Monthly Archives: February 2014

Public Comment Open and Informational Meeting March 3rd South Bridger Interface Project

Via Gallatin National Forest

Release Date: Feb 14, 2014

Bozeman, MT–The Bozeman Ranger District, Custer and Gallatin National Forests has released an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the South Bridger Interface Project that is available for review and public comment.  The District will also be hosting an informational meeting on Monday March 3, 2014 at the Bridger Canyon Rural Fire Department Community Room from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. (8081 Bridger Canyon Road, Bozeman, MT).  Resource specialists will be available to provide information and answer questions about the proposed South Bridger Interface Project, which is located approximately 15 miles northeast of Bozeman, MT in Bridger Canyon.

The South Bridger Interface project area is located within the wildland urban interface, adjacent to and partially within the Bridger Bowl Ski Resort in the vicinity of Slushman Creek.  It lies between private residential and forested/agricultural lands to the east and National Forest System lands, partly occupied by Bridger Bowl to the west.  Forest vegetation in the project area consists of Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine that has experienced a high rate of tree mortality from spruce budworm and mountain pine beetle.  The proposed action would thin approximately 250 acres of forest vegetation to reduce tree mortality from ongoing insect infestations, and is needed to maintain a healthy forest in the Bridger Canyon corridor.  Without treatment, there is a high probability that many more trees would be severely impacted by budworm and Douglas-fir beetles.

“The proposed project includes treatments that are designed to alter stand micro-environments that will create conditions less favorable to western spruce budworm, mountain pine beetle and Douglas-fir beetle; along with improving the growing space of remaining trees to allow for tree growth, vigor and resiliency,” explained Keith Konen, Forest Silviculturalist.

Minimal temporary road construction of one half mile or less is anticipated for access.  The proposed project would start in 2014 and would be completed within a three-year timeframe, followed by burning of slash piles, rehabilitation of temporary roads and monitoring of the project.

Public comment on the project will be accepted for 30 days (through March 16, 2014). The South Bridger Interface Environmental Assessment is available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/gallatin/landmanagement/projects, by scanning the QR code, or by contacting the Bozeman Ranger District at 406-522-2520 to request a copy.  For additional information about the project, contact Amy Waring, Project leader at 406-255-1451

Note: this appears to be a more direct link.

SouthBridgerInterface

Updates:

Bozeman Daily Chronicle coverage

SBridgerInterface.pdf press release

Variance Appeal Update

As you may recall, the membership at the May General Meeting voted overwhelmingly to appeal the commission’s grant of a variance to enable conversion of old barns to guesthouse/recreational use, within the setback from Bridger Creek. As is too often the case, this was an episode of build-first-permit-later, and we were puzzled to see the commission seemingly content to see its authority flouted. There’s more background here:

http://bcpoa.net/2013/04/variance-hearing/

BCPOA has appealed the commission’s decision, granting a variance that allows the project to proceed. While this is a very messy, multilayered case, the points we would like to make are simple. For example,

  • The commission should not lightly set aside objective standards, merely because it likes a project, for then standards have no meaning.
  • Saving pennies through poor documentation and circumvention of procedures is enormously costly in the long run, as citizens are denied due process and confusion propagates errors.

The first issue we are contesting is that the commission did not issue a proper written decision; it merely delivered the verdict, making reference to the audio recording of the proceedings. That makes it difficult to distinguish actual findings from mere discussion, and imposes additional burdens on anyone who desires to review or contest a decision. This is a constitutional issue, and if we prevail on this point, we may recover our costs. However, in that case, a likely outcome is that the judge would remand the case to the commission for a fresh statement of the decision, essentially restarting the process.

Getting to the meat of the case, it’s still complicated. There are actually two standards for a variance, one via the P&Z commission, and one via the county commission. Rather than considering them sequentially, as is proper, both were heard together. We don’t believe that either standard was met, but this further mingles procedural and substantive issues.

The variance case was actually heard twice. Initially, the commission denied it. Then, circumventing regulations that prevent rehearing an application within one year, the commission reconsidered the variance a month later, under the pretense that it had been “withdrawn” and re-presented with new information.

As if that weren’t enough, the commission only considered the question of a variance after it had already granted a Conditional Use Permit for the project. This is backwards, because the CUP is moot without the variance, and the discussion of standards among the two proceedings was somewhat mingled and confused.

As the case now stands, BCPOA has filed its initial complaint, and the parties have responded. We have moved for summary judgment on the constitutional issue of adequacy of the written decision.

We have met with the other parties to agree on what documents constitute the official record. The county has fought tooth and nail to exclude a few documents, including its own variance evaluation criteria and public sewer permit records. We are somewhat puzzled by this, as they are part of the evidence of a pattern of errors and omissions, but not decisive in themselves. This wrangling increases our costs, deterring future appeals. (By contrast, BCPOA cheerfully granted the applicant’s request to intervene, though it is not in our favor and we could have contested it, because we felt that it was right to do so and minimized cost and delay to all concerned.)

Next, we must file a brief on the substance of the case, though we are hoping to defer that until the constitutional question has been heard.

For the moment, BCPOA is adequately financed, in part due to the very generous rate reduction that our attorney, Brian Gallik, has granted us. Our legal committee, Deb Stratford, Richard Lyon, Charlie Hager & Chuck Broughton, has also put in many volunteer hours. There may yet come a time when we need to appeal for funding, but for the moment we hope we can use our resources for other purposes. In any event, thank you for your support, past and future.

FINAL BCPOA COMPLAINT

GC variance evaluation criteria

[google-map-v3 width=”350″ height=”350″ zoom=”12″ maptype=”hybrid” mapalign=”center” directionhint=”false” language=”default” poweredby=”false” maptypecontrol=”true” pancontrol=”true” zoomcontrol=”true” scalecontrol=”true” streetviewcontrol=”true” scrollwheelcontrol=”false” draggable=”true” tiltfourtyfive=”false” addmarkermashupbubble=”false” addmarkermashupbubble=”false” addmarkerlist=”10600 Bridger Canyon Rd, Bozeman MT 59715{}1-default.png{}Petty CUP & Variances” bubbleautopan=”true” showbike=”false” showtraffic=”false” showpanoramio=”false”]

Cell Tower Draft Regulation

Here’s a quick update on cell towers.

A recent 911 outage (countywide) emphasized the value of cellular backup when other communication lines are down.

Bridger Bowl is eager to proceed with siting a tower, for installation in this year’s construction season. They’ve rejected the original Atlas Towers proposal of a 130’ structure at the end of A lot, in favor of much smaller towers, higher on the mountain. BCPOA directors have also met with Verizon engineers (thanks to Kent Madin for organizing), who also indicated that much of the canyon could be covered with two towers in the 50’ ballpark. Less height generally means more towers for equivalent coverage, but we think this is a net improvement from a concealment standpoint.

Because the zoning did not previously address the issue, the P&Z commission has initiated a zoning amendment to create a cell tower regulation, and the Zoning Advisory Board has prepared a draft. Unfortunately, the draft has been stalled in legal review for 2 months, with no end in sight.

The BC P&Z Commission meets tomorrow, and has this issue on its agenda for discussion. You may attend, or direct written comments to the commissioners via planning@gallatin.mt.gov.

BCPOA has written to urge the commissioners to provide the resources needed to bring the Advisory Board’s work to completion.

BCPOA comment on cell tower regs 2014 02 12.pdf

Wireless Communications Zoning Amendment Draft Nov 2013.pdf