Open Space and Mountain Parks Visitor Plan
Community Group Letter

Several recent articles about Boulder’s Open Space and Mountain Parks draft Visitor Master Plan mentioned community groups meeting with the Open Space and Mountain Parks staff to review the draft visitor plan. We thought an explanation of who the community group forum is and what it has done might be of interest, especially given the recent references to "closed" meetings.

The community group forum includes representatives of 12 community groups that have been working with the OSMP staff on concerns related to passive recreational opportunities, visitor experiences and environmental protection on Open Space and Mountain Parks. Many of the groups included in this process have been involved in the Visitor Plan since 1999, and represent a spectrum of community interests. Each group appointed one member to represent its interests, with an alternate if necessary. The group agreed on several ground rules to guide its work, including a strong desire to reach consensus wherever possible and the need to refrain from discussing its work with the media or city boards or the City Council until the forum was finished. The group met for five sessions totaling more than 24 hours. Each group compiled its response to the draft Visitor Master Plan and provided answers to several additional questions. Substantial time was allocated for in-depth discussion of the issues.

The community group forum’s work, as originally envisioned, is now complete. Forum members focused on two principal areas: where there was agreement on concerns and solutions and where there wasn’t agreement on issues or solutions (a third category emerged — topics that were not discussed due to lack of time).

We are pleased that considerable agreement existed within the community group forum on many parts of the draft Visitor Master Plan. Areas of agreement include the following: The group supports the Boulder City Charter with its eight non-prioritized and unranked purposes for Open Space. Our vision for the Visitor Master Plan is to enhance visitor experiences while preserving natural, cultural and agricultural resources. Open Space and Mountain Parks will strive for balance among charter purposes. We agree with a management approach designating specific areas having more focused management emphases which balance passive recreational opportunity and environmental protection. We agree that future management decisions will use the best available information, objective scientific data, community input and appropriate balance of management priorities.

The forum spent considerable time on the issue of access to OSMP lands and trails to provide access. The group agrees that OSMP is a wonderful and special place that offers many opportunities for enjoyment while protecting the natural environment. The forum agrees that some new trails and new trail connections are necessary, as is maintenance of the existing trail system in good condition. The forum agrees that on-trail use should be strongly encouraged, and should be required in areas with documented sensitive resources. The group agrees that off-trail access should not be prohibited in many areas, unless specific resource impacts are identified. We feel that by using several trail categories and incorporating appropriate undesignated trails into the trail system, and closing other damaging undesignated trails, most of the off-trail issues and impacts can be minimized. We agree on the proposed new trail priorities in the draft plan and recommend that nine additional trail priorities be studied for possible alignments or construction in the near future.

The forum agrees that keeping dogs on-trail and on-trail corridor is required in the habitat conservation areas and that some flexibility in dog management is appropriate in several of the management areas (for example, designating two trails accessing peaks in Mountain Parks as voice-and-sight regulation on-trail corridor). The forum agrees that a sufficient number and length of "no dog" trails throughout the system is necessary and desirable.

Forum members agree that a continuing dialogue with the community and the OSMP staff will be beneficial in the future. A process should be established to include the interested public in discussions of management issues and decisions.

The forum could not reach agreement on the boundaries of some of the proposed management areas and on some of the proposed activities that could occur in those areas. For example, some forum members proposed different boundaries for some of the management areas or changing the designations of some of the management areas. No agreement was reached on whether or not to change current dog management until further studies are completed.

The forum was not able to discuss the entire draft Visitor Master Plan. With the time available, the forum was unable to reach consensus on all issues related to dog management. The lack of recommendations by the forum should not be interpreted as the group not reaching agreement.

We urge you to attend the community open house from 4 to 7 p.m. Wednesday at the Municipal Building, Canyon Boulevard and Broadway. The open house will be an opportunity to learn more about the draft Visitor Master Plan and recommendations from the community group forum on the draft plan. An Open Space Board of Trustees meeting will be held upstairs in the same building and a presentation of the Report from the Community Group Forum will begin at 7 p.m. Public comment is invited.

We welcome and support a vigorous community discussion and review of the draft Visitor Master Plan. We are optimistic that together we will achieve a plan that will successfully guide the Open Space and Mountain Parks program for years to come.