Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Conservation groups press Jackson Hole planners for bigger creek setbacks and broader wildlife permeability
Loading...
Summary
Representatives from local conservation groups told the planning commission the proposed revisions to town LDRs are a step forward but urged larger setbacks for Flat and Cache creeks and stronger, townwide measures to preserve wildlife movement and limit perimeter fencing.
Multiple conservation and watershed groups urged the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 15 to strengthen parts of the proposed LDR package, pressing staff for larger creek setbacks and stricter rules around perimeter fencing to preserve wildlife movement.
Amy Kushak, community planning director with the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, said the Alliance supports the tiered mapping approach but argued that wildlife movement does not stop at map boundaries and that perimeter fencing should be prohibited with limited, well-defined allowances for short privacy panels or small enclosures. "Wildlife movement does not stop at mapped boundaries, and our regulations should reflect that reality," Kushak said.
Jennifer Evans, advocacy director for Protect Our Water Jackson Hole, told commissioners that Flat Creek was listed as impaired by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality in 1996 and said her group's GIS analysis shows expanded setbacks could protect roughly 84 acres along the creeks. "With existing water quality issues and continued development pressure, we see this as a missed opportunity to strengthen protections where they're really needed," Evans said. She urged tighter definitions for exceptions such as "essential crossings."
Renee Seidler, executive director of the Jackson Hole Wildlife Foundation, urged the commission to design fencing standards that reduce entrapment across a wide range of species and life stages and to plan for practical egress solutions so that animals and humans are not put at risk when wildlife enter yards. Her remarks emphasized operational concerns—how gates or drop-downs would be managed and sized so both a fawn and an adult moose could leave a yard safely.
Staff acknowledged the public feedback and advised that some technical changes (such as larger building setbacks) may have limited water-quality benefit compared with other measures (street-runoff controls, upstream sources). The commission recorded the public comments and asked staff to return with refined fencing options and additional technical input before making a final recommendation to council. The fencing text was continued to the May 6 meeting.
