HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-13-25 Public Comment - K. Berry, Gallatin Watershed Council - Sustainability Board 8_13 MeetingFrom:Katherine Berry
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Cc:Lilly McLane
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Sustainability Board 8/13 Meeting
Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2025 12:00:29 PM
Attachments:25.08.13 Sustainability Board Public Comment (1).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 Councilwww.gallatinwatershedcouncil.org | katherine@gallatinwatershedcouncil.org
Cell: 860-558-3323
To: Sustainability Board
From: Gallatin Watershed Council
Date: August 13, 2025
Re: The City of Bozeman Wetland Code Update
Dear Sustainability Board Members,
The Gallatin Watershed Council (GWC), along with many technical experts, has been engaging in the
Wetland Code Update process since 2023. Over the last two years, we have continued conversations
with community members across the valley, focusing on how best to protect water resources during the
development process. Of course there is no easy solution, but overall the Wetland Code Update is an
opportunity to steward our water through Bozeman by prioritizing impact avoidance and ecological
enhancement, minimizing impacts carefully, and mitigating (compensating) adverse impacts locally.
We are thankful for the City’s continued efforts to have this Code reflect best management practices,
scientific guidance, and community values. We are encouraged by several proposed updates to the draft
Wetland and Watercourse Ordinance. Some of note are the addition of a purpose statement that
outlines the value of watercourses, the opportunity for developers to integrate wetlands and
watercourses into designated park space, clarification that avoidance of wetland impact the standard
unless such impacts can be shown they can’t be avoided, and the removal of the provision that
considered agricultural uses abandoned after 180 days of inactivity—a standard that conflicted with
Montana Code.
Restoration, program management, and policy staff at the Gallatin Watershed Council have reviewed the
draft code and are providing initial thoughts in Appendix A.
As our community grows, it’s essential that our code provides clarity, predictability, and scientific
guidance based on the best available information. Development and water aren’t inherently at odds; in
fact, they can support and enhance one another when decisions are grounded in good information from
the very beginning. Please use the questions and recommendations in the appendix to inform your
August 13th discussion.
Thank you for your consideration and continued work on this topic. Let’s keep Bozeman the Most Livable
City and enact policies that provide adequate protections for our water resources from the get-go.
Best,
The 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: Comments and recommendations on the initial draft Wetland and Watercourse Ordinance
1. Concern: It is unclear at what stage of the development review process (Pre-application,
Preliminary Plat, Final Plat) the listed submission requirements are due. For example, in the
delineation report requirements, what is the purpose of including an approved jurisdictional
determination (AJD) from the USACE? Since the city is taking at least some jurisdiction over all
wetlands over 400 square feet, it does not seem necessary for the city to know what the federal
jurisdiction is at this very preliminary planning stage.
a. Recommendation: Clarify the specific review stage when each submittal item is
required. Require an aquatic resources delineation by a qualified professional—including
streams, wetlands, and irrigation ditches—at the pre-application stage. Consider
omitting the Approved Jurisdiction Determination (AJD) from the wetland delineation
report. Since AJD can take over a year, whereas the rest of the report can be prepared in
a fraction of the time, removing this requirement will allow the city to obtain key aquatic
resources data earlier in the planning process.
2. Concern: Organization of the wetlands and watercourse sections is inconsistent and difficult to
follow. Although these resources have many similarities, the sections are structured differently.
a. Recommendation: Take advantage of opportunities for consolidation and consistency.
Simplify and align the structure of the wetland regulations and watercourse setbacks
sections to mirror one-another. 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.
3. Concern: Terminology is inconsistent. For example, the wetlands and watercourse delineation
report references a “wetland review checklist” instead of a “wetland and watercourse review
checklist.” Requirements for mitigation vary in scope; some refer only to wetlands, others to
both wetlands and watercourses, and some omit buffers and setbacks entirely. This
inconsistency makes it unclear how impacts to setbacks (which are ultimately impacts to the
resource) should be addressed.
a. Recommendation: Use wetlands and watercourse consistently throughout, especially
when referring to mitigation as a form of compensation for proposed impacts. Consider
defining the word mitigation. It is difficult to tell when it is being used informally to
mean minimize impacts, and when it is being used formally to mean the process of
compensating for impact to a resource and its functionality.
The Gallatin Watershed Council guides collaborative water stewardship
in the Gallatin Valley for a healthy and productive landscape.
www.gallatinwatershedcouncil.org
4. Concern: The process for evaluating impacts to streams and wetlands seems inconsistent for
when an applicant requests “relief” from the regulations by a variance, departure, or deviation.
For example, when an applicant requests a departure from a watercourse setback, the applicant
must show that the encroachment will not negatively affect sediment, nutrient, and pollution
removal, habitat, shade, flood control, or bank stabilization. This is not required for any other
pathway and does not provide a standardized process for how an applicant is expected to
demonstrate this.
a. Recommendation: Create a variance, deviation, or departure process that is based on
evidence, not subjectivity. 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; 2) proposed disturbances and the risks they pose
to the potential functional value; and 3) measures to minimize or replace those risks.
The Gallatin Watershed Council guides collaborative water stewardship
in the Gallatin Valley for a healthy and productive landscape.
www.gallatinwatershedcouncil.org