Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-20-23 Public Comment - A. Craighead - UPF board, PRAT commentsFrom:April Craighead To:Agenda Subject:UPF board, PRAT comments Date:Monday, February 20, 2023 4:41:28 PM Attachments:PRAT comments.docx 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 Madam/Sir, Please include my comments as part of the PRAT comment period. Thank you, April Craighead April Craighead Wildlife Biologist Craighead Institute 201 So. Wallace Ave Suite B2D Bozeman, MT. 59715 406 585-8705 april@craigheadinstitute.org City of Bozeman PRAT committee 121 N. Rouse Bozeman, MT. 59715 Dear Madam/Sir, I am a wildlife biologist of the Craighead Institute which is a small non-profit here in Bozeman that works to build conservation strategies for people and wildlife. Our research varies from designing conservation areas in the US and abroad, climate research on pikas and wildlife and vehicle collision mitigation strategies. My comments are from a biologist perspective on the PRAT program. I would like to say that I think Bozeman has done a wonderful job with its city and regional parks in the past. I know that my family has benefited greatly from their presence here in Bozeman and I hope that as the city grows, parks and open space with be at the forefront of future development. Bozeman is now at a real threshold, how does the city maintain its wildlife, agricultural heritage and sense of place now that it has been discovered. Even with good intentions and management, continuous growth and sprawl seem to be inevitable for the valley. While the new PRAT plan is certainly ambitious, I have few issues with it which I would like to include in my comments. 1. I think changing the name does a disservice to the open space aspect of the program and makes it less likely open spaces will be included and prioritized in the overall program. (Just as a note, PRAT is considered an English slang for a stupid or foolish person, PROST on the other hand means cheers in German). I’d prefer PROST over PRAT any day. 2. Open space or natural areas do not appear to have a definitive definition in the PRAT plan. How big are they? What are they to be used for? People? Wildlife? Is there a size limitation to be considered as open/natural areas? This could be very important in regards to wildlife habitat, connectivity to trails and other open spaces. The focus of these open lands should be to help wildlife move through corridors, forage and rest. Could they be a part of the sensitive lands program for limited development. Does every area have to be focused on the needs of people? Areas of open/natural space should remain in a native state as much as possible, with native vegetation, appropriate cover and clean water. These areas do not need the maintenance of ‘grass’ parks in the city. 3. How does the PRAT plan overlap with the city and county’s sensitive lands program? Do they have the same goals? How are they compatible? Can these programs mutually benefit each other and can funding be used to include both areas? 4. I don’t think your comparisons with the seven other peer cities is a fair. The cities of Billings, Bend, Boulder and Fort Collins are currently twice the size of Bozeman and Bozeman wont’ reach those levels until 2050 at present predictions. 5. Regarding anchor trails and potential lighting. I agree that some areas could have increased lighting for safety measures but if you are making places like the Gallagator trail or other linear dirt trails as an anchor route, placing nighttime lighting will be very detrimental to wildlife. Birds, deer, black bears and other animals rely this time of day to rest and forage without the constant presence of people. Putting lights in areas like this will only contribute to decreasing available habitat, increased threats from predators and changes in circadian rhythms. 6. More emphasis should be put on connectivity between parks for wildlife movements and not dead-ending in an area that animals can not escape from. A great example of this is black bears that come down Bozeman Ck. in the fall to raid garbage and fruit trees, once they get into town they are stuck and then get into trouble with people and are perhaps killed. 7. As stated on page 5 “Bozeman’s location near these ecological sanctuaries cements its identity as a city co-existing with nature”, not by a long shot. How many black bears were killed on the south side for conflicts with humans that probably could have been prevented? How many beavers were killed in the Legends because they are beavers doing what beavers do and the developer got away with putting houses too close to the creek and flood plain. How many species like elk are being displaced from winter grounds by development of recreational activities in Highland Glen? Spare us the platitudes that Bozeman is coexisting with nature. 8. How will funding be acquired for open/natural areas? Lean on developers, good luck. Without any enforcement they will do whatever they can to do the minimum and not follow the rules. An example of this is the Legends placement of houses. Can money from marijuana fund or open space fund be used to purchase open spaces and pay for increased maintenance or manpower? The city has obviously done a great deal of work on this plan, I just think that open/natural spaces and wildlife are not getting fair consideration. These spaces are critical to wildlife and should be managed more to their needs than the constant needs of people. Many studies have shown the importance of wildlife to Bozeman residents however, wildlife gets the shortest end of the stick in planning for the future. Sincerely, April Craighead Executive Director and Wildlife Biologist Craighead Institute 201 So Wallace Ave Ste. B2D Bozeman, MT. 59715