Boulder Outdoor Coalition

New Website

2011-09-25T15:45:00.000-07:00

The Boulder Outdoor Coalition has a new website:

http://boulderoutdoorcoalition.org/

Older Posts

2011-09-25T14:00:00.000-07:00

All older posts on this website are being removed. Go to:

http://boulderoutdoorcoalition.org/

for current information on BOC activities.

Trailhead Improvement Input Sought

2007-06-11T09:04:00.000-07:00

From: Lisa Nieman [mailto:Niemanl@bouldercolorado.gov]
Sent: Mon 6/11/2007 4:29 PM

Public input sought on trailhead improvements

OSMP is seeking public input on the proposed designs of two trailheads Tuesday, June 19:

* Flatirons Vista trailhead: 5:30 to 6:30 p.m.;
* Doudy Draw trailhead: 7 to 8:00 p.m.

OSMP will have an artist's rendering of the proposed trailhead changes and staff will be on hand to discuss the projects and answer questions. For more information please call (303) 441-3440.

Comments on Gosshawk Trail

2007-06-10T14:30:00.000-07:00

Letter to OSMP Staff:

Here are my comments on the proposed Goshawk Ridge Trail. I will keep my comments short as on the Thursday, May 24 walk-through of the proposed trail alignment, I let Mike, Dave, Joe, Brad (?), and you know my strong support for the alignment proposed by OSMP (2C, 3B and 3C, 4B/C(?), and 5A). I feel that OSMP staff put considerable thought into the proposed Goshawk Ridge Trail and the result will be an excellent trail that I approve of.

Background Comments:

I have hiked on Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks for over 30 years and for over 12 years in the Eldorado Mountain Area. I have lead hikes for the Colorado Mountain Club (CMC) and Boulder Outdoor Group (BOG) in the Eldorado Mountain area for over 10 years. When leading hikes for these two groups on the old trail (2A, 3A), I have always ended the hike at the large flat rock on the S end of the meadow on the E side of 3A before the N'most drainage of Spring Brook.

When hiking on my own, I continue in between the two Spring Brook drainages out to the concrete structure on the Denver Water Board canal and then follow the exiting two-track roads/trails out to the bridge over the Denver Water Board (DWB) canal. Over the years, in the area of the proposed Goshawk Ridge Trail, I have seen considerable wildlife including bears, coyotes, deer, elk, rattle-snakes, and wild-turkey. On a CMC trips that I lead in June 2005, we saw 5 bears.

General Comments:

From my familiarity with the area and from the explanation of the proposed trail alignment sections by OSMP staff on the walk-through, I understand the rational for these alignments for both trail sustainability and environmental preservation and I support OSMP staff's proposed alignments. I understand that the crossing of the Spring Brook drainages is the most difficult section of the proposed trail alignments, but I feel that the trail should continue on to the DWB Road.

Trail Segment 2:

I support trail alignment 2C as done on the walk-through. This alignment will correct trail sustainability problems with the current trail 2A and the current Mickey Mouse access trail MM-1A. As I mentioned on the walk-through, the points of intersection with the old trails should be marked to keep traffic on the new trail alignment.

Trail Segment 3:

I support trail alignment 3B and 3C as done on the walk through. I would like to see the inclusion of a short spur trail to the big flat rock where I end my CMC and BOG hikes as this is a nice "contemplation location" as I mentioned on the field trip. Contemplation locations are important and this rock provides a ready-made flat surface for people to sit on.

Trail Segment 4:

I support either alignment 4B or 4C as done on the walk-through. I am still a little confused as which is the preferred alignment by OSMP staff, but I am comfortable with either one. As I mentioned on the walk-through, I understand that the crossing of the Spring Brook drainages is the most difficult/sensitive section of the proposed trail alignments, but I feel that it is being done very carefully and thoughtfully by OSMP staff.

Trail Segment 5:

I support alignment 5A as approximately done on the walk-through. This alignment should avoid the burn area W of the DWB canal and should come out by the exiting DWB bridge, provided that OSMP can reach an access agreement with the DWB.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Goshawk Ridge Trail.

Sincerely,

Steven Haymes

Bald Eagles, Thriving, Settle Into Suburban Life

2007-06-10T08:41:00.000-07:00

OCALA, Fla., June 28 — Bald eagles, whose numbers dwindled to historic lows in the early 1960s, are again flourishing and no longer need the protections of the Endangered Species Act, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced Thursday.

For full article go to NYTimes

$50,000 Available for Trail Projects

2007-05-21T08:37:00.000-07:00

Years ago, when faced with land management agencies who were less than enthusiastic about new trails and even about maps showing where the existing trails were, BATCO had the revolutionary idea of publishing a comprehensive map of Boulder County trails and using the proceeds to actually improve and expand the Boulder County trail system. The truly remarkable thing is that this bold idea is now becoming reality. BATCO now has almost $50,000 available for trail projects throughout Boulder County. Even more remarkable is the fact that a recent grant to produce a second edition of the map means that this revenue flow is likely to continue.

This success has left BATCO with a bit of a problem: what are the best ways to spend the money?

We need your help:
- first, to identify worthwhile projects
- next, to garner community enthusiasm
- and finally, to secure the approval of the relevant land management agencies.

This is a great opportunity. It gives trail advocates a unique chance to bring real money to the table when we start advocating for improvements to the system.

Given the significant amounts of money involved, BATCO has developed the attached "request for proposals." (Keep in mind that this is a new adventure and we welcome suggestions for improving the RFP and the entire project funding process.)

BATCO is willing to consider any project idea which is consistent with our overall goal of enhancing opportunities for non-motorized Boulder County Trail users. Preliminary ideas, wish lists, formal proposals, and offers to help are all welcome.

There is real money here. How do YOU think we can best use it???

Please circulate this announcement to the members of your respective groups, friends, fellow trail users and possible corporate-matching supporters.

And, if you have ideas, that you would you think might be worth pursuing contact Suzanne Webel at 303-485-2162 or swebel@earthlink.net . At this point we are asking people who might be interested in taking advantage of this opportunity to let us know by June 1. This will give us a chance to maximize our impact on 2007-2008 trail development projects.

We look forward to hearing from you soon!

-- Guy

Boulder Area Trails Coalition (BATCO) Trail Fund
Call for Proposals

Unlike other Boulder area trail maps, revenues from the sale of the BATCO Comprehensive Trail Map of Boulder County are to be used exclusively for trail projects in Boulder County. With almost $50,000 already available in this fund as of April 1, 2007, BATCO is issuing a public Call for Proposals for Trail Projects in Boulder County. We are interested in funding the design and construction of new trails, the enhancement of existing trails, and other projects that will significantly improve the quality of the visitor experience on public lands.

BATCO hereby solicits short (approximately 2-3 pages plus a map) letters of interest from Boulder County land-management agencies, trail and outdoor recreation groups, corporations, and even individuals wishing to “champion” a trail project.
Following an evaluation of these letters of interest by the BATCO Board of Directors, BATCO will invite those with the best ideas to submit detailed proposals. We will ask that these full proposals include the following information:

Specific plans for the trail projects to be constructed
A work plan to be followed in constructing the project
Budget with a description of financial and in-kind contributions (including volunteer labor) to be applied to the project
Formal letters of support from appropriate land-use agencies whose approval and participation will be required for the project to proceed.

Letters of inquiry and formal proposals will be evaluated on the basis of the following criteria:

Attractiveness of the proposed project to a broad range of trail users.
Value-added potential. Our highest funding priority involves projects, or significant
project enhancements, that would otherwise not be possible
Matching Support for the project including direct financial support and in-kind, time and
material contributions
Enthusiastic "project champion" support from people willing to do the leadership work
required to make the project a success
Support from relevant land-use agencies
Ability to successfully address environmental or historical preservation concerns
Ability to successfully address the concerns of project neighbors.

This is a new program of the Boulder Area Trails Coalition, and we welcome suggestions for implementing it. We also urge those interested in applying for a grant to sign up for our e-mail update list. This will allow us to notify you if any improvements are made to the program. If you would like to contribute to the project by donating money or expertise, helping us distribute maps, or promoting trail projects but can’t be a “Trail Champion” right now, please contact Suzanne Webel at 303-485-2162.

Goshawk Ridge Trail alignment field trip

2007-05-21T08:31:00.001-07:00

Spring moves on and summer is just around the corner. The staff effort to develop alignment options and an initial analysis of the alternatives for the new Goshawk Ridge Trail in the EM / DD Trail Study Area is nearly complete. We'd like to invite you to attend an open house and field trip on Thursday May 24th to review the options and the analysis and provide us your input. Staff will be available to discuss the alignment options, the analysis and area information from 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM at OSMP administrative offices, 66 S. Cherryvale Road. A field trip to visit the area and look at trail options will follow from 5:30 PM to 8:30 PM. We would like final written input on the alternatives and analysis by June 8th. I will email you the analysis and a map of the alternatives later this week when they are available. This information will also be available on our website www.osmp.org and at our administrative office.

Individuals interested in attending the field trip are requested to RSVP by calling OSMP at 303-441-3440 by Monday May 21st. Transportation will be provided by OSMP from our administrative office leaving at 5:30 PM . Please keep in mind to bring food and water along, light refreshments will be available at the open house.

Thanks for your continued interest in the implementation of the EM / DD TSA and in the trail planning process. I look forward to a productive, fun and interesting field trip.

Steve Armstead
Visitor Master Plan Implementation Coordinator
Open Space and Mountain Parks
303-413-7607
armsteads@bouldercolorado.gov

Raptors: a love story

2007-05-20T07:06:00.000-07:00

Seasonal closures give birds the space they need to mate and raise their young
By Pamela White (editorial@boulderweekly.com)

We hear her before we see her — a high-pitched call emanating from the rock ahead of us. White splashes of guano mark the roosting sites she shares with her mate. Nearly the color of the rock herself and some 400 feet from the trail, she is almost impossible to see where she sits, watching over her brood of four-day-old chicks.

Go to Full Article

Dogs: Trail closure raises questions

2007-05-07T08:43:00.000-07:00

Boulder Daily Camera Letter to the Editor May 6, 2007

Saturday, I was hiking with my dog in the Flatirons, as I have been for the last 10 years. I came across signs on the Saddle Rock trail that dogs were banned from trails leading to Green Mountain.

I understand that the city is supposed to make all of these decisions open for public discussion, but I have never seen these specific trail closures discussed, and I read the Camera regularly. I'm becoming concerned that the city is starting to make a lot of decisions without really telling the public.

Since dogs on trails issues seem to be such hot-button issues, if they really are, I think we need to start bringing these issues to the public ballot once and for all. Given what I know about most people in Boulder, I would guess that we would probably vote not to limit trail access for our pets. The same goes for bike access, horse access, and even people access, which all seem to be in jeopardy around Boulder lately.

I think it's time we start bringing Boulder back to being run by the people and not by a select vociferous few who don't represent our true population.

JON ADAM
Boulder

Dog conflict out in the open

2007-05-02T16:23:00.000-07:00

Three-quarters surveyed report pooch problems on Boulder trails
By John Ingold Denver Post Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 04/30/2007 08:49:17 AM MDT

Boulder - Here come Sophie and Kippah boinging down the Chautauqua trail, sniffing at dandelions and twirling circles around the woman on the other end of the leash.

They're impish little puppies, Irish Jack Russell terriers, and they're good dogs, says Maureen Dobson, who takes the pooches on a walk in Boulder open space a couple of times a week as a favor to a friend.

They mind their manners when they're off leash.

"They don't usually pay attention to other people," she said.

Off-leash dogs have been controversial on the trails around Boulder for several years now. In Boulder, people like dogs and they like open space - but some Boulderites aren't always very fond of the two together.

Read entire article

Flagstaff Habitat Conservation Area

2007-04-20T14:35:00.000-07:00

To Boulder City Council:

I just discovered a Habitat Conservation Area posted for the north side of Flagstaff Mo. west of the fire lane/trail that leads up to the Flagstaff House Restaurant. I am no longer allowed in this area because it has no marked trail. I have lived in this neighborhood for 30 years. I regularly hike in this area and know trails and access routes that aren't Open Space marked trails. I doubt any of you can imagine what it feels like to me to know that I can not go into this area, ever again. In all my years of meandering there I have never encountered anyone else. It allowed me very special moments whether I was alone or with family and friends.

You, with your vote to endorse Habitat Conservation areas have created a division in what was previously a broad citizen wide support for Open Space purchases. People who endorsed the Habitat Conservation Areas engaged in the worse sort of unscientific fear mongering. Over and over I read about Open Space and their cohorts concerns that Open Space was about to be destroyed by hordes of people who would trample and ruin this precious thing the City had created (never mind the people who paid for it).

Most users of Open Space stick to paths contiguous to the City's boundary. This makes sense. Like in Rocky Mountain National Park, human traffic drops radically once one moves away from parking areas and controlled paths. Further, there was and is no evidence that the occasional user who managed to find their way into remote areas of Open Space harmed it.

Lake Valley Country Club north of the City is surrounded by a housing subdivision. This area has roads, golfers, bicycles, walkers, dogs - everything. Yet it is teeming with wildlife, birds, and a functioning prairie ecosystem. How is it that in an area so populated with people and their activities, the thing you and your Open Space officials claim will be ruined, in fact thrives? I've seen foxes with dens and kits on the golf course, right next to the cart path. Owls nested and raised 3 young in a tree so close to the ground that golfers could recognize the individual birds as they grew and fledged. Eagles routinely visit the area, as do migrating birds. The same can be said for CU South, the Flatirons gravel pit that Open Space was so upset to lose. When people and their pets do not molest wildlife, and the ecosystem is preserved in its majority (trails don't go through nesting areas, etc.), people and things that exist in an ecosystem (plant and animal) do coexist. These busy popular places prove the untruth of your paranoia about people ruining all YOUR pristine Open Space.

What do I predict for YOUR Open Space plans? Future attempts to raise money for more Open Space will be very fractious. The first thing voters will want to know is how much of the bond or tax money will be dedicated to Recreation versus Habitat Conservation Areas. You will look like fools asking people to spend their money for land that no one will ever even see, except of course for the Open Space officials, the scientists etc. who can go in to "study it". Open Space Rangers will become police whose sole job is to keep people in the corridors that the bureaucrats create for them. Open Space will look more towards fines and fees because bond and tax money will not be forthcoming. And, of course you will have you proof about how wretched human activity is to an area because as you corral people into to smaller, con-scribed areas, these places will of course look more used than the Conservation Areas where no one goes. Finally, the culture that is developing in Open Space (The ones who believe that people using Open Space will ruin it.) will become more entrenched. A sense of entitlement and ownership analogous to the Catholic Church's bureaucracy that administered its lands in the Medieval Ages will develop. Seriously, since mere citizens will no longer possess Habitat Conservation lands in the real sense of the word ("Guides" who allow a few to humbly walk to the edge and look, but don't touch.) - it will belong to the bureaucracy who administers it. They will show up to count birds, and measure trees and do whatever they do justify their pay check - but the land will not be shared with the common person who manages to find his/her way there, just because.

And please, spare me your bureaucratic rationale that the current permitting process to get into Conservation Areas will result in regular use by anyone. How sensible is it, when cars are a central component of climate change and environmental pollution, to require that people physically appear at the Open Space office 7 miles from central Boulder to get a Habitat Conservation permit? My bet is that Open Space intentionally is making it difficult to get permits because they don't want people to ask to for them.

I still am having a hard time believing that you, our honored Council, is so politically inept that you have been hoodwinked into adopting as baseless and unsupportable policy as this one is. You've allowed people with philosophies almost as radical as the Earth First nuts to hijack the Open Space program. You act as if the voters who have paid for your folly won't care or notice. Your next Open Space vote will be interesting.

I plan to read this out loud at your next council meeting. I'll forward it to FIDOS, and it will move into the hands of the people who opposed your closure of Open Space lands. Damage has been done to Open Space, not to the land itself, but to the good will and trust the Citizens of Boulder placed in you to adopt sane and reasonable Open Space Policies. You have failed in this and in the end the thing you claimed to be protecting will be harmed from loss of public support.

Julie McCabe

BOC Blog Contents 4-7-07

2007-04-07T00:31:00.000-07:00

Boulder Outdoor Coalition Members

Official OSMP "Off-trail" Definittion

Fortunately, the land isn't Boulder's

Fight the right enemy on land

Draconian fines don't make sense

Meditating? Don't forget the permit!

Off-trail rule is just ridiculous

OSMP Requires Permit for 50 Yard Off-Trail Hike

Off-Trail Permit Letter to the Editor

OSMP Sites to Require Off-trail Permits

Off-Trail Permits

Boulder OSMP Visitor Master Plan Site

Boulder OSMP Visitor Master Plan

Political Pedalers: Boulder Mountainbike Alliance

General Principles Underlying Boulder Outdoor Coal...

Undesignated Trails, Eldorado Mountain/Doudy Draw

Eldorado Mountain/Doudy Draw Final Draft TSA Plan

A New Approach to Open Space

Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks Home Page

Adaptive Management

Marshall Mesa–Southern Grasslands TSA Comments

Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Trails Map Updat...

Comments on the Draft Visitor Plan

Trail Densities & Effects On Front Range Public La...

BCHA Marshall Mesa-Southern Grasslands

BATCO Marshall Mesa-Southern Grasslands Trail Alte...

Boulder County Public Lands & Trails

Trail Impacts

Excerpt from "Boulder Feeder Canal Resource Invent...

MEASURING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF TRAILS

Original Boulder Outdoor Coalition Web Site

Fortunately, the land isn't Boulder's

2007-04-04T21:34:00.000-07:00

Fortunately, the land isn't Boulder's

I would like to correct Todd Neff on his article "Big day for renewable energy — Ritter signs bills in Boulder County" (March 28), as he incorrectly wrote that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's National Wind Technology Center in located in southern Boulder County. It is actually located in northernmost Jefferson County, with a city of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks fence marking the county boundary.

Since I have worked in renewable energy in Colorado for over 10 years, I attended the signing ceremony. Since I have hiked on OSMP lands for over 30 years, I have attended all of the public OSMP off-trail permit meetings. If the ceremony was indeed located across the fence in southern Boulder County, then it would have been on part of the nearly 40 percent of OSMP land designated as a Habitat Conservation Area (where an off-trail permit is now required by law) by the City of Boulder's OSMP Visitor Master Plan.

Governor Ritter, our state representatives and senators, Xcel Energy, Environment Colorado and the press would have been required to first obtain an off-trail permit from OSMP before they could have held this historic signing ceremony. If they did not have an off-trail permit for this date and this area, then they would have been subject to fines by OSMP.

Fortunately for the governor and all others present, they were really not on city of Boulder OSMP HCA land.

STEVE HAYMES

Boulder

Fight the right enemy on land

2007-04-04T21:22:00.000-07:00

OPEN SPACE

Fight the right enemy on land

This is in response to Patrick Murphy's recent letter regarding off-trail permits (Open Forum, March 22).

First of all, I am sorry to see that Mr. Murphy has to resort to name-calling. By calling those who would enjoy the careful use of our open space "wreck-reationists," he is using tactics that have been used for millennia by groups dismissive of those that don't agree with them, while attempting to discredit them and cower them into submission. Not a good example, I believe, for one who supposedly considers himself an environmentalist.

Regarding his example of tracks left behind by wagon trains a hundred or so years ago, his argument misses the point in a number of ways. First, there is a big difference between "impact" and "damage." Those wagon tracks have done nothing to change the ecosystem around them, have not caused species to go extinct, or any other collateral damage. Also, even in terms of impact, the weight per square inch of those wagon wheel tracks is multitudes higher than that of a human being.

The greatest danger to our open space lands originally came from development. That danger has been eliminated by purchasing those lands. The main concern now, which is actually causing damage to the ecosystem, comes from air pollution, the same air pollution that is caused by Mr. Murphy's car and the energy to heat his house, etc. This is having a major impact along the Front Range ecosystem, all the way up to Rocky Mountain National Park.

If Mr. Murphy and the other well-meaning environmentalists would really like to make a difference in protecting Boulder's open space, that is the enemy they should be fighting against, not the friendly recreationists.

ANDY MALKIEL

Boulder

Draconian fines don't make sense

2007-03-31T21:07:00.000-07:00

OPEN SPACE

Boulder Daily Camera -- 3/26/07

Draconian fines don't make sense

As usual, Patrick Murphy again totally misses the point (Open Forum, March 22).

Fine someone $1,000 for going 20 feet off-trail to sit on a rock?

Fine the wonderful Audubon people $1,000 for going 10 yards off trail to photograph a bird?

Ridiculous!

All the people of Boulder financed this open space, and all the people ought to have reasonable use of it (including off-leash dogs).

Council and OSMP ought to take a big step back from micro-managing this issue, and let everyone enjoy what we have.

(P.S. I am not a dog owner.)

J. GERWIN

Boulder

Meditating? Don't forget the permit!

2007-03-31T21:05:00.000-07:00

OPEN SPACE

Boulder Daily Camera -- 3/27/07

Meditating? Don't forget the permit!

The open space policy requiring visitors to get permits to set foot off trail is badly designed, with more burdens for the public than benefits for the land. Now we will have to decide in advance if we intend to leave the trail, remember which areas require permits, get a permit for every hike, and bring it along with us. Forget "spur of the moment" outings. This process is going to radically change our experience of open space. And what of the people who don't have Internet connections and a printer? They'll just have to make the trip to the open space office during office hours.

What is easy for some is harder for those less well off. Unless you get your permit, you can kiss solitude good-bye. You wanted to go sit under a tree to meditate, or go sit on a rock to read for a while and enjoy the peace and quiet? Not without your permit, you don't!

And you can forget about spontaneously enjoying the land. Find an interesting ridge you'd like to explore? See a beautiful sunset that would be a great picture from over there? Tough luck, buddy!

The open space department should not be able to simply restrict areas by fiat, with no word about when they might be re-opened and no restrictions on whether new areas are added. This is a policy with frightening growth potential. Charges for permits are surely coming.

Open space must justify restricting a parcel and should then prohibit off-trail travel to everyone, without any permitting nonsense. And after two years or so, they should have to do another study to assess whether the parcel has recovered enough to allow visitors.

If this policy is intended as such a study, it could be done better by using volunteers to conduct trailhead surveys and actual counts on the parcels in question. This would protect the land without leading us down the open space trails toward a bureaucratic police state.

JOHN DAWSON

Louisville

Off-trail rule is just ridiculous

2007-03-31T20:33:00.000-07:00

PERMITS
Boulder Daily Camera Letter to the Editor -- 3/23/07

Off-trail rule is just ridiculous

The current policy by the Boulder County Open Space department, requiring permits to go off the trail, is inappropriate and without foundation.

The stipulated area involves the Grasslands in eastern Boulder County, primarily west and south of Superior. This area is indeed a short-grass ecosystem, but is far from pristine. It currently has few, if any, trails, and those of us who use it for picnicking and running and hiking treasure it for its solitude and beauty.

The rationale that large numbers of people use it and harm it in some way is flawed at best. The short-grass ecosystem is not fragile in the least; in fact, it not only endures but thrives in severe conditions. Imagine, if you will, tens of thousands of buffalo foraging trampling, wallowing, fighting on a regular basis. Couple this with regular burning. This is the system in which it evolved and flourished.

Compare that with today's sporadic grazing and non-burning policy, and you have a comparably unhealthy system. To insinuate that occasional trampling by off-trail users is harmful borders on ridiculous. If you want to witness devastation, visit one of the several prairie-dog villages that are stagnant due to overpopulation (not enough predators) and primed for disease (including the plague). The grassland system in these areas is denuded, maybe beyond recovery.

Requiring a permit maybe goes further than preservation. With now three taxes for open space, the bulging budget requires more bureaucratic spending! More positions for code enforcement and permit issuing. A private army of 9mm-packing officials. This is not what I want my tax dollars to be spent on.

I protest this policy and request it be rescinded.

RANDY LUALLIN

Louisville

OSMP Requires Permit for 50 Yard Off-Trail Hike

2007-03-14T16:29:00.000-07:00

Guy Burgess

The City of Boulder's Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) Department has just instituted a new permitting system for off-trail travel on what will eventually be about 38% percent of OSMP land. While the permitting system represents an improvement over earlier efforts to completely close these areas, the system, as currently structured, falls short of the Department's commitment (embodied in its Visitor Master Plan) to employ the "least restrictive" policies for achieving its environmental protection objectives.

The view from one of the threatened viewpoints.

Requiring permits for significant off-trail excursions makes some sense. It allows OPSMP to advise visitors on low-impact travel techniques, warn them about especially sensitive areas, and track visitation. However, since these areas are already very lightly visited, it seems doubtful that all the hassle and expense will yield significant environmental benefits.

The bigger problem, however, is the department's decision to require permits for VERY short diversions (less the 100 yards) from what is fundamentally an on-trail trip. Under the current rules, for example, you'll have to pretty much sit on the trail and enjoy your lunch as people walk by. If you don't want to be (literally) underfoot and if you want to enjoy a little privacy and solitude, you'll need to get a permit, in advance.

You also better have access to the Web. Otherwise, you'll have to send a letter or make a trip to an OSMP office (during business hours), which may take longer than your hike. If you choose to ignore these rules, you're at their mercy. They can fine you $1000.

That's not all. You'll need a permit if you want to take a picture, but the angle from the trail isn't quite right. You'll need a permit if you want to get a better look at the Western Tanager that just flew into the tree down the hill. You'll need a permit if you hike to the top of Long Canyon and you want to walk across the road and admire the view of the Indian Peaks from the clearing 50 yards off the road.

You'll also need a permit if you take the trail around the North Side of Flagstaff or up Green Mountain and want to scamper a few yards out to one of the viewpoints. And, the way the maps are currently written, you'll need a permit to check out the view at Stoney Point.

There are also ominous hints that if too many permits are requested during the first, experimental year of the program, then OSMP will start limiting the number available. Surely the miniscule environmental impact of giving users access to a 100-yard corridor on each side of the trail would be outweighed by improvements in the quality of the visitor experience.

Still, there is one bright spot. Exemptions are granted to heed the "call of nature" (which is never really defined). It seems to me that heeding the "call of the wild" and the "call of nature" are pretty much the same thing. So, maybe we don't have to follow the rules after all.

All joking aside, OSMP's on-trail requirement is a deliberate decision reflecting misplaced priorities. I respectfully ask the City Council to ask OSMP to amend those policies.

Off-Trail Permit Letter to the Editor

2007-03-14T16:24:00.000-07:00

Michael Katz
3-14-07

I was at a City Council meeting last year when the Open Space Mountain Parks Department (OSMP) presented its plan to require permits for anyone wanting to go "off-trail" in a Habitat Conservation Area (HCA) on city open space. I recall our mayor asking an OSMP employee whether it would be okay to go a few yards off trail to have lunch. The answer was a polite "no," which appeared to take the mayor slightly aback.

If you read Monday’s Camera article about the off-trail permit system carefully you would have seen the box entitled "HOW IT WORKS," and under the definition of "What’s off-trail?" would have read the following quote: "Going off-trail for lunch, to find a quiet spot, or to reach an overlook is considered off-trail." There. It is official. Relatively innocent behavior will put you in violation of the law on the 40% of Boulder open space that is now in HCAs.

As an avid hiker who has spent thousands of hours on open space over the past 31 years, I’m happy to stay on trails. They pretty much get me to where I want to go, with fewer wood ticks, scratches, and chances of a fall. Frankly, I almost never see anyone bush-wacking–our terrain is rugged enough. But I suppose if you’ve always wanted to see what lies in the hundreds of acres between the bottom of Long Canyon and the W. Ridge of the Green Mountain trail, you’ll now have to convince someone at OSMP you’re neither an eco-terrorist nor developer.

But kidding aside, this is an important issue and NOT because it infringes on our "freedom to go where we please." Rather, it beautifully illustrates what is at the heart of the "protection verus recreation" debate in this town. Several influential Boulder citizen groups, as well as many employees of OSMP, believe that the natural world is very fragile, and when you walk on open space you degrade it. Even if it is only one person going 15 yards off trail to get the perfect camera angle, or sit on that nice rock that happens to be in the sun, protected from the winter wind and ideally suited to your contemplation of nature’s beauty. Your impact is unacceptable to them, and outweighs any benefit you derive.

One of those camera angles that will now require a permit.

Will you really get a ticket if you’re "caught?" I suppose that depends on the circumstances–your attitude, your reason for being there, and the kindness of the ranger. But it is important for you to be aware of this issue for three primary reasons: First, because you bought and paid for this land; second, because you need to treat this land with respect; and third, because your seemingly innocent conduct is now against the law.

Michael Katz

OSMP Sites to Require Off-trail Permits

2007-03-13T08:11:00.000-07:00

Boulder trying to protect sensitive open space parcels
By Ryan Morgan (Contact)
Monday, March 12, 2007
Boulder Daily Camera

View a map of the Open Space and Mountain Parks areas that now require a permit to go off trail.

Starting today, visitors to some of the most environmentally sensitive parcels of Boulder's Open Space and Mountain Parks will need to get a permit to leave the trail.

Permits will be easy to get, at least for the next 12 months, said Dave Kuntz, a department division manager. They'll be issued at no charge to people who apply — online at www.osmp.org — and describe when and where they want to go off-trail.

Kuntz said that will let the department keep track of where people are going within the sensitive Habitat Conservation Areas, as well as figure out where those visitors could cause damage. After a year, he said, the department could start limiting permits to prevent damage to popular off-trail areas.

To illustrate why the department wants to encourage people to stay on trails, Kuntz led a brief trip to the Southern Grasslands, just northeast of the intersection of Colo. 93 and Colo. 128 on the north side of Rocky Flats.

"This is historically what the high plains really looked like, if you don't look at Rocky Flats," Kuntz said. "Historically, this is what it was like — basically short- and mixed-grass prairie."
The grassland parcel is home to prairie dogs, rare burrowing owls, badgers and raptors, Kuntz said. And it's not home to people. With the exception of a new trail that will open later this year and some utility poles, the animals and the grass are left alone.

Kuntz points out the view, a vista that includes the plains, foothills and mountains. The department has designed the High Plains trail so people can get those kinds of views without leaving it, he said.

HOW IT WORKS
When and where do I need a permit? If you want to leave the trail on any of the city of Boulder's Habitat Conservation Areas or if you want to venture into a parcel that doesn't have any trails at all. These areas are marked with signs.

Where are the Habitat Conservation Areas? North Foothills, Western Mountain Parks, Eldorado Mountain, Jewel Mountain, Southern Grasslands, Tallgrass Prairie East, Sombrero Marsh, Cottonwood Grove and Lower Boulder Creek.

How much does it cost? The permit is free.

How do I apply? Visit www.osmp.org and click on "Permits." You'll be asked to describe where you're going and when you'll be there.

What's "off-trail?"Open space officials have tried to nail down a good definition of what it means to leave the trail. Here's what they've come up with:

"Unavoidable and incidental activities (e.g., answering nature's call, yielding to a horse, avoiding a hazard on a trail, resting or eating 'beside' the trail) are generally not considered 'off-trail,'" the guidelines state. "Going off-trail for lunch, to find a quiet spot or to reach an overlook is considered off-trail."

What's the penalty? Breaking the ordinance could mean a fine of up to $1,000, although violators would probably face a much smaller penalty.

To see the rest of the article go to the Daily Camera

Off-Trail Permits

2007-03-01T14:16:00.000-08:00

Note: This Boulder Outdoor Coalition Letter on Off-Trail Permits was Written on March 12, 2006. While somewhat dated, it still outlines our apporach to this important issue.

INTRODUCTION

The Visitor Master Plan (VMP) prescribes closing Habitat Conservation Areas (HCA’s) to off-trail travel. While this regulation may appear to have a certain logic, a brief examination reveals severe problems:

While some HCA’s actually are relatively pristine, as implied by their designation, many others have a long history of human interaction, with readily apparent roads and structures and a tradition of human travel – both on and off trail -- that continues to this day.

Most existing roads and trails are not “officially designated” in the VMP. Thus, despite their history of use, current popularity, and public assumption of continued use, they may actually be closed to human use, depending on the outcome of various individual Trail Study Assessments.
Alternately, some HCA’s do not have any existing trails, designated or not, yet people have gone there for decades.

In either case, since “designated” trails do not exist in most of the HCA’s, and these areas together comprise roughly 40% of all OSMP property, by banning off-trail travel, one is effectively banning all travel in a very substantial portion of our public land.

Many stakeholders agreed in 2004 that this predicament was unacceptable. Voters did not expect to be barred from the land they have willingly purchased. Small, specific closures for documented scientific reasons have always been accepted, but a blanket default closure of thousands of acres is a severe violation of public trust and government accountability.

The concept of Off-Trail Permits was therefore proposed as a compromise in the VMP. The Off-Trail Permit system was intended to monitor visitor usage and potential resource degradation, and thus establish data to be used in a scientific analysis of management actions. Permits are intended for monitoring; they should not be used as a de facto closure tool.

OSMP OFF-TRAIL PERMITS PROPOSAL

On March 9, 2006, OSMP hosted a meeting and introduced their proposal, OSMP Habitat Conservation Area Off-Trail Permit—Draft Monitoring and Education Phased Alternative Report,” to manage and enforce Off-Trail Permits. Approximately 30 members of the public attended this meeting.

Staff’s proposal consisted of the following elements:

1) Phase I (first year) is for collecting information about the numbers of visitors and places they go, as well as educating visitors about HCA’s and permits. Permits will be required in Phase I, but the number of permits will not be limited. Phase I HCA’s will include Western Mountain Parks, Lower Boulder Creek (White Rocks), and Southern Grasslands (south of Marshall Mesa); Eldorado Mountain will be included after the Trail Study Plan is complete. To facilitate monitoring and resource protection, HCA’s will be broken into subareas based on ecological and visitor patterns.

2) Phase II (subsequent years) – Remaining HCAs will be included. Inventory and monitoring information will be used to determine use levels, impacts and an off-trail access plan, which may include no restrictions, visitation limits and seasonal or full restrictions on Off-Trail Permits in each HCA subarea.

3) Administrative Details including group size limit (up to five people per permit), phased-in grace period, fines starting at $100 with revocation for two years if two violations in two years, on-line application, via mail and in person at Cherryvale and Ranger Cottage.

BOC ANALYSIS

Administrative parts of the proposal (Table 1) are mostly acceptable to the Boulder Outdoor Coalition.

However, the additional proposed seasonal and temporal restrictions on off-trail visitation (as delineated initially on the Lower Boulder Creek, Southern Grasslands, and Mountain Parks West HCAs) are inadvisable for the following reasons:

1) The merits of additional closures and restrictions should be studied and subjected to public discussion on their own merits. These can involve significant scientific and other issues. There was nothing in the off-trail permit announcements from OSMP that notified that public that the March 9 meeting would be used to raise, for the first time, additional restrictions.

Moreover, these restrictions are fundamentally unrelated to the permit issue. If there is a valid closure, such as a properly designed raptor closure, the public would understand that any proposed permit system would require the public to continue to observe the closure. The process of working out the logistics and details of a permit system should not be an occasion for suddenly introducing significant new restrictions that are unconnected to the permit process. OSMP could adopt a permit system and then, with adequate time and public notice and discussion, address whether there should be changes to the restrictions due to species concerns,

2) HCAs already have an extraordinary layer of protection, given that off-trail travel is banned except by permit-holders, and most new trails in HCAs will be difficult to get approved.

3) The subareas proposed for the Southern Grasslands HCA bear no resemblance to the subareas delineated in the Marshall Mesa-Southern Grasslands TSA a mere month earlier. Furthermore, the new subareas proposed on March 9 are far larger and more complex than what may realistically or statutorily be needed to protect certain species.

4) The new subareas represent a chaotic jumble of outlines that overlap and change week-by-week, making it difficult for the public to understand and to support. Without public support, the Off-Trail Permit system, and by extension the Visitor Master Plan itself, will fail.

5) There is significant room to question the need for these additional restrictions. Many of them are very broad in temporal scope, very broad in geographic scope and purport to protect places that “may” contain species of concern. But, some of those species are not even known to exist in the areas being proposed to protect them, and other species mentioned as “of concern” are not (such as coyotes).

6) The new subareas can be perceived as a de facto method of fragmenting recreational habitat, since they reduce the connectivity and size of areas for people who appreciate off-trail travel to go. .

7) The new subareas, and additional seasonal closures in general, are not part of the the publicly approved Visitor Master Plan. If staff is contemplating offering these seasonal and spatial closures of subareas with no restrictions on the number of permits, versus offering severe restrictions on the number of permits with no subarea closures, they should make this tradeoff clear to the public and allow full debate on the merits.

The attached maps of the Southern Grasslands HCA, showing “subareas” delineated by OSMP in February for the TSA process (simple, acceptable) and in March for the OTP process (complicated, overburdensome), illustrate why we are concerned about this issue.

The Boulder Outdoor Coalition submits that because of the Permit requirement not very many people will go off-trail in HCAs, and therefore impacts from this use will be negligible, so the number of permits should not be limited – but we are willing to await the results of the first year trial period before making a formal statement about the outcome.

Accordingly, we propose that the question of additional spatial and temporal restrictions due to species concerns be entirely removed from the off-trail permit process. If OSMP wants to propose additional new restrictions, it should make a clear public announcement to that effect and allow adequate time for input and discussion focused on those restrictions. Tacking those issues on to the tail end of a discussion on the administrative aspects of permits does not give these serious new steps sufficient time for debate and reflection.

OUR PROPOSAL REGARDING THE PERMIT PROCESS

1) We want a system that is reasonably convenient. We oppose any effort to impose a permit system that is so cumbersome it amounts to a de facto closure.

2) We want to accommodate reasonable environmental concerns.

3) We want to educate the public about their possible impacts on the ecosystem they enjoy.

4) We want to ensure that OSMP conducts an objective evaluation of off-trail travel that determines real and not imaginary impacts.

5) We urge OSMP to clarify the definition of off-trail so that it truly concerns going off-trail rather than incidental activities.

6) The standard for limiting the number of permits in Phase II should be changed in two ways:

“localized impacts” should be changed to “localized impacts associated with off-trail use.” Impacts that are associated with on-trail use should not be a basis for limiting the number of off-trail permits.

“detected” should be changed to impacts that “are above and beyond a clearly identified baseline condition.” The term “detected” is very loose and could be interpreted to mean impacts that already exist.

“resulting in significant impact” [or words to that effect] should be added, so that off-trail users are not unnecessarily penalized for trivial impacts.

7) The permit should cover the entire HCA. We do not object to the applicant being asked to more specifically define where they are going within the HCA (for data purposes) but for enforcement purposes the permittee should be OK anywhere within the HCA.

8) Clarify the 5 person per permit rule to make clear that groups of 6-10 are ok as long as they have 2 permits.

9) Include a provision for people to report that they did not use the permit, ("no shows") to improve accuracy of record keeping and so that they don’t count against the limit.

10) Make clear that rangers may warn, but absent an abusive situation generally should not enforce against, incidental off-trail activities (e.g. having lunch a short way off the trail, call of nature, etc.). We suggest a “corridor” concept for ordinary on-trail use, such as 100 feet on either side of the designated trail. Off-trail use and regulations would begin outside this corridor.

11) Conduct surveys or other formal or informal means of gathering data (with no punishment for participants) to determine the percentage of off-trail users who are getting permits. If it turns out that there are adverse impacts, it will be important to know whether the problem is that there are too many permits or whether the problem is that people are not getting permits. The latter situation does not call for a reduction in permits, it calls for greater education and outreach to get people to buy in to stewardship responsibilities.

CONCLUSION

We support Off-Trail permits as long as they are administered equitably and are not used arbitrarily to close large tracts of Open Space and Mountain Parks land. A permit system should allow OSMP to monitor how many visitors go off-trail and assess what, if any, their impacts might be. This policy would establish a scientific basis for further management policy, and thus build the all-important public trust and acceptance in the process. When the public has “bought-in”, science and databased restrictions can be accepted, thus ensuring a successful outcome for the whole process.

We support the Phased Alternative approach outlined in the March 6, 2006 Report, as well as (generally) the policies outlined in Table 1.

However, we do not support the new and complex staff proposal to close small sub-areas of HCAs temporally and/or spatially, as we see this as micromanaging and an ill-conceived attempt to further restrict visitor use of the HCA’s. The public accepted the concept of HCAs only in the belief that the layer of protection afforded these areas by their designation as HCAs would be sufficient. We still believe that by restricting visitor use to designated trails and permitting all off-trail use, these areas will remain protected, because the overall number of visits will decrease and only those who agree to follow accepted norms of behavior will go there.

BOC RECOMMENDATION FOR NEXT STEPS

We urge staff to reconsider the aspect of Off-Trail Permits involving sub-areas within HCAs.

Sub-areas should be large, general, and easily understood, and used for reporting purposes only. They should not be based on small-scale habitat or seasonal closure considerations, since those parameters are confusing and have the potential to become overused by OSMP as a device to close Open Space.

We encourage staff to conduct another round of meetings with interested stakeholders to work out the details of sub-area reporting.

OSMP’s inclusion of our recommendations will go a long way toward restoring a relationship of constructive dialogue and accomplishment of our mutual goal: maximizing human appreciation of Open Space and Mountain Parks while minimizing our impacts.

Sincerely,

The Boulder Outdoor Coalition

Boulder OSMP Visitor Master Plan Site

2007-02-16T21:27:00.000-08:00

The primary focus of the Boulder Outdoor Coalition is the implementation of the Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) Visitor Management Plan (VMP). OSMP maintains a web site with extensive information on the VMP implementation efforts at:

http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3065&Itemid=1032

Boulder OSMP Visitor Master Plan

2007-02-15T21:27:00.000-08:00

A primary focus of the Boulder Outdoor Coalition is assuring that the City faithfully implements the spirit of its Visitor Master Plan.

This is a complex document that people interested in the issus should look at carefully.

In particular we want Open Space and Mountain Parks to live up to the principles outlined in this "Policies for the Future" section:

The Plan: Key Policies for the Future
The Visitor Master Plan is intended to maintain or improve the quality of visitor experience and ensure that Open Space and Mountain Parks natural values--which make this place special--are protected and preserved. The Plan presents the following guidance:

Extend a sense of welcome to visitors that fosters their enjoyment and appreciation of Open Space and Mountain Parks’ special resources
Invest in improving and expanding the trails system to enhance visitor access
Focus on visitor safety, maintenance of existing facilities, and resource protection
Emphasize education to motivate low-impact visitor use techniques
Use the least restrictive means possible to reduce visitor conflict and minimize impacts on the environment [boldface added]
Involve the public in managing Open Space and Mountain Parks lands by providing varied ways to give input to decisions and volunteer opportunities that foster learning and tewardship
Follow an adaptive management approach that involves monitoring the results of management programs and allows adjustments when necessary

The plan can be downloaded from:

http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/openspace/pdf_VMP/Final-VMP.pdf

Political Pedalers: Boulder Mountainbike Alliance

2007-01-29T08:47:00.000-08:00

Clay Evans

Boulder Daily Camera

Jan 26, 2007

When the Boulder Mountainbike Alliance was formed in 1991 (as the Boulder Offroad Alliance) it was a small, unassuming group whose members mostly just wanted to help build a mountain bike trail here or there.

It wasn't until 2000 that a few members proposed a somewhat radical idea: Let's get political. For the first 10 years of our existence, all we wanted was to do work on trails and make nice with the (public) agencies," says BMA president Mike Barrow. "But we made a conscious decision to become politically active in 2000, and ever since then, things have gotten better. There is a direct correlation between being politically involved and the successes that we've reaped."

In 2006, the group changed its name — in part to avoid confusion: "offroad" is a term more often associated with motor vehicles — organized thousands of hours of volunteer muscle to construct and improve local trails, found its first corporate sponsor in REI and continued to flex its political muscles, lobbying city and county open-space departments to keep the interests of mountain bikers in mind.

Among the group's biggest accomplishments last year, Barrow says, were its efforts to pressure the Boulder County Parks and Open Space Department into building a connector between the Heil Ranch open space and Lyons and construct an additional loop for mountain bikers at Heil Ranch. The group also helped to overturn a long-standing ban on mountain bikes on city of Boulder open space west of Colo. 93 near Eldorado Springs, despite fierce opposition from other interest groups.

"We were involved in the trail study (on the Eldorado Mountain-Doudy Draw open space). Now we've got to go out and help build those things," Barrow says. " BMA provided 637 volunteers who did 2,752 hours of trail work, working on trails all over the county, from the Brainard Lake area to Mud Lake near Nederland and Marshall Mesa. BMA also set up a "mountain bike patrol" on the West Magnolia trail system on U.S. Forest Service land west of Boulder.

"Since 1991, we have documented 16,237 volunteer trail work hours to the trails in Boulder County. That's over eight man-years," Barrow wrote in a recent e-mail to the 1,100 people on the group's e-mail list.

Andria Bilich has worked on alliance trail crews for three years and last year became a trail crew leader. "The way I look at BMA, it's not really a social organization so much as an advocacy organization," Bilich says. "It serves the purpose of basically representing the voices of mountain bikers. I've felt really disenfranchised in many ways, so it's nice to have a voice through BMA."
And while public agencies may not always agree with BMA's every goal, they applaud the group for getting involved and working with other interest groups, even those with which they may disagree.

"They put their money where their mouth is," says Mike Patton, director of the city's Open Space and Mountain Parks Department. "They show up, they are helpful and productive, and they turn people out (for volunteer projects). It's not a case where we always agree ... but they have an appreciation for the overall interests, and not just their own."

Now, Barrow says, the alliance is "on the verge of being victims of our own success." With many needs and opportunities — working with Boulder for access to other open-space areas and keeping the pressure on the county to complete the Heil-Lyons connector among them — Barrow says the group's major need now is for more active members.

"Our problem isn't money" — besides REI, the group is sponsored by just about every local bicycling shop, the Boulder Area Trails Coalition, and a smattering of restaurants — "it's people," Barrow says. "We need to step it up this year or miss all these opportunities that are low-hanging fruit right now."

Contact Clay Evans at (303) 473-1352 or evansc@dailycamera.com .

General Principles Underlying Boulder Outdoor Coalition Trail Recommendations

2007-01-05T21:01:00.000-08:00

1. Comparable Trail Densities — The trail densities should be somewhat lower than trail densities of comparable HCAs and NAs.

2. Equitable Treatment of User Groups — In recognition of the many different visitor constituencies within our community we believe that the trail development plan should provide "something for everyone" and should not favor some groups at the expense of others.

3. Variable Length Options — People want to spend different amount of time and travel different. distances. Quality options should range from short to long with connection to adjacent Open Space Tracts (including Jefferson County OS).

4. Fine-tuning of Trail Alignments — Our proposed trails are approximate. We expect final alignments will be determined by local conditions including such things as soil types and the need to avoid locally sensitive areas (such as nesting sites).

5. Importance of Quality Trails — As we try to limit increasingly limit visitor presence to a small number of trails, it's increasingly important of these trails be designed to maximize the visitor experience. They should deliberately seeking to identify and provide access to quality destinations including inspirational viewpoints and areas of historical or geological interest. The trails should also be constructs so that "getting there is at least half the fun" with trails designed to meet the needs of all user groupsTrails rooted for their scenic value are more desirable than those that simply follow routes of convenience (e.g. old access roads for high-voltage power lines). . Loop trails are also widely seen as contributing as providing a more attractive user experience.

6. Visitor Restrictions — In general, environmental protection and user conflict resolution measures should employ the least restrictive method of achieving each objective. In addition, the process should be transparent with the environmental objectives and alternative strategies for achieving those objectives clearly and publically stated. The same principle should apply to efforts to address potential user conflicts.

7. Access — Parking facilities should be adequate to meet the demand. Inadequate parking which turns significant numbers of users away should be viewed and justified as a "restriction."

Undesignated Trails, Eldorado Mountain/Doudy Draw

2006-12-23T14:15:00.000-08:00

September 1, 2006

To: Don D’Amico and Joe Mantione

Subject: Undesignated Trails, Eldorado Mountain/Doudy Draw Draft Trail Study Area Plan additions, dated August 22, 2006

Note: This post was written prior to the creation of this blog and as part of an earlier stage in the ongoing public debate over Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks policies. While somewhat dated, the post still raises important issues which are still relevant.

We have reviewed the Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) Department’s additional materials concerning undesignated trails for the draft Eldorado Mountain/ Doudy Draw Trail Study Area (EM/DD TSA) Plan and would like to add the following comments to our previous submission:

For Natural Areas the Visitor Master Plan envisions creating attractive quality trails as the primary tool to focus visitor travel and keep most visitors on the designated trail system.

Visitor created undesignated trails point out unrealized visitor desires for official OS accesses. They illustrate where people want to go and how they want to get there. The EMDD TSA proposes closing and restoring many undesignated trails.

When alternate, high quality designated trails exist, redundant or damaging social trails can be successfully reclaimed. When alternate designated trails do not exist, attempts to eliminate undesignated trails will be unsuccessful and will, in fact, do additional damage by leading to the creation of new undesignated trails to replace the closed ones.

The trail system envisioned by the present EMDD TSA draft plan is a major improvement over the status quo, but still lacks a few alignments necessary for success:

1) Flatirons Vista Mesa Rim Trail (Map 2 Location 3 & Map 3 Trails 36, 46,47,49)
The northern loop trail on the Flatirons Vista Plateau and the associated access trail via the Matterhorn underpass is the primary missing component.
The draft proposes seasonal closures for this area, restoration of the existing undesignated trails, and various other actions to reduce visitation. The draft also proposes to allow continued use of the Matterhorn underpass without any trail designation and proposes to review the area access requirements at some future time.
The proposals to restore the undesignated trails while designating the use of the underpass and scheduling future studies are contradictory in nature and contrary to the Natural Area philosophy of managing visitor travel by designating appropriate trails.

Designating the Flatirons Vista Mesa Rim Trail and requiring on-trail travel during the seasonal closures would eliminate these issues, improve the likelihood of the success of the plan, and best protect the area.

2) Connection to South Boulder Creek trails (Map 2 Location 2 & Map 3 Trails 49, 50, & 52) The draft proposes deferring any decision on a trail connection from this TSA to the South Boulder Creek trails until the Shanahan/South Mesa TSA planning process. The draft also proposes restoring the existing undesignated trails that might provide such a connection. These trails should be retained until the decision about the South Boulder Creek trails connection is made.

3) Lower Doudy Draw Loop Trail (Map 2 Location 1 & & Map 3 Trails 65 & 66)
There is an existing loop of undesignated trails in this area. The draft proposes restoration of these undesignated trails without providing any alternative designated trails in the area. We have previously argued for a designated trail loop in this area. At the least, a loop of the undesignated trails should be retained to avoid the creation of additional undesignated trails in the area.

4) Roads designated as trails
Several of the designated "trails" in the draft plan are, in fact, roads (e.g., the old farm road from the Flatirons Vista trailhead to the old railroad grade and the Denver Water Canal maintenance road). Many visitors do not consider roads to provide quality experiences. As a result undesignated trails are often created paralleling the road alignments. The Boulder Valley Ranch roads and the Marshall Mesa roads are major examples of this situation.

Attempts to prevent or restore such parallel, undesignated trails within the EMDD TSA will be unsuccessful. A wiser approach is to incorporate these undesignated trails as part of the trail system, and to actively improve the visitor experience along the road corridors by constructing sustainable parallel trails as necessary to avoid the future creation of undesirable undesignated trails.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft plan and hope for the success of the plan and the TSA process.

Sincerely,

Boulder Area Trails Coalition Board of Directors

Cc: Mike Patton

Eldorado Mountain/Doudy Draw Final Draft TSA Plan

2006-12-23T14:12:00.000-08:00

Eldorado Mountain/Doudy Draw Final Draft TSA Plan

Boulder Outdoor Coalition

Note: This post was written as part of an earlier stage in the ongoing public debate over Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks policies. While somewhat dated, the post still raises important issues which are still relevant.
The language in the draft TSA Plan gives the impression that many trails are being added to a pristine area. This would be a dramatic and factual misrepresentation. This area has seen continuous development activity for almost a century, including many roads to service mining and logging activities. The proposed Plan will reduce, not increase, human access in this Area, and the description should reflect this fact.

The big view off the edge of the Mesa. Surely, they could have moved it out from beneath the power line.

A few new trails will be created, while far more existing trails will be eliminated. The Plan will decrease both mileage and number of trails. Out of 35 trail miles presently in use, only 16 miles are designated. 19 existing trail miles will be eliminated, while only 8.7 miles of new trail are designated.

The visitor access restrictions go well beyond the "least restrictive" policy as required by the Visitor Master Plan.

Specific Items of Concern:

If all the proposed designated trails are actually built, the plan is minimally acceptable
6 of 11 BOC trail recommendations were rejected (3) or deferred for further study (3).
Of the 5 new trails included, the most significant (Fowler to Doudy Draw and Springbrook Loop) are under continuing attack. (If these are removed from TSA plan, the majority of the recreational organizations will reject it.)
Visitor access restrictions significantly beyond the "least restrictive" required by the VMP
Bikes and dogs are excluded from the HCA
Equestrians are excluded from the permit process in the HCA
Dogs are required to be on trail and on leash in the Springbrook NA
Equestrians are required to be on trail in the Springbrook NA
New, large-area seasonal closures are proposed in the Community Ditch and Flatirons Vista NA
Inappropriate and/or premature undesignated trail closures
Undesignated trails would be closed prior to the construction of corresponding designated trails
All undesignated trails would be closed in "study" areas and other areas without any designated trails
Quality of visitor experiences marginal
The Plan would deliberately exclude access to desirable view points:
- Lindsay Pond
- Flatirons Vista overlooks
A significant portion of the designated alignments (7.4 miles) are roads, not trails
- Community Ditch access road
- Denver Water access road
- Defunct railroad grade
- Flatirons Vista & Doudy Draw farm roads

A New Approach to Open Space

2006-12-16T21:31:00.000-08:00

Bill Briggs
September 4, 2004

Note: This post was written prior to the creation of this blog and as part of an earlier stage in the ongoing public debate over Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks policies. While somewhat dated, the post still raises important issues which are still relevant.

Reacting to the threat of a high-rise hotel on Enchanted Mesa overlooking Boulder in the early 1960s, a group of visionary citizens launched a campaign that resulted in the most magnificent city park in the world. Forty years later, all of us are the beneficiaries of 40,000-plus acres of spectacular prairies, mesas and mountains that have been set aside for preservation and recreation.

Most of us are grateful on a nearly daily basis for this remarkable legacy. But whether you hike, run, picnic, climb, bike, hang-glide, watch birds, or ride horses in Boulder's Open Space and Mountain Parks, the way you use these lands could change by the end of the year. The OSMP Visitor Master Plan reflects a heroic five-year effort in which the OSMP staff gathered research, conducted surveys, and worked with user groups. The staff deserves our appreciation for producing a document that is now available for public discussion.

The heart of the VMP is a plan for four different types of management areas, each with a different set of rules and allowed uses. The two most highly restricted areas (Habitat Conservation Areas and Natural Areas) would be more restricted to use as current open space; these areas would account for roughly 80 percent of OSMP lands. A third type of area (Recreation) appears to describe the current use of most existing open space and accounts for 9 percent of the land. The remaining 9 percent of the land is designated Agricultural. It takes no reading between the lines to see that the VMP is a testament to limited use and increased regulation.

Over half of the respondents to a recent survey cited recreation as the primary purpose of OSMP lands. But with an estimated 3.5 million visitors per year (more than most national parks), even the most ardent users do not want OSMP to become a free-for-all amusement park. At the same time, nearly half of the respondents to that survey ranked protecting habitat for wildlife as the top management priority for OSMP. But even the most vocal conservationists understand the impracticality of turning OSMP into a museum that visitors view from a distance. With this breadth in public opinion, the VMP cannot satisfy everyone. However, it is imperative that in its final form, the VMP strike a fair balance and accommodate the users who are the real champions of open space and have voted three times to tax themselves for the sake of open space. Here are some suggestions for giving users undiminished access to their land and a larger stake in its preservation:

Implicit in the VMP is a belief that the public cannot be trusted to care for its land and must be regulated by boundaries and restrictions. Local users love the OSMP legacy, they want today's open-space experiences preserved for future residents and visitors, and they can be trusted to exercise stewardship. For example, raptor closures in the Flatirons have had a high level of compliance and show that the public can be trusted. The VMP should limit impact on the land, but not use of the land.
The average cost of OSMP purchases in the last three years has increased from roughly $6,000 per acre to almost $16,000 per acre. In 2004 a 10-acre parcel was purchased for $900,000. Roughly 21 percent of this year's OSMP budget is set aside for land acquisition, while 9 percent is devoted to trail maintenance (another 49 percent goes to debt service on past purchases). The idea of stockpiling land made sense for 40 years, but now land is scarce and expensive. Funds must be shifted from acquisition to maintenance, services, education, and enforcement.
A reasonable concern of OSMP staff is the proliferation of social trails and the increase in off-trail hiking. The best explanation is fairly evident: By one estimate, in the time that open space holdings have doubled, fewer than 10 miles of new trails have been built! Some existing undesignated trails need to be maintained and made official. New trails need to be built to give access to popular areas. Not surprisingly, social trails and off-trail use will decrease as a result.
Any version of the VMP will require additional OSMP staff in the field, and future budgets should support a significant increase in staff. However, these jobs will be difficult with a raft of new unenforceable rules. For example, implementing the various rules of the patchwork management plan in the current VMP is bound to be impossible. Similarly, a proposed permit system will collapse under its own weight and incur unnecessary costs. And user fees should not be introduced: They will be expensive to implement and access to Boulder public lands must not be an economic entitlement.
OSMP has a network of volunteers that must be expanded. Volunteer work gives open space users an additional commitment to the land. OSMP also must be open to innovative projects. Last fall, a running event on Mt. Sanitas, in which participants contributed trail work, seemed like a win-win idea. Yet, the proposal was never enthusiastically endorsed and another such event seems unlikely.

In the 1960s, Boulder launched a visionary campaign to purchase its surrounding lands. Forty years later, it faces an unprecedented challenge in balancing preservation and use of those lands. The VMP is a laudable start to meeting this challenge. However, with its seemingly arbitrary restrictions, the current plan will not be embraced by the owners and users unless it provides open, but sensible, access to the land. Once again Boulder must break trail and find creative solutions. And once again, vision, boldness and trust will be needed.

Bill Briggs teaches at the University of Colorado, Denver.

Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks Home Page

2006-12-16T21:26:00.001-08:00

Adaptive Management

2006-11-30T21:17:00.000-08:00

Guy Burgess

Note: This post was written prior to the creation of this blog and as part of an earlier stage in the ongoing public debate over Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks policies. While somewhat dated, the post still raises important issues which are still relevant.

It's obvious that a great deal of uncertainty exists regarding the resilience of ecosystems and the impact of various human visitation options. In the face of such uncertainty one has two basic options. One can implement an extremely cautious management plan -- one that essentially excludes visitors from an entire area. While this would obviously minimize the risks associated with human visitation, it's highly probable (but not certain) that the environmental benefits of such an approach would be quite small, at least as compared with a modest, environmentally sensitive human visitation program. Taking the most conservative approach possible would still be the obvious choice, except for the fact that there are real costs associated with unnecessary visitor restrictions. These include, for example, diminished public understanding of prairie and other ecosystems, reduced public support for open space programs, and human quality of life impacts.

It is these costs which are pressuring OSMP land managers to look for ways of simultaneously pursuing both recreational and preservation objectives. In short, they are in the politically difficult position of having to decide how cautious is too cautious.

Under such circumstances is common for the parties to wish that they knew more. Better science would reduce uncertainties in the corresponding level of needed caution. It would allow land managers allow greater visitation while simultaneously maintaining or even strengthening the level of environmental protection.

The good news is that there is a practical and inexpensive strategy for reducing uncertainty. It is based on the fundamental principle that the longer you look into the future the greater the level of uncertainty. To date the visitor planning has focused on long-term decisions with the apparent goal of crafting a series of policies which would not have to be continually reviewed. To my knowledge there was little planning and budgeting for impact monitoring and the prompt mitigation of unanticipated adverse impacts. If you're going to manage this way, you it have to have very large safety margins which, in turn, force unnecessary and controversial visitor restrictions.

An alternative, adaptive management strategy would focus more attention on short-term decisions and include funding for the continued monitoring of visitation and environmental impacts. It would have the money needed to be able to identify environmental problems as they arise and then promptly take appropriate corrective measures. It would be able to act before problems got out of hand and while mitigation options were still feasible and affordable. Similarly rewarding new visitor opportunities to be added based upon visitor suggestions and continuing environmental assessments.

For example, in areas where there are concerns that visitors might allow the seeds of invasive species to "hitchhike" on their clothing, the visitor plan could include funding a systematic search for invasive species at the earliest stages of the flowering season---when they are easily identifiable and before they've had a chance to reproduce. Any plants that are found could be destroyed and if the number of invasive plants is significantly greater than those found in the control area then a broader area closure might be implemented.

As another example, in areas where there is concern that human visitation might scare away nesting birds, the area could be closed until each year's nests are firmly established. Areas without active nests could then be reopened with the entire area opened once they the nesting season concludes. Area wide closures could then be reinstituted at the beginning of the next nesting season. An area can also be monitored for the emergence of unwanted social trails with incipient trails closed before there is significant vegetation damage

Marshall Mesa–Southern Grasslands TSA Comments

2006-09-23T14:20:00.000-07:00

Marshall Mesa–Southern Grasslands Trail Study Area (TSA)

Trail Alternatives Comments

Boulder Outdoor Coalition Member

Note: This post was prior to the creation of this blog as part of an earlier stage in the ongoing public debate over Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks policies. While somewhat dated, the post still raises important issues which are still relevant.

The overall quality of the staff's evaluations is extremely variable. The content for the items that the staff has seriously considered for implementation is often quite good (e.g. Alternatives 1, 2, 10, 33). Assessments of other alternatives show obvious biases against implementation. This is particularly noticeable in the trail alternatives presented for the interior of the Southern Grasslands (Alternatives 22, 23, and 35) where 2 to 4 "Pros" are answered with 10 to 21 "Cons".

"Cons" listed for trail Alternatives 22, 23, and 35 are redundantly repetitive. Many of the statements are emotional and without significant justification or content (e.g. "compromises conservation goal for HCA", greatly reduces untrailed habitat", "bisects HCA", "fragments habitat", "importance of keeping HCA free of trails"). This is a single, questionable argument repeated over and over again. Similarly, few mitigation items are offered for these alternatives despite clear evidence of trail alignments that avoid the resources of concern (see Map 9b).

There should be a trail alternative (or option to an existing alternative) for a trail connection from the south end of 66th Street to the northwest corner of the Coalton trail. Lumping this connection under trail Alternative 35 doesn't allow for a separate evaluation of its suitability.

Citing the loss of the entire Terra Foundation grant $450,000 as justification for allowing no trails or stream crossing within the Fenced Riparian Restoration Area is extremely questionable. At the least the potential to mitigate this "Con" via negotiation with the foundation should be included. A crossing paralleling one of the private property fence lines should have minimal effects. The de facto selling of control over Open Space property to a private organization is also of questionable legality and could certainly invite a law suit.

Bicyclists are singled out at several places in the document as creating undesignated trails (e.g., Alternative 4, Con 1). This is inappropriate and incorrect. Bicyclists may make use of undesignated trails but will not create them in a grassland environment (too many flat tires). Hikers and joggers are much more likely to create undesignated trails.

The trail alternatives dealing with biking trail enhancements (Alternatives 9, 29, and 30) miss the point that adding curves, contours, and narrowing the trail corridor all tend to reduce bicyclists speeds and alleviate visitor conflicts. The "Con" listed for Alternative 9 ...(more bicyclists riding faster)"...is incorrect. The suggested enhancements will reduce speeds (which is a visitor conflict "Pro").

"Planned obstacles" is a poor choice of words for trail enhancements that help control alignments and reduce speed. Open Space regularly installs such features to control widening or braiding of existing trails. There is nothing in Alternative 9 that is "contrary to the Open Space Charter".

The connection from the City Limits trailhead to the Community Ditch trail might best be done as two parallel alignments to separate hikers from bikers and reduce visitor conflicts in the area immediately adjacent to the trailhead.

Although the at-grade crossing of Highway 93 at the intersection of HW 128 and HW 93 and the suggested crossing via the Community Ditch underpass (Alternative 3) resolve the crossing safety issues for hikers and bicyclists, there is still a need for a safe highway crossing for equestrians. Use of the existing cattle underpass near the old Matterhorn site (Alternative 25) could resolve this issue. Although this trail connection has been previously approved, it may be sufficient to allow equestrians to make use of the underpass without going to the expense of creating a new trail. In this case only minor modifications to fencing and gates to the west of the underpass would be required. Consider adding this possibility as an option to the exisitng Altrnative 25.

Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Trails Map Update

2006-06-10T14:17:00.000-07:00

February 10, 2006

To: Jean Gatza, Boulder City Planning Department
(jgatza@www.ci.boulder.co.us)

From: Boulder Area Trails Coalition Board of Directors

Subject: Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Trails Map Update

Note: This post was written prior to the creation of this blog and as part of an earlier stage in the ongoing public debate over Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks policies. While somewhat dated, the post still raises important issues which are still relevant.

At their February 8th meeting, the Open Space Board of Trustees voted to recommend removal of the Union Pacific Railroad Trail from the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Trails Map. The Boulder Area Trails Coalition (BATCO) strongly objects to this unilateral and inappropriate attempt to modify the plan.

The Board's action continues a decade-long campaign by the Open Space department to eliminate trails from the Comprehensive Plan. The department previously deleted the West Beech Trail during the 1998 Comprehensive Plan update, and Jim Crain (the then-director of Open Space) later attempted to remove both the Feeder Canal and Union Pacific Railroad Trails from the Plan. The Board's action this week, which is in conflict with the Open Space staff’s recommendations, is particularly unfortunate as it follows so soon after the department's successful completion of the Marshall Mesa-Southern Grasslands Trail Study Project. The trust and goodwill developed during that project are now at risk.

BATCO submitted an extensive application for Trails Map revisions in November 2004. Despite our documentation of significant community support, none of the new trails we recommended are included in the City staff's recommended updates. The staff justified this position by citing the defined procedure for changes that states

"Changes to the map may occur when there has been new information or changed circumstances regarding a proposed trail or when an alternatives analysis and public process have occurred at the master planning or area planning level and new trails plans have been adopted."

The Open Space Board's action blatantly disregarded this procedure. No new information, changed circumstances, or appropriate analysis and public process exist to justify the Union Pacific Railroad Trail removal.

The Board's action is a transparent effort to bias new trail plan studies that are scheduled for many of BATCO’s recommended trails, which include the Union Pacific Railroad Trail. We deplore the Open Space Board's arrogant disregard for both the public interest and the process that was established to prevent just such manipulations. To express our concern, please include this letter in the information packets for the upcoming Planning Board and City Council reviews of the Comprehensive Plan Trails Map Updates.

Sincerely,
Holly S. Tulin, for the Boulder Area Trails Coalition Board of Directors
CC: Boulder City Council

Comments on the Draft Visitor Plan

2006-03-01T19:52:00.000-08:00

To: OSMP Board of Trustees, Staff
From: Guy Burgess
Subject: Comments on the Draft Visitor Plan – Community Group Process
Date: July 1, 2004

Note: This post was written prior to the creation of this blog and as part of an earlier stage in the ongoing public debate over Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks policies. While somewhat dated, the post still raises important issues which are still relevant.

The Community Group process has taken a major step toward positively transforming the high level of hostility that many previously felt toward the OSMP Visitor Planning process. It is imperative that future efforts build upon and extend these accomplishments with continued collaboration and meaningful involvement opportunities for these and other interested individuals and groups. In short, any repudiation of this process would be a grave mistake. It is also clear that much more work will be needed and that this is simply the beginning of what must be a continuing process. More specific comments include the following.

1) New Trails
The draft reports consideration of possible new trail corridors begins to add a "carrot" side to what has previously been a "stick" or "regulation only" process. It is important that these efforts continue. It will be a lot easier for people to accept increased restrictions, if they are also accompanied by increased opportunities. In this regard you may find the many visitor opportunities that I identified as part of my Connection Ecology project to be useful. I would be more than happy to work with OSMP develop these and other similar ideas.

2) Don't Overrate the Power of Regulations
Irresponsible visitors will, from time to time, do undesirable things that cause damage and require cleanup, impact mitigation, and natural healing. In many if not most cases new visitor restrictions are unlikely to restrain these irresponsible individuals. Instead they will simply undermine the experiences of responsible visitors and promote resentment toward OSMP staff. The plain fact is that there are some problems that regulations can't fix.

3) Precautionary Visitor Restrictions
With respect to the imposition of "precautionary"visitor restrictions to protect environmental resources (including designation of the new habitat conservation areas) I suggest that the following steps be followed:

a. As part of the process of implementing a precautionary visitor restriction OSMP should articulate as precisely as possible the nature of any environmental concern. After all, effective protection requires a clear image of what you're trying to protect.
b. The scientific basis of the concern along with outstanding uncertainties should be clearly acknowledged and posted online.
c. Wherever possible and affordable, efforts should be undertaken to resolve uncertainties that have a substantial impact on the need for visitor restrictions.
d. Efforts should also be undertaken to find the least disruptive way of addressing the concerns.
e. The benefits of any environmental restrictions should also be weighed against the costs in terms of lost visitor opportunities. The making of wise and equitable trade-off decisions is an integral part of the OSMP mission.
f. The public should be involved at every stage of the process. This suggests that public "calls for proposals" be issued challenging affected interest groups to find less disruptive ways of addressing environmental concerns.
g. Each issue should also be re-examined periodically with opportunities to tighten or loosen regulations as appropriate.

4) Social Trail / Off Trail Issues
The entire social trail / off trail issue is quite complex and requires the consideration many issues. I have prepared and previously submitted a number of documents highlighting the many benefits associated with visitor experiences off mapped trails and suggesting ways in which adverse environmental impacts can be minimized. I would be happy to participate in efforts to further develop these ideas.

Trails – http://home.comcast.net/~connection-ecology/newtrails.html
Slideshow – http://home.comcast.net/~connection-ecology/flatiron-slide.html
Trail Types – http://home.comcast.net/~connection-ecology/trailtypes.html
Off Trail Access – http://home.comcast.net/~connection-ecology/off-trail.html
See also the attached social trail map and memo.

5) Equitable Access
There are also important issues of equitable access. I have already written about problems in the Devils Thumb / Shannahan Ridge and Eldorado Springs areas.
Equitable Access – http://www.connectionecology.org/access.html
Equitable Access Slideshow – http://www.connectionecology.org/slideshow.html

6) Need for Additional Facilities
At the recent OSMP Board meeting a question was raised about whether or not there was a need for additional visitor capacity. Given the virtual saturation of the Chautauqua area on busy weekends and the routine overflow of the Dowdy Draw / South Mesa Trail parking lots, it is pretty clear that we have reached the point where it is time to start thinking seriously about increasing system capacity

7) HCA Permitting System
The proposed permitting system for the habitat conservation areas could easily have the effect of increasing rather than decreasing visitation. Even minimal public notice of the existence of such program would suggest hiking in these areas to people who may never considered the possibility. The more general publication of guidelines for responsible off-trail travel in all areas would encourage minimal impact visitation in all areas. (See section #4). This would also avoid setting the unpopular precedent of having to ask permission to visit large tracts of taxpayer-funded open-space.

It seems very unlikely that the proposed permitting system would significantly reduce the currently minimal impacts in these areas. Instead, it looks to me like a sneaky way to prevent the consideration of new visitor opportunities in these areas without ever having to make the environmental case that environmentally responsible visitation is impossible. The proposed permit system could, depending upon how it's implemented, also become a mechanism for restricting access to a privileged few. I think that the way that the community groups of address this issue makes a lot of sense and is preferable to the original proposal.

Trail Densities & Effects On Front Range Public Lands

2005-12-16T21:28:00.000-08:00

Boulder Area Trails Coalition

Public discussions about trails are often quite emotional. Questions always arise about the effects of trails on the environment and about how much public access is appropriate. A few facts may help to put the discussions in context. We've gather some statistics about publicly owned lands and trails in Boulder County and surrounding areas in the hopes the data will add some perspective.

In the following table we've shown acreages, square miles (acreage divided by 640), and miles of trails on public lands managed by various local land management agencies. As a measure of the extent of the trail systems we've calculated a trail density factor (trail milage per square mile of land managed).

Finally, we've generated a worst case measure of possible trail impacts by assuming that each foot of trail devastates an 100 foot wide corridor of land and calculating the resulting percentage impact on the total property. It's important to note that we do not believe trail effects are anyway near that severe. The few studies we hear repetitively cited clearly indicate that trail effects, when any exist, are much lower.

Read the full article and look at the trail density tables.

BCHA Marshall Mesa-Southern Grasslands

2005-10-23T14:18:00.000-07:00

Boulder County Horse Association (BCHA)
P.O. Box 19601
Boulder, CO 80308-2601
Sept. 15, 2005

City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks
Attn: Jim Reeder, Joe Mantione
66 S. Cherryvale Rd.
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306

Note: This post was written prior to the creation of this blog and as part of an earlier stage in the ongoing public debate over Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks policies. While somewhat dated, the post still raises important issues which are still relevant.

Summer travel commitments and now a serious knee accident have prevented me from participating in the Marshall Mesa-Southern Grasslands Trail Study Area meetings. However, like many other members of the public, I have studied the various documents produced by staff and have provided input representing BCHA’s extensive equestrian experience in this area and containing our recommendations for its future management from an equestrian perspective. I had hoped that after the long and arduous Visitor Master Planning process the current TSA – the first of many under the new VMP -- would result in a balanced, precedent-setting plan of which we could all be proud.

Instead, I grieved deeply as I reviewed the “Draft Report on Trail Alternatives – Summary” prepared by staff for the Sept. 8 Open House and Task Force meeting. This document is anything but balanced and makes me extremely concerned about the future of other TSA’s in specific and the VMP in general.

There are so many items that need to be addressed it is discouraging to know where to start.

Overall, it is difficult to escape the impression that the only alternatives favored by staff are closing historic and desirable visitor use patterns and instituting tightly-restricted lower-quality ones, if at all. The list of “Pros” is short if staff doesn’t like an alternative and the list of “Cons” very long indeed; conversely, if staff likes an alternative the list of “Pros” is long and the list of “Cons” is short – regardless of clear public sentiment and common sense. This is not an objective way to analyze the options, and perpetrates the public impression that the VMP is merely a sham to give the OSMP Department license to do what it had been planning to do all along.

For example, let’s look at “Alternative #25 – New trail from the Greenbelt Plateau Trailhead to the Existing Cattle Underpass near the Old Matterhorn Site, with connections to Community Ditch Trail and Doudy Draw Trail; open to equestrians” (p. 16-17). Although this alternative was recommended by BATCO more than five years ago and was approved by the Open Space Board of Trustees (after many long debates), no progress has been made in realizing this tiny, tiny trail segment, due in large measure to environmental concerns that were proved false and to inexplicable resistance from staff. In the current document this alternative merits two brusque, reluctant, one-line “Pros”: would provide additional safe crossing under S.H.93 using an existing box culvert, and has dramatic vistas. On the other hand, staff found nine, expansively-fleshed-out “cons” to justify their previously-staked-out opposition to this alignment! I submit that many of the “Cons” are inaccurate, such as pointing out that the box culvert is narrow and has a low ceiling height for equestrian use, so riders will have to dismount their horses. This is a non-issue for us and we have said so, many times. We have actually used this alignment for many years and would continue to do so happily, but staff has systematically fenced off our historic connections to the other trails on both sides of Hwy 93, so until this culvert is designated officially its utility to us is greatly diminished. The nesting swallows objection was brought up by a member of the OSBT years ago and another member of the OSBT – a bird expert – shot down her colleague’s objection by pointing out that the birds in question are common barn swallows that don’t need special protection. Yet here we are, still fussing over them and claiming that they “must” be protected. Many other culverts contain similar assemblages of swallow nests, but those swallows are not being singled out as reasons to close the trails in those culverts – why here, why now? Additional “Cons” pointed out by staff include “safe connection across Hwy 93 already made at stoplight near Greenbelt Plateau Trailhead and the planned underpass at Community Ditch Trail.” In our July 15 letter on this matter we elaborated on why both of those are not safe connections for equestrians – but our points appear to have been ignored. A questionable “con” (this one is really a stretch) is that “a trail connection to the Community Ditch Trail on the west side of the underpass would have to get approval of the ditch company.” Excuse me, but that’s ridiculous – we have been using a perfectly good connection for years to the west side of Community Ditch, the ditch company has had nothing to do with it and had no objections anyway – so, this is a great example of an ongoing staff issue being couched as someone else’s issue instead. Finally, the document points out that staff’s preferred alignments also have “dramatic views” – sure they do, of highway traffic and the inside of a tunnel, respectively. Thanks but no thanks.

The words themselves reveal staff’s strong predilections throughout the document. For example, when a matter deals with the quality of the visitor experience, the words chosen include short, terse, qualified phrases such as “possibly provide a better experience” (p. 19, ignoring the fact that visitors themselves requested this particular change); “Some visitors feel that their experience is reduced when the trail is located next to a highway or fences” (p. 21, p. 10; Hello?? It’s to imagine an honest visitor who doesn’t feel that way!), “provide another loop opportunity” (p. 15, implying that another loop opportunity is frivolous and uncalled-for); “extensive expansion to accommodate horse trailers will remove a large area of rare plant community vegetation” (p. 23, these rare plants have never been mentioned before but almost seem to have popped up recently in order to justify a no-action alternative; surely they could be accommodated along with a redesigned parking lot, if there were a will to do so! Who is talking about an “extensive expansion,” anyway? What does “extensive” mean?). Yet the environmental-protection words and phrases wax positively poetic and rave on throughout the document about “extremely diverse and valuable bird communities” (p. 14), “unique and important area” (p. 14), ”high-quality xeric tallgrass community” (p. 16), “vastly decreases the connectivity of wildlife habitat” (p. 22); etc. Again, in our opinion this document is not an objective analysis of the issues but instead reveals the strong staff bias that many of us have been complaining about for years.

And, perhaps most objectionable, the facts cited seem often to be manipulated in such a way that they support or undermine a desired outcome. This manipulation strains credulity. For example, “Cons” listed for why there should be no trail on the old railroad grade connecting City Limits and the old Marshall Mesa trailhead include “cuts through rare butterfly habitat and an un-fragmented north-facing shrubland habitat” (p. 5). Hey, we’re talking about using an old railroad grade with lots of historic mining activity, folks, not building a new trail through pristine wilderness! Yet people not intimately familiar with the geography, the issues and the opportunities (such as City Council and even the OSBT) might be swayed by this misleading “analysis” of the situation.

These are but a few examples of the unfortunate lack of objectivity that is entrenched in this document. It is impossible to analyze them all in this response. Suffice it to say that the document is quite instructive in (inadvertently?) revealing how deep staff’s biases really go. These biases are clear and pervasive. The message conveyed is that the only legitimate goals for this area are to maximize environmental protection by closing vast areas of OSMP to the public; to accomplish these goals all efforts must be made to minimize the value of the visitor experience, to minimize opportunities for enhancing trails and infrastructure, and to maximize concerns about environmental impacts (even if they are not demonstrable).

Yet the public consensus and Council’s directive to the OSMP Department have been quite clear – the Visitor Master Plan directs OSMP to maximize visitor opportunities while minimizing environmental impacts. That’s what this TSA should have been all about.

It’s so easy to just say no. Will we ever get to yes?

Other public land management agencies conduct analyses for their projects using rigorous, objective techniques. I had hoped that OSMP would start to do so as well. The current document, while better than some earlier attempts, is extremely disappointing and leaves much room for improvement!

We sincerely hope that we are wrong in our analysis of this document, and that as a result of our collective participation in the Marshall Mesa-Southern Grasslands TSA process the Open Space and Mountain Parks Department will indeed incorporate some meaningful additions to the public’s enjoyment and apppreciation of this historically-diverse area while still protecting the environmental resources. It is possible, and desirable, to do both. We will remain intensely interested in the outcome.

We will also be watching and participating in other TSA projects throughout the OSMP system, and we hope the standards of objectivity improve in the near future.

Meanwhile, BCHA stands by the detailed recommendations we made in our July 15, 2005 letter for the Marshall Mesa – Southern Grasslands TSA.

Thank you for your attention to our concerns.

Suzanne Webel
BCHA External Vice President, Trails and Public Lands Chair

BATCO Marshall Mesa-Southern Grasslands Trail Alternatives

2005-10-02T14:19:00.000-07:00

September 12, 2005

To: Jim Reeder, City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) Department

Subject: Marshall Mesa-Southern Grasslands Trail Alternatives

Note: This post was written prior to the creation of this blog and as part of an earlier stage in the ongoing public debate over Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks policies. While somewhat dated, the post still raises important issues which are still relevant.

Marshall Mesa and the Southern Grasslands offer exceptional opportunities for both recreation and nature study. These properties include unimplemented regional trail alignments, important riparian habitat, and several significant safety issues. Given the tight time schedule, the Marshall Mesa-Southern Grasslands Trail Alternatives developed by the OSMP staff identify many of the opportunities and, for the most part, accurately characterize them.

We support the implementation of the majority of the alternatives considered. We believe it is important to identify the most important. Trail emphasis in the TSA should include: completing the missing trail connections, especially the external connections to regional trail systems; providing limited, but significant, opportunities for public appreciation of the Coal Creek corridor; and, correcting the trailhead and highway crossing safety exposures.

Of the forty alternatives identified, there are several that are essential to the success of the Trail Study Area (TSA) project and to the future of OSMP management of the properties:

The Marshall Mesa to Superior Trail (Alternatives 10 and 13) and the Greenbelt Plateau Trailhead to Coalton Trail (Alternative 33) are previously approved, comprehensive plan trails. They are vital regional connections and must be included in the final trail plan.

In addition, at least one of the major visitor proposed "white dot" trails in the Southern Grasslands HCA must be approved. This is essential both to provide the general public an appreciation of the area and to demonstrate that the hours of public participation and the strong public interest exhibited for some access to the area has not been discounted by the OSMP department.

The final trail plan must also address the safety issues associated with the Marshall Mesa trailhead and with Highway 93 crossings. We believe the proposed City Limits Trailhead (Alternative 2), the Community Ditch Trail Crossing (Alternative 3), and equestrian access to the Matterhorn cattle underpass (Alternative 25) appropriately address these concerns.

We have attached our detail analysis and recommendations for these essential trails and our recommendations and comments on all the Trail Alternatives. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Trail Alternatives and have high hopes for the success of the TSA process

Sincerely,
Boulder Area Trails Coalition Board of Directors

Boulder County Public Lands & Trails

2005-08-16T21:29:00.000-07:00

Boulder Area Trails Coalition

Note: This post was written prior to the creation of this blog and as part of an earlier stage in the ongoing public debate over Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks policies. While somewhat dated, the post still raises important issues which are still relevant.

It's encouraging to recreational enthusiasts that more than 2/3 of the land in unincorporated Boulder County is in public ownership (more than 60% of all the county land). The multiplicity of our public land management agencies and the diversity of the various rules and regulations can lead to confusion. Hopefully the following discussion will help clear things up.

The federal government is the largest public land manager with more than 1/3 of the county under Forest Service, BLM, National Park Service, or Department of Commerce control. The Boulder County Parks and Open Space department and Boulder City Open Space and Mountain Parks department are the next largest public land agencies (managing, respectively, more than 16% and 10% of the county). Other, significantly smaller, public land managers include Denver, Boulder, and Longmont utility departments and Eldorado State Park. Each of the land management agencies operates with it's own set of objectives and rules (and within it's own political and budgetary constraints). The table below contains some specifics of agency properties and trails.

Read the rest of this article.

Trail Impacts

2005-03-16T21:33:00.000-08:00

Note: This post was written prior to the creation of this blog and as part of an earlier stage in the ongoing public debate over Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks policies. While somewhat dated, the post still raises important issues which are still relevant.

Let’s not allow political correctness to prevail over objective data regarding Boulder's Open Space and Mountain Parks' (OSMP) Visitor Master Plan. Some extreme preservationists have been decrying “habitat fragmentation due to trails” as if trails were environmental catastrophes and those who enjoy access to public lands ignorant, selfish and destructive. Many scientists, including myself, have also evaluated the data regarding environmental impacts of trails. Our conclusions differ significantly.

No one denies that humans can affect our environment. Let’s assume for a moment that all designated trails on Open Space are 100% environmental sacrifice areas 100’ wide; if so, the total impact on the OSMP ecosystem would be 1.7%. However, objective analysis of diverse data reveals that trails do not fragment habitat. A bird study commissioned by OSMP which set out to demonstrate that trails would create a reduction in species diversity, evenness, and richness compared to control areas, could find no such “trail effect.” The researchers found that the vast majority of birds showed no sensitivity to trails. The probability of a nest occurring near trails was significantly higher than along control transects, and the average probability of nest survival was identical. Another OSMP study along South Boulder Creek found no statistical difference in bird populations regardless of levels of on-trail or off-trail use. These studies show that the "millions" of Open Space visitors have no measurable net effect on habitat integrity. Colorado elk researchers have found that recreationists would have to actively harass each cow elk in a herd more than ten times a season to achieve any reduction in reproductive success. Colorado State Weed Coordinator studies show that wind, water, wildlife fur, bird scat, and truck tires are each more effective than trail users in spreading weeds. Boulder County reports that some raptor species have increased 1000-2000% in the past decade, despite enormous increases in human populations and trail use even near the birds' preferred habitats. This and other research leads reasonable people to conclude that recreation impacts are vanishingly small. Reasonable people would celebrate our relationship with open space as a success, instead of implying threats that don't exist to support a political agenda. How much recreational access should we forsake (close) to allay fears of possible reductions in habitat when none can be measured? More than 50% of our “open” space is already closed to visitor access, and the OSMP trustees want to close even more. Yet people have been frequenting these places for centuries!

Other jurisdictions joyously promote their open space programs’ benefits to their citizens (fresh air, exercise, appreciation of nature, recreation), while admirably protecting their natural resources. That's all Boulder wants: a Visitor Plan that honestly balances natural resource protection AND passive recreational opportunities. We can have both -- if we insist that Council change the paradigm from fears to benefits.

Suzanne Webel
Boulder

Excerpt from "Boulder Feeder Canal Resource Inventory and Report"

2005-02-18T21:35:00.000-08:00

2004, Pages 16-19

Prepared by Michael G. Figgs, President, LREP, Inc.

5.3.4 Historic Winter Raptor Data

5.3.4.1 Dowe Flats Winter Raptor Study

With respect to this Report, the key information from the Dowe Flats winter raptor study is that:

Approximately 90% of 2,018 responses to disturbance events occurred when the disturbance was within 200 meters of the raptor (p.100 & 106).

Raptors had the greatest responses, in order of increasing significance, to movingvehicles, stopped vehicles and pedestrians (p.80, 98, 103 & 105).

There was a strong positive correlation between the numbers of prairie dog raptors present in a given area, and the size of prairie dog population in that same area (p. 43, 59, & 60). So long as prairie dogs were present, the three prairie dog raptor species tolerated chronic human presence in the form of occupied vehicles, but not pedestrians (p. 69).

5.3.4.2 Christmas Bird Counts Data from the Boulder and Longmont Christmas Bird Counts (CBC) from 1980 to 2001 for winter raptors is located in Appendix 3B (Ed. not included).

Trends for winter raptor populations are described below. Long term trends were determined by averaging the first two and last two years of the 22 year period, and noting any significant fluctuations in between. Short term trends were determined by comparing the last three years of data to the previous three years, and any notable fluctuations in the final 8 years of the 22 year period.

Bald Eagle--has increased dramatically over the long term (up over 1000% in the Boulder CBC, and over 2000% in the Longmont CBC). The short term trend indicates that the population may be reaching a plateau. This species' population tends to track with prairie dog populations, but the correlation in recent years is not as strong as the Ferruginous Hawk.

Northern Harrier--the population may fluctuate dramatically on an annual basis but over the 21 year period the population appears stable.

Accipiters--all three species appear to have stable winter populations over the 22 year period, with a few dramatic, short term fluctuations.

Red-tailed Hawk--winter populations have tripled (Boulder CBC) to quadrupled (Longmont CBC) over the long term, and the population does not appear to have as much annual fluctuation as other raptor species. The short term trend is for continuing increase in the Boulder CBC and stable in the Longmont CBC.

Ferruginous Hawk--the long term trend is up (plus 68% in the Boulder CBC and plus 188% in the Longmont CBC); however the three year short term trend is down for both CBC's. The downward trend may due to milder winters in recent years that would not force additional hawks into habitat along the Front Range where the climate is milder than on the high plains. The downward trend appears to be a local phenomenon as range-wide monitoring indicates the population is stable or rising slightly (National Audubon Society 2002, Sauer, et al. 2001). Winter populations peaked m both CBC's in the early 1990's and then dropped after plague spread through the prairie dog population in the county in 1994 and 1995. The population in the Boulder CBC also had a peak in 1985, and dropped after a plague outbreak reduced the prairie dog population north of Boulder in 1986.

Rough-legged Hawk--this is the only raptor species to display a clear, long term downward trend (down 12% in the Boulder CBC, and 72% m the Longmont CBC). The short term three year trend continues the overall downward trend. It should be remembered that Roughlegged Hawks migrate great distances from the Canadian and Alaskan arctic, and may not have moved into Colorado in the usual numbers during recent mild winters. The downward trend appears to be a local phenomenon, as CBC data throughout North America indicates a stable population (National Audubon Society 2002).

Golden Eagle--similar to the Bald Eagle, this species has staged a dramatic increase over the long term (up 448% in the Boulder CBC, up over 1200% in the Longmont CBC). Of the three prairie dog raptors, this species shows the least positive correlation with prairie dog populations.
American Kestrel--appears stable in the Boulder CBC and increasing in the Longmont CBC; short term trend is up on both CBC's.

Merlin, Peregrine Falcon, Prairie Falcon--long term and short term trends are stable. It is the opinion of the author that the increase of Bald and Golden Eagles, although real, is over represented in the CBC data. Observations of eagles are supposed to be cross-checked to eliminate duplicate sightings, but in practice this is rarely done. According to 2001 CBC data there were 89 Bald Eagles and 57 Golden Eagles in the two count circles, which is a fairly obvious over counting of eagles. A similar bias may impact other raptor species that have undergone significant population fluctuations (this bias can work in the reverse, and thus exaggerate population decreases).

5.3.4.3 BCNA Winter Raptor Survey

Results of the BCNA project include (with comparisons to CBC data in parentheses):

Rise and decline of a significant Bald Eagle and Ferruginous Hawk population centered in the Boulder Reservoir--Haystack Mountain area in 1985-86. The population decline followed an outbreak of plague in the local prairie dog population. This area includes the southern 2.5 miles of the Boulder Feeder Canal study area.

County-wide decline of Ferruginous Hawks, Red-tailed Hawks, and Bald Eagles in 1993- 94 after another outbreak of plague. This decline was not as significant as the 1985-86 population decline at the Boulder Reservoir--Haystack Mountain area. (Both CBC's similarly track the declines of Bald Eagles and Ferruginous Hawks, but not Red-tailed Hawks, which actually increased in both CBC's in 1994 and 1995.)

The near total loss of prairie dog habitat east of McCaslin Boulevard in southeastern Boulder County, with a corresponding significant decline in Ferruginous Hawks and Bald Eagles.

A decline in Bald Eagles and Ferruginous Hawks in eastern Boulder County beginning before the 1993-94 plague outbreak. (This result does not track with CBC results, where Ferruginous Hawks in both CBC's peaked in 1993, and then declined after the outbreak of plague. By 1996 in the Boulder CBC, and 1997 in the Longmont CBC, Bald Eagle counts had rebounded and passed the 1993-94 peaks.)

Winter populations of Rough-legged Hawks, Northern Harriers, and American Kestrels remained steady or increased slightly from 1990-96. (This trend was consistent with CBC data for Northern Harriers and American Kestrels, but Rough-legged Hawks displayed a downward trend, particularly in the Longmont CBC. However, the strongest downward trend dates to 1996 in the Boulder CBC, and 1998 in the Longmont CBC, at the end of the reporting period of the BCNA study.) There appears to be a discrepancy between the CBC data, which shows a clear increase or stable populations for almost all species of winter raptors, and BCNA data which indicates a decline of Ferruginous Hawks and Bald Eagles. However, this seeming contradiction is resolved by looking at the time frames for the respective data sets. The CBC data presented herein dates to 1980, when most winter raptor populations were relatively low (excepting species of accipiters and falcons), whereas the BCNA data set is only fully represented from the early 1990's, when many winter raptor populations were at or near their peak. So both perspectives may be considered correct. The CBC data set simply provides a longer term perspective.

5.3.4.4 Winter Raptor Data Summary Although there is some discrepancy in the historical winter raptor data presented above, certain trends and findings are quite evident.

The winter populations of Bald Eagles, Red-tailed Hawks, and Golden Eagles in Boulder County have increased dramatically over the past 22 years.

The other winter raptors have generally maintained stable populations in the long term, with short term fluctuations being fairly common.

Only the Rough-legged Hawk has shown any evidence of long term winter population decline, but this trend has primarily occurred during a series of fairly mild winters.

Ferruginous Hawk populations most closely track the fluctuations of prairie dog populations. Bald Eagles moderately track prairie dog populations, and Golden Eagles appear to have a small but essentially insignificant positive correlation with prairie dog populations. These trends are remarkable when it is considered that from 1980-2000 the human population in Boulder County rose from approximately 190,000 to 290,000 (Colorado Department of Local Affairs 2002).

MEASURING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF TRAILS

2005-02-16T21:40:00.000-08:00

DEFINITIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

DATA from Miller & Knight’s “Recreational Trails and Bird Communities” (COBOS, 1995)
can be extrapolated from birds to other species

BEHAVIORAL EFFECT = AVERAGE AMOUNT THAT VARIOUS SPECIES IN A STUDY AREA "CARE" ABOUT TRAILS (%) - (includes population counts, nest success, predation, flushing distance, change in heartrate, etc.).

Ex: “Trails cause 2%/day decrease in nest success among some bird species”
Assume 30 day incubation period, same risk every day; Nest failure =.02/day=(.98) to the 30 power = 0.545 success = 0.445 decrease

Ex: “The probability of a nest occurring is 50% greater along trails than transects”

SPECIES EFFECT = NUMBER OF SPECIES IN A STUDY AREA THAT "CARE" ABOUT
TRAILS (%)

Ex: “15% of grassland species were found in greater abundance farther from trails”

Ex: “17% of forest species are found in greater abundance farther from trails”

TRAIL DENSITY = TRAIL MILES / SQUARE MILES Useful for comparing jurisdictions, amount of effective habitat, etc

Ex: 70 miles of trail / 50,000 ac ( / 640 ac/sq.mi.) = 0.896

WIDTH OF IMPACT = (ASSUME ANY REASONABLE WIDTH (FT))

Typically ranges from 0-600 ft from trail -- most measurable effects diminish beyond 100'. Assume ave. corridor width is 100’.

The width conversion factor is 100 / 5280 = 0.019

ENVIRONMENTAL SACRIFICE AREA = TRAIL DENSITY x WIDTH FACTOR

Hypothetical area of 100% devastation along trail inside of which no bird dares fly, no mouse dares cross, no grass dares grow -- every day, year round.

Ex: 0.896 x .019 = .017 ( = 1.7% of the entire jurisdiction is "devastated" by trails) CHANGE IN OVERALL HABITAT INTEGRITY = (E.S.A.) x (B.E. or S.E.) = Habitat Fragmentation Potential = The “bottom line”: What is the real impact of trails?

Ex: 0.017 x (-0.15) = -0.00255 (= 0.3% decrease in grassland birds)

Ex: 0.017 x (-0.17) = -0.00289 (= 0.3% decrease in forest birds)

Ex: 0.017 x (-0.445) = -0.00757 (= 0.8% decrease in nest survival)
Ex: 0.017 x (+0.50) = +0.00850 (= 0.9% increase in nest placement)

CONCLUSION: FOR CITY OF BOULDER OPEN SPACE AND MOUNTAIN PARKS, TRAIL USERS HAVE NO STATISTICALLY MEASURABLE NET EFFECT ON HABITAT INTEGRITY.

THE QUESTION: HOW MUCH RECREATIONAL ACCESS SHOULD BE GIVEN UP (CLOSED) TO ALLAY FEARS OF POSSIBLE REDUCTIONS IN HABITAT WHEN NONE CAN BE MEASURED???