborative is made up of over 50
stakeholders across the Gallatin Valley, including conservation organizations, government
agencies, scientists, engineers, agricultural producers, recreationists, and developers.
The group has developed prioritized goals and actions that will result in long-term water
security, so that the people and wildlife in our watershed have access to enough clean water to
thrive. Our efforts are driven by these objectives:
1. Water Availability - Groundwater and surface water supply is managed collaboratively
and efficiently to support all water uses.
2. Water Quality - The water quality of groundwater and surface water within the
watershed is sufficient to support all designated beneficial uses.
3. Resilient Lands - The ecosystem services of critical natural features are maintained
within the watershed.2
Engaging in Bozeman’s development code update strongly supports all three objectives of The
Collaborative.
The Unified Development Code
The UDC regulates land use within the City of Bozeman, spanning zoning, subdivision and site
development, parking and transportation, affordable housing, and environmental protection -
and it is the primary tool for managing urban streams and wetlands. It is the rule book all
residents and developers must follow as they undertake anything within the City limits, from a
2 The Gallatin Water Collaborative. The Gallatin Water Collaborative,
https://www.gallatinwatercollaborative.org/. Accessed 8 July 2025.
3
renovation to their home, to the new construction of a multi-acre housing complex. It also
provides the authority for City staff and the Commission to influence proposed projects. For
public engagement to hold weight and have the potential to sway a decision, arguments must
be based on whether a development is following the letter of the law. The Montana Land Use
and Planning Act, passed in 2023, emphasizes public engagement throughout the development
of land use plans, maps, zoning regulations, and subdivision regulations, while also aiming to
create a more predictable and efficient development process by allowing for a streamlined
administrative review of site-specific development applications that align with adopted plans.3
The City is unpacking the whole UDC - all 500+ pages - with the goals to “improve usability” and
“accommodate growth while meeting community goals.” They are also looking at pieces of it
separately to tackle specific topics. Wetlands and Watercourses, both under Article 6. - Natural
Resource Protection, have their own process, initiated when wetland protection was established
as a Commission priority in 2023. The Parks Department is also working at its own pace,
incorporating the goals and recommendations from its recently adopted Parks Recreation and
Active Transportation Plan (PRAT Plan) into the Code. All three of these efforts are happening
now, and all three have significant opportunities to improve watershed stewardship.
Streams and wetland regulations show up throughout the UDC, but the most relevant areas in
the Code are:
● Article 6. - Natural Resources, Division 38.610. - Wetland Regulations
● Article 6. - Natural Resources, Division 38.620. - Watercourse Setbacks
● Article 7. - Permits, Legislative Actions and Procedures, Division 38.710. - Submittal
Materials and Requirements
The City’s guiding documents empower changes to the UDC, and as the City adopts new guiding
documents over time, local regulations are updated to keep pace with the vision and goals of
our community. The most relevant guiding documents are included in the list below. A detailed
breakout of plans, section references, and specific language is provided in Attachment A.
● Bozeman Community Plan
● Bozeman Climate Action Plan
● Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan
● City of Bozeman Parks Recreation and Active Transportation Plan (PRAT Plan)
● Bozeman Creek Enhancement Plan
3 Lynch, Kelly A. Montana Land Use and Planning Act (SB 382). 10 January 2024. The Montana
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation,
https://dnrc.mt.gov/_docs/water/Comprehensive-Water-Review/meeting-materials/Montana-Land-Use-Pla
nning-Act-SB382.pdf. Accessed 8 July 2025. PowerPoint Presentation.
4
ISSUE ANALYSIS
This section provides the basis for the following recommendations for updates to Bozeman’s
development code. It starts by exploring the question: What does good watershed stewardship
look like in an urban setting? This question is addressed by looking to our past as a lesson for
the future and outlining best management practices. Finally, we lay out our current strengths
and vulnerabilities to set the stage for providing recommendations.
What does good urban watershed stewardship look like?
Looking to the past as a lesson for the future.
It is helpful to start by orienting in our history to establish a “reference ecosystem.” While we
can’t return to a time before Bozeman, we can learn from the past to understand what this
system looked like at its healthiest, and use this as a basis for imagining a more sustainable
future. Captain William Clark’s journal entry on July 14, 1806, sets the datum, describing his
party’s progress through the Gallatin Valley, encountering “inoumerable” and “emence
quantities of beaver” and swamps that were several miles wide with a multitude of stream
channels so convoluted as to “render the passage impracticable.”4 Bozeman sits on an alluvial
fan, characterized by a cobbly aquifer and shallow groundwater table. In this geologic setting,
we would expect a mosaic of complex, multithreaded stream-wetland systems, their channels
changing often as beaver dams were built and breached. Relics of this wetter and wilder time
can still be seen today from a bird's eye view as horseshoe-shaped channel scars stamped
across the valley floor, persisting through time and land use changes. This look into the past tells
us that the streams in the Gallatin Valley are meant to be surrounded by wetlands and crowded
by thick stands of cottonwoods, aspen, willows, and dogwood.
Since that fateful journey, the Gallatin Watershed has undergone three major, defining shifts in
hydrology: the removal of beaver, the rise of agriculture, and now, rapid urban development.
Bozeman is built on - and expanding into - a highly altered landscape: farm fields that were once
beaver swamps. These three land use changes fundamentally impacted how streams function in
the Gallatin Valley. Once, a network of low, pervious check dams, deep-rooted plants, and dense
woody vegetation stabilized soil, slowed stormwater, tamed floods, and attenuated pollution.
Today, most of our wetlands are either gone or degraded, and over 40% of the stream miles in
4 Clark, William. July 14, 1806. The Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Ed. Gary Moulton.
Lincoln: U of Nebraska Press, 2002. The Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. 2005. U of
Nebraska Press / U of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries-Electronic Text Center. 8 July 2025
<https://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/item/lc.jrn.1806-07-14>
5
the Lower Gallatin Watershed lack appropriate riparian cover, replaced by crops, lawns, and
pavement. In many places, streams and their floodplains are constrained by roads, railways,
bridges, culverts, and rip-rap. About 4.5 miles of bank armor have been mapped on the East
Gallatin River, about 10% of its total length, and “by 1965 much of the riparian corridor had
been cleared and substantial sections of river had been channelized (straightened)” to make
room for farming and infrastructure.5 Over the last 150 years, we have removed the natural
tools that keep our streams healthy.
The combined effect is that streams are more destructive and polluted, and the system is
showing the strain. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality reports that 12 of the
23 major streams in the Lower Gallatin Watershed are impaired and unable to sustain a cold
water fishery - several of which flow right through the center of Bozeman.6 Most summers,
agricultural water rights holders make sacrifices to keep water flowing in our streams, and “hoot
owl” restrictions limit angling days. It is predicted that increased drought frequency and severity
(due to natural conditions and human use) will make retaining water, especially cold water,
throughout the year even more challenging, which can lead to habitat loss, conflict between
water users, and a negative impact on tourism and recreation industries.7 Each year, we invest
millions of private and taxpayer dollars to secure channels in place in order to protect
threatened homes, roads, bridges, and irrigation diversions and pivots, and each year we invest
millions more in restoration projects to restore degraded stream reaches. The further we stray
from the sights that William Clark beheld, the more unstable the system becomes.
Understanding best management practices.
The management strategies to recover our water resources and protect them from additional
harm are, in large part, actually quite simple: streams and wetlands need space and continuity
to provide the services we rely on as a community. Streams, riparian areas, groundwater, and
uplands are a single, interconnected system where the health of one directly affects the others.
With enough, uninterrupted space, the system can provide essential ecosystem services:
● Flooding and erosion control: Stream channels and their floodplains are meant to shift
as flooding and erosion renew ecosystems by scouring streambeds and transporting
7 Whitlock C, Cross W, Maxwell B, Silverman N, Wade AA. 2017. 2017 Montana Climate Assessment.
Bozeman and Missoula MT: Montana State University and University of Montana, Montana Institute on
Ecosystems. 318 p. doi:10.15788/m2ww8w.
6 Montana Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Planning Bureau Watershed Management
Section. Lower Gallatin Planning Area TMDLs & Framework Water Quality Improvement Plan. Document
Number M05-TMDL-02aF ed., Montana Department of Environmental Quality, March 2013,
https://deq.mt.gov/files/Water/WQPB/TMDL/PDF/LowerGallatin/M05-TMDL-02a.pdf. Accessed 8 July
2025.
5 Thatcher, Tony, and Karin Boyd. East Gallatin River Channel Migration Mapping. Ruby Valley
Conservation District, 31 December 2017.
6
sediment and nutrients. But when floodplains are constricted and riparian areas altered,
the result is more severe flooding, rapid erosion, and unpredictable channel migration
that threatens nearby property and infrastructure.
● Groundwater recharge: Streams and wetlands that slow and store water—through
flooding, beavers, and log jams—help raise groundwater levels, meter out our limited
water supply, and strengthen drought resilience.
● Water treatment: A buffer of native riparian vegetation and wetlands improves water
quality by filtering pollution from stormwater and shallow groundwater, cooling water
temperatures, and stabilizing streambanks.
● Fish and aquatic habitat: Bozeman’s spring creeks are critical spawning habitat for the
fishery at large, and maintaining cool, clean, connected tributaries to the East Gallatin
River is key to the vitality of the iconic blue-ribbon trout stream. Our headwater streams
are especially sensitive to water quality, temperature, and seasonal flow regimes that
support different stages of the aquatic life cycle. Streamside buffers with intact
floodplanes and riparian vegetation mitigate water quality, flow rates, and channel
morphology. Trees and shrubs also provide shade and instream habitat structure. All of
these factors are vital to ensure the long-term persistence of our trout, whitefish, and
other cold-water aquatic species.
● Wildlife habitat: Wetlands and riparian areas have the greatest plant and animal
diversity in the state, representing only about 4% of Montana’s land cover and
supporting nearly all of our wildlife for at least part of their life cycle. Space away from
human activity, contiguous migration corridors, and access to surrounding uplands are
all integral to the value of these areas for wildlife.8
The question then becomes: how much space do streams and wetlands need? The answer
depends on context, specifically, their potential to provide ecosystem services, and the
functions required of the buffer. In an urban setting, there are unique considerations. For
example, many urban streams and wetlands are not appropriate for roaming moose and bears,
but may still serve as a pocket of bird habitat. Or, streams constrained by roads and buildings
may have significantly reduced flood carrying capacity that can not practically be restored
(pending a massive and visionary effort!). In What is an Urban Riverscape?, Murphy et al.
categorize stream reaches from near-natural to fully enclosed, recommending management
strategies tailored to each type. This framework helps planners differentiate between areas with
high functional potential, such as new developments on the city’s edge, versus more limited
8Gallatin Watershed Council, et al. The Watercourse Commons Report. Gallatin Water Collaborative,
2024.
7
options in the denser downtown core. Similarly, in Washington State, wetland buffer widths are
based on assessing potential functional value, adjacent land use, buffer characteristics, and
intended functions.9 Establishing stream and wetland buffer widths is ultimately about
managing the impacts of new growth to allow for a desirable future “based on contemporary
conditions, evidence of past conditions, and the recovery potential of any given reach.”10
Many other communities and researchers have asked the same question, and extensive studies
exist on appropriate setback sizes for streams and wetlands. Table 1 summarizes values from
scientific literature across the Northwest.
10 Murphy B, Nelson PA, Gilbert J, Sholtes J (2025) What is an urban riverscape? Typological naming of
urban riverscapes to support planning and management. PLOS Water 4(4): e0000345.
https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pwat.0000345
9 Granger, T., T. Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley, E. Stockdale. April 2005.
Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands. Washington
State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-008. Olympia, WA.
8
The Watercourse Commons Report (Attachment B) offers scientific guidance for streamside
buffers in the Gallatin Watershed to ensure long-term water availability, water quality, and
resilient landscapes. Developed by a coalition of local experts and stakeholders through the
Gallatin Water Collaborative, the report highlights the vital ecological functions of riparian
areas—flood control, groundwater recharge, pollution filtering, fish and wildlife habitat—and
calls for consistent, science-based setbacks across jurisdictions. It recommends vegetated
buffers of 300 feet for large rivers, 150 feet for medium or ecologically significant streams, and
100 feet for small streams, based on a synthesis of best available science from Montana Fish
Wildlife and Parks and Montana Department of Environmental Quality. The guide emphasizes
that streams need space to function naturally and underscores the importance of coordinated,
proactive streamside management to adapt to a changing climate and protect Gallatin Valley’s
water resources.
Recommendations from the Watercourse Commons Report were included in the Gallatin County
Future Land Use Map, which was adopted into the Gallatin County Growth Plan in 2024.11 They
were then incorporated into Gallatin County Subdivision Regulations in 2025, which now require
watercourse setbacks to protect vegetated riparian areas. A 300-foot setback from the Ordinary
High Water Mark is required for structures along the East and West Gallatin, Madison, Jefferson,
and Missouri Rivers (excluding those solely for agricultural use). All other watercourses require a
150-foot setback. Roads may cross setbacks if designed to minimize encroachment. Additionally,
native vegetation must be preserved within 250 feet of major rivers and within 100 feet of other
watercourses, with limited vegetation management (e.g., weed control, deadfall removal,
selective pruning) allowed in these areas. Any impacts to the watercourse setback must be
mitigated.12
Where are our strengths and vulnerabilities?
Strengths
Bozeman has relatively progressive stream and wetland codes and a shared commitment to
watershed stewardship across the community, City departments, and the Commission.
Residents consistently express their value for clean water, reflected in the City’s guiding
documents that provide a unified vision for action. We are not starting from scratch, and are
fortunate to be building on a strong foundation of existing regulations, public support, and
leadership that recognizes the importance of protecting water resources. There have been good
steps in the direction of good urban watershed stewardship, but these processes are iterative:
12 Gallatin County. Gallatin County Subdivision Regulations. Gallatin County, 28 January 2025, pp. 6-1.
11 Gallatin County. Gallatin County Growth Policy: Envision Gallatin Tomorrow Together. Gallatin County,
10 December 2024, pp. 8-34.
9
updates to the UDC are a matter of revisiting and refining existing code, and maintaining the
momentum of planning efforts long underway.
Current development code lays out relatively progressive protections for streams and wetlands
in Montana, and although the setbacks are smaller than what is recommended by the
consensus of best practices, the codes have resulted in prized open spaces within the City.
Bozeman asserts jurisdiction over wetlands not regulated by the US Army Corps of Engineers -
including isolated wetlands, and impacts as small as 400 square feet - and extends watercourse
setbacks around adjacent wetlands. The current UDC imposes watercourse setbacks of 100 feet
on either side of the East Gallatin River, 75 feet on Bozeman Creek and Bridger Creek, and 50
feet on all other watercourses. It is required to replant watercourse setbacks with native
grasses, forbs, trees, and shrubs. For developments granted preliminary plan or plat approval
prior to July 10, 2002, the setbacks are smaller, with 100 feet on either side of the East Gallatin
River and 35 feet on all other watercourses.
Many of the recommendations provided in this memo are not new and are derived from
existing City guiding documents. These documents are a result of consistent and intentional
engagement by Collaborative stakeholders throughout various planning processes to elevate the
importance of water resources and represent the best available science. Updates to the UDC are
a matter of taking the next step and putting the guidance and recommendations from these
plans into action. For example, the PRAT Plan and Sensitive Lands Protection Plan both prioritize
natural resource stewardship. Goal 4 in the PRAT Plan is to “Steward and sustain Natural
resources across the parks and trails system” and calls for accepting wetlands and watercourse
setbacks as parkland, requiring natural resource analyses early in development review, and
building technical capacity to better protect wetlands and watercourses throughout the
development process. The Sensitive Lands Protection Plan highlights Bozeman’s streams and
wetlands as rich in biodiversity, vital for habitat connectivity and wildlife migration, and high risk
for development, resulting in some of the highest priority areas to protect within the City. It
recommends tools such as local wetland mitigation solutions; riparian buffers protected
through overlay zoning, Channel Migration Zone easements, and strategic parkland acquisition;
dedicated natural resource staff; and improved landscape standards that protect and enhance
native plant communities. Other plans, including The Climate Action Plan, Bozeman Community
Plan, and Bozeman Creek Enhancement Plan, all have recommendations in line with those
provided below. See Attachment A. for a detailed breakout of plans, section references, and
specific language.
Over the last several years, the Commission has prioritized wetland protection and stream
restoration. Commission priorities set in 2023 oriented the City toward developing a local
wetland mitigation bank and prioritizing updates to the wetland code. Both initiatives are now
10
well on their way, and the following recommendations are intended to help carry them across
the finish line. In 2024, the City also prioritized restoration projects, including creating a
resiliency plan for Bozeman Creek, developing the Cattail Creek Anchor Route, and partnering
on Branch Out Bozeman, an urban forest initiative with the goal of using trees to improve water
quality. These Commission priorities demonstrate a care and understanding for water resources,
and a desire to be less reactive and more proactive.
Vulnerabilities
Despite these strengths, we are still losing wetlands to development, and watercourse buffers
are often encroached upon. In some cases, this is due to gaps in regulatory protection and
challenges with local versus federal jurisdiction. In other cases, existing rules and regulations
play out on the ground differently than intended, where streams and wetlands can sometimes
fall through the cracks during the development review process, leading to avoidable and
undesirable impacts. The core issue isn’t necessarily the codes themselves, but primarily their
usability and consistent enforcement. Some of the key challenges are:
1. The City lacks reliable technical capacity to ensure proper guidance and oversight of
stream and wetland impacts. Although wetland review is sometimes contracted to
third-party consultants, this isn’t always the case. The Code references a non-existent
“review authority” and a now-defunct “wetland review board,” leaving no clear
oversight for aquatic resources. Additionally, post-construction inspection is
self-certified, providing limited accountability that what was proposed matches what
was installed.
2. Projects are often planted squarely across a site with limited concessions for streams
and wetlands, resulting in unnecessary conflicts that require either costly redesigns for
developers and/or ecological losses. The challenge is twofold: first, streams and
wetlands are perceived as relatively low priority in site planning, and second, detailed
delineation of these features is not required until site plan review, after significant
investment has already been made into the project design. In contrast, the
transportation grid is predetermined and seen as fixed, so it gets overlaid early in the
planning process and strongly influences the layout of buildings and other infrastructure.
While publicly available maps of wetlands, riparian areas, and watercourses are useful
for broad-scale land use planning, they lack the accuracy and completeness needed for
site-specific design. Many watercourses in the Gallatin Valley are not mapped, and it is
often unclear whether a feature is a natural stream, irrigation ditch, or both. Wetlands
can also be difficult to identify without on-site assessment, as their presence depends
11
on subtle indicators in soil, vegetation, and hydrology that are not visible on aerial
imagery or during a casual site visit.
3. Where there is subjectivity, the Code is applied inconsistently. Phrases like “wholly
man-made water source” and “in the public interest” are overused to justify
exemptions, especially amid development pressure and rising land costs.
4. Wetland “buffers” are required, but are not applied in practice due to an open-ended
definition, where “the review authority may recommend conditions of approval for
proposed regulated activities…requiring the provision of a wetland buffer of a size
appropriate for the particular proposed activity and the particular regulated wetland
area.”
5. Impacts to federally jurisdictional wetlands are mitigated to a private wetland bank in
Twin Bridges. Streams and wetlands classified as “Waters of the US” (WOTUS) are
regulated by the US Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act. Recently, the
threshold for what qualifies as WOTUS has narrowed significantly, now covering only
“navigable waters” and wetlands with a “continuous surface connection” to them. It is
important to note that federal rules don’t offer protection but rather facilitate the
mitigation of impacts at a “watershed scale,” which in our case means anywhere within
the Upper Missouri Watershed. In practice, impacts to wetlands within Bozeman are
offset at the Upper Missouri Mitigation Bank in Twin Bridges—effectively exporting
ecosystem services to a private ranch on the Jefferson River.
6. When stream and wetland impacts are proposed, Bozeman lacks a standardized,
science-based impact assessment. Applicant justifications, staff evaluations, and board
or commission discussions are often subjective, with inconsistent consideration of
scientific data or state and federal regulations. As a result, both decision-makers and
developers navigate complex topics like hydrogeomorphology, wildlife biology, and
aquatic ecology without clear guidance, effectively reinventing the wheel for each
project. The standard variance criteria—focused on historical appropriateness, minimal
effects on neighboring properties, and general public welfare—do not address the
specific needs of natural resource management. This leaves us vulnerable to cumulative
impacts and the repetition of past poor practices. A consistent, science-driven
evaluation process, specific to water resources, is needed.
7. When stream and wetland impacts are proposed, Bozeman lacks a standardized
mitigation process. Impact mitigation is applied inconsistently and is a missed
opportunity to retain ecosystem services locally and invest the mitigation efforts in
streams and wetlands within our neighborhoods.
12
8. Landscape designs for wetlands and watercourse setbacks are often ecologically
inappropriate, featuring non-native species and large swaths of turf grass.
9. Stream and wetland impacts and stewardship opportunities are not considered
holistically across City departments, missing chances to share technical expertise and
align incentives. For example, a site plan may create space for a stormwater detention
pond while filling natural wetlands—nature’s superior “stormwater facility.” Park
planners can support stewardship by accepting wetlands and setbacks as parkland
dedication and requesting enhancements before ownership transfer, but they need
technical expertise to guide these negotiations. The transportation grid often causes the
greatest harm to streams and wetlands, directly and indirectly, as it forces a particular
layout of the site. It is difficult to balance competing priorities: protecting water
resources requires City departments to work together, promote creative, science-based
site planning, and deliver a clear, unified message that water resources are a priority.
10. Submittal requirements for streams and wetlands are highly variable and confusing
throughout the UDC, spanning multiple sections in multiple articles in addition to a
supplemental Wetland Review Checklist.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The goal of these recommendations is for good urban watershed stewardship to be the clear
and intuitive path through the development process, securing Bozeman’s streams and wetlands
for the welfare of its residents and the health of the greater Gallatin Watershed. The
recommendations include changes to stream and wetland regulations that are based on a
historic reference ecosystem for when the system was at its healthiest, as well as consideration
for what is both necessary and feasible today. Proposed changes also integrate guidance from
the City’s adopted planning documents. And finally, the recommendations seek to address
common challenges faced in the development review process, and improve overall usability of
stream and wetland codes throughout the UDC.
We start by outlining the recommendations conceptually. Then, we attempt to insert these
recommendations into each relevant section of the UDC.
13
Conceptual Recommendations
First, prioritize impact avoidance and ecological enhancement.
1. Make the stewardship of streams and wetlands a front-and-center priority throughout
the UDC. Help get everyone—city staff, Commissions, Community Board Members, the
community, developers—on the same team. Stewardship should be loud and clear,
woven into the purpose and intent of the UDC, guiding community design, shaping site
planning, and embedded in every step of the development review process. The location
of streams and wetlands should shape site design as much as, if not more than, the
transportation grid overlay.
2. Establish wetland setbacks for ALL wetlands, regardless of their federal status.
Washington State has essentially bypassed federal management of its wetlands by
creating stringent setbacks that pre-empt any direct impacts that would require a 404
permit.13
3. Increase stream and wetland setback widths based on best management practices to
ensure their full ecological value as critical natural infrastructure. Table 2 outlines the
recommendations for stream and wetland setback widths. Values were derived from a
synthesis of scientific literature, provided in Table 1 under the Issue Analysis, and are
consistent with Gallatin County Subdivision Regulations. It is also recommended that the
City inventory high-value water resources to identify where wider setbacks should be
enforced.
13 Granger, T., T. Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley, E. Stockdale. April
2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands.
Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-008. Olympia, WA.
14
4. Leverage incentives from multiple departments, such as parks, stormwater, and
transportation, to maximize buildable land while protecting more contiguous open space
around high-value sensitive lands that serve multiple purposes. Accept wetlands,
watercourses, and their associated setbacks as parkland dedication. Incentivize
stormwater facilities to be designed appropriately for multi-use park space.
5. Improve the usability of stream and wetland codes. Wherever possible, take advantage
of similarities between streams and wetlands to make their regulations consistent and
streamlined. Simplify the layout of the two sections to mirror one-another, and
consolidate information that is consistent, such as intent/purpose and submittal
requirements. Significant overlap exists in the site investigation, mapping, and
application and review process. Develop a “water resources packet” as a standardized
submittal requirement. Ensure strong, clear, and consistent language through the UDC.
6. Enhance streams and wetlands during the development process. Require that setback
planting plans be designed by a wetland professional/ecologist/botanist with at least
three years of experience with revegetation in the intermountain
west/Montana/Bozeman. Create a supplementary Wetland and Watercourse Setback
Planting Guide, similar to the Landscape and Irrigation Design Manual.
7. Require an aquatic resources delineation by a qualified professional—including streams,
wetlands, and irrigation ditches—at the pre-application stage. Alternatively, the code
should strongly recommend this delineation at the pre-application stage and clearly
state that the developer assumes all risk for redesigns if a later assessment reveals
impacts due to inaccurate or incomplete mapping. Identifying major site constraints
early on in the development process makes good economic sense and helps align all
parties toward a common goal from the beginning. Establish a culture where the
location of streams and wetlands influence site design at least as much as, if not more
than, the transportation grid.
8. Codify adequate technical capacity to provide guidance throughout the development
process, review applications, assess potential impacts, and perform site inspections.
There is a highly trained expert on staff to advocate for well-planned and safely designed
roads, and drywall screw patterns require an on-site certification from a city Building
Inspector. Similar levels of support and accountability should be extended to streams
and wetlands to ensure the stewardship of essential public resources.
15
Second, minimize impacts carefully.
9. Allow for reduced stream and wetland setbacks through a scientifically robust risk
assessment. Require developers to characterize: 1) potential functional value of the
water resource to provide flood and erosion control, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation,
and stormwater treatment and infiltration, where potential is based on surrounding land
use, infrastructure constraints, and a future condition where reasonable improvements
have been made to the stream or wetland; 2) proposed disturbances and the risks they
pose to the potential functional value; and 3) measures to minimize or replace those
risks. The City should establish standardized evaluation criteria for reviewers to consider
variance, deviation, and departure requests related to water resources. Refer to
Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing
Wetlands as a model, and Table 1 as a guide for appropriate setback width adjustments.
Third, mitigate adverse impacts locally.
10. Develop a federally accredited wetland mitigation bank in the East Gallatin Watershed to
be available for wetland impacts administered by the US Army Corps of Engineers.
11. Develop a standardized mitigation process for wetland impacts that fall under City
jurisdiction (including impacts to setbacks that adversely affect the functional value of
the wetland). Use mitigation to invest in the retention and enhancement of stream and
wetland ecosystem services for the betterment of Bozeman Residents and the health of
the East Gallatin Watershed at large.
Recommendations by Code Section
Note: The following section references align with the Bozeman Development Code updated draft
text as of May 6, 2025.
ARTICLE 1. - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Division 38.100. - In General; Sec. 38.100.040. - Intent and purpose of chapter.
1. Include a clear commitment to protecting sensitive lands, including streams and
wetlands, in the interest of watershed health and the public welfare of Bozeman
residents. State that the City encourages development that fits with the natural capacity
of a site and provides multi-functional open space.
ARTICLE 4. - COMMUNITY DESIGN
Division 38.410. - Community Design And Elements; Sec. 38.410.020. - Neighborhood centers.
16
2. Remove the following phrase from #6: “However, any part of the center used for
stormwater management does not count towards park dedication requirements.”
Division 38.420. - Park and Recreation Requirements; Sec. 38.420.010. - General.
3. Include natural resource stewardship as a park priority. Adapt language from the PRAT
Plan, which seeks to strengthen the City’s participation in actively protecting and
managing sensitive lands “in order to adapt to climate change, sustain ecosystem
services, and provide for the recreational use and enjoyment for generations to come.”
Division 38.420. - Park and Recreation Requirements; Sec. 38.420.020. - Park area requirements.
4. Accept wetlands, watercourses, and their associated setbacks as parkland dedication.
5. Incentivize stormwater facilities to be designed appropriately for multi-use park space
and accepted as parkland dedication.
ARTICLE 5. - PROJECT DESIGN
Division 38.500. - Introduction, Sec. 38.500.010 - Purpose.
6. Include natural resource stewardship as a priority in site design.
ARTICLE 6. - NATURAL RESOURCES.
7. Include an introductory division that outlines purpose and intent and consolidates
submittal requirements and review processes that pertain to all listed natural resource
divisions. For wetlands and watercourses, there is significant overlap in their site
assessment and delineations, mapping, submittal materials, and technical oversight and
review. This can help with consistency and clarity.
Division 38.610. - Wetland Regulations.
8. Establish wetlands setbacks for ALL wetlands, regardless of their federal status.
9. Standardize wetland setbacks according to scientific best practices: watercourse
setbacks should extend around adjacent wetlands and 100’ setbacks are applied to
isolated wetlands.
10. Enforce wider setbacks to high-value streams and wetlands based on a water resources
inventory.
11. Allow reduced stream and wetland setbacks through scientifically robust risk
assessment. Use Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and
Managing Wetlands as a model.
12. Require mitigation of impacts to wetlands under the City’s jurisdiction.
17
13. Standardize a mitigation process for adverse impacts to wetlands under the City’s
jurisdiction.
14. In the list of exemptions, replace the phrase “wholly human-made water source” with
“the maintenance of irrigation and stormwater facilities.”
15. Specify a water resource specialist as the “review authority” and establish them as a
required standing member of the Design Review Committee (see recommendations
under Article 7).
16. Require that setback planting plans be designed by a wetland ecologist.
17. Create an external, supplementary Wetland and Watercourse Setback Planting Guide,
similar to the Landscape and Irrigation Design Manual.
Division 38.620. - Watercourse Setbacks.
18. Change the title to “Stream Regulations.” This is more consistent with the title of
Division 38.610. - Wetland Regulations.
19. Include an Intent and applicability section for streams, as is included in Division 38.610. -
Wetland Regulations. Or consolidate Intent and applicability for streams and wetlands
into one section.
20. Specify a water resource specialist as the “review authority” and establish them as a
required standing member of the DRC (see Article 7. recommendations).
21. Increase setback widths to match scientific best practices: 300’ for the East Gallatin
River, 150’ for Bozeman Creek, and 100’ for all other watercourses.
22. Enforce wider setbacks to high-value streams and wetlands based on a water resources
inventory.
23. Allow reduced stream and wetland setbacks through scientifically robust risk
assessment. Use Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and
Managing Wetlands as a model.
24. Require mitigation of impacts to streams.
25. Include a Submittal Materials section, as is included in Division 38.610. - Wetland
Regulations, or consolidate Submittal Materials for streams and wetlands into one
section.
26. Remove Sec. 38.620.030. - Other provisions, particularly the line “An agricultural use,
activity or structure is considered abandoned if not used for agricultural purposes for
more than 180 consecutive days,” which is incorrect per MCA 85-2-404.
27. Require that setback planting plans be signed by a wetland ecologist.
28. Create an external, supplementary Wetland and Watercourse Setback Planting Guide,
similar to the Landscape and Irrigation Design Manual.
ARTICLE 7. - PERMITS, LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS AND PROCEDURES
18
Division 38.700. - Jurisdiction And Scope Of Authority; Sec. 38.700.010. - Review Authority.
29. Establish a water resource specialist as the review authority for water resources.
Division 38.700. - Jurisdiction And Scope Of Authority; Sec. 38.700.170. - Development Review
Committee (Drc) And Administrative Design Review Staff (Adr).
30. Include a water resource specialist as a required standing member of the DRC.
Division 38.710. - Submittal Materials And Requirements.
31. Ensure consistency in the language and burden of proof required for water resources
throughout this division. Standardize the types of information required for water
resources in platting, site planning, and parks planning.
32. Throughout the application process, collate a “water resources packet” where
information pertaining to streams and wetlands can be easily found, including
delineations, proposed impacts, risk assessments, and mitigation strategies.
Division 38.710. - Submittal Materials And Requirements; Sec. 38.710.030. - Subdivision
Pre-Application Submittal Materials.
33. Include a “Water Resources” heading (separate from “Topographic Features”).
34. Require an aquatic resources delineation by a qualified professional—including streams,
wetlands, and irrigation ditches—at the pre-application stage. Alternatively, the code
should strongly recommend this delineation at the pre-application stage and clearly
state that the developer assumes all risk for redesigns if a later assessment reveals
impacts due to inaccurate or incomplete mapping.
Division 38.710. - Submittal Materials And Requirements; Sec. 38.710.120. - Submittal Materials
For Regulated Activities In Wetlands.
35. Move to Division 38.610 Wetland Regulations and consolidate with similar subsections
in this division. Consider creating a combined Submittal Materials section for streams
and wetlands. Make this the one-stop shop for what is required, instead of having things
scattered throughout the UDC. This recommendation is consistent with the organization
of information for Division 38.600 Floodplain Regulations, and helps people find and
understand applicable information more easily.
36. Throughout the application process, collate a “water resources packet” where
information pertaining to streams and wetlands can be easily found, including
delineations, proposed impacts, risk assessments, and mitigation strategies.
19
CONCLUSION
The Unified Development Code update represents a significant opportunity to align Bozeman’s
land use regulations with our community’s shared values, scientific understanding, and
long-term vision for watershed health. The Gallatin Water Collaborative has developed a set of
practical, science-based recommendations to ensure that Bozeman’s streams and wetlands are
not only protected, but integrated meaningfully into the city’s growth and development. These
natural systems are not obstacles to development, but are assets that safeguard our water
supply, reduce flood risk, support biodiversity, and enhance quality of life for residents.
By adopting the recommendations outlined in this memo, the City of Bozeman can set a
precedent for proactive urban watershed stewardship that benefits both people and wildlife.
This is not about reinventing the wheel: it’s about taking the next step, turning existing plans
into action, and improving the clarity, consistency, and effectiveness of the development review
process. With strong leadership and clear regulatory guidance, Bozeman has the opportunity to
shape a future where development and ecological resilience go hand in hand, securing clean
water, healthy streams, and vibrant natural spaces for generations to come.
20