Homepage - Brochure - Application - Newsletters - Issues - Links - Weather - Board
Background
BATCO prepared the following input concerning the present conditions of the City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks properties for presentation to the Second Visitor Plan Advisory Committee. We submitted the following text and were allowed ten minutes to present the highlights of the material.
Scope
We appreciate this opportunity to provide input to the Visitor Plan Advisory Committee. Although we have some general concerns with the intentions, analyses, and processes associated with the development of the Open Space and Mountain Parks Visitor Management Plan, we will confine our comments here to the specific items identified in the group's request. In keeping with our group mission, we will focus primarily on trails related issues.
General Observations
Before we address the individual questions there are some general observations we would like to make.
In addressing the future challenges that our Open Space and Mountain Parks may face, there is a natural tendency to focus on perceived problem areas. This accentuation of the negative can result in unduly pessimistic assessments of present and future conditions and an exaggerated view of potential impacts. In combination with unrealistic goals and unachievable criterion, these assessments could result in unnecessarily aggressive management actions, which often have very undesirable unintended consequences (we'll provide some examples of such actions later). We need to be careful about the conclusions we draw and very careful about the subsequent actions we take.
Surveys indicate overall public satisfaction with present conditions. Future concerns are based primarily on anticipated population growth. There are many mitigating factors to consider. Open Space and Mountain Parks visitors are mostly local residents (adjacent Boulder City homeowners in particular). Projections of Boulder City growth are well below that of surrounding areas (about one quarter the overall county projections). Other land management agencies are making significant efforts to provide recreational opportunities. Boulder County Parks and Open Space has doubled its trail mileage in the last eight years (adding as many new trail miles as we have in Mountain Parks). Jefferson County has made similar increases (presently managing one and a half times the trail mileage we have in Open Space and Mountain Parks). The latest Boulder County transportation tax will provide $4 million over the next seven years for new regional trails (together with County Parks and Open Space activities this could double the County's trails mileage again). There are similar efforts in other surrounding counties and municipalities. In comparison with these activities, Open Space and Mountain Parks has seen very little new trail construction in the last decade (although Open Space property ownership has more than doubled).
In assessing the conditions and planning targets for Open Space and Mountain Parks, we believe it is essential that we draw a distinction between Open Space properties and those properties previously owned by Mountain Parks. Until quite recently different departments with different objectives managed these properties. The nature of the lands and the historical contexts of the properties are also dramatically different. Lumping these properties together is like mixing apples and oranges (or perhaps watermelons and grapes). In the process we run the risks of losing major insights and creating results that are representative of neither.
The Mountain Parks property with its associated trails is an old, well-established system. Much of property was acquired in the early 1900s and has since been managed as an urban park. Many of the trails and the other infrastructure were constructed in the 1930s. The trail density is relatively high (it is comparable to that of other mountain parks in the region) and the steep terrain makes regular trail maintenance important. We judge the overall quality of the visitor experience in these areas as high. Bicycles are prohibited and equestrian use is impractical. The nature of the trails tends to confine hikers (and dogs) to the trail system. Rock climbers are the exception to this rule and pose the greatest visitor challenges. Many of the undesignated trails cited in trail statistics are climbing access and descent routes. Given that the formal trail system is decades old, the local ecology has long since adjusted to the human presence. Major modifications to the existing structure may do more harm than good and such proposals should be viewed with extreme skepticism.
In contrast to Mountain Parks, most Open Space properties are newly acquired and relatively undeveloped. The Open Space program did not begin until 1967 and 24,000 of the 41,000 acres have been acquired since 1990. Until recently the Open Space emphasis has been on acquisition of additional properties. Many of the designated trails are old farm roads. The trail density is low and, with the exception of some of the older foothills trails, alignments are somewhat haphazard. The gentle nature of the most of the property, the unappealing aesthetics of the old roads, and the presence of numerous cattle tracks allows users to wander to more interesting locations. A number of undesignated trails have been created as users have voted with their feet about the designated trails. We judge the overall quality of the visitor experience in these areas as fair (although here the measure tends to be an average of old, good trails and new, poor trails). There are significant opportunities for improvement, expansion, and better use of the existing infrastructure on these properties.
Responses to Specific Questions
Our responses to the specific questions reference the Visitor Master Plan Condition Analysis prepared by Open Space and Mountain Parks staff and distributed at the March 17 Visitor Plan Advisory Committee meeting. It is available on the OSMP website at http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/openspace/visitor_plan/vpac-packets/3-17packet/CA.pdf).
How would you characterize your group’s view of the current conditions of the planning targets identified in the condition analysis?
The Visitor Experience
The staff has done an impressive job in identifying key factors and characterizing the current conditions of the visitor experience. As we noted in our general comments, we believe the assessment would benefit greatly if the characterizations of Mountain Parks and Open Space properties were shown separately. The contrasts are much more informative than the averages.
In rating the key factors for the visitor experience, we would give primary emphasis to Access to destinations and Aesthetic attractiveness. Remoteness is also important, but we have limited control over the factor. Fortunately its rating is very good. Conflict, Crowding, and Safety require somewhat less attention, receive good ratings, and may be addressed with user education programs. The Variety of Activities factor needs some work. It should be based not only on how many different activities are allowed, but also upon how adequate the opportunities are for the specific activities. The assessment of this factor probably needs to be subdivided by type of activity. If an activity is confined to a limited area or unappealing setting, visitors engaged in the activity may not agree that we are making appropriate provisions for the activity or that we should include it without qualification on a list of supported activities.
We rate the Mountain Parks visitor experience as good to very good (for the user groups that are allowed access). We rate the Open Space visitor experience as fair to good. The staff has identified many of the issues that must be addressed to improve this visitor experience rating. The itemization of missing internal and external trail connections (pages 5 and 6 of the Condition Analysis), the recognition of trail conditions and settings with low aesthetic appeal, and the concerns with the safety of road crossing are particularly helpful. We note that gravel roads also offer a limited aesthetic appeal and that the South Boulder Creek Trail crossing of Highway 93 is by far the most dangerous.
The Visitor Infrastructure
Before we give our assessment of current conditions for the infrastructure, the key factors here require some discussion.
The Engendering Stewardship factor is a brilliant concept and suggests future strategies to both protect the infrastructure and enhance the visitor experience. Recognizing the importance of appropriate trail placement and design in enlisting public support is essential for the protection of the trail system. There is a positive tone to this key factor that should be pursued further. We feel it is the more significant of the two.
The Physical Sustainability factor is subject to various interpretations and cause for some concern. Sustainable trails can be created in almost any terrain configuration. When the terrain is particularly challenging, the effort involved in the initial trail construction and the level of regular maintenance subsequently required is increased. We are concerned that inappropriate interpretations of this factor could lead to a bias against desirable trail configurations that require less than the absolute minimum of maintenance. The fact that almost half the Mountain Parks trails, which have been in constant use for more than half a century, have been rated as unsustainable demonstrates the need for improvement in this measure. The criteria used to establish the sustainability of a trail and the definition of regular maintenance for the trail should be on a sliding scale that takes into consideration the nature of the terrain the trail traverses. Otherwise, to use an extreme scenario, efforts to optimize the Physical Sustainability factor could lead to a trail system composed exclusively of flat gravel roads.
It is important that we understand the present conditions of the trail system and the reasons for those conditions. The present assessment of the Physical Sustainability factor includes the effects of inadequate or deferred maintenance on the present trail systems. Lack of maintenance does not imply that a trail is physically unsustainable. We should separate such present maintenance issues from long term sustainability issues. An additional key factor is needed here, perhaps Maintenance Condition would do.
The assessment of present conditions again requires subdivision. Most trails on the Open Space properties rate as good for Physical Sustainability, but fair to poor in terms of Engendering Stewardship. Trails in Mountain Parks rate as good for Engendering Stewardship, but only fair for Physical Sustainability. The maintenance levels of the trails on all the properties are low. The Mountain Parks trails, which have suffered from five years of deferred maintenance, are in particular need of attention.
At some point there needs to be a discussion of what the trail infrastructure really is. The present assessments tend to separate trails into two categories: designated and undesignated. The infrastructure assessments concentrate on the officially designated trails. Designated trails are those shown on the latest official trail map. All other trails are in the undesignated category. Undesignated trails include historical trails and old roads which are no longer on the official map, historical climbing access and descent routes, and cattle, game, and human created trails that make connections or access locations not available via designated trails. Some undesignated trails receive regular maintenance and are indistinguishable from the designated trails. It is unlikely that many visitors draw these distinctions when asked to evaluate the quality of their experiences or the condition of the infrastructure. There is a de facto taint of political incorrectness associated with undesignated trails and there are questions about appropriate management actions with regards to them. We believe a significant number of presently undesignated trails are considered by visitors to be legitimate components of the trail system. Many of these trails correct deficiencies in the designated trail system. We would be wise to use them as guidelines to system enhancements. They are often indicators of the alignments we should adopt if we want to improve the Engendering Stewardship factor.
Ecological Systems
The key factors presented for the Ecological Systems target seem reasonable, although it is somewhat unclear how they relate to recreational visitation. We believe the current condition rating for these factors is overly pessimistic and the recreational impacts are overstated (Attachment 1 illustrates that even treating trail corridors as absolute environmental disasters would effect only a small percentage of Open Space and Mountain Parks properties). We would assess the overall conditions as good. Not only are the ecological systems self-sufficient, those of us who have lived in the area for more than a few years can testify that they have improved significantly over the years. The raptors have returned to the Flatirons, there's a bat colony in Mallory cave, deer and prairie dog populations are flourishing, and bears and cougars are threatening to become downtown residents. The increases in the number and duration of trail and area closures as wildlife expands into new locations are one measure of these successes (and of wildlife tolerance for recreational activities).
The studies cited in the Condition Analysis paint a more pessimistic picture. We note that only negative results tend to be documented. For example, in one of the studies cited most species were found to be unaffected by trails, some actually prospered, and the detectable trail effects diminished rapidly with distance from the trail. We believe that the protection, preservation, and restoration of ecological systems are most appropriate objectives for Open Space and Mountain Parks, but we are concerned that unrealistic goals and criterion may be applied in an effort to recreate a mythical pristine environment. We need to apply criteria appropriate to parks and agricultural lands, not wilderness environments. When we fail to do so, the good intentioned decisions we make can have very negative unintended consequences. For example, our reluctance to appropriately manage prairie dog populations has led to serious prairie dog overpopulation with consequent habitat damage and a potential for the extermination of all our colonies in the next plague episode. There are similar issues with our deer herds (here the disease concern is chronic wasting disease). We risk similar undesirable consequences if we fail to provide reasonable access to the places our visitors want to go. We may find ourselves trading managed, low impact access for unmanaged, potentially damaging access.
.
Agricultural operations
To maintain our emphasis on trail related issues, we will limit our responses here to a few comments.
Properties like the Boulder Valley Ranch, Teller Farms, and South Boulder Creek corridor demonstrate that agricultural and recreation activities can successfully coexist. Agriculture on these public lands is publicly subsidized. It is reasonable to expect other public uses on the properties. When appropriate, financial adjustments to lease terms, etc., may be in order to compensate for any additional expenses or inconveniences farmers incur as a result of sharing the property with recreational visitors.
Cultural resources
Again we will limit our responses.
We observe that the overall condition of our cultural resources is good and that where degradation or destruction of sites does exist it is usually unassociated with visitor use. It is worth noting that many components of the Mountain Parks infrastructure (including much of the trail system) can be classified as cultural resources.
How would you characterize your group’s desired future condition?
In the future we would like to see the Open Space and Mountain Parks department take a balanced approach to meeting all the Open Space charter purposes. We anticipate and look forward to a resulting enhancement in public stewardship. We would like to see a recreational advocate within the Open Space and Mountain Parks department (the present contact's job title is Environmental Planner). We would like to see additional opportunities (like the present one) for stakeholder involvement in the evaluation and decision making processes.
We would like to see a significantly increased investment in the visitor infrastructure. We would like to see the deferred maintenance completed, the missing trail connections constructed (or designated), and the safety issues resolved. We would like to see better use made of the existing infrastructure and a corresponding dispersal of visitors from presently heavily used areas. We would like to see this dispersal achieved through the removal of arbitrary constraints on user activities (e.g. the restriction of most bicycle access to east of Highway 93, Broadway, and Highway 36), through the recognition of important presently undesignated trails, and through external connections to regional trail systems.
Within the Mountain Parks properties, we would like to see emphasis on the maintenance of and rebuilding of the existing trail infrastructure. Although there are minor adjustments that would be appropriate, it is an excellent trail system suffering primarily from insufficient maintenance. Let's not fix anything that isn't broken.
The Open Space properties offer many opportunities for future improvements. It is on these properties that we find most of the missing trail connections and safety issues. We would like to see emphasis here on completing the missing connections (especially the external connections to regional trail systems). The low trail density and mostly undeveloped trail system also allow for the design and construction of additional or alternate trails that could provide enhanced quality visitor experiences.
From the perspective of the group you represent, what are the most significant obstacles to achieving a good or very good state for these planning targets?
We believe the most important task facing the Open Space and Mountain Parks department is creating conditions and management practices that will promote public support, buy-in, and stewardship. We absolutely must have the public's trust and confidence if we are to be successful in protecting and preserving all our unique resources.
Obstacles to achieving this objective include public perceptions of a lack of balance in past management decisions and actions. There has been a concern that the interests of the majority of the public have taken second place to a sometimes extreme, minority viewpoint. We must be careful in the future to avoid the appearance of taking a one-sided, anti-recreational approach to property management. Hopefully the present process can help to dispel these concerns.
Past obstacles to meeting the planning targets have included a lack of investment in maintenance and improvement of the trail infrastructure and a lack of focus on the quality of the user experience. There have been continuing difficulties in efforts to complete missing connections within the system and to external regional trail systems. Rather than proactive efforts to resolve issues and concerns, there has been opposition to the creation of external regional trails.
We are not bound to recreate the past. Past obstacles often suggest future changes for the better. Let's learn from our mistakes.
Given the current condition, and you identification of obstacles, what is your group doing as a steward of the Open Space and Mountain Parks and what might you be willing to do as part of a stewardship responsibility?
The Boulder Area Trails Coalition has been working for years to help land management agencies create the conditions necessary for success. We participate in public meetings and forums to represent recreational viewpoints. We endeavor to bring balance and rational discussion to the public process. We support trail maintenance and construction projects, which we believe serve to increase public feelings of ownership and involvement as well as improving the infrastructure. We support education initiatives to teach low impact use of our public lands and ethical interactions between visitor groups.
The Boulder Area Trails Coalition mission emphasizes multi-purpose trails. In addition to their recreational benefits, we believe trails systems enhance environmental quality by:
We are pleased to offer these services and any other assistance we can provide to the Open Space and Mountain Parks department as part of our stewardship responsibility.
We've attached some excerpts from materials available on the BATCO website that we felt are relevance to the present discussion.
Attachment A1, Trail Densities & Effects on Front Range Public Lands, is an effort to provide a broader context for Open Space and Mountain Parks properties. It offers comparisons between trail systems on various Front Range parks, open spaces, and forests and attempts to make a worst case estimate of potential trail effects. It highlights some of the differences between Mountain Parks and Open Space properties. It is available on the BATCO website at http://bcn.boulder.co.us/batco/batcotraildensities.htm).
Attachment A2, Boulder County Public Lands & Trails, summarizes public land ownership and recreational access for most of the publicly owned lands in Boulder County. It provides an additional perspective for Open Space and Mountain Parks properties. It is available on the BATCO website at http://bcn.boulder.co.us/batco/batcolandstrails.htm).
Attachment A3, Surveys Show Strong Recreational Support, summarizes City and County survey results concerning recreational access. The complete text of several city and county Open Space surveys and an associated analysis of public support for recreational opportunities is available on the BATCO website at http://bcn.boulder.co.us/batco/batcosurveys.htm).
There is a great deal of additional material available on the BATCO website. We recommend it to those of you with a desire for more information. Items that may be of particular interest include:
1) BATCO's comments on the initial phases of the Visitor Plan process with links to related materials (at http://bcn.boulder.co.us/batco/batcovisitorplan.htm).
2) Extensive documentation of BATO's discussions of potential trail enhancements with the Open Space and Mountain Parks department (at http://bcn.boulder.co.us/batco/batcocobosmp.htm).