Indian Peaks Group Conservation Committee

Minutes

February 1 2006

1. INTRODUCTIONS.

Those present were: Deirdre Butler, Kirk Cunningham, Bev Baker, Billie Gutgsell, and Mary Skumanich. Mary has a general interest, but in past years has been active with recycling issues in Boulder County.

2. REVIEW OF COMMITTEE CHAIRS - Kirk Cunningham

Assuming that present issue leaders are intending to stay with their positions, the question is whether any new leaders or activists want to step forward. Here are some issue areas that are not now explicitly covered by anyone, or covered by too few people:

* Toxics, including pesticides. Industrial toxic emissions are not a huge problem in Boulder County, with the exception of those from the Cemex's plant near Lyons. Pesticides are an issue on open space, road sides, and on private land, chiefly due to the County's mosquito control program, and the City and County's weed control programs. I have been filling in for my wife, Cosima Krueger, on pesticides and have been working with an informal group through the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center. However, it is not one of my principle concerns, so I am constantly on the lookout for someone with this as their personal issue. Cemex is covered fairly well by our allied organizations (St. Vrain Watchdogs, mostly) in North Boulder County and by our lawyer, John Barth.

* Open Space management. Justin Reilly is our issue person here, but because of some time limitations, could use some assistance. Open Space management issues are generally handled well by the City and County, but the bureaucracy is under pressure to allow more recreational use than might be prudent for habitat protection. We need an issue person who is comfortable with persistence and details to help Justin.

* National Forests, Wilderness and Public Lands generally. Wilderness is now covered by Bill Ikler and National Forests by Todd Sanford, but the issues involved are really bigger and more complex than one volunteer can comfortably handle, so we need some helpers. Upcoming deliberations about lands to be protected in lieu of the Roadless Rule will be important to follow, comment on, and inform our membership about.

* Energy Committee. Our IPG Energy Committee is very active and vital, but needs a formal chair and public contact person.

These are the neediest areas, in my estimation, but our other active committees, Wildlife, and Sprawl and Transportation have good leadership but need all the assistance they can get.

2. WILDLIFE - Billie Gutgsell and Deirdre Butler.

A) Prairie Dogs on Broomfield open space - feedback from a recent
Broomfield Open Space and Trails Advisory Committee meeting. Deirdre sent in comments for the Rocky Mountain Chapter. At the hearing, representatives from Sinapu (Wendy Keefover-Ring) and Prairie Preservation Alliance (Judy Enderle) asked for a moratorium on prairie dog extermination because Broomfield staff had cited no credible reasons for killing the animals, i.e. no complaints about them had been received from the public and the staff could only offer the excuse that "people might trip over their burrows." In addition, the contractor hired to do the poisoning did not even post the areas afterward. The Broomfield Open Space Advisory Committee was apparently more receptive to public comment than were the staff, so we have some hope that the threat to prairie dogs will subside.

B) Wildlife Committee - issues for 2006: call for input from interested members
* Raptor electrocution on power lines issue and an application for a Sierra Club National Conservation Iinitiatives Committee grant (see background material below). Former Boulder resident Bill Beaudine, now living in Colorado Springs and a member of the Chapter Wildlife Committee, has initiated the raptor electrocution issue because he believes that the toll on larger birds is substantial and the technical fixes are cheap and effective. Deirdre would like to make a campaign around the issue, with some assistance, hopefully, from a small grant from the NCIC that she intends to apply for. Mary Skumanich mentioned a similar problem caused by some wind turbine "farms". In response, Kirk suggested that those wanting an alternative to large wind farms investigate present opportunities to purchase solar thermal and electric power for their homes for a steep discount, and Billie mentioned that there had been a recent conference in Fort Collins sponsored by the Colorado Division of Wildlife that addressed the wind farm/wildlife conflicts. Billie will attempt to see if abstracts of talks from that conference are available.

* Outreach to hunters/ anglers - the Club needs to identify a member who would like to take the lead on this initiative. The Chapter, including some IPG activists, participated in an information booth at the Denver Sportsmens' Expo in late January. This was generally a good experience, with several conference attendees picking up literature and membership forms and making positive comments. The Chapter may want to repeat its participation at this conference next year, and also at a similar exposition for anglers in June. Deirdre is still looking for a Chapter hunters/anglers liaison.

* Colorado Senate Bill 75 (Deanna Hanna, sponsor) is scheduled for a Senate Agriculture Committee hearing on Feb. 16 at 1:30 pm. While this bill started out with a dangerously punitive attitude toward landowners who deliberately or inadvertently feed certain wildlife species, it has been modified to be more reasonable. The Chapter is likely to support it in its present form.

* Environmental Round Table (ERT) meetings - the next meeting is scheduled for Feb. 6, 6 pm at the CDOW headquarters, north Broadway in Denver. Deirdre will bring up the issue of raptor electrocutions. Another possible issue with the ERT is that the CDOW staff that have been assigned to the ERT have been cut back, which might indicate a trend toward minimizing the ERT's influence in CDOW decision-making.

* Status of interest list collected during the wolf reintroduction campaign. Billie said that there were approximately 300 names on this list collected from new member interest questionnaires and web site submittals. However, it is not known where this list is, so that we can perhaps mine it for volunteers. Billie has inquired of Adriana Raudzens in the Boulder office of the Club, and Adriana is looking around for it.
* Large animal activity recently. Billie reported that bears have not been active this winter in Boulder County, despite the relatively mild weather, and the same with mountain lions, although there are recent, unconfirmed citizen reports of two mountain lions being spotted on Louisville's open space.

* City of Boulder Urban Wildlife Management Plan. The first draft of the first sections of the Wildlife Plan (mostly having to do with the basic philosophy behind the plan) are now available on the City's web site. http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/planning/wildlife_plan/index.htm.

3. ANNOUNCEMENT

* Boulder County Parks and Open Space Advisory Committee will be holding a hearing Thursday, February 23rd, starting at 6:00 pm, on the whether dogs should be allowed on Heil and Hall Ranch Open Spaces, where they are currently not allowed because of conflicts with wildlife. Sierra Club members are encouraged to attend to advocate for the present closures.

ADDITIONAL INFO

1. EXISTING RULES ABOUT WILDLIFE FEEDING, IN LIGHT OF
SB 75 - Clare Soholub
As a Division of Wildlife officer that works in the Boulder area, hopefully I can give some clarification on existing State statues and Wildlife Commission Regulations:

1. Statute 33-6-131 deals with INTENT to lure bears by placing food or edible waste in the open. The key here is intent, not negligence. As with the proposed bill, we will give a warning first, then proceed with citations of $100 for the first offense, $500 for the second, and $1000 for any subsequent offense.

2. Wildlife Commission Regulation #021 deals with feeding or attracting
wildlife:

A. It is illegal to place, deposit, distribute or scatter grain, hay, or other foods so as to INTENTIONALLY constitute a lure, attraction or enticement for big game not lawfully held in captivity.

This is a big problem around Boulder, with people feeding deer. Not everyone agrees on the detrimental effects of feeding deer, but from the Division's perspective, it can contribute to increased habituation (we've had reports of aggressive deer in backyards, especially with bucks during the rut), disease spread by unnaturally concentrating populations (Chronic Wasting Disease has been found in Boulder deer), and increased vehicle collisions. I have personally seen deer that have been hand fed, and have approached me within a few feet for a handout when I walked up the driveway. I have also seen photos of a buck being fed Doritos out of a bag while someone was petting it. More often, people put out buckets of grain or corn for the deer.

B. In Boulder County (and several other) it is illegal to place or deposit minerals or salt in areas to constitute a lure for big game. This does not restrict the use of salt or mineral blocks in normal agricultural practices.

C. It is illegal to place, deposit, distribute or scatter any food or other substance so as to INTENTIONALLY constitute a lure, attraction or enticement for coyotes or fox in an area where the discharge of firearms is precluded by law (eg. City of Boulder). This is also quite a problem.

Again, habituation and disease spread are our main concerns. Raccoons and skunks are not yet included in this regulation.

D. No person shall fail to take REMEDIAL ACTION to avoid conflict with black bears, coyotes or fox, which may include the securing or removal of outdoor trash, cooking grills, pet food, birdfeeders or any other similar attractant, AFTER being notified by the Division of Wildlife that these animals are in the area. Further, after an initial contact or conflict with a black bear, coyotes, or fox, no person shall continue to provide, or otherwise fail to secure or remove, any likely food sources or attractants.

Bottom line: With regulation #021 parts A, B and C, no prior warning tickets need to be issued before we can write a citation (violations of regulations are a $68 fine). BUT, there needs to be INTENT to feed these species.

This would not apply to someone who is composting vegetables or is messy with their trash and finds that they have inadvertently/negligently attracted a fox or a bear. In this case, part D would apply. Once the homeowner is made aware that they are attracting these species, they must take remedial action to prevent further attraction or conflict (eg. Bears like melon rinds, so don't keep putting these in the compost, or don't leave trash out the night before pickup when bears are in the area).
Many people are not aware that their activities will attract these wildlife species, so we try to educate and give them a change to remedy the situation first. Usually people are happy to comply.

This new bill that is proposed would also prohibit feeding raccoons and skunks, which is a needed addition to State law. Again, the stipulation is KNOWINGLY and INTENTIONALLY feeding wildlife, not inadvertently.

I know the City of Boulder also has restrictions about feeding wildlife other than songbirds, but I don't know the measure of intent that is described in their laws. Hope this helps a bit,

Claire Solohub
District Wildlife Manager - Boulder North
Colorado Division of Wildlife

2. NATIONAL PARK MANAGEMENT ALERT

Comment letters are needed, as outlined below, regarding the Bush administration's re-writing of the National Park Service's management policies. The draft creates confusion over that fact that conservation is, and should remain, the single most important purpose of NPS management decisions. These changes weaken the NPS's ability to protect air quality and soundscapes, control inappropriate motorized use in national parks, and appropriately preserve historic and cultural sites. America's national parks are great natural treasures and must be protected.

Please pick out two or three of the items from the list below to focus your comments on. Any personal experience you have which you can relate to the proposed policy would be good to mention as well.

At Issue: The National Park Service (NPS) is proposing a rewrite of the NPS Management Policies that would fundamentally shift in the policies governing the management of all our national parks. The philosophy of management for America's parks would change from one of conservation to that of commercialization.

Action Needed: Public comments are due by February 18, 2006. Send your comments via the web page at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/waso or by email to waso_policy@nps.gov, or by mail to Bernard Fagan, NPS, Office of Policy, Room 7252, Main Interior Building, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240.

Sierra Club Message: I strongly oppose the far-reaching changes being proposed in the NPS Management. Policies proposal rewrite, I urge you to abandon the draft and retain the current management polices. The 2005 draft NPS Management Policies are fundamentally flawed and cannot be fixed.

The new draft fails to meet the current level of protection afforded our national parks; eliminates numerous provisions in the 2001 document, including reference to the NPS's 1916 Organic Act mission to conserve the parks for future generations; and falls short in providing clarity of guidance to national park managers.

Instead the draft creates confusion over that fact that conservation is, and should remain, the single most important purpose of NPS management decisions. These changes weaken the NPS's ability to protect air quality and soundscapes, control inappropriate motorized use in national parks, and appropriately preserve historic and cultural sites. America's national parks are great natural treasures and must be protected.

Background: The NPS offers no compelling reasons for a wholesale revision of the current management polices, which were just updated in 2001. Sierra Club believes the rewrite is unnecessary and misguided given how reports repeatedly find that more than 90 percent of the public rates its experiences in the national parks as good to excellent, and that recent polling indicate broad opposition to commercialization, off-road vehicles, and other threats to their memorable park experiences.

The October 18, 2005, draft advances a fundamental shift in the policies governing the management of all our nation's national parks. Abandoning the NPS's historical commitment to preserving our national parks, the draft adopts a pro-development, pro-mechanized, approach as a guiding principle.

Highlighted below are just a few of Sierra Club's concerns with the proposed rewrite.

Resource Principles:

* Eliminates references to the NPS's historic commitment to conservation. Stricken from Chapter 1 is the language identifying the NPS's Organic Act mandate to conserve park resources and values as its primary mission.
* Inserts ambiguous language throughout the document that could lead to the conclusion that NPS can abandon its preservation mandate and allow resource damaging uses.

Air Quality:

* Weakens the standard that the NPS must apply to managing park air resources by deleting from Section 4 the sentence that reads: "Natural resources, processes, systems, and values found in the parks include: . physical resources such as . clear skies. . . " and ". . . highly valued associated characteristics such as scenic views."
* Demotes clear skies to an associated characteristic, while under the existing policies, pollution-free air ("clear skies") is an essential part of national parks, equal to soil, water, and other physical resources. Although not defined or used elsewhere in the draft, the term "associated characteristic" indicates that clear skies would not qualify for the same degree of protection as would other physical resources of the parks.

Soundscape Management

* Deletes from Section 4.9 the sentence: "The NPS will preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the natural soundscapes of parks." The proposed rewrite states that the NPS only "will restore degraded soundscapes wherever practicable and will protect natural soundscapes from degradation due to unacceptable noise" The goal of "preservation" is gone.
* Substitutes the words "wherever possible," with "wherever practicable" which would have a significant impact on future soundscape conservation efforts. The word "practicable" suggests a much lower standard of protection for our parks.

Assessment of Wilderness Suitability or Non-suitability:

* Deletes from Section 6.2.1 the statement that all lands administered by the NPS, including new units or additions to existing units since 1964, will be evaluated for their suitability for inclusion within the national wilderness preservation system.
* Removes the mandate to conduct these reviews in a timely manner, many of which are decades overdue. Hundreds of thousands of acres currently under the jurisdiction of the NPS and potentially having wilderness character are affected by the proposed revisions and risk not being reviewed and protected.

Visitor Use:

* Deletes from Section 8.2 a sentence that reads: "Unless mandated by statute, the Service will not allow visitors to conduct activities that: unreasonably interfere with .the atmosphere of peace and tranquility, or the natural soundscape maintained in wilderness and natural, historic, or commemorative locations within the park."

Use of Motorized Equipment:

* Deletes from Section 8.2.3 the statement "Where such use is necessary and appropriate, the least impacting equipment, vehicles, and transportation systems should be used." Under this change the NPS can ignore scientific conclusions and use higher- impact equipment and vehicles, allowing for more snowmobiling and associated noise and air pollution, and wildlife disturbance in our national parks.
* Deletes three lines from Section 8.2.3.1 the result of which would diminish clarity for park managers regarding adverse and unacceptable impacts, and therefore overall management, of off-road vehicles.
1. Strikes the statement that "Off- road motor vehicle use in national park units is governed by Executive Order 11644 (as amended by Executive Order 11989)...",
2. Removes specific reference to the types of off-road vehicle impacts, including soil, vegetation, wildlife, cultural and visitor impacts, that are unacceptable, and eliminates the sentence, "Routes and areas may be designated only in locations in which there will be no adverse impacts on the area's natural, cultural, scenic and esthetic values, and in consideration of other visitor uses."
3. Eliminates past guidance to park mangers by striking the line "Consistent with the executive orders and the Organic Act, park managers must immediately close a designated off-road vehicle route whenever the use is causing, or will cause, unacceptable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, or cultural or historic resources."

Domestic and Feral Livestock:

* Shifts existing language that puts the highest priority on protection of park resources to proposed language that allows permitted grazing with park protection no longer a main concern.
* Deletes from Section 8.6.8.1 the line "No livestock use or activity, regardless of how authorized, will be allowed that would cause unacceptable impacts to a park's resources, values, or purposes. In particular, livestock use that depletes or degrades non-renewable resources, or whose effects cannot be satisfactorily mitigated, will not be allowed."

Back to Top of Page

   get Involved

   get Connected

   get Informed

   get Outside