Loading...
Minutes - Open Space Board of Trustees - 2/25/2009 Open Space Board of Trustees Study Session: Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan Responses to Community Comment on the Public Review Draft Municipal Services Center, February 25, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. Internal use only. Board: Pat Billig, Bill Briggs, Allyn Feinberg, John Putnam, Kay Tauscher Staff: Steve Armstead, Megan Bowes, Don D'Amico, Eric Fairlee, Mark Gershman, Marianne Giolitto, Ann Goodhart, Sarah Hill, Whit Johnson, Will Keeley, Joe Mantione, Emily Molter, Dean Paschall, Mike Patton, Andy Pelster, Lynn Riedel, Ronda Romero, Eric Stone, Lynne Sullivan, Heather Swanson, Chris Wanner Meeting called to order at 6:05 pm Mark G. greeted everyone and introduced staff. He recapped the public meeting and summarized the public comments received by the Dec 15th deadline. Staff prepared a PowerPoint presentation. (S:\OSMP\PLAN\GEMAP\Public Process\0225090SBTStudySession Called Full SS Presentation). Mark touched on what the key topic areas for this study session were. • Coordination of OSMP Planning • Grassland Plan Strategies and Visitor Access o Grassland Bird Protection Measures o Wetland/Riparian and Buffer Protection • Prairie Dog Conservation Coordination of Planning Mark G. reported on community concerns about the Grassland Plan. There was question about how the department's different plans are related and integrated. Staff will define the differences as well as the similarities in the next draft of the Grassland Plan. Board Response: Bill B. asked what revisions will make it into the next draft. Are the decisions/discussions from tonight's meeting going to be reflected into the plan? Mark G. asked if the board agreed with what staff is reporting? If not, staff is reviewing the Grassland Plan (GP) to revise the language where needed. Pat B. commented that after reviewing public comments, there needs to be more clarification. Some concerns seem to be where do decisions that were made in the Visitor Master Plan (VMP) stand. The VMP did come first, but there aren't any hierarchies. A missing piece seems to be that the VMP didn't have ecosystem protection spelled out. Now we 1 have an ecosystem plan. The VMP is focused on recreation where as the GP focuses on ecosystem protection. Mike P. stated that it would be helpful to bring issues/decision to the board for public comments on directions made out side the Trail Study Area (TSA) process? If situations come up, we need to act immediately. Later these decisions can be further discussed when the TSA process gets to that point. John P. asked for clarification, if the public was going to get to review the final draft and make additional comments? Or, can we resolve some concerns tonight and not wait until the final draft is presented? Also, if the public has major concerns, are these concerns documented and carried over to the TSA? Kay T. commented that the goals of the various plans are over lapping and confusing, we need to clarify the relationship between the TSA process and the GP. Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) needs to not jump to conclusions on recreation issues. She believes we may want to keep the GP a resource management plan and not include recreation. She also wonders if we need to move the TSA process up sooner, if it's holding us up. John P. mentioned that we need to balance the language to not imply recreation is all bad or all good. He made the point that some recreation depends on healthy ecosystem i.e. Grass hopper sparrow viewing. Also, some conservation depends on recreations support of, access to, knowledge of, experience with, like riparian areas. Allyn F. asked if anyone had a comment on Mike's statement about decisions made outside of the TSA process. No specific comments were made. She than opened this subject up for public comment. Public Comment: Nancy Neupert, Boulder: Nancy thanked the staff. She is impressed with the OSMP staff. She is concerned with comments made from large groups. The VMP covers recreation. She doesn't want us to weaken this plan by addressing too many items belonging to the VMP. The two plans overlap so she's not sure why recreation belongs in the GP. Nancy feels strongly that this needs to be kept and ecosystem plan. Peter Bakwin, Boulder Trail Runners, Boulder: Peter agrees with Nancy N., recreation should be taken out of the GP. Recreation should be included in the TSA. The GP should be and ecosystem management plan and nothing else. Chris Morrison, BATCO, Boulder: The VMP was a contentious plan that was resolved by compromise. It was used to manage recreation with many restrictions. Now these issues are being revisited again. How can 2 we address the habitat in the grasslands as well as recreation? He commented that this plan needs a better balance between the two issues. He would rather not have to rehash the same issues from the VMP. Can those decisions stand? Tom Isaacson, Flatirons Climbing Council, Boulder: He remarked that decisions on weather to close social trails need to be made once. All plans need to accept the decisions that were made and carry them forward to new plans. Tom recommended that this plan not make decisions about trails. Mark McIntyre, Boulder Mountain Bike Alliance, Boulder: Mark reported that his group are wiling participants of all of the open space charter and TSA planning. When they looked at the GP draft, their group believed that trail issues and recreation needs to be removed from the GP. Mark suggested that a statement be written in the GP that states that the GP is partnered with the TSA and will not make recreation restrictions. Recreation will be addressed in the TSA plan. Return to the Board: Pat B. stated that the goal of the plan isn't really clear. No where in the plan does it talk about the relationship between recreation and the ecosystem. She believes that Recreation stands by itself and needs to be removed from the GP. John P. disagrees with Pat. He believes that recreation needs to be structured differently. This plan needs to inform not make decisions. Let the TSA make the decisions. The information in the GP needs to be more direct, as it stands now it is very hard to understand. Pat B. agrees that this plan should be the information that future decisions are based on. Kay T. remarked that this plan is a bit of a mess. We need to straiten out the lines and make it clear how it works with other department plans. She believes that the Grassland Plan should address recreation. This is a resource management plan and if there are too many issues that apply to the TSA process than maybe we need to look at moving the timeline for that process up. Mike P. said that any decisions made outside of the TSA process would be brought to the board and also revisited in the TSA process. He is not concerned with being able to restructure the language of the plan. Mark G. agreed that we can change the language is too strong. John P. said it's worth saying that some forms of recreation are dependant on the ecosystem resources. We shouldn't cut people out altogether. 3 Grassland Planning Strategies and Visitor Access Grassland Bird Protection Measures Will K. reported that the community concern revolved around reduction of recreation if the current closure areas are expanded. We want to protect our grasslands which will protect our ground nesting birds. Several of the strategies don't affect visitor use. Human use is only a part of the stress on the grasslands. Birds are affected within 75 to 100 feet of a trail. Will K. also reported on our current seasonal restrictions as well as discussing potential future locations for seasonal restrictions. He explained that these are potential restrictions. These areas are to be monitored than recommendations will be made from there. Wetland and Riparian Buffers Don D. reported on buffers around wetland and riparian areas. These are vegetated areas adjacent to aquatic resources. Buffer widths deal with water quality mostly. The department recognizes that roads and trails are the most visited areas, which can create issues with dispersal of small mammals. The public is concerned that closure of trails in a wetland area would have a significant negative effect on visitor use. The buffer areas seek to minimize negative impacts to the wetland and riparian areas. Board Response: Kay T. asked where we came up with the 200 meter number. It's hard to generalize the buffer zone. It depends on the area. John P. asked if there is any consideration on varying the buffer zone in different areas. Don D. responded that we could do zones on a case by case basis, but it's very time consuming. Yes, different types of wetlands will have different impacts. It's difficult to have a one size fits all approach. Bill B. added that a one size fits all doesn't work. Why is there a number for a buffer zone in the plan? Why can't the plan be area by area? Mark G. responded by saying, that this number gives us a way to gage how the population is doing. This is our way of saying how our wetlands are doing. This is a model. It's an indicator that would tell us the health of our system. Bill B. still doesn't understand why there's a number. He thinks we are contradicting ourselves. Why don't we just admit that this draft is complex and cut out specific numbers? We are trying to quantify something that isn't quantifiable. 4 Don D. Replied that the department is trying to derive and indicator, and didn't go to the extent to modify buffers for each wetland. We don't have the staff resources to do a case by case basis. Kay T. stated that she doesn't have an issue with the buffer zone number. She is more concerned with the 61 lennar foot per acre of trails and roads. She also doesn't have issue with removing undesignated trails, that's a problem system wide. She suggests that we not use the 61 number to gauge whether to build new trails. Public Comment: Nicole Duke, BMA, Boulder: Voiced her concern with the size and degree of wetland protection. She would like to see more case by case studies done not the 200 meter buffer system wide. Many of our wetland areas don't have any water in them. Nicole does agree with the removal of undesignated trails. She believes that the public won't be able to connect with the environment from 200 meters away. She acknowledges that it's time consuming to do a case by case study, but she believes that OSMP needs to take that time to do it correctly. Eric Vogelsberg, BMA, Boulder: He believes the 200 meter buffer is bad management tool. A rough guess of his is that two-thirds of out grassland areas are inside a buffer zone. How can we use this as a management tool? He has looked at other plans from the early 90's, and every study show that mammals don't care about visitor access. Leopard frogs have problems with habitat, competitors and fungus. Fifty meters would be a more acceptable number. Jason Vogel, BMA, Boulder: Not present Dona Post, Boulder: Not present Peter Bakwin, Boulder Trail Runners, Boulder: Peter made comments on attachment E, Wetland and Riparian Buffer and Trail Density. He wanted to know if we are including roads such as Cherryvale and Marshall in our study. If so, are we saying that Marshall Road has the same effect as a trail would on the wildlife? He remarked how cattle are within the buffer zone for many grassland areas. How can a trail be more of an impact than cattle? Chris Morrison, BATCO, Boulder: Chris reported that it seems that the Cherryvale office are with in a buffer zone. This doesn't seem to have an impact on the surrounding wetland. This is a good example of how every wetland should be assessed individually. He has always been 5 impressed with our departments GIS system. Can't we use our GIS to study a case by case scenario for each wetland? Steve Jones, BCAS, Boulder: Steve commented that anything we can do to protect riparian wetlands they support. In his opinion, our areas have been over whelmed with trails and roads. He remarked that our department should look at all species when looking at buffer zones. Each species have different needs. He believes the plan was very well constructed. We should do a fine filter overlay on the coarse filter approach. Steve thinks we should add a procedure for tracking and acting when a species gets in trouble. He wonders if we can map where activity is every year and account for all natural occurring species. Linda Andes-Georges, BCNA, Boulder: We really need to have a working model, unless we want to fight over every lennar foot of land. She believes that most of what we are calling wetlands are agricultural areas. Are these natural wetlands? Julie Ash, Colorado Riparian Association, Lafayette: There aren't any points being made here that are very important. If we take away stressors the land will heal itself. Paula Martin, Prairie Ecosystems, Boulder: Paula questions the science being used in the Plan. She would like to know why the leopard frog is the species that was picked above all others. She agrees with an earlier speaker that trails are not the negative aspect; it's more the existing habitat, competition and fungus. She understands that the Boulder area needs to be maintained as a conservation area, but there are areas where wildlife and people can co-habitat. Paula thinks the plan creates a false dichotomy. If we continue to focus on trails, we may miss the real issues. Susan Webel, BCHA, Boulder County: Susan has a problem with the measurement tools used. She believes that calling irrigated hay fields wetlands skews the plan. In reference to Attachment E, other agencies us a 100 foot buffer zone. Two hundred meters is an amazingly huge number. She doesn't believe we should blame the trail users for the leopard frog decline. Susan also takes issue with the 45% closer for nesting birds. That's why we have HCA's she adds. We need to stop adding more layers of restrictions. Also, don't blame horses for weeds. Guy Burgess, BATCO, Boulder: When you start putting al the maps and buffers on top of each other, than everything becomes special and 6 needing protection. Guy believes calling irrigated agricultural land a wetland really messes up the system. We need to find a careful balance between the land and water. Steven Haymes, BOC, Boulder: Buffer zones are actually 400 meters, 200 on each side plus the area of the wetland itself. We are talking about the exclusion of very large areas. Buffering needs to be done on a case by case basis. One size fits all does not work, it's flawed and has its weaknesses. This is considered bad science. The Grassland Plan is flawed due to the buffer. It needs to be removed. Larry MacDonnell, FOBOS, Boulder: He is happy that the plan has been done. It's been a long time in coming. Staff has done a wonderful job. For the first time we have an idea of what's on OSMP land. He is disappointed that we are spending so much time on a very narrow field. This plan has exactly what was missing from the VMP. Larry thinks we should keep this an ecosystem plan. Trails are addressed in the trails study. He is looking forward to seeing the final plan. Return to the Board: Kay T. asked why is agricultural property included in the plan as wetlands. Don D. replied that agricultural ditches were included if they had riparian areas. They met scientific and regulatory criteria. We used vegetation to map wetlands. Heather S. added that agricultural ditches are used by some endangered plants as well as riparian's. Most of our wetlands are maintained artificially. Bill B. commented that he looked at a map the county produced and they come up with about six times less then what OSMP comes up with. The differences are striking. Staff replied that they hadn't studied the counties numbers so they couldn't remark about the comparison. John P. thinks that having ground nesting birds as part of the plan makes sense as a general policy, given that specific issues will go before the board. He has concerns with putting so much energy into the 200 meter buffer zone. John believes the 200 meter number is too high, but focusing on this one aspect is going to take away from everything else. He thinks our language is a bit confrontational. Mike P summarized the conversation by saying the board agrees with the buffer zone concept, but believes we should assign a lower number 7 and work case by case preferably. The department should look at a range as opposed to a hard and fast number. Prairie Dog Conservation Heather S. reported on the balance of prairie dogs over Open Space and Mountain Parks properties. She clarified the future of prairie dog acreage. Heather used a PowerPoint presentation to show the breakout of prairie dog acres of occupancy. Lynn R. reported on the preservation criteria for relocating prairie dogs. Board Response: Bill B. thanked the staff for extensive and thoughtful responses to the public comments. The responses may not have been what people wanted to hear, but the time was taken by staff. There seems to be more comments on prairie dogs than any other item. Pat B. stated if we're going to value agricultural use, we need to clarify the gray area for people who lease our properties. OSMP needs to decide if we want agricultural use in some of the prairie dog areas or not. Heather S. responded by saying that there are steps in the plan to address this issue. If water rights were threatened, prairie dogs could be removed. Andy P. added that grazing is a flexible management. We can work on accommodating both prairie dogs and agricultural uses. Bill B. said prairie dogs and grazing can coexist, although, grazing and prairie dogs can be too much for the land if not monitored. Bill B. and Pat B. both shared concerns about prairie dog areas such as the Culver property look like dust bowls. At this point the land can't be used. Public Comment: Paula Martin, Prairie Ecosystems, Boulder and Lindsey Sterling-Krank, Keep Boulder Wild, Boulder: Together they requested extra time and gave a PowerPoint presentation. Deb Keammerer, Boulder: Deb believes the lands are over populated with prairie dogs, which strips it of all vegetation and other animals. She's not suggesting getting rid of prairie dogs; we just need to manage for the ecosystem not a single species. Greg Hayes, Boulder: Prairie dogs are important, but if people get emotionally involved than the science gets lost. Greg showed a brief video of soil disturbance die to prairie dog colonies. He believes the S city should be held liable for the dust storms that occur due to the prairie dog colonies. Juliann McCabe, FIDOS, Boulder: Juliann believes that we need to have 4000 acres to have a grassland plan that includes prairie for it to be successful. Prairie dogs are and extremely expensive issue, and there hasn't been any discussion on how much it costs to maintain prairie dog colonies. As a taxpayer she is disappointed that the department isn't discussing the money associated with these issues. Return to Board Bill B. asked what is preventing OSMP from moving closer to the conservation presentation that Lindsy and Paula gave? Heather S. responded by saying if we move to far in that direction, we may severely affect other conservation topics. The city and citizens are concerned with the use of pesticides; therefore we restrict dusting of prairie dog colonies. John P suggested that we stress in the plan the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) guidelines so people understand the reasoning's behind why the department makes some of the decisions they make. Kay T. wondered if staff believes that what OSMP has proposed is the best balance? John P. stated that there are more species to pay attention to other than just prairie dogs. He's concerned with not having any management tool in the plan, but believes the core of the plan is going in the right direction. He added that we need some flexibility for the uncertainties. Bill B. thinks the plan needs to say that these are all guidelines that may change. The plan as it stands, sounds like things are hard and fast. There needs to be another chapter on costs. Pat B. asked how does OSMP keep track of what's going on with the prairie dog population. Heather S. responded by saying that prairie dog mapping is an ongoing project. Mapping is done from September through November. Next Steps Mark G. shared that the staff had heard what the board and public had to say. OSMP will be going back to the drawing board. They will re- examine the plan with consideration of all these comments. He recognizes that they need to get the language right. Once there is a final draft, the department will submit for public review than bring it back to the board. Mike P. added that we need to have as close to a final product as we can before we go to city council for final approval. 9 Mark G. said they need to spend more time on threats and strategies, and more flushing out of the document. Meeting adjourned at 10:06 pm 10