Indian Peaks Group Conservation Committee
Minutes
Subject: Minutes of January IPG Conservation Committee meeting
January
5, 2005 THOSE PRESENT:
Kirk Cunningham, Billie Gutgsell, Deirdre
Butler, and Justin Reilly
1. ANOTHER "HEALTHY FORESTS" PROJECT IN OUR AREA -
YOUR COMMENTS ARE SOLICITED.
The Forest Service is currently in a scoping
period for a large acreage fuel reduction project in and around the
Estes Valley, including the Homestead Meadows
area that many IPG folks are familiar with as a hiking place. See the Appendix
for an alert and talking points from Udi Lazimy of the American Lands Alliance
in Boulder (slightly modified).
(Note: if anyone would like to see the pdf file for the notice and map accompanying
it, please let me know - it's 800kb)
2. WILDLIFE COMMITTEE CHANGES AND ACTIVITIES.
Deirdre Butler has volunteered
to take over chair of the IPG Wildlife Committee which Billie Gutgsell
has so ably filled for the last two years. Deirdre
lives in Lyons and is an active participant in the local wildlife rehabilitation
center. Thanks to Billie for her superb work as Chair.
Billie had the following
updates on the campaigns and issues being worked on by the Wildlife
Committee.
Regarding the Colorado Wolf Reintroduction Project, the Colorado
Division of Wildlife (CDOW) will be coming out with its proposed Wolf
Management
Plan on
January 14 and will post it on its web site on that date. Dale Benson,
a wildlife biologist on CDOW's Wolf Management Task Force, will give
a presentation
to
the Colorado Wildlife Commission the preceding day about the Plan. That
presentation will occur at 3:40 pm at the Division headquarters at
6060 North Broadway
in Denver; the public may attend that meeting. We have no information
on the specifics
of that Plan at this time, but there is hope that it will be fairly reasonable.
Following the posting of the Plan, there will be a number of public meetings
through the state, according to the following
schedule:
- January 31 Craig
- February 1 Grand Junction
- February 3 Denver
- February 7 Durango
- February 8 Alamosa
- February 15 Frisco
- February 16 Pueblo
- February 17 Ft. Collins
These will be evening meetings, starting at 7
pm, but the locations have not yet been established. Deirdre would
like to revisit the new
volunteer/activist
lists obtained a couple years ago when the IPG was being revitalized,
to get
people to contact for the wolf meetings.
Regarding deer management
for chronic wasting disease on Boulder County Open Space, the CDOW
wants to shoot a couple dozen deer on
County land
in the
Dowe Flats and Rabbit Mountain area, and capture and sample the
tonsils of deer
at Heil Ranch Open Space.
Regarding the Wildlife Committee's project
to adopt and sign wildlife crossings on Hwy 36 north of Boulder,
Billie is still trying to
reach Monique DeMarco
at the Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project for more information.
The CDOW is considering a Habitat Stamp program, wherein people
can by stamps to support habitat protection. This has been popular
with
duck
hunters, for
example, but the Colorado Wildlife Commission is considering
its expansion to other species. However, the proposed program
is really
aimed at
hunters (and presumably therefore game animal habitat), and environmentalists
are looking for a broader program with their buy-in.
The Boulder
City Council had a first reading of an ordinance to offer more protection
to prairie dogs on city properties and/or
within
city limits.
The Council voted in favor of rules that would require a 6-month
waiting period
for construction projects on prairie dog habitat, to give time
for relocation. Billie testified in favor of the ordinance
for the IPG.
One problem facing
this ordinance is that city staff and city manager believe
that it will require too much money to implement and discourage the
businesses
they
want to encourage.
The next opportunity for public comment is at the Council meeting
on January 18th.
Regarding prairie dog impacts in highway expansion projects,
e.g. US 36 and the proposed Northwest parkway. Judy Enderle
of the Prairie
Preservation Alliance has set up a conference call between
CDOT officials and concerned
environmental
people that occurred Sunday, January 9th. Sierra Club volunteers
projected
to be on the call were Billie Gutgsell, Deirdre Butler, Tim
Snowden and possibly
Bill Roettger. The intent of this call is to explore ways
to avoid disturbing prairie dog (and associated species) habitat
in any
future highway projects.
Finally, the Wildlife Committee figured
it would need about $150 for its operations in 2005.
3. Forest Service management of the Brainard Lake area.
The Appendix
contains the comments that were submitted to the Boulder Ranger District
on the deadline day. They reflect the input principally of IPG Wilderness
Chair Bill Ikler, but also of Kirk Cunningham and Dave Hawley, IPG Outings
Chair. A draft version appeared in last month's minutes. 4. Open Space Visitor Management Plan
The IPG, PLAN Boulder and the CMC will be jointly sponsoring a public meeting
in late February in which wildlife experts will explain the data behind the
concerns of the Club and other groups that off-trail use on Open Space can
have adverse effects on wildlife. Stay tuned for more information about this
meeting. Justin thought tht he would need about $50 for his budget for 2005.
APPENDIX
1. FOREST SERVICE PROPOSES MAJOR PROJECT IN THE ESTES
VALLEY AREA
YOUR INPUT NEEDED BY FEBRUARY 4 TO ENSURE A LESS
DAMAGING PROJECT. See below for Forest Service Contact Info, Talking Points, and Background
The Proposed Project.
The Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest is planning
a major fuel reduction and logging project in the Estes Valley, between
Estes Park and Pinewood
Springs. The project is intended to reduce the amount of trees on
8,000 acres throughout the valley in order to reduce the fuel loads that
pose a potential threat to local homeowner in the event of a wildfire.
Treatments will include: patch clear-cutting lodgepole pine, thinning
dense stands, reducing ground fuels, enhancing aspen stands, and
initiating
controlled burns. Some fuel reduction in the Estes Valley might be desirable to protect
homes, but there are numerous problems with the Forest Service's proposal,
such as:
--Clear-cutting would occur in lodgepole pine stands, which will likely
result in the regeneration of very dense stands of young pine. In 30
years or so, these trees would be tall enough to carry fire into the
surrounding mature trees. Over 450 acres are being considered for clear-cutting
--Some of the proposed fuel reduction treatments are a mile or more
away from any residences. This is a waste of public money and natural
resources because research clearly shows that the most effective treatment
to reduce risk to homes should be done directly around the homes themselves.
--Access across private land is proposed for 21 separate locations across
the proposed project area. The Forest Service insists its policy is to
consider seeking perpetual access rather than just get permission for
a one-time treatment. Any new permanent road access to national forest
land would invite use from all-terrain vehicles and motorcycles, which
could damage soils and disturb the peace and quiet adjacent residents
and other recreationists now enjoy.
--A large amount of slash, or logging waste, would be produced. If not
properly treated, this would increase the fire danger, as it would dry
out quickly in stands that would be much more open to the sun because
of logging and thus be very flammable.
--All of the proposed activity, especially road building, would create
an ideal environment for the introduction and spread of noxious weeds.
--The Pierson Park Road, which accesses popular recreation areas, would
be used for access to numerous treatment areas and for hauling logs out.
Such traffic would interfere with recreational use of the area. Parts
of this road are very rough and would need to be reconstructed.
--Almost 300 acres of thinning is proposed in the Lions Gulch and North
St. Vrain roadless areas. The Forest Service is unclear as to how they
plan on removing logged trees from such areas, which have no roads. The
pristine quality of the roadless areas would be diminished, and logs
would potentially be left on the ground, increasing fire risk.
--The proposed treatments could adversely affect soils, water quality,
wildlife, scenery etc., but under a 2003 law, the grossly mis-named Healthy
Forests Act, the Forest Service neither has to present an analysis of
these impacts to the public, nor allow comment before approving the project.
As a recreationist in the Estes Park area, your input and participation
in the development of this large project is critically important
**YOUR COMMENTS NEEDED BY FEBRUARY 4th, 2005!
The Forest Service needs to hear from you! Write to: District Ranger, Canyon
Lakes Ranger District, 2150 Centre Ave. Bldg E, Ft. Collins, CO 80526-8119.
You may fax comments to: 970 295-6796 or e-mail them
to: dgayton@fs.fed.us. If you submit comments via e-mail or fax,
make sure you include your full name and hard mail address. In any
case, it
is best to submit your comments no later than February 4. Please make some or all of the following points in your letter on the
Estes Valley Project:
--Ask the Forest Service to minimize or eliminate clear-cutting. Thinning
instead would reduce fuels without regenerating very dense stands of
new pine.
--Insist that all proposed fuel reduction treatments be within a quarter
mile or less of homes, the most cost-effective way to protect homes.
--Insist that treatments be implemented with minimal road construction.
Existing roads should be used as much as possible. Any new roads and
unneeded existing ones should be closed and obliterated (not just signed
as
closed) after work in the corresponding area is complete.
--Ask that treatments in roadless areas not be done. Logging and leaving
the material on the ground would increase the fire risk in these areas.
--Ask that slash, if it must be burned, be done only in small piles
to reduce the risk of an escaped fire and to reduce the amount and duration
of smoke.
--Insist that the Forest Service disclose what actions it will take
to minimize the introduction and spread of noxious weeds.
--Ask the Forest Service to prepare and allow public comment on an environmental
assessment which will disclose the impacts of the treatments on various
resources and actions to minimize these impacts.
Background.
Prior to the arrival of European settlers in the Estes Park
area 150 or so years ago, lightning fires and fires set by Native Americans
burned every 25-50 years in the lower elevation forests containing
primarily ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir trees. Such fires kept the
number of standing trees and dead wood on the ground at a moderate
level, reducing the threat of widespread hot fires. Since about 1900,
however, humans have systematically suppressed fires, allowing a
considerable increase in fuels and the associated threat of a damaging
fire in the
lower elevation forests that could threaten human residences and
lives. The Big Elk Fire in 2002 was an example of this kind of event. Fire suppression has had much less effect on higher elevation forests
such as spruce and lodgepole pine, as such forests naturally burned every
100-300 years or so.
Research clearly shows that the best protection for homes from fire
is to manage the homes themselves and the surrounding 40-meter area.
Common sense actions such as replacing wood roofs with non-flammable
material, keeping firewood piles and other flammable material away from
any structures, and removing or thinning vegetation near homes will provide
the best protection for homes. Logging a mile or more away from homes
is likely to provide little protection and wastes public money.
For further information, call Rocky Smith of Colorado Wild, 303 839-5900
or Udi Lazimy of American Lands Alliance, 303 473-9525.
2. IPG COMMENTS ON THE BRAINARD LAKE MANAGEMENT
PLAN
Rocky Mountain Chapter
INDIAN PEAKS GROUP (Boulder County)
P.O. Box 724
Boulder CO 80306-0724
______________________________
Kirk Cunningham, Conservation and
Water Quality Chair
977 7th St.
Boulder CO 80302
303-939-8519 / kmcunnin@juno.com
TO: Forest Service Boulder Ranger District staff
RE: IPG COMMENTS ON THE BRAINARD LAKE RECREATION
AREA DEVELOPMENT/MANAGEMENT PLAN (BLRADMP) EA
The Indian Peaks Group is generally in support of the purpose of the
BLRADMP
- to draw parking and motorized travel away from the Indian Peaks Wilderness
Boundary and east toward the Peak-to-Peak Highway. Our preference for
the final Alternative would be for some combination of the Preferred
Alternative and the Minimum Action, but there are some problems in all
the alternatives that we think should be addressed, as
follows:
a) Moving campsites and parking east to the area of the present fee
station will likely have one impact that was not considered in the EA
- on what the locals claim is an elk migration route that goes north-south
along or near the eastern border of the Recreation Area. Unless the Forest
Service can produce positive evidence that this is not an elk migration
corridor, camping, the proposed Visitor Center and other human activities
should be clustered as close as possible to the Brainard Lake Road, and
as far to the west in the proposed development area as possible. This
might also reduce the claimed impact on Ward's water supply wells.
b) The scale (and expense) of the project in the Preferred Alternative
is not, as far as we can tell, based on reliable traffic information,
actual use of the area in busy times, and on some concept of area carrying
capacity. Since fees are collected at the fee station most of the time,
and since each visitor car gets a timed and dated receipt, there should
have been useful visitor traffic data generated by the concessionaire.
c) The proposed eastern parking lot would accommodate 250 cars, and
the present Pawnee Campground is proposed to be used almost entirely
for parking, but our feeling is that this may be excessive, with perhaps
150 spaces in the eastern lot being more reasonable. Also the Pawnee
Campground has a stunning setting and is a good camping location, so
we would not like it to be converted mostly to parking. In fact, it seems
to us that this campground should be the main campground for the Brainard
Lake area, with the one by the Visitors' Center used for overflow. c)
The Red Rock Campground should be used for tent and truck camper camping
only, no large RVs with hookups. Putting spaces for large RVs with hookups
in the vicinity of the Visitor's Center is better. Also there should
be a crosswalk between the Red Rocks campground and red Rock Lake so
that foot traffic safety is improved.
d) The present Pawnee Picnic Area is underused for that purpose. Part
of it should be converted either to tent-camping or to an amphitheater
for nature programs.
e) The FS is proposing to study the effects of development on rare or
threatened species of plants and animals while the project is proceeding,
rather than before any disturbance or changes are made. The studies should
be done first.
f) The proposed Visitor's Center should have a capacity of 10-12 people
at any time to be useful. The proposed 5-6 people at one time size seems
too small to us.
g) The projected cost of the Preferred Alternative is large, and monies
for the Forest Service are generally scarce. Is there a prioritization
of project pieces so that what money is finally made available can be
used for the most important changes?
h) There needs to be more data on the possible impacts of the three
Alternatives to Ward's water supply. The information available in the
EA seems to be sketchy at best, given the understandable concern of Ward
residents.
i) What are the environmental benefits of paving campground areas, relative
to leaving them as dirt or gravel?
j) We support the retention of the Arikaree, Pawnee and Mitchell Picnic
Grounds.
There are strong points in the Draft EA that should be retained in the
final document. We support the FS proposals to:
* Ban target shooting throughout the Recreation Area.
* Close a number of social trails and add short trail linkages.
* Discourage camping outside established campgrounds.
* We agree with the FS proposal to remove one leg of the road going
around Brainard Lake. The FS is presently leaning toward removing the
northern part which crosses a bridge over the Brainard Lake outlet, but
removing the south leg is also an option. We can see some environmental
pluses and minuses to either proposal. For example, if the south leg
of the road were removed, the most visible auto traffic would also be
gone, and the wetlands on the south side of Brainard Lake would be enhanced
as well. However, this would create a potential bottleneck at the one-lane
bridge.
* The proposed shuttle service from the Visitor's Center to the Wilderness
trailheads and points in between is a necessary idea, but the shuttle
service should include a late shuttle to accommodate people who exit
the trail late.
Thank you for your consideration of these opinions.
Sincerely,
Kirk Cunningham
Back to Top of
Page
|
Rocky
Mountain Chapter 
You
are here
