Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wetlands Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bozeman staff reopen wetland-code rewrite after expert review; aims to tighten avoidance and mitigation
Summary
City staff briefed the board on a revised approach to the wetland code after a technical review showed 14–20% of wetland acreage in the Bozeman planning area would likely be locally (not federally) jurisdictional following the Supreme Court’s Sackett decision; staff plans a public workshop and a formal code text amendment process this spring.
City staff told the Sustainability Advisory Board they are restarting an expanded revision of Bozeman’s wetland provisions in the Unified Development Code to strengthen avoidance and minimization requirements and to clarify mitigation options after a technical review of local wetland jurisdiction.
Nut graf: Staff said the review shows only a minority of wetland acreage in the Bozeman planning area — roughly 14–20% — would likely fall outside federal jurisdiction under the Supreme Court’s Sackett decision, which narrows which wetlands are regulated as waters of the United States. The city will therefore broaden the code rewrite beyond mitigation prioritization to close regulatory gaps, tighten application checklists and improve coordination between wetland and watercourse code sections.
Staff described background: the commission in 2022 prioritized a local wetland bank and revisions to wetland mitigation policy; staff previously drafted code changes focused on prioritizing on-site mitigation first, then purchase of locally certified wetland-bank credits, cash-in-lieu and, lastly, credits from more regional banks. Public and board reviewers asked staff to expand the scope to better address avoidance and minimization and the full development-review process.
City staff said they contracted a local wetland scientist to review existing code and mapping. That analysis compared likely federal jurisdiction (wetlands with direct surface connection to waters of the United States) to local wetland complexes and concluded approximately 14–20% of wetland acreage in the planning area would likely be non-federal (locally jurisdictional) after the Sackett decision. Staff said that figure supported a broader code rewrite rather than a narrow mitigation-only update.
Staff outlined next steps: resolve technical comments with the consultant through February, prepare draft code amendments for a public workshop tentatively scheduled for March 27, and then circulate a formal draft in April and take the ordinance through the Community Development Board and city commission for possible adoption in June. Staff said the updated code would, if adopted, become effective with the next fiscal-year cycle to allow implementation planning.
Board members and public commenters asked about several points staff said would receive attention in the rewrite: how to treat wetlands associated with man-made features (irrigation ditches and stormwater facilities), the legal limits on the city’s authority to prohibit development on private property, permanence and carbon sequestration in wetland restoration, buffers and accounting for “indirect” impacts around a disturbance, partnerships with local watershed organizations and annexation/land-value considerations. Staff said legal review will guide what the city can require and that the revised code will emphasize stronger avoidance and site-design incentives where an outright prohibition would not be legally viable.
Ending: Staff requested technical feedback and said they will return with a draft code for board review before the Community Development Board process. A public workshop is planned for late March and the formal text amendment process is expected to follow in April–June.
