BATCO Second Visitor Plan Advisory Committee Report Comments

July 7, 2003

To: City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks Board of Trustees

Subject: Second Visitor Plan Advisory Committee Final Report

References:

Despite our unhappiness with the selection process, we have continued to observe and have attempted to interact with the second Visitor Plan Advisory Committee. We've had some opportunities to provide input to the committee. We've submitted our assessment of the present state of the Open Space and Mountain Parks properties and proposals for strategies to address visitor management issues. Without a place at the table, our active involvement was limited to one ten-minute presentation on current conditions and a few moments of public participation at the end of each committee meeting.

While the present (second) Visitor Plan Advisory Committee report does a fair job of reflecting consensus of the committee members, it excludes important advice offered by the larger community. Of particular concern is the shortage of material exploring ways in which the quality of the visitor experience might, within reasonable environmental constraints, be enhanced.

After introductory sections dealing with the previous Advisory Committee report and the charter of the second Advisory Committee, the bulk of the report contains assessments of current Open Space and Mountain Parks conditions and critical concerns and then details five objectives and strategies to meet those objectives. The five objectives are:

1. Reduce Conflicts between Visitors and Natural, Cultural, and Agricultural Resources
2. Reduce conflicts among visitors
3. Engender stewardship among Open Space and Mountain Parks visitors
4. Maintain and Improve Visitor Trails and Other Infrastructure
5. Improve the quality of public discourse regarding the implementation and refinement of the Visitor Master Plan

We are concerned that the Visitor Plan Advisory Committee focus was almost exclusively on negative visitor behaviors and perceived conflicts. Reducing conflicts occupied 10 pages (75%) of the report sections dealing with objectives and strategies while the remaining three, more positive objectives received one page each. We believe the last three objectives offer real opportunities to enhance visitor experiences and enlist the public support we must have if we are to be successful. We regret the Advisory Committee was unable to spend more time elaborating upon these ideas (we've made some suggestions of our own in the attached document).

Unfortunately, the committee spent much of their available time on the first two items. Dog issues and off trail travel received a great deal of attention and several rather heavy-handed approaches were suggested to eliminate the perceived problems. It is hard to understand the committee's preoccupation with such issues given the very high levels of public satisfaction with their Open Space experiences and the staff's own positive assessments of conditions. In the 1999 Open Space survey, 93% of the public indicated satisfaction (58% gave "excellent" marks and another 35% said "good"), while less than one-half of one percent described their experiences as "poor." The staff's conditional analysis rated Natural System targets as "fair" and Conflict targets as "good". Our own assessment of the Natural System targets is somewhat more positive. We rate them as "good". We believe the differences in ratings may be explained by the staff's tendency to set unrealistic objectives for properties that are in fact urban boundaries and to accept overly pessimistic interpretations of a few studies showing limited recreational effects on Natural Systems. We agree with the staff's assessment of the Conflict targets as "good". We also note that less than 4% of the members of public surveyed in 1999 cited dog conflicts as having affected their visits to Open Space and none cited bicycle or equestrian conflicts. Since the public's and the staff's assessments of existing conditions are generally positive, we believe there is a real danger the committee's recommendations may lead to needlessly restrictive responses to minor problems with a resulting loss in public support and compliance.

The primary strategy proposed by the committee to realize the first two objectives (reducing conflicts) is a system of management zones and sets of corresponding visitor use rules and restrictions. Boulder County Parks and Open Space has used a similar classification system to help guide the planning process for recently acquired properties. It's been effective in that context, but it's difficult to see how to apply the approach to the existing Open Space and Mountain Parks infrastructure with its diversity of present and historical uses. Although the management zone approach may be useful for newly acquired properties (and older, isolated areas), retrofitting management zones to most of the Mountain Parks properties and much of the older Open Space properties presents many difficulties. Among them:

The detail Advisory Committee management zone recommendations are clearly incomplete. The three types proposed are insufficient to characterize the full range of Open Space and Mountain Parks properties. There's no mention whatsoever of agricultural areas and insufficient attention to the many Open Space and Mountain Parks areas that presently support multiple Open Space charter objectives (e.g., supporting passive recreation while preserving less sensitive Open Space and Mountain Parks ecological areas or allowing agricultural operations). Additional categories and/or modifications to the Advisory Committee's suggestions are required if the intention is to define management zones for all of Open Space and Mountain Parks. We need to add a management category for agricultural areas and make better allowance for mixed-use areas (this later category is most important as it allows site specific management decisions within the existing Open Space and Mountain Parks areas that presently support several different Open Space and Mountain Parks objectives).

The Advisory Committee management zone definitions tend to emphasize the environmental preservation Open Space charter objective, while relegating the other charter objectives to, at best, a secondary importance. This is inappropriate. The Open Space charter contains no such prioritization. We should define the management zones in terms of our primary management objectives for the areas, rather than in terms of just one quality. The criteria for defining a management area should include its suitability for realizing any and/or all of the Open Space charter objectives (Boulder County Parks and Open Space has successfully used such an approach). We would suggest redefining the Advisory Committee zones to show the management emphasis and to level the playing field. In particular, Sensitive and Protected zones might be called Habit Conservation Areas, Natural Zones might better be expanded and redefined as Mixed-use Areas, Passive Recreational Zones might be labeled Recreational Focus Areas, and Agricultural Areas should be added to the alternatives. All of these area designations should serve to indicate primary management objectives, rather than to exclude others. In existing visitor areas they should be guidelines for future management emphasis, rather than excuses for new rules and restrictions.

The defining criteria, acceptable activities, and guidelines or regulations associated with the management areas also require much additional discussion. There's clearly room for more flexibility and additional alternatives. For example, the Advisory Committee spend a significant amount of time discussing a dogs on-trail alternative to an on-leash requirement for some areas, but the alternative doesn't appear in the final report.

In conclusion, we believe the second Visitor Plan Advisory Committee report lacks balance, but is still a valuable contribution to the Visitor Master Plan development process. It should not be the only public contribution to the process. The Open Space and Mountain Parks staff and Board of Trustees should accept and seriously consider additional input from all the stakeholder representatives in the creation of the final Visitor Master Plan. We respectfully submit these comments and the attached Open Space and Mountain Parks conditional analysis and strategy recommendations, trusting that they will receive such consideration. As the process proceeds we request that we be included in the many continuing discussions that are required and, as always, offer our assistance to Open Space and Mountain Parks.

Sincerely,

Boulder Area Trails Coalition Board of Directors