Loading...
5A - Recommendation to City Council on a vision statement and goals for the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan CITY OF BOULDER PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: December 14, 2009 AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council on a vision statement and goals for the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan. PRESENTERS: Kirk W. Kincannon, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation Bev Johnson, Planner, Project Manager Alice Guthrie, Recreation Superintendent EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to provide the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) with a draft summary of the December 8, 2009 City Council study session on this item and for the board to consider a recommendation to council on a vision statement and a revised set of goals for the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan (BRMP). Staff also would like any additional input from the PRAB on future challenges to be addressed in the BRMP. The Boulder Reservoir is a 700-acre, multi-use recreation and water-storage facility, owned and managed by the City of Boulder and operated as a water supply by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Northern Water). It is used for recreation, drinking water, and irrigation. The reservoir area also supports numerous acres of important wetlands and wildlife habitat. The purpose of the BRMP is to establish management objectives for Parks and Recreation Department managed land and activities in the reservoir area (including Tom Watson Park and Coot Lake) that will guide future investment strategies for the department. The study area for the master plan includes the Boulder Reservoir and surrounding lands, the Coot Lake area and Tom Watson Park. The PRAB reviewed and made a recommendation on a draft vision statement and set of goals for the BRMP at its October 26, 2009 meeting. The PRAB's recommendation was presented to City Council at a study session on December 8, 2009. The council packet for that meeting can be found on the following Web site: www.bouldercolorado.~,Tov > City Council > Study Sessions > December 8, 2009 Council members supported the draft vision statement and suggested revisions to the goals of the plan (see draft study session summary in Attachment A}. Additional challenges to address in the AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE 1 plan were also identified by council members. Staff has revised the goals and would like a revised recommendation to council from the PRAB. A public hearing is tentatively scheduled with City Council on January 19, 2010 for a motion to approve the final vision and goals. Staff will also provide the PRAB with an update on the Lyons-to-Boulder Trail project and council's direction to staff on the next steps for the city in planning for the proposed trail system. Since the potential location of the southernmost terminus of this regional trail system could have an impact on planning for future uses around the Boulder Reservoir, evaluation of the cost, location, and feasibility of a trail connection and trailhead in the Coot Lake and Tom Watson Park area will be included in the BRMP process (Attachment B). Suggested Motion Language: Motion to recommend to City Council approval of a vision statement and goals for the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan as outlined in the Analysis section of the Dec. 14, 2009 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board memo. PUBLIC FEEDBACK: Staff has held several public meetings, focus groups and surveys since July 2009 to get community and board input on this initial phase. Numerous public comments have also been received through the project Web site. E-mail comments received since the Oct. 26, 2009 PRAB packet is included in Attachment C. The PRAB received public comment in its September and October 2009 packets on this item. The final reports of the user survey and focus group discussions are included in Attachments D and E. ANALYSIS: A draft vision statement and set of goals for the BRMP were presented to the PRAB at its Sept. 28, 2009 study session and at a public hearing on Oct. 26, 2009. Staff presented the recommended vision statement and goals to City Council at its Dec. 8, 2009 study session. Council generally supported the vision statement with no changes and made suggested changes to the goals (see draft study session summary in Attachment A). Staff made a few changes to both the draft vision statement and goals below to capture the PRAB and City Council input and to condense the text. Draft Vision Statement for the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan The following is a revised vision statement for the BRMP is proposed: The Boulder Reservoir is a valuable source of clean water thatprovides sustainable, high quality recreation appropriately managed to protect, preserve and enhance the water supply and surrounding natural environment. Revised Draft Goals for the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan The following is a revised set of goals for the plan as proposed by staff: AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE 2 1. Balance multiple city goals in the sustainable development and use of the reservoir area including: • Waste reduction; • Carbon reduction; • Water conservation; and • Reduction of single occupancy auto trips, encouragement of alternative transportation options and management of parking. 2. Provide for a range of high-quality recreational uses and events and the facilities and services needed to support the needs of the local community. 3. Identify sensitive wildlife and plant species and protect and enhance their natural habitat. 4. Develop management strategies and partnerships to reduce the risk of and prevent aquatic nuisance species infestation. 5. Identify and minimize water pollutant sources from recreational uses. 6. Promote and support the safety of visitors to the reservoir area. 7. Develop and support a sustainable business model for long-term management of the reservoir area. 8. Enhance partnerships and collaborate with other agencies and departments to effectively support intergovernmental interests. 9. Minimize impacts to adjacent public and private neighbors through compatible reservoir area planning and long-term collaboration. 10. Promote visitor and community awareness and stewardship of the reservoir through on- going education and outreach. 11. Ensure the security and maintenance of the facilities and infrastructure in,the reservoir area. Future Challenges Staff presented council with the following future challenges to be addressed in the BRMP (see the City Council's Dec. 8, 2009 study session packet for staff's discussion of these challenges). Although there are many more issues and opportunities that will be explored and addressed, these key challenges (not in order of importance), will provide the major themes for the plan and the planning process. 1. Balancing Recreation with Water Quality Protection 2. Balancing Human Use and Habitat Protection 3. Providing Quality Services and Facilities under Difficult Budgetary Conditions 4. Managing Rising Demand for Recreational Use 5. Managing Access, Traffic and Parking Council made several comments on these challenges that included: • An additional challenge is to be an active partner with the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and more pro-active on protecting the water supply. • Addressing impacts when water supply is low is a challenge. • Environmental goals such as zero waste and carbon reduction should also be considered a challenge. • Expand challenges to include building and maintaining relationships with stakeholders. AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE 3 NEXT STEPS: A public hearing is tentatively scheduled with City Council for Jan. 19, 2010 for consideration of a motion to approve a final vision statement and set of goals for the master plan. In January, staff will begin the second phase of the project, which will involve developing and analyzing plan and policy options for the master plan. Staff will hold several public meetings throughout the winter and early spring to get input on this phase before returning to the boards and council for further direction. Approved By: Kirk W. Kincannon, CPRP Department Director ATTACHMENTS: A: Draft summary of the December 8, 2009 City Council Study Session on the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan B: Update on the Lyons-to-Boulder Trail C: Public Comments received through e-mail or the project web site D. User Survey Final Report E. Focus Group Final Report AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE 4 Attachment A City Council Study Session - December 8, 2009 Draft Study Session Summary 1) Does council have comments on the draft vision statement and goals for the BRMP? Vision Council members generally agreed with the draft vision statement and thought the priorities were correctly stated. Goals Council members generally supported additional goals addressing the following: • A goal concerning enhancing multi-modal transportation and especially bicycle connections to the reservoir is needed. • Recognition of OSMP adjacency and transition to other unique resources in surrounding the study area. • Enhancing partnerships and cooperation with other agencies • Goal to prevent ANS infestation is needed. • Goals to call out need for sensitivity to and cooperation with neighbors (need to be a good neighbor) • Goals should recognize the priority of meeting the needs of the residents of the City of Boulder • Add to goal #5, the city's 0 waste goals (re: recycling, composting, etc.) and that the facilities are an extension of the 0 waste goal. Carbon reduction and water conservation goals should also be reflected. 2) Does council have comments on the future management challenges that need to be addressed in the BRMP? • An additional challenge is to be an active partner with Northern and more pro-active on protecting the water supply. • Addressing impacts when water supply is low is a challenge. • Goal of 0 waste is a challenge. • Carbon reduction is a challenge. • Expand challenges to include building and maintaining relationships with stakeholders 3) What direction does council want to provide staff regarding the city's next steps in the Lyons-to-Boulder Trail planning? In general, council members agreed with Option 2 which involves evaluation of the costs, impacts and feasibility of the regional trail alignment through the Coot Lake trail system and a trailhead at Tom Watson Park as part of the master plan process. AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE 5 Other comments or questions: 1. Has there been a survey to see if motorized boating has been driving out non-motorized use? 2. Make sure to include Building 13 at Tom Watson Park in the study area. 3. How are we going to address potential risks of mussel infestation from Six Mile Reservoir - what can we do to address spillover problem? 4. Can we look into preventing boating access to the North Shore now (before the plan is finished)? 5. Do reservoir fees cover on-going operations? 6. There is an equity issue regarding access fees on the South Shore and not the North Shore. 7. We will need good analysis on the sources of impacts to water quality and the risks involved in each source. This should include pollutant sources from the feeder canal as well. 8. Information about the differences between 2 and 4 cycle engines in terms of emissions and water pollution will be helpful. 9. Can we consider a maximum horsepower allowed on the reservoir? 10. Can we develop some sort of actuarial table that compares projected time or risk of ANS infestation with amount of certain uses allowed on the reservoir? In other words, if you stop motorized boating on the reservoir, how much does it reduce risk or slow the time to infestation? 11. We need to see the fiscal information on the South Shore. 12. The plan will need to look at balancing wildlife protection with recreational demands (e.g. trail around the reservoir) 13. What other reservoirs in the area allow motor boats? We need to look at how recreation uses are balanced among different reservoirs in the region. 14. The potential costs to the city of dealing with mussel infestation are a major concern. We need to look closely at how we address potential infestation from Six-Mile Reservoir. 15. Look at access and parking in terms of sustainability - don't look for an excuse to expand parking lots but find other ways to address parking and traffic issues. 16. We need to define who we are trying to serve. Is this a local or a regional facility? What type and how large of events should we be sponsoring? Lyons-to-Boulder Trail Comments 1. It is important that we keep the vision alive for a trail connection from Lyons to Boulder. If the canal is out of the question, we need to look at alternative regional routes that are environmentally sensitive. 2. We need a city strategy for approaching the Northern Water Conservancy District about this issue. Boulder is the biggest contributor to the district. We need a city-wide strategy to leverage our contribution. 3. A WIP to speak to a city-wide strategy for approaching Northern would be good. AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE 6 Attachment B Lyons-to-Boulder Trail Update and Next Steps The Lyons-to-Boulder Regional Trail is a conceptual 13-mile soft surface, multi-use trail along the Boulder Feeder Canal that would connect the city trail system with the Town of Lyons. Since the early 1970s, the concept of constructing a multi-use recreational and commuter trail from Lyons to Boulder along the feeder canal has been a key component of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan. The trail is intended to achieve multiple city and county goals by creating a new opportunity for outdoor recreation and a regional transportation connection in the Boulder Valley and Boulder County. The Boulder Feeder Canal is a water supply ditch owned and managed by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Northern Water) and the Federal Bureau of Reclamation. Any trail proposed within the canal right-of-way must be approved by these agencies and conform to their specific guidelines. The feeder canal carries water in an open channel from Carter Lake to the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant on 63rd Street and provides drinking water to approximately 30 percent of city households. In 2000, city and county staff successfully worked with Northern Water to adopt trail development guidelines for potential trails in the Boulder Feeder Canal right-of-way. As trail planning proceeded in the late 1990s, concerns were raised about potential impacts to water quality in the canal and wildlife in the area from a regional trail system. The concern was that more use by people, dogs and horses in the right-of-way might increase the likelihood of additional pathogens and other contaminants entering the water. In 2004, a team comprised of city and county staff was formed to conduct the city's Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) and assess potential impacts of a trail along the feeder canal on the water supply. The task of the staff team was to: 1) identify potential impacts of a public project on the water supply, 2) consider alternatives for trail design, and 3) propose mitigation measures to address potential water quality impacts. In 2006, council approved the CEAP analysis and report, which included the preferred alignment for the southern-most mile of the trail. This alignment is preferred for reasons of functionality, connectivity, aesthetics, and user experience. The CEAP also identified Tom Watson Park as an anticipated trailhead within the city and some of the additional needs and costs related to development and management the first mile of trail (e.g. flush toilets, additional parking, and staffing needs). These needs and costs were expected to be more fully identified and addressed as part of the county's trail design and analysis process. ' After receiving approval of the CEAP from council and direction from the Board of County Commissioners to proceed with trail design, county staff began master plan development for the Lyons-to-Boulder Trail. The purpose of the master plan was to evaluate and recommend a specific trail alignment, provide a conceptual trail design and include a local, state and federal environmental review. An objective of the process was to identify a specific trail alignment that takes into account the needs and concerns of property owners, public agencies and future trail AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE 7 users. In June 2009, county staff developed alternative alignments for each segment of the trail and began a public process for getting input on those alternatives. In August 2009, Northern Water's board of directors indicated their intention to rescind their trail development guidelines. Communication with individual board members also indicated that it was unlikely that Northern Water would grant permission to the county and the city to use the feeder canal right-of-way for any part of the Lyons-to-Boulder Trail. In response to Northern Water's communication, the Board of County Commissioners announced their decision in September to suspend planning efforts for the Lyons-to- Boulder Trail and redirect funding to other portions of the county's regional trail system. With suspension of the county-wide planning effort, staff has identified options for the city's next steps on the southern-most portion of the trail. Since the preferred Lyons-to-Boulder Trail alignment would connect to the existing trail system on Parks and Recreation Department managed property south of Coot Lake, continuation of trail design, construction and management would have implications for the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan, specifically on the policies and uses in that area. Staff requests input from council on the following three options for continuing city action on the trail. Direction from council is requested specifically on whether to incorporate a regional multi- use regional trail connection from the Boulder Feeder Canal to Tom Watson Park in the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan as outlined in the following options. Option 1. Plan for design and construction of trail along current Coot Lake Trail System and trailhead at Tom Watson Park. As part of the BRMP process, plan for completion of the southern-most mile of the trail within city limits including a regional trailhead at Tom Watson Park and soft-surface regional trail connection through the Coot Lake trail system. Design and future construction of a regional trail connection on city owned land from Niwot Road to Tom Watson Park would be coordinated with OSMP and identified in an upcoming CIP. Option 2. Evaluate alternative trail alignments and trailhead locations. As part of the BRMP process, evaluate the costs, impacts and feasibility of alternative trail alignments through the Coot Lake area between Tom Watson Park and the Boulder Feeder Canal and seek input from the public on alternative options. Option 3. Do not evaluate the regional trail connection as part of the BRMP. Further study of impacts to Parks and Recreation Department land associated with design and development of the regional trail would be incorporated into the Lyons-to- Boulder Master Plan process to be completed by the county in the future. Staff is recommending Option 2. This option offers reservoir users the opportunity to weigh-in on the decision-making process for a trailhead and multi-use path connection on city lands managed by Parks and Recreation Department within the BRMP study area. AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE 8 Attachment C: Public Comments e Boul&r County Nature, Assoc iation P.4. Dux 9'. Doul3cr,1 ulcrucl;j 80304 (3;tobcr RU, 2069, To the City pf RquI&r arks mbd RasrcatLon AdsRsory Rood I am wiifmg an behalf cal' the Builder CouTrt Nalum A€saciati=(DCNA) anal oar 208 nmmbcrs ijk Boulder Catwcy in a Wd to ft MasAerPlan beiig davclopadl for Sho Roulder Res+emir and Coot Lake am& W c apErrrcietC the o. Wnurrity nx) pmtiispuic at this pacmass. BC'NA desires the prowction so gnhvv;c ncnt ofthc .gensitiu vvUlife boNi s, in the Mssmr Plan arm. We mr, in guntral aprrrmdnt with the m&xmimtmdxh aS altewiy suhmsitted by Ca &y Comnor]c ofBould& County Audaiboij So-oiety, ■ The vrbnvda within the Raulder Resurv car Vaster Plam area f*rm u highly Scmitive hmhitd whirls needs special conside aiion. s There srr rmK mnmt:ing hin6 of %T& iatl ca nc= L031m tr dMi LM thr WCA xi& of Boulder Reserzroir (hart wilin any other area of Boulder Cowry. Ms lachtdes N ort am Harriers, Amc►ican Rid ns, and AinrvmIng 0%+% sll nfwhich am rara and dwlirring species. We are also u co=ned with the 0Vrcy whiab sm rare but ant drJmin This is the only place in the =wLy b bere we iqave a viablz rant ofthe p Brie gxaga:l=zVrTrairirweband systzm thatis so important for nesting birds. Duo. to tft abovc, -we would like to sec the following, 1ftUteCticrn of the Wetland'.ua the WV.NL and acnthweat of Boulder Rexletvoi( by exrludkg all trails there and excludijkg all motorboats by extendiag ft►e pir-wt no baating bnoy.3 to the moond spit pn the ncuth sharp. TJns woWgt 1rwm nrsatharda nfthercacn,uir m-mishl- for =-=smog nod sliow fm testing %•Aberfowl anal shoreba-d.pr&mtae, mid.relaftwdy un &afm tedlLLXIL i ~ kV UkC ost"y. We = also coo=e=d about dogs emeafng this area loom the 55'b 3treeL traffi ead and would hU to sx a fence viii sipW as oftratc pwplz can Itr s;nsitivit3- ofthc habitat. PrUNCLuo of Id weaaudsuu le went title of C~oul Lakc along the nature Ltiaa. Tkers is a alit rail fence *ith sigus, "dogs ktaw bocu s= xannlo,g in tfio wctland and 0*ing wildli*. We believe mfor=ment !A needed, and that drakes %hank he Ieashod alrmg this west end r4 inti I. Ire the puss, the vvetlana wpporled nea#iag snarlers ead bsibern, but mot ilon did "nee than in na~ g or summa of 2009. * We yak that large t t%v=s like kinetiusnot threaattu water yuuhty ur i•Tffiinge ou the wil ifr hibitW an%, For mrmple., pr'8iric dc% colloniv% vitasl to Remo aving Owl,% wet cased for peaking artAs in the PEA Thvtk },oa ft (ha wmk you do ij and fsut' lwldsr and oWco filly ftar kccpjtig in mites( tho impact )MOT dcciaitmti have un ourtatarral envinataumt. Sin y, kficbiA Drlancy~ President AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE 9 name: Marsha Perlman comment: I was very disappointed this summer to find out that I couldn't rent a kayak until the lifeguards arrived at 10. That meant I had no 'quiet time' without motors and I had no early time to enjoy the wildlife on the north end. The year before I used the Prijon boats. I am a writer and bird photographer. My book SPIRIT LIFE was recently published... based on my many experiences with wildlife on the west coast of Florida where I kayak daily. I am trying to observe the life patterns of the water birds here some the same as those in Florida but with different habits. 5000000 I can't own another new kayak here but I would like to kayak at an early hour for my professional and personal interest. Let us use the rez in the early am. Ten is too late. Thanks. I have lived in Boulder since before 1983 and remember what the rez used to be like. I am so glad that there is funding for improvements. Also any possibility of having the season extended? From: CULNAN, PAUL comments: Please offer a non-boating day at the Res or at least a non-motorized boating day. How about Tuesdays to start? Then start limiting any new motorized boat passes. Also - the concession stand needs help! It could make a lot more money by expanding and offering more and better food and drinks. Would also like to see more dance nights on the beach. If you need someone to schedule and arrange those events I work as a event and festival promoter (Taste of Colorado Cherry Creek Arts Fest & Parker Festival). It would be a Dance Only - No Swimming Allowed - and after hours. Hello Council members, I attended the first 2 hours of the Parks and Rec Advisory Board meeting this evening and heard that at one of the previous Boulder Reservoir Master Plan public meetings powers boaters dominated the event. I thought you should hear another point of view about boating at the Rez. Please consider limiting power boats on Boulder Reservoir. I am a small boat sailor who has not sailed on Boulder Reservoir since 2004 because I discovered a wakeless lake to sail on, Longmont's Union Reservoir. I am a Colorado native and 20-year city resident who learned to sail in 2002 by taking sailing lessons from Parks and Rec at the Rez on the city owned Sunfishes (14' one person sailboat). I bought my own Sunfish in 2003 and stored it on the beach at the Rez for the year. I sailed at least once a week during that summer and had to contend with the water skiers and wakeboarders every time I went sailing. It did not matter the day of the week, the time of day, or the weather, the powerboats were always out there churning up the lake. When I sailed on Union Rez with the C15 fleet late in the summer of 2003, I had my eyes opened to another possibility, sailing without having the wind constantly knocked out of my sail by the chop. I was sold. Union Rez is a wakeless lake. There are power boats on the water but they are restricted to 5 mph. I moved my Sunfish out to Union for the 2004 season and it has been there ever since. This summer (2009) I drove AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE 10 out to Longmont twice a week to go sailing. On October 3, 2009, the Union Sailing Club hosted a 39 boat regatta on Union Rez. I wager that no more than 2 of these boats sailed even once at Boulder Rez during 2009. I would not bother trying to sail at Boulder Rez again as long as the,power boats are allowed free rein. The power boating on Boulder Rez is self-selecting. They make the chop so miserable for the sailors, scullers and kayakers that we go away. If they claim that there is little demand for sailing at Boulder Rez, they are right because those who try it seldom come back. If you poll the current Rez users and find that power boaters vastly out number sailors, you are missing a potential group of users who have decided that under these conditions it just isn't worth it to sail at the Rez. Thank you for serving. Thank you for listening, Paul Culnan name: Kim Graber comment: If I were as eloquent as Cathy Comstock and Steve Jones both of whom have submitted comments on behalf of Boulder County Audubon Society I would have said what they have in their comment letters (dated October 8 and October 28 2009 respectively). The remaining wetlands around Boulder Reservoir represent very sensitive habitat that deserves conservation. Having performed bird surveys for Boulder County Nature Association in the area around the Reservoir I can confirm that its grasslands and marshes support sensitive and declining avian species such as American Bitterns Burrowing Owls and Northern Harriers. Please listen carefully to the well-supported positions of Ms. Comstock and Mr. Jones and protect these areas. name: Carol Kampert I am writing to recommend protecting the wetlands areas on the west and northwest sides of the of Boulder Reservoir to insure habitat protection for avian species of concern including Northern Harriers American Bitterns and Burrowing Owls and Osprey. It is also important to protect all of the Dry Creek Inlet area to the north where shorebirds congregate and ducks nest. The prairie dog colonies next to the reservoir should also be protected during events like kinetics because the colonies are important nesting habitat for burrowing owls. I would also recommend better protection of the wetlands on the west side of Coot Lake where dogs have been seen running in the wetlands and chasing wildlife. Better enforcement is needed and dogs should be leashed along the west end of the trail. Thank you very much for your consideration of these concerns and recommendations. name: Paul Culnan comment: Please consider limiting power boats on Boulder Reservoir. I am a small boat sailor who has not sailed on Boulder Reservoir since 2004 because I discovered a wakeless lake to sail on LongmontaF*s Union Reservoir. I am a Colorado native and 20 year city resident who learned to sail in 2002 by taking sailing lessons from Parks and Rec at the Rez on the city owned Sunfishes (14A P* one person sailboat). I bought my own Sunfish in 2003 and stored it on the beach at the Rez for the year. I sailed at least once a week during that summer and had to contend with the water skiers and wakeboarders every time I went sailing. It did not matter the day of the week the time of day or the weather the AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE 11 powerboats were always out there churning up the lake. When I sailed on Union Rez with the C15 fleet in 2003 I had my eyes opened to another possibility sailing without having the wind constantly knocked out of my sail by the chop. I was sold. Union Rez is a wakeless lake There are power boats on the water but they are restricted to 5 mph. I moved my Sunfish out to Union for the 2004 season and it has been there ever since. This summer (2009) I drove out to Longmont twice a week to go sailing. On October 3 2009 the Union Sailing Club hosted a 39 boat regatta on Union Rez. I wager that no more than 2 of these boats sailed even once at Boulder Rez during 2009. I would not bother trying to sail at Boulder Rez again as long as the power boats are allowed free rein. The power boating on Boulder Rez is self-selecting. They make the chop so miserable for the sailors scullers and kayakers that we go away. If they claim that there is little demand for sailing at Boulder Rez they are right because those who try it seldom come back. If you poll the current Rez users and find that power boaters vastly out number sailors you are missing a potential group of users who have decided that under these conditions it just isnAFmt worth it to sail at the Rez. name: Maureen Lawry comment: Please take the precautions necessary to protect 'the Northern Harrier Bitterns and Burrowing Owls on the wetlands on the west and northwest side of the reservoir. During large events at the reservoir protected habitats have been used as parking lots to the detriment of these rare and declining species. Monitoring these wetlands and special areas should be an integral part of the Master Plan. name: 7.D.Birchmeier comment: I'm casting my vote in with the Boulder County Audubon - maintain a good deal of wetlands with no human trespass cut back the boating a bit. This should protect the nesting possibilities for wildlife. name: Linda Andes-Georges comment: Many people interested in preserving bits of wild or semi-wild habitat in Boulder County have no idea that this master plan update is taking place. I urge you to keep this in mind when you see the overwhelming amount of input from motorized boaters and dog-walkers compared to those of us who cherish silent sports not to mention wildlife and the remnants of wildlife that still cling to tiny corners of Boulder County. One of these corners is the wetland areas around the Reservoir in spite of huge obstacles (motors and dogs of course; and then major multi-use events of various kinds including the triathlons that I myself occasionally participate in). The wetlands on the west and northwest side would benefit greatly from a trail- less status and I urge you to protect them in this way. Enlarging the silent (no- motor) portion of the lake would also be helpful while still retaining a huge expanse of recreational water surface. The west side of Coot Lake formerly still a home for certain shy species (bitterns herons etc) is losing its attraction: too many loose dogs. Care for prairie dog villages--fewer smaller and more scattered now in Boulder County--is important. The large multi-use events are very hard on these critters: please help devise some way of respecting their areas particularly in view of the AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE 12 large loss of p.d. terrain due to the new fire training facility construction. Many species including burrowing owl (threatened species in our County and indeed across its range) need p.d. villages to survive. More protection for silent sport recreationists along the 55th St. corridor would be appreciated also; perhaps an off-road dedicated trail for their use within the road right-of-way. Thanks for receiving and considering these comments. Yours sincerely Linda Andes-Georges AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE 13 Attachment D City of Boulder 2009 Reservoir User Survey REPORT OF RESULTS 4 r. nor:, Reservoir User Survey September 2009 Table of Contents Survey Background .......................................................................................................................1 Developing the Questionnaire .............................................................................................1 Interviewing Schedule I Selecting Persons to Interview .............................................................................................1 Number of Completed Interviews ........................................................................................1 Survey Processing (Data Entry) 2 Survey Analysis and Reporting ............................................................................................2 Summary of Survey Results ..........................................................................................................2 Users' Activities ........................................................................................................................2 Users' Perspectives of the Reservoir .........................................................................................3 User/Respondent Characteristics 6 Appendix A: Responses to Survey Questions ..............................................................................9 Appendix B: Responses to Open-Ended Questions ..................................................................23 Appendix C: Questionnaire .........................................................................................................47 U C N C d V L U M U C O Z m 0 0 N Report of Results (2009-09-24) Reservoir User Survey September 2009 SURVEY BACKGROUND The city of Boulder is developing a master plan for the Boulder Reservoir. The purpose of the plan is to establish management goals and objectives for Parks and Recreation Department land and activities at the Boulder Reservoir (including Tom Watson Park and Coot Lake) that will guide long-term investment strategies and programs. As a part of this process, the city contracted with National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) to conduct a survey of users of the Reservoir. Developing the Questionnaire The questionnaire was developed by the staff of NRC, with input from the city of Boulder Parks and Recreation staff. Based on the information needs and issues faced by the city, the specific questions were drafted by NRC staff. The questionnaire was reviewed and revised until the final version was accepted. A copy of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix C: Questionnaire- Interviewing Schedule Interviews were conducted over a four day period, from Thursday August 6, 2009 to Sunday August 9, 2009. Interviews were conducted at three entrances to the Reservoir: Coot Lake, the trailhead at 55th, and at the "South Shore" (near the West Gate entrance). When at the Coot Lake entrance, interviewers were instructed to devote one or two hours to interviewing at Tom Watson Park per shift, but to do most of their interviewing at the Coot Lake trailhead. When at the South Shore, they were instructed to split their time between the beach area and the boathouse. The interviewing schedule is shown in the table below. Site Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Coot Lake /Tom Watson park 11:OOam - 7:00pm 6:00am - 2:00pm 11:00am - 7:00pm 6:00am - 2:00pm Trailhead off of 55th _ 11:00am _ 7.00pm , 6:00am - 2:00pm 10:30am - 6:30pm 6:30am _2:30pm r - - South Shore 11:00am - 7:00pm 6:00am - 2:00pm 11:30am - 7:30pm 7:00am - 3:00pm Selecting Persons to Interview Interviewers were instructed to interview every party during lower use times. During higher use times, a systematic sampling was used; they were instructed to count every 2nd person after completing an interview, and ask that person to participate. If the person refused, they were to count again and approach the next party. Refusals were tracked on a separate form. Number of Completed Interviews A total of 375 interviews were conducted. The total number of parties approached was 477, for a response rate of 79%. The proportion of interviews conducted at each location is shown in the table below. Site Proportion of Completed Interviews South Shore: boathouse 11% South Shore: beach 26% r U Coot Lake: Trailhead 32% a Coot Lake: Tom Watson Park 2% Trailhead at 55th 29% m Tota 1 100% 0 0 N Report of Results (2009-09-24) Reservoir User Survey September 2009 Survey Processing (Data Entry) The survey forms completed by interviewers were collected by NRC for data entry. Prior to data entry, staff assigned a unique identification number to each form. Qnce all surveys were assigned a unique identification number, they were entered into an electronic dataset. This dataset was subject to a data entry protocol of "key and verify," in which survey data were entered twice into an electronic dataset and then compared. Discrepancies were evaluated against the original survey form and corrected. Range checks as well as other forms of quality control were also performed. Survey Analysis and Reporting The electronic dataset was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). A complete set of frequencies for each survey question is contained in Apperrdi.x A: Responses to Survey Questions. Verbatim responses to open-ended questions can be found in Appendiv B: Responses to Open-Ended Questions. SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS Users' Activities Those completing the survey were asked what activities they planned to participate in during their visit to the Reservoir. The most frequently mentioned activities varied greatly by interview site. The most frequently mentioned at each site are listed below, with the percent of respondents. (The percents may add to more than 100% as respondents could name more than one activity. The complete list of activities can be found in Table 2: Question #2 Activities During Reservoir Visit by Site on page 10 in ,41)petldix A: Responses to Suf-ve}, Questions. Coot Lake: Trailhead Coot Lake: Tom Watson Park Trailhead at 55th • Exercising pet, 71% • Other, 50% • Exercising pet, 49% • Walking/hiking, 56% • Exercising pet, 33% • Walking/hiking, 47% • Swimming, 15% • Walking/hiking, 33% • Relaxing on the beach, 23% • Picnicking, 33% • Jogging, 14% • Playing volleyball/other games, 17% • Swimming, 9% South Shore: Boathouse South Shore: Beach • Motor boating, 51% • Swimming, 67% • Swimming, 46% • Relaxing on the beach, 52% • Water skiing, 37% • Other, 20% • Other, 37% • Biking, 14% • Picnicking, 22% • Picnicking, 11% s • Relaxing on the beach, 20% • Social gathering, 11% • Kayakinglcanoeing, 20% U t u Nearly all those interviewed on the South Shore planned to spend one or more hours at the Reservoir on their visit (see Table 1: Question #I Duration of Visit to Reservoir by Sile). Over half of those at the trailheads planned to stay at the Reservoir for less than an hour. The boathouse and trailhead users were much more likely to be frequent visitors at the Reservoir compared to those at the beach (see Z 0 0 0 N Report of Resuits (2009-09-24) _ ~GEN,')A. OEM # V-4 PAC-,F- 11 Reservoir User Survey September 2009 Figure 9: Frequencies of Visits to Reservoir). Virtually all (94%) respondents used a car to get to the Reservoir (see Table 3: Question #3 Travel Mode Used to Get to Reservoir by Site). Users' Perspectives of the Reservoir Those interviewed for the Reservoir User Survey were asked what, in their own words, they liked most about visiting the Reservoir. Verbatim responses to these questions, as recorded by the interviewers, can be found in Appendix B: Responses to Open-Ended Questions. These responses were classified into several broad categories, and the percent giving a response in each category is shown in Table 5: Question #5 What Respondents Like Most About Visiting Reservoir by Site. Among the most frequently mentioned positive aspects about the Reservoir mentioned at all sites was the scenery, or the relaxing nature of the area, Those at Coot Lake and the 55th Trailhead also cited that dogs can swim, and that it is a dog-friendly area. Those interviewed at the boathouse were most likely to indicate the boating and the water as what they liked best, Those interviewed at the beach mentioned the beach itself and swimming. Coot Lake: Trailhead Coot Lake: Tom Watson Park Trailhead at 55th • Dog friendly/dogs off leash, 45% • Dog friendly/dogs off leash, 33% • Dog friendly/dogs off leash, 30% • Scenery/Relaxing/ Pretty, 29% • Scenery/Relaxing/Pretty, 17% • Scenery/Retaxing/Pretty, 26% • Dogs can swim, 22% • Dogs can swim, 17% • Water, 15% • Close, 17% • Swimming, 17% • Park, 17% South Shore: Boathouse South Shore: Beach • Boating, 29% • Scenery/Relaxing/Pretty, 23% • Water, 27% • Beach, 23% • Scenery/Relaxing/Pretty, 24% • Swimming, 20% When asked what would most improve their experience, many respondents replied that there was "nothing;" that they thought the Reservoir was good as it was (see Table 6: Question #6 What Would. Most Improve Respondents' Experience Visiting the Reservoir by Site). Among those who did give a response, the most frequently given suggestions included: ♦ Lower entrance fees, 7% Sand (more/better) on beach, 5% ♦ More garbage cans, 5% More swimming areas, 4% ♦ More/better bathrooms, 4% • More shade/shade trees, 3% 4 Allow dogs on beach, 3% Allow swimming on north shore, 3% ♦ More parking, 3% U Survey respondents rated 10 characteristics of the Reservoir on a 5 point scale from "very good" to "very bad." Ratings varied considerably by the location at which the users were interviewed. In m general, North Shore users gave more positive ratings than South Shore users (see Figure 1 on the next .s page). However, 55th Trailhead users gave lower ratings than most other user groups to the amount of z 0 0 N Report of Results (2009-09-24) AGF-NDA VIA , PAGE 19 Reservoir User Survey September 2009 parking, the condition of developed facilities and the condition of the water in the Reservoir. Pedestrian safety at the Coot Lake Trailhead was given lower ratings than at the 55th Trailhead. Figure 1: Ratings of Reservoir Characteristics by Site 77% 100% safety from crime 182% %n 80% condition of the trails 79% 67% - 78°/n 180% safety from reckless or drunken behavior 83% 70% 100% pedestrian safety 45`n, 45% 641A .Q a-=- 75% location and availability of sign information u` 9°l° 4K' 56-Y, 67`k cleanliness of area 21x. '`}y' ■Trailhead at 55th r 39.6 56% M Coot Lake: Tom Watson Park condition of the natural environment such as ❑ Coot Lake: Trailhead grass, vegetation, etc 61% 29:, ■South Shore: beach ■South Shore: boathouse _>b %n 83% amount of parking at this entrance 37'" 49% 5$% 31 °i 67% condition of the water in the Reservoir 44% 25% 29% c condition of developed facilities, such as 43% i 67% c shelters, picnic benches and restrooms 30% ~ 1011 m m 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60°/a 70% 80% 90% 10U% y 70 Percent of Respondents Rating as "Very Good" C 0 z rn 0 0 N Report of Results (2009-09-24) AGENDA ITEM # _ V-A- , PAGE Reservoir User Survey September 2009 Three-quarters or more of respondents felt there was about the "right amount" of the following types of enforcement and patrol: ♦ enforcement of dog leash laws, 84% enforcement of alcohol regulations, 83% enforcement of nudity regulations, 77% ♦ boat enforcement, 76% ♦ ranger patrols on trails, 75% ♦ ranger patrols on the South Shore (beach area - swimming and boating), 73% There was not as much variation by site on these items as on others included on the survey (see Figure 10 and Table 10 in Appendix A: Responses to Sui-vey Questions). A series of potential policies that could be implemented at the Reservoir were presented to those interviewed. They were asked to what extent they would support or oppose each plan. Most of the proposed policies were opposed by respondents (see Figure 2). Eighty-five percent or more of respondents were not in favor of charging fees at the trailheads even though the fees would be used to make improvements at these sites. Those interviewed on the North Shore were especially opposed to collecting fees at these locations (see Table 14). In addition, nearly three-quarters of respondents opposed the elimination of motorized boating at the Reservoir. About two-thirds of those interviewed, however, said they would at least somewhat support the creation of a private area where nudity would be allowed. Support for this idea was a bit lower at the South Shore, but nevertheless a slight majority did at least somewhat support the notion (see Table 14). Figure 2: Support for or Opposition To Implementation of Potential Policies at Reservoir Roppose Clsupport creation of private area where nudity is allowed 650/0 el im in atio n of motorized boati ng at the R ese rvoi r 26% fees to access the Rese rvoi r at Coot Lake andthe 55th trail head if restroom aocess was improved Mali] 15% fees to access the Rese rvoi r a t Coot Lake andthe 55th trai Ihea d if m ore parki ng was provided 14% U C N N C fees to access the Rese rvoi r at Coot Lake andthe 55th 12% trailhead if trails were improved R m N UI -100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% c 0 Percent of Respondents z rn 0 0 rv Report of Results {2009-09-24) Reservoir User Survey September 2009 User/Respondent Characteristics Overall, less than half of those interviewed lived in the city of Boulder. At the 55th trailhead and Tom Watson Park, about 50% of respondents reported they lived in Boulder, while at the boathouse, just over half said they lived in Boulder. However, at the Coot Lake trailhead and at the South Shore beach, less than 40% of respondents were Boulder residents. Most of those who did not live in the city of Boulder were residents within Boulder County (see Table 16), with the South Shore beach also attracting a fair number of users from metro Denver (25% of South Shore beach respondents). Figure 3: Percent of Respondents Who Live in Boulder by Site Overall 43% Trailhead at 55th 50% Coot Lake: Tom Watson 50% Park Coot Lake: Trailhead 39% South Shore: beach 33% South Shore: boathouse 55% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 9M 100% Percent of Respondents Who Live in Boulder V C W C W U L V M N N O 10 C O Z 01 O O N Report of Results (2009-09-24) Reservoir User Survey September 2009 Overall, about half of the respondents were male, half female (see Figure 4). However, at the Coot Lake trailhead, there was a larger proportion of females than males, while at the South Shore, there was a larger proportion of males compared to females. Groups at the South Shore were more likely to include children (20% or more of those interviewed) than were those at the North Shore sites (see Figure 5). Virtually no dogs were found on the South Shore, but half or more of those interviewed at the North Shore sites were with dogs, with nearly 8 in 10 respondents with a dog at the Coot Lake trailhead (see Figure 6 on the next page). Figure 4: Gender of Respondent by Site Overall - 49% 51% Trailhead at 55th 4701° D Female 53% ~ Male Coot Lake: Tam Watson 50% Park 50% Coot Lake: Trailhead 62 38°% o South Shore: beach 43% 57% South Shore: boathouse 37% 63% 0% 10% 20°n 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90°/. 100% Percent of Respondents Figure 5: Percent of Respondents Whose Groups Included Children Overall 13% Trailhead at 55th 77-31. Coot Lake: Tom Watson Park 0% Coot Lake: Trailhead 8% South Shore: beach 26% C South Shore: boathouse 20% z 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% m Percent of Respondents Whose Group Included Children 0 z 00 0 N Report of Results (2009-09-24) Reservoir User Survey September 2009 Figure 6: Percent of Respondents Whose Groups Included Dogs Overall 41% Traiihead at 55th 53% Coot Lake: Tom Watson Park 50% Coot Lake: Trailhead 78% South Shore: beach ' 1% South Shore: boathouse 0% 0% 10%, 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent of Respondents Whose Group Included Dogs U C y C N V .C U 16 v N N a m G 0 m Z rn 0 0 N 0 Report of Results (2009-09-24) AGENDA ITEM # . PAGE--2-3 Reservoir User Survey September 2009 APPENDIX A: RESPONSES TO SURVEY QUESTIONS The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey. Table 1: Question #1 Duration of Visit to Reservoir by Site j Coot Lake: How much time do you plan on I South South Tom spending at the Reservoir or in Shore: Shore: Coot Lake: i Watson Trailhead Reservoir area this visit? boathouse 1 beach Trailhead ! Park at 55th Overall Less than half hour 0% 1% ! 15% 0% 13% 9% 30 minutes to 59 minutes 0% 9% 49% 50% 38% 30% 1- 3 hours 54% 54% 35% 17% 47% 45% More than 3 hours 46% 36% 11yo 33% 2% 16% Total 1000/0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Figure 7. Duration of Visit to Reservoir (Overall) Less than half hour, 30 minutes to 59 9% minutes, 30% More than 3 hours. 16/0 1- 3 hours, 45% d U .G U 61 N N C O a 0 N Report of Results (2009-09-24) AGE 2,q Reservoir User Survey September 2009 Table 2: Question #2 Activities During Reservoir Visit by Site Coot i What activities will you participate In Lake: during your visit to the Reservoir area South South Coot Tom (Coot Lake/Tom Watson area/ trails from Shore: Shore: Lake: Watson Trailhead 55th)?* boathouse beach I Trailhead Park at 55th Overall Walking/hiking 2% 9% I 56% 33% 47% 35% Jogging 7% 9% 9% 0% 14% 10% Biking - - - 5% 14% 3% 0% I 83'0 7% Exercising pet 2% 1% 71% 33% 493'° 38% Picnicking 22% 11% 2% 33% f 3% 7% Social gathering I 7% 11% 1% 00% 43'0 Swimming ' 46% 67% 15% 0% 9% 30% Relaxing on the beach 20% 52% 3% 0% 23% 23% Other 37% 20% 9% 50% 7% 15% Motor boating 51% 5/0 0%° 1 0% 0% 7% Water skiing 3-F-/.-- 1% 0% 0% 0% 5% Sail boating 7% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% Kayaking/canoeing 20% 5% 0% 0% I 0% 4% Windsailing/windsurfing 2% 0% 0% 0% i 0% 0% Playing on playgrounds 5% - 0% 0% 0%° I 1% -t - 1% Playing volleyball/other games 5%' 7% 0% 17% 0% 3% *Percents may add to more than 100% as respondents could give more than one answer. a~ C 41 U t U O O Z O O N Report of Results (2009-09-24) n AGPv V-/k PAGE-.ate Reservoir User Survey September 2009 Figure 8: Activities During Reservoir Visit 38% 49% Exercising pet 71% 2% 35a/o 4?% Walking/hiking 56% 30% n Swimming 67% 0 23% 23% Relaxing on the beach 52% 0 7% ■ Overall ° ® Trailhead at 55th Motor boating Oo~° o ■ Coot Lake: Tom Watson Park 51% ■ Coot Lake: Trailhead ■ South Shore: beach Picnicking 33% ■ South Shore: boathouse 11% 22% 596 ° Water skiing 37% 4% ° Kayaking/canoeing Oo° 20% 196 0 Sail boating 2% 7% 0% 10`Ya 20% 30% 40% 501/0 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6 Percent of Respondents C N U L V l6 N fn N O O Z rn O O N Report of Results (2009-09-24) AGENDA ITFM #t V-A Mr-11!7! 1n Reservoir User Survey September 2009 Table 3: Question #3 Travel Mode Used to Get to Reservoir by Site Coot Lake: What mode of transportation did South I South Tom you use to get to the Reservoir Shore: I Shore: Coot Lake: Watson Trailhead area today? boathouse I beach Trailhead Park at 55th Overall Car 98% 92% I 95°% 100°% 92% 1 94% Bus 0% 2% 00/0, - Oaf - 0% 1% Bike - 2°% 4% 3% 0 0% 7% 5% Walk 0% 1°% 1% 0% 1% 1% Other 00A 1% 0°1 0% 1% - - Total 100% 100% ~ 100% 100% 100% - 100% Figure 9: Frequencies of Visits to Reservoir 33% 23% 0to4times 17 19% 65% 29°l0 30°% 38 About once a week to once 50% ■ Overall a month 31°f ®Trailhead at 55th 21% 1 24% ■ Coot Lake: Tom Watson Park 37% ■CootLake:Trailhead 39% ■South Shore: beach 33°% ■South Shore: boathouse 2 or more times a week 7..~ 50°l 14% - • 46% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 60% 90% 100% Percent of Respondents Table 4: Question #4 Frequencies of Visits to Reservoir by Site About how many times have you visited the Reservoir area this summer, Coot Lake: including the beach and boating areas South South Tom or Coot Lake/Tom Watson park area or Shore: Shore: Coot Lake: Watson Trailhead at the trailhead at 55th? boathouse beach Trallhead . Park 55th Overall None, this is first visit 20%' 29% 6% 17% 10% 15% C.1 One or two times 2% 19% 30/0. 0% 8% 8°% 3 or 4 times 776 17% 10% 0%' 5°% 10% About once a month _ 5% 6% _ 3°% 17% 10% 6% 2 or 3 times a month 7%' 12%' 12%' 33%1 18% 14% 8 About once a week 12% 3°% 16% 0% 10°% 10% Tn 2 or 3 times a week - 29°% 11°l° 22°% 0% 20% m Tar more times a week 17% 3% 28°/% 33'/ 17°% 17°% 5 Total 100% _ 100- 100%, 100%/0 100% 100°/o a 0 N Q Report of Results (2009-09-24) ~ AG41A. iTIFN . V- o PAG Reservoir User Survey September 2009 Table 5: Question #5 What Respondents Like Most About Visiting Reservoir by Site Coot Lake: i What do you like most about South South Tom visiting the Boulder Reservoir Shore: Shore: I Coot Lake: Watson Trailhead area?* boathouse beach Trailhead Park at 55th Overall Beach 2% 23% 0% 0% 1% 1 6% Biking 1 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% Boating 29% 3% 0% -0% 1% 1 5% Close 7% 4% 3% 17% 4% 1 - - -4% Dog friendly/dogs off leash 0% 3% 45% 33% 30% 25% Dogs can swim 0% 0% 22% 17% 11% 11% Fishing i 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% Free 0% 0% 1% 0% 7% 2% Lake 0% 0% O% 0% 0% 0% Nice facilities 0% 2% 0% % 0% - - - 1% 1% Other 10% 7% 4% 0% 8% 7% Park 0% 0% 0% 17% 1% 1% Races/events 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% , 1% Rowing - 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% Scenery/Relaxing/Pretty 24% 23% 29% 17% 26% 25% Swimming 7% 20% 2% 17% 2% 7% ~Tubing/Wake/Water Boarding- -0% 2% 0% 0% 0% - - 1% Waiking/running/traiis - 2% 9°k 9% 0% 12% 9% Water 27% 16% 110/0 0% 15% 15% Water skiing 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% * Percents may add to more than 100% as respondents could give more than one answer. U G d C U s m m m C O z M O O N Report of Results (2009-09-24) AGENDA ITEM # V -A PAGE 4~ Reservoir User Survey September 2009 Table 6: Question #6 What Would Most Improve Respondents' Experience Visiting the Reservoir by Site Coot Lake: What would most improve your South South Tom experience visiting the Boulder Shore: Shore: Coot Lake: Watson Trailhead Reservoir area? boathouse beach Trailhead Park at 55th Overall Allow dogs in reservoir 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% Allow dogs on beach 0% 1% 4% 17% 3% 3% Allow dogs on boats 0% 0% 0%° 0% 2% 1% Allow swimming on north shore 0% 0% 2% I 0% 6% 3% Allow wading/swimming 0% 0% 0% I 0% 5% 2% Ban boating 0% 0% 0% III 0°% I 1% 0% Ban dogs - 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% L Ban or limit boating 3% 0% 0% 0% l 1% 1% Cleaner water/beach 3% 4% 0% 0% 2% 2% Diving 0% 4% 0% ' 0%~ 0% 1% Dog control - 0% 0% 2%~ - -0% 1% 1% Eliminate nudity I 0% 1% ' 0% 0% 0% 0% Have nude area 0% 0% i 0% 0% 1% 0% Lower entrance fees 3% 18%~ 4%~ 0% 4% 7% More garbage cans 0% 0% 110/c 17% i 4% 5% More parking - - 0% 3% - 40 - 0% 2% 3% More patrolling 3% 0%J 0% 09K6 0% 0% More shade/shade trees 3% 3% 2% 17° 2% - 3% More swimming areas 5% 15% 0% 0% 2% 4% More/better bathrooms 5% 0`/° 8% 0% 4% 4% Motorboat control 3% O% 0% - Nature Walk - + 0% - 1 - 0% 0% 1% 1% No fees on north shore - t- 0% 0% 0% 0 1% 0% Nothing/Good the way it is 28% 15% 37% 33`Y° 40% 32% Other 41% 26% 18% 17% 11% 20% Parking 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% , 0% Pick up after dogs 0% 0% 5% i 0% ~ 1°% 2% Picnic tables 5% 3% - - - 0% 0%- 2°1 - - 2% Restrict alcohol 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% Sand (more/better) on beach 5% 7% 2% 0% 6% 5% Traffic mitigation/traffic crossing 0% ! 0% 2% 0% 0 1% * Percents may add to more than 100% as respondents could give more than one answer. d U L U f° 47 N Q1 D: l0 C O Z m O O N Report of Results (2009-09-24) Reservoir User Survey September 2009 Table 7: Question #7 Ratings of Reservoir Characteristics I would like you to rate a number of characteristics about this park. Please rate each on a scale of 1 to 5, where Very Very Don't 1="very good" and 5="very bad'. good 2 3 4 bad know Total condition of the natural environment such as grass, vegetation, etc 47% 37% 12% 1% 1% 2% 1 100% condition of the water in the Reservoir 30% 29% 22% 3% ' 2% 14% 100% cleanliness of area 50% 35% 12% 2% 0% 1% 100% condition of developed facilities, such as shelters, picnic benches and restrooms 28% 29% 19% 5% 4% 15% 100% condition of the trails I 58% 18% 3% ; 1% 0% 20% _ 100% location and availability of sign It information 50% 22% 12% 4%I 2% 11% 100% amount of parking at this entrance 38% 22% 18% 11% t 7% 3% 100% pedestrian safety 53% 23% 12% 4%~ 2% 5% 100% safety from crime 67% 16% 3% 1% } 1% 12% 100% safety from reckless or drunken behavior 63% 19% 4% 1°% 1% 12% 100% Table 8: Question #7 Ratings of Reservoir Characteristics by Slte I would like you to rate a number Percent Rating as "Very Good" of characteristics about this park. Coot Lake: Please rate each on a scale of 1 South South Tom to 5, where 1="very good" and Shore: Shore: Coot Lake: Watson I Trailhead 5="very bad". boathouse beach Trailhead Park at 55th Overall Condition of the natural environment such as grass, vegetation, etc 33% 29°x6 61% 40% 56% 48% Condition of the water in the Reservoir 44% 25% 44% 67% 31% 35% cleanliness of area 39% 34% 62% 67% 56% 51% Condition of developed facilities, such as shelters, picnic benches and restrooms 10% 30% 43% 67°% 29°% 33% Condition of the trails 24% 67% 79% 80°% 78% 73% location and availability of sign information 43°% 39% 66% 75°% 64% 56% amount of parking at this entrance 58% 49°% 37% 83% 26% 40% pedestrian safety 45% 45% : 53% 100°% 70% 56°% safety from crime - 65% 71% 82°1 - 100°% 77% 76% t° safety from reckless or drunken behavior 42% 60% 83°% 8046 78'i'; 72% 0 z 0 0 0 N Report of Results (2009-09-24) Reservoir User Survey September 2009 Table 9: Question #8 Ratings of Amount of Each at Reservoir How would you rate the amount of each of the following? For each, tell me whether you think there Is far too much, somewhat too much, about the right amount, somewhat too little or Far too Somewhat About Somewhat Far too Don't much too little. much too much right too little little know Total ranger patrols on the South Shore (beach area - swimming and boating) 2% 4% 33% 5% 1% 56% 100% ranger patrols on trails 1% 4% 46% 9% ' 2% 39% 100% enforcement of alcohol regulations 1% 4% 46% 4% 2% 45% 100% enforcement of nudity regulations 3% 3% 45% 510 2% 42% 1000f° enforcement of dog leash laws 3% 3% 59% 3% i 2% 30% 100% boat enforcement 1% 3% 35% 5% 2% 54% 100% Figure 10: Ratings of Amount of Each at Reservoir enforcement of dog leash laws 84% enforcement of alcohol regulations 83% enforcement of nudity regulations 77% boat enforcement 76% ranger patrols on trails 75% ranger patrols on the South Shore (beach area - 73% swimming and boating) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent of Respondents Rating as "About Right" Table 10: Question #8 Ratings of Amount of Each at Reservoir by Site How would you rate the amount of Percent Rating as About Right each of the following? For each, tell me whether you think there is far too Coot Lake: much, somewhat too much, about the South South Tom right amount, somewhat too little or Shore: Shore: Coot Lake: Watson Trailhead much too little. boathouse beach Trailhead Park at 55th Overall ranger patrols on the South Shore (beach area - swimming and boating) 79% 71% 79% 100% 67% 73% ranger patrols on trails - - - - 92% 70% 74%° 75% 78%~- -75% enforcement of alcohol regulations 92% 83% 83% 100% 77% 83% -cc - cc enforcement of nudity regulations v 86% 74%T - 77% T 75 0 76% 77% enforcement of dog leash laws - - 82% 83%f - 90%~ - 100% 79% 84% boat enforcement 69% 73% 83% 100% 76% 76% 0 -18 z M 0 0 Report of Results (2009-09-24) Reservoir User Survey September 2009 Figure 11: Percent Rating A Minor or Great Extent of Conflict Between Motor Boating and Other Uses at the Reservoir Overall 32% Trailhead at 55th 28% Coot Lake: Tom Watson Park 0`%0 Coot Lake: Trailhead 28% South Shore: beach 34°% South Shore: boathouse 51% 0°% 10% 20% 30°% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent of Respondents Rating as "Minor" or "Great Extent" Table 11: Question #9 Perceptions of Conflicts Between Motor Boating and Other Uses To what extent, if at all, do you Coot Lake: i think there are conflicts between South South Tom motor boating at the Reservoir Shore: E Shore: Coot Lake: Watson Trailhead and other uses? boathouse ! beach Trailhead Park at 55th Overall A great extent 5% 1°% 7% 0% 11% 6% A minor extent - - - - 46% 33% 21% 0% - 17% - 26% No extent 49% 66% 72% 100% 72% 68% Total - 100% 100% f 100% ' 100% - 100% 100°% Table 12: Question #9a Conflicts Observed Coot Lake: South South Tom What are the conflicts that exist or Shore: Shore: Coot Lake: Watson Trailhead that you observe?* boathouse beach Trailhead Park at 55th Overall Boating/skiing clashes with races/events 11% 4% 0% - 0% 3% Boats limit swimming area i _ 0°% 21°% 0% - 7% . 7% Motor boat drivers reckless/disregard rules 22%% 21% j , 30% _ - = 18% 22°% Motorized versus non-motorized 17% 13°% 22% 11% 16% Noise 6% 8% 4% - 29% 13% 0% - - -4% 4% 3 None - - - - - 60% - 8% Other 17% 21% I 9% - 11% 15% `m Pollution/water quality _ 1 6%1 - _0% 0% - ` - 14% 5% Safety 0% 4% 0% - 0% 1% Too much traffic/too busy i 6% 4% 22% - 7% 9% Wakes/Waves - -17% 0% i 13°% 4- - - - 11%^^ - 9% Grand Total - 100°% 100°% 100% - 100°% 100°% z * Percents may add to more than IOO% as respondents could give more than one answer, o 0 N Report of Results (2009-09-24) PAn Reservoir User Survey September 2009 Table 13: Question #10 Support for or Opposition To Implementation of Potential Policies at Reservoir To what extent would you support or Strongly Strongly oppose the following at the Boulder Support Oppose Reservoir? 1 2 3 4 5 , Total creation of private area where nudity is allowed 25% 30% 15% 15% 15% 100% fees to access the Reservoir at Coot Lake and the 55th trailhead if restroom access was improved 4% 9% 13% 60% 15% I 100% fees to access the Reservoir at Coot Lake and the 55th trailhead if more parking was provided 4% I 8% 15% 58% 15% 100% fees to access the Reservoir at Coot Lake - and the 55th trailhead if trails were improved 3% I 7% 15% 59% 16% 100% elimination of motorized boating at the Reservoir 12% 10% 19% 43% 17% 100% Table 14: Question #10 Support for Implementation of Potential Policies at Reservoir by Site Percent "Somewhat" or "Strongly Supporting" Coot Lake: To what extent would you support South South Tom or oppose the following at the Shore: Shore: Coot Lake: Watson Trailhead Boulder Reservoir? boathouse beach Trailhead Park at 55th Overall creation of private area where nudity is allowed 55% I 52% 66% 80% 74% 65% fees to access the Reservoir at Coot Lake and the 55th trailhead if restroom access was improved 38% 28% 5% 20% ' 12% 15% fees to access the Reservoir at Coot Lake and the 55th trailhead if more parking was provided 36% i 26% 4% 0% 13% 14% fees to access the Reservoir at Coot Lake and the 55th trailhead if trails were improved 36% 24% 4% 0% 8% 12% elimination of motorized boating at the Reservoir 14% 15% 37% 67% 30% 26% U C Gl yC V U N UI N N C O z rn 0 0 N 0 Report of Results (2009-09-24) AGENDA ITEM 4__V-A_, PArjE1 Reservoir User Survey September 2009 Table 15: Question #11 Other Comments by Site Coot Lake: Do you have any other comments South South Tom about the Boulder Reservoir Shore: Shore: Coot Lake: Watson Trailhead area?* boathouse beach Trailhead Park at 55th Overall Better bathroom maintenance/cleaning 0% 9% 5% 0% 3% 4% Do not restrict motorized boating 29% 3% 0% 0°% 0% 3°% Dog complaints - - --0% - -0°% 4% 0% 0% 2% Fees are high 5% 9% 2% 0% 6% 5% Increase pedestrian safety 0% 0% 5% 0°% 0% 2% It's nice/nothing 48% 54% 66% 100% 65% 64% Keep it free - - 0°% 0°% 4% 0% 5°% 1 3% Like dog off leash / dog swimming area 0°% 0°% 4% i O% 1% 2% Motorized boat complaints 5°% 0% 0°% 20% 6%0 3°% Need a boathouse 10% 0% 0% t 0°% 0% 1°% Need more picnic tables 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 05/0 Other ! 5% 23% j 10% 0% 8% 10% Reduce oil from swimmers in water 0% 0% 1% 0% 2% 1% Swim at Coot lake 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 1% Swim at own risk area 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 1 1% Swimming on north shore 0% 3% 0% 0% 1% , 1% *Percents may add to more than 100% as respondents could give more than one answer. V C N N C 61 V L V (0 G7 N N ro C O z O O O N Report of Results (2009-09-24) AGENDA ITFM U- . , PAG'E 3 T Reservoir User Survey September 2009 Table 16: Question #12 Place of Residence by Site Coot Lake: South South Tom Where do you live? Do you live Shore: Shore: Coot Lake: Watson Trailhead in boathouse beach Trallhead Park at 55th Overall The city of Boulder 55% 33% 39% 50% 50% 43% Somewhere else in Boulder County 30% 24% 50% ' 33% 38% 38% Somewhere else in metro-Denver 8% 25% 8% ' 17% 9% 13% Somewhere else in the state 5% 14% 3% 0% 1% 5% Out of state 3% 4% 1% 0% 2% 2% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Table 17: Question #13 Respondent Age by Site Coot Lake: South South Tom Which category contains your Shore: Shore: Coot Lake: Watson Trailhead age? boathouse beach Trailhead Park at 55th Overall Under 16 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 16-17 0% 3% 0% 0% 1% 10/0 18-24 8% 15% 4% 33% 6% 9% 25-34 - 25% I - 27% 21% 0% 25% - 23% 35-44 23% 32% 20%-- 17% 32% 26% 45-54 30% 8% 25% 50% 17% 19% 55-64 15% 13% 21% 0% 15% .I 17% 65+ - 0% T-- - 2`l0 9% 00/0 - 5% 5% Total - 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Table 18: Question #A Sex of Respondent by Site Coot Lake: South South Tom Shore: Snore: Coot Lake: Watson Trallhead Sex of Respondent boathouse i beach Trailhead Park at 55th ; Overall Male 63% 57% 381/1o Female 37% 43% 62% Total 100% , 100% 100% 100% ' 100% 100% C N V L U l0 N N N N C O Z O O N Report of Results (2009-09-24) AGENDA ITEM ~ V- , PAGE 35 Reservoir User Survey September 2009 Table 19: Question #S Number of People in Group by Site Coot Lake: South South i Tom Shore: Shore: Coot Lake: Watson Trailhead Number of people in group boathouse beach Trailhead Park at 55th Overall 1 28% 1 33% 54% 50% 60% 48% 2 20% 32% 39% 33% 32% 33% 3 13% 16%0 5% - - 0% 5% 8% 4 30% 9% 1% 0% 2% 7% 5 5% 2% 0% 17% 0% 1% 6 3% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1% 7 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 8 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 9 0% 0% 0°/a 0% 0% 0% 10 3% 1% j 0% 0% 0% 1% 18 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Table 20: Question #C Presence of Children In Group by Site Coot Lake: South South Tom Shore: Shore: i Coot Lake: Watson ! Trailhead Children in group? boathouse beach Trailhead Park at 55th Overall Yes 20% 26% 8% 0% 7% 13% No 80% 74% 92% 100% 93% 87% Total 100% 100% 1000/U 100% 100% 100% Table 21: Question #D Presence of Dogs with Group by Site Coot Lake: South South Tom Shore: Shore: Coot Lake: Watson Trailhead Dogs in group? boathouse beach Trailhead Park at 55th Overall Yes 0% 1% 78% 50% 53% 41% No - - 100% - 99% - 22% 50% - -47% 59% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% j 100% U C N G 67 U L U N N (U C O Z m 0 0 N Report of Results (2009-09-24) Reservoir User Survey September 2009 Table 22: Question #F Day Respondent was Surveyed by Site Coot Lake: South South Tom Shore: Shore: Coot Lake: Watson Trailhead Day boathouse beach Trailhead Park at 55th Overall Thursday (August 6, 2009) 20% 22% 21% 33% - 17% 20% Friday (August 7, 2009) 32% 19% 26% 0% 33% 26% Saturday (August 8, 2009) 17% j 42% 21% ' 17% 34% 30% Sunday (August 9, 2009) 32% 17% 32% 50% 16% 24% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Table 23: Question #H Weather at Time of Survey by Site Coot Lake: South South Tom Shore: Shore: Coot Lake: Watson Trailhead Weather boathouse beach Trailhead Park at 55th Overall Sunny, dry - 1 98% 78% 82% 67% to 90% 85% Sunny, wet 0% 2% 0% 0% ' 1% 1% Cloudy, dry 2%0 - - 14% 16% 0% 7% 11% Cloudy, wet 0% 0% 2% 170/% 1% 1% Rainy 0% 6% 1% 17% 2% 3% Snow 0°/0 0% 0% 01o 0% 0% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% L* G C! C a v r U C1 ro G O N S N Report of Results (2009-09-24) ' 'AGENDA. FEE Reservoir User Survey September 2009 APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS Verbatim responses to the open-ended questions are included in this Appendix. Question #2. Other What activities will you participate in during your visit to the Reservoir area (Coot Lake/Tom Watson area/ trails from 55th)? Coot Lake: Tom Watson Park * WAKE BOARD * LUNCH AT PARK * TUBING/WAKE BOARDING. * BASKETBALL * TUBING/WAKE BOARDING. * DOG * TUBING, WAKE BOARDING. Coot Lake: Trailhead * TUBED * FISHING. * WORKING * MEMORIAL FOR DOG. * WORK AT BOATHOUSE * PLAYING WITH DOGS. South Shore: beach * DOG SWAM * FISHING. * DOG PLAY. * PLANNING AN EVENT * DOG PLAY * PADDLE BOATING. * VIEWS * READING, NAPPING, EAT LUNCH, PEOPLE * ENJOYING WATER AND LAND. WATCHING * BIRD WATCHING. * LOLLIGAGGING * WADING IN WATER. * CHECKING IT OUT Trailhead at 55th * RUNNING * PLAY FRISBEE * TUBING, WATERBOARDING * JUST MOVED HERE. * SPECTATING A RACE * FRISBEE * WATCH RACE * DOGS AT COOT LAKE, KARATE * WATCH RACE DEMONSTRATION. * WATCH RACE * DOG SWIM * RACE South Shore: boathouse * RACE * SCULLING * KIDS TRIATHALON * ROWING! * DUATHLON * ROWING * WORKING FOR TRIATHALON * ROWING * WORKING * ROWING Unspecified * WATERBOARDING. * TUBING * WAKEBOARDING/SKIING/TUBING. * RAFTING. C * WAKEBOARDING. r U m m Gl m c O 2 m O O N Report of Results (2009-09-24) Reservoir User Survey September 2009 Question #5. What do you like most about visiting the Boulder Reservoir area? Coot Lake: Tom Watson Park ♦ DOGS OFF LEASH. ♦ EASY DRIVE FROM BOULDER. ♦ DOGS OFF LEASH. ♦ DOGS RUN FREE. ♦ DOGS OFF LEASH AND SWIM. ♦ DOG FRIENDLY. ♦ DOGS OFF LEASH ♦ SWIM YOUR DOGS, VIEWS, HAPPY ♦ DOGS OFF LEASH BEAUTIFUL PLACE, ENJOY RUNNING ♦ DOGS LOVE IT HERE. HERE. ♦ DOGS DON'T NEED LEASH AND VIEW. ♦ THE PARK. ♦ DOGS CAN BE OFF LEASH. ♦ SWIMMING ♦ DOGS CAN BE OFF LEASH AND SWIM. Coot Lake: Trailhead ♦ DOG WALKING, HIKING WITH DOGS. ♦ EASE OF ACCESSIBILITY, BEAUTY, ♦ DOG PARK. FACILITY, PET-FRIENDLY. ♦ DOG PARK AND WATER ♦ CONVENIENT, CLEAN, FRIENDLY ♦ DOG OFF LEASH AND SWIM. ♦ CLOSE TO BOULDER BUT FEEL LIKE YOU ♦ DOG OFF LEASH AND HE CAN SWIM ARE OUT IN COUNTRY. ♦ ACCESSIBLE WATER, DOG WATER ♦ DOG HAS FUN, IT'S PRETTY AND FRIENDLY. • WATER & OFF LEASH. ♦ DOG FRIENDLY. ♦ VOICE AND SIGHT PROGRAM. ♦ DOG FRIENDLY, GREAT SUMMER SPOT. ♦ RUN DOGS OFF LEASH. ♦ DOG FRIENDLY AND OFF LEASH. ♦ OFF LEASH FOR DOG. ♦ DOG CAN RUN AND HAVE FUN, ♦ OFF LEASH DOG RULES, WATER GOOD. BEAUTIFUL. ♦ OFF LEASH AREA. ♦ DOG AREA. ♦ OFF LEASH AND THE WATER FOR THE ♦ CAN TAKE DOG OFF LEASH. DOGS. ♦ WATER FOR DOGS. ♦ NO LEASH FOR DOG. DOG CAN SWIM. ♦ WATER FOR DOG. ♦ NICE, EXERCISE DOG. ♦ VOICE COMMAND FOR DOGS. DOGS CAN ♦ NICE WALK FOR DOGS. SWIM. TRAILS ARE NICE. ♦ MY DOGS CAN SWIM AND BE OFF ♦ THE LAKE FOR THE DOGS. LEASH. ♦ OFF LEASH FOR DOGS AND WATER. ♦ LOTS OF OTHER DOGS AND DOW ♦ DOGS SWIM. OWNERS. ♦ LET DOG OFF LEASH. ♦ DOGS CAN SWIM. • LAKE - SCENERY - DOGS OFF LEASH ♦ DOGS CAN SWIM. ♦ GOOD FOR EXERSING DOGS. ♦ DOGS CAN SWIM. ♦ GOOD FOR DOGS, VOICE CONTROL. ♦ DOGS CAN SWIM. ♦ GOOD FOR DOGS, NICE LOOP. • DOGS CAN SWIM. ♦ GOOD FOR DOG. ♦ DOGS CAN SWIM. ♦ EXERCISING MY DOG - SWIMMING. • DOGS CAN SWIM, NO BOATS. ♦ DOGS RUN FREE. ♦ DOGS CAN PLAY IN THE WATER, GREAT WALKING, FRIENDLY PEOPLE. ♦ DOGS OFF LEASH. DOGS CAN SWIM. ♦ DOGS CAN COOL OFF, OFF LEASH. o ♦ DOGS OFF LEASH. ♦ DOG CAN SWIM. z ♦ DOGS OFF LEASH. 0 0 N Report of Results (2009-09-24) Milt PAGE Reservoir User Survey September 2009 ♦ DOG CAN SWIM. ♦ SWIMMING. ♦ FREE RUN FOR DOGS NO LEASH. ♦ WALKING AND LETTING DOGS SWIM. ♦ WELL THOUGH FEW PEOPLE WITH PETS. ♦ TRAILS. ♦ PROXIMITY ♦ TRAILS. ♦ PEOPLE FRIENDLY, DOGS ARE ♦ TRAILS. CONTROLLED. ♦ TRAILS. • EVERYTHING. ♦ TRAILS. ♦ CLEAN. ♦ TRAIL AND DOGS CAN SWIM. ♦ WEATHER, QUIET. ♦ GOOD RUNNING SPACE. + VIEWS, ♦ WATER. ♦ VIEWS, PEACEFULNESS, ACCESSABILITY ♦ WATER, TRAILS, WILDLIFE - IT'S FREE. ♦ WATER, LEASH FREE + VIEWS - WILDLIFE ♦ WATER, DOGS, NO BIKES! • VIEW - QUIET ♦ THE WATER. ♦ VIEW ♦ THE WATER, NORTH SIDE DUE TO DOGS. + TRANQUIL, SCENERY GOOD FOR DOGS. ♦ ACCESS TO WATER. ♦ SCENIC VIEWS. ♦ ACCESS TO WATER ♦ SCENERY. ♦ GETTING IN OURDOORS. + SCENERY, DOG OFF LEASH Trailhead at 55th ♦ SCENERY - LAKE DOG FREE TO ROAM. ♦ LIKE BEING AT BEACH. + QUIET, SCENERY, EXCELLENT TRAIL ♦ GOOD BIKE PATH. FOR RUNNING. ♦ QUIET, SCENERY ♦ LOCATION - NICE DRIVE TO GET HERE. ♦ PEACE AND BEAUTY, GREAT TRAILS. • EASY ACCESS TO TRAILS. • OPEN SPACE, RUNNING FOR PEOPLE AND ♦ CLOSE AND CONVENIENT, AND DOGS ANIMALS, EAUTY, MAINTENANCE, NOT CAN BE OFF LEASH. OVERDONE. ♦ ACCESSIBILITY. • OPEN SPACE FOR DOGS, ACCESS TO • WATER & OFF LEASH. WATER. ♦ RUN MY DOGS. ♦ NICE SPOT FOR BREAKS. ♦ OFF LEASH DOG WALKING AND BIRDS. ♦ NATURE. ♦ IT'S FREE - DOG FRIENDLY. CAN COME ♦ NATURE CLOSE TO CITY, DOG OFF HERE FOR SHORT TIME AND NOT HAVE LEASH. TO PAY. ♦ LIKE OPEN OUTDOORS. ♦ HAVE DOGS OFF LEASH, FEWER RULES. ♦ LIKE NORTHEST SECTION. • FREEDOM, CAN HAVE DOGS. ♦ GREAT FOR DOGS. ♦ DOGS. ♦ GOOD SSCENE, GOOD FOR DOGS. • DOGS OFF LEASH. ♦ CALM, EASY, FRIENDLY • DOGS OFF LEASH. ♦ BEING OUTSIDE IN SUN. ♦ DOGS OFF LEASH. ♦ BEAUTIFUL. ♦ DOGS OFF LEASH. ♦ BEAUTIFUL. ♦ DOGS OFF LEASH AND GO IN WATER. ♦ BEAUTIFUL SETTING. DOG AND PEOPLE • DOG OFF LEASH.. FRIENDLY. • DOG OFF LEASH. C5 Z ♦ BEAUTIFUL HERE. • DOG OFF LEASH AND SWIM IN WATER. o O N Report of Results (2009-09-24) i D4 # Y - f] n te r- 14 J Reservoir User Survey September 2009 ♦ DOG FRIENDLY ♦ SANCTUARY. • DOG CAN FREE. ♦ RELAXING AREA. ♦ CAN TAKE DOG. ♦ RELAXED ATMOSPHERE. ♦ CAN BRING DOG. + QUIETNESS. • CAN BRING DOG - OFF LEASH AND ♦ QUIET - NICE SWIM. # QUIET - BOATS. TO WATCH BOATS. • BRING DOGS. ♦ PEACEFULNESS, OPEN SPACE, FRIENDLY WATER FOR DOG TO BATHE. ♦ PEACEFUL AND WILDLIFE. LETTING DOGS SWIM. ♦ PEACEFUL - GORGEOUS ♦ DOGS GO IN WATER. ♦ OUTSIDE WITH WILDLIFE. • DOGS CAN SWIM, BEAUTIFUL PLACE ♦ OPEN SPACE. WITH BIRDS. ♦ OPEN SPACE. • DOGS CAN BE OFF LEASH AND WATER s OPEN SPACE, NOT MANY PEOPLE, DOG FOR DOGS. OFF LEASH. ♦ DOGS CAN BE HERE. • OPEN SPACE, NO COMMERCIAL DOG SWIMMING. BUILDINGS. ♦ DOG PLAYS IN WATER AND CAN WALK. ♦ NATURE. • DOG ACCESS TO WATER * LIKE VEGETATION ALONG SHORE. CAN HAVE MY DOG ON THE WATER. ♦ FOR THE WAS AND VIEW. ♦ LIKE FISHING. ♦ BEAUTY OF OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS. ♦ FREE. ♦ BEAUTIFUL, NOT CROWDED. ♦ FREE. ♦ LIKE THE SWIMMING, MASTERS ♦ FREE. SWIMMING IN MORNING. ♦ FREE, CAN BE DOGS AND VIEWS ♦ GET INTO COOL WATER. ♦ FREE AND DOGS CAN ROAM FREE. ♦ TRAILS. ♦ FREE ACCESS TO LAKE. ♦ TRAILS. FREE - CAN BE DOGS. • TRAILS. ♦ PLAYGROUND OF RADULTS. ♦ TRAILS, WATER • NOT OVERRUN WITH PEOPLE. ♦ TRAILS FOR RUNNING. • NOT DEVELOPED. • RUNNING. LESS MOSQUITOES. ♦ RUNNING ON TRAILS. ♦ FIRST TIME, DON'T KNOW YET. ♦ OPEN TRAILS, WITH NO VEHICLES. • CYCLING TRACK. ♦ LIKE TRAILS AND OPENNESS. CLEAN ♦ DIRT ROADS, GOOD RUNNING TERRAIN. ♦ THE PARK BECAUSE OF SHADE TREES. ♦ WATER. VISITING - BEAUTIFUL OUT HERE. ♦ WATER. U VIEWS AND ABLE TO JUMP IN LAKE. ♦ WATER. ♦ VIEW, WATER CALMER • WATER. U VIEW OF MOUNTAINS AND LAKE. ♦ WATER, COOL PEOPLE OUT HERE. u co SCENERY, DOG CAN BE HERE. * WATER AND TRAILS SCENERY AND GOOD DIRT TRAILS. ♦ WATER R SCENERY AND DOGS ON LEASH, ♦ WATER 6 WELDOMING SPOT. ♦ WATER o 0 N Report of Results (2009-09-24) Reservoir User Survey September 2009 • THE WATER. • THE WATER ON'A HOT DAY • THE WATER. • THE RESERVOIR • PRIVATE - ON THE WATER ♦ ON THE WATER. • LIKE WATER, FACILITIES AND OPEN • COOL WATER SPACE FOR DOGS. • BEST WATER AND SWIMMING. • GOOD PARKING, NOT CROWDED. • BEING IN AND ON THE WATER. South Shore: boathouse • WATER SKIING! ! • GOOD BEACH, RENT BOATS, BETTER • WATER SKIING - CLOSE TO HOME. MANAGED AND ORGANIZED South Shore: beach • USING MY POWER BOAT. • THE GRANDKIDS LOVE THE BEACH. • THE BOATING • THE BEACH. • SAILING AND RENT HOBIE CAT. • SUN & FUN, OUTDOOR SWIMMING • CANOES BEACH, VOLLEYBALL • BOATING. • SAND & WATER • BOATING. • NICE FACILITY, SANDY BEACH • BOATING, VIEWS. • LIKE THE BEACH. • BOATING, RELAXING • LIKE A BEACH, WATER • BOATING • LIKE A BEACH IN CO! • LOCATION. • BEACH/WATER • CLOSE. • BEACH, SPACE • ACCESSIBILITY. • BEACH, ATMOSPHERE • WATER IS FULL! • BEACH IN COLORADO! • THE GREAT STAFF • BEACH ATMOSPHERE • NO PEOPLE DURING WEEK. • BEACH • LIMITED PERMITTING AND REGULATED • BEACH TRAFFIC. • BOATING • FLAT H2O TO ROW • BOAT RENTALS. • BEATY - ROWING • CONVENIENCE. • VIEWS • CLOSE TO HOME • THE AIR • CLOSE TO BOULDER, SWIMMING • SUNSET - SUNRISE • ACCESSIBILITY • SCENERY. • THE DOG AREA • SCENERY. • LIKE FOR DOG. • IT'S NICE. • DOG FRIENDLY IN COOT LAKE AREA. • EARLY AM CALM WATER, VIEWS, LATE • NICE FACILITIES EVENING CALM WATER, VIEWS • VOLLEYBALL, IT'S FUN • SWIMMING WITH KIDS, WATER SKIING • SAFETY • SWIMMING W/KIDS, WATER SKIING • TRAILS, BOATING (NON-MOTORIZED) • SAFE FOR CHILDREN, CLEAN • NOT TOO BUSY OR CROWDED • WATER, VIEWS AND LAND AREA. • IT'S OPEN SPACE WITH LOTS OF CHOICES • WATER AND BOATING. FOR ACTIVITIES. m • WATER • GREAT RECREATION O • TO SEE THE WATER ♦ THE RACES o 0 N Report of Results (2009-09-24) Reservoir User Survey September 2009 ♦ STROKE AND SHALE RACES. # ACCESS TO LAKE - SWIM SPACE AND RACE EVENTS ♦ ABILITY TO SWIM EVENTS * TUBING. ♦ THE SURROUNDINGS ♦ I LIKE IT FOR TUBING WITH SIS FAMILY RELAXING. OR JUST HANGING ON THE BEACH AREA. ♦ RELAXING, SWIMMING, RIDING ON A # TRAILS, SWIMMING, STROKE & STRIDE BOAT, KAYAKING ♦ TRAILS AND DIRT ROADS. ♦ RELAXING, PEACEFUL ♦ TRAIL SYSTEM, PORT-A-JOHN ♦ RELAXING, COOL OFF ♦ RUNNING ♦ RELAXED ATMOSPHERE, KIDS ON ♦ LIKE TRAILS. BEACH, KAYAKS. ♦ LIKE TRAILS. ♦ PRETTY ♦ GOOD PLACE TO RUN WITHOUT A OPEN SPACE CROWD. ♦ NICE SPACE, WARM WATER ♦ WATER. ♦ NICE SPACE, GREEN # WATER, SAND, BREEZE 0 NICE BIG SPACE ♦ WATER AND BEACH. • NICE AREA ♦ WATER AND BEACH. ♦ NATURE OPENNESS WITH WATER ♦ WATER - NICE PLAY TO MEET A FRIEND. ♦ IT'S RELAXING. # WATER • IT'S LOVELY! ♦ WATER ♦ HANGING OUT ♦ WATER ENJOY THE VIEWS WHILE RUNNING. ♦ THE WATER/BEACH ♦ BEAUTIFUL VIEW ♦ THE WATER & THE TREES ♦ BEAUTIFUL ATMOSPHERE, RELAXING ♦ BEING NEAR WATER. ♦ WATCHING GRANDSON SWIM Unspecified ♦ SWIMMING/CLEAN BEACH, DOCKS ♦ BOATS. ♦ SWIMMING, LET KIDS PLAY ♦ BOATING. ♦ SWIMMING, KIDS SWIMMING ♦ DOGS CAN BE OFF LEASH. SWIMMING IN RES. ♦ OFF LEASH, LOTS OF WATER FOR DOGS ♦ SWIMMING AND TRAILS. • SWIMMING ♦ DOG SWIMMING AND OFF LEASH. ♦ SWIMMING ♦ FREE AND REMOTE. SWIMMING ♦ GOOD LARGE LAKE. ♦ SWIMMING • NO. ♦ SWIMMING * BEAUTIFUL, QUIET SETTING AND THE ♦ OPEN WATER SWIMMING TRAIL FOR RUNNING. U C ♦ IT'S HOT AND I'M READY TO SWIM ♦ FRESH WATER, FRESH AIR, NO CHOLORINE, GET A SWIM IN a ro c 0 m z m 0 0 N Report of Results (2009-09-24) Reservoir User Survey September 2009 Question #6. What would most improve your experience visiting the Boulder Reservoir area? South Shore: boathouse # NO MOTOR BOATING OR EVERY OTHER DAY. # CLEAN THE BEACH UP # MORE PATROLLING ON WEEKENDS. # MORE SHADE TREES. # MORE SWIMMING AREAS AT THE BEACH # MORE SWIMMING AREA # BETTER RESTROOMS, CHEAPER ENTRANCE FEES. # BATHROOMS. # MOTORBOAT CONTROL # NOTHING # NOTHING # NO. # NO. # N/A # N/A # DON'T KNOW # ALL GOOD THUS FAR - DON'T ADD LAYERS OF MANAGEMENT. # IT'S NICE HOW IT IS # IT IS FINE SO FAR. # IS PERFECT # SEPARATE BOAT ENTRANCE. # PAY STAFF MORE $ # MOTOR BOAT RENTALS FOR VISITORS/BETTER QUALITY SAND AT BEACH # MORE ORGANIZED COMMUNICATION WITH RESERVOIR FACILITY. # MORE LIFE VESTS. # MORE HOBIE CAT AVAILABLE. # MAYBE ALLOW SOME SUPERVISED BOATS (LESSONS) PAST 6:00 PM. # KEEPING THE WATER SKIERS UNDER CONTROL # KEEPING THE BOATS # IF THEY ACCEPTED CREDIT CARDS! # EARLY WATER TIME 5 DAYS A WEEK FOR POWER BOATS. # DOCKS FOR POWER BOATS AT BEACH AREA. # BRING BACK KINETICS. # BETTER COMMUNICATION WITH STAFF, # BEING ABLE TO WALK THE BEACH FROM SWIMMING TO BOATING. r # A BOATHOUSE AND MORE NO WAKE TIME m # MORE PICNIC TABLES # MORE PICNIC TABLES 0 # BETTER QUALITY SAND AT BEACH z rn 0 0 N Report of Results (2009-09-24) o AGENDA iTC-M Reservoir User Survey September 2009 South Shore: beach TAKE MY DOG. 4 CLEANER WATER ♦ BIRD POOP, DIRTY WATER • DIVING, UMBRELLA, SHADED PARKING DIVE OFF THE DOCK, BIGGER SWIM AREA - GET BUSY ♦ ALLOW KITEBOARDING. ALLOW DIVING OFF DOCKS. ♦ ELIMINATE NUDE AREA. ♦ MAKE IT LESS EXPENSIVE ♦ MAKE IT FREE ♦ LESS COST TO GET IN - CHARGE BY THE CAR HAVE TO PAY TO RUN HERE ♦ FREE TO GET IN • FREE ACCESS FROM SOUTH SIDE. • FREE ACCESS FROM SOUTH ENTRANCE FOR RUNNERS. ♦ CHEAPER, USER-FRIENDLY FOR JOGGERS (FEES) CHEAPER TO GET IN. ♦ CHEAPER TO COME IN CHEAPER SEASONAL RATE FOR SENIORS ♦ CHEAPER ENTRANCE ♦ MORE PARKING AT COOT LAKE AREA. ♦ CLOSER PARKING ♦ MORE TREES - SHADE. ♦ OPEN AREA FOR SWIMMING JUST FOR ADULTS NO LIGHTING (JH), LARGER SWIM AREA ♦ MORE ACCESSIBLE SWIMMING IN ALL PARTS OF THE RESERVOIR. ♦ LARGER SWIMMING AREA. LARGER SWIM AREA LARGER SWIM AREA ♦ LARGER SWIM AREA ♦ LARGER BEACH AND SWIM AREA. ♦ BIGGER SWIMMING AREA ADULT SWIMMING AREA ♦ NOTHING, FREE FOR SENIONTS (+60) NOTHING • NOT SURE, JUST VISITING! ♦ NOT CHARGE $ ♦ NONE. L U NO. M N ♦ NO. ♦ N/Z C ♦ N/A z m 0 0 N Report of Results (2009-09-24) Reservoir User Survey September 2009 ♦ N/A s RAIN CHECK SHOULD BE GOOD FOR OTHER DAYS. ♦ PAY TO RUN HERE. MORE FOOD OPTONS ♦ OPEN SWIM FOR ATHLETES. ♦ OPEN SNACK BAR LATER ♦ MORE REFRESHMENTS. ♦ MORE COVERED AREA. ♦ MAPS AVAILABLE AT ENTRY ♦ IMPROVE CONDITIONS OF VOLLEYBALL COURTS. ♦ IF IT DIDN'T RAIN. IF FOOD ACCEPTED CREDIT CARDS I DON'T KNOW - IST TIME HERE! ♦ HOT GIRLS GET THE SEAWEED OUT OF WATER, COULD BE DANGEROUS. ♦ GET RID OF GOOSE POOP, HIKE, KIDS ♦ CHAIR RENTAL ON BEACH ♦ BOAT RENTALS/JETSKIS. CHECK OUT BEACH TOYS. * BETTER SIGN FOR DRINKS, VENDING MACHINE- TOO MUCH GOOSE POOP, NEED MORE SHADE * BEACH TOYS. ASSIGNED FISHING AREA. ♦ PARKING ♦ MORE PICNICBBQ AREAS. ♦ MORE PICNIC TABLES WHERE PEOPLE DOCK BOATS/BETTER SAND AT "BEACH" AREA • DON'T LET ANYONE DRINK ALCOHOL, POT IS OKAY ♦ NICER SAND ♦ MAKE THE BEACH AREA MORE ATTRACTIVE, BETTER SAND, PRETTIER SIDEWALK, GET RID OF THE MOUND OF SAND. ♦ BETTER SAND. IT'S VERY ROCKY/GRAVELY, KIND OF HURTS TO WALK ON. ♦ BETTER SAND Coot Lake: Trailhead ♦ SOUTH SIDE = BE ABLE TO HAVE DOGS ON LEASH. SOUTH SIDE - OFF LEASH. ♦ OFF LEASH AROUND RESERVOIR. ♦ LEASH FREE AT BOULDER RESERVOIR. ♦ SWIMMING ON NORTH SIDE. ♦ SWIM ON NORTH SHORE. * KEEP EYE ON DISRUPTIVE DOGS. 6 Y * DOGS JUMP OFF DOCK, FENCE NEAR ROAD. ♦ NO ENTRY FEE ON SOUTH SIDE. LOWER FEES - HAVE MORE OPEN ACCESS AREA THAT ARE FREE. COST, PORT-A-POTTY ON TRAILS. 0 ♦ CHEAPER PASSES. z WASTE BASKET FOR DOGS IN MORE LOCATIONS. SANITIZERS IN BATHROOM. 0 0 N 0 Report of Results (2009-09-24) Reservoir User Survey September 2009 ♦ NO TRASH CAN ON NORTH SIDE OF COOT LAKE. ♦ MORE TRASH CANS. • MORE TRASH CANS ON THE BACK SIDE OF COOT LAKE. ♦ MORE GARBATGE RECEPTACLES BY WATER SPILLWAY. ♦ MORE GARBAGE CANS. ♦ MORE GARBAGE CANS. ♦ MORE GARBAGE CANS. ♦ MORE GARBAGE CANS TO CLEAN UP AFTER DOGS. • MORE DOG TRASH CONTAINERS ♦ MORE PARKING. ♦ MORE PARKING WITHOUT CROSSING ROAD. ♦ MORE PARKING ♦ BETTER PARKING. ♦ MORE TREES, SHADE. ♦ MORE SHADE. • PORT A POTTY BY DAM AREA. PAPER IN BATHROOM. ♦ NO TOILET PAPER! PEOPLE COULD SWIM. ♦ CLEANER BATHROOMS. CLEAN BATHROOM MORE OFTEN. ♦ BETTER RESTROOMS PERFECT THE WAY IT IS. ♦ PERFECT THE WAY IT IS. NOTHING. ♦ NOTHING. ♦ NOTHING. ♦ NOTHING. ♦ NOTHING - IT'S GREAT. ♦ NOTHING ♦ NORTH SIDE SWIMMING. ♦ NORTH SIDE - EXCELLENT. SOUTH SIDE - TOO MANY RESTRICTIONS. ♦ NONE. ♦ NO. ♦ NO. ♦ NO. ♦ NO. • NO. d ♦ NO. t U ♦ NO. ♦ NO. m c ♦ N o ♦ NO. z 00 0 N Report of Results (2009-09-24) Reservoir User Survey September 2009 ♦ NO. ♦ NO ♦ NO ♦ NO ♦ N/A ♦ LOVE THE WAY IT IS. ♦ LIKE THE WAY IT IS. ♦ HAPPY WITH AREA. ♦ GREAT THE WAY IT IS, NO COMPLAINTS. ♦ GOOD WAY IT IS. ♦ THEY DO NICE JOB OUT HERE. ♦ NO ISSUES, LIKES THE WAY IT IS. ♦ GOOD THIE WAY IT IS. ♦ CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING. • WORRY ABOUT RUNNERS WHERE PATH NARROWS. ♦ WORRY ABOUT DOGS RUNNING ON ROAD. ♦ SAW A SNAKE - POST WARNINGS! WATER QUALITY POSTINGS. ♦ RUNNERS ON DIFFERENT PATH. ♦ REOPEN DAM SPACE. ♦ NO MOSQUITOES. ♦ MORE PLACES OFF LEASH. ♦ MORE ACTIVE SAILING PROGRAM. ♦ LESS PEOPLE- # LESS BUGS. ♦ GET RID OF SNAKES. ♦ GATE TO FENCE IN DOGS FROM ROAD. ♦ EVEN MORE SPACE, USE TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE CANAL. ♦ DOG SMELLS AFTER RESEVOIR OR COOT LAKE SWIM. ♦ CAN'T IMPROVE IT. ♦ CAN'T COME IN GATE TO RUN WITHOUT PAYING ON 55TH. ♦ BUS TRANSPORTATION TO AREA. ♦ PEOPLE PICKING UP AFTER DOGS. ♦ PEOPLE NEED TO BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR DOGS. ♦ DOG POOP. ♦ DOG OWNERS NOT PICKING UP POOP. ♦ AT COOT LAKE PEOPLE NEED TO PICK UP AFTER THEIR DOGS. ♦ MORE SHADE OVER BENCHES. ♦ IF SOME AREAS NOT SO ROCKY AROUND WATER. L U ♦ TRAFFIC MITIGATION CROSSING 63RD TO WATSON PARK. m ♦ TRAFFIC FROM 63RD ST. Coot Lake: Tom Watson Park o ♦ ALLOW ON-LEASH AT THE RESERVOIR AT 6 AM. z 0 0 0 N Report of Results (2009-09-24) Reservoir User Survey September 2009 • MORE TRASH CANS FOR DOG WASTE. ♦ MORE SHADE WITH TABLES. NO. • NO. • FIX SINKS IN BATHROOM AT PARK. Trailhead at 55th • SWIMING OR WADING WITH DOGS. ALLOW DOGS ON SOUTH SIDE. ♦ ALLOW DOGS ON SOUTH SHORE, EXPANDED HOURS TIL 10 PM DURING SUMMER. • ACTUAL BEACH WITH DOG ACCESS. LET DOGS ON BOATS (NOT BEACH AREA), CLEAN POARTA POTTY MORE. ♦ LET DOGS BE ON BOATS. • SWIMMING ON NORTH SIDE. • SWIMMING ON NORTH SHORE. ♦ SWIMMING ON NORTH SHORE. ♦ SWIM THIS END. • MAKE IT SO THEY CAN SWIM OR WADING AT 55TH TRAILHEAD. ♦ LEGAL SWIMMING ON NORTH SIDE. • ALLOW WADING FOR PEOPLE WITH DOGS. ALLOW SWIMMING AT 55TH TRAILHEAD. ALLOW SWIMMING • ALLOW SWIMMING • ALLOW SWIMMING ♦ BAN POWER BOATS. • NO DOGS. ♦ NO MOTOR BOATS AND SWIN FROM NORTH SHORE. BETTER SWIMMING AREAS BETTER SWEEPING OF DEBRIS FROM SHORELINE. ♦ BETTER DOG ENFORCEMENT. ♦ MAKE AREA FOR NUDE SUNBATHING • PRICES AT RESERVOIR TOO HIGH. COME THIS SIDE BECAUSE OF NO FEES. ♦ LOWER PRICE PER PERSON AT RESERVOIR. MAKE PRICE PER CAR. LOWER FEES FOR BOATS. ♦ GET IN FREE IF A SENIOR. RESTRICT SIZE OF BOATS - MOTORIZED. ♦ MORE TRASH CONTAINERS, SHORE RESTORATION. MORE TRASH BINS. ♦ MORE DOG BAGS. MORE PARKING, CLEAN BATHROOM. r U ♦ LARGER PARKING LOT. N ♦ SHADE TREES, MORE TRASH CANS. ♦ MORE SHADED AREAS. o ♦ OPEN MORE PARTS OF RESERVOIR. z 00 0 N Report of Results (2009-09-24) ° Reservoir User Survey September 2009 • LARGER SWIMMING AREA. ♦ REGULAR RESTROOM. ♦ MORE RENT-A-POTTY. A GUIDE FOR FLORA AND BIRDS, I.E., EDUCATIONAL MATERIAL (SIGNS). • NO FEES ♦ NOTHING. ♦ NOTHING. ♦ NOTHING ♦ NOTHING NONE. • NONE. ♦ NO. ♦ NO. ♦ NO. ♦ NO. ♦ NO. ♦ NO. ♦ NO. ♦ NO. NO. ♦ NO. ♦ NO. ♦ NO ♦ N/A. ♦ N/A. • N/A. ♦ N/A. • N/A • N/A ♦ N/A ♦ N/A ♦ LIKE IT THE WAY IT IS. ♦ GOOD WAY IT IS ♦ DON'T KNOW. ♦ DON'T KNOW. ♦ DON'T KNOW. ♦ DON'T KNOW. ♦ DON'T KNOW. U ♦ DON'T KNOW. M ♦ DON'T KNOW. ♦ DON'T DO ANYTHING - NO FEES o ♦ DON'T DO z 0 0 N Report of Results (2009-09-24) Af-3R CA Reservoir User Survey September 2009 ♦ SAME AS IT IS TODAY! ♦ NICE THE WAY IT IS. ♦ LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS. ♦ TIGHTEN UP ON NO SWIMMING ENFORCEMENT ON NORTH SIDE. ♦ SWIM FROM BEACH TO PLATFORM. ♦ NO NUDITY AND NOT SPENDING FUNDS FOR RELOCATING GROUND HOGS. ♦ NO CHARGE FOR RUNNING ON SOUTH SHORE. ♦ MORE WATER FOUNTAINS. ♦ MORE BENCHES. ♦ LESS POLICE LACK OF MOTOR BOATS. DRINKING WATER. ♦ CYCLING AID STATION-REPAIRS, MAPS. • BOATING ON NORTH SIDE. ♦ BETTER PICK-UP OF DOG EXCREMENT. ♦ PICNIC TABLES. SAND ON THE BEACH AND PICNIC TABLES. SAND AT BEACH WOULD BE NICE. 0 MORE SAND ON BEACH. ♦ MORE SAND BUT KEEP IT FREE. ♦ IMPROVE BEACH ON NORTH SIDE. ♦ BETTER SAND ON BEACH. Unspecified • LOWER PRICES FOR ENTRANCE. ♦ MORE PARKING ON COOT LAKE SIDE. ♦ NATURE WALK. ♦ NONE. ♦ NONE. ♦ NONE. 4 NO. ♦ DON'T KNOW. ♦ DRINKING WATER. ♦ BRING RICK BACK. U C N C d U L U f0 N a) N 10 C O Z O O N Report of Results (2009-09-24) Reservoir User Survey September 2009 Question #4a. What are the conflicts that exist or that you observe (between motor boating and other uses)? South Shore: boathouse # TRIATHALON EVENTS. * RACES CLOSE AREA TO BOATER # RUDE MOTORBOATS # RIGHT OF WAY ISSUES WITH MOTOR BOATS. # MOTOR BOATS - DO NOT RESPECT DISTANCE TO HUMAN POWERED CRAFT. # LACK OF SKILLED DRIVERS. # LACK OF BOAT DRIVING KNOWLEDGE. # COME WAY TOO CLOSE TO SAILBOATS. # CLOSE CALLS ROWERS/MOTORBOATS # NOISE, MOTORS AFFECT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. # NONE - ALL GOOD. # SHARING IS GREAT. # NON--MOTORIZED BOATS NOT FOLLOWING LAKE PATTERN. # I OWN A BOAT AND WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO USE IT AT THE RES. THERE'S BEEN TALK OF DISCONTUING BOATS. # TOO MUCH TRAFFIC. # YOUNG SAILERS, CREWING (BOATING) WITH WAKE, ETC. # WAKING OF NON-MOTORIZED BOATS # PEOPLE GOING INTO NO WAKE ZONE. South Shore: beach # PEOPLE SKIING WHILE TRIATHALON ON. # THEY COME IN TOO CLOSE, IT MAKES THE SWIMMING AREA SMALLER. # MAKE SWIMMING AREA BIGGER, BOATS COME TOO CLOSE AND PUSH THE SWIMMING CLOSER TO THE SHORE # LIMITED SWIMMING BECAUSE OF BOATS. # BOATING CLOSE TO SWIM AREA. # BOATERS TOO CLOSER TO SWIMMERS # SPEEDS & KNOWLEDGE OF ETIQUETTE # SPEEDING # SOME BOATERS DO NOT KNOW OR OBEY THE RULES # POWER BOATERS NOT RESPECTFUL. # MOTOR BOATERS FAIL TO KNOW ABOUT SAILBOATS. # MOTOR VS SAILBOATS # CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SKI BOATS. # CANOEING AND KAYAKING INTEFERRING. U # NOT AS PEACEFUL ENVIRONMENT # NOISE & SAFETY (PROX. TO SWIMMERS) # NONE # HAVEN'T SEEN 16 z # WIND SURFERS, OPEN WATER SWIMMERS p 0 N Report of Results (2009-09-24) _ AGENDA ITFM PAGE :52 Reservoir User Survey September 2009 s SWIMMERS. 4 MAYBE MORE ON WEEKENDS? ♦ FISHING - SCARES FISH AWAY. AFFECTS FISHING. 4 MANY BOATS IN SMALL AREA. Coot Lake: Trailhead ♦ NO RULES FOR MOTOR BOATERS. ♦ NO DOG IN BOAT. MOTOR BOATS TOO FAST. MOTOR BOATS TOO FAST AND DRINKING AND BOATING. • MOTOR BOATS TOO CLOSE TO SHORE. ♦ MOTOR BOATS COME TOO CLOSE. GO TOO FAST. • RIGHT OF WAY ENFORCEMENT, MOTOR VS NONMOTOR. * MOTORS AND ROWERS. ♦ MOTOR BOATS. ♦ MOTOR BOATS VS CANOES DISREGARD FOR NON-MOTORIZED CRAFT. TOO NOISY WITH BOATS, ♦ MOTORS VS CANOES BOATS COME TOO CLOSE TO NORTH SHORE. ♦ TOO SMALL FOR BOTH. TOO MUCH TRAFFIC. ♦ TOO BUSY. HOW MANY BOATS. ♦ BOATS GET TOO CLOSE TO EACH OTHER. WAVES FOR ROWING BOATS. WAKE PROBLEMS. ♦ NO WAKE ZONE, GETS CUT INTO.. Trailhead at 55th ♦ WAVERUNNERS STOP SWIMMING OUT FURTHER. ♦ BOATS TRYING TO RUN OVER SWIMMERS. ♦ UNCLEAR TRAFFIC PATTERN. RECKLESS MOTOR BOAT DRIVERS. ♦ NOT PROPER BOATING ETIQUETTE. MOTORBOATS TOO CLOSE TO SHORE. MOTOR BOATS COME TOO CLOSE TO SHORE. • MOTOR BOA'T'S COME TOO CLOSE TO NON-MOTORIZED BOATS. • KAYAK VS SKIDOOS. L U JET SKIS COME TOO CLOSE. ♦ CANOES AND JET SKIS ON THIS SIDE NOT ENFORCED. a ♦ NONE - NOISE. o ♦ NOISY z rn 0 0 N Report of Results (2009-09-24) V-~ PAGE Reservoir User Survey September 2009 • NOISE. ♦ NOISE, WAKES. • NOISE POLUTION. ♦ NOISE AND WATER QUALITY. • NOISE ♦ INTEFERENCE WITH THE QUIET. • HAVEN'T BEEN THERE. ♦ WHY CAN'T SWIM AT 55TH TRAIL,HEAD? ♦ NON-POWERED BOATS SHOULD LAUNCH ELSEWHERE. ♦ IMP ♦ POLLUTION IN WATER. ♦ MOTOR BOATS AND SWIMMING AND OIL BEING IN WATER. ♦ SMALL BODY OF WATER/A LOT OF BOATS. ♦ HARD WHEN TOO MANY BOATS. ♦ WEEKS, TOUGH TO SAIL BECAUSE OF WAKES. ♦ WATER SKIERS GOING FULL BLAST BAD, LIMIT WATER SKIING AREA. Unspecified ♦ A FEW BOATERS COME TOO CLOSE TO SHARE. ♦ HAND SANITIZER IN RESTROOM. U C N C N U L U a) N N O cb C O Y b z ~l Q N Report of Results (2009-09-24) AGENDA iTRA #__V-A- U = A- pAFGIz Reservoir User Survey September 2009 Question #11. Do you have any other comments about the Boulder Reservoir area? South Shore: boathouse ♦ PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DO NOT STOP MOTORIZED BOATS. ♦ PLEASE DON'T TOUCH OUR BOATING RIGHTS! • KEEP POWER BOATING!!! ♦ KEEP IT OPEN ALL YEAR TO MOTORIZED BOATING WITH SELF PAY STATION. I ENJOY THE BOATING. DON'T SCREW IT UP! ♦ DON'T MESS WITH MOTOR BOATS. ♦ LOWER CHARGE FOR RUNNERS AND CYCLISTS. • STELLAR STAFF ♦ NONE ♦ NO. ♦ NO. ♦ NO. • NO LIKES EVERYTING AND KEEP THE BOATS. • GOOD. COMFORTABLE PLACE, PLAY WITH KIDS, FEEL SAFE ♦ APPRECIATE MULTI-USE OPTIONS AT RESERVOIR. ♦ PERSONAL WATERCRAFT NOT FOLLOWING PATTERN. ♦ WE NEED A BOAT HOUSE! • NEED BOATHOUSE FOR NON-MOTORIZED BOATS ♦ MORE TRAINING FOR STAFF. POSTED BOATING RULES TO THE ROWERS. South Shore: beach MORE BATHROOM FACILITIES IN PARKING LOTS. ♦ KEEP THE MONEY IN THE RES, UPDATE THE BATHROOMS BOATHOUSE BATHROOM FIXED. MORE DRINKING WATER FOUNTAINS IN BOAT AREA. WE NEED TO KEEP MOTORIZED BOATING AT THE RES - WE NEED MORE PICNIC TABLES. ♦ FEES ARE NIGH NOW, RESTRICTS OUR USE. DO NOT CHARGE COMMUTERS/IBM ENTRANCE FEE- + CHARGE PER CAR, NOT PERSON. ♦ VERY NICE SWIM AREA IS CLEAN & NICELY MAINTAINED. ♦ SAFETY IS GOOD ♦ NO. ♦ NO. ♦ NO. v ♦ NO. N ♦ NO. 76 ♦ NO. 0 ♦ NO. z o 0 N Report of Results (2009-09-24) U SAG SS AGENDA ITF-Pm Reservoir User Survey September 2009 ♦ NO N/A ♦ N/A ♦ IT'S GREAT. ♦ IT'S FUN. 4 HAPPY WITH IT • GREAT PLACE. KEEP THE SWIMMING. ♦ GOOD LIFEGUARDS BEAUTIFUL. 4 MORE SHADED AREAS. MORE SHADE ON SOUTH SHORE. ♦ MORE SAILING - SAILING LESSONS ♦ MORE RENTAL BOATS. ♦ MAKE IT MORE ATTRACTIVE, RESTRUCTURE IT. ♦ KEEP IT FAMILY ♦ DRUNKEN BEHAVIOR ON THE DOCKS AROUND CHILDREN, REMOVE THE SAND MOUND ♦ DON'T RAISE THE SENIOR AGE TO 70! • SWIMMING ON SIDE SHORE. Coot Lake: Trailhead ♦ FIX WOMEN'S BATHROOM AT PARK, SPEEDING ON 63RD. ♦ FEES AT RESTROOM. ♦ CLEAN BATHROOMS. ♦ BETTER SHOWERS IN SOUTH BATHROOM - WOMENS. ♦ SOME USERS DON'T PICK UP AFTER THEIR DOGS. • MAKE REALLY DOG FRIENDLY. ♦ KEEP AREA OPEN FOR DOGS. ♦ NO MORE FEES - WE ALREADY PAY FOR THESE SERVICES. ♦ $6 IS A LITTLE EXPENSIVE PER PERSON. ♦ SAFETY CROSSING - 63RD SPEEDING - NEEDS BEGGER SIGNAGE. ♦ KEEP IT SAFE. ♦ HARD TO CROSS 63RD FOR PARKING. 4 DRIVERS DON'T STOP FOR CROSSWALK - GO TOO FAST. WONDERFUL PLACE. DON'T OVER ORGANIZE/MANAGE IT. ♦ VERY NICE THANK YOU FOR WONDERFUL AREA. ♦ SO GREAT TO HAVE IT. DOG HAS 3 LEGS AND SWIMMING IN LAKE HAS HELPED HIM. • NO. ♦ NO. L V ♦ NO. ♦ NO. ♦ NO. a z ♦ NO. rn 0 0 N Report of Results (2009-09-24) AGROA ITEM # V-A pAJF 5 ~ Reservoir User Survey September 2009 + NO. + NO. + NO. + NO. + NO. + NO. + NO. + NO- # NO. + NO. + NO. + NO. + NO. + NO. + NO. + NO. + NO. + NO. + NO + NO + NICE, LOVE COMING HERE. + LUCKY TO HAVE IT + LOVE IT, PERFECT FOR THEIR DOGS. + LOVE IT HERE. + LIKE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE. + KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS. LIKE THIS BEING FREE. + KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS. BUILD PDESTRIAN BRIDGE OVER 63RD. + ITS NICE. + IT'S HEAVEN. HOPE PEOPLE RESPECT THE AREA. + IT'S GREAT - GOOD VARIETY. + IT'S GORGEOUS. + IT'S GOOD THE WAY IT IS. + IT'S FANTASTIC, PEOPLE AND ANIMALS, CAN FIND A NICE BALANCE. + GREAT. + GREAT PLACE TO BRING DOG. + GREAT AREA. + GLAD IT'S HERE. + GLAD IT'S HERE. U + ENJOY IT - KEEP PEACE AND QUITE. + DON'T KNOW. + COOT LAKE IS GREAT. IT'S PERFECT. o 0 + CLEAN. z m 0 0 N Report of Results (2009-09-24) AGENDA RUA PAGE Reservoir User Survey September 2009 ♦ AWESOME AREA AT COOT LAKE. ♦ APPRECIATE IT - DOGS ARE FREE. • PAY TAXES ALREADY - DON'T NEED FEES TOO. ♦ HOPE YOU DON'T START CHARGING FOR COOT LAKE. ♦ HAVE PADDLE BOATS @ RESERVOIR. HOPE YOU DON'T START CHARGING FEES. ♦ LOVE FOR DOG TO BE OFF LEASH. ♦ WATER UTILITIES PEOPLE NEED TO SLOW DOWN. ♦ PARKING - ADDS TO ME AESTHETIC TO HAVE LIMITED PARKING, GENERATE FEES THROUGH MOTOR BOATS, WOULD PAY IF AREA IS EXPANDED (WHOLE RES AREA). APPRECIATES OPEN SPACE FOR DOGS. ♦ NO WAKE LAKE! KEEP BIKES OFF COOT! ♦ NO NEED TO PAY TAXES FOR SOMEONE TO CHECK AT BOOTH AT 5:30, MEMBERSHIP. SWIMMING ARE ON S SIDE OPEN TOO LATE. IN NEED OF EARLIER HOURS LIKE 7 OR 8. TRAIN STAFF TO BE MORE POLITE. WE WERE ASKED TO LEAVE RES BEFORE MEMORIAL DAY. ♦ DOESN'T WANT AREA CHANGED FOR MORE PARKING. PEOPLE DRIVE TOO FAST ON 63RD. ♦ BIKE SPEEDING ON TRAILL, TOO FAST ON TRAILS - POST SPEED LIMIT. ♦ BETTER SIGNS TO STOP BIKES GOING ON NARROW TRAISL, COULD BE DANGEROUS- # TRIATHALONS PUT TOO MUCH OIL IN WATER. • SWIM AT COOT LAKE. ♦ MAKE COOT LAKE SWIMMING FACILITY. ENTRANCE FEES SHOULD BE BY CAR LOAD. NIGHTTIME PATROLS FOR DRINKING. Coot Lake: Tom Watson Park ♦ NO. ♦ NO. NO. ♦ IT'S WONDERFUL. ♦ BE NICE IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE MOTORIZED BOATS, USE THE RESERVOIR MORE, IT'S MORE SHELTED FROM THE SUN. RENT BEACH UMBRELLAS. THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST REASONS TO LIVE HERE. Trailhead at 55th ♦ MORE PORTA POTTIES AND KEEP CLEANER. ♦ HAND SANITIZER FOR BATHROOM, CLEAN THE BATHROOM. ♦ BATHROOM AT WATSON PARK IS NOT BEING MAINTAINED. ♦ RUNNERS SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED ON SOUTH SIDE. ♦ ONE DAY FEE FOR BOAT IS EXTRAORDINARILY HIGH. ♦ LOWER FEES AT RESERVOIR. 13 ♦ LOW IMPACT USERS SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED. t FEES TO HIGH TO BRING El BOATS. r ♦ DID NOT LET A VETERAN IN FOR FREE. ♦ VERY BEAUTIFUL, NO FEES AT 55TH TRAILHEAD, ENJOYMENT FOR DOGS. ♦ VALUABLE RESOURCE, FULL INCLUSION. o ♦ SO RELAXED. z m 0 0 N Report of Results (2009-09-24) AGENDA Vi Ffo t, U~Q rum ~-R Reservoir User Survey September 2009 • OK NOW. • NONE. ♦ NO. ♦ NO. ♦ NO. ♦ NO. ♦ NO. ♦ NO. • NO. ♦ NO. ♦ NO. • NO. • NO. • NO. • NO. ♦ NO. ♦ NO. • NO. • NO. ♦ NO. ♦ NO. ♦ NO. ♦ NO. • NO. ♦ NO. • NO. ♦ NO. ♦ NO. ♦ NO. • NO. ♦ NO. NO. 4 NO. ♦ NO ♦ NO ♦ NO ♦ NO ♦ NO ♦ NO ♦ NICE. ♦ LOVE IT. o Y ♦ LOVE IT. b O N Report of Results (2009-09-24) a AGENDA ITEM # PACE I Reservoir User Survey September 2009 ♦ LOVE IT. ♦ LOVE IT. ♦ LOVE IT, LOVE IT BEING FREE ♦ LOVE IT! ♦ LOOKING FORWARD TO THE DAY OUT HERE. ♦ LIKE THE NORTH SIDE THE WAY IT 1S. ♦ LIKE IT AS IS! ♦ LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS. KEEP IT UP THE WAY IT IS. ♦ IT'S TERRIFIC. * IT'S BEAUTIFUL. ♦ GREAT SPOT. ♦ GREAT FOR RUNNING. ♦ GRATEFUL TO CITY. ♦ FIRST VISIT WONDERFUL. ♦ ENJOY IT. CLEAN AND FRESH AIR. ♦ BLESSED TO HAVE IT WITH LITTLE BEGS. ♦ DOGS CAN BE OFF LEASH IS SENSIBLE. SHADED PICNIC AREA AND SHADED PARKING, NO FEES. ♦ PLEASE KEEP 55TH TRAILHEAD FREE. ♦ KEEP THIS SIDE AT 55TH TRAILHEAD FREE. ♦ DO NOT PUT FEES IN AT 55H TRAILHEAD - WOULD STOP COMING IF THIS HAPPENED. ♦ THANKFOR FOR OFF LEASH AREA. ♦ SOME BOATS TOO BIG AND TOO FAST. ♦ MOTORBOATS OUT. ♦ MORE GREEN GRASS LIKE A PARK, NO MOTOR BOATS. ♦ ELIMINATE MOTORIZED BOATING OR ELIMINATE RES AS UPWATER SOURCE. BOATS OVER AT TRAILHEAD 55TH SHOULD BE BANNED. ♦ ALLOW KAYAKS AND CANOES. STOP MOTOR BOATS IF IT HURTS ENVIRONMENT. ♦ THERE WAS A LARGE HORNEST NEST ON BRIDGE WHEN HE WAS RUNNING. ♦ RUDENESS OF SOME PERSONNEL. NO SAFETY CHECK FOR CANOES OR KAYAKS. ♦ MORE EDUCATION MATERIAL ABOUT WATER USE, WHERE IT COMES FROM, ETC. ♦ JUST STRONGER CONTROL. ♦ IMPROVE ROAD AROUND 55TH TRAILHEAD. ♦ DON'T NEED MORE REQUIREMENTS ON NORTH SHORE. ♦ DONATION BOX. ♦ CITY TOO STRICT WITH ALCOHOL. L U ♦ NO OIL ON WATER, THEN BOATS OK. ♦ NO - WORRY ABOUT OIL FROM BOATS IN WATER. ♦ WOULD LIKE SWIMMING AREA WITH SWIM AT OWN RISK. o ♦ LET PEOPLE SWIM AND DO AWAY WITH MOTORIZED BOATS. z 0) O O N Report of Results (2009-09-24) tC7-t~R~IA. 1yFM -V A PA~3E Reservoir User Survey September 2009 ♦ BE ABLE TO SWIM AT OWN RISK. ♦ SWIMMING OR WADING ON 55TH TRAILHEAD SIDE WOULD BE NICE. Unspecified ♦ LEAVE THE BAN ON DOGS ON SOUTH SHORE. COULD ALLOW ON ROADS. ♦ THERE ARE NO CONFLICTS ON THIS SIDE. GOOD AS IS. ♦ NO. ♦ NO. ♦ NO. • LIKE NORTH SIDE. FREE ACCESS ♦ DON'T KNOW. ♦ AWESOME. ♦ A GEM. ♦ FENCE FOR NUDE BATHING. U C N yC U L U co O CIC C O M Z rn O O N Report of Results (2009-09-24) ,~GFND,a, iTEN' #J~A_, PAGE11L Reservoir User Survey September 2009 APPENDIX C: QUESTIONNAIRE The following pages contain a copy of the questionnaire that survey participants were asked to complete. r N lG C • O Y m z rn 0 0 a Report of Results (2009-09-24) Boulder Reservoir Area User Survey Hello, my name is and I am working on behalf of the City of Boulder. We are conducting a survey of the users of Boulder Reservoir; including the natural lands and trails surrounding the reservoir. This survey should only take a few minutes of your time 1. How much time do you plan on spending at the Reservoir or in a. How would you rate the amount of each of the following? For each, tell Reservoir area this visit? me whether you think there is far too much, somewhat too much, about ❑ less than half hour ❑ 1 - 3 hours the right amount, somewhat too little or much too little. ❑ 30 minutes to 59 minutes ❑ more than 3 hours [DK=don't know or not applicable] 15 L i_: E L U im 2. What activities will you participate in during your visit to the Reservoir o 3 3 T o (D 15 a) 0 area (Coot Lake/Tom Watson areal trails from 5511)? E o o o [DO NOT PROMPT. Check all that apply.) U_ v, o ¢ cn o ,1 ❑ Walking/hiking ❑ Motor boating a. ranger patrols on the South Shore (beach area - swimming and boating).......... 1 2 3 4 5 DK ❑ Jogging ❑ Water skiing b. ranger patrols on trails ..................................1 2 3 4 5 DK ❑ Biking ❑ Sail boating c, enforcement of alcohol regulations 1 2 3 4 5 DK ❑ ❑ Exercising pet ❑ Kayak! ndsurf d. enforcement of nudity regulations .................1 2 3 4 5 OK Picnicking ❑ Windsailing/ lingJwindsung e. enforcement of dog leash laws 1 2 3 4 5 DK ❑ Social gathering ❑ Playing on playgrounds ❑ Swimming ❑ Playing volleyballtother games f. boat enforcement ...................."""""'.......,,,,1 2 3 4 5 DK ❑ Relaxing on the beach ❑ Other (please specify ) 9. To what extent, if at all, do you think there are conflicts between motor boating at the Reservoir and other uses? 3. What mode of transportation did you use to get to the Reservoir area ❑ A great extent ❑ A minor extent D No extent (go to Q10) today? 9a. What are the conflicts that exist or that you observe? ❑ car 4 How many people were in the car? ❑ bus ❑ bike ❑ walk to. To what extent would you support or oppose the following at the Boulder D other {DNR), specify: Reservoir? [DK=don't know or not applicable] support oppose 4. About how many times have you visited the Reservoir area this summer, str slw slw str including the beach and boating areas or Coot Lake/Tom Watson park a. creation of private area where nudity is allowed .......1 2 3 4 DK area or the trailhead at 55th? b. fees to access the Reservoir at Coot Lake and the 55th trailhead if restroom access was improved 1 2 3 4 DK ❑ None, this is first visit ❑ 2 or 3 times a month c. fees to access the Reservoir at Coot Lake and the ❑ One or two times ❑ About once a week 55th trailhead If more parking was provided .............1 2 3 4 DK ❑ 3 or 4 times ❑ 2 or 3 times a week d. fees to access the Reservoir at Coot Lake and the ❑ About once a month ❑ 4 or more times a week 55th trailhead if trails were improved ........................1 2 3 4 DK e. elimination of motorized boating at the Reservoir 1 2 3 4 DK 5. What do you like most about visiting the Boulder Reservoir area? 11. Do you have any other comments about the Boulder Reservoir area? 6. What would most improve your experience visiting the Boulder Reservoir area? The following questions will be used to classify responses. Again, your responses are confidential, and will be reported in group form only. 12. Where do you live? Do you live in ❑ The city of Boulder 7. 1 would like you to rate a number of characteristics about this park. ❑ Somewhere else in Boulder County Please rate each on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1="very good" and ❑ Somewhere else in metro-Denver 5="very bad". IDK=don't know or not applicable] ❑ Somewhere else in the state a. condition of the natural environment such VG VB ❑ Out of state as grass, vegetation, etc .........................................1 2 3 4 5 DK b. condition of the water in the Reservoir ....................1 2 3 4 5 DK 13. Which category contains your age? c. cleanliness of area ..................................................1 2 3 4 5 DK ❑ under 16 ❑ 15-24 ❑ 35-44 D 55-64 d. condition of developed faci.ities, such as ❑ 16-17 D 25-34 ❑ 45-54 ❑ 65 + snelters, picnic benches and restrooms ..................1 2 3 4 5 DK e. condition of the trails ...............................................1 2 3 4 5 DK f. location and availability of sign information .............1 2 3 4 5 DK Thank you, that's all of my questions!!! g.amount of parking at this entrance ..........................1 2 3 4 5 DK h. pedestrian safety .....................................................1 2 3 4 5 DK i. safety from crime .....................................................1 2 3 4 5 DK j. safety from reckless or drunken behavior ...............1 2 3 4 5 DK To be completed by interviewer: A. Sex: ❑ Male E: Site: F. Time: ❑ Female ❑ South Shore - boat inspection (am/pm) ❑ South Shore - boathouse B. Number of ❑ South Shore - beach G. Weather: people in group: ❑ Coot Lake - Coot Lake' ❑ sunny, dry ❑ Coot Lake -Tom Watson Park ❑ sunny, wet C. Children in group? ❑ yes ❑ Trailhead at 55th ❑ cloudy, dry ❑ no ❑ cloudy, wet F. Day: ❑ rainy D. Dogs in group? ❑ yes ❑ Thursday ❑ snow ❑ no ❑ Friday ❑ Saturday ❑ Sunday AGENDA ITEM # _U^~ . PAGE 64 Attachment E City of Boulder Reservoir Master Plan SUMMARY OF FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS _ .tom -low yr ,Now 2009 40 NATIONAL LIC RESEARCH C E N T E R thv- 3005 301h Street • Boulder, CO • p: 303-444-7863 • f. 303-444-1145 • www.n-r-c.com AGENDA ITE[I V-A , PAGE-0 ! . Reservoir Focus Groups November 2009 Table of Contents STUDY BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................1 SUMMARY OF STUDY RESULTS .......................................................................................3 Boaters, Pass Holders and Events 3 Recreational Activities ....................................................................................................................3 Look, Feel and Appearance ............................................................................................................3 Boating 6 Rules and Regulations ....................................................................................................................8 The North Shore: Coot Lake and 55th Trailhead 9 Recreational Activities ....................................................................................................................9 Look, Feel and Appearance ............................................................................................................9 Balancing Users ...........................................................................................................................10 Resource Allocation .....................................................................................................................12 APPENDIX A: FOCUS GROUP SCRIPTS 14 U C W C N U t U l0 N N C O z T Q LO Q N a` Summary of Findings ~c"rrvr,A ITEM "/4 . 'AGE V Reservoir Focus Groups November 2009 STUDY BACKGROUND The city of Boulder is developing a master plan for the Boulder Reservoir. The purpose of the plan is to establish management goals and objectives for Parks and Recreation Department land and activities at the Boulder Reservoir (including Tom Watson Park and Coot Lake) that will guide long-term investment strategies and programs. As a part of this process, the city contracted with National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) to conduct a survey of users of the reservoir that was followed by a series of focus groups with specific user groups to gather more in-depth information. Developing the Scripts In conjunction with the city, NRC developed two focus group scripts for the three target audiences: * One script for people holding boating permits for the 2009 season ("boaters") and those with gate passes, punch passes, those who participated in a program, purchased a permit for a picnic or held an event for the 2009 season ("pass holders and events") * One script for people who visit the north shore area including Coot Lake and the trailhead at 55`' ("north shore") A few questions overlapped between the two scripts and, in general, the script for both focused on the look, feel and appearance of the specific area; rules and regulations; balancing needs of the different user groups and the natural environment; and resource allocation. The commonality among scripts enabled a deeper understanding of the needs and interests of the different user groups, while the customization allowed NRC to identify segmented needs and interests. The scripts can be found in Appendix A: Focus Group Scripts. Participant Recruitment The city of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department supplied NRC with a list of contact information for pass and permit holders, those who held an event or picnic at the reservoir and those who had a child participate in a program at the reservoir during the 2009 season. A random sample from each of these groups was contacted either via email or telephone until the appropriate number from each group accepted the invitation to participate in the focus group. Contact names also were provided for the rowing clubs, kite board and sail board clubs and local nature organizations. These users were contacted via email and asked to send one or two representatives to the focus groups. In total, 18 users from these groups attended the focus groups. A representative from NRC recruited participants at the north shore area (i.e., Coot Lake and the trailhead at 55`h) two different days on consecutive weekends. On both occasions, the NRC representative was present for approximately two hours at the Coot Lake entrance and another two hours at the 55`h trailhead. Flyers were handed out to visitors that provided information about the focus group and names, phone numbers and email addresses were collected from some visitors. A total of nine users of these recreational areas attended the focus group. L Data Collection N NRC performed the following logistical tasks in cooperation with the city for each of the focus groups: securing rooms for group discussions; purchasing refreshments; placing reminder calls or sending o reminder emails to focus group participants before the scheduled discussions; facilitating guided group T discussions; providing refreshments; and providing thank you gifts to study participants. a m a` Summary of Findings Gr=NDA, 9T Fly U"A_ , PAGE ._~7 Reservoir Focus Groups November 2009 The focus groups were held at a city conference room in Boulder for which no fee was required. Groups were led by an expert NRC facilitator and all groups were digitally audio-recorded for analysis purposes. Refreshments were provided for each group and a thank you gift was given to each participant. Three focus groups were scheduled for approximately 90 minutes each and held on the following dates: * Boaters: Tuesday, October 6`}', 6:30-8:00pm, 10 participants * Pass holders and events: Thursday, October 8`h, 6:30-8:00pm, 8 participants * North shore: Tuesday, October 13`h, 6:30-8:00pm, 9 participants In addition to these participants, some comments were received from two people (one small craft permit holder and one person who held an event at the reservoir) who were invited to participate in the focus groups but were not able to attend. Their comments were included in the analysis and are incorporated into the results, where applicable. Data Analysis Comments from the focus groups were analyzed qualitatively. The NRC analyst first listened to and read through all responses to identify key statements and general themes and organized excerpts of each discussion so that recurrent themes could be coded and further analyzed. Study Limitations As with all focus groups, the small sample size and purposeful selection of participants limit the generalization of these results. They do, however, suggest what other user groups might say, despite not being intended to be broadly representative. These focus groups lend insight into the opinions of the user groups with whom we spoke about their vision for the future of the reservoir. Using the Summary Report Themes from the focus groups are summarized in the following pages. Similarities as well as any differences in responses between the groups are indicated throughout the report. Direct quotes from focus group participants are included to highlight perspectives. These quotes are indented and italicized. Words added to enhance reader understanding appear in square brackets, Each quote under a given topic is from a specific individual, unless otherwise specified. Sometimes larger portions of the conversation are excerpted to give the full flavor of the discussion, in which case each participant is numbered to suggest the sequence of comments in the conversation. C N U z U !0 h N C O Z T a N O CL a~ a` Summary of Findings -0 PAGE__6~ Reservoir Focus Groups November 2009 SUMMARY OF STUDY RESULTS Boaters, Pass Holders and Events Recreational Activities Participants were first asked to share their favorite recreation activities and the kinds of activities they enjoy at the Boulder Reservoir and surrounding areas. A majority from these two user groups enjoyed motorized boating and waterskiing. A number of participants said they used kayaks, canoes, sail boats, kite and sail boards and Hobie Cats at the reservoir. A few users also rowed, biked, fished, hiked, swam and held picnics and events at the reservoir. People in these groups tended to use the reservoir mainly in the warmer months, although several said they used the reservoir year round. Weekends and week nights were popular times to visit the reservoir, with many participants using the reservoir at least once a week during the summer months. Rowers and some water-skiers enjoyed using the reservoir early in the morning while the water was still calm, while others frequented at various times throughout the day. Look, Feel and Appearance When asked to envision the reservoir 10 years down the road and describe what would make it the best recreation area in the country, users had a number of suggestions. * Organized small boat facilities with storage areas (e.g., for sails and other gear) * Organized clubs (i.e., sailing, rowing, kayak racing) * More on-the-water activities * Better areas to launch small craft from the shoreline (i.e., sand beaches, grassy areas) * Size limits on boat motors (to reduce noise levels) * More proximal parking for Hobie trailers * More water to boat in (i.e., fewer no wake days, move buoys so more room) * Increased hours of operation (i.e., not shutting the gates at 6pm because some people like using the reservoir after work) * More and better maintenance of the grounds and facilities (i.e., mowing weeds, cleaner restrooms) * Better snack bar * A lap swimming area * More events like live music * A redesigned entrance or more entrances (it is difficult to get boats and trailers in and out during events); maybe an entrance just for boaters with trailers * More grassy areas and better landscaping * More designated paths for running, walking and biking * More communication about events and other happenings D We have to do something with the entrances with events. It's great to have events there, however, when you spend that kind of money on a pass, you should be able to get your boat in and out without waiting a half an hour on either end. a CL` Summary of Findings r AGENDA ITEM # U-~ PAGE-b7 Reservoir Focus Groups November 2009 Participant 1: 1 think there should be a limit on the size on the motors on some of the motorboats, because there are some wicked big ones cruising around. It just seems over-the-top. Participant 2: It's also the hull shape, too. The ones that generate wakes versus the ones [that don't]. Participant 3: Or just the noise level. For windsurfing, a nicer rigging area. For small boats, like kayaks and stuff, having a rack somewhere where you can leave them and lock them [because] most of my visits to the reservoir are after work and schlepping boats to work on your care and to the reservoir every day is kind of a hassle. I'd be willing to pay to have a slot on a rack where 1 could keep a kayak. More grass for people to spread out. [Right now] if you wanted to hang out on a grassy area, you have to rent a spot. An events board or central communications [board]. Whether it's to learn about BAMor crew events. Just kind of a calendar of events, and along the same lines, a for sale board like ifyou wanted to sell a water-ski or a crew boat. One participant said he did not want to see any, changes to the reservoir. He believed some of the ideas others mentioned were fine but that he thought everything currently worked well. I just think that 1 wouldn't like to see too many changes unless there's a really good reason for them because things are working well now, and I think there's a little bit of worry about an agenda out there and people wanting to change things radically. The current services most important to users varied. Lake patrol was thought of as an important service by several participants, with a couple mentioning needing to be towed off the reservoir. A couple people who had held events or picnics at the reservoir thought the event setup and packages were an important and valuable service. They felt the service worked well and that the reservoir should do more to market these services. I was thinking as far as revenue goes, that's a service they should push and market more for companies and orientations around town. This would be a good source of revenue for them. However, one person noted that with the change in management in the last year or two, the level of customer service decreased dramatically. There was a lack of or miscommunication with reservoir staff and the service provided were considerably less than in years past, especially considering the increase in costs to hold similar events. This participant said: Due to pricing and terrible customer service, I have no desire to book the Boulder Res again. It's very I disappointing because our group enjoys going out there. V Ca N Maintenance was seen as an important service and an issue for a number of people from mowing grass and weeds to adjusting the docks to match the water level. Some powerboat owners thought the fuel o system needed to be addressed as it was an important service. Having an adequate fuel supply % available for the weekend demand, the cost of fuel and the availability of staff to fuel boats were listed 10 v a v b Summary of Findii) s oA rruo V' PAGE 76) Reservoir Focus Groups November 2009 as problems for several participants. Many people agreed that the fueling station should be self service. Others mentioned they would like to see a place to clean the inside and outside of their boats. Many participants noted the decline in the quality services provided since new management took over at the reservoir a few years ago. A few residents mentioned things like policies regarding parking and permits for the boats and trailers have changed for the worse and that there is a lack of communication with users and between departments at the reservoir. Some do not feel that the new management has reservoir users' interests at heart. Participant 1: It's a higher cost with more restrictions and less service. Participant 2: I think the city is now starting to consider the reservoir as a revenue source. There has been a host of rules and restrictions, and just a very tight girding in the past 2 years that has rarely resulted in a better experience. My observation is that they're underfunded, they're understaffed and they're not experienced. And it's one of those problems that, the people out there are doing the best they can. They can't hire more staff because they don't have the money, it hasn't been allocated, [and] they don't have the experience of running the reservoir. Focus group participants were posed with the question of having the reservoir, which is currently open year round, open for only nine months of the year and closed the other three months (e.g., December to February) to potentially reallocate funds or wondering if people used the reservoir all year. While a few users said they would be okay with that plan as long as runners, walkers and bikers could still use the facility, most did not support a change in the months of operation. Many people said they or others still used the reservoir during the winter months and it would be difficult to keep people out unless it was staffed because visitors could enter on foot. If finding funding to keep it open year round was the issue, one participant suggested charging year round for use of the reservoir but maybe a smaller fee during the months where rates of visitation declines. Others were skeptical of the reasons behind asking this question and limiting use of the reservoir: I've never seen anyone provide more by cutting. The first proposal shouldn't be, "Oh, we'll cut down to 9 months and that will give you more stuff. " Frankly, I'm a little nervous about that because I see a different agenda. I see people wanting to restrict the use of the reservoir. 1 think 9 months goes to 8 months goes to 6 months then all of a sudden you can't put your boat in. 1 think they want to close it down. The majority of participants felt safe on and around the reservoir from other patrons, boats and wildlife. A few people who use non-motorized boats were worried about motorized boats coming to close to them, but they noted that their worry was in a limited number of instances and that most L motorized boaters were respectful and obeyed the right-of-ways. A couple participants who used non- motorized boats thought that the buoys could be moved to create more space between the outside a perimeter and the inside to make it safer for them. A few participants mentioned that they felt safer on o the water this year than previous years because the cost of a single-day boat pass was prohibitive for z most, which helped to keep the number of boats on the water to a minimum. CL T CL Summary of Findings AGENDA ITEM #_-V , PAGE 7./ Reservoir Focus Groups November 2009 Many thought that there needed to be better enforcement of the reservoir rules and regulations on the water; however, they noted that Lake Patrol does not have the authority or ability to enforce the rules. Boaters knowing the rules and right-of-ways seemed to be an issue with several participants. Many felt that more education and better enforcement was important to improving safety for all users. Others believed that the current pattern for motorized boats was somewhat unclear and too congested. One participant suggested that all boats - motorized and non-motorized - be required to follow some kind of pattern on the reservoir. Boating Several questions on the focus group script were devoted to issues surrounding the boating community - both motorized and non-motorized. Participants were first asked to think about the different user groups on the reservoir and to list ideas of ways to share time and space. Many agreed this was a problem and a challenge and voiced concerns or issues they had about user groups other than their own. They admitted that one group will always dislike another group. However, when it came down to it, no one wanted to see any group prohibited from the reservoir or even really limit their usage of the reservoir. Participant 1: I'm a sailor. I think it would be nice to be quiet out there, butt would never say that I didn't want powerboats, because 1 think you shouldn't disallow access to people. And also I think the powerboats probably support the reservoir with their revenue. Participant 2: 1 have zero issue with the powerboats being out there, it's just how close they are to me. Our motorized boating community subsidizes almost the entire expense of the res, so I would submit that, although there may be some agendas floating here and there, I think that the voice of reason will come through. And the real challenge, as I see it, is a balancing act between all the different user groups. 1 can tell you that I'd never advocate to get rid of any [other] user group. While a number of participants were satisfied with the current schedules and sharing of the water, the number of no wake days was a point of contention. A few motorized boaters who liked to water ski early in the morning wanted to see fewer no wake days, while others who used the calm water on no wake days felt like there was not enough enforcement of the times for no wakes. Only some people felt that certain types of boats should be prohibited on the reservoir. A few participants mentioned boats with large, noisy motors should be prohibited and one participant said he could do without the wakeboard boats that throw large wakes and rough up the waters. U Participant 1: We were out there a week or two ago and there was some guy out there where he has the big engine hanging out of it and it makes all the noise. Participant 2: I've never gotten those - they just bomb around the lake, they don't tow anything and it's really noisy. Participant 3: Yeah, the noise on that one, it's almost kind of embarrassing as another boat owner because the people that are trying to get the motorboats off the lake are going to use that as an example. o Z T a V N m Q. 0. Summary of Findings Reservoir Focus Groups November 2009 When asked to think about the quality of the water in Boulder Reservoir and how the city should maintain it, most residents did not feel there was a problem and a few noted that there had been improvements in the water quality over the last few years. Some said that the water was murky or that on windier days there were more "floaties" in the water, but, overall, they did not feel water quality was an issue. Even so, participants did have a few suggestions about how to keep the water clean such as controlling the geese population, whose feces contaminates the water, by setting up decoy predators such as coyotes and owls or using coyote scent to scare them off. A few mentioned that runoff from the surrounding farms and ranches contaminated the reservoir but did not have ideas about ways to lessen that problem. Another idea that several people had in both groups was to eliminate the use of two-stroke engines on the reservoir since they use a mixture of oil and gas that gets "spewed" back into the water. Some thought that jet skis also used similar engines and should be banned from the reservoir altogether, but stated that they did not see as many on the reservoir this year as in years past. Nonetheless, participants did not necessarily believe that many boaters were using those types of motors and felt that many of the boats were newer and therefore less likely to be polluters. However, one person voiced disgust that the city allows power boats in a body of water that is used as a source of drinking water. Participants were also asked their opinions about the new inspections for aquatic nuisance species such as zebra mussels, although a couple residents wondered if zebra mussels were an actual problem at the reservoir. A number of boat permit holders believed that the inspections went well, although they admitted that, initially, it was a little cumbersome as both boat owners and inspectors were figuring out the process. I can't really complain. I thought they did an awesome job. It got off to a slow start, 1 was a little worried, but then they moved it over near the entrance... now I can be in and out in a minute. I bring my boat in all the time, and] have to say, I was pretty impressed with how they got on. If they had a boat in line, they'd get somebody over there... I rarely, if ever, had to wait. My experience is that they've been fine, young men, They're just very courteous, good attitudes, so we have no complaint. Some boat owners had suggestions for improvements to the inspection process including inspecting boats while they were being moored for the winter and having a cleaning station. Several people said they would be willing to pay some additional fees to have access to a cleaning station. This spring was the first year that they enforced this zebra mussel thing. And last winter they had 100, 200 boats sitting out there all winter. They could have just clamped them all up and still charged us each $25. But no, we had to wait until we got in line, pay our $25 dollars and then go.find someone to tag it up, wait the 7 days before you're allowed to put [your boat] in the water, and that was ridiculous. My suggestion is that they go around and do that for all the boats that are [moored] out there right now so that next ,spring nobody has to wait seven days. 2 Participant 1: I think they [need to] bust the inspection. 1 don't they do and that's why they're so much more restrictive than the states guidelines. o Participant 2: They won't trust the inspections from other reservoirs but what they said was, in the next z year, they're going to have a cleaning station at the res and that was the plan. If they have the funds. a c6 CL a Summary of Findings M-IFNDA ITEM # - _ , PAGE 73 Reservoir Focus Groups November 2009 Rules and Regulations The last set of questions in the focus group script asked about different rules and regulations at the reservoir surrounding issues such as alcohol, nudity and parking. Overall, most participants did not feel that alcohol was an issue. Many said they rarely see people that are overly intoxicated but at least one participant voiced that drinking alcohol was the greatest safety problem on the water. While some felt it was a valid concern, they were not in favor of prohibiting or limiting the type or amount of alcohol allowed at the reservoir. Again, a couple participants believed that better enforcement of reservoir rules would help curb any potential problem. Those attending the gate passes/events focus group were asked their thoughts about nudity at the reservoir. While many have never seen any nudity at the reservoir, the majority were okay with it being allowed as long as people were discreet. They thought designating a specific area, maybe on the north shore where some believed nudity already occurred, would be a good solution. One participant noted: I It would he a shame if that was the focus of law enforcement at the reservoir. When asked about traffic and parking, most did not feel it was a huge problem. They stated that traffic and parking were mainly issues during big events, which was to be expected. Many tended to avoid the reservoir on days when they new large events were happening and thought that it would be nice if the reservoir could communicate better about upcoming events. A number of participants were interested in the concept of using more busses or public transportation to and from the reservoir but wondered where funding for that would come from. Residents were not supportive of making the parking lot on 51" just before the reservoir entrance a fee lot. They believed that, currently, that lot is used mainly by runners, walkers and bikers. Some felt that lot was an easy way for people to get into the reservoir without having to pay admission. A few participants suggested either removing the lot altogether or expanding the lot. While they did not feel there was a solution to getting people to not park in the nearby neighborhood, many wondered if that was an issue for the reservoir or for the city or county. U C Gl N C N U L U f0 N N N N C O 2 T d a m m` CL m a` Summary of Findings Reservoir Focus Groups November 2009 The North Shore: Coot Lake and 55" Trailhead Recreational Activities Users of Coot Lake and the 55`h trailhead participated in a wide variety of recreational activities at the north shore and other areas including water- and snow-skiing, hiking, biking, horseback riding, dog walking, canoeing and bird watching. Many said they used the Coot Lake/north shore area more frequently than the 55`h trailhead. A number of participants used these areas year round and on the weekends, while others said they avoided the weekends because of the volume of visitors. Look, Feel and Appearance As with the participants in the boaters, pass holders and events focus groups, north shore user were asked to envision the area 10 years from now and to describe the things that would make it the best recreational and natural area in the U.S. Residents had countless suggestions including: * Connector trail from 55,h to Eagle Trail * Completion of multi-use trail from 55`' to Lyons * Improved water quality at Coot Lake * More trash cans around Coot Lake and the surrounding areas * More dog waste bag cylinders throughout the area * More staff for maintenance (i.e., trash pick-up, restroom maintenance) * Bridle paths for horses * Make the road (515` and 55`h) more like a national park road to reduce interference with and safety for wildlife and other user groups * Better protection of the wetlands and animal habitat (through leashing dogs, more/better signage, more/better fencing, fines for trespassers) Participant 1: I think the water conditions at Coot Lake, since it's such a small enclosed water space... it would be really lovely to see some way if they could aerate the water in both big lake and the little lake to mitigate that. Participant 2: 1 agree with both of those, in both the res and Coot Lake, improve water quality. It would be really nice, because it's so heavily used, if there were bridle paths specifically for horses that did not interfere with walkers, hikers and bikers. A couple of people I've talked to have really the like the idea, and this is getting close to the Eagle [Trail] as well, is to make [the road] more like a national park area where you would narrow the road c a little bit, pave it and have a multi-use kind of trail running alongside it up to Monarch road. That way Q horses would have a nice thing to go along there and you wouldn't have the cars [to contend with]. It would be a one-way even, but horses would be fine going the other way, so you wouldn't have the gravel, you wouldn't have the speeding traffic, it would really bring the traffic down, create a park-like y feeling and having a multi-use trail would be really nice for everybody versus the terrible competition with the trucks and everything that goes flying by. o m z v CL v a` Summary of Findings AGENDA ITEM ~ PAr,E 7S- Reservoir Focus Groups November 2009 Participant 1: The nature trail part of it... I would like to see that area around to the wetlands [on the west end], not around Coot Lake itself, [protected from dogs and humans] because that's a highly critical little wetland area. Participant 2: With fencing, it'd have to be carefully done so you're not keeping animals from going in and out, migrating. Many participants were not in favor of leashing dogs at Coot Lake to protect the natural environment and thought there were better alternatives. Participant 1: Personally, I would not like to have the dogs on leash because that's a very popular loop for people and to suddenly having to put your dog on [leash] would take a lot away, but doing better fencing, 1 would totally agree with. And on that issue, before they even put the split-rail fence that they have up now, there were way more dogs and people going down there. Participant 2: So, you saw it less? Participant 1: There was a marked improvement with, just a split-rail fence. Still, some participants said they did not want to see any changes to the area 10 years down the road. For me, in 10 years is a hard one because I would like to see it not more manicured. You know, where there's signage everywhere or one of those urban parks where there's signage every ten feet that tells you what you're looking at. I'd like to have it retain some of its wetlands appeal without it becoming even more manicured and I don't know how you do that with even more increased fencing. When asked to think specifically about the 55`" trailhead and any changes or developments they would like to see in that area, a few residents believed that an expanded parking lot would be a nice addition to the trailhead, as long as the addition was away from the wetlands that are nearby. While some worried that adding more parking would encroach on the land and habitat they were trying to protect, others believed it would help because people would have more parking available. Participant 1: More parking. It fills up quite often and there are "no parking" signs all along the road there. Participant 2: I think more parking encourages more people to drive their cars. Participant 1: But it would be better to have them ride bikes or something. Participant 3: 1 disagree, I think people are going to use it anyways and the less parking means that they're going to try to park in places they shouldn't park. Only a few residents had opinions about whether or not the social trails at 55"' should become designated trails, and they had split views. While some thought having designated trails would help with the mud and keeping people out of where they should not go, others believed that having designated trails meant that the city would have more control over where those trails went. v U Balancing Users Coot Lake and north shore users were asked to think about what the city could do to accommodate the different user groups of the area. Many did not feel that there was conflict between user groups but o offered some suggestions that might ensure everyone's recreational needs were being met. One z suggestion was having designated areas that are "dog-friendly" that would have signs posted so all users knew that dogs would be in that specific area. a a` Summary of Findings Reservoir Focus Groups November 2009 I'd like to see some areas that are designated for specific activities, and maybe Coot Lake, maybe not, [such as having] a dog friendly area. That doesn't change what you can and can't do, doesn't change the rules and regulations about your dog, but just have a few areas that are not just multi-use for everybody to do whatever they want. There also would be [areas] where dogs can't go in addition to some areas [that are] dog friendly areas. I go there practically every day and 1 have never seen a really bad confrontation between a dog and a human. I have seen runners, for instance, who don't like having dogs in their pathway because it interrupts their 'flow, " but I have never seen a dog being obnoxious to another human being and I've never seen a dog being obnoxious to another dog. One participant, who was a dog owner, noted that one problem area at Coot Lake and the north shore was other dog owners not picking up their dog's feces. She noted that she was "one of the ones who picks up more poop than I put there." 1 don't mind picking up after a few more dogs. I find the people who mostly disobey the rules are out-of- towners who come there or dog walkers and men. Other users offered ideas for ways to resolve this issue such as having more visible staff who could issue fines or tickets to people who do not pick up their dog's feces. They believed that if dog owners knew that people were watching and enforcing the rule, then they would be more likely to pick up after their dogs. A few were willing to pay an annual fee if it meant that an extra staff person could be there to enforce the rules. Another participant suggested having people volunteer to patrol the area: Have a volunteer patrol... with your dog. Have two things, one is to have two people always together because you're less likely to have any real conflict if there are two people. [And two] have your dogs. If you're going to approach another person with a dog and you have your dog with you, they're going to be a lot more open to your suggestions. My approach is kind of "oh ]just saw your dog poop here would you like a bag. " Someone else proposed including information about approaching other dog owners about picking up after their dog in the training video that is used to get the dog Voice and Sight tags. When asked if the city should require dogs to be on-leash at all times at Coot Lake, all but one said they were strongly against. Many were concerned because Coot Lake was one of the few places in the area where dogs could be off-leash. The one person in favor of the city taking this action said it was only because it would protect the wildlife and the wetlands. Because most nudity occurs on the north shore near Coot Lake, participants in this focus group were asked to give their thoughts on subject. While more users of this area than the reservoir said they had seen nudity, most said it did not bother them and that it should be allowed. U Most residents felt the city has done a good job of balancing the recreational opportunities and access for users while maintaining the health of the natural lands and wildlife. A couple people said that the city could pay a little more attention to the wetlands and areas where birds nest on the ground. 0 Coot Lake and north shore users were asked to think about ways to control invasive species that are z threatening and invading the area. Several respondents wanted to see more information about studies that have been done showing that invasive species are actually a problem and what is causing the a 2 a` Summary of Findings AGENDA ITEM :0 U- PAGE-77 Reservoir Focus Groups November 2009 problem. They felt more education could be done with residents and users of the area about what the invasive species are and how they spread to help curtail the problem. One participant suggested getting a group of volunteers together to help pull weeds, which would save the city money, and others agreed this was a good idea. Another user was supportive of the city closing certain areas seasonally to stop the spread of invasive species. I would like to see more information. Some more effortput into education, and in other words, 1 don't know half the invasive species out there that nobody wants and 1 would love to be part of a group that went out and picked them, hand-picked them, and counted. And if we all, as users of the lake, anybody who has to get a license for a boat or anything else, could [get an] email and would be alerted when there were going to be outings led by a ranger, 1 would do it. I would love to. I really like the education idea. I love the idea of volunteers helping out. I think those are two great, especially in an area like this. Good signage. I feel... ifpeople fare] sympathetic and they know the reasons, people want to do the right thing. I do think these invasive weeds are just you know they can just wipe out everything else and it's a helpless landscape so I really would like to see strong protections against them. I'm fine with closing off areas at seasonal times I just think there's so many of us and there s just such delicate landscape and it's so it's just increasingly under pressure so whatever would be helpful for it I would that's what 1'd really like to see. 1 would have an area closed off so that I could never see a rare bird again if it would protect the bird. And what I really want to see is the creatures protected because it's not my recreation, really, it's the creatures [that I want to protect]. One participant also noted that he would like more than 24 hour notice when the city applies herbicide. Resource Allocation The current budget, resources and staff duties for the north shore were explained to residents. They were asked to provide different actions they think the city could pursue to fund new developments and protect the wildlife and natural lands in the area. Residents came up with a number of potential solutions including fees for specific user groups and all users; however one person mentioned not making the fees so high that they are restrictive to low-income residents. I think anybody who uses facilities on a regular basis, such as dog walkers, should probably pay an annual fee, not just a one-time, fee, and I think that it ought to be based on the number of dogs that you anticipate. In other words, each dog should have an independent green tag and without a green tag you're subject to severe fines if you're caught with the dog off-leash. For those of us who appreciate the fact that there is an area for dogs to run in, I'm sure are more than willing to give extra money. I would be in favor of a blanket fee; this is something that the city of Longmont is either doing or considering that's attached to the utility billing. U L Many participants were open to a parking fee to raise funds for the area. They thought that a drop box for fees was better than having a staffed booth because that would be an added cost. One participant suggested having the ability to purchase an annual pass for the area: o What I would say for differentiation, would be to have an annual fee that you can buy or to have a day z fee. So if you're a Boulder resident you know you can buy the annual fee, and if you're someone who's coming from Denver and going, [you can get the day fee]. CL` Summary of Findings nl`yOA FBA _V_~ P PAGE 16 Reservoir Focus Groups !November 2009 Most thought it would be challenging to enforce resident/non-resident fees without having a staff member administering fees, although it could be applied to those wanting to purchase an annual pass. The one stipulation that most users had was that the money they would pay through fees of any kind had to go to the north shore/Coot Lake area. They said they would want assurance that the money would be recycled back into the area. They did not believe that eliminating access points would be helpful to free up funds, as they noted that, currently, there were not a lot of access points. Users also were not in favor of reducing staff hours for maintenance (i.e., trash pick-up, restroom clean-up) because they felt there was not enough maintenance to begin with. A number of participants wondered if people required to do community service could be used to help with maintenance and weed management at the north shore/Coot Lake area. Other suggestions included "adopt a place" and corporate sponsors such as IBM, boy scouts and Seagate. Y C L V N d a C O ro z a a 0 a~ t0 CL T a Summary of Findings ADEN )A ITPA # V_1~9 PAGE Reservoir Focus Groups November 2009 APPENDIX A: FOCUS GROUP SCRIPTS The following pages contain copies of the scripts used for the three focus groups. 41 C m C N V t u `m a~ m c 0 z a, v 'a m n c~ n`. Summary of Findings c VAGENDA ITEM # . PAG~^ l~ + Moderator Discussion Guide - Boaters Welcome and Ground Rules (5 minutes) Hello. Thank you all for coming and participating in this focus group discussion. My name is and I work for an independent research group called National Research Center. You were invited to join this discussion because you purchased a boating permit for the 2009 season at the Boulder Reservoir or you're a member of a group that that uses the reservoir for recreational boating. The City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department is conducting a series of focus group discussions to gather opinions about current and future services and use policies at the Reservoir, which will be used in developing a master plan for the Reservoir. How many of you have participated in a focus group before? In case you have not been in a focus group before, a focus group is a structured discussion where we'll ask you a series of questions to encourage sharing of ideas and opinions. We really want you to express yourself openly and honestly. There are no right or wrong answers. We just want to know what you think. We are going to tape record this session to ensure our report accurately reflects your comments. However, your responses will not be linked with your name in any way. Everything you say will be kept strictly confidential. Because we are taping, I may need to remind you occasionally to speak up or talk one at a time so that we can hear you clearly when we review the session audio tapes. I am your guide, but I want the conversation to be among all of you. Each time I ask a question, we don't need to go around the table to let everyone respond in turn. But every so often I may check in and make sure that we get a chance to hear from different people because it is important that we understand different perspectives. There are only of you, so each one of your perspectives is important to hear. If you would like to add to an idea, or if you have an idea that is different from other people's ideas, that's the time to jump into the conversation. Bear in mind, we're not looking for consensus here; we're looking to hear a variety of opinions and experiences. [Mention food protocol, gift at end of group, no bathroom break]. Ice Breaker (10 minutes) Let's begin by pronouncing your name for the group, telling us what city you live in and what your favorite recreation activity is. 1. What kinds of things you do when you go to the Boulder Reservoir and surrounding areas? [PROBE: What kinds of things do you do when you visit (i.e., bike, hike, hike with dogs, dogs swim)? When do you usually do these activities? Weekday vs weekend? Seasonally? How frequently do you visit these areas in a month?) Boaters Focus Group Script A0VN aA rrFM V A- . PAGE ~ ~ Today, we're going to talk about changes you would like or would not like to see at the Boulder Reservoir and surrounding recreation areas. Let's first spend a little time talking about the look and feel of these areas. Look and Feel/Appearance (40 minutes) 2. So, imagine that you have left Boulder. After 10 years without contact, you've come back for a visit and you go to the reservoir, which you have heard has won the award as the best recreation area in the country, and you are walking around and observing the area. What is different? What has changed? What has stayed the same to make this area the best it can be and better than other places? [PROBE: What kinds of people go there? What kinds of events are held there? What kinds of activities are allowed or not allowed there? What about the land? Is there more or less or different vegetation?] 3. Now, thinking about the reservoir currently, what services provided at the Reservoir are most important to you (i.e., gas service, lake patrol, rental boats, lifeguarded swimming area, concessions, bathrooms, picnic areas, maintained paths, roads)? Which are the least important? 4. What kinds of improvements/ additional facilities would you like to see on the south shore area? [i.e., Concessions, picnic shelters, boat house, restrooms, state park type items; Describe the south shore to be sure all know where we are talking about.] [PROBE: What about a larger parking lot, restroom facilities, more/better beaches? How important is it to you that the City provides these types of amenities?] 5. Currently, the reservoir gates are open year round. Entry fees are only charged May - September. Would you prefer that the Boulder Reservoir facility be a year round facility (fees and services year round) or a 9 month facility (fees and services for those 9 months), where gates would be closed and locked for no vehicle access and boating would be suspended for those 3 months? Would it still meet your recreational needs even if it was open 9 months of the year? [i.e., Maybe closed Dec-Feb to save money (boat inspector year round, maintenance, other staff, etc) or does it even really need to be year round?) [PROBE: Currently, boating is allowed year round. Do you think boating should be seasonal or should be allowed year round? What makes you say that? What other changes would you like to see to the hours of operation?] Boaters Focus Group Script AGENDA REM V-A , PAGE. -2- [INFO FOR FACILITATOR. Benefits water quality. Currently have staff there that have made rescues for boaters that go out in off season. Safety and budget issues.] 6. In what ways do events held at the reservoir impact your use of the reservoir? Do small events (50- 100 people) compared to large events (500-3000) impact your use differently? [PROBE; Do you stay away when events are happening? Do you still do the activities you typically would at the reservoir during events? Should the City close down the general traffic to the reservoir for major events?] 7. While visiting the reservoir, have you ever been concerned about your own safety or the safety of your family? What about the safety of property in the area? What concerns do you have? [PROBE: Do different times of the day feel more or less safe? Is safety a concern during events or when it's particularly crowded? What about safety from wildlife or boats?] Boating (20 minutes) 8. A number of people use the reservoir for different recreational purposes, including swimming, motorized and non-motorized boating, fishing, etc. What ideas do you have for Parks and Recreation staff about ways to share the time and space at the reservoir with both power and non powered boats? Designated days/parts of days? Prohibit certain kinds of boats? Which kinds? [PROBE: Do you think there is conflict or contention between motorized and non-motorized boaters? What's the conflict? Is it a large conflict or small?] 9. What do you think about the water quality at the Reservoir? For swimming? For boating? For drinking? [PROBE: How do you know about the water quality at the Reservoir? [Visual inspection, smell, read about it, people tell me.] 9a. What ideas do you have about ways the City can maintain water quality at the reservoir for swimmers and boaters? [Prohibit certain uses; increase filtration; limit number of users/time on water, doing emission testing on power boats, requiring boaters to get newer or electric motors?] Boaters Focus Group Script 9b. This year, the City implemented some procedures to protect the reservoir from aquatic nuisance species, including boat inspections. What your thoughts about how to make inspections go smoothly and not be too burdensome on boaters in the future? [PROBE: Would you be willing to pay in additional fees to offset costs for the infrastructure and staffing to make that happen to protect water quality? If so, how much?] Rules and Regulations (15 minutes) Let's take the last few minutes to talk a little about different rules and regulations at the reservoir. 10. Do you think all types of alcohol should be allowed at the reservoir? What kinds should be prohibited? Should there be limits to the amount people can bring into the reservoir? [PROBE: Would you be in favor of restricting alcohol to 3:2 beer or no kegs, with exceptions for scheduled picnics? What would be the benefits to this practice? What would be the downside? Have you experienced any problems at the reservoir as it related to drunken or unruly behavior?] 10a. Where should alcohol be allowed? Everywhere? Only on the south shore? What about the north shore area? 11. Currently, nudity at the reservoir is not prohibited, but not necessarily allowed. What are your thoughts on nudity at the reservoir? [Should it be allowed or prohibited?] [PROBE: Could a compromise be that there is a designated area where nudity could be allowed that's out of view from most other people recreating at the reservoir?] 12. What do you think about the number of cars coming into the reservoir? [too many, no problem] What are some of the ways the City could decrease car traffic coming into area? [PROBE: Providing a bus or shuttle to the reservoir? Allowing people who walk or bike into the reservoir free admission or at a discounted rate?] 13. Think about the parking situation at the reservoir- [REFER TO MAP IF NECESSARY] Do you ever have trouble parking at the reservoir? Should the parking outside the front gate area off of 51st be fee based, removed all together or remain as is? [If the City removed that totally, how would that work, or not work, to solve parking in the neighborhood? Would you be more inclined to park in the neighborhood if that parking was eliminated? How would you feel about the City not charging a fee but, as a trade off, not providing the current services that support that lot like a port-a-potty and staff for emergencies?] Boaters Focus Group Script [INFO FOR FACILITATOR: There are 20-25 that exist outside the entry gate so people don't have to pay entry into the Reservoir. When that fills up, people park in surrounding neighborhoods.] That concludes our discussion. Thank you so much for your time. will give you your thank you gift on your way out. Next steps: A public open house/administrative hearing is scheduled for October 21 at 5:00 p.m. A public hearing is also scheduled with PRAB on October 26 at 6:00 p.m. I'll confirm both locations today and get back to everyone. Boaters Focus Group Script 46MA tTF-M # V- L PAGE Moderator Discussion Guide - Gate Passes and Events Welcome and Ground Rules (5 minutes) Hello. Thank you all for coming and participating in this focus group discussion. My name is , and I work for an independent research group called National Research Center. You were invited to join this discussion because you purchased a gate pass, punch pass, participated in a program, purchased a permit for a picnic or held an event for the 2009 season at the Boulder Reservoir. The City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department is conducting a series of focus group discussions to gather opinions about current and future services and use policies at the Reservoir, which will be used in developing a master plan for the Reservoir. How many of you have participated in a focus group before? In case you have not been in a focus group before, a focus group is a structured discussion where we'll ask you a series of questions to encourage sharing of ideas and opinions. We really want you to express yourself openly and honestly. There are no right or wrong answers. We just want to know what you think. We are going to tape record this session to ensure our report accurately reflects your comments. However, your responses will not be linked with your name in any way. Everything you say will be kept strictly confidential. Because we are taping, I may need to remind you occasionally to speak up or talk one at a time so that we can hear you clearly when we review the session audio tapes. I am your guide, but I want the conversation to be among all of you. Each time I ask a question, we don't need to go around the table to let everyone respond in turn. But every so often I may check in and make sure that we get a chance to hear from different people because it is important that we understand different perspectives. There are only of you, so each one of your perspectives is important to hear. If you would like to add to an idea, or if you have an idea that is different from other people's ideas, that's the time to jump into the conversation. Bear in mind, we're not looking for consensus here; we're looking to hear a variety of opinions and experiences. [Mention food protocol, gift at end of group, no bathroom break]. Ice Breaker (10 minutes) Let's begin by pronouncing your name for the group, telling us what city you live in and what your favorite recreation activity is. 1. What kinds of things you do when you go to the Boulder Reservoir and surrounding areas? [PROBE: What kinds of things do you do when you visit (i.e., bike, hike, hike with dogs, dogs swim)? When do you usually do these activities? Weekday vs weekend? Seasonally? How frequently do you visit these areas in a month?] Gate Passes and Events Focus Group Script . PA ~lO AGENDA i C M # V-A C-,,~ Today, we're going to talk about changes you would like or would not like to see at the Boulder Reservoir and surrounding recreation areas. Let's first spend a little time talking about the look and feel of these areas. Look and Feel/Appearance (40 minutes 2. So, imagine that you have left Boulder. After 10 years without contact, you've come back for a visit and you go to the reservoir, which you have heard has won the award as the best recreation area in the country, and you are walking around and observing the area. What is different? What has changed? What has stayed the same to make this area the best it can be and better than other places? [PROBE: What kinds of people go there? What kinds of events are held there? What kinds of activities are allowed or not allowed there? What about the land? Is there more or less or different vegetation?] 3. Now, thinking about the reservoir currently, what services provided at the Reservoir are most important to you (i.e., gas service, lake patrol, rental boats, lifeguarded swimming area, concessions, bathrooms, picnic areas, maintained paths, roads) ? Which are the least important? 4. What kinds of improvements/ additional facilities would you like to see on the south shore area? [i.e., Concessions, picnic shelters, boat house, restrooms, state park type items; Describe the south shore to be sure all know where we are talking about.] [PROBE: What about a larger parking lot, restroom facilities, more/better beaches? How important is it to you that the City provides these types of amenities?] 5. Currently, the reservoir gates are open year round. Entry fees are only charged May - September. Would you prefer that the Boulder Reservoir facility be a year round facility (fees and services year round) or a 9 month facility (fees and services for those 9 months), where gates would be closed and locked for no vehicle access and boating would be suspended for those 3 months? Would it still meet your recreational needs even if it was open 9 months of the year? [i.e., Maybe closed Dec-Feb to save money (boat inspector year round, maintenance, other staff, etc) or does it even really need to be year round?] [PROBE: Currently, boating is allowed year round. Do you think boating should be seasonal or should be allowed year round? What makes you say that? What other changes would you like to see to the hours of operation?] Gate Passes and Events Focus Group Script NQ Icy [INFO FOR FACILITATOR: Benefits water quality. Currently have staff there that have made rescues for boaters that go out in off season. Safety and budget issues.] 6. In what ways do events held at the reservoir impact your use of the reservoir? Do small events (50- 100 people) compared to large events (500.3000) impact your use differently? [PROBE: Do you stay away when events are happening? Do you still do the activities you typically would at the reservoir during events? Should the City close down the general traffic to the reservoir for major events?] 7. While visiting the reservoir, have you ever been concerned about your own safety or the safety of your family? What about the safety of property in the area? What concerns do you have? [PROBE: Do different times of the day feel more or less safe? Is safety a concern during events or when it's particularly crowded? What about safety from wildlife or boats?] Boating (20 minutes) 8. A number of people use the reservoir for different recreational purposes, including swimming, motorized and non-motorized boating, fishing, etc. What ideas do you have for Parks and Recreation staff about ways to share the time and space at the reservoir with both power and non powered boats? Designated days/parts of days? Prohibit certain kinds of boats? Which kinds? [PROBE: Do you think there is conflict or contention between motorized and non-motorized boaters? What's the conflict? Is it a large conflict or small?] 9. What do you think about the water quality at the Reservoir? For swimming? For boating? For drinking? [PROBE: How do you know about the water quality at the Reservoir? [Visual inspection, smell, read about it, people tell me.] 9a. What ideas do you have about ways the City can maintain water quality at the reservoir for swimmers and boaters? [Prohibit certain uses; increase filtration; limit number of users/time on water, doing emission testing on power boats, requiring boaters to get newer or electric motors?] ( ,ate Passes and Events Focus Group Scril)t ~ 3.7 9b. This year, the City implemented some procedures to protect the reservoir from aquatic nuisance species, including boat inspections. What your thoughts about how to make inspections go smoothly and not be too burdensome on boaters in the future? [PROBE: Would you be willing to pay in additional fees to offset costs for the infrastructure and staffing to make that happen to protect water quality? If so, how much?] Rules and Regulations (15 minutes) Let's take the last few minutes to talk a little about different rules and regulations at the reservoir. 10. Do you think all types of alcohol should be allowed at the reservoir? What kinds should be prohibited? Should there be limits to the amount people can bring into the reservoir? [PROBE: Would you be in favor of restricting alcohol to 3:2 beer or no kegs, with exceptions for scheduled picnics? What would be the benefits to this practice? What would be the downside? Have you experienced any problems at the reservoir as it related to drunken or unruly behavior?] 10a. Where should alcohol be allowed? Everywhere? Only on the south shore? What about the north shore area? 11. Currently, nudity at the reservoir is not prohibited, but not necessarily allowed. What are your thoughts on nudity at the reservoir? [Should it be allowed or prohibited?] [PROBE: Could a compromise be that there is a designated area where nudity could be allowed that's out of view from most other people recreating at the reservoir? 12. What do you think about the number of cars coming into the reservoir? [too many, no problem] What are some of the ways the City could decrease car traffic coming into area? [PROBE: Providing a bus or shuttle to the reservoir? Allowing people who walk or bike into the reservoir free admission or at a discounted rate?] 13. Think about the parking situation at the reservoir. [REFER TO MAP IF NECESSARY] Do you ever have trouble parking at the reservoir? Should the parking outside the front gate area off of 51st be fee based, removed all together or remain as is? [If the City removed that totally, how would that work, or not work, to solve parking in the neighborhood? Would you be more inclined to park in the neighborhood if that parking was eliminated? How would you feel about the City not charging a fee but, as a trade off, not providing the current services that support that lot like a port-a-potty and staff for emergencies?] Gate Passes and Events Focus Group Script n AGENDA, ITEM/ ~ V-~ PAGE [INFO FOR FACILITATOR: There are 20-25 that exist outside the entry gate so people don't have to pay entry into the Reservoir. When that fills up, people park in surrounding neighborhoods.] That concludes our discussion, Thank you so much for your time. Will give you your thank you gift on your way out. Next steps: A public open house/administrative hearing is scheduled for October 21 at 5:00 p.m. A public hearing is also scheduled with PRAB on October 26 at 6:00 p.m. I'll confirm both locations today and get back to everyone. Gate Passes and Events Focus Group Script U'A P PAGE ("0 Moderator Discussion Guide - Coot Lake/55"' Trailhead Welcome and Ground Rules (5 minutes) Hello. Thank you all for coming and participating in this focus group discussion. My name is , and I work for an independent research group called National Research Center. You were invited to join this discussion because you hike or use the trailheads at Coot Lake and/or the 55"' trailhead. The City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department is conducting a series of focus group discussions to gather opinions about current and future services and use policies at the Reservoir. Your feedback will be used in developing a master plan for the Reservoir. How many of you have participated in a focus group before? In case you have not been in a focus group before, a focus group is a structured discussion where we'll ask you a series of questions to encourage sharing of ideas and opinions. We really want you to express yourself openly and honestly. There are no right or wrong answers. We just want to know what you think. We are going to tape record this session to ensure our report accurately reflects your comments. However, your responses will not be linked with your name in any way. Everything you say will be kept strictly confidential. Because we are taping, I may need to remind you occasionally to speak up or talk one at a time so that we can hear you clearly when we review the session audio tapes. I am your guide, but I want the conversation to be among all of you. Each time I ask a question, we don't need to go around the table to let everyone respond in turn. But every so often I may check in and make sure that we get a chance to hear from different people because it is important that we understand different perspectives. There are only of you, so each one of your perspectives is important to hear. If you would like to add to an idea, or if you have an idea that is different from other people's ideas, that's the time to jump into the conversation. Bear in mind, we're not looking for consensus here; we're looking to hear a variety of opinions and experiences. [Mention food protocol, gift at end of group, no bathroom break]. Ice Breaker (10 minutes) Let's begin by pronouncing your name for the group, telling us what city you live in and what your favorite recreation activity is. 1. What kinds of activities you do when you go to the 55th trailhead and Coot Lake recreation areas? Coot Lake/55`h Trailhead Focus Group Script ADEN A I` F' 4 # V -A . PAGE [PROBE: What kinds of things do you do when you visit (i.e., bike, hike, hike with dogs, dogs swim)? When do you usually do these activities? Weekday vs weekend? Seasonally? How frequently do you visit these areas in a month?] Today, we're going to talk about changes you would like or would not like to see at the Boulder Reservoir and surrounding recreation areas. Let's first spend a little time talking about what you do when you recreate at these areas and the look and feel of them. Look and Feel/Appearance 0 5 minutes) 2. So, imagine that you have left Boulder. After 10 years without contact, you've come back for a visit and you go to the north shore - Coot Lake or 55`h trailhead, which you have heard has won an award as the best managed recreational natural area in the country, and you are walking around and observing the area. What is different? What has changed? What has stayed the same to make this area the best it can be and better than other places? [PROBE: What kinds of people go there? What kinds of events are held there? What kinds of activities are allowed or not allowed there? What about the land? Is there more or less or different vegetation?] 3. How many of you use the 55i4' trailhead? Thinking specifically about the 55`h trailhead area, what kinds of development would you like to see at the 55`h trailhead? [PROBE: What about designated trails (i.e., developed or constructed), a larger parking lot, restroom facilities? How important is it to you that the City provides these types of amenities at the 55`h trailhead?] 4. While visiting the north shore of the reservoir, have you ever been concerned about your own safety or the safety of your family? [Could be safety from crime, from conflict, from wild animals, from pets, from traffic] Potential Conflicting Uses (40 minutes) 5. What are some of the reasons you like going to and recreating at Coot Lake and the 55`h trailhead? (E.g., the scenery, dogs can be off-leash or leashed, it's relaxing, etc.) [MORE INFO IF NEEDED: In a recent survey NRC did of Boulder Reservoir users for the City of Boulder, about 36% of Coot Lake/north shore users liked it for being dog friendly or that dogs are allowed off leash, and about 25% of users liked the scenery, found it relaxing or pretty.] Cuort Lake/ »a' Traithcad Focus Croup Script _ 5a. Knowing that people enjoy these areas for different reasons, what suggestions do you have for the Parks and Recreation department about ways to accommodate everyone and their interests so that residents who fit into these different groups can all enjoy the area? 6. Thinking about dogs at the Boulder Reservoir/Coot Lake area, how would you feel about the City requiring dogs to be on-leash at all times, similar to current City requirements of all areas within the city limits? [PROBE: What about designating an area as `voice and sight' (such as one that has water access for dogs) in a limited area instead of all of Coot Lake and the north shore of the reservoir to better manage any potential conflicts among users and to protect the natural resources? Would that be a fair resolution?] 7. Currently, nudity at the reservoir is not prohibited, but not necessarily allowed. What are your thoughts on nudity at the reservoir? {Should it be allowed or prohibited?} Have you ever witnessed it? [PROBE: Could a compromise be that there is a designated area where nudity could be allowed that's out of view from most other people recreating at the reservoir?] 8. The City has to strike a balance between providing recreational opportunities and access to the north shore property with maintaining the health of the natural lands and wildlife species that inhabit it. In your opinion, do you think the City has the right balance now, or is it tilted too far one direction or another? In what ways do you think the City is doing a good job, or in what ways do you think improvements could be made? 8a. Some areas of the north shore and Coot Lake area are being threatened by invasive species (i.e., zebra/quagga mussels, purple loosestrife, etc.). Currently, the state has implemented certain regulations the City must follow to control these species. In addition, much of the natural areas around the Reservoir serve as valuable habitat for a wide variety of wildlife species year round. There are some options the City has in deciding how to implement measures to control invasive species and protect wildlife, but many might impact the way in which people are able to use the area. Coot bake/55' Trailhead Focus Group Script Some of these options for controlling invasive species include reducing or eliminating potential causes for infestation by: • Closing off certain areas off seasonally • Limiting access in heavily infested areas temporarily • Limiting access in heavily infested areas long term? • Putting fencing along trails so people/animals have to stick to the designated trail • Education about the invasive species and how they spread? To protect wildlife, the City could designate areas of "acceptable use" for certain recreational activities 8b. Which of these options, if any, do you think would work best to balance recreational needs and access to the area with protecting the natural resources and wildlife? How would you like the City to consider the balance between recreational uses and natural lands protection? (What would you like the City to consider in making decisions about what, if any, additional protective measures that should be implemented?) [PROBE: Should the City focus on some of the natural areas more than others (i.e., open water, wetlands, shortgrass prairie, riparian corridors)?] [INFO FOR FACILITATOR: Weed management association lists a,b,c species. All a must be irradiated (Only List A species required eradication - we do work on all List species though), which the City does. City has weed removal with seasonal staff but they don't manage recreation in infested areas. So things like controlling access in heavy infested areas would help b/c people or dogs walking through spreads the weeds. Could be temp or long-term. Eliminate access points to control where people could/would go? DEFINITION: Riparian Corridors are defined as "natural lands" within a 100 meter corridor encompassing perennial stream and river features.] Resource Allocation (20 minutes) For the last set of questions, we'll be talking about things you think the City should or could do, as it relates to funding, to maintain or improve upon some of the things we've been discussing. As I'm sure everyone knows, the current economic climate has had a large impact on local jurisdictions. Budgets are tight and cities and counties are having to make tough decisions to be able to manage the budget and allocate resources just to maintain the current level of services they're providing, including increasing or implementing taxes and fees and reducing service levels. The level of use at the north shore/Coot Lake area has increased substantially over the last ten years (there are currently approximately 145,000 visits annually to this area). As a result, the City is trying to figure out how to do more with less. Coot Lake/55`h Trailhead Focus Group Script I~~ The city has an annual budget of about $80,000 for seasonal help of about 4 staff for the entire urban park system (about 32 other park sites with natural areas), including the reservoir, Coot Lake and 55`h trailhead areas, where about half of the $80,000 is spent. Staff do things like: • building and maintaining trails, facilities/structures and parking lots • mowing along trails • fence repair • installing signs • trash removal • cleaning restrooms • weed management (i.e., pulling weeds) • and pest/wildlife management (i.e., mosquito abatement, prairie dog monitoring/counts/mapping). 9. So, earlier we talked about the kinds of development you might like to see at the 55`h trailhead, such as designated trails, restrooms and a larger parking lot and protecting/preserving the natural environment. Based on the information I just shared with you about budgets and resource allocation, what are some of the ways you think the city should fund these new developments? 9a. What about finding more funding or raising more money through user fees, new taxes or increased taxes? Would you be willing to pay more to use these recreation areas? What if it meant things like parking improvements or maintaining the facilities (i.e., restrooms and trash removal)? [PROBE: What do you think about implementing parking fees at these sites? Is that a reasonable resolution? Fees v. parking improvements?] 9b. Lots of people, even those living outside the City of Boulder, enjoy and use the Coot Lake and north shore area. If the City were to implement fees to help support the upkeep and maintenance of the area, what do you think those fees should be and who should those fees be applied to? [PROBE: Should the city continue the practice of separate fees for residents of Boulder verses non-residents or should there be one fee for all users? What would be the benefits of one fee versus a separate fee for residents vs non-residents? What do you think about only charge user fees to non-residents of the city? Do you think that would be a fair approach?] 9c. What about potentially reducing costs designated to Coot Lake/north shore like eliminating access points (parking), which would reduce the level of or need for maintenance at these areas? Or reducing fence repair, the frequency of trash removal/restroom maintenance (although pretty efficient and low budget right now), reducing the hours of manual labor? Coot Lake/55d Trailhead Focus Group Script nn AGENDA i`?M # V )t- , PAGE 10. Again, due to the current economic climate, staffing levels dedicated to support the various services at the north shore/Coot Lake area will likely decline after 2010 and with more and more people using this recreation area, the City is facing tough budget decisions. Given the use will like to continue to increase, where might the city best spend time or budget to manage current and future visitor use? [INFO FOR FACILITATOR: 4.5 Seasonal crew maintenance staff- pest mgmt, wildlife and general maintenance of that area. Not a full time position. Trash removal, fence repair. This year only able to hire 3 and oversee natural areas within urban parks (32 parks). 80% weed mgmt when at res. Restrooms, trash, fence/trail repair, mowing for weed management (aesthetics), (purple loosestrife, puncture vine is big problem), vandalism repair, raptor/closure monitoring, prairie dog management (counts, mapping, plague occurrences), water quality with giardia and dogs. Dog mgmt when it comes to fishing.] That concludes our discussion. Thank you so much for your time. will give you your thank you gift on your way out. Next steps: A public open house/administrative hearing is scheduled for October 21 at 5:00 p.m. A public hearing is also scheduled with PRAB on October 26 at 6:00 p.m. I'll confirm both locations today and get back to everyone. Cnot Lake//55' Tradheacl Focus Grn,ip Srripr