Open Space and Mountain Parks Visitor Plan
Community Group Report

Report of the Community Group Forum on the Open Space and Mountain Parks Visitor Master Plan

Revised 6/21/04

KEY: A = Acceptance by all Community Group Forum members.

D = Disagreement / lack of acceptance by all Community Group Forum members.

NA = Not addressed by the group due to lack of time.

• In early 2004, OSMP staff contacted a wide spectrum of recreational, environmental, and community groups to determine whether or not there was sufficient interest to create a "roundtable" task group, with the purpose of providing a way to evaluate the Visitor Master Plan from the different perspectives and to develop common-sense solutions that would bridge between different values and interests. Twelve diverse groups, along with OSMP staff, agreed to appoint a representative to participate in a Community Group Forum for the Visitor Master Plan. The group was assisted by a professional outside facilitator.
• The Community Group Forum’s mission was to build common ground, achieve understanding and agreement on issues, and achieve consensus on acceptable changes to the draft Visitor Master Plan.
• The Community Group Forum’s shared vision for the Visitor Master Plan is to enhance visitor experiences while preserving natural, cultural, and agricultural resources.
• The group started meeting in April and had five meetings. Building trust was key, and the group agreed to refrain from discussing its work with the media, City boards, or City Council until the forum was finished.
• The group produced this report and set of recommendations, with the hope that it would inform community discussion about the Visitor Master Plan and lead to changes that improve the plan and widen the base of community support.

• Eric Vogelsberg Boulder Area Trails Coalition
• Scott Severs Boulder County Audubon, Boulder County Nature Association
• Suzanne Webel Boulder County Horse Association
• Adam Massey Boulder Off-Road Alliance
• Buzz Burrell Boulder Trail Runners
• Bev Gholson Colorado Mountain Club (Boulder Group)
• Willie Mein Flatirons Climbing Council
• Lisa Carter Friends Interested in Dogs and Open Space
• Andy Malkiel Friends of Open Space Access
• Dave Kuntz Open Space and Mountain Parks
• Gwen Dooley PLAN Boulder County
• Kay Tauscher Rocky Mountain Hang Gliding & Paragliding Association
• Justin Reilly Sierra Club (Indian Peaks Group)
• Eric Malmborg Facilitator

• Use the actual language of the Charter and delete the statement here that "OSMP land shall be …used only for the following non-prioritized purposes".
• In an appropriate place in the Visitor Master Plan, insert the statement that the Charter does not set priorities for or rank the purposes for OSMP lands.

A--Plan Goals. Pages i and 3. The plan goals are acceptable.

A--Plan Objectives. Page 3. Reorder the list of five objectives for the Visitor Master Plan to emphasize the positive, as follows:

• Reduce conflicts between visitors and natural, cultural, and agricultural resources.
• Reduce conflicts among visitors.
• Engender stewardship and encourage habitat restoration.
• Maintain and improve visitor trails and other infrastructure.
• Improve the quality of public discourse to refine, implement, and monitor the effectiveness of the Visitor Master Plan and to deepen public trust in the process.

• Engender stewardship and encourage habitat restoration.
• Maintain and improve visitor trails and other infrastructure.
• Improve the quality of public discourse to refine, implement, and monitor the effectiveness of the Visitor Master Plan and to deepen public trust in the process.
• Reduce conflicts between visitors and natural, cultural, and agricultural resources.
• Reduce conflicts among visitors.

A--Definition of Passive Recreation. Page 5 in chapter 1 (and page 6 in chapter 2). Insert the word "significantly" (underlined) for the word "adversely" in the 3^rd bullet, as follows:

• Offers constructive, restorative, and pleasurable human benefits and fosters appreciation and understanding of open space and its purposes
• Is compatible with other passive recreation uses
• Does not adversely impact natural, cultural, scientific, or agricultural values
• Occurs in an Open Space and Mountain Parks setting which is an integral part of the experience
• Requires only minimal visitor facilities and services directly related to safety and minimizes passive recreation impacts

• Offers constructive, restorative, and pleasurable human benefits and fosters appreciation and understanding of open space and its purposes
• Is compatible with other passive recreation uses
• Does not significantly impact natural, cultural, scientific, or agricultural values
• Occurs in an Open Space and Mountain Parks setting which is an integral part of the experience
• Requires only minimal visitor facilities and services directly related to safety and minimizes passive recreation impacts

A—Clarification of the Key for Figure 1.1. After Page 5. Add a note that clarifies that "Equestrian" refers to the availability of horse trailer parking.

A—Replace Figure 2.2. Pages 9.10. Replace the map in Figure 2.2 with a section of the newer undesignated trails map that includes categories showing the different widths of the trails.

• A--Table 2.6. Page 20 and 21. Add two new statements, as follows:

• Under Visitor Infrastructure--Unmet Public Desires or Problems Needing Attention, add "Funding for maintenance and improvement of existing trails and construction of new trails is inadequate".
• Under Visitor Opportunity—Available Opportunities, add "Collaboration with climbers to develop a sustainable climbing access system".
• Under Resource Protection / "Managed" Visitor Access—Unmet Public Desires or Problems Needing Attention, revise as follows:

• Change "Excessive off-trail travel" to "Extensive off-trail travel".

• Under Visitor Conflict Reduction-- Unmet Public Desires or Problems Needing Attention, revise as follows:

• Change "Unacceptable level of conflict between dogs and other visitors" to "High level of conflict between dogs and other visitors".

Summary of Public Input on the Plan

• A--Expanded Recreation Opportunities. Page 22. Replace "pastures" with "trails and off- trail riding opportunities.

• Amend the Guiding Principles as follows:

A--Priorities for Management. Page 24. Replace the "Priority of Preservation" Guiding Principle with a "Determination of Priorities Principle". Page 24. As follows:

A--New Statements on Management Intent. In an appropriate place of the plan, add the following:

• The minimum objective of management actions is "do no harm".
• Where recreational activities may, or will, or could harm the environment, seek to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or restrict (as a last resort).

A--Management Approach. Move the policy on "Management Approach" (page 26), which is under the Visitor Safety and Regulations Enforcement section of the plan, to the section on Guiding Principles (page 24) and add a 2^nd sentence (underlined) to it, as follows:

A--Use of Best Information. Page 24. Add three sentences (underlined) to the Guiding Principle on "Use of Best Information", as follows:

A--Best Information Standard. Insert a statement of "Elements of a Best Information Standard" in an appropriate place in the plan, as follows:

A--Information for Decisionmaking. Insert several statements in an appropriate place in the plan, which deal with issues of how information supporting decisions is generated, as follows:

• Collaborate with the community in designing and implementing research and monitoring projects that will provide more complete and reliable data for management decisions. These studies should demonstrate what impacts are significant and ones that are not.
• Use ad hoc groups on specific issues and a community forum that meets semi-annually for input.
• Identify the key research and data needs and issue a "call for proposals" when issues require addressing environmental concerns.
• Form a research advisory committee that will help focus studies on the most important management questions.

A--Management Area Characteristics, Goals, and Criteria. Pages 36-38. The Community Group Forum agreed on them, except for one addition:

• Insert under the Passive Recreation Area (page 36), where appropriate, an additional characteristic that incorporates the spirit of: "The quality of the environment—the "naturalness" of an area—is the foundation of the recreational experience and should not be jeopardized."

A--Names of the Management Areas (page 36 and elsewhere). To better connote the management emphasis and provide a clear spectrum for management intent, change the name of "Resource-Recreation Area" to "Passive Recreation Area."

A--Need for Greater Flexibility in Application of Management Strategies. Because there is significant variation in characteristics and management needs within the management sub-areas, more flexibility is needed in the range of strategies that can be applied to a particular management area type. We recommend:

• Make changes / additions to the Table 3.1, which defines the management Area Strategies. See attached Table 3.1.
• Some off-trail access and dog management provisions as applied to specific subareas need to be varied from the general rule and crafted to meet specific situations.

• Western Mountain Parks Habitat Conservation Area. Dog management requirements should allow on-trail, off-leash access to Green Mountain, Bear Peak, and South Boulder Peak; preliminarily it is recommended that the Shadow Canyon Trail, the connecting trail between Bear Peak and South Boulder Peak (?), and the Ranger Trail to Green Mountain be on-trail voice-and-sight control for dog management.
• Tallgrass Prairie West Habitat Conservation Area. Provide more flexibility beyond the standard of on-trail requirement. Encourage on-trail use. Allow off-trail use and monitor impacts from off-trail use.

A—Boundary Changes. All management area boundaries are agreed to except for those noted below. This agreement includes the Axelson property, which should remain Agricultural Area with no new trails to be considered here at this time. The management area boundaries of some subareas should be changed to reflect specific circumstances and management needs, as follows:

• A--Shanahan Ridge Natural Area. The middle portion of this sub-area (bounded by the North Fork Shanahan Trail, the South Fork Shanahan Trail, and the Mesa Trail) should be changed from a Natural Area Classification to a Passive Recreation Area classification.
• A--Gunbarrel / Heatherwood Natural Area. Change the southern portion (up to Lookout Road) of the Passive Recreation Area from Natural Area.

For the boundaries of several management areas, there was no agreement. Management areas without agreement include:

• D--West Beech. No agreement on whether or not to be an HCA, and whether or not additional trails should be built there.
• D--Jewel Mountain HCA. No agreement on whether or not to be an HCA, the timeline for study, and public access closure until the area is planned and provide needed infrastructure.
• D--Tallgrass Prairie East.
• D--Flatirons Backdrop. Disagreement centered on a proposal to place the first three Flatirons into the Passive Recreation Area.
• D--Eldorado Mountain HCA. Disagreement centered on a proposal to place the portion of this HCA east of the Denver Water Canal into the Natural Area.

Trails and Access

A—New Trails and Trail Connections. More strongly articulate the need for trails and connections to meet unmet public desires and enhance the visitor experience. This need can be identified more strongly in:

• Visitor Infrastructure Strategy. Page 45.
• Identify additional high-priority trail improvements.

• We support the proposed new trails and improvements identified in Maps 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 and Table 5.1 of the draft VMP.

• The Community Group Forum opinion was neutral on the Boulder Feeder Canal. There was agreement on safety and environmental impact concerns.
• Develop a collaborative process to study and evaluate possible new trails and trail connections, and their relationship to management area designations. These include:

1. West Beech (North Foothills HCA)
2. Cottontail Trail connection to Gunbarrel area trails (done)
3. A new multi-use trail allowing biking west of S.H. 93 / Broadway
4. Rail to trail for the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way (to 75^th Street)
5. Trail connection from Dry Creek to the Bobolink Trailhead (as an alternative to the alignment just south of Baseline Road)
6. New trail(s) in the Tallgrass Prairie East HCA
7. U.S. 36 underpass
8. Trail connection to South Boulder Creek Trail to the Community Ditch Trail
9. New trail(s) in the Eldorado Mountain HCA
10. New Boulder Reservoir trail crossing (not OSMP)

• Encourage on-trail use through the OSMP system, but indicate that some off-trail use is acceptable.
• Require on-trail use / prohibit off-trail use in certain designated areas that are not necessarily entire HCAs.
• Develop criteria to determine the areas where on-trail use is required.
• Utilize a task group to develop the criteria and then identify the areas where on-trail use is required, using best available information.
• Allow some controlled off-trail use in areas normally closed to off-trail use (with permits or other means).

• Reduce the need for off-trail permits as a way to ensure that sensitive areas receive only low levels of use and insignificant resource impacts. In many cases, consistent with resource protection, do the following to achieve the same purpose:

• Provide trails to places where people want to go using low-use, primitive or activity-specific trails (such as climbing access trails) to complement other higher use trails. Providing sustainable access for visitors to appropriate destinations is key to reducing the level of off-trail use and providing a higher level of protection to resource.
• Incorporate appropriate undesignated trails into the trail system.
• Close other damaging undesignated trails.

• Establish a new way of categorizing and legitimating trails, with categories such as:

• Establish a collaborative process to evaluate undesignated trails and develop a plan of action to deal with them.
• Evaluate undesignated trails by area on a case-by-case basis.
• Keep some undesignated trails open until the undesignated trail assessment is completed.

A--Grazing and Access. There is a need to resolve the conflict between OSMP cattle grazing practices and possible restrictions on pedestrians or equestrians.

A--Involvement of Volunteers in Trail Projects. There is a need for expanding the volunteer program to address unmet trail improvement needs. Insert the following statements in an appropriate place:

• Encourage volunteers to contribute to trail improvement projects.
• Expand the capabilities of OSMP to organize and supervise more volunteer trail improvement projects.

A—Visitor Opportunity Strategy. Page 44 and 45. Incorporate horseback riding in the sections dealing with off-trail permits and designated use areas.

The following agreements were reached on dog management:

A--New Research Targeted to Management Issues. Collaborate with FIDOS and others in the design and implementation of studies that will document the extent of non-compliance with dog regulations, the reasons why, and evaluate the efficacy of alternative solutions. Collaborative monitoring and research studies targeted to critical issues or information gaps should be implemented.

A--—Some Exceptions in HCAs and AAs. Where there are special circumstances in HCAs and AA, OSMP should consider options besides the default strategy of requiring dogs on leash. Some of these options include:

• Allow on-trail or on-corridor voice-and-sight control.
• Use seasonal dog closures or leash requirements where appropriate (instead of permanent dog closures or leash requirements).
• Use existing multiple parallel trails, where appropriate, to separate dog walkers from other visitors or allow dogs on certain trails only during certain times.

A--Dog Management on Mountain Peak Trails. The proposed dog leash requirement on steep trails to the mountain peaks is dangerous. We recommend:

• Provide an exception to the default on-leash requirement; allow on-corridor voice-and-sight control on the Shadow Canyon Trail and the Ranger Trail, in order to provide safe access for dog guardians and dogs to Green Mountain, Bear Peak, and South Boulder Peak).

A--Start Up of New Dog Regulations. Additional educational efforts and new signs should be used as outreach to the public before enforcement of new dog regulations is implemented.

A--No-Dog Trails. Additional "no-dog" trails should be designated where appropriate.

A--Big Bluestem / South Boulder Creek Trail. Seasonal leash requirements, rather than all-year leash requirements, should be implemented here, and these trails should be targeted for further assessment of voice-and-sight control regulation.

Items discussed briefly, but not sufficiently to result in agreement, included:

NA--Enforcement Strategy. OSMP should increase the emphasis on enforcing dog management regulations. New restrictions should be incremental and progress to tougher restrictions if needed. Enforcement should be strict, with little leeway for warnings, mostly tickets. Penalties for infractions should be progressively tougher.

NA--Dog Voice-and-Sight Certification. Implement a certification program, either voluntary or mandatory, as part of a package of dog management strategies designed to increase compliance with current voice-and-sight regulations.

NA--Change in the Status Quo until Later. Wait to implement changes to dog management regulations in specific areas / trails before conclusive results were obtained from additional studies of current compliance and impacts of voice-and-sight control.

NA--BVR Sage Trail. Require dogs on leash on the Sage Trail on Boulder Valley Ranch.

A--Special Use Permits. Page 47. The proposed group size threshold for special use permits of 25 or more participants (a change from the current 50 or more participants) is too restrictive and may not achieve the intended purpose of minimize the impacts of group activities. We recommend:

• Maintain the existing general group size threshold (50 participants) requiring a special use permit for non-commercial group activities / events. Define activity-specific group size thresholds that may vary from the "50-participant threshold" based on the varied nature of the impacts. Provide information about these activity-specific special use permit thresholds on the OSMP website and other appropriate venues. It will be the responsibility of organized groups to find out about the group size thresholds and apply for a special use permit if required.
• Apply the "least restrictive" management approach to the determination of group size thresholds for the special use permit process.
• Involve the affected recreational activity groups and others in the determination of the group size thresholds for specific activities.

A--Commercial Use Permits. Page 47. The details of commercial use permits need to be worked out. We recommend:

• Establish a commercial use permit program.
• Convene a stakeholder’s task group to work out the program details.

NA--Visitor Access / Use Fees. Page 49. The forum expressed little enthusiasm for new user fees. However, the group did not have time to deal with this issue.

A--Site-Level Planning / Public Access Closures Prior to Completion. Page 48. The Visitor Master Plan should commit Open Space and Mountain Parks to expeditiously complete site management plans and provide visitor infrastructure for existing and newly acquired properties, in order to make those properties available to the public for sustainable visitor activities. We recommend:

• Page 48, add in a timely manner to the priority action dealing with planning and infrastructure improvements as prerequisites for public access, as follows (underlined):

A--Process for Public Involvement. The Visitor Master Plan should provide specific processes for how community groups and the public will be involved in ongoing implementation activities. We recommend:

• Page 49, include a description of the specific processes for ongoing public involvement in Visitor Master Plan implementation.
• Create an ongoing community forum including various community groups and interests that will make recommendations to OSMP staff, the Open Space Board of Trustees. Use collaborative task or ad hoc groups for specific issues or projects, as necessary. Tasks or projects that might be considered by the community forum or task groups to advise the department and Open Space Board include:

• devising specific details for programs like special use permits, commercial use permits, and user fees;
• evaluating and determining the status of social trails;
• developing partnerships for trail construction and maintenance;
• developing priorities and designs for major trailhead improvements;
• developing monitoring protocols and implementing a monitoring program;
• guiding problem-focused research studies;
• devising pilot programs like dog certification and dogs on-leash at trailheads;
• evaluating bicycling options west of S.H. 93;
• designating specific use areas for hang gliding / paragliding, fishing, model glider flying, orienteering, etc.

• Conduct periodic meetings with community groups and the public to "check in" on plan implementation and adjust as necessary.

A--Priority for Funding of Trails. Funding for maintenance and improvement of existing trails and construction of new trails is inadequate. We recommend:

• Budget more money and use external funding for infrastructure management, including new trail construction.

Note: This table consolidates the previous sections on visitor activities and key management strategies.