Dear Members of Council and Mr. Secrist:

The purpose of this letter is to clarify several matters that came up before you at the Study Session April 27, and to request an opportunity for further discussion.

First, we would like to thank Mr. Secrist for his thoughtful and thorough analysis of the Open Space/Mountain Parks situation in Boulder. If a merger must occur we strongly support his Option 1A.

Second, we are most concerned about some of the comments made at the Council Study Session and subsequently at the Open Space Board of Trustees meeting, and would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight. We've detailed these concerns in our attachment to this letter. We welcome further dialogue with you on this complex issue, since a mere "three minutes" doesn't do it.

BATCO is an umbrella organization for several hiking, equestrian and mountain bicycling groups, as well as environmental representatives and hundreds of individual members. As a consensus-driven grass-roots organization we are uniquely qualified to bring non-motorized recreationists together and focus on the issues.

We have worked long and diligently to establish and maintain a dialogue with the managers of our public lands on appropriate management and philosophy. In making our recommendations, we always examine relevant environmental data, historic use patterns, staff and neighborhood issues, and opportunities for regional trail connections. We try to come up with solutions that truly balance the needs and desires of the greatest number of people with the long-term needs of the environment. Because of our expertise, BATCO has been invited frequently to represent trails advocates at the County and State level, as well as with the United States Forest Service.

We have been very successful in establishing a good working relationship with Mountain Parks, which we consider a model to be emulated by other local public land managers. Because they listen to -- and value -- diverse interests, Mountain Parks has a good environmental record while also providing reasonable public access.

We've had less success with the Open Space department. Like many others, BATCO believes that "recreationists" and "environmentalists" should be natural allies who share a mutual goal: preserving public land for its natural values. However, we are perplexed because the confrontational politics in Boulder have set us up to be foes. We have made repeated overtures to sit down and resolve our differences constructively, in a win-win manner. But the uncompromising attitude of the Open Space "environmentalists" faction leaves them no room or inclination to negotiate.

Regarding the advisability of any merger between Open Space and Mountain Parks, at every vote, the Parks Board was divided, the Open Space Board was divided, the public was divided, and Council itself was divided. This is obviously a divisive issue, and we're not sure it's a better idea now than it was a few months ago. It was thoroughly evaluated then, and rejected by both Boards. We were actually looking forward to five years of reprieve, so that more important matters could be addressed.

So we come back to this: if a merger is so divisive, and if it could save only $500,000 under the best of circumstances (money which people clearly want reinvested in the public lands system and not lost in the City's General Fund), then why do it at all? If the merger can't be done right (i.e. Option 1A), because of politics or other considerations, then we would opt for the status quo. Both Mountain Parks and Open Space are doing just fine and can continue to do so indefinitely.

We hope Mr. Secrist and Council will accept this analysis in the constructive spirit in which it is intended, and will look to BATCO as a resource in future public land management discussions.

Two very successful City programs are in the balance, and can be made even better with help from Council.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

The BATCO Board of Directors

Attachment - BATCO Open Space Concerns

The following is some background for our endorsement of Option 1A. We would be delighted to discuss our concerns and conclusions with you at more length.

1) Philosophy - Concerns with Open Space management can be traced back to the 1994 presentation of its "Draft Long Range Management Policies". Prior to that time, everybody pretty much "got along" about Open Space and its management. Prior to that time, Boulder's Open Space developed its national reputation. Prior to that time, citizens developed their deep love of Open Space. Prior to that time, citizen input was valued, even if it didn't happen to coincide with staff's preconceived ideas.

By 1994, however, the entire philosophy of the Department shifted suddenly and dramatically toward a preservationist mentality. In 1994, staff proposed that the Bobolink Trail, the most popular trail in the entire Open Space system, be closed -- merely because it was too popular. Staff also proposed an outright ban on dogs on Open Space (except where they might specifically be permitted). Most profoundly, they proposed that preservation of natural resources would take priority in all decision-making. All of these issues were the subject of an enormous outcry from the citizens, who had to go all the way to City Council to pressure Open Space staff to rescind its recommendations. All three staff proposals were overturned.

However, in defiance of Council's direction, staff continues to make more and more restrictions on use. Since 1994, staff has dictated closures of almost all newly acquired lands. And now they are closing even long-held properties, all in the name of "environmental preservation" (see #5 below). Staff's own data do not support these drastic management actions (see #4 below), yet they continue to impose more restrictions and closures upon us. Council asked who makes these decisions? Staff does, in almost every case, because the Open Space Board of Trustees rarely deviates from staff's original recommendation. When the controversy becomes so large and the public so frustrated, the matter goes to Council as a decision-maker of last resort.

The new Open Space "mission statement" was not, as it should have been, the product of open discussions among staff, the OSBT, and the public. Instead, it was concocted by a few staff members and subsequently revealed to the public -- and to the Open Space Board of Trustees -- as a done deal. It mentions only "preserving, protecting, and restoring the natural environment." Yet the City Charter clearly delineates eight equal purposes for Open Space, which are not prioritized, and mentions passive recreation not just once but three times. BATCO believes the so-called mission statement violates the City Charter because it is vague and does not represent the intent of the Charter. Protests about the new mission statement fell on deaf ears, totally disenfranchising many thousands of Boulder citizens who had believed that the Open Space program would include them.

In contrast, the Mountain Parks mission statement evolved from many discussions with the public, and most closely reflects the views of our members. Both documents are included as attachments to this letter for comparison.

Council seemed to interpret the anxiety of recreationists toward a takeover by Open Space of Mountain Parks as a fear that certain activities that are currently allowed on such "active" recreation areas of Mountain Parks as Flagstaff, Buckingham Park, Buckingham Campground, and Boulder Reservoir would be discontinued under Open Space.

Instead, our real fear is that a takeover of Mountain Parks by Open Space would be seen as an endorsement by Council of the "Closed Space" philosophy of public lands, and would make more regulations and closures the norm. We hope this is not the case.

We would like to reiterate that Mountain Parks has achieved an exemplary balance between public access and environmental protection of its lands -- with equal numbers of users and only a quarter of the acreage of Open Space. Mountain Parks management forums resulted in a clear mandate to "do more of both recreation and preservation," and its staff has successfully imparted a can-do attitude toward implementing this legitimate mandate.

We hope Council understands this important principle: the public supports Open Space because it has an expectation of reasonable public access. If that trust is broken, we believe public support will be seriously diminished. Therefore, regardless of the outcome of merger discussions, we urge Council to direct Open Space staff to re-establish a more appropriate acceptance of passive recreation as a vital part of the Open Space equation.

2) Politics - Two items of note stood out on Tuesday night which should be revisited in the clear light of day.

First, the current Chair of the Open Space Board of Trustees stood before you and stated that the letter submitted to Council as the "unanimous" opinion of the OSBT was in fact a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts by three members of the OSBT. The two other members of the Board are on record as being opposed to the opinion stated in the letter. Unfortunately, Council didn't ask for any clarification on this matter.

That letter is an unconscionable action which should not be tolerated by Council and which should be investigated immediately. It is made even more disgraceful by the fact that this is not the first time that certain factions on the OSBT have misrepresented the sense of the Board on controversial matters. Objections to this practice have, like objections to the mission statement, fallen on deaf ears. We believe Council should make a policy of scrupulous ethics and intellectual honesty an inviolable criterion for membership in any of the City's Boards and Commissions, and any Board members who are found to have violated this code should be reprimanded and dismissed immediately.

Second, a member of Council expressed dismay at the "leaders staging a political rally" on the subject of the proposed merger. For the record, neither the Open Space staff nor the Mountain Parks staff has solicited BATCO's support. BATCO's conclusions and recommendations are the result of many hours of observation, introspection and discussion. In particular, we believe that the outpouring of support for Mountain Parks is a genuine, spontaneous reflection of people's feelings. At best, many Open Space supporters appear fixated on the successes of the '80's and cannot see the distress of the 90's. We trust that Council can tell the difference.

3) Leadership - Any organization whose entire success hinges on the actions of one individual is a weak organization doomed to fail. The Open Space Director recognizes the contributions of his staff in making the program successful. We believe the staff will be capable of carrying this program forward should there be a leadership change in the future.

In our interactions with public land agencies elsewhere in Colorado and nationwide, we have met many fine people of high professionalism and integrity. We believe that a nationwide search for a new director would result in a successful transition of the management of Boulder's natural lands into the new century.

Philosophy aside, management differences between Open Space and Mountain Parks are profound and cannot be merely patched over for a merger to be successful. There is too much acrimonious history for the City to consider placing either director at the helm of a new department. Ann Wichmann has recognized this issue and has very graciously offered to step aside. We need a similar gesture of good faith from the Open Space Director.

The Open Space Director has done an excellent job acquiring land, his forte. However, Open Space management has repeatedly come under scrutiny from the city and consultants, who have chastised it for its antagonistic style. Employee morale is low and turnover high. For years the public has often complained that it feels attacked if it even suggests ways of doing things that are different from staff's. Yet nothing has changed.

We understand that the Open Space Department has accused us of having fabricated "a bunch of lies" about these management issues. In fact, BATCO has observed these management issues up close and personal and we are merely exercising our right to express our informed position on behalf of our members.

The Open Space Department has also accused BATCO of "stirring things up" with regard to the proposed merger. In fact, we have previously expressed our preference for maintaining the status quo, because we don't think the existing two-agency system is broken so we have seen no need to fix it. We only came out in favor of Option 1A when it appeared from Mr. Secrist's analysis that a merger of some kind is inevitable. We are not stirring things up, and we point to the many people who spoke Tuesday night who are not affiliated with BATCO as proof of our assertion.

Unfortunately, "management by attack" appears to be the modus operandi of Open Space. It is certainly not conducive to harmonious long-term relationships. The many people who have experienced the unnecessarily confrontational style of Open Space staff have long memories. The above-mentioned allegations were made about BATCO at the OSBT meeting April 28, 1999, but we predict that the minutes of that meeting will be sanitized, as is often the case, so there will be no written record of that discussion. It was these allegations which prompted us to write this letter to Mr. Secrist and Council, because it is time for people to speak up. As always, we make every effort to be accurate. If you wish to discuss this matter further we will be happy to do so.

4) Biased Biology - A few vocal preservationists appear to have convinced the Open Space Department that even a small number of trail users causes vast and irreversible damage to the entire ecosystem, and that any human impact on "nature" is unacceptable. We disagree with the research cited and we disagree with both conclusions.

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 the vast majority of bird species (84%) didn't care about trails, and that of those that did, the "trail effect" was vanishingly small (2%). We're not denying that a subtle trail effect exists for some species -- we're merely trying to keep "biased biology" from being blown out of proportion in the real world. How much recreational access should be given up to realize such a small increase in possible wildlife habitat?

We have followed many other examples of questionable methodology and conclusions. Unfortunately, it appears that Open Space fosters this research because it supports their preconceived agenda -- they can then use this "research" to justify closing more Open Space. Both staff and the preservationists have shown little interest in research on how humans and wildlife can coexist on public lands, or on how other jurisdictions solve similar management conflicts. It's easier just to blame people for all the problems, and to declare the whole thing closed.

BATCO has attempted to focus the discussion about how to accomplish both better recreation and preservation opportunities on objective standards, so we could all come to some community consensus on when we would have "enough" trails. We believe that a parameter called "trail density" (the number of square miles of public land divided by the number of trail miles) gives an objective standard to focus discussions. As a community we could decide, for example, that a trail density of around 5 (that of Boulder Mountain Parks, Eldorado Canyon State Park, and Jefferson County Open Space) felt comfortable for both human enjoyment and wildlife protection, but that a trail density of, say, 8 (that of Horsetooth Mountain Park, owned by the City of Ft. Collins) felt like "too many trails." For comparison, the City of Boulder Open Space's Trail Density is 1.7 -- very, very low for an urban interface.

So what effect do trails actually have on the environment? If every trail were viewed as an environmental catastrophe 100 feet wide, over which no bird dared fly and no mouse dared cross and on which no blade of grass dared grow, this "trail effect" for each jurisdiction can be calculated. Phrased another way, if all users were restricted to existing designated trails only (70 miles), and the trail effect were 100 feet wide and 100% for every trail year round, we would be devastating a whopping 3% of all City of Boulder Open Space lands (41.2 square miles). But trails are not environmental catastrophes, of course, so if we multiply the trail effect (2%) by the percentage of Open Space lands affected by trails (3%), we realize that people may affect, at most, less than 6/100ths of one percent (0.0006) of our Open Space lands. The birds and the bunnies would have the remaining 99.94% all to themselves. Does this "balance" seem appropriate to you?

These statistics are useful because they enable us to evaluate the data objectively, depriving the issues of the emotional rhetoric and political correctness that all too often accompany these discussions. They challenge certain individuals' ingrained and preconceived notions, and that may make people uncomfortable. But when we talk about "striving to find an appropriate balance between passive recreation and environmental preservation," let's keep these numbers in mind.

Repeated attempts by BCHA, BATCO and other recreation advocates to incorporate standards, logic and objective biology into the decision-making process have been rebuffed by Open Space. 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.

5. Process - No one can fault Open Space for not conducting enough public meetings. Indeed, the meetings are endless, and often seem to be cited as a priori proof that the staff is listening to the public's concerns. In fact, however, important decisions have almost always been made well in advance of whatever public meeting is conducted. This "done deal" pattern has alienated many Open Space users, who see no point in wasting their time attending yet another meeting at which their input will not be valued.

One member of Council suggested a Study Session on "recreation vs. preservation". We would appreciate an opportunity for more dialogue with you on this subject -- but we feel a study session with just the opportunity for a three-minute one-way presentation is too limited. It needs more give-and-take, such as a roundtable format. Unfortunately, we "in the trenches" have already attended several recent "open houses" sponsored by Open Space, where the preponderance of input from the public was clearly in favor of more recreational opportunities -- to no avail. The City of Boulder Trails Committee, which consisted of committed stakeholders from a wide variety of perspectives and which met valiantly for many years to try to reach consensus on trails issues, was first eviscerated and then killed outright by the Open Space Director. Our input was roundly ignored in favor of selective comments from a few environmentalists who have never met a trail they liked and who were not even on the committee.

While BATCO continues to be optimistic that a breakthrough could take place with a roundtable format backed by Council, we believe that only by employing a trained, outside facilitator will such a process be productive.

6) Closed Space - BATCO has spent many hours analyzing the status of all City of Boulder Open Space properties. We stand by our assertion that more than 50% of all Open Space is closed to the public (12.5% is officially closed, with an additional 40% or more defined by us as "de facto" closed -- namely, with fences all around, and no gates or only locked gates. Any reasonable person assumes these areas off-limits. Bird watchers, of course, can climb the fences, but equestrians and mountain bicyclists and just people out for an experience in nature are effectively shut out).

And more Open Space land is being closed every day. A perfect example is the Burke, Gebhart and Gallucci properties, early acquisitions that had been available for decades for the few remaining equestrians in South Boulder to ride in. When the South Boulder Creek Area Management Plan was approved in October of 1998, all gates to these properties, totaling 308 acres, were eliminated immediately. The reasons given by staff were based on flimsy scientific claims, such as the supposed sensitivity of bobolinks, Preble's Meadow Jumping Mice and orchids. Staff's own data show that these organisms thrived in proximity to both people and trails. Staff backpedaled when challenged but the closures have "stuck" nonetheless. Staff isn't calling these areas closed, of course, because that would support our assertions. What would you call these areas?

BATCO has created an overlay to the Open Space map, with a tally of properties, which we would be happy to use as the basis for more substantive discussions on the matter of Closed Space. We are very concerned about this controversy because we believe the public expects Open Space to be Open Space. If the restrictive management philosophy of Open Space is superimposed on Mountain Parks, the public will "wake up" and there will be a terrible backlash against the program. That would not be in anyone's best interest.