Indian Peaks Group Conservation Committee

Minutes

November 2th 2005

1. INTRODUCTIONS. Those present were Todd Sanford, Kirk Cunningham, and Bev Baker

2. OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT

A. Should the IPG endorse the Preferred Alternative for the Boulder Feeder Canal Trail, as discussed in the CEAP for that project? If not, what specific objections do we have? Issues here are:

1. Recreational use may contribute to pollution
2. Pollution is more expensive to treat for drinking water
3. A water pipeline to envisioned to prevent pollution from entering
4. The trail is highly desired by County Open Space and by potential trail users
5. Mitigation measures are available immediately to reduce the pollution risk
6. What other impacts besides water quality?
7. Will Boulder’s drinking water supply be adequately protected?
8. Is the recreational improvement worth the other costs?

Those present agreed that the City and County staff’s preferred alternative was probably adequately protective of drinking water quality while allowing recreational use of the trail. The elements of the preferred alternative were:
* Trail design modifications to include fencing near trail heads, redirecting drainage away from the canal, and separation of trail and canal where feasible.
* Sanitary, trash, and educational facilities along the trail
* Improved water quality monitoring and response
* Modification of water source selection between canal and Boulder Reservoir.

The preferred alternative assumes that the City will pay to enclose its share of the canal water in a pipe eventually to control pollution.

B. Should the IPG endorse a restrictive policy toward the granting of off-trail travel permits in Habitat Conservation Areas? Issues are:

1. Who would want a permit? Nature groups, photographers and other commercial users, scientists, tour guides, etc?
2. Have such off-trail excursions been harmful in the past?
3. Who should get a permit? How many should be issued per year?

Those present agreed with other groups like BCNA and PLAN Boulder (see message below from Karen Hollweg of BCNA) that permits should be limited in number per year to something on the order of 100/year, and that granting them should require more information from the requesting entity before the off-trail use and some monitoring of impacts of use by city staff after the use.

C. What should the IPG advocate with respect to the proposed trail connecting Lyons to Hall and/or Heil Ranch Open Spaces? Issues are:

1. Three routes have been proposed, one along highway 7, one over Corona Hill on Hall Ranch, and one along the Old South Road parallel to highway 7.
2. The Corona Hill route conflicts with Boulder County wildlife protection zoning on Hall Ranch. The critical species are raptors.
3. The Highway 7 route has poor safety and esthetic qualities from traffic and associated noise.
4. The Old South Road requires construction of a bridge and enlargement of an underpass and is opposed by some people living along the trail route.

Those present agreed that the IPG should at least oppose the Corona Hill route.

3. NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT

A. Possible Udall/Salazar ( Rocky Mountain Forest Insects Response, Enhancement, and Support Act) bill to expedite approval of bug-infested tree removal: problems and a few potential opportunities. The issues are:

1. Beetle infestations cannot be easily or cheaply stopped
2. Markets for beetle-killed finished wood are not available, nor are facilities to process it, so what local uses might there be for beetle-killed wood? Bioenergy, for example, like Boulder County’s chip burner?
3. What are the chief worries among local interests, increased fire danger, visual esthetics, or ...?
4. Given federal budget cutbacks for fuel reduction projects, what parties will fund beetle-killed tree removal?
5. The issue is particularly acute in Grand and Summit Counties, but it will probably be heading into Boulder County in the future. Grand County businesses and government are putting a lot of pressure on Udall to “fix the problem.”

The environmental community is sending a letter to Reps. Udall and Salazar opposing some provisions in the bill that appear to further limit public input on projects and fast-track them, and suggesting other ways of dealing with the issue of beetle-kill with fewer environmental impacts. For example, some or all of the culled wood could be used in wood pellet stoves in local public buildings. The promotion of such technologies might be the one possible good outcome of this bill.

B. Effort in Congress to remove $500 million from the Forest Service’s fuel treatment budget to pay for Katrina costs. Issue here are:

1. FS will have the mandate to do the projects anyway, but will skimp on restoration portions of them.
2. FS will rob all their other land management programs to do fuel treatments.

C. Todd’s impressions of the Quiet Use Conference that he recently attended.

1. Interesting observation: putting the American flag on road closure signs on public land tends to result in greater compliance.
2. Impression: BLM offices seem to be more chaotic, and the Forest Service more organized.
3. Impression: the new National Forest rule of lands being closed unless officially open to motorized use may not mean much unless enforcement is much better funded.

D. Todd will be meeting with Adriana Raudzens in the Boulder office to discuss the current status of the process to protect Colorado’s National Forest roadless areas.

4. CEMEX UPDATE

The Sierra Club and its allies asked the County judge who first ruled against us to reconsider, but she declined to change her opinion. The next step is an appeal. Meanwhile, the County Commissioners have agreed to conduct a public hearing on CEMEX’s operation so that complaints about their mistakes and bad management can be officially aired. We have no information about specifics at this time. The critical need at this time is funds for the appeal. If you would like to do that, contact Kirk Cunningham at KMCunnin@juno.com.

5. WILDLIFE.

No one from our Wildlife Committee could be present this evening, so we do not have a detailed report. Kirk Cunningham will be joining activists from Sinapu and other groups at a Colorado Wildlife Commission hearing tomorrow in Greeley to urge the Commissioners to rachet down the allowed bag limits for female mountain lions. Issues here are:
* The present limits for mountain lions do not differentiate among sexes and may result in too many female lions with young being killed, resulting also in the death of the young.
* Hunting organizations claim that it is very difficult to differentiate between sexes in the field, so that take limits should not be sex-based.
* At the very least, lion hunters need a formal education process to give them more information about sexing animals and not killing as many females, so that lion numbers can be maintained.

6. SUPPLEMENTARY INFO.

Open Space Off-Trail Permit comments from Karen Hollweg, representing Boulder County Nature Association:
[Basic information - off trail permit regulations will affect Habitat Conservation Areas only. These are areas identified by OSMP and approved by City Council as the areas in Boulder's Open Space that are most sensitive to human activity. Off trail use will be allowed in Natural Areas and Passive Recreation Areas, though on trail use will be encouraged.]

“I have read and thoroughly considered your draft alternatives, and submit the following comments for the record:

1. I sincerely appreciate the list of "OSMP Givens" at the bottom of your table. They embody decisions already made by City Council and clearly set forth the staff's ground rules for this process.

2. Alternative 1 I fully agree with the third bullet in the list of "Givens": that "signing up once for an 'annual permit' with no reporting requirements is not a permit." In fact, doing that "on line"
with no stated time and place where the permit will be used, makes it impossible to monitor and assess the impact of that permittee's use and means that Alternative 1 is merely an 'honor system' whereby if the person remembers to go online and report after each visit, then staff can consider monitoring the impact after the fact. I consider "alternative 1" to violate the spirit of the VMP, be inadequate for monitoring our most precious remaining native ecosystems, and strongly advocate eliminating the entire first row of your table that contains "Alternative 1."

3. Off trail Permits for Neighboring/Comparable Public Land Agencies The work you did to research and assemble the table summarizing components of off trail permits for Neighboring/Comparable Public Land Agencies is outstanding. It must be used. In my mind, our HCAs and the resources that exist there are equal and in many cases more rare and valuable than the lands/resources of these other agencies at least according to the State Natural Areas and State Natural Heritage programs. For that reason, all of the alternatives that we consider for OSMP must be at least as protective to our resources as those agencies are to theirs. With that in mind, I suggest the following revisions:
a. Permit number must be no greater than 10 annually for each alternative, and for Alternative 4 must be 10 or less annually for each HCA.
b. Fines for Alternative 4 , revise to read "...starting at $100."

4. Area/Reporting All alternatives must include a follow up report after each visit.

5. Group size limit Alternative 3 for clarity, please insert the word "activity" following the words recreational and educational

6. Resource issues for Alternative 4, add "and direct communication with staff during the application process." [I see this working similarly to the way one interacts with resource staff (e.g. in Natl Parks) when applying for a back country permit.]

7. Compliance What evidence do you have to claim that compliance will be "higher" for alternatives 1 & 2? Is that someone's best guess? or unsubstantiated claim? I believe that the degree of compliance will depend on the extent of education and enforcement done prior to starting and during implementation of the permit system. Without evidence, I suggest eliminating this claim in all alternatives.

8. Expense (see final column) If you want to make statements about cost and I would advocate doing that then I think you must add a statement for each alternative about the cost of restoration. In Alternative 4 with the tightest controls and on going monitoring, the up front expense of staff time in issuing permits and on going monitoring & enforcement will be balanced by the ability to prevent degradation and the expense of restoration/elimination of more social trails. [Reasonable estimates of these expenses can be made by comparing (1)the cost of staff stationed at the Ranger Cottage and the Cherryvale reception desk issuing permits & ecologists monitoring HCA impacts in areas where off trail permits are issued with (2) the cost of restoring the many many miles of social trails that already exist and that the VMP promises to eliminate.]

As you know from my 10 19 05 e mail, I believe any new off trail permit system will be an experiment to see whether off trail use can be permitted WITHOUT creating new social trails. In order to do this experiment, it is essential that we have good records of who & how many people are going where on a permit and to have a report following their visit re what seen (for some this may be a report of flora or fauna, for others geological finds or occurance of run off gulleys or running into a group of people or ...any number of things). It is only by carefully issuing, overseeing the use, and collecting follow up reports of the visitors' routes & observations made that OSMP will have the data needed to adequately monitor the impact of this experiment.

In the meantime, we must remember that getting a permit to go off trail in an HCA is a rare priveledge & an exception, NOT the rule. Alternatives 1 & 2 clearly do not reflect this view and therefore are contrary to the "givens" in the VMP.

Finally, two additional points: off trail permits should NOT be issued in an area until the TSA for the area is complete INCLUDING agreement on which social trails are to receive formal designation and which are to be eliminated. Areas in which "social trails" are being revegetated should be closed to off trail permits until the social trail areas can be restored. The elimination of identified/agreed upon social trails (which are a major concern because of their abundance and detrimental effects on the resources) is mandated in the VMP, approved by Council, and will require a major investment. Areas where this restoration work is going on must be clearly signed with NO access allowed i.e., even with an off trial permit. It doesn't make sense to be investing in restoration in an area and at the same time permitting additional people to go off trail and create more social trails.

For education and public relations reasons, some of the permits must be used each year for OSMP staff led trips. These could be (a) required as training sessions for people wanting to become certified to apply for a permit &/or (b) enable citizens to learn about the valuable/unique ecosystems being conserved through the HCA designation. In every case, these staff led field trips should model the permit and record keeping and reporting process. If such opportunities are heavily enough subscribed to, they may take up the majority of the 10 permits/year, since each will have to require a sign up for a limited number of spaces.

Kirk Cunningham, Conservation Chair

Back to Top of Page

   get Involved

   get Connected

   get Informed

   get Outside