Board advances environment, natural resources chapter; public raises water-quality, wildfire and parking concerns

The Whitefish Community Development Board reviewed a redline draft of the Vision Whitefish 2045 environment, natural resources and hazards chapter during its Feb. 20 work session and received detailed public comments on water quality, wildfire resilience, setbacks and parking.

Alan Tiefenbach, the planner presenting the chapter, said staff had circulated the draft to technical reviewers — including Whitefish Lake Institute (WLI) and the Department of Environmental Quality — and incorporated most agency suggestions. “We met with WLI personally and talked to them for an hour, and then we wrote this and sent it to them, and they said, this is good,” Tiefenbach said.

During discussion board members asked whether the chapter should include measurable benchmarks for water quality and whether the plan can require enforceable outcomes. Staff and public-works personnel said the growth policy is a policy-level document and not the venue for technical baselines; technical monitoring and enforceable permit limits are managed by WLI, DEQ and municipal engineering standards. Craig (last name not specified) and Mike Copeland said the city already participates in monitoring and regulatory programs, and that the city is preparing for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) requirements and mapping of stormwater outfalls.

The chapter includes policy language staff said reflects public concerns: for example, an objective reads in part that “no land maintenance or land disturbance, public or private, shall cause soil erosion, chemical contamination, sedimentation, nutrient loading, or stormwater discharge that adversely impacts other properties, roads, wetlands, or any water body. 0 sedimentation and 0 nutrient loading shall be the target for all development activities.” Tiefenbach read that objective into the record during discussion.

Public commenters provided detailed line edits and suggestions. Resident Richard Hildner identified several specific edits and urged that some “should” statements be recast as “must,” including for golf-course operations; he also recommended adding runoff from the BNSF rail yard to a discussion of outfalls. Hildner requested that tree-preservation language (deleted in a redline) be restored with language balancing urban canopy and defensible-space requirements for wildfire safety; he also suggested referencing recent National Fire Protection Association guidance on setbacks.

Other public commenters echoed process and content concerns: Nathan Dugan urged the board to keep the work session focused on big-picture policy rather than minutiae, while Rhonda Fitzgerald and Heart of Whitefish representatives argued for stronger language to retain the city’s small-town character and to avoid policy language that could accelerate rapid growth or harm downtown businesses.

What staff said about enforceability: engineers and public-works staff explained that implementation occurs through updated engineering standards, permits and zoning regulations. They noted the city already requires detention/treatment and drainage studies for projects that create more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface and that MPDES/DEQ permits and the MS4 program set specific discharge limits.

Next steps: staff said the chapter will be brought back at the next work session (scheduled in March) with responses to comments and a presentation of the natural resources portion. The board asked staff to provide the redline, the table of comments and clarifications in advance so members could prepare specific questions.

Ending: The work session concluded with staff and board agreeing to continue the review next month; no formal policy language was adopted during the Feb. 20 session.