HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-26-26 Public Comment - Bozeman Tree Coalition - Public comments for UPF meeting 3_16_26From:BozemanTreeCoalition
To:Bozeman Public Comment; Mitchell Overton
Cc:Addi Jadin; Alex Nordquest
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Public comments for UPF meeting 3/16/26
Date:Thursday, March 26, 2026 11:53:52 AM
Attachments:2026.3.26.BTC comments for UPF mtng 3.26.26^.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.
Dear City Clerk-
Please place the following letter in the folder for tonight's UPB Board meeting and forward to
all board members and commissioner liaison.
Thank you,Marcia Kaveney
for Bozeman Tree Coalition
Urban Parks and Forestry Advisory Board
Bozeman Tree Coalition Comments
March 26, 2026
Dear UPF Board members and Director Overton,
Thank you for your hard work and for the opportunity to make public comment. The
Bozeman Tree Coalition (BTC) is very interested in your work and is writing today to
comment on your three action items on tonight’s meeting agenda (3/26/26), in order of
appearance on the agenda.
Action Item F.1 . UPF Board work plan 2026-2027
BTC is interested in all the focus areas you will be involved in over the next two years.
Please consider the following suggestions for focus areas 2 and 4, and clarifying focus area
5 when finalizing your work plan:
Focus Area 2. Review Reports…
Please consider adding a section (2.b.) that allows for code development following the
UFMP update (similar to the PRAT plan in focus area 4) such as:
2.b. Create a UDC package utilizing UFMP recommendations after the UFMP update is
finalized.
Background- during the recent Unified Development Code update, sta; postponed most
proposed changes in tree-related text until the UFMP update was completed. The UFMP
update is beginning this year, therefore it would seem to be excellent timing to get the UDC
package started and on the calendar for 2027.
Focus Area 4A. Create a UDC package utilizing PRAT Plan recommendations.
- Plan to incorporate the help of community partner groups such as BTC and others to
help draft code text. BTC devoted hundreds of hours learning to navigate the UDC
over the past 3 years as it relates to the environment and urban forest developed a
strong understanding of text formatting. BTC members would like to utilize those
new skills in small work sessions with the UPF Board members or park sta;, if
possible.
BOZEMANTREECOALITION@GMAIL.COM
Focus Area 5- Sunset Hills.
An observation to consider and clarify, if needed:
The language for Board responsibilities is confusing between Section 2 of resolution 5328
that states the UPF board provides advisory recommendations to the City Commission on
issues pertaining to Sunset Hills Cemetery and Section 3 of resolution 5328 which states,
the Board will provide recommendations “when requested”.
Does this qualifier limit the board member’s right to independently introduce a Sunset Hills
concern?
Action Item F2. Bikefill Community Bike Park Master Plan
BTC appreciates the opportunity to share their observations about the Bikefill Master Plan
(BMP) before it is adopted by the City Commission. There are many wonderful things about
the proposed Master Plan such as the trails being mostly outside of the watercourse
setbacks, the inclusion of a conservation area, and plans to revegetate with native plant
species among others. However, there are also several concerns. Recreation has clearly
been prioritized over balance with natural resources.
Call to remove Action Item F.2.: BTC objects to the brevity of public notice for the BMP, the
fact that half of the notice period was over spring break, as well as the lack of an initial work
session to review and make additional adjustments to the BMP before sending it on to the
City Commission for final approval. Additionally, there will only 8 business days between
the UPF Board meeting and the City Commission approval. For these reasons, the BTC
respectfully requests that the Bikefill Master Plan action item F.2. be removed from the
3/26/26 agenda and changed to a work session.
As GVLT states, in their announcement on March 17th, “While this isn't the final layout of
every trail and feature just yet, it’s a major step toward bringing the community’s vision to life—
balancing natural resources and recreation.” GVLT goes on to say, “After months of community
input, our local design and construction team created a plan that is a reflection of your vision.”
BTC would like to see the public have more time to review that plan. Does it actually balance
natural resources and recreation? Is it truly a reflection of our vision? It’s a complicated project
with many documents and small schematics. The public should be given ample time to review
and possibly tweak elements of it. Please give the BTC request to change Action Item F.2. to a
work session serious consideration.
Additional BTC concerns include the following:
1. The perimeter trail on the very north property line appears to be located within Zone 1
of the watercourse setback which is prohibited by City code except at crossings or
viewing points. However, this section of trail lingers in Zone 1. BTC suggestion would
be to cross creek at earlier point which allows for the trail to be perpendicular to creek
and only pass directly through Zone 1 as code intended.
2. A trail bisects the "conservation area" in its widest area (see on Overall Trail Map as
#6). Any trail through the creek and adjacent to the wetlands and grasslands will
inevitably have a negative effect on the resting and nesting wildlife using the
conservation area. BTC suggestion would be to relocate the bisecting trail downhill and
to the west where it can cross the creek adjacent to the existing access road. That
location can still have an interesting boardwalk/bridge experience. To truly balance
natural resources with recreation, discourage stopping and playing at creek crossings.
Place creek crossing in less wooded areas. Wooded areas as well as the native
grasslands are the prime habitat for wildlife and should be offered more buffers.
3.There is trail redundancy and trail concentration in the southeast corner of Bikefill near
Churn Creek. The perimeter trail and X-C trail are side by side. Consolidate the trails to
create a larger buffer along Churn Creek and the habitat it provides.
4. Help ensure that state law is followed by disallowing construction in grasslands and
groves during nesting season unless a bird survey with Sacajawea Audubon has been
conducted and determined no birds are actively nesting.
5. Utilize low wooden fencing such as jack fencing to discourage disturbance to both
Churn Creek and the northern drainage. This could provide a psychological barrier to
encourage people to respect these areas and a physical barrier to bike
riders. Educational signage could be posted on fencing.
6. All fences should be wildlife friendly to allow passage from Story Mill Road through
the park towards the East Gallatin.
7. Strongly consider no wells or promotion of creek access. As the City of Bozeman
strives to find enough water for its current and future residents, it would seem unfitting
to construct a well for recreationists. Bikes can be washed off at home. Bikers can cool
off at nearby Glen Lake or Story Mill Park splash pad. As for drinking water, those that
travel by car will have it with them, and those that bike will also know to carry water.
8. Item 5 of Section Two of Resolution 5328: CREATION AND PURPOSE OF THE URBAN
PARKS AND FORESTRY BOARD states, “Consider principles of sustainability and the
Bozeman Action Plan in its policy recommendations”. BTC asks that you please keep that
in mind when evaluating creek and habitat disturbances, well construction, and paved vs.
permeable surfaces. Bozeman Community Plan 2020 commits to being good land
stewards and habitat protection for birds is included in that plan. Sustainability is also
good land stewardship.
Action Item F.3. UFMP Community Engagement Plan:
BTC steering committee and members are eager for the UFMP Update to begin and look
forward to being part of its development. Upon reviewing the proposed work plan, we have
the following observations, questions, and/or concerns listed in order of their appearance
in the proposal:
1. BTC appreciates and supports the planned inclusion of “assessment of private property
trees impacted by construction” in the update as well as the recommendations and
strategies to address public concerns. BTC would like to see that trees on private property
undergoing development review will also be considered during this update. It was one of
the topics that came up during the 2025 UDC review that was postponed specifically for
the UFMP update.
2. BTC supports the continued language of the former plan that aims to “[sustainably],
holistically, and ehiciently manage Bozeman’s urban forest to realize the full expanse of
benefits urban trees can provide” and that the updated plan will “serve as an overarching
guide for all Forestry Division operations, planning, and public outreach.” We encourage the
plan to include a full and modern description of benefits of urban trees including the extra
benefits of native trees.
3. Essential components of the new plan will include: Missing from this section is how
the plan will guide municipal code development, where the Heritage Trees fit in, and how
to maintain trees on private property during development review and subsequent
development,
4. Community Engagement Purpose: How will public concerns be taken into account?
The UDC process caused a lot of engagement fatigue – how will people know their
comments will make a diherence?
5. Terms: With tree equity, can we discuss the juxtaposition of removal of trees in the
downtown formerly treed locations and planting of trees in less treed locations? How will
the updated plan work to maintain existing trees in addition to Heritage Trees?
6. External Groups-“Bozeman Tree Coalition: An active group concerned about urban
trees. Their participation at public meetings and UPF board work sessions is welcomed.”
BTC appreciates being listed as an external group. However, it is challenging to engage
meaningfully with the update process when limited to one-way 3 minute comments at the
podium. While BTC appreciates that opportunity, they believe they would be even more
ehective in small work sessions that allow for back and forth dialogue. Topics of special
interest for BTC include Heritage Trees, Native trees, Tree Protection Zone management,
improved code enforceability for trees in the NCOD and on private property undergoing
development review, and researching sister cities. BTC has approximately 250 email
subscribers and would thus be a valuable community liaison as well as focus group.
7. The Increasing Impact on the Decision chart on page 6 sounds very good as it relates to
how public input will be used.
8. Timeline- Concerns include:
a. Work session #1 March 26th might not count as a public engagement as the public
has not yet received the “necessary information” and the engagement plan has not been
approved or announced. March 26th could, instead, be considered a pre-engagement work
session.
b. It looks like there are 2 (of 4) work sessions with the UPF board before the call for
engagement has happened (April 28th.) Could this be amended to move up the call for
engagement?
c. The dates of engagement in April appear out of order on the Update Plan draft/page 7.
d. The timing of the draft with public comment could be more mindful of the typical
schedule of Bozeman residents. City stah and resident vacations often occur in mid-
August. As proposed, the last week of public comment is also the first week of school. The
month of public input could be shifted by one or two weeks in either direction to take into
account this highly transitional time in Bozeman. Labor Day is Sept 7th which is another
conflict. Besides the obvious winter holidays and spring break, the end of August through
the beginning of Sept. is a busy time for families, students, and residents and participation
could be adversely ahected. August 31st is a particularly bad date for an open house for all
the reasons stated above. Perhaps mid- Sept would be better. Adjusting these dates to
accommodate the typical Bozeman pattern will go far to meet one of the measurements of
success parameters, “Were meetings held at reasonable times and locations where
members of the public could reasonably be expected to attend?”
e. Another work session between the open house (in person public meeting 2 of 2
currently scheduled for 8/31/26) and the City Commission presentation and vote would
allow the UPF Board and consultant to incorporate feedback from the open house in a
public forum. i.e. How are public comments being incorporated, or not? The public can
listen in on the discussions.
9. Engagement wrap up (page 10): It appears that a lot of emphasis will be on the public
survey. These have been controversial in the past because they are not usually statistically
representative. How much weight will the surveys’ get? Could open discussions take place
in addition to surveys?
Thank you for considering our concerns for the three action items tonight.
Bozeman Tree Coalition co-founders
Marcia Kaveney
Daniel Carty
Angie Kociolek
April Craighead
Lara Schulz
Chris McQueary