Homepage - Brochure - Application - Newsletters - Issues - Links - Weather - Board
BATCO Newsletter, Spring 1999
The past year has been a busy one for BATCO. In addition to last spring's National Trails Day project at the Boulder Valley Ranch, we've spent hundreds of hours reviewing, discussing, and supporting trails issues.
We represented recreational users at city, county and state meetings. We placed members on important committees and challenged unfair policy. We fought to keep vital trails and connections in the County's comprehensive plan. We spoke up in City and County open space reviews to see that responsible recreational uses were not ignored.
I believe our efforts have made a difference. In the few years that BATCO has been in existence, we've become recognized within Boulder County as a voice for trail users. We've influenced the designs and layouts of new trails, helped keep some existing trails open, and even got a few new trails added to the plans.
Unfortunately our gains have been small. The public processes tend to be dominated by vocal extremists and recreational users are often not considered to be politically correct. Too often emotions, rather then facts, determine the outcome of a debate. Two projects to which we devoted a great deal of time were the County's update to the Comprehensive Plan Trails Map and the City's South Boulder Creek Management Plan. As discussed in other articles in this newsletter, we were disappointed in the outcome of these processes.
Despite our efforts, existing trails are being closed and plans for new trails are being canceled. Trail access continues to be in danger throughout Boulder County. Growth and development are consuming our rural lands. Opponents of growth are turning their sights to trail users in a misguided attempt to preserve the environment. Local homeowners are trying to maintain public lands as exclusive backyard estates.
We need your continued support. BATCO can't be successful without your help, which is why I hope you'll consider rejoining us today. It takes the support of an active local membership to make a difference. Don't let the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) neighbors and the extreme environmentalists be the only voices heard. Help us preserve and promote environmentally sound and accessible trails in Boulder County.
It's time to renew your membership in BATCO as the membership year begins in March:
$100 Sustaining Donor
$ 50 Supporting Member
$ 35 Family
$ 20 Individual
Please mail your check to Mike Barrow, BATCO Treasurer, 1315 Carnation Circle, Longmont, CO 80503.
The Board of Directors takes this opportunity to thank those who have made special financial contributions to BATCO.
Sustaining Donors
Meg and Mark Sitarik
Beverly Young
Tom and Caroline Hoyt (McStain Enterprises)
Supporting Members
Bob and Eloise Joder
Jan Kirkpatrick
Volunteer Outdoor Colorado
McStain Enterprises made a grant of $5,000 towards our map project, and Paul Turner also contributed $5,000 towards our membership drive (see next article). Thank you all very much.
Mike Barrow
Last year we received funding from Paul Turner (Rock Shox inventor) to help us recruit new members. At long last we have our campaign ready and are in the process of mailing out information on BATCO to approximately 5,000 people in Boulder County which should bring 100 new members, if we have an average success rate. However, we would like to do much better than average. You can help by recruiting three new members. Enclosed are three brochures to give to friends, neighbors -- anyone who you think would like to help in our efforts. We have more brochures if you have additional prospects.
Judd and Linda Adams have hit upon a very fun and successful recruiting method which they tested recently while riding their horses at Rabbit Mountain. Judd carried a number of Brochures in his cantle bag and when he encountered persons on the trail he introduced himself and said: "Could I give you some information about trails on Open Space in Boulder Country. I am a member of BATCO, Boulder Area Trails Coalition, and we work to promote trails such as this one. In fact we helped build a portion of this one during National Trails day." The response he received was overwhelming positive. He also reports that all hikers with dogs had their dogs on leach! Wonderful. Trail etiquette is improving!
The Annual Meeting will be held on April 15 this year at the home of Judd and Linda Adams, 179 Cordova Court (Spanish Hills, approximately 95th and South Boulder Road). The meeting will include election of Board of Directors, review of the past year and planning future activities. Refreshments will be provided. For directions and to indicate your desire to attend the meeting, call Judd at 303 494-4241. Please come and help us make plans for improving recreation trail use opportunities in Boulder Country.
Mike Barrow
In early 1998, trail advocates were anxiously awaiting the County's revisions to the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan Trail Map. The map outlines the potential future of trails in Boulder county, and what a wonderful vision it offers: a system of interconnected trails that would link virtually every community in Boulder County and beyond. The map's purpose is to guide planing and open space acquisition to assure that the trail network may some day be realized. The presence of a trail corridor or alignment on the map is no guarantee of the trail becoming reality; it just makes the discussion of that trail possible. Each trail has to stand on its own merits.
There isn't another document in local government that speaks more directly to BATCO's mission. When the County Parks and Open Space Department began their internal review of the map in the fall of 1997, we requested that we be involved in the planning process. Our request was rejected. In March of 1998, we presented the Parks and Open Space Advisory committee (POSAC) with a list of trail connections that would assist greatly in the realization of the trail network. We listed over forty such linkages and identified ten of them as very high priority. POSAC, a volunteer committee that reviews Boulder County Parks and Open Space (BCPOS) issues, was also interested in providing input to the process. BATCO suggested that POSAC meet with stakeholders and the BCPOS staff to resolve potential differences and work toward a consensus before the trail map draft revisions were completed The BCPOS staff chose to draft the revision without additional public involvement.
When the draft was completed, the Staff's proposed revisions eliminated 50 miles of previously identified future trails and moved many of the remaining trail alignments to highway or active railroad corridors. It did include several of the connections BATCO had recommended. We reviewed the staff's recommendations and provided a detailed response to the staff and POSAC. We supported twenty-six of the staff's recommendations and recommended modifications be made to the remaining sixteen (including the reinstatement of several deleted trails).
In July the Parks and open Space Advisory Committee held two public hearings to review the proposed trail map revisions. The public hearing process tended to create division and animosity, not compromise and consensus. The reviews were contentious, pitting recreationists against NIMBY neighbors and extreme environmentalists. POSAC should be commended for discounting much of the emotional testimony and recommending modifications to the staff's proposed revisions. In particular, POSAC suggested reinstating six trail alignments in the plan.
The trail map moved on to the Planning Commission, which has statutory authority for the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan. Rather than merging the recommendations, the BCPOS staff presented both their original recommendations and POSAC's recommendations, The Planning Commission was left to chose between the two sets. Another contentious hearing took place, in which the same animosity and acrimony flowed. Four of the six POSAC revisions were removed due to perceived environmental concerns, But two critical trail segments survived.
That could have been the end of it, but it wasn't. As a courtesy, the Planning Commission reported their results to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The County Commissioners, citing concerns from Boulder City Open Space staff about the two reinstated trails, returned the proposed updates to the Planning Commission and asked them to reconsider their decision. In yet another hearing, following another display of emotional rhetoric, paranoid ecology, and misapplied biology, the Planning Commission reversed their previous decision and endorsed all the BCPOS staff's recommendations.
So after seven months and six public hearings, we are left with the exact same document that staff wrote originally. It makes one wonder why the public, and the citizens advisory boards, and balanced stakeholder groups like BATCO, indeed, why any entity that didn't happen to agree with the powers that be might be so naive as to think their input would ever be incorporated in the government process.
BATCO believes we can make a difference and that, in time and with continued effort, we can make recreational issues serious considerations on the political level. The quality of the trail user experience is not highly valued by our decision-makers today. On the other hand, environmental issues are given priority out of proportion to their objective basis. However, until a vocal constituency speaks loudly for the needs of recreation, we can expect the present trend to continue.
Suzanne Webel
South Boulder Creek Area Management Plan. Several years ago City of Boulder Open Space (COBOS) staff decided to create Area Management Plans (AMP) for various open space areas. They envisioned seven such AMPs. North Boulder Valley was the first AMP. It was a contentious process that left many trail-related issues completely unresolved (such as the West Beech, Axelson and North Rim trails).
South Boulder Creek was the second AMP, with equally disappointing results. The most controversial issue was staff's proposal for Dry Creek, a popular voice and sight area for dog walkers, as well as hikers and equestrians. COBOS's own comprehensive "Grassland Management Plan" which had been completed not two years earlier, recommended that the prairie dogs in the Dry Creek area not be afforded special protection. However, suddenly staff and the environmentalists developed a new sense of urgency about protecting them anyway. In the guise of "designating" a short segment of a social trail but simultaneously closing much more trail nearby, staff asked the public to believe they were actually getting expanded trail opportunities. The public, of course, was not born yesterday, and the dog people raised a ruckus. The Open Space Board of Trustees settled on a "voluntary closure" of the same areas staff had proposed.
Similar set backs occurred on every other front important to trail advocates: BATCO had carefully researched and supported an important regional trail connection from the Dry Creek Trail head to the Cherryvale Trail head at South Boulder Road, a scenic route entirely on existing Open Space east of Baseline Reservoir. It would have utilized existing farm roads and ditches, minimizing any impact to the surrounding areas. While BATCO's alignment would have passed within a couple hundred yards of a clump of trees used occasionally by perching raptors, we cleared this matter with the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The "eco's" steamrollered us anyway by claiming loudly that no trail could ever be built within a quarter mile of a raptor nest, so therefore we couldn't have that trail! In fact the tree in question is an occasional perch, not a roost, and certainly not a nest.
Staff recommended, and the OSBT approved, a trail alignment instead along Baseline Road which is not owned by Open Space, displaces a neighborhood recreation area, and dumps trail user on to the middle of Cherryvale Road.
The OSBT did warn staff that if they couldn't pull this dubious alignment off in a year, that they should reconsider the BATCO alignment.
Finally, equestrians were shut out of several areas where the few remaining horse people in South Boulder have traditionally ridden: the Gallucci, Burke and Gebhard properties. This closure prevents access to a trail along the Turnpike connecting Davidson Mesa to Cherryvale Road. These aren't closures, mind you -- Open Space has just removed or permanently locked all the access gates to these areas. I say these properties have just been added to the growing list of de facto closures, bringing the total of "Closed Space" in COBOS alone to almost 50%. Bird watchers can still get in by climbing the fences, of course.
Visitor Use Plan. Instead of continuing with the Area Management Plans, staff has decided to shift its focus to managing (read "restricting") the people who visit Open Space. A forum was held in early February at which the preponderance of public input was in favor of access and trails. The Visitor Plan will be developed during the rest of 1999 and presented to the OSBT early in 2000. If you wish to have input regarding access and trails, visit the Open Space website at
Judd Adams
If you live or ride in South Boulder and have concerns or ideas about trials please give me a call at 303 494-421. I have three projects in mind and would like help on any of them. The first is working with the City of Louisville to see if they will grant an exception to their municipal code and allow horses on Davidson Mesa. My wife and I have been riding there since the early 80's. In March of 1996 we were stopped by a code enforcer and notified that horses were not allowed. We recently obtained a copy of the code and learned that the prohibition is not specific to Davidson Mesa but that the two pages of restrictions (14.12.010) applies to "any park, building or recreation facility ... and it shall be unlawful for any person to:
"K. Ride upon any horse or any other animal in any park except in areas designated and posted specifically for such use."
We plan to request that the City make an exception for Davidson Mesa. If you have ridden here in the past and would like to make it possible again, please join me, 303 494-4241.
My second project is related to opening up Davidson Mesa, and that is working with the City of Boulder to open up the area known in the South Boulder Management Plan as the Galluci property (see previous article) so that we can once again ride to Cherryvale and on to the Marshall area.
My third project is creating trail connections to Jefferson County Open Space. One of these possibilities is a foothills road starting just South and West of the Denver Water aqueduct (accessible from Doudy Draw) extending to Coal Creek. I rode it a number of years ago with people from Jefferson County, but it was not an official trail and now has a lock at the Boulder County-Jefferson County boundary. The City of Boulder has purchased 1,500 acres in Jeffco West of Rocky Flats, which constitutes another possibility. To add to that, once Rocky Flats is decommissioned, dismantled and cleaned, a significant portion of its 6,000 acres will be available as Open Space with both nature and passive recreation trails.
So please join me in establishing the South Boulder Region Trails Task Force.
Suzanne Webel
Proponents of the "Open Space is for Habitat Preservation Only" philosophy are fond of citing bird studies conducted on City Open Space which indicate that some birds and their nests are found in greater abundance with increasing distance from some trails. Therefore, say these preservationists, we can extrapolate from the bird studies to all wildlife, and therefore we can say that all trails are "bad" because they fragment the habitat for all wildlife.
Wait a minute! say the trail advocates. Closer examination of the bird studies reveals that of the 42 species of birds analyzed, only 7 species (16%) were found in greater numbers farther from trails (therefore, 84% of the bird species didn't care about trails). Similarly, while the nest success studies (measuring the probability of a nest surviving one day at a given distance from a trail) reveal an apparent increase in nest success with increasing distance from the trail, the increase is extremely small: in forest ecosystems, 96% of nests were successful 0 meters from the trail while 98% of nests were successful 300 meters from the trail! We're not denying that a subtle "trail effect" exists for some species -- we're merely trying to keep "bogus biology" from being blown out of proportion in the real world. How significant is an increase from 96% to 98%? How much should be given up to realize such a small increase?
An article published in the journal Bioscience, "Taxpayer-subsidized resource extraction harms species," 1995, has been discovered by the eco-alarmists. The authors tallied listings in the Federal Register which referred to species that might be affected by grazing, logging, mining, water development, and recreation. Recreation as a possible impact on species was mentioned than mining, logging, and grazing, so local environmentalists (including Boulder County Parks & Open Space staff, who have rewritten the new Boulder County Comprehensive Plan Trail Component and the new Boulder County Parks and Open Space Rules and Regulations) have been crowing that the article is "proof" that recreation harms ecosystems even more than mining and logging!! Therefore, recreation on public lands should be severely restricted!!
I contacted the authors directly, and explained how their article was being interpreted. They were aghast, as that was not their intent. They immediately pointed out that "recreation" included all forms of that activity, from hiking to newer uses such as off-road vehicles, and extended across all ecosystems (generating large numbers of listings, disproportionate to their actual impact); whereas it is obvious that mining and logging are old industries which occur only in very restricted areas (generating smaller numbers of listings, but whose relative impact on species is far greater). Further, the study was on impacts to Federal lands.
Repeated attempts by BCHA, BATCO and other recreation advocates to incorporate logic and objective biology into the decision-making process have been rebuffed. Instead, we are accused of "never being satisfied" with the number of trails and of "wanting to build trails everywhere."
This is, of course, not true. BATCO's mission is to promote non-motorized, multi-use, environmentally-responsible trail systems. It is our belief that by focusing on an objective standard such as trail densities (or other parameters) we can move as a community toward a consensus on how many trails are "enough" for Boulder County. Until we can reach agreement on an objective process for decision-making, all the rest will be exhausting, unproductive emotional rhetoric.
Suzanne Webel
In 1998 I was invited by Stuart Macdonald, the State Trails Coordinator, to participate in a task force whose mission was to identify and prioritize trail planning issues with regard to the impacts of trails and trail-related activities on the environment. With funding from Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO), this group included representatives of wildlife and environmental groups, the State Trails Committee and other trail activists, Colorado State Parks, Colorado Division of Wildlife, federal agencies and some local government planners. Both the City of Boulder Open Space and Boulder County Parks and Open Space were conspicuously absent.
Participants brainstormed about the issues that were most important to them, and about how to create a product that would be helpful but not dictatorial. The results of this process would be used in the State Trails Committee's and GOCO's review of grant applications, and would also be useful to local trail planners as they considered future projects. The format needed to be specific enough to be helpful, with case studies and references for additional information; and it would provide
"rules of thumb" and ideas for alternatives which would allow local trail planners the flexibility they need to make important local decisions. Facilitators from Colorado State University helped keep participants on track, and Paul Hellmund, a Denver consultant, pulled it all together into a user-friendly, attractive booklet.
The case study most familiar to us in Boulder County is the St. Vrain Greenway. Here's an excerpt about this project in the booklet: "As part of the St. Vrain Greenway, residents of Longmont, Colorado are reclaiming the river that flows through their community. The Greenway trail begins in Golden Ponds and runs along Main Street through heavily industrialized areas. Large pieces of concrete, asphalt, and car parts -- among other things -- had been dumped along the banks of the river. To prepare the area for trail construction and river restoration, the Longmont Parks and Recreation Department removed this debris and eased the gradient next to the river. The department also removed noxious weeds along the trail corridor and re-seeded, reintroducing native plants. They planted trees, and added benches and trash cans. The restoration work was done to create a better trail setting, but was also effective in improving wildlife habitat. More foraging and shelter were provided. Some sensitive species were thought to have migrated out of the area during construction, but have returned since the project was completed."
Copies of the Handbook are available. Send a large, self- addressed stamped envelope (minimum 9"x12") with six first-class stamps to Trails and Wildlife Handbook, Colorado State Parks, 1313 Sherman St. Rm. 618, Denver, CO 80203. Or you can download the handbook from the Colorado State Parks website,
Suzanne Webel
Several BATCO Board members attended a symposium addressing this subject at the University of Colorado Natural Resources Law Center during the summer of 1998. Invited speakers were from all parts of the country, as were attendees. Jim Knopf and I were awarded full scholarships to attend the symposium for all three days.
The publicity accompanying the seminar announced that major questions to be addressed would include "Can the West realize the promise of this economic juggernaut without incurring a new class of environmental and socioeconomic impacts? Are new legislative and administrative reforms needed to fill the policy vacuum? and How does the outdoor recreation explosion influence broader trends in natural resources management?
Here are some highlights. The first speaker was Curt Meine, of the International Crane Foundation. He described four "ages" in the development of recreational resources. The "Victorian Age" from the 1880's to the 1940's, was an era of exploration, National Parks, railroads and grand hotels. The "Age of the Beauty Engineer," which peaked in the 1940's, was an era of landscape architecture, automobiles and rubber, the Civilian Conservation Corps, and the evolution of "from homestead to Olmstead." The "Industrial Age" is perceived as being at its apex right now, and is characterized by air travel, RV's, Coleman stoves and recreation as a mass industry. The next era, which began a few years ago and is expected to crest in the early 21st century, will be the "Post- industrial/post-modern Age" and will be based on high-technology, the expansion of recreation activities in time and space (e.g. "virtual bird watching") ... and in this era we will see the rise of environmentalism as a political movement.
Dr. Richard Knight and his acolyte Scott Miller from CSU gave their set pieces on the impacts of trails on birds in Boulder. Gary Sprung of the International Mountain Bike Association (IMBA) gave a presentation proposing that recreation can be an ally for environmental protection (however, I was annoyed that in his passion for the legitimacy of mountain biking on trails he took potshots at horses. I believe we all have to support each other).
Ron Holliday talked about "The Dilemma of County and Municipal Open Space Programs" from the perspective of Jefferson County. Several speakers addressed the pros and cons of user fees, and of private industry "co-opting" public land management agencies under the guise of relieving taxpayers of having to foot the entire bill.
Lyle Laverty, the new Regional Forest Manager for the Rocky Mountain Region, spoke of the need for sustainable forest management and developing a stewardship ethic for public lands. He emphasized that there is a carrying capacity of the land, and that we need to understand the needs and desires of people so as to maximize the benefits of recreation while minimizing the impacts.
Laurie Mathews, Director of Colorado State Parks, spoke of the competing priorities in the state parks and concluded that it is necessary to keep people in the parks to be able to keep the program going.
Roz McClellan of the Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project, a persistent doomsayer about recreational impacts, brought up the fascinating idea that access to public lands will be the gold and oil of the 21st century (i.e. resources restricted to a privileged few?).
Overall, I suspect that people heard what they wanted to hear at the symposium. My ongoing problem with the way biological data are being researched and (mis-) represented by environmentalists as "proof" of the impact of recreation on ecosystems was reconfirmed. I suspect the "eco's" cheered mightily to hear their favorite researchers expounding once again on the evils of trails. The networking opportunities were, as always, very useful for future reference. I was heartened by the presentations by land managers other than our own; specifically, not many people outside the People's Republic of Boulder seem to be unduly worried about non-motorized recreation and trails. There are much bigger threats to us all. For example, personal gyrocopters loom on the horizon as affordable, extraordinarily mobile ways for people to access the wilderness as never before, affecting non-motorized recreationists and wildlife alike.
Overall, I came away from the symposium with the perception that there is hope for recreationists and preservationists to coexist and in fact to be allies in the future. Sometimes this alliance may occur spontaneously, and sometimes it may be reluctantly, but we will all need each other. As William Riebsame, one of the conveners, summed things up neatly: "In birding is the preservation of the bird." If you can continue to get out there to appreciate nature, you will be motivated to protect it.
That's what BATCO has been saying all along.