June 3rd Meeting Report

Our June third meeting was pivotal in a couple of ways:

First and most importantly we got to work on on the northern area of the West TSA.  This area includes the Mt. Sanitas and Anemone Hill area.  It was a great feeling to actually get together and crowd all 16 of us around the map and start working collaboratively.  Working collaboratively ranged from agreeing on what color marker to use to draw on the maps to draw trails that we wanted to designate and what we want to close or reclaim.  Peter Bakwin did a great job summarizing this and his notes are below.

The key element was the sense of relief as we were able to discuss substantive issues directly and in a respectful way.  The change is that we are able to really talk to one another and staff and Heather (the facilitator) had to stand back and let us get some work done.  I think that if they trust in us, and the process that they have developed, we will make some real progress. 

This northern area does not include any of my Mt. Biking proposals.  I know that many of you hike in addition to biking. Many of you own dogs and there are probably some number of birders out there as well.  So now is the time to contact me with any input about what we are discussing even if it does not directly relate to Mt. Biking issues. 

The second way in which the meeting was important was the whole South Neighbor Rep hubbub.  I do not want to spend a lot of time discussing the specifics.  In short Mt. Biking is very divisive especially for a small but vocal group of South Boulder Neighbors. The whole claim and counter claim back and forth can be incredibly time consuming and has the immediate potential to completely derail the process. 

This topic will be addressed at the next Open Space Board of Trustee's meeting on Wednesday 6/9 at 6:00pm.  Here is the agenda and link to staff's memo to OSBT regarding our progress.

If you feel the need to participate publicly in the meeting, I  would simply ask that you be a reasonable and positive voice for your neighborhood reps who have done a great job of listening to wildly divergent constituents (if you live west of Broadway) and be supportive of the recreation caucus and CCG process as a whole.

We have yet to be allowed to reach consensus of big issues and succeed, so it is certainly too early to allow some to pick apart the process and for us to fail.

Peter's report below.

==================================================

At the last meeting (5/17) the CCG decided to break our proposals down by sub-areas

of the WTSA, and consider all the proposals on an area-by-area basis.  Last night's

meeting was primarily to begin discussing our specific proposals for the Mt Sanitas,

Anemone & Red Rocks area (everything north of Boulder Canyon).  However, of the

3 hour meeting we were able to spend only 90 minutes talking about this.  The rest

of the time was taken by a protracted discussion of the on-going kerfuffle about the

South neighborhood representatives, public comment, and other "process" stuff.

Part of that was talking about where we could find more time to do the work with

which we are tasked...

Anyway, the discussions of our proposals were lively and substantive, if slow (given

that all the proposals we discussed were made months ago).  We managed to fairly

thoroughly discuss the connector from Linden to the Goat Trail, the trails along

Sunshine Canyon, and the west side of Mt Sanitas.  While we weren't actually

making any decisions at this point, it was possible in some cases to get a sense of

where the group may be headed on these.  The original proposals are summarized

on this web page:

http://pbakwin.home.comcast.net/~pbakwin/wtsaccg/Sanitas.html

Goat Trail connector:  People seemed to support a connection from Linden to the

Goat Trail, with a spur that connects to 4th Street between Juniper and Kalmia.

There was discussion of parking and trash can issues.  There doesn't seem to be

support for providing additional parking, which would probably be impractical in

this area.

Sunshine Canyon trails:  The existing undesignated trails are really nice & there

seems to be support for keeping them more or less.  The lower trail is very close

to the road and has little impact on important habitat.  The upper trail does go

through some habitat and some rare plant communities, but it appears possible

to do some rerouting to mostly avoid those and make the trail more sustainable.

The dog rep, Michael Katz, offered this loop as a no-dog opportunity, which

is a generous concession & sweetens the deal for the rest of us.  We also talked

about the spur that dead-ends at a private driveway off Sunshine Canyon Road. 

The end of that is on private land, but there is a desire to be able to access

Sunshine Canyon Road from the trail.

West Sanitas:  Many issues were raised as we discussed how to formalize a

trail / trail system on the west side of Mt Sanitas.  There are several undesignated

trails back there, some parts are outstanding and others are not really sustainable

(mostly steep fall-line trails).  Some connect to Sunshine Canyon while others

provide access for neighbors in the Pinebrook Hills area.  The conservation reps

are concerned about fragmentation of this large habitat block by numerous trails.

One suggestion was to try to tie the various uses together by a single trail that

would sort of skirt the west, north and east sides of this block, starting somewhere

in Sunshine Canyon and ending on the summit of Sanitas.  One concern about that

is that the best part of the existing trail is right in the middle of the block.  My

sense is that if we can find a solution that minimizes fragmentation of the habitat

the conservation reps might support a trail back there, otherwise we might see

resistance to a designated trail.  Personally, I need to tromp around back there

some more and see what might make sense.  Anyone who has input on this, now

would be a good time.  OSMP also suggested that if we get an agreement on a trail

there we might make the rest of it "no off-trail".  In principle I don't support that,

since in essence it makes the area an HCA.  But, if that's what's required to get a

deal...?

At the next meeting, on 6/17, we will continue to discuss this region.  We would

like to see some of the upper Anemone trails designated, and a loop created

between the pipeline above Boulder Canyon and the beautiful single track that

runs along the ridge line up there.  I suppose the conservation reps may make

some proposals about dog access &c.  Gwen Dooley has already suggested that

Sanitas should be on-leash.  Personally, I don't support this at all because I think

you just will just move the off leash dogs somewhere else, and because I feel

that leashed dogs can be very dangerous for other users (particularly runners)

on these steep trails.

People are always welcome to send their ideas to any of the rec reps (if you post

them here all the rec reps will read them), or to show up at the CCG meetings and

give 3 minutes of public comment at the beginning of the meeting.

==============================================================

May 3rd 10 Minute Presentation

Well the big May 3rd presentation night has come and gone. 

On the positive side, the preparation for the presentation was a powerful learning experience for me.  I spent a significant amount of time hiking, exploring and re-hiking various designated and un-designated trails in the West TSA. It was somewhat like putting together a puzzle, trying to figure out what would make a good ride, what was possible, what alignment would minimize conflict, how to connect these pieces in a realistic and responsible way.  

Along the way I got some excellent help input from some real experts like Pete Weber, Scott Linnenburger, and Ryan Schultz. I also learned what a powerful tool Google Earth is - along with many of its' annoying quirks and problems.

You can look at a PDF of my presentation by clicking on the title"

Bikes in a bit of the West TSA

I would also suggest that you look at any or all of the other presentations.  They can be found here:

All CCG Presentations

While it was obvious that everyone on the CCG cares deeply about Boulder OSMP lands, I think there were some really excellent work done by the entire recreation caucus.  The proposal were thoughtful, well researched and most of all specific.  

The neighborhood reps have a very challenging position and they represent a very diverse group of constituents.  Guy and Shelly did a great job asking for reasonable specific items that would not only benefit the close in neighbors but really all users.

James Galo of the conservation caucus went beyond the basics to put together a compelling argument for some logical reorganization of trail-heads and trails associated with dog access.  While I disagree with some of the specifics it was imaginative and specific at the same time.

Make no mistake, there is still some significant resistance to bike access in the West TSA - even to my calculated 10% access level.  I was disappointed that the 2 OSMP reps to the CCG, Joe and Whit, supported bike access only on Chapman Drive and the Eldorado to Walker connection.  This leaves out the key North/South connector and the SE loops I proposed.  In addition these are the two items dependent upon the external forces of private land purchases or multi-agency agreements.

So those are my thoughts.  Please take a look at the presentation and let me and everyone know your thoughts.

May 3 West TSA CCG 10 minute presentations

I wanted to do a quick post today to let everyone know about a couple of items of interest.

First, the next CCG will be meeting Monday - 5/3 at 6:00pm at OSMP headquarters.  The whole evening will be devoted to each rep giving a 10 minute presentation about our goals and visions for the West TSA.  I am sure these presentations will range from very general to highly specific.  I am going to try and be both in my presentation.

This is not a call for everyone interested in biking in the West TSA to show up.  Nothing of the sort.  However, if you do have a strong interest in the CCG, the process, and what the reps actually want, this could be the meeting to attend.  There will be no public participation other than the usual 3 minutes allotted to speakers at the begriming.  There will also likely be no Q&A of the reps until all of the presentations are complete. I will actually be amazed if we get through all the speakers on Monday night.

Finally, I wanted anyone interested in this process to take a look at the latest post by the neighborhood reps.

http://westtsaneighbors.blogspot.com/2010/04/notes-from-neighborhood-listening.html

Shelly Dunbar did a great job summarizing the input the neighbors had during the neighborhood listing session that was held on April 7th.  I attended the meeting and while there was obvious disagreement about many items including biking, there was an awful lot of reasonableness and consensus on issues like better trail maintenance and design, trying to reduce neighborhood impacts by having bike racks, and better bus access etc... The patterns become very obvious once you read through the list of requests.

What we are asking for in 3 minutes - or a bit longer.

Before tonights CCG meeting we were given the following homework assignment:

"The second goal for the meeting is to lay the foundation for the preparation
and presentation of on-the-ground proposals at the May 3 meeting.  We would
like each member of the CCG to spend 3 minutes summarizing for the group
what you are hoping to achieve for your interest as well as what you might
be willing to give up in order to accommodate the interests of other CCG
members."

I thought a great deal about this task.  Below is what I presented to the group.  When it is available, I will provide a link to all of the other CCG reps statements.

================================================

Nothing like a three minute time limit to focus the mind. 

Long before the CCG was formed, the Mt. Biking community developed a set of goals and desires for the West TSA.  In broad terms, we are asking for Reasonable, Responsible, and Fair access.  We have proven ourselves to be reasonable in our requests and expectations, responsible partners with the city and other agencies in building, maintaining and self policing trails, and fair in our desires to simply have access along with being fair minded participants in the CCG process.

In more specific terms, our goals and desires are recorded in the Desired Future Conditions list. The condensed version is: 1) A north/south trail, east of the Mesa trail, that allows Mt. Bikers to ride from the Baseline area south to Eldorado Springs drive and the southern trail system, 2) Bike access to portions of Big Blue Stem and South Boulder Creek trails to form a loop, 3) Chapman Drive as additional north/south access to the northern portion of OSMP land and to county trails, 4) support from OSMP to work with the county and state for access from Eldorado to Walker Ranch, and 5) a greater focus on the quality of the recreation experience. 

To date, we have purposefully not detailed specific trail alignments, knowing that the process first has to reach consensus on the idea of what is reasonable, responsible and fair access for our user group.  In numerical terms, our requests would allow multi-use access to somewhere between 10 and 20% of the total current designated trail mileage in the West TSA, maintaining the bike ban on the other 80-90%. 

This brings me our newest desire: to successfully work with the CCG and the consensus process on bike access issues. It is possible that we were naïve or overly optimistic in asking for only what we really thought were reasonable, fair, and obtainable goals.  We certainly could have asked for more as a negotiation strategy and traded away any unreasonable or overreaching objectives back to some reasonable level.  We choose not to do that.

Having chosen to not overreach or try to play politics within a consensus process, we are confronted with a DFC of some members to maintain a 100% bike ban in the West TSA. I have a simple request; withdraw this DFC from the list. Why? Because it is to your advantage to do so.  By reaching consensus on bike issues you can have input on trail alignments, trail design, and management strategies to minimize user conflict.  .  If we don’t reach consensus on bike issues, then they go to staff and ultimately OSBT and council.  I predict the political route would not be great for bikers, but it would almost certainly reject the notion of a 100% ban as being reasonable, responsible, and fair. So, I think you have a great incentive to actually work though the CCG process and eliminate this as a stated DFC.  I also want to point out the example how the “just say no” strategy has proven to be a failure in recent national events.

Finally, we have been asked to give something up to accommodate other interests. Sorry, but with zero current access, we have nothing in the West TSA to give up.  What I can offer is a commitment to enthusiastically work within the CCG and to acknowledge the validity of your goals and desires as I am asking you to acknowledge the validity of mine.  The very success of the CCG depends upon this mutual acknowledgement.  Failure to follow this path   will likely result in countless wasted hours of all of our time, scrapping of what few recommendations that do result from our efforts and general frustration on the part of OSMP, our elected officials, and Boulder citizens.

Finally we get to the real work - Desired Future Conditions

After what seemed like a very long time the CCG has finally begun to do the hard work.  Each representative has been given the opportunity to present their respective "Desired Future Conditions" (DFC's) to the CCG.

 

OSMP has asked us to use the format and table headings as shown below.  Any rep could present DFCs for any resource, Recreation, Natural, Neighborhood, or Cultural.  Jen K. and I presented the items from this table.  Some reps had VERY long lists others less.  Our goal was to try to focus on key elements of what we think is reasonable, fair, and actually obtainable.

 

There was no surprise that the conservation caucus had a DFC that explicitly continued the exclusion of bikes from the entire West TSA. It is important to remember that this is the beginning of a consensus process where the goal is to find common ground and maximize the number of DFCs that the can CCG agree on.  Each rep essentially has veto power.  So our strategy is to be honest, forthright and fair minded in our discussions, positions, and compromises.  We did not start by asking for the moon.  Others may have a different strategy.  At some point soon OSMP will publish the entire set of DFCs grouped and consolidated.  I will provide a link as soon as the document is available.

 

So, below is what we presented.  By the nature of the process, we are not locked down to exactly these as negotiation, discussion, changes and compromises is part of the process.  If you want to contact me with any suggested additions or changes we're ready to listen.

Resource	Broad Desires Goals/Values/ Interests	Specific Desires Desired Qualities / Services	Measurable Desires Possible Indicators
Recreational Resource DFCs	Reasonable shared access for bikes. We will only ask for what we think is reasonable – not a negotiation strategy	A North / South multi-use trail connecting Baseline to Eldorado Springs Drive east of the Mesa Trail.    Access to two loops in the south east quadrant of the W-TSA.   Chapman Drive as additional North / South multi-use access.	The trail with end access points and 3-6 intermediate access points.     Open Big Blue Stem and South Boulder Creek to bike access.
	Responsible shared access.  We will maintain our reputation as responsible partners in trail construction,  maintenance, and responsible use.	Welcoming signage that encourages positive actions by users to maintain access and minimize conflict.   User trail construction opportunities.	Follow-on study, post trail construction to verify similar on trail usage patterns as shown in the Eldo-Doudy draw study.
	Fair shared access.		Restrictions on bikes should not exceed 80% of total designated trail mileage.    Restrictions to minimize user conflict on multi use trails must be perceived as equitable.  I.E. restricted use days, direction of travel requirements etc.. are valid tools but the burden must be shared amongst user groups.
	Bike access to long loops using multi-agency  resources.	OSMP cooperation and support for a connection from Eldorado to Walker Ranch.
Resource	Broad Desires Goals/Values/ Interests	Specific Desires Desired Qualities / Services	Measurable Desires
Neighborhood DFCs	Neighbors welcome bikes as a way of minimizing parking impacts	Appropriately spaced bike access points to minimize neighborhood parking issues	Bike access spacing approximately 1.5 miles apart maximum on N/S connector.
Resource	Broad Desires Goals/Values/ Interests	Specific Desires Desired Qualities / Services	Measurable Desires
Natural Resource DFCs	Trails (not roads) that connect all users to nature.	Minimize duration of straight wide open two track roads.  New trail miles should enhance connection to wildlife, fauna and cultural resources.	Post TSA implementation, drivable roads should be a lower percentage of overall trail miles.

Someday Someday

February 3rd meeting last night.  Two hours and thirty minutes of our meeting was consumed by an exercise that Sarah Palin might term "fixin to get ready for them Desired Future Conditions".


So after months of learning about conditions on the ground the CCG is really ready to go past process and really get into the meat of what we envision for Desired Future Conditions (DFCs). In spite of that desire the facilitator and staff took a go slow approach that was both confusing and frustrating.  My perception of their goal for the exercise was: get agreement amongst the CCG on things we could all agree on at a very high level. For example one could say we all want "quality user experiences" and "sustainable habitat preservation".   OK agreed. So now what.


While I understand the goal, the execution left much to be desired and seemed to get bogged down in semantics, process issues, and a general lack of clarity and simplicity as to what staff wanted us to do.


Finally at one point I proposed that we simply each give a limited 5-6 minute statement of what our DFCs are. One could discuss everything in the continuum from your high level values to specific trail alignments or activities.  I think every rep is competent, capable, and prepared to do this or something like this - if they only let us.


So the next meeting on 2/18 is supposed to be the meeting where things really happen.  I will not be present due to being on vacation but Jen will be there as my alternate and we are in agreement about what we want for us as a Mt. Biking community and what we want for the West TSA as a whole.

If you want to go to a meeting the 2/18 meeting would be a good one to attend.

West TSA Learning Phase Update

OK, it's been a while since I published an update to the blog covering the progress of the West TSA CCG.  No excuses, but we have been in what has been termed a "learning mode" about what the current conditions are "on the ground now" in the West TSA.  So to-date, no discussion about "desired future conditions".  

So while being only partly sarcastic, I can tell you that this has been educational and "re-educational" like a post Vietnam reeducation camp. So before anybody calls me a SOB for the comparison, I have to point out the volume of presentations that present conservation via restriction message vs. user oriented analysis is hugely disparate.  Here are the examples of what we have had presentation on:

Forrest Ecosystem Management Plan FEMP

Grasslands Ecosystem Management Plan GEMP

West TSA Natural Resources Inventory Report.

Part of this report is an extensive set of modeling/mapping that has been done regarding Highly Suitable Habitat (HSH) for various species that are sensitive to humans.  This set of maps represents an incredible amount of staff time from the various *ologists and the GIS guy.  To see these maps, go to Natural Resources inventory report and scroll to page 4 and start clicking on the links for the many HSH maps.  If this is getting to be too much than follow this link for the combined map.  

Contrast this amount of mapping, data collection, scientific report reading and referencing, GIS work, modeling, etc.... with the 

Recreational Resources Inventory Report

There is nothing inherently wrong with the Recreation Resources Report.  To me, it simply does not appear to have the time, money and resources expended on its behalf as do the other reports.

I want to be clear about the staff that put these reports together.  It is obvious that they all work very hard at their jobs, I like them all, they are dedicated and passionate about what they do and they all care deeply about our Open Space system, but it is my perception that there is a anti-rec, anti-user bias. I believe that this is somewhat institutionalized in the organization.  

So, we have an almost unlimited amount of information that is ostensibly to help the CCG reach our consensus based decisions.  However, I fear that a far unbalanced majority of "learning material" is a knife that only cuts one way and that direction is toward greater restriction.

More to come about HCAs vs. HSHs and how Boulder OSMP measures up against other regional land management agencies.

CCG First Meeting Report

We had our first meeting Wednesday night 10/21.  Rather than recreate what has already been said so well, I am posting below the report from Peter Bakwin, one of the other recreation reps.  My simple summary is that the meeting went well, I feel like we can all work together, (every CCG reps was knowledgeable and brought valuable experience and perspective to the table).  I am enthusiastic about the prospects for real progress in the West TSA.

The CCG had its first meeting last night, here's a brief report.  Actually, there

isn't that much to report since little of substance happened.  This was about

introductions, clearing the air, talking about everyone's "hopes, needs and

commitments", and scheduling future meetings.  The CCG will meet about

twice a month, and we will have field trips as well.  The public is welcome at

the meetings, and public participation is allowed at the start of each meeting.

The first step that the CCG will undertake is called Collaborative Learning.

During this phase we are supposed to find out what's really out there in the

WTSA - all the natural, cultural and recreation resources, as well as

familiarizing ourselves with all the various planning documents that are

relevant to the WTSA area.  Since there are 5 meetings scheduled for this

phase, plus field trips, one can guess this will take 3 months.  After that

we go into "Visioning", where everyone lays out their desired outcomes.

That ought to be interesting.

I want to say that I am really happy about the people who you all selected

to represent the recreation interests on the CCG.  We have a terrific team

of articulate, level-headed, forthright and persuasive people & I am very happy

to be working with all of them on this important process.  Thanks for everyone's

interest in this and support!  You can always contact any of the CCG reps with

your ideas and concerns, or you can share your thoughts more publicly on this

forum.

Thanks!
Peter

What We Are Asking

Now that the process is starting the question is: "what is the result that we as Mt. bikers want from this process"? 

Before Answering that question, I think it is necessary to answer with a few big generalities that need to be clearly stated:

1. Reasonable shared access.  We are asking for only what we expect, deserve, and think is appropriate.  This is not about bargaining and starting high for something that we expect to horse trade later on.

2. Responsible shared access. Responsible in the sense that we have shown ourselves to play by the rules, make incredible commitments in person hours and resources to building new trails that are sustainable, durable, fun, and take all users to places that they want to go.

3. Fair, shared Access.  We do not want to exclude other user groups from trails that we would have access to. There can be discussions about how to minimize user conflicts.  In short this usually revolves around good trail design, education of users, and everybody being on good behavior.  At this point it does not include exclusive bike trails or exclusion of bikes from appropriate trails.  Maybe something different will come out of the CCG but in all likely-hood what access we gain will be shared access.

Specifics:
What we want from the west TSA. The Boulder Mountainbike Alliance early on developed a team to document a reasonable and obtainable "ask".  This well researched and logical document can be found by clicking here.

It's a start - really

I wanted to write a short post to let everyone know that we actually have our first meeting set for Wednesday 10/21, 6-9PM at the OSMP Office at 66 S. Cherryvale Rd.

I could cut and paste from the OSMP agenda e-mail but really this is a meet and greet for the reps and a planning session for future meetings.

However, there will be a period for public comment as there will be at all CCG meetings.  So come if you want but somehow it doesn't strike me as the best use of time at this early stage.