Loading...
PRAB Study Session - Boulder Reservoir Master Plan CITY OF BOULDER PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD MEMORANDUM TO: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Members FROM: Kirk Kincannon, CPRP, Director, Parks and Recreation Alice Guthrie, Recreation Superintendent Bev Johnson, Planner, Project Manager SUBJECT: Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Study Session DATE: October 25, 2010 PURPOSE The purpose of the study session on October 25, 2010 is to provide the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) with an update on the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan project and, specifically, to present the evaluation of the policy options for boating (Attachment A) and special events (Attachment B) for board review and discussion. A study session on the evaluation of the West Shore and North Shore/Coot Lake use options was held on October 18, 2010. The role of the PRAB at the study sessions is to provide informal feedback to staff on the evaluation of the master plan policy options. Comments from the PRAB study sessions will be considered as the department prepares a recommendation to City Council on the preferred options. The board will review the evaluation and department recommendation on the preferred options and consider a specific motion to council at a public hearing on November 22, 2010. BACKGROUND The purpose of the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Project is to establish management goals and objectives for the Parks and Recreation Department managed land and activities at the Boulder Reservoir which will guide long-term facility investment strategies. The plan is being developed in the following three phases: I: Vision, Goals and Issues (May 2009 -January 2010) II: Policy Options (January - December 2010) III: Draft and Final Master Plan (January - March 2011) Staff completed Phase I of the project in January 2010 after providing several opportunities for public input on the plan. These oopportunities included two public meetings, a user survey and 1 three focus group discussions. Phase II of the project involved drafting preliminary options for the following key policy areas: • Boating • West Shore use • North Shore/Coot Lake use • Special events A public meeting was held on April 7, 2010 to collect feedback on the preliminary options and policies. The PRAB and City Council reviewed the options at study sessions in April and May of 2010 prior to the evaluation. Please see the following web site for a more background and information on the project: www.bouldercolorado.gov > Parks & Recreation > Recreation Facilities > Boulder Reservoir > Reservoir Master Plan Project The department is completing Phase II of the project, which involves identification and evaluation of the policy options. The questions that guided the evaluation include the following: 1. How does each option help to achieve the city's environmental, economic and social sustainability goals? 2. How does each option help to achieve the vision and goals for the Boulder Reservoir and Coot Lake area? 3. What are the overall cost and revenue implications of each option to the city? 4. What are the impacts of each option to capital facilities and infrastructure? (relative to capital needs identified or planned under current master plans) 5. What additional facilities and services would be needed to meet current service standards under each option? 6. What would be the cost of new facilities and services and would current revenue sources adequately pay for those facilities? 7. What are the impacts to other existing or planned services (transportation, utilities, police, fire, open space, etc.)? 8. What are the impacts to visitors to the Boulder Reservoir area? 9. What regulatory changes would need to be made to implement each option? 10. How well does each option reflect best practices in the industry? 11. How well does each option position the city to respond to emerging trends? A public meeting was held on October 13, 2010 to get feedback on the options evaluation and preferred options. Approximately 45 people attended the meeting. Public comment from the meeting was included in the October 18, 2010 PRAB study session packet. Comments received since that packet was completed are in Attachment C of this memo. MEETING AGENDA: Staff presentation 7:00 - 7:15 p.m. (approximate start time) Board questions and comments 7:15 - 8:30 p.m. 2 NEXT STEPS: After the PRAB study sessions in October, the department will make any accepted revisions to the options evaluation and develop a department recommendation. The evaluation of the boating policy options and recommendation will be presented to the Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) on November 15 and WRAB will make a recommendation to City Council on those options. The PRAB will be asked to provide a recommendation to council on all the policy options after the PRAB public hearing on November 22, 2010. City Council is scheduled to review the evaluation and provide final direction on the preferred policy options at a public hearing on December 7, 2010. The final phase of the project will involve development and review of a draft master plan and will identify additional management plans and operational procedures that should be developed for the facility, including those listed below: 1. Recreational use policies (programs, camps, swimming, picnics). 2. Wildlife, resource and habitat protection and management objectives. 3. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and management of aquatic and terrestrial species. 4. Facility and infrastructure needs. 5. Water quality monitoring protocols and thresholds. 6. Drought response plan. 6. Standard operating procedures. 7. Safety and security procedures. 8. Interdepartmental management and coordination. 9. Actions, responsibilities and timeline to implement the plan. ATTACHMENTS: A Evaluation of the Boating Policy Options B Evaluation of the Proposed Special Events Policy C Public Comments 3 City of Boulder Attachment A Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Boating Policy Options Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Maintain Status Quo Motorboat Standards Rental and Programmatic Small Watercraft Only No Watercraft (To maintain the diversity and flexibility of (To balance uses and promote safety on the Motorboats Only (No Motorboats or Sailboats) (To reduce the risk of aquatic nuisance boating uses on the reservoir) water) (To reduce the potential for fuel-related (To reduce the risk of ANS infestation and species infestation and fuel-related contaminants and potential for ANS potential for fuel-related contaminants while contaminants and improve wildlife habitat) infestation) providing more opportunity for swimming and non-motorized boating) Description • Maintain the current status quo of no . Set limitations on the size, type and • Prohibit privately-owned motorboats • Prohibit all motorboats (fuel-powered or • Prohibit all boats (motorized or non- limitations on type or size of boats allowed number of motorboats allowed on the . Continue to allow privately-owned non- electric) on the reservoir motorized) on the reservoir on the reservoir. reservoir motorized boats • Prohibit sailboats with ballast tanks • Continue swimming, special events and • Continue the current number of no-wake • Establish two full "no-wake" days per week • Establish a city rental program for small • Small watercraft would still be allowed other non-boating-related activities on the hours. . Continue swimming, special events and watercraft . Increase non-motorized boat rental South Shore • Continue swimming, special events and other non-boating-related activities on the • Provide city motorboats for programs, operations other non-boating-related activities on the South Shore classes and lake patrol • Continue swimming, special events and South Shore. . Establish two full "no-wake" days per week other non-boating-related activities on the • Continue swimming, special events and South Shore other non-boating-related activities on the South Shore Key Option 1 maintains the most flexibility and Option 2 provides a better balance between Option 3 reduces risk of fuel-related Option 4 substantially decreases the Option 5 eliminates the risk of fuel-related Conclusions provides for a wide range of water-based motorized and non-motorized boating uses contaminants while still supporting a wide potential for fuel-related contaminants and pollutants from boats and significantly recreational uses while generating the most than the status quo while supporting a wide range of water-based uses. However, it has reduces the risk of ANS infestation relative to reduces the risk of ANS infestation (assuming boating-related revenue for the department. range of water-based uses. It also promotes the highest capital investment cost of all the options 1 and 2. However, it has the highest Six-Mile Reservoir is managed). It also It does not, however, reduce the current risk better water safety by setting capacity and options with less revenue than options 1 and operational costs and reduces departmental provides the most benefit to wetlands and of fuel-related contaminants in the water. engine size limitations. It does not, however, 2. It does not significantly reduce the risk revenue. Similar to Option 3, it impacts air wildlife habitat. Although it requires no reduce the risk level of ANS infestation or level of ANS infestation relative to the status quality and resource consumption as boating-related capital investment, it results in fuel-related contaminants relative to the quo. It also impacts air quality and resource motorized boaters will drive greater distances a significant decrease in revenue. It also status quo. It also impacts revenue through consumption as motorized boaters will drive to access other reservoirs. impacts the most visitors to the reservoir, some reduction in motorboat permits. greater distances to access other reservoirs. significantly reduces recreational opportunities in the community and impacts air quality as several hundred boaters will drive greater distances to access other reservoirs. No limitations on water craft other than Class A' and Class I only. No private fuel-powered watercraft permitted No fuel-powered watercraft or boats with No water craft permitted (including belly- Types of Personal Water Craft except city-owned or sponsored (rentals, ballast tanks permitted boats) except for city water safety. watercraft programs, classes, water safety) (Except for non-motorized boats related to Special Events and a motorized boat for city water safety) Engine type No limitations 500 hp maximum Same as Option 2 n.a. n.a. and size ' Class A: Vessels less than 16 ft. in length 1 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Maintain Status Quo Motorboat Standards Rental and Programmatic Small Watercraft Only No Watercraft (To maintain the diversity and flexibility of (To balance uses and promote safety on the Motorboats Only (No Motorboats or Sailboats) (To reduce the risk of aquatic nuisance boating uses on the reservoir) water) (To reduce the potential for fuel-related (To reduce the risk of ANS infestation and species infestation and fuel-related contaminants and potential for ANS potential for fuel-related contaminants while contaminants and improve wildlife habitat) infestation) providing more opportunity for swimming and non-motorized boating) Number of At discretion of staff Maximum of 202 Class I water craft3 Same as Option 2 No limitations n.a. water craft on (No limitations on the number of all other water water craft) 11.5 total "no-wake" hours 2 full "no-wake" days per week Same as Option 2 No limitations (on electric-powered n.a. motorboats) Tuesdays, 5:30 am-10:00 am Alternate: 2 full "no-motorboat" days or 4 Wednesdays, 5:30 am - 9:00 am "no-wake" days Motorboat Thursdays, 5:30 pm - 9:00 pm restrictions Note: Weekdays are recommended since boating use on weekends is currently impacted by special event use. CAPITAL: $1,200,000 CAPITAL: $1,200,000 CAPITAL: $1,445,000 CAPITAL: $810,000 (no improved storage CAPITAL: $0 (boat storage, new marina building, lighting (Same as Option 1) (larger marina building, addition boat storage, lots) and security, decontamination station) rental fleet) ANNUAL OPERATIONAL: $320,000 (Option ANNUAL OPERATIONAL: $418,000 (Option ANNUAL OPERATIONAL: $15,000 (water Estimated ANNUAL OPERATIONAL: $305,000 (boat 1 plus additional water safety staff) ANNUAL OPERATIONAL: $403,000 3 plus additional water safety staff) safety staff) Costs4 inspection, maintenance, water safety staff (Option 2 plus additional marina and water (includes unmet and NPE) safety staff) needs) Note: Current operational cost does not include costs for general facility operations and maintenance of the reservoir or costs of non-boating-related services. Boatinq Programs: $103,000 Boating Programs: $103,000 Boating Programs: $103,000 Boating Programs: $89,000 TOTAL: $0/year Estimated Permits, Storage and Rentals: $260,000 Permits, Storage and Rentals: $220,000 Permits, Storage and Rentals: $95,000 Permits, Storage and Rentals: $70,000/year NET: -$15,000 Annual Revenue4 TOTAL: $363,000/year TOTAL: $323,000/year TOTAL: $198,000/year TOTAL: $159,000/year (based on 2009 revenue) NET: +$58,000 NET: +$3,000 NET: -$205,000 NET: -$259,000 Minimal impacts to aquatic habitat from Some potential change from Option 1 due to Some potential change from Option 1 due to . Some decreased impacts to aquatic and Reduced impacts to aquatic and wetland Wetlands and boating-related turbidity (wind is the primary increase in no-wake periods. increase in no-wake periods. wetland habitat from boating-related habitat from boater access to shoreline. Wildlife source of turbidity in the reservoir) turbidity (wind will continue to be the major source of turbidity) • May increase impacts to wetlands and 2 Roughly equivalent to one boat per 15 acres of surface water 3 Class I: Vessels 16 to 25 ft. (less than 26 ft.) in length 4 Cost and revenue estimates are based on a year-round operation. 2 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Maintain Status Quo Motorboat Standards Rental and Programmatic Small Watercraft Only No Watercraft (To maintain the diversity and flexibility of (To balance uses and promote safety on the Motorboats Only (No Motorboats or Sailboats) (To reduce the risk of aquatic nuisance boating uses on the reservoir) water) (To reduce the potential for fuel-related (To reduce the risk of ANS infestation and species infestation and fuel-related contaminants and potential for ANS potential for fuel-related contaminants while contaminants and improve wildlife habitat) infestation) providing more opportunity for swimming and non-motorized boating) wildlife due to potential increase in boater access to shoreline. • Based on available data, current fuel- No change in fuel-related or swimming- a Slight decrease in risk of fuel-related • Significant reduction in risk of fuel • Significant reduction in risk of fuel related contamination is generally less related (body contact) contaminant risks. contaminants compared to options 1 and 2 contaminants (minimal risk from water contaminants from boats (minimal risk than laboratory detection limits that are e No change in contaminant risk due to safety boats) from water safety boats) also significantly less than drinking water swimming (body contact) • Elimination of any motorboat-related • Elimination of any motorboat-related standards turbidity (wind will continue to be major turbidity (wind will continue to be major Water Quality • There is minimal turbidity from wave source of turbidity) source of turbidity) action of motorboats (wind is primary . Potential increase in contaminants related • Potential increase in contaminants related source of turbidity in the reservoir) to swimming (body contact) to swimming (body contact) because of • There are risks for fuel-related spills from expanded swimming area accidents and contaminants due to swimming and body contact • Currently zebra and quagga mussels, and Same as Option 1. Same as Option 1 in terms of risk, however, Reduces risk level from medium/high to low . Significantly decreases risk of ANS Eurasian milfoil have not been detected in frequency of some higher risk boats because of the removal of motorboats and infestation relative to all other options due Aquatic the reservoir or in Coot Lake (motorboats) may be reduced. sailboats with ballast tanks. to reduced hazard and frequency • There is a medium to high biological risk • Some remaining risk from boats Nuisance of infestation based on state risk level Note: accessing Sixmile Reservoir Species standards All trailered boats with ballast tanks, and/or motors, including sailboats, present a medium to high biological • Curly-leafed pondweed is currently found risk for ANS based on state risk level standards. Some air quality impacts from fuel-powered Relatively small improvement from Option 1 Same as Option 2. • Improves air quality at the reservoir from • Improves air quality at the reservoir from boats with elimination of large boats and additional elimination of fuel-powered boats elimination of fuel-powered boats Air Quality no-wake periods . Impacts regional air quality since local • Impacts regional air quality since local motorized boaters would drive longer boaters (motorized and non-motorized) distances to access other reservoirs would drive longer distances to access other reservoirs • Noise levels from South Shore are Same as Option 1. Same as Option 1. Same as Option 1, however, ambient noise Same as Option 1, however, ambient noise currently within city permitted decibel limits levels would likely be reduced (on non- levels would likely be reduced (on non- Noise • Motorized boating may minimally special event days) due to lower motorboat special event days) due to lower overall contribute to ambient noise levels at use levels visitor use of the South Shore reservoir 3 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Maintain Status Quo Motorboat Standards Rental and Programmatic Small Watercraft Only No Watercraft (To maintain the diversity and flexibility of (To balance uses and promote safety on the Motorboats Only (No Motorboats or Sailboats) (To reduce the risk of aquatic nuisance boating uses on the reservoir) water) (To reduce the potential for fuel-related (To reduce the risk of ANS infestation and species infestation and fuel-related contaminants and potential for ANS potential for fuel-related contaminants while contaminants and improve wildlife habitat) infestation) providing more opportunity for swimming and non-motorized boating) • The reservoir contributes to the diversity of Same as Option 1 plus: Same as Option 1 plus: • Major impact to approximately 250 boaters • Major impact to approximately 3,000 recreational activities available to the • Provides more quiet time for all boaters, • Major impact to approximately 250 boaters by eliminating fuel-powered motorboat use boaters and participants in boating-related community swimmers and other visitors of the park (based on current number of pass holders) • Enhances the experience of swimmers and camps, clubs and other programs • Boating traffic along 51St Street accounts • Reduces the amount of time allowed for by eliminating fuel-powered motorboat use other passive recreation users • Impacts some special events Social Impacts for roughly 30 percent (staff estimate) of water skiing and other speed-related • Decreases number of water-based • Enhances the experience of swimmers and summer traffic and may minimally boating activities recreational opportunities available to the other passive recreation users contribute to ambient noise levels outside community • Results in a significant reduction in traffic of park and ambient noise levels related to boating- related uses • Loss of community and regional venue for recreational boating City Utilities - Continued need for baseline Same as Option 1 Same as Option 1 • City Utilities - Reduced need for fuel- . City Utilities - Reduced monitoring Impacts to and special water quality monitoring (e.g. related monitoring. requirements relative to all options Other fuel-related analysis of water column and • Police and Fire - Potential increase in • County Transportation - Reduced impact to sediment) demand for emergency services county roads by reducing use of the Departments reservoir and Agencies . State Division of Wildlife - Reduces state- wide fishing opportunities Trend in some regions is to minimize • Consistent with a general trend to better Same as Option 2 . Consistent with emerging trend to • Consistent with emerging trend to promote Comparison motorized boating use on drinking water manage boating on reservoirs, by promote sustainable practices in parks sustainable practices in parks and reduce to Best reservoirs identifying recreational carrying capacity and reduce use of fossil fuel-burning use of fossil fuel-burning engines standards and minimizing boating-related engines . Consistent with trend to protect source Practices and pollutants . May increase body contact and water quality from fuel-related Emerging . Consistent with growing demand to provide associated contaminants (e.g. contaminants and reduce body contact Trends venue and more access for non-motorized sunscreens, hair products, hormones, resulting from boatin. watercraft activities bacteria "Evaluation is based on a year-round boating operation. Changes Under All Options: • No personal water craft (e.g. Jet Skis) (Would impact approximately 7 boaters and result in $4,000 less in revenue from PWC permits and moorings) • Phase out two-stroke engines that do not meet current EPA exhaust emission standards. (Two-stroke engines that meet EPA standards would be allowed.) • No fuelling on water • All water craft must launch from designated areas on the South Shore. • No water craft allowed in Coot Lake (including belly boats). • Eliminate "Jet Ski Cove" and expand "no wake" zone at the Dry Creek inlet. Water Quality Monitoring Under All Options: • Conventional water treatment required under all options • Continue swim beach bacteria monitoring • Continue baseline water quality monitoring • For option 1-3, define baseline fuel-related concentrations in water column and sediment and review trends over time. If concentrations increase, revisit boating options. 4 City of Boulder Attachment B Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Project Proposed Special Events Policy What are Special Events? Current Practice Proposed Policy (Based on 2010 schedule) • Special events are planned activities (for-profit or non-profit) involving 50 or more participants that are open for participation (with or without a fee) to the general public. Key Conclusions • Increasing the number of special events permitted at the reservoir (relative to the current practice) will involve more capital and annual operational costs, however, increased revenue will more than recover those costs. • Increasing the number of special events will increase impacts to visitors through park closures What are "Signature" events? and delayed openings and to neighbors through an increase in traffic along 51St Street. • Signature events are those special events involving 1200 or more Maximum Events Permitted - High Season (April - September) participants or requiring public entryway or high use area restrictions or closures (e.g. gate or boating closures). Special events per day 2 2 Where may Special Events take place? Special events per month 10 20 • Special events may be permitted for activities using the South Shore, Signature events per month 2 2 the reservoir (water), the north and south dam roads or the multi-use trails in the North Shore and Coot Lake management areas. • All special event activities must be consistent with the objectives and Park or high use area closures per month 1 2 uses of the management area as outlined in the master plan. • A special event may not begin or end in the North Shore or Coot Lake Maximum Events Permitted - Low Season (October - March) management areas unless it is a previously permitted event. • Pedestrian-only trails and habitat conservation areas may not be used Special events per day <1 1 for special events. J Special events per month 1 10 Signature events per month <1 2 Park or high use area closures per month 0 2 Additional events may be permitted at staff discretion if the following standards will be met: 1. No amplified sound before 7a.m. and after 7 p.m. 2. The event will not result in the park exceeding the maximum number of closure days. 3. The anticipated parking need does not exceed 2000. 4. County permits for sheriff and road use may be obtained (if applicable) Special events involving 100 or more participants will not be permitted on the July 4th or Memorial Day holidays. Preference will be given to returning events. 1 Im act Analysis Current Practice Proposed Policy (Based on 2010 schedule) Estimated Costs and Revenue: ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST: $960,000 ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST: $910,000 (includes unmet needs) (improvements to overflow lots and entry gate, new equipment) (same as current plus additional equipment) ESTIMATED OPERATIONAL COST: $42,0001year ESTIMATED OPERATIONAL COST: $57,0001year (event coordination, maintenance, parking and boat inspection staff) (same as current plus additional maintenance and parking staff) REVENUE: $300,000/year POTENTIAL REVENUE: $500,000+/year Water Quality and Aquatic Nuisance • Currently, there is a minimal risk of human body-related contaminants from swimming • Potential increase in contaminants related to body contact (depending on type and size of Species events events) • Zebra and quagga mussels have not been detected in the reservoir or Coot Lake. There • Minimal increase in aquatic nuisance species risk relative to boating events (depending on is currently a low to medium to risk of aquatic nuisance infestation from special events. type of events) Social Impacts • The reservoir is currently a regional facility with annual participation in special events at • Potentially decreases the number of boat passholders over 205,000 . Incrementally increases the following. • Special events at the reservoir contribute to the range of recreational opportunities - range of recreational opportunities in the community and support for local businesses available to the local and regional community - number of closure days and delayed beach openings during the high season • Signature events support general businesses in Boulder by attracting participants from - number of days with potential road closures and increased traffic on 51St Street other Front Range communities - impacts to Fire Training Center access • Five weekend closure days during the high season and delayed beach openings have an impact on boaters, swimmers and other users of the South Shore • Access to parking on the South Shore is difficult or unavailable during large events. • Traffic along 51St Street is increased on large event days • Large events impact the Fire Training Center by reducing the potential number of training days (as long as access to FTC is through the main entry gate) • Entry and exit traffic during large events can raise ambient noise levels in the neighborhood • Running events along 51 st Street can cause road closures, traffic and safety issues Impacts to Other Departments and • Boulder County transportation and sheriff departments (traffic, safety and road closures) Incremental increase in current impacts. Agencies • Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (impacts to feeder canal, roads, bridge) Comparison to Best Practices and Supports participatory outdoor sports events along the Front Range. Consistent with a rising demand for participatory outdoor sports event venues along the Emerging Trends Front Range. 2 Attachment C City of Boulder Department of Parks and Recreation Boulder Reservoir Master flan October 13, 2oio Comment Form Which Options Do You Prefer? After you have reviewed the evaluations of the different policy and use options, please circle your preferred options and tell us why. Boating Policy: Option i (Status Quito) Option 2 (Motorboat Standards) Option 3 (Rental and Program Boats Only) Option 4 (Small Watercraft Only) Option 5 (No Boats) Why? North Shore/Coot Labe Use: Option Y (Current Use and Access) Option 2 (Current Use/Reduced Access) Option 3 (Expanded Use and Access) grp West Shore Use: Option 1 (Status Quote W O vd, r i i 1 N e o nr,' C I CAS t~ Option 2 (Habitat Conservation Area) Option 3 (Low-Impact Use) Option 4 (Expanded Use) } o~' K , J --6 nn u I rD J4 Av~l why? it AA~e o e v c~ w c r I s aw h 4-,o- 'p-, q~ c oatY h i! r !I SpeVO +!-Q- ~t~1 iv~q ~AQNL/ c{-. k ddcLer wen hers 4 o,,Y LDcM~~U~^1h~. Alfuel all-Oahe- spc(csz 'is Pam 0- 'AKD+ .v. Special E nts• Current practice Proposed Policy Why? Please use the back of this forms for additional comments. ~'fS a. how - Z aw. s'•"F1 !-~ov~i,^q C~~t wLtyS "Iv ln.,alC..Q QUu ~ d.Pr 11k~~ow2 aV\i ~S+ <~irc r~Ue~-e -f ~a~ n e ~r~„r dot' :L waS iu6- 6_(60ut 4o i of Jnah 3-- ko&.- l a boot o (oKS C d v 1~l - t n.Q -{v -{-tA - Tr)x± fy~e- F c, v,~, T_ +~ew~evtibt~ ow 2xc.i a i~ r s 6-S . a FC iA ~vrfw~%ve i,-, -24 I- 1 r is l~ f~ V►~ f~ D r C' C~~.~~auS_C ar~~0 /fit • fah l~fo 41 ac 61 me I-v p~ S a v l E. T loo L Load r-e (4 A V f aV) i~c aura er r ec~~ej~tt t~ a Gih e h a~ pc~ ~1 i~a K V ~ 1 d`-f tt! n+~c Name Street Address, Zip 4 Co v>n o t ter' Phone E-mail J -+k&tr k.t„ U L J ~a ik 4- I etn_~ oS i Q~ lM . Web site: vyww<129uldercoloradoegov >Parl & Recreation > Recreation Facilities > Boulder Reservoir > Master Plan Project You may also send your comments or questions by e-mail to johnsonb@bouldercolorado.gov or mail to the City of Boulder, Department of Community Planning, c/o Bev Johnson, P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 8o3o6 or call 303-441-3272• If you would like to be notified about this project in the future, please sgbscribe to the "Reservoir" email list. Please leave this comment formes at the welcome table. City of Boulder Depariment of Parks and Recreation o Boulder Reservoir Master Flan October .13, 27010 OR Comment Corm hIch options o You Prefer? After you have reviewed the evaluations of the dilferent policy and use options, please circle your preferred options and tell us ~tThy. BoatbIg plic - Option x (Status Quo) Option 2 (Motorboat Standards) OPIUM 3 (Rental and Program Boats Only) Option 4 (Small Watercraft Only) Option 5 (No Boats) Wly? North Shore/Coot Lake Use: Option x (Current Use and Access)) Option 2 (Current Use/Reduced Access) Option 3 (,Expanded Use and Access) Why? - 't+lTest Shore Use: Option. I (StatiFS Qua) Option 2 (Habitat Conservation Area) Option 3 (Low-Impact Use) Option 4 (Expanded Use) Villa ? Q 0 -t tnl 0 1~L Yt/ -=o r us Special Events: cur ent practxc Proposed Policy Why? - Please use the lack of this form r-nr addi-tina,al ~nrraa„n~,#~_ ~y Namev Street Address, Zip Phone E-mail _ Web site: www.boyldercolorado.Wv >Parks & Recreation > Recreation Facilities > Boulder Resezrvoir > Master Plan Project You may also send your comments or questions by e-mail to johnsonb@bouldercolorado.gov or mail to the City of Boulder, Department of Community Planning, c/o Bev Johnson, P.O. Box 791, Boulder; CO 803o6 or call 303-441-3272• If you would like to be notified about this project in the future, please subscribe to the "Reservoir" ezrrail list. Please leave this comment for at the welcome table. City of Boulder Department of Parks and Recreation Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Q~ October x3, izoio Comment Fury. Which Options o You Prefer"? After you have reviewed the evaluations of the different policy and use options, please circle your preferred. options and tell us why. Boaticng Policy: Option I (Status Quo) Option 2 (Motorboat Standards) Option 3 (Rental and Program Boats Only) Option 4 (Small Watercraf - Only) Option 5 (No Boats) Way? North Shore/Coot Lake Use: Option 1(Current Use and Access) Option 2 (Current Use/Reduced Access) Option 3 (Expanded Use and Access) Nest Shore Uses - Option 1(Status Quo) Option 7 (Habitat Conservation Area) Option 3 (Low-Impact Use) Option 4 (Expanded Use) Why? TbAvoir- ~ ~?~l y ~6-',vr~.,., J1t ,/~~ozo n14d S/ %Z ~ SDeeial nts: Current practice Proposed Policy ya Please rose the back of this form for additional eo nrnents. ~r~ 4-`1 P I d~ ° U 1 ~cf r!~ d9 z JL o .wo of C7r 5 y e» ; i-1 ('Os ,9 5-, h !U fG >j i3~oL 411 Al//WL v, c4$ j ff'^ -j e eofT dd/✓dfltJT)Y-/ v dE/l~ ~i!L!L /7 Vo Jill i 'Ci✓.! /I n1 t7L!'Y-: J'- _~F_y id,k) J3' st !{I r m a ei< a c'1L5 f a ~~JI > /S r~+5 L t~c_ --ep. /I ✓1lJVq 7 3 I~~L{y! ✓Fjtf? 12 Y'L \ /i /..Nfh •~`I Np _Y-r~Y' T~ L L/ll L E~ V I, r ,2.d V f Y~C' 7~Tj G!. J G,'E /"!J!' L! YL r"PC..__ Scr ,T~1/ 1/ti S1 i r_ ? Est~nl~ /I~ _4 J4J~ .j a _n v Name Street Address, Lip - Phone E-mail Web site: www.bouldereolorado,pov >Parks & Reereationg > Recreation Facilities > Boulder Reservoir > Master Plan Project You may also send your comments or questions by e-mail to johnsonb@bouldereolorado.gov or mail to the Ciq of Boulder, Department of Community Planning, c/o Bev3ohnson, P.O. Box 791, Boulder, Co 803o6 or call 303-44-1-3272. If you would like to be notified about this project in, the fixture, please ygbseribe to the "Reservoir" email list. Please leave this comment form at the welcome table. City of. Boulder Department of Parl s and Recreation Boulder Reservoir Master Plan a~ 4 October 13, zoao Comment For icy Options Do You Prefer? After you. have reviewed the evaluations of the different policy and use options, please circle your preferred options and tell us Why. Boating folic; z AIYIIJI~d Optiola 1 (Status Quo) Option Z (1 -5fo ao .t Standards) Option 3 (Rental and Program Boats Only) Option. 4 (Small 'Watercraft Only) Option 5 (No Boats) _ North S3horelCoot Lake Use: Option r (Current Use and Access) Option 2 (Current Use/Reduced Access) Option 3 (Expanded Use and Access) Why? TArest Shore Use.- ~ - Option 1. (Status Quo)"-.) rs Option P_ (Habiiat Conservation Area) Option S (Lo-,v-Impact Use) Option 4 (Expanded Use) Special Events: Current practice Profosed Policy Please use the back of this forma for additional coinnients. Name ' 13 Street: Address, Zip - r ~ 0 > Phone E;-mai]. - rT } Web site. Recreation > Recreation Facilities > Bo~.~a1der Reservoir > Master Plan Projeet lTou. may also send your eommenu, or ques°tionsby e-mail to johnsonb@bouldercolorado.gov or mail to the (3ty of Boulder, Dcpaameut of Community Planning, c/o Bev Johnson, P.O. BOX 791, Boulder, CO 80,'Jo6 or call 303-441-3272, if you would like to be notified about this project in the future, please subscribe to the "R servoir" emnil list. Please leave this comment form at the welcoi-ne table. City of Boulder Department of parks %%d Recreation n r F ® Boulder Reservoir Master Plaai a Yl Octoln"r 13,' lwio Comment Farm Mich Options o You refer After you have rex lewed the iwvaluations of tlxe different. policy and use options, please circle your preferred options and tell wi- why. Boatirig p ligy: _ ~C?ptian z (Status Option a (.Motorboat Standards) Qptioxa S (Rental and Program Boats Only) Option 4 (Small Watexeraft Only) Option 5 (No Boats) W7 y?` ` U-9" CaL)CLL. An in (In /d1`~L~ 1 L w ~ ~ylr cx- Q ~iysQ f2 ,l r ~ {Z°-~ -Sri bvt. c c NQjA x ShRre ffio- aot Lake Ust: f ~ vu ~ e ~ t v : U Option x (Current Use and Access) Option (Current Use/Deduced Access) 000n 3 (Expanded Use and access) wh a West Shore Use: - Option ~ (Habitat Cons eivation Area) Option .,3 (Lour-Tuopact Use) 00011 4 Mxpanded Use) ti I'VIXY J Spechd Events: Current practice Proposed Policy Please use the back of this loom for additional cm-Ai a-aeaats. b p I e r'L } Logo 0- - - LM F C Y, 9 CJ .C - t L Name Street Address, Zip Phone U, -mail Web s7_te : 3_VW_.boiAdgre;o orado. &q~r ins oc a on a' Recreation kacilntios > Boulder Reservoir > Master Plan Project You may also s\exkd your comments or elueWons by e-mail to ioliaasoiib@l.iouldereolorado,goAr or snail to the City of Boulder, Department (A Community Plwm ng, c/o Bev Johnsou, P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306 or call 303-441-3272, If you would like] to be notifzed about this project in the Nture, please N! . r1he ig thh„it~servoir" muail list, Please leave this c;ommexxt i orux at the welcome table. City of Boulder Department of Parks and Recreation -Boulder Reservoir Master Plan ®law October 13, 2010 +©fi ~g~yv Comment For Which Options Do You Prefer?'- After you have reviewed the evaluations of the different policy and use options, please circle your preferred options and tell us why. Boating PolLey. ° Option 1(Status Quo) Option 2 (Motorboat Standards) Option 3 (Rental and Program Boats Only) Option 4 (Small Watercraft Only) Option 5 (No Boats) Why? North Shore/Coot Lake Use: Option i (Current: Use and Access) Option 2 (Current Use/-Reduced Access) Option 3. (Expandep Use and Access) Nest Shore Uses t'i't.. (Option 1 (Status Quo) t Option 2 (Habitat Conservation Area) N- .000113 (Low-Impact Use) .000113 Option 4 (Expanded Use) pecial Events: Current practice Proposed Policy Why?~ Please use the hack of this fora for additional comments. r-TI Name c P Street Address, Zip - ' - _ _ - Phone E-mail T Web site: rnrwr.boulclercolorado.gov >Parks & Recreation > Recreation Facilities > Boulder Reservoir > Master Plan Project You may also send your comments or questions by e-mail to jolmson-b@bouldercolorado.gov or mail to the City of Boulder, Department of Community Planning, c/o Bea Johnson, P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306 or call 303-441-3272_ If you would like to be notified about this project in the future, please subscribe to the "Reservoir" email list. Please leave this comment form at the welcome table. I am a liberal Democrat, a vegetarian, an animal rights supporter, and a long-standing certified tree-hugging environmentalist. I get the need to protect our wildlife. I am a radio control aircraft enthusiast and a 10-year member of the Boulder Aeromodeling Society (BAS). Are these mutually exclusive propositions? Not at all. As a spacecraft systems engineer, I've learned the importance of balancing competing requirements to accomplish the best overall result. I've also learned the law of unintended consequences: even the most well-intentioned change can have unforeseen and often disastrous effects. Once a balance has been achieved and proven to work, it should be left alone unless there is a demonstrated need to change it. In the space business, we call this "heritage", and it is a prized commodity. We have such heritage with the BAS model flying field at the Boulder'Reservoir - over 30 years of heritage, with a proven track record of peaceful cohabitation between people and wildlife. Why are we proposing to change this now? There was much ado about the ground-nesting birds at the field and the resulting temporary closure this summer. There is no question that the closure was the right thing to do at the time, allowing us to calmly gather the facts and thoroughly assess the situation. But in the long term, is this really the best approach? I do not believe so. There is no proof that model aircraft activities threaten wildlife, nor can we demonstrate that closing the field had any substantial impact, positive or negative. The single biggest threat to all wildlife on the planet is loss of habitat due to human encroachment: our houses, offices, factories, shopping malls, highways, power plants, and millions of acres of agriculture. It is difficult to believe that the fate of any species lies in the hands of a few people and their toy airplanes. The simple fact that people - with all of our intrusiveness - permeate the reservoir and surrounding area is by far the greater environmental impact; and we all know this is not going to change. And yet, those birds CHOSE to build their nest at our flying site, while the planes were still flying. It is the ultimate in hubris to presume that we know what's best for the birds better than the birds do. Perhaps our presence actually helps them by discouraging coyotes and other predators. Or perhaps they couldn't care less. The fact is, we just don't know. Given the paucity of data, the most prudent course of action is to leave things as they were when the birds first moved in. The old engineering adage is trite, but true: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. "Seasonal closure" is far too open-ended and is tantamount to shutting down the field permanently. The impacts to wildlife are uncharacterized at best. It is in the best interests of EVERYONE - the wildlife, the city, and yes, us radio control flyers to continue our proven, 30 year relationship unaltered. Let us keep our field as-is, and we will continue to use it in a respectful and judicious manner. Sincerely, Keith Constantinides City of Boulder Department of Parks and Recreation boulder Reservoir Master Playa October 13, 2010 Comment Form Which Options Do You prefer? After you have reviewed the evaluations of the different policy and use options, please circle your preferred options and tell us why. Boating Policy: Option i (Status Quo) Option 2- (Motorboat Standards) Option 3 (Rental and Program Boats Only) Option. 4 (Small Watercraft Only) Option 5 (No Boats) Why? North. Shore/ Coot Lake Use-. Option x (Current Use and Access) Option 2 (Current Use/Reduced Access) Option 3 (Expanded Use and Access) Why? West Shore Use: (::Option Option a (Habitat Conservation Area) Option 3 (Low-Impact Use) 0001 14 (Expanded Use) pp 6 nrip-'i PeACLt &..0 D&6S~ P&OL4L'a a 10V a 9,reS ~",V P0.,N6 Special Events: L8 V-e 56-1 C pp o Yo reA a r %&z-, 7 r Current practice (P x--&V m-.,Q_) FR ce ?aV-WI06 Lai Proposed Policy Why':' Please use the back of this form for additional comments. 16 d U~ '-J A-0 Aa-gil's Name dJ~ Street Address, Zip ~ &Y_ e Phone E-mail Web site. wwgrv.bouldercoloradoZgov >Parks & Recreation > Recreation. Facilities > Boulder Reservoir > Master Plan Project You may also send your comments or questions by e-mail to johnsonb@bouldereolorado.gov or mail to the City of Boulder, Department of Community Planning, c/o Bev'Johnson; P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306 or call 303-441-3272- If you would lilce to be notified about this project in the future, please subscribe to the "Reservoir" email list, Please leave this comment form at the welcome table. City of Boulder Department of Parks and Recreation n Boulder Reservoir Master Plan October 13, aoio Comment Form Which Options o You Prefer? . After you have reviewed the evaluations of the different policy and use options, please circle your preferred options and tell us why. Boating Poligyo Option x (S-fatus Quo) Option 2 (Motorboat Standards) Option 3 (Rental and Program Boats Only) Option d (Small Watercraft Only) Option 5 (No Boats) Wliy? North Shore/Coot L &e Use: Option x (Current Use and Access) Option 2 (Current Use/Reduced Access) Option 3 (Expanded Use and Access) Wlay? _ Wept Shore Use° Option f t,-Is Quo) Option 2 (Habitat Conservation Area) Option 3 (Low'-Impact Use) Option 4 (Expanded Use) Why? L! ? eJ We O / zc ' 1,utf7/ I',t/< r ~'71'1 F l i mot' ~c. Special Events: Current practice Proposed Policy Way? Please use the lack of this form for additional comments. C-17 --7 1-3a eL ~`~r717~,~ if ~-~i~~-:.~-'~ ,~'~i.~`? 5 J_'/~''/i~if~/ ~1~r c'. a-7 t/Y-~-~`~'~;r 1~~.-~~ d~/✓~l 1 r. j`j r ~ J c> ~7 /7f~ r~~~[.~, ~ . ~ r~>,+ ~ S p✓~~ r' f' /c' r'- T ~ i ~ r' ^N~- /~/+y~ '~i~/'•(~%ftir ~ 14rr'.L7 io nrnP~9 /-f t✓/C/,c~j +ff~--.f~~~~ J~1_ '.1. ~•~>G~,n✓~t Name Street Address, Zip" Phone - " E-mail r~ Web site. wvorw.bouldercolorcado,-gov >Parks & Recreation > Recreation Facilities > Boulder Reservoir > faster Plana Project You may also send your comments or questions by e-mail to jolmsonb@bouldereolorado.gov or mail to the City of Boulder, Department of Community Planning, c/o Bev Johnson, P.O. BOX 791, Boulder, CO 80306 or call 303-441-3272- If you would like to be notified about this project in the future, please subscribe to the "HgaQrvoir" email list. Please leave this comment forage at the welcome table. City of Boulder Department of Parks and Recreation Boulder Rene vain Master Plan A, octobex X3, 2010 Comment FIO) YKI Which Options Do You Prefer? After you have reviewed the evaluations of the different policy and use options, please circle your preferred options and tell us why- Boatin poliu-. Option 1 (Status Quo) Option 2 (Motorboat Standards) Option 3 (Rental and Program Boats Only) Option d. (Small Watercraft Only) Option 5 (No Shoats) Why? forth Shore/Coot Lake: Us Option z (Current; Use and Access) Option 2 (Current Use/Reduced Access) Option 3 (Expanded Use and Access) W431P West Shoo Urea w ~ - - Option i (Status Quo) Option 2 (Habitat Conservation Area) Option 3 (Low-Impact Use) Option 4 (Expanded Use) hyz cor-f"eL Surfs IMOi-f-Irf sgddJa A6~'7lue;'Y,. /6! - 57-~dItt S (~/~G~tdfYdnlr'o /=~e o1lc9faT1 cfz61J Y, Special Events. Current practice Proposed Policy Please irses the back Q)iii this farm for additional Comm- ents. `r<Cbd! d 1= ij` elal [ i^~, l~l erg`! h/ AS 4-0,!W i o9 )eve=> 1 u° S ~2{hu3 + i7i-E Ad7E~/1 Td".E f3 i a L -A fall c" L.•h f f tr ! f A N b Cat? to ill b (A-F t-i G ST_ C~ .fx (tL'~ r.s a I t7 c'SCf?t~ Jd t}?a 40i7 g dg &-tc~J 1`F G~i(113G.tt F~iL:. 1J d! to} + r ~ r red if d1Gid~N 0 GGt`rc ~I-7a t. ! r7iwC'y,aNi<raf;"at ~t> v~ l.~}~o ucL ( iiS" i-IC=-f -t-7i 3 , sl a;s .rat ~:f ~•~k ^`f~. 'F~4? d€7'Gii~_.71~:d~.- ~~6'^Iltit LEIe} ~'a ~`47d,Z- d"f~B~: 'i'~ir°.'d.~ ..7 ~ ~~.:.v'-~~.~ Name ~~LICr1iSi ~ ~ .~a►.~ (J`~~y fJg2~td~so Street Address., Zip - n" E-mail Phone Web site. arw.bowl ereolorado.gov >Par& Recreation > Recree tion Facififies > Boulder Reservoir > Master Tula Project Xaa may also send your comments or questions by e-xnail'cojolinso-nb@bouldereoloiado.gov or mail to the City of Boulder, Deparhnent of Community Planning, c/a Bev.lohnson, P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306 or call 303-441-3272, If you would like to be notified about this project in the future, please subscribe to the "Reservoir" e-mail list. Please heave this comm. exnt form at ffie welcome table. City of Boulder Depadment era: Parks and Reoceaii-m 0ctolles 3.g, 2ON,0 'Which Options You refe After your have reviewed the ev.-fl atia ns of to diffeve t pohe end use opfions, please circle yo-ar preterned options and tell -us va hy- Boy.-Ig Po1 Option A (Siatus Quo) Option 2 (Motorboat Standards) Option 3 (Rental and Program Boats Only) ~ptg®n 4 (Snall Wateacaal't ()RlY) Option. 5 (into Boats) Nom Shore/Coot Lake Use: Option z. (Current Us6 and Access) ~ptioa~ ~ (~aarrez~t I7~,e/l~ealancecl .Aceess) Option 3 (Expanded Use and Access) West Shore Use: Coption -i (S#atas quo) Opsson 2 (Habitat Conservation lUea) Option S (Levy-Impact Use) Option 4 (Fapaaded. Use) Smdal Events: rCurrentprac;ice proposed. Policy Please use the back of this form for additional comma m 4 Name 0 141" Street Address, Zip Phone J - E-mail Web site: ww-ww.bou;ldereolo adaeggy >Par. ~ Recreation > Recreation Facifi i > Boulder Reservoir > luster Plan Project You inay also send your cotnmeots or quest ions by e-mail to jolhansoxnb@a bouldereolorado.gov on- mail to tine city cat: Boulder, Department of Community Planning, c/o BevJohnson, P.O. Box 791, Boulder, so3ca6 on calfl 303-'64&-3272• If you would like to be notified about this project in the futaxe, please subscibe to the "Reseiyoir" :mail list. Please leave Ws comment for : at the -wveko e tabl(ea .4 . I City of Bmilder Department of Parks and Reoreation X1 Boulder Reservoir Master Plan p~ OI.(;Obel: 13, 2010 Comment Form Which Options Do You Prefer? After you }cave reviewed the evalr.iaflom bf the di-f-ferent policy and use options, please circle ymir prefer•f:ed options and tell us why. Boathig Policy: r" Option r (Status Quo) Option z (Motorboat Standards) Option 3 (Recital and Prograw Boa(,; Only) Option 4 (Sri:all Wale -craft Only) Option.a (No Boats) m1ya a- f -jc~~,,~ AV( -Y CA 4(~r I.VQ th Shore&got Lake Use: ~ 02) tE (Curre~it Use ararl Access) Option 2 (Current Use/Reduced heces5) Option 3, (l✓xpandud Use and Access) West Shore lC)_'se: Option 7 (Status Quo) Option 2 (platiitaE C'Onse17 anon Arta) OPHO113 (7.ow-hn[m(-A Use) OPti0114 (Expa"ded Usu) "3ecial Ev nts: Proposed Policy WhW Please -use the back of this form for additional comments. . 1 1 =i ~Ar Nana; iIja ~,cAFI StrectAddress, Zile s>~ Phone E-mail "Welr site: r~ w~v. 7o (1 (~E'3'f L)~OTA(IO. o~~ Sparks firReere~rtiori > Recreation Facilities > Boulder Resel-Voil, > M.1ster Plan Project You may also send your commenN or questions by e-mail to jolinsozil)@bo)ilde-rcolors)do.gov oz" nazi to the City of Boulder, Depa rum "lit of coznnzanity Planning, c/o 1iev Johnson, P.O. -BOX 791, Boulder, (;U 80V6 or call 303-441-3272. If you would lila, to be notified about this project in the future, pleasc- subscribe to the "Reservoir" email list. Please leave this coax me.t t forty. at the welcome table. . City of Boulder Department of Parks. and Recreation n , Boulder Reservoir Master Plan October 13, 2010 Op GOO, Comment Form Which Options Do You Prefer' . After you have reviewed the evaluations of the different policy and use options, please circle your preferred . options and tell us why. EoatingPolicy: Option 1(Status Quo) Option 2 (Motorboat Standards) Option 3 (Rental and Program Boats Only) Option 4 (Small Watercraft Only). Option 5 (No Boats) why?_ North Shore/Coot take Ilse: QpLion is (Current Use and Access) Option 2 (Current Use/Reduced Access) Qption 3 (Expanded Use and Access) may? West Shore Use: Option 1(Status Quo) Option 2 (Habitat Conservatian Area) Option 3 (Low-impact Use) Option 4 (Expanded Use) WI W? Special Events: Current practice Proposed. Policy Why? Please use the hack of this form for additional comments. West shore: Option 1 - Status Quo: The "Status Quo" definition for the West Shore is not correct. The words "with seasonal closure" has been added to "Continue aeromodeling use" which does not represent the Status Quo for the area. The seasonal closure, invoked this year, was not part of the previous master plan. Seasonal closure would be an option under the current proposed plan. The West Shore area has had the aeromodeling facility in operation for approximately 39 years. During that period of time, I know of no documented impact on the wildlife in the area. In fact many documents have been provided which state the opposite. Option 2: How would removal of the aeromodeling facility improve the water quality of the reservoir? Clarify the statement "Phase out aeromodeling use". Conclusion.: I have searched your site for the documentation which supports seasonal closure and many of the other statements made in your options. I have not been able to locate them. In order for the public to make a valid response, it must first be truly informed and not just presented with a group of statements which reflect an undocumented opinion. Please provide access to all the supporting documentation presented to your group, both pro and con, so that the rational for your statements/decisions can be understood. The source of this information would also be meaningful. To that goal I am including a document which I created in June of 2010 addressing the seasonal closure of the aeromod- eling facility (See further down in this document). The third reference "Success of Northern Harrier nesting at Boulder Reservoir" by the Boulder Audubon Society is of particular significance as it addresses the problem of Harrier nesting at the Boul- der Reservoir. Name Alvin M. Coelho Street Address, Zip Phone E-mail Web site. -www.houldercolorado..pov >Parks & Recreation > Recreation Facilities > Boulder Reservoir > Master Plan Project You may also send your comments or questions by e-mail to johnsonbCobouldercolorado.gov or mail to the City of Boulder, Department of Community Planning, c/o Bev Johnson, P,O_ Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306 or call 303-441-3272• If you would like to be notified about this project in the fixture, please subscribe to the "Reservoir" email list. Please leave this comment form at the welcome table. Impact of the restrictions imposed on Boulder Aeremqdeling Sccie#y (BAS) facility by the City Of Boulder The thrust of my concern would be, why is it that when the birds select an environment, which includes the flying activity, that the City of Boulder feels that it is necessary to immediately change the environment they selected? The basic concern of all documentation that I find related to the impact on these birds is the'impact by the "changing environment". Other than ensuring that the birds are not specifically harassed by the activity within the environment, which has not been the case with the model flying, I do not understand imposing artificial restrictions to change the environment. First I would like to address the Osprey situation. Four years ago the Osprey selected the pole adjacent to our flying field and proceeded to build a nest. The club was active at the time and models were flying continuously while the Osprey flew back and forth to the reservoir collecting nest-building material. (I was personally present during this time and observed the activity. I was flying 3 to 4 times a week during that time and was present at the field usually from 10:00AM until 1:00PM). Shortly after the nest was built, the City decided that it had to place restrictions on the flyers to protect the Osprey. Why were the restrictions imposed? The Osprey selected that spot themselves, even though there were nest- ing pads erected at the reservoir that had been empty for years. They could have also selected any other pole along 55th street but didn't. They selected that pole which placed them close to the active flying site. (The restriction prevented flying West of an Imaginary lure running North from the front of the shelter. Al- though we never flew much further West than the middle of the parking area, this restriction heavily im- pacted the ability to fly helicopters in the designated helicopter area, Helicopters were the main type of air- craft that I was flying during my observation time listed above.) The Ospreys have returned to that site every year since. And every year since they have flown from their nest to the reservoir using a path which crosses our flight area. At no time have I seen conflict between the Osprey and aircraft. Restrictions currently placed on the model club seem totally uncalled for and only reflect the exertion of rniss-informed personnel to flex their authority. If it was felt that human activity in the area would negatively affect the Osprey, then why wasn't all bicycling and jogging activity, as well as well as unnecessary traffic, shut down along 55th street, as this activity is much closer to the Osprey nest than any of our flying club ac- tivity'? Now on to the Northern Harriers. Like the Osprey, the Harriers selected the site while the flying field was active. Harriers have maintained a presence in the area for years. This year, someone discovered that a nest was located in the area and the City once again immediately imple- mented severe restrictions on the club. So restrictive that, combined with the Osprey restrictions, flying at the field became impossible. Once again these restrictions were deemed necessary by individuals who have probably never spent any time in the area observing the interaction of the aircraft and the birds. Can the City of Boulder state that this is the first nesting to occur in the area, or is it that prior nesting just wasn't observed by anyone? Who was the individual that walked down through the nesting area to locate the nest and verify that 4 eggs were in it? This individual (or group of individuals) probably caused more stress on. the Harriers than any of the club activ- ity. Why is it that if the birds selected the area, based on its current activity, that the City of Boulder immediately feels that the environment they selected needs to be changed? The flight area in the Northwest comer of the reservoir has long been an active area for birds. There does not seem to be any logical reason why, since the birds selected the area, that the activity within the area should be altered. The area is also an active area for Red Tail Hawks, which have co-existed with the flying for many years. They are often seen soaring above the flight area. I see no impact on the Red Tailed Hawk from our flying as the Red Tailed Hawk is the only hawk that has increased in population over the last decade. Studies show that the number of Red Tailed Hawks has doubled while the numbers of the Harrier have decreased. The Red Tailed Hawk is one of the predators which the Harrier fears. In truth, it may be discovered that the flying in the area keeps the Red Tailed Hawk away from the Harrier nesting area and is one of the reasons that the area was selected by the Harriers. Now the City of Boulder says it wants to define the area as a "Wildlife Habitat" and change it. Tell me what the city expects to be different at the end of one year, two years, five years after they make their changes, How will the results of these changes be measured to ensure they are valid. Currently we have an area populated abundantly with wildlife. We have Ospreys nesting on poles, Harriers nesting in the marsh, cattails full of blackbirds, geese and duck abundantly using the area and Red Tailed Hawks soaring above it. In addition, coyotes are occasionally seen passing through the area which also contains a resident popula- tion of prairie dogs. All of this occurring in harmony with the flying field which has been operating continuously in the area for 39 years. Stop the aircraft and the Osprey and Handers may come back next year. But are you sure they will return in two years when they find that the environment has significantly altered and no longer resembles the environment they selected? People; this is a working environment! We are not cutting out a piece of land from an agriculture field and trying to determine what it is that will attract the wildlife, they are already here, and coexisting with the model activity. Barrier Nesting areas: The following map shows the primary nesting areas for the Northern Harrier. You wilt notice that most of Colo- rado, including Boulder, is not included. Most Harrier nesting occurs North of Colorado. Reference littp://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/Jiteratr/grasbird/noha/nolla.htin ❑5-2o _ ®20-50 50 Figure. Breeding distribution of the Northern Harrier in the United States and southern Canada, based on Breed- ing Bird Survey data, 1935-1991. Scale represents average number of individuals detected per route per year. Map from Price, J., S. Droege, and A. Price. 1995. The summer atlas of North American birds. Academe Press, London, England. 364 pages. This is further supported by the Colorado Division Of Wildlife map below. Here we see that atthough Year round Harrier population may exist, nesting in our area is not high. Reference http://wildlife.state.co.iis/NR/rclonlyres/B3RC9C4D-C6DC-46AC-9D42-7D2629A35C7)/Q/NortheriiHai-rier. pdf ~-•~`y `''Wi't'' 4, L~ - i' • t ''4.r'f'"-f i l~1, 3 ,a,,.s".h ~~j ~ Ir~s] 1A -c- SSA"~ , i ! t ~ ~ ~ +a ~ •r , 1,~, 1 Y~J T s Wintering ~ ~r 1 C- 30 Success of Northern Harrier nesting at Boulder Reservoir The following observation published by the Boulder Audubon Society identifies what they consider to be the main reason for the lack of nesting and failure of fledglings to reach maturity. Reference http://www.botil(teraudubon.or,,-/sLate-of-bir(is.htiii Northern Harrier A single nest west of Boulder Reservoir failed. This is the sixth consecutive nest failure at Boulder Reservoir. The last reported successful nesting in Boulder County occurred during 2004, when nests at Boulder Reservoir and Coot Lake each fledged four young. We suspect that predation by carnivores is contributing to these nest failures. It's likely that nest sites in Boulder County are so limited that urban-edge predators learn to find and recognize them. As ground nesters, harriers are particularly vulnerable to nest predation by coyotes, foxes, do- mestic dogs, and other carnivores. Another factor contributing to nest failure may be fluctuating water levels in marshes on the west side of Boul- der Reservoir. With nest sites limited, harriers may sometimes be choosing sides that are easily flooded in late spring. Notice that in the above analysis by the Boulder Audubon Society, that no reference to the flying at the BAS field was cited as a problem with the Harriers. It states that the reservoirs fluctuating water level is unsuitable to nesting, and that predators are most likely responsible for the fledglings never maturing. ~w'~ Johnson, Beverly From: Phil Mislinski Sent: Monday, Ocwr)c, .18, 2010 11:01 AM To: Johnson, Beverly Subject: Re: Res Meeting last night Hi Bev, I got a chance to look over the materials this morning. You and your staff have done some excellent work. Here are my comments on the West Shore Use Options: From a trail runner's point of view option 4 would be the best from strictly an enjoyment level while running point of view. We do understand that this would result in significant impact to wildlife and therefore would not consider asking for Option 4. Thanks for giving it consideration and seriously studying it. Option 3 looks like a great compromise and is the option that the trail runners would be more than happy to support. Thanks, Phil Mislinski On Oct 14, 2010, at 9:59 AM, Johnson, Beverly wrote: > Hi Phil, > The evaluations of the different policy options are up on the project > web site. If you have any questions about them, let me know. > ht•tp://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php? > option=com_content&task=view&id=7771&Itemid=2105 > We didn't seem to have many people at the meeting last night from the > biking or running groups. It would be helpful to have more input > before our board meetings in November. > Thanks much! > Bev > -----Original Message----- > From: Phil Mislinsk.' 1] > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 9:55 AM > To: Johnson, Beverly > Subject: Res Meeting last night > Hi Beverly, > I was unable to make it to the Boulder Res Meeting last night due to > work issues. Is it possible to send me the proposals that were > presented in electronic form? > Thank you, > Phil Mislinski C-33 > 2 i Cite of Boulder Department of Parks and RecreatiOD. Boulder Reservoir Master Plan October x3, 2010 QF ~D~ Comment Forte. Yelp Options Do You Prefer? After you have reviewed the evaluations of the different policy and use options, please circle your preferred options and tell us why. Boating Polia: - Option i (Status Quo) Option 2 (Motorboat Standards) Option 3 (Rental and Program Boats Only) Option 4 (Small Watercraft Only) Option 5 (No Boats) Why? No reason to change N. orth Shore/Coot Lake Use: Option : (Current Use and,, wcess) Option 2 (Current Use:/Reduced Access) Option :3 (Expanded Use and Access) Why? No reason to change "with seasonal closures" should be, West shore Use: removed rrorn the Description, second option Y (status Quo) bullet related to aeromodeling Option 2 (Habitat Conservation Area) Option 3 (Low-Impact Use) Option 4 (Expanded Use) `,vhy-?_"f'he Boulder Model Airport is a good community resource that doesn't disrupt human or wildlife activity. Special Events: Current practice Proposed Policy wjlay, No reason to change Please use the back of this form for asldiEio-nal comments. 1 use all of tdhc,sr- areas recreationaliv, and I neatly value Their preservation, I would like to see there all coniinue to be user the way ld'iat they current y are used.- Name Brian Clay _ Street Address, Zip Phone E-mail Web site: w ww.bouldercolor ado.~ov >Parlis & Recreation > Recreation Facilities > Boulder Reservoir > Master Plan Project You may also send your comments or questions by e-mail to johnsonb@bouldereolorado.gov or mail to the City of Boulder, Department of Community Planning, r,/o Bev Johnson, P.O. Box 79-.t, Boulder, CO 80306 or call 303--44*-3272. If you would like to be notified about this project in the future, please subscribe to the "Reservoir" email list. Please leave this comment form at the welcome table. C~ City of Boulder Department of Parks and Recreation Bo-older Reservoir Master Plaits 'ate October 13, zoio Which Comment Form Options Igo You Prefer? After you have reviewed the evaluations of the different policy and use options, please circle your preferred options and tell us why. Boating Pot Option i (Status Quo) Option 2 (Motorboat Standards) Option 3 (Rental and Program Boats Only) Option 4 (Small Watercraft Only) Option 5 (No Boats) why. North Shore/Cola Lake Use: Option t (Current Use and Access) Option 2 (Current Use/Reduced Access) Option 3 (Expanded Use and Access) Why`? West Share Use: ption I (Status Quo) Option 2 (Habitat Conservation Area) Option 3 (Low Impact Use) Option. 4 (Expanded Use) Why? without seasonal closures", all has been fine for years, why change or spend now money in. this economy.. Conserve our tax dollars. Special Events: Current practice Proposed Policy Why? "lease use the back of this form for additional comments. Name Richard Myron y Mme: _ ~ _ _ _ Street Address, Zip Phone E-mail Web site: vvww.bouldercolorada.gov >Parks & Recreation > Recreation Facilities > Boulder Reservoir > Master Plan. Project You may also send. your comments or questions by e-mail tojohnsonb@bouldercolorado.gov or mail to the City of Boulder, Department of Community Planning, c/o Bev Johnson, P.O. BOX 791, Boulder, CO 80306 or call 303-441-3272. If you would like to be notified about this project in the future, please subscribe to the "Reservoir" email list. Please leave this comment form at the welcome table. LIIV