Indian Peaks Group Conservation Committee
Draft Minutes
February 2, 2005
Those present were:
Bev Baker, Judy Enderle, Todd
Sanford, Kirk Cunningham, Justin Reilly, and Jim Morris
2. WELD COUNTY ROAD PROJECT IN ST. VRAIN STATE PARK.
See the letter below
we sent to the State Parks Dept. There will be some public input opportunities
coming up on this in the next few months.
Kirk explained some of the background to this issue and what adverse
effects to the Park might occur if the project is completed. At this
writing, a response has not yet been received to this letter, but
one is expected.
3. NATIONAL FOREST ISSUES - "HEALTHY FORESTS ACT"
PROJECT IN THE ESTES PARK AREA.
The alert below (deadline
Feb. 7th) explains some of the problems we see with the project. Todd
attended the public meeting on this project the next day in Pinewood
Springs and the comments below from another participant are ones he
agrees with.
4. WILDLIFE ISSUES
A. Update from Billie Gutgsell and her local CDOW
contact Claire Soholub on the Colorado Wolf Reintroduction program:
WOW, the wolf situation
has turned around. I just talked with Rob Edward, who said that [the
recent Federal court decision in favor of Endangered status for wolves]
does not make the Wolf Working Group's plan moot, since all recommendations
are still valid when the state takes over. Compensation [for livestock
kills by wolves] recommendations made by the Group are still valid
regardless of federal status. It is time to push for recovery. He
reported that the public comment meetings in Craig and Grand Junction
have been
tame, primarily because of the meeting format: small groups around
tables writing their recommendations. So, no shouting yet.
Also "Living with Wolves" panel at the Denver Museum of History
and Science, Phipps Imax Theatre on Feb. 16th at 7:00pm. $12 for Museum
members, $15 for nonmembers. Tina Arapkiles, the Sierra Club wolf recovery
campaign manager, will be on the panel, along with Ed Bangs, US Fish
and Wildlife Wolf Recovery Manager; Gary Skiba, CoDOW biologist; Jean
Stetson, livestock producer and member of the CO Wolf Working Group;
and Meredith Taylor, outfitter.See Museum website for further details.
B. Update on the Bear Aware Program:
Bear [problems] went relatively
well this year, compared to last. That big brown sow made it to hibernation,
so that is good news. I wonder
where she'll turn up this year....City of Boulder OSMP is thinking
about reaching 5th Grade students in Boulder about bears, so they'll
hopefully tell their parents about attractants. John and I may contact
a select few of our volunteers with lots of experience to help with
this program, and you would certainly be on the list. I think our
Bear Aware training is going to be in late April in Estes Park.[Note:
during
the season when bear/human interactions are important, Billie runs
the Bear Aware education program, and is always looking for volunteer
help.]
C. Update on Mountain Lion issues:
There have been a couple lion/dog encounters in 4-Mile [Canyon] again,
but those involved dogs off leash/ dogs out at night. The dogs were
not hurt, but the people were understandably concerned. I am visiting
the area tomorrow, and have already given them lots of recommendations
to reduce their risk. I hope we do not have a repeat of last year
with the lion situation. Hopefully we can nip any problems in the bud
with
lots of education and hazing efforts.
Other than that, raccoons are coming up with distemper, and some deer
are injured around Boulder(but less than last year).
D. Wildlife And Open Space - Related Announcement
Sierra Club-Indian
Peaks Group and University of Colorado Museum of Natural History sponsor
Dr. Richard Knight speaking on "Recreational Impacts
on Biodiversity along Colorado's Front Range"
WHEN: Monday February 28, 7:30 p.m.
WHERE: Old Main Chapel, University of Colorado
COST: Free and Open to the Public
Dr. Richard Knight, Professor of Wildlife Conservation at Colorado State
University and co-editor of the Island Press book Wildlife and Recreationists,
will discuss the impacts of recreation on biodiversity along Colorado's
Front Range. Recreational impacts on wildlife and plants has become an
increasingly important issue in the West as growing cities and towns
make decisions about preserving and managing open space lands. Dr. Knight
will draw on the research he has done over the last 20 years, present
what he and other scientists have learned from studies along the Front
Range Corridor & throughout the West, and discuss their policy implications.
Further information: Contact Steve Welter 303 499-7261, steve.welter@rmc.sierraclub.org
E. News on The Boulder Wildlife Ordinance From Wildlife Chair Deirdre
Butler.
Email to Deirdre from Andy Schultheiss, Boulder City Council member:
..As you probably know, last night (1/18) the Council adopted a version
of the wildlife ordinance that provides for a public comment period of
two months, and then, at the discretion of the city manager, a 12 month "action" period
during which p-dogs on private land could be relocated (if a suitable
location is found). The ordinance would allow the manager to approve
a lethal control permit upon finding that no suitable feasible relocation
alternative exists.
It has been a very difficult, long process to arrive at this point.
Although I do not believe this ordinance is perfect, it is clearly the
best we can come up with at this point. We also authorized the city to
sue the state to clear up the issue of which entity -- city or state
-- has authority to regulate lethal control. Hopefully, after that case
is resolved we will have better options available to us... Subsequently,
Deirdre posed the following clarifying questions:
* Just to confirm, is the waiting period before p-dogs can be poisoned
12 months or 14 months, i.e. 2 month public comment period and then 12
months for relocation? "The waiting period is 2 months then 12,
so 14 total."
* What is the estimated cost of the city suing the state? Presumably
these monies come from public funds. "The cost to sue the state
is hard to pin down, since it would come under the normal work load of
several of our attorneys. It might be more easily thought of in terms
of hours needed. I believe the City Attorney gave an estimate at the
Council meeting of 1/18, but I can't remember. Perhaps you could review
the tape on the Channel 8 website?"
F. DISCUSSION OF PRAIRIE DOG MANAGEMENT ISSUES IN
BOULDER - Judy Enderle
There has been much furor in the press recently
on the proposed fence on some open space properties to keep prairie
dogs from wandering onto
adjacent private property. Affected private property owners seem content
to kill the animals rather than tolerating a fence that is considered
ugly. Judy said that such fences are effective in confining the prairie
dogs and are preferable in her view to killing them. In addition, killing
prairie dog colonies in isolated urban colonies neglects the value
of these colonies, i.e. in providing food for some migrating birds and
in
providing seed populations in the event of a general die-off of animals
due to plague. Also, the current killing method of choice is judged
to be slow-acting and inhumane and can harm other species living with
the
prairie dogs.
APPENDIX
1. Letter from the Indian Peaks Group and Rocky Mountain Chapter on
Weld County's plan to build a four-lane highway through the new St. Vrain
State Park:
ROCKY MOUNTAIN CHAPTER
1536 Wynkoop St., Suite 4B
Denver CO 80202
______________________________
Kirk Cunningham, Conservation and
Water Quality Chair
977 7th St.
Boulder CO 80302
303-939-8519 / kmcunnin@juno.com
David Giger, manager,
High Plains Region, Colorado State Parks
1313 Sherman St., Room 618
Denver CO 80203
January 29, 2005
By fax: 303-866-3206
Re: Relationship of State Parks and Weld County's I-25 Parallel 4- Lane
Arterial Project
Dear Mr. Giger;
In August of 2003, you wrote a letter to the Weld County Commissioners
stating, in part:
"Colorado State Parks strongly believes that BOC acceptance of
a preferred alternative showing a four-lane, major arterial roadway carrying
large volumes of traffic through the St. Vrain River corridor adjacent
to and through St. Vrain State Park will irreversibly harm the natural
resources of the corridor and impact the quality of life for future generations
of Coloradoans."
You went on to state that there appeared to be other alternative routes
that could serve the transportation purpose, and that
"Colorado State Parks remains strongly opposed to Weld County Road
7 being designated as a 'preferred alignment' in your transportation
study."
Last Friday, I and Sierra Club colleague Steve Welter met with Wayne
Howard of the Weld County Public Works Dept. and Janet Goold-Gerak, Lisa
Streisfeld, and Wes Goff of the consulting firm PBS&J, which was
hired by Weld County to do environmental studies for the Parallel Arterial
Project. Some statements were made to us at that meeting that I wanted
to confirm with you as reflecting State Park's understanding of the present
situation:
1. It was stated by Mr. Howard that State Parks had dropped its 2003
objections to the roadway through the Park and was now working with the
County to find the best of three alternatives for the roadway corridor.
2. The Adam property on the west side of WCR 7 alignment, which apparently
State parks had been trying to purchase to add to the Park, was no longer
available from the owner and, in fact, was now intended by the owner
for sale for subdivision and development.
3. Of the three road corridor options that the County was still considering,
the east option (the one most affecting the State park) appeared on the
basis of remarks made by the consultants and by Mr. Howard to be the
defacto preferred alternative. We suggested that if the road corridor
were to be built at all, the west option through the Adam property would
be the best because its impact on State Park land appeared to be least.
4. Mr. Howard mentioned that State Parks was expecting such a large
visitation at the Park (I believe the projected figure of 300,000 visits
per year was mentioned), that it welcomed the roadway as allowing access
for that quantity of visitors.
5. The roadway through the Park was justified, at least proximately,
because it offered access to SH 119 for a single planned subdivision
north of the Park, and for two others north of it and just south of SH
66, which for some reason that was not obvious at the meeting, could
not get adequate access onto SH 66 through the present intersection of
WCR 7 and SH 66.
6. The roadway across the Park and the river would be built to a width
and standard that would eventually be able to accommodate four traffic
lanes.
7. Except for its crossing point(s) at the river, the roadway would
not be elevated so as to permit unhindered pedestrian access from the
portion of St. Vrain State Park east of WCR 7 to that west of it.
In addition to the above points, we would like to ask whether you know
of other instances in Colorado where a substantial highway was driven
through an existing State Park.
Thanks for any response to the above concerns, observations, and questions.
Weld County is conducting some public input exercises in the next month
or so and we want to make sure of our facts.
Sincerely,
2. Alert on the National Forest fuel management project in the Estes
Park
area:
Issue:
The Forest Service is proposing to log in roadless areas near Estes Park.
Talking Points:
* Ask that treatments in roadless areas not be done.Two roadless areas,
Lion Gulch, and North St. Vrain, will be entered. The areas of the
project within roadless areas add up to 694 acres of thinning. Furthermore,
if
the USFS does not use mechanical equipment in the roadless areas to
extract the wood, the cut trees would be left on the ground, increasing
the fire
danger.
* Ask the Forest Service to minimize or eliminate clearcutting. Thinning
instead would reduce fuels without regenerating very dense stands of
new pine, which would eventually be able to carry fire into the crowns
of the remaining taller trees. Clearcutting would occur in lodgepole
pine stands, including many that are not near residences. The scoping
notice says that 477 acres would be patch cut (supposedly small clearcuts)
* Insist that all proposed fuel reduction treatments be within a quarter
mile or less of homes in order to be most effective in protecting homes.
U.S. Forest Service research shows that the most effective and efficient
ways to protect homes and structures from the risk of ignition from wildfire
is to conduct fuels reduction treatments in the area directly surrounding
the structures. Patch-cutting miles away from homes is an inappropriate
and ineffective method to achieve home protection.
* 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 after work in
the corresponding area is complete.
* Ask the Forest Service to allow adequate public comment on the project.
The project may be prepared under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act,
meaning that the public will have no opportunity to comment after the
possible effects of the project are analyzed and disclosed under the
National Environmental Policy Act.
COMMENTS ON THE FOREST SERVICE PINEWOOD SPRINGS
MEETING ON THE ESTES VALLEY FUELS REDUCTION
PROJECT, FROM Dianne Andrews
Last night (2/3/05) I attended the public meeting in Pinewood Springs
concerning the Estes Valley Fuels Reduction Project on the Canyon Lakes
Ranger District of the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest.
[From the Febryuary 7th deadline]..Staff will take about six weeks to
complete their analysis and then publish an Environmental Assessment.
There will be a 30-day comment period for the EA, but you can only make
objections to the EA on points you raised during the scoping period.
Contracts will be prepared during the summer and work would begin in
the fall, at the earliest. Send comments to: District Ranger, Canyon
Lakes Ranger District, 2150 Centre Ave., Bldg. E, Fort Collins, CO 80526-8119
or fax to (970) 295-6796 or e-mail to dgayton@fs.fed.us. For additional
information or questions, call Dyce Gayton, Natural Resources Coordinator,
at 970-295-6761.
Last night Dyce Gatyon and other staff members were on hand to answer
questions about the project. Some of the main points covered included:
*They do not plan to treat 100% of each unit, esp. some of the larger
units. *There will be no road building in the roadless areas (Lions Gulch
and North St. Vrain); these areas will be entered on foot and tools will
be carried in by hand. *Clearcutting of lodgepole pine will be done in
small patches (4 to 10
acres) and only 50% or less of the 400 acres will be treated. This is
dog-hair lodgepole that can't be thinned, but they want to open up the
stands and try to slow fires through these areas. *Size of trees to be
cut will be specified in the EA and will generally be less than 6" diameter
at breast height. They stressed that this is not a timber sale, but a
fuels reduction project. *They will retain snags and some logs for wildlife
benefits. They will protect any old growth trees. *They are no plans
to construct any permanent new roads; they may construct some temporary
roads but they will be revegetated after treatments are completed. They
may sow some sterile grass seed in these areas to reduce spread of nonnatives.
*They will monitor natural revegetation of areas under burn piles. They
do not plan to reseed in areas where they burn broadcast slash. *They
want to reduce fire hazard around residential areas, but they are also
looking at landscape scale fuel reduction to reduce the risk of catastrophic
fire. *Work on all treatments is expected to take five years or longer.
*People with red cards can volunteer to be on hand during prescribed
fires; they encourage public involvement.
Overall, I was reassured that this is a real fuels reduction project
and not one masquerading as a timber sale. But we still need to communicate
our concerns and keep watch over the course of the project.
Dyce Gayton is going to set up some field trips soon (weather permitting),
so if you're interested in walking through some of the proposed treatment
areas, contact Dyce and get your name on the list.
Dianne Andrews
Lyons, CO
dandrews@boulder.net
303-823-6779
3. MESSAGE TO CITY COUNCIL ABOUT THE OPEN SPACE
VISITOR PLAN (Kirk Cunningham):
I attended the Open Space Board of Trustees meeting and made this statement
(somewhat paraphrased) on behalf of the IPG: "1. Out of approximately
3000 Sierra Club members in the city of Boulder, few or none, and certainly
none of our active members, have any expertise in the particular task
of managing city open space. 2. There is no reason to believe that city
open space staff are incompetent, venal or have a heavy political agenda
in one direction or another in managing open space. 3. It is obvious
that any serious person or group with anything remotely like a considered
opinion on open space visitor management had more than ample opportunity
to express that opinion to city staff during the drawn-out public process,
and that the city staff at least considered those opinions. 4. Although
the Board of Trustees are consideraby more knowledgeable about open space
issues and management than the average citizen, they are also all laypersons
with respect to the professionals who manage open space, and so generally
should defer to the staff's suggestions.
Given the above, and acknowledging that individuals within the Club
have some misgivings about some aspects of the present version of the
Visitior Management Plan, it seems logical to accept the staff's version
of the Plan, including their suggested changes to the HCAs that they
think might be better managed as Natural Areas, as a reasonable approximation
to a workable plan consistent with the Charter and good management practices
and advocate that plan to the Council."
After listening to the heated blathering that passes for public input
at OSBOT meetings, I thought that this was a fairly rational position.
Back to Top of
Page
|
Rocky
Mountain Chapter 
You
are here
