HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-10-25 Public Comment - E. Bowers - Wetland Code RevisionsFrom:Elisabeth Bowers
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Wetland Code Revisions
Date:Tuesday, September 9, 2025 12:58:26 PM
Attachments:image001.png
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.
Hi,
I’m a local Professional Wetland Scientist and consulting biologist who has worked in the field
for 20 years in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and California.
Over the course of my career, I have worked for private consulting firms as well as for the
Bonneville Power Administration (under the Department of Energy) as well as for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE).
I have been involved in the process of the wetland code revisions for the past 2.5 years and I
have emailed back forth a few times with Nick Ross at the city.
Here are my comments:
1. It is great that Nick has been willing to take on rewriting the Wetlands and Watercourses
ordinance revision. However, Nick is a Transportation Engineer. In all my years of serving
on projects as the wetland and stream permitting expert, I have never heard of a
wetlands ordinance being prepared by a transportation engineer, primarily because there
is a conflict of interest here – which is reflected in how wetland protection has been
talked about by the city. Wetland protection has been talked about as an impediment to
developing full parcels and building roads. Every city has this conundrum: how can it
maximize use of the space it has within its boundaries without becoming a sprawling
metropolis where people have long commutes to their urban jobs. However, as
someone who highly values wetland and waterways and all the functions and values
that these provide to people: drinking water, irrigation water, recreation, native plant
communities, green spaces, swimming holes, temperature control, water quality
improvements, fish and wildlife habitat, etc. – I BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY THAT
WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES ARE WORTH SUFFICIENTLY PROTECTING AND
INVESTING IN!
2. I appreciate the efforts that the city has made to consider local wetland protection
beyond the protection that EPA and the USACE provide for federally jurisdictional waters
(Waters of the U.S. or WOTUS) because per the Sackett decision as well as other
changes to agency policies, the protection provided by these agencies to protect our
community values in the form of natural resources is shrinking. These days – the natural
environment MUST BE PROTECTED BY LOCAL AGENCIES. In the broader wetland and
environmental permitting world – this present an opportunity. Many larger local agencies
across the U.S. have been inclined to support local agencies in developing local code to
ensure that there is wetland protection not just in the Pacific Northwest, or Minnesota,
or Ohio, or Massachusetts – but in all areas where natural resources are highly valued.
THAT INCLUDES THE CITY OF BOZEMAN.
3. The DRAFT wetlands and watercourses ordinance is a great starting point – it already
has certain aspects that reflect certain protections included in county critical areas
ordinances in Washington State – which isn’t surprising because that’s Bill Kleindl’s
background – and he seems to be the primary consultant for this whole effort. But there
are certain aspects where this DRAFT ordinance falls short:
I do believe a wetland/watercourses professional should be the champion of this
effort – the City would not recommend a wetland professional to lead the charge
on a transportation analysis would they?
There needs to be some sort of functional assessment – this is a standard
approach on how to place value on wetland and watercourses. This could be a
simpler type of assessment than has been developed elsewhere – however at
this point, all the wetland buffers, stream setbacks, and mitigation are based on
an arbitrary, vague, subjective, non-science-based analysis of the value of the
resource. How can the community ensure that we are protecting natural
resources appropriately if there is no established way to assess them
consistently? What we will end up with are handshake deals, which is what we
are trying to get away from, right?
Similarly the wetland buffer widths and stream setback widths seem arbitrary –
not based on science – not based on a review of what other similar urban areas
are doing – not even based on any sort of quick GIS exercise that Bill’s students
all know how to do potentially for free – from the City’s reactions to public
comments at the September 8th meeting, the widths seem more based on
maximizes development area than anything else. THIS IS VERY CONCERNING
AS SOMEONE WHO HIGHLY VALUES THE CITY’S NATURAL RESOURCES.
Furthermore, the minimum wetland buffer is 10 feet which reveals the slant
toward development. Wetlands are often formed and then delineated according
to changes in topography because that is where hydric soils become less than 12
inches from the soil surface and this is where hydrology settles. Often, and
especially in flat areas – one might not even make it far enough above the
wetland topographically to not impact the wetland directly with a buffer of only
10 feet! Its extremely non-scientific to think that a 10-foot buffer would avoid
impacts. If I build a house and dig a foundation or construct a road 10 feet away
from the wetland I will almost certainly be digging into the soils associated with
the wetland or at the very least be compacting those soils and will interrupt the
hydrologic connections of the wetland – not to mention creating risk for that
building or road.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I do believe there is work left to be done here.
Sincerely,
Elisabeth Kay Bowers, PWS
Senior Permitting Specialist
Ironwood Consulting Inc.
503.504.2514
ebowers@ironwoodbio.com
www.ironwoodbio.com