HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-09-26 Public Comment - S. Bieluch - PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING APPLICATION 23245 - 811 W. MENDENHALLFrom:Scott Bieluch
To:Bozeman Public Comment; cityclerksdepartment@bozemanmt.gov; Joey Morrison; Jennifer Madgic; Emma Bode;Douglas Fischer; Alison Sweeney; agenda@bozemanmt.gov; Planning Technician
Cc:Greg Sullivan; Dorrington, Terri
Subject:[EXTERNAL]PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING APPLICATION 23245 – 811 W. MENDENHALL
Date:Wednesday, September 9, 2026 10:51:12 PM
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.
PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING APPLICATION 23245 – 811 W. MENDENHALL
Request for Additional Groundwater, Subsurface, and Environmental Review BeforeExcavation
Dear Members of the City Commission, Community Development Board, and City Staff:
I am submitting this public comment because I believe the subsurface and groundwaterconditions documented in the City's own project records for Application 23245 at 811 W.
Mendenhall deserve significantly more attention before substantial excavation andconstruction proceed.
I am not making the allegation that this property is contaminated. I am not asking the City toassume that contamination exists. I am asking the City to do something much more
reasonable: make sure that the documented groundwater and subsurface conditions havebeen adequately evaluated before a five-story building with a large below-grade parkinggarage is constructed on this very small site.
The information I have found in the City's own engineering documents raises legitimate
questions about whether the existing investigation is sufficient to protect groundwater,neighboring properties, and the City's stormwater and water-quality infrastructure during and
after construction.
1. This is a very large project on a very small piece of land
The project site is approximately 31,377 square feet — about 0.72 acre.
The approved project is a five-story, approximately 130,000-square-foot mixed-usebuilding containing 95 apartments, approximately 960 square feet of co-working space, anda substantial conditioned basement parking garage.
The City's project documents indicate that the building footprint will cover almost the entireproperty.
That matters.
A five-story building occupying essentially an entire 0.72-acre parcel is fundamentallydifferent from constructing a small building on a site with substantial open ground. Oncenearly the entire site is occupied by the building, pavement, parking, and other improvements,there is very little remaining soil available for natural infiltration, groundwater interaction,drainage, or future remediation.
The City itself describes the proposed development as having the building and internal parkingessentially covering the property. The project's stormwater system therefore depends heavilyupon engineered subsurface infrastructure rather than the natural functioning of a substantialarea of open ground.
This is precisely the kind of situation where subsurface conditions deserve careful scrutinybefore construction begins.
2. The groundwater is not deep — and the documented numbers are
concerning
The City's October 2020 Allied Engineering geotechnical report documented groundwater inall three of its original boreholes at:
11.8 feet below ground surface – BH-213.2 feet – BH-115.2 feet – BH-3
That alone would justify caution for a project involving a substantial below-grade structure.
But the more recent information is even more important.
The City's November 2023 Water, Sewer & Stormwater Design Report states thatgeotechnical drilling performed in 2023 encountered groundwater in five boreholes, at depthsranging from approximately 7.5 to 15 feet below ground surface.
A groundwater monitoring pipe near the center of the property was monitored during Juneand July 2023, and groundwater was observed at approximately:
9.0 to 9.2 feet below ground surface.
Those are not theoretical groundwater elevations from a regional map. They are measurementstaken at this property.
The 2020 geotechnical report also specifically cautions that groundwater levels could riseduring wetter portions of the year and warns against deep basements during particularly wetyears.
This is extremely important for the public to understand.
Groundwater is not a void beneath the property that a developer can simply dig throughwithout consequences.
When you excavate below the groundwater table, you can encounter groundwater directly inthe excavation. Depending on the construction method, that can require dewatering, pumping,temporary lowering of groundwater levels, impermeable barriers, permanent drainage systems,or other measures.
Those actions can affect groundwater movement and pressure, adjacent soils, nearbystructures, and neighboring properties.
And when groundwater is encountered in soil that may contain undocumented fill orhistorically disturbed materials, another question becomes unavoidable:
What is in that soil, and what happens if groundwater comes into contact with it?
3. The City's own geotechnical report warns about undocumented fill
The 2020 geotechnical report contains another important warning.
It states that a previous structure on the property was removed and that the resulting area wassubsequently filled. The report indicates that this material was presumably not placed as
engineered fill and recommends that it be removed and replaced with properly compactedstructural fill if future improvements are constructed over that footprint.
The report goes further and warns that:
other areas of undocumented fill may exist on the property and should be watched forduring future construction.
This is not an accusation of contamination.
But it is an acknowledgment by the project's own geotechnical consultant that the subsurfaceconditions are not necessarily uniform or completely known.
That distinction matters.
Undocumented fill can consist of perfectly benign construction material. But historically
disturbed urban fill can also contain concrete, asphalt, demolition debris, metal, treatedmaterials, petroleum-impacted soil, or other materials that were placed decades ago and are
not apparent from the surface.
Until that material is actually encountered and characterized, nobody can responsibly assume
that all subsurface material is clean and uniform.
4. The property has a history of light manufacturing
The City's November 2023 Water, Sewer & Stormwater Design Report describes the existingproperty as containing:
a single-family residence;a small sign manufacturing facility;multiple buildings and outbuildings;concrete-paved areas;gravel parking areas; andlawn areas.
The City's 2020 geotechnical report also references a September 2020 Phase IEnvironmental Site Assessment prepared by Morrison-Maierle for the Media Stationproperty, covering Lots 7 through 12 of the Springbrook Addition.
I have not been able to locate that actual Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in the
publicly available Application 23245 file.
I therefore do not claim that the Phase I found contamination.
But I believe the City should obtain and review that document before substantial subsurfacedisturbance occurs, particularly if it identified recognized environmental conditions, historic
releases, underground storage tanks, hazardous materials, or recommendations for additionalinvestigation.
5. The proposed stormwater system makes the groundwater issue even
more important
The proposed development includes a subsurface stormwater infiltration system.
According to the City's 2023 stormwater design documentation, the bottom of the proposedinfiltration chambers will be approximately 5.5 feet below existing ground, with over-
excavation to native gravels encountered at approximately 6.5 to 9.5 feet.
Remember the groundwater measurements:
7.5 feet.9.0–9.2 feet.11.8 feet.13.2 feet.15 feet.15.2 feet.
The relationship between those numbers is what concerns me.
The project proposes subsurface infrastructure several feet below grade while documented
groundwater at the same property has been observed at elevations as shallow as approximately7.5 feet, including approximately 9 feet during summer monitoring in 2023.
That does not automatically mean the design is unsafe.
But it absolutely means the relationship between the stormwater infiltration system, seasonal
groundwater fluctuations, excavation, groundwater flow, and any undocumented subsurfacematerials deserves careful analysis.
6. Why should ordinary citizens care about groundwater beneath one
construction site?
Because groundwater does not recognize property boundaries.
A homeowner can own the soil beneath his or her property, but groundwater moves throughinterconnected soil and rock systems.
If excavation, dewatering, infiltration, or construction changes groundwater flow, pressure, orquality, the consequences can potentially extend beyond the development parcel.
Potential consequences can include:
groundwater entering excavations and requiring pumping;
temporary or permanent alteration of local groundwater flow;settlement or movement of adjacent soils if groundwater levels or pressures are
changed;impacts to neighboring foundations or underground infrastructure;
migration of pollutants if previously unidentified contaminated soil or groundwater isencountered;
discharge of contaminated groundwater or sediment to the stormwater system;impaired operation of stormwater infiltration facilities;
increased long-term maintenance requirements;unexpected construction delays and remediation costs;
impacts to nearby private or municipal water resources; andlong-term degradation of groundwater quality that may be extremely difficult or
expensive to reverse.
Again, I am not saying that these things will happen.
I am saying that they are foreseeable risks that should be evaluated rather thandiscovered after construction is underway.
7. Montana law places a high value on protecting water quality
Montana's Water Quality Act contains an important principle that should guide this review.
Under MCA § 75-5-303, Montana's nondegradation policy provides that existing uses of statewaters, and the level of water quality necessary to protect those uses, must be maintained andprotected. The statute also establishes protections for high-quality waters and requires thatexisting and anticipated uses be fully protected when degradation is considered.
This is not merely an abstract environmental principle.
It reflects something that should be obvious to all of us who live in Bozeman:
Clean water is one of this community's most valuable resources.
Once groundwater is contaminated, it is not like repainting a building or replacing a sidewalk.Contaminated groundwater can move, persist, require years of monitoring, and potentially costenormous sums to investigate and remediate.
The citizens of Bozeman should not have to discover years later that an environmentalproblem could have been identified and prevented during the construction phase.
8. Bozeman's own stormwater requirements recognize the importance of
preventing pollution
The City requires construction stormwater permitting before ground-disturbing activity begins.The City states that its stormwater program exists to protect public safety and water qualityand to comply with state and federal environmental requirements.
The City's stormwater standards also require development and redevelopment projects toaddress untreated stormwater and non-stormwater discharges. City stormwater policyspecifically recognizes shallow groundwater as an engineering-related issue that may requirecoordination with the City's Engineering Division.
The City's Design and Construction Standards likewise require storm drainage facilities to bedesigned according to City standards and applicable Montana requirements.
These policies demonstrate that the City already recognizes the connection betweendevelopment, groundwater, stormwater, public safety, and water quality.
The question before the City is therefore not whether these issues matter.
The question is whether the level of investigation being performed at this particular siteis adequate given the documented conditions.
9. This is not an argument against development — it is an argument for
responsible development
I recognize that Bozeman needs housing.
I also recognize that infill development can be an important part of accommodating growthwithout endlessly expanding the City's footprint.
But density cannot become an excuse to ignore physical limitations of a particular site.
There is a fundamental difference between saying:
“This site can accommodate a building of this size because the plans can beengineered.”
and asking:
“Have we adequately demonstrated that this particular site can safelyaccommodate this particular building, excavation, stormwater system, andbasement without unacceptable impacts to groundwater, neighboringproperties, and public water resources?”
That second question deserves a clear answer.
10. I respectfully request additional investigation before substantial
excavation
I am asking the City to require or coordinate an independent, technically appropriate review ofthe groundwater and subsurface conditions before substantial excavation or dewatering occurs.
At a minimum, I believe the following should be considered:
1. Obtain and review the September 2020 Phase I Environmental Site Assessmentreferenced in the City's geotechnical report.2. Conduct additional groundwater monitoring sufficient to establish seasonal
groundwater elevations rather than relying primarily on isolated drilling observations.3. Evaluate the relationship between the proposed basement excavation, groundwaterelevations, and seasonal groundwater fluctuations.4. Characterize undocumented fill encountered within the excavation footprint before itis removed, relocated, or incorporated into the site.5. Establish appropriate procedures for unexpected environmental conditions,including petroleum odors, stained soil, buried tanks, unusual fill, contaminatedgroundwater, or other evidence of a historic release.6. Evaluate whether dewatering will be necessary, where that water would bedischarged, and whether testing or treatment would be required before discharge.7. Evaluate the proposed stormwater infiltration system in relation to thedocumented groundwater elevations, including whether seasonal groundwater couldcompromise the intended performance of the system or create an unintended pathwayfor pollutants.8. Coordinate with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality ifinvestigation or construction identifies conditions falling within DEQ's jurisdiction.9. Make the relevant environmental and groundwater information available to thepublic so that neighboring property owners and citizens can understand what hasactually been investigated and what protections are being implemented.10. Do not treat the absence of a currently documented contamination problem asproof that no environmental risk exists. The appropriate conclusion from theavailable evidence is that additional investigation is warranted.
11. We have an opportunity to prevent a problem instead of reacting to
one
Bozeman is changing rapidly.
That makes the protection of our groundwater increasingly important, not less important.
Every new building, parking structure, utility excavation, stormwater system, and undergroundstructure changes the relationship between the built environment and the natural environment.
Once a site is excavated, filled, covered with concrete, and occupied by a five-story structure,it becomes substantially more difficult to investigate what was beneath it.
That is why the time to answer these questions is before excavation — not after anunexpected condition is encountered 10 feet below grade.
The City's recently adopted Stormwater Facilities Plan specifically emphasizes protectingpublic safety, improving water quality, and complying with environmental regulations.
Those goals should mean more than simply complying with the minimum paperwork requiredfor a development application.
They should mean applying reasonable precaution when the City's own engineering recordsshow shallow groundwater and uncertain subsurface conditions.
Conclusion
I respectfully ask the City to pause and take a closer look at the groundwater and subsurfaceimplications of Application 23245 before substantial excavation and dewatering proceed.
I am not asking the City to declare the property contaminated.
I am not asking the City to stop housing development.
I am asking the City to protect Bozeman's water resources before we discover a problemthe hard way.
The documented facts are enough to justify additional scrutiny:
0.72 acres.
A five-story building of approximately 130,000 square feet.
A substantial below-grade parking garage.
Groundwater observed at 7.5 to 15 feet in five 2023 boreholes.
Groundwater measured at approximately 9.0–9.2 feet during June and July 2023.
Groundwater previously encountered at 11.8, 13.2, and 15.2 feet in the 2020investigation.
Documented undocumented fill and a previously filled building footprint.
A history that includes a sign manufacturing facility and multiple existing structures.
A proposed subsurface stormwater infiltration system extending into the same generaldepth range as the documented shallow groundwater.
None of these facts proves that the project will cause environmental harm.
But together, they establish something equally important:
There is enough uncertainty and enough potential consequence to justify finding outmore before we disturb the ground.
Bozeman's groundwater is a community resource. It does not belong only to the developer of811 W. Mendenhall. Its protection affects neighboring property owners, future generations,
municipal infrastructure, downstream water quality, and every citizen who depends upon thehealth of the Gallatin Valley's water resources.
We should not gamble with that resource simply because a problem has not yet been proven toexist.
Please require the additional groundwater, subsurface, and environmental investigationnecessary to demonstrate that this project can proceed without unacceptable risk toBozeman's groundwater and surrounding properties.
Thank you for considering this comment and for your responsibility to protect both Bozeman's
future growth and the natural resources that make this community worth protecting.
Respectfully,
Scott BieluchBozeman, Montana