|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Sierra
Club  Rocky
Mountain Chapter
IPG
Home ConservationMeeting
Minutes You
are here |
 |
 |
Indian Peaks Group Conservation CommitteeMinutesSeptember 7th 20051. INTRODUCTIONS. Those present were Kirk Cunningham, Bev Baker and Todd Sanford2. NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENTTodd Sanford and Kirk Cunningham A) Front Range Fuels Partnership - Kirk has a packet of information on various aspects of forest fire management. The stakeholders on the fire management issue (including environmental groups) are coming to consensus on most topics, but the problematic areas now have more to do with on-the-ground results, rather than plans. B) Brainard Lake Recreation Area environmental assessment. What should
the IPG response be? I did not have the time to go over the Affected Environment and Environmental
Consequences section well enough to comment. Todd thinks the fee area should be moved eastward so that proposed new campgrounds and parking lot east of the present toll station would be covered. Otherwise, would camping be free? He believes we should press for the retention of fees collected at Brainard for use in the area for management. Todd was also disappointed by the demise of the shuttle idea, but said that it received a lot of negative comments from the public. Todd will be preparing comments for the IPG before the deadline and will consider any comments that the Southern Rockies Conservation Alliance submits. C) RS 2477 claims in Boulder County. Todd was told by a county official that there are a lot of such claims here, but they appear to be mostly claims against private landowners rather than against the Forest Service. D) Colorado Roadless Rule process. There is little reliable news so far about this process, i.e. what roadless lands may be favorably considered for protection and who will do the choosing. 3. WILDLIFE ISSUES.The following report was sent in by Billie Gutgsell: A) Bear Alert Flyer Distribution. CU Wildlife Initiative, Sierra Club, and Sinapu seek volunteers to help distribute bear aware flyers in south Boulder this Saturday. Come prepared with adequate walking footwear, water, snacks, and protection from the weather. (A copy of the revised flyer will be available at the meeting.) B) National Sierra Club Grizzly/Endangered Species Educational Materials. I am getting the Grizzly/Endangered Species DVD and other grizzly literature.
Also I like the idea of the Trash Parties to monitor trash. There are
a lot of violations around here, I've taken photos of garbage areas around
town. A Dumpster Patrol would be fun. I was in Lyons over the week-end
the town restaurants are very bad about containing trash. Below is a
message from national about the Grizzly/Endangered Species Act program. Become a Grizzly Guardian today! As a member of Grizzly Guardians, you will receive a free electronic update every other month with what's going on in the world of bears, interesting factoids and things you can do to help protect this majestic creature. To join today, sign up at http://www.sierraclub.org/grizzly/guardians/. If at anytime you'd like to send us feedback, get more information or unsubscribe, simply send an email to us at grizzly.bear@sierraclub.org. Also, for more information on grizzlies visit our webpage at www.sierraclub.org/grizzly. C. BOULDER URBAN WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLAN - NOTES FROM THE PUBLIC MEETING OF AUG. 24The meeting’s primary goal was to develop a community-supported philosophy concerning wildlife in the Urban Service Area. Issues to be considered in the develpment of the Plan: * Wildlife conflicts * Human health and safety * Nuisance issues * Attracting wildlife * Thresholds for action Also: What "tools" should be considered? What are acceptable costs? How should priorities be established? and What can Boulder sustain as far as wildlife? After breaking into groups: * What are postive/negative values of wildlife in the urban service area? * How do we balance other community values with the value of having urban wildlife? There is no overall inventory of wildlife at this point, but prairie dog populations will be the first to be censussed. In my group, led by Brian Pritchard, opinions were: Positive values of wildlife: * Appreciation of environment * Balance of ecosystem * Reassuring to know we share with animals * Respect of life for its own sake * Economic value/tourism Negative values of wildlife: * Habitats are highly fragmented and not whole ecosystems * Cost of maintaining ecosystems * Fear of wildlife “ Nature Deficient Disorder” was touched on, so education is primary. When the groups reconvened, the major issues/concerns were: * Lethal control unacceptable * Strive for co-existence through education * Expense/Budget * Wildlife-proof trash The staff will put ideas together and get back to the public. [Note: the County is also in its third year of its Grassland Management Plan: Prairie Dog Element, which may be found at www.co.boulder.co.us/openspace/management_plans/mgmtplans_pdfs/pdog_mgmtplan2002.pdf. County lands are zoned by habitat type and most lands suitable for prairie dogs are occupied by them, barring any recent changes due to silvatic plague.] 4. PESTICIDESA) Letter to Boulder City Council on IPM Task Force - Kirk Cunningham TO: Boulder City Council Dear Council members; ....As some of you may recall, the above-mentioned stakeholders’ process included city staff, academic scientists from CU and CSU, environmentalists (including the Sierra Club), green industry representatives and others, and established consensus around an IPM program in which management decisions, especially involving the use of toxic chemical pesticides, are more transparent to the interested public, and based on better science generally, than what had been the case before. A final report to Council is due sometime in the near future. The Sierra Club supports the new IPM program. However, it is our opinion that the stakeholder group’s work is not quite done. First, the IPM program needs to be monitored and evaluated for its continued effectiveness for a few years, and knowledgeable stakeholders are the best people to do that. Second, there needs to be a formal evaluation of the human toxicity of the remaining chemical pesticides that are allowed to be used. Finally, “best management practices” that are part of any IPM program need to be defined in some cases and refined in others. These evaluations would presumably require fewer meetings and less staff time than required to set up the IPM program, but both the new IPM program and any modifications suggested by stakeholders will have extra costs that require understanding and support from Council in difficult financial times. The Sierra Club asks you now for that support. Thank you for your consideration of this request. B) Weed control issues on the Mt. Sanitas Trail - Bev Baker 5. OPEN SPACEA) South Boulder Open Space trail issues. The following email from Boulder County Audubon outlines a viewpoint about the plan for new trails that the IPG might want to consider: To Open Space Staff; Boulder County Audubon Society thanks you for sifting (repeatedly) through
public comments on trail evaluation criteria and now on the current Trail
Management Area this summer. Concerning these two focus points, we would
like to present the perspective of wildlife habitat conservation from
our chapter of 1200 members. It is with this in mind that we oppose the wish list of trails advocates
for trails in the Coal Creek area, currently undergoing a true (and fully
documented) renaissance of both flora and fauna since grazing has been
reduced there. Our major HCAs, as stated in the Visitor Plan, need and
must have special protection. 6. CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONSIf you would like to see how City Council candidates responded to the IPG questionnaire, please contact Kirk. Kirk Cunningham
|
|
||
| | |
