Homepage - Brochure - Application - Newsletters - Issues - Links - Weather - Board
Open space plan coming
Clay Evans, May 26, 2002 (evansc@dailycamera.com)
When I heard months ago that the city of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks Department was working on a new "visitor’s plan" to address the explosion of use (4 million visits a year!) on the city’s public lands, my warning radar started beeping frantically.
What are they up to, now?
The city’s pioneering Open Space charter declares that land shall be acquired, maintained, preserved, retained and used only for certain, non-prioritized purposes, including: "Preservation and restoration of natural areas ... Preservation of water resources .... Preservation of land for passive recreational use such as hiking, photography or nature studies, and if specifically designated, bicycling, horseback riding or fishing ... Preservation of agricultural uses .... shaping the development of the city, limiting urban sprawl and disciplining growth," and "Preservation of land for its aesthetic or passive recreational value and its contribution to the quality of life of the community."
Worthy goals, with none designated as taking priority. Yet there are persistent voices in Boulder that "preservation" should ascend to the throne, to the potential detriment of evil "passive recreational use."
And so, when I heard the top dogs at open space — Directors Jim Crain and Mike Patton, planning manager Dave Kuntz and others — were crafting a visitor’s plan, I, and many other "users" of open space, got nervous. Would there be an attempt (as rumored by an unimpeachable source within the city) to formally declare "preservation" the top priority?
Would there be attempts to snatch privileges away from Balkanized "interest" groups — climbers, equestrians, mountain bikers, dog guardians — in hopes that the tyrannical majority wouldn’t care? Attempts to force the few to pay for the damage caused by millions — and even the poor prairie dogs who, restricted from natural migration, quickly denude all lands where they live?
I envisioned the city unveiling its "visitor’s plan" with great fanfare: For just $19.95, you can have this beautiful 45-minute videotape of scenery, birds and wildlife, in different seasons on open space. Now you and your dog can enjoy our public lands from the comforts of home, without risking any impacts whatsoever!
But that’s paranoid. I’m pleased to say I’ve met with the open space honchos and I’m cautiously optimistic about the draft visitor’s plan, which probably will be presented to the Open Space advisory board in mid-June.
The Citizens’ Advisory Committee that crafted the recommendations behind the report had members or input from virtually every interest faction, from dog walkers to environmental groups. They mused on surveys in which 25 percent of users complain about dogs, 25 percent about bicycles, and 6 percent about horses.
The plan as now conceived will place all Open Space/Mountain Parks land into three broad categories:
Recreation Management Areas, heavily used, already developed with picnic tables, restrooms, and so forth. When pressed, Kuntz named only Flagstaff Mountain in this category (Coot Lake is managed by the Parks Department).
Recreation and Resource Monitoring Areas, will include lands the city "wants to keep an eye on," which in selected areas, will have new (but as yet undisclosed) restrictions. The biggest category, Mt. Sanitas, Wonderland Lake, and the Mesa Trail area are expected to fall under this heading.
Lastly, there will be Special Protection Areas, such as White Rocks, Long Canyon, the "Beech" property west of U.S. 36 and Coal Creek, which — just speculating — will receive "special protection."
System-wide problems, such as the multiplication of unsustainable "social" trails, particular in rock climbing areas, will require education and intensive management to correct. Dogs? Well, despite the ravings of some self-proclaimed "activists," they simply can’t be blamed for all the system’s woes. Four million people, social trails, lack of parking ... dogs are only a small part of the overall challenges.
Crain, Patton and Kuntz say they don’t think there will be much noticeable change. Think I’ll wait to see a detailed report in June, in which specific proposed restrictions will be laid out, area by area, before deciding.
If you have the temerity to use the open space you pay for, I’d strongly advise you to follow this process. Read the papers, yes, but also attend meetings. And the department wants to hear from you. Kuntz, Patton and Crain can be reached by calling (303) 441-3440.
Will they listen to us? This year they will. With sales tax revenues plummeting, the open space folks may feel the need to ask us for a new tax come November, to keep on schedule for buying crucial properties. That means we have some leverage: If they crack down too hard on us, our bikes, horses and dogs on lands we pay for (they assure me they don’t intend to) we’ll just have to let them know how we feel ... at the ballot box.
Users are not automatically abusers. These lands deserve protection, but let’s not forget they exist in an urban-wildland interface. They are not pristine, and shouldn’t be treated as if they are.
Copyright 2002, The Daily Camera and the E.W. Scripps Company.