HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-10-25 Public Comment - F. Doy - Comments on Draft City of Bozeman Wetland and Watercourse RegulationsFrom:Faith Doty
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL][SENDER UNVERIFIED]Comments on Draft City of Bozeman Wetland and Watercourse Regulations
Date:Tuesday, September 9, 2025 4:55:58 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 City Commission,
Please review the following comments on the Draft City of Bozeman Wetland and Watercourse Regulations.
1. The draft regulations present a comprehensive framework for protecting/conserving wetlands and aquatic
resources within the City of Bozeman.
2. Wetland Delineation Scope and Adjacent Properties. Sec. 38.220.130.A.1–2. Requiring delineation of wetlands
on adjacent properties may lead to trespassing and/or impose a regulation that a property owner cannot comply
with (e.g., if the adjacent landowner refuses access). Recommend limiting delineation to the subject property
only. Suggest requiring a qualitative discussion of the likelihood of aquatic features on adjacent properties, and
restricting quantifiable evaluation to aquatic resources on the subject property.
3. Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) Bottleneck. Sec. 38.220.130.A.2.a(2). Requiring an AJD from
USACE makes sense and is useful to both the property owner and the City. However, the regulation as written
may delay development due to unpredictable timelines, as the USACE office in Montana does not operate under
a defined schedule for AJDs and the process can extend over a year. Suggest allowing conditional acceptance of
delineation pending AJD, or defining a submission threshold such as “record of AJD request at least 30 days
prior to submittal of pre-plat application.”
4. Wetland Review Checklist. Sec. 38.220.130.A.3.d. Recommend the City publish a comprehensive and
standardized “wetland review checklist” to ensure clarity and consistency.
5. Separation of and Clarity on Reports, Documentation, and Application. Sec. 38.220.130.A.2.a(9); Sec.
38.220.130.A.3. Recommend clarifying the definition of “application” (e.g., pre-plat, site plan, etc.). Also
recommend separating required documentation into two distinct reports:
a. Aquatic Resources Delineation Report
b. Aquatic Resources Impacts and Mitigation Report/Memo
This framework preserves the integrity of the delineation report as a stand-alone, science-based documentdescribing existing conditions. The impact report would then address the proposed development and discuss
minimization and mitigation measures. Combining these reports risks undermining the scientific credibility of thedelineation by tying it too closely to a specific development proposal.
6. Mitigation Report. Sec. 38.220.130.A.4. Recommend incorporating language that removes the requirement to
prepare a mitigation report if wetlands are under USACE jurisdiction and USACE has directed that mitigation is to
be fulfilled via credit purchase from an approved wetland bank.
7. Mitigation Burden and Cost. Sec. 38.220.130.A.4. The level of detail required for on-site mitigation (e.g.,
hydroperiod modeling, planting specifications) is extensive and may be cost-prohibitive, particularly for individual
landowners pursuing small-scale development projects. Suggest the City consider the financial and technical
burden on applicants and allow for scalable mitigation requirements based on project scope and impact size.
8. Permit Application Phasing. Sec. 38.610.040. A complete Section 404 permit application may not be feasible at
the pre-plat stage, as impacts are often not fully quantified (e.g., cubic yards of fill, specific material type).
Recommend rephrasing to allow conditional approval with submission of an incomplete 404 application, with final
approval contingent upon receipt of the approved permit from USACE. This would also allow for the City to
suggest specific material choices, BMPs, etc. to be incorporated into the design.
9. Lack of Quantification in Approval Conditions. Sec. 38.610.090.A. Approval conditions lack quantifiable
standards. Recommend including measurable criteria for determining “appropriate” wetland buffers to ensure
consistent application and review.
10. USACE typically favors credit purchase over on-site mitigation, as on-site mitigation in urban and small-scale
contexts often fails to achieve long-term ecological success.
Thank you for your consideration,
Faith Doty
Faith Doty, PWSEnvironmental Scientist, Morrison-Maierle
+14069226772 direct | +14065895217 mobile2880 Technology Blvd W, Bozeman, MT 59718
Celebrating 80 years of building better communities together
A 100% Employee-Owned Company