Comparison of Mountain Parks' and Open Space's Ability to Balance Environmental Protection and Recreation

Revised 3/2/00
by
Guy Burgess
1290 Albion Rd, Boulder, CO 80303 -- 499-0354


NOTE: The opinions expressed here are Guy Burgess's and not  necessarily those of the Boulder Area Trails Coalition.
 

Original Letter to the Editor Introducing this Slide Show

The ongoing the debate over the proposed takeover of Boulder Mountain Parks by the Open Space Department seems to me to be part of a much larger debate between two very different images of environmental protection. 

On the one hand you have the "environment firsters" who seem to dominate Open Space. This group appears to view human society is a kind of cancer growing on the natural environment which must be fought at every possible opportunity. When they see open spaces being enjoyed by more and more people they don't see success. Instead, they see a failure to prove preserve Boulder the way of was before all the people came and ruined things. This philosophy leads them to respond to increased recreational demands with measures designed to limit access. 

A superior alternative is offered the "social ecologists" who manage Mountain Parks. They view the human and natural environments is a single interdependent ecosystem in which humans have rightful place in the environment. They believe that it is good for more and more people to be enjoying the city's open spaces, though they also believe that visitors should follow an ethic of low impact use. Social ecologists also believe that land managers have a responsibility to provide quality recreational experiences while also working to limit adverse environmental impacts. Their philosophy is one which increases support for environmental by giving more and more people a personal stake in its protection. 

For an online slide show illustrating how these two philosophies are reflected in the management policies of the two organizations see my essay on the BATCO Web Site (http://bcn.boulder.co.us/batco). I am not against increasing efficiency and consolidating duplicative programs. I am against the takeover of well run department by one that does not protect the public's interests.

Guy Burgess
 

Introduction

It is being widely argued that the proposed merger of Boulder Mountain Parks and Open Space Departments would be strictly a cost saving move and that Mountain Parks users would experience no change in the recreational opportunities available to them. The clear implication is that there are no significant differences between Mountain Parks and Open Space management policies.  As a 30-year Boulder resident, frequent hiker, and follower of trail management issues I believe that this is simply not correct. The differences can, first of all, be seen by comparing the mission statements of the two organizations. While Mountain Parks' mission statement includes thoughtful language about the balancing of enjoyable recreational experiences with environmental preservation, the Open Space mission statement does not consider recreation to be an objective worth mentioning (in spite of  a city charter which clearly indicates that this is one of the department's objectives).  The purpose of this short "web slideshow" is to show how these differing philosophies affect visitors to the city's natural areas.

Mountain Parks and Open Space Areas

The easiest way to see the differences is to examine the different ways in which the two departments administer cliffs, mesas, and grasslands under their control.   Specifically, this slideshow compares management of Mountain Parks' Chautauqua Meadow / Flatirons area with management of the grassland and mesa approaches to Bear Peak and Eldorado Mountain (which are controlled by Open Space).
 
 

Mountain Parks Lands

batcoos1.jpg (22135 bytes)

The area  north of Bear Creek is managed by Mountain Parks. This includes the Chautauqua Meadow / Flatirons area pictured here.
 
 

Open Space Lands

batcoos3.jpg (19584 bytes)

Bear Peak Area

batcoos2.jpg (26846 bytes)

Eldorado Mountain Area

The much larger area south of Bear Creek (and shown in the above two pictures) is controlled by the Open Space Department. (This is true even though the Mountain Parks Department is responsible for the management of the cliffs in the Bear Peak area. The mesa tops, grasslands,  trailheads, and almost all of the trails are controlled the Open Space Department.)
 
 

Differences in Access to Open Space and Mountain Parks Land

Access to Mountain Parks land is always available in spite of the large numbers people who visit the area on busy weekends. Even when the parking lots are full there is always plenty of streetside parking and people are never turned away.

NOTE: The other slideshow contains more detailed and up to date information on this next section. This skip this section click here. To go to the other slideshow click here.

Access to Open Space land is much more difficult with a variety of problems leading to the exclusion of large number of hikers. For example, 7,000 acres of supposedly open Open Space land is completely fenced with locked gates. (This is an area roughly the size of the Boulder Mountain Parks.) Other problems are illustrated by the following pictures.
 
 

Fern Canyon Trailhead Closure

batcoos14.jpg (33233 bytes)

South Boulder has a spectacular meadow very similar to Mountain Parks' beloved Chautauqua Meadow.  Here the Open Space Department maintains a wonderful trail along the old Fern Canyon road. Hikers seeking to take this trail will, however, find their access blocked by this sign announcing access to this trail is for Devils Thumb Homeowners Association members and guests ONLY.
 
 

Shanahan Ridge Parking Restriction

batcoos5.jpg (39056 bytes)

The official Open Space map shows that the only trailhead for the Open Space Department's Shanahan Ridge area trails is located at the end of Hardscrabble Drive.  Here, however, hikers are greeted by another sign indicating that parking here is ONLY for homeowners association members and guests.
 

Unmapped, Unmarked, and (Not Surprisingly) Little Used Trailhead at Cragmoor Drive

batcoos6.jpg (14118 bytes)

While there is a publicly accessible trailhead for the area located at the end of Cragmoor Drive, it is not marked on  park maps and there are no signs indicating how hikers can find the many trails in the area. It is used almost exclusively by neighbors who know the area. Here you see only a few cars in spite of the fact that this is a weekend and all other trailheads are jammed.
 

Unmapped and Unmarked BUT Maintained or Constructed Trails

batcoos23a.jpg (59905 bytes)

Red = Marked Trails; Blue = Unmapped and Unmarked but Maintained or Constructed Trails;
X = Trailheads for Homeowners Associations ONLY.
Green Circle = Unmarked Trailhead
The middle "X" is the Fern Canyon trailhead
The eastern (right) "x" is the Hardscrabble trailhead
The green circle is the Cragmoor trailhead
As you can see from the above map Open Space maintains an extensive network of unmapped trails (in blue) for neighbors who know the area and not the general public.
 

Ticketed Cars and the New "Get Tough" Parking Policy Has Dramatically Restricted Access to the South Mesa Trail and Dowdy Draw areas.

batcoos4.jpg (25161 bytes)

Further south, at the Mesa Trail and Dowdy Draw trailheads, the Open Space Department maintains its only major parking lots in the area. Here, while the number of hikers has increased Open Space has been dramatically reducing parking capacity.  It has outlawed roadside parking and, in effect, has instituted an access rationing system in which large numbers of the potential open space users are turned away and many more receive tickets for perfectly safe roadside parking (see picture).
 

Original Mesa Trail to Eldorado Springs

batcoos17.jpg (35263 bytes)

The original Mesa trail connection to Eldorado Springs is still widely used by neighbors even though access for the general public is blocked by no trespassing signs and has been dropped from official trail maps.

The Bottom Line

While open space neighbors bear some responsibility for these access problems, the bottom line is that the Open Space Department does not view maintaining public access as a significant priority.  In fact, reducing visitation is an often stated goal of the Department.

Ability to Balance Quality of the Recreational Experience with Environmental Protection

There are also important differences in the quality of the recreational experience provided by the two departments. Here the following comparison of recently constructed trails is especially instructive.

Mountain Parks

New Mountain Parks First Flatiron Trail

batcoos50.jpg (33949 bytes)

Yellow = New Trail; Crosshatch = Seasonal Wildlife Closure

Especially impressive is the Mountain Parks' new First Flatiron trail which ascends the tree filled gully between the First and the Second Flatirons.  With a series of spectacular switchbacks, this trail gives everyday hikers the thrill of climbing the Flatirons with incomparable views (and, even, the opportunity to fall hundreds of feet).  This trail has also eliminated a severe erosion problem caused by rock climbers scrambling all over the steep hillside.

More First Flatiron Trail Views

batcoos11.jpg (28992 bytes)

A trail overlook on the actual face of the Second Flatiron.

batcoos12.jpg (28460 bytes)

Third Flatiron from behind the Second Flatiron

batcoos24.jpg (23221 bytes)

Yellow Stars = Viewpoints on the First Flatiron Trail

This is really one of the most beautiful trails to be found anywhere and it is only one of the many exciting recreational experiences that the Mountain Parks has created recently.

Seasonal Closures

batcoos40.jpg (15300 bytes)

Mountain Parks is also acting to protect the environment with numerous measures including seasonal closures on their most popular and famous climbing rock, the Third Flatiron, rerouting of trails to avoid sensitive environmental areas, and proactive maintenance to prevent erosion problems.
 
 

Open Space

By contrast the Open Space Department does not seem to consider the creation of additional, quality, recreational opportunities to be an objective worth pursuing. One of the Open Space Board of Trustees, Christopher Mueller recently expressed the problem quite clearly.   When considering how lottery funds should be spend he was quoted in the minutes of the 3/25/98 Board meeting as saying "the last thing we should be doing is building trails..."
 

Roadside "Cattle Chute" Trail

batcoos30.jpg (27876 bytes)

I have been told that Open Space policy is to minimize the number of the new trails and locate any trails that are constructed on the periphery of Open Space land wherever possible. This means that new trails are often located on the fence lines or even in the road right-of-way. This roadside, double fenced, "cattle chute" trail illustrates the kind of new trail the Open Space often favors.
 

Closed Trailside and Creekside Rest Area

batcoos15.jpg (39776 bytes)

Also illustrative of Open Space priorities is this fence which prevents hikers from stepping off trail to enjoy a few moments sitting alongside South Boulder Creek.

South Mesa Trail Parking Lot Converted to Picnic Area

batcoos8.jpg (31741 bytes)

This picnic area was created in the old South Mesa Trail parking area. Not only did it create a poor user experience, it significantly reduced available parking.

Conclusion

These are just a few examples of the enormous management differences that exist between the two departments.  There are many more.   I believe that any plan for merging the two departments must directly address these differences.  At an absolute minimum steps should be taken to prevent the Open Space management philosophy from being transferred to Mountain Parks.  I would also like to see Open Space adopt Mountain Park's superior approach to the balancing recreational and environmental goals.

For more information click here to go to the other slide show on the two-tier access problem