August 9, 1999
Christine Walsh, District Ranger,
Becky Parmenter, Paul Mintier, John Oppenlander
Boulder Ranger District, US Forest Service
2995 Baseline Road, Suite 110
Boulder, Colorado 80303
Dear Christine, Becky, Paul and John,
With regard to the Travel Management Portion of the Winiger Ridge Scoping Document, and after careful consideration and discussion, PUMA has formulated the following recommendations and observations.
We believe that with careful planning, adequate and appropriate recreation use can be accommodated in a way such as to retain the habitat values of the Winiger Ridge area. PUMA's position on recreational trails is based on maps, studies and county and forest service planning documents showing that the Winiger Ridge area has unique habitat values (including relatively large-sized habitat blocks) which are rare on the Front Range. The importance of keeping these habitat blocks unfragmented is easier to understand when one looks at maps of the larger landscape, which show how few habitat blocks exist and how many roads and trails already exist (for example, in the Boulder Ranger District).
We are making the following recommendations to manage trails in a way consistent with the Magnolia Environmental Preservation Plan (MEPP) and fitting with the "Flora and Fauna" management prescription of the current Forest Service Management Plan.
The MEPP, an area management plan created by Magnolia Road residents, begun in 1997 and finished in August 1999, will be filed for adoption by reference into the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan by late Fall of 1999. The MEPP document states the following as "vision statement and desired future conditions" for the Magnolia area:
“PUMA's vision for recreation management in the Magnolia area consists of low-impact recreational use in areas that can support human activities without habitat damage and displacement or disturbance of sensitive wildlife species.
PUMA recommends that 1) humans should not have developed access to currently unfragmented areas which provide effective habitat for wildlife, and that 2) all recreational motorized use of public lands in the Planning Area be prohibited; administrative and emergency vehicular access are, of course, permitted.
PUMA desires for the public land management agencies to encourage appropriate recreational use of the Planning Area by means of educational programs and appropriate development and maintenance of recreational facilities
PUMA desires for the public land management agencies to discourage unacceptable recreational use by 1) use of educational programs, 2) documentation of conflicts, violations and abuse, 3) development of appropriate management actions, and 4) enforcement.
PUMA hopes that the public land management agencies will rigorously inventory their resources in the Magnolia area and document current recreational uses and their effects on wildlife and habitat as part of a recreational planning process..."
In the summer of 1999, PUMA held facilitated discussions with a broad group of stakeholders, assisted by a grant from The Neighborhood Resource Center. These meetings were an attempt to address the problem of illegal trail construction in the area. Illegal or unauthorized trails are not "social" trails, but are trails knowingly cut, dug, signed, or mapped in areas officially closed to new trail making and specifically not approved by private landowners or the controlling public agencies-mostly Boulder County or US Forest Service.
The two official meetings were attended by PUMA members, Magnolia landowners, employees of the Forest Service and County, mountain law enforcement, mountain bikers, recreationalists, members of Trail Mix and various mountain biking advocacy groups, and owners and employees of local bike shops. Small group meetings between PUMA officers and representatives of the mountain bike community were also held after the facilitated meetings. These meetings were a forum for sharing insights/opinions and increased the understanding that user groups have for each other. The meetings also facilitated ongoing productive and friendly relationships between user groups.
However, no consensus was reached on how to deal with illegal trails. In fact, PUMA was dismayed to hear many mountain bikers (even key representatives of Boulder and international biking organizations) state that illegal trail building would continue regardless of rules and laws "until the needs of their constituents were met". By illegally building trails on public and private lands, this faction of users blatantly avoids public process and ignores previous public decisions.
Keeping in mind the MEPP, the Forest Service Management Plan, and recent discussions with user groups, PUMA makes the following recommendations for trail closures, changes to trail use, trail openings, and continued monitoring.
Trail Closures
* PUMA supports the Forest Service's proposed trail closures, especially in areas identified as effective habitat.
* Illegal trails should also be closed.
* PUMA supports the Forest Service's closure of many roads to motorized vehicles.
* PUMA suggests that closure signs be well constructed and include explanatory and/or educational information.
* PUMA would like to partner with the Forest Service in monitoring closed trails.
County lands (Reynold, Rogers, Phipps) were purchased primarily for protection of a wildlife migration corridor, and the Forest Service lands are now under management prescription for retention and promotion of flora and fauna habitat. We strongly support these goals. There are far too few viable wildlife habitats left in the county (and in the world), and we support efforts to preserve them. Opening the Winiger Ridge area to intensive recreational use would contradict the desires of the greater Colorado public as reflected in three polls on recreation and habitat conducted by Colorado State Parks Trails Program, by GOCO and by the DOW. (See attached summary submitted by Roz McClellan, a PUMA member.)
All illegally created trails (recent and old) should be closed, signed if necessary, monitored, and patrolled. Illegal or unauthorized trails are not "social" trails, but are trails knowingly cut, dug, signed, or mapped in areas officially closed to new trail making and specifically not approved by private landowners or the controlling public agencies- primarily Boulder County or USDA Forest Service.
Unlawfully created trails have currently become a problem in the following areas: West Magnolia, the west end of the MEPP Planning Area near Nederland, Big Springs, Reynold's Ranch Open Space, Roger/Phipps Open Space, along much of the Public Service aqueduct, connections to Walker Ranch, near and through private property (Scates' ranch, Porter Ranch Rd. area , crossing Magnolia at the aqueduct, and on the north side of Magnolia between mile markers 0 and 4).
All true "social" trails in effective habitat zones should be monitored and minimized using best management practices to terminate their use or control access.
No trails should be permitted on the north-facing slopes of Boulder Canyon, in most of the federal land and also east of a line between Scates' Ranch, north to Middle Boulder Creek (e.g. Roger-Phipps County Open Space). This relatively undisturbed and unfragmented region of steep slopes is highly effective habitat for bear, lion, and goshawk (activities of all three have been documented by PUMA members and Boulder County biologist, Dave Hallock).
Currently, several sections of the "aqueduct" trail and several trails that run through private property have been constructed illegally. In early 1999, the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan was modified to exclude the aqueduct trail corridor from any future trail proposals. Obviously, an effective closure of the existing aqueduct illegal trail system will require on-the-ground enforcement and signs at all access points.
All areas currently off limits to motor vehicles should remain so, and no new areas should be opened. Serious consideration should be given to further restriction of recreational motor vehicle access where it currently exists (for example, Forest Rd 359 to Gross Reservoir).
PUMA suggests that closure signs be well constructed and include explanatory, educational information.
PUMA has concerns that if trail closures are not done well, and if they are not monitored, they could create greater problems (such as off trail use, trail building, etc.). We hope the Forest Service will work with the County on best practices for closures, and we would be interested in partnering with you in an ongoing effort to monitor trails.
Trail Use Changes
* West Magnolia - We support Forest Service plans, and would like to see further restrictions of motor vehicles.
* Winiger Ridge/Winiger Gulch - We support the Forest Service plans. Some trails in this sensitive area should be restricted to hikers only.
* West Magnolia: PUMA requests the Forest Service consider a motor vehicle ban in the West Magnolia area except in the vicinity of designated campsites. Further, the roads and trails in this heavily abused area should be restricted to bike, horse, and foot travel only.
* Winiger Ridge/Winiger Gulch: In this area, roads created by 4WD vehicles have breached closed sections and damaged additional areas. These should be closed to all motor vehicles and the closure maintained and enforced. Spur roads and trails south from Winiger Gulch into the region between the Gulch and South Boulder Creek should be closed to all vehicles (motor and mountain bike) access and open to foot traffic only. This region has been identified as significant and sensitive, and all measures should be taken to protect it.
Trail Openings
* PUMA suggests reopening the Boot Trail.
* PUMA suggests creating a Nederland to Nederland Loop trail, using existing trails as much as possible.
* PUMA suggests retaining the Blue Dot trail.
* PUMA suggests retaining the current difficulty level of trails.
* PUMA would like widespread support for efforts to improve the recreational quality of Magnolia area main roads.
* PUMA does not support a Nederland/Boulder corridor at this time.
The creation of new trails on County or Forest Service lands should be prevented/minimized. Whenever possible, existing trails should be used to form more extensive networks. However, if the creation of a new segment of trail can make connections to other trails or create longer through or loop routes without harming the environment or affecting wildlife, PUMA would cautiously support it.
PUMA acknowledges the persistent demand, especially from the mountain bike community, for longer, connecting trails. However, we would like to emphasize that there are few intact natural areas remaining along the Front Range. If these areas are to remain viable ecosystems providing necessary resources for all living creatures, then they must be protected. It is much more difficult to recall a trail or road then to install one.
PUMA expects that the ecosystem protection/restoration objectives of the Forest Service Management Plan, Boulder County Comprehensive Plan, MEPP and pertinent Boulder County Open Space management plans will be met by any proposed new trail, connectors, or loops. No new trails should be built at the expense of ecosystem restoration objectives. Also, illegal trail construction should be prevented before any new trails are built.
Boot Trail: PUMA recommends that the "boot trail" be reopened and revised to avoid sensitive habitat when the County officially opens Reynolds' Ranch Open Space. All spur trails leaving the boot trail should be closed and revegetated. PUMA would only support this reopening if it meets County and Forest Service objectives and if other "duplicative" trails are closed and revegetated.
Blue Dot Trail: We suggest that the "blue dot" trail remain open, but that no improvements (i.e., reduction in difficulty for riders or other users) be made. The County and FS are urged in some cases to label trails "difficult/moderate/easy", perhaps using the common ski slope designations of green dots, blue squares, and black diamonds. However, in all cases, signs should be avoided when possible, restricted to trail-head use only, and only rarely used in back country. It is hoped that by designating trail difficulty, the trail will avoid user-initiated "improvements," and retain its appeal to experienced bicyclists.
Nederland to Nederland Loop Trail: A trail that made a loop from Nederland within County lands and nearby FS lands would help fill the demands from Nederland recreationalists. We would support such a trail as long as: 1. It meets the ecosystem restoration objectives of the FS Management Plan, County Comprehensive Plan, and MEPP (i.e. trails should not compromise the protection of effective habitat) 2. Existing trails are used when possible to form more connected networks 3. Care is taken in developing new connector trails to avoid putting trails near private homes/land. 4. Illegal/spur trails are controlled.
Nederland to Boulder Corridor: PUMA spent a great deal of time considering a corridor from Nederland to Boulder. We even discussed specific plans with bicycle group representatives. In the end, however, the constraints of private property and effective habitat meant that any viable trail was unacceptable to the mountain bikers, because it spent too much time on roads. So, at this point we feel strongly that a corridor is not a good idea for this area. PUMA would also like to point out that, despite protestations otherwise, there is an existing trail that connects Boulder to Nederland - Boulder Creek Path to Four Mile Canyon, to Sunshine, to the Switzerland Trail, to Sugarloaf Road, or continuing on Switzerland to Highway 72 and Nederland.
Improvements to make Magnolia road more acceptable and safer for recreationalists: PUMA would like to be involved in solutions to make Magnolia Road a friendlier place for runners, walkers, bikers, and equestrians. If the roads were safer, pressure for more trails might be lessened. No pavement should be placed on upper Magnolia Road a s pavement is likely to promote more car travel and increase vehicular speeds - consequently making recreational travel by bike, foot, and horse more dangerous and unpleasant.
We need to find ways to make cars obey the speed limit and slow down so other users will be encouraged to use the road corridor. Magnolia should not be widened, but a delineated bike lane (possibly using a fence or a slightly raised travel-way) might be considered.
Conditions for Opening Trails
* PUMA only supports new trails if problem/illegal trails are closed and closures well enforced.
* PUMA supports an incremental opening of trails and connectors, with each phase dependent on the successful closure of illegal/problem trails.
* PUMA suggests that increased educational efforts be put into teaching about the public value of effective habitats.
* PUMA would very strongly oppose opening any new trails if problem trails and illegal trails are not first closed and closures enforced. Controls, enforcement plans, and trail reductions and/or eradications should be completed before any new trails are constructed. If illegal trail building continues, new or connecting trails should be held as "carrots" to encourage proper use and abidance with laws and management decisions. The public should be made aware that such an incentive plan exists ("Use it Right, or Lose It") and various user groups should be encouraged to self-police.
PUMA recommends the following preferred action sequence for trails management in the Magnolia area:
1. Identify all trails to be closed
2. Post signs to inform users that a specific trail will be closed and why
3. Develop a trail user education program that targets potential violators
4. Physically close trails and restore habitat
5. Establish effective on-the-ground law enforcement.
6. Monitor recreational users- ensure that user groups are abiding by agency rules and regulations and that no new illegal trails are being built.
If initial trail closures are respected by users, then begin an incremental implementation of new/connecting trails. Move slowly with the implementation of these trails, and make their opening dependent on the continued respect of closed trails.
Some trail users do not support trail closures and do not understand the value (for humans, wildlife, and plants) of allowing some public lands to remain wild and unfragmented . If trail closures are to be effective and not ignored, people have to come to understand the science behind the issue, rather than basing their response on gut feelings and lack of access to knowledge. Public education is essential to the implementation and continued success of protected effective habitat. PUMA suggests that money and energy spent in this area is well worth the effort, and should be a Forest Service priority - because the rest of the project depends upon it.
PUMA looks forward to partnering with the US Forest Service to help uphold and implement the “flora and fauna” designation for this area – and fostering and preserving a low-impact habitat for our wildlife and community.
Sincerely,
The residents and members of Preserve Unique Magnolia Association (PUMA)
(see attachment)
HIGHLIGHTS OF RECENT PUBLIC OPINION POLLS REGARDING RECREATION and HABITAT ( By Colorado State Parks, GOCO and the Division of Wildlife)
...based on public opinion survey, mail survey, focus groups, OHV user survey and key leader interviews, conducted by The Centers at CU Denver and Norwest Public Opinion Research Program Presented to the State Trails Program and Parks Board June 18, 1999
Pressing Issues and Priorities identified by the public:
-Impacts of Trail Use on Natural Habitat
-Maintenance of existing trails
-Demand for new trails/right of ways (in the face of development and landowner access restrictions)
-Incompatible uses
-Need for better Planning and design
-Need for user education and info
-Funding
Resource Allocation Priorities for Trails Program identified by the public:
-Better protection of habitat
-Maintaining/rebuilding existing trails
-Disabled access
-Youth opportunities
-Bike trails on rural roads
-Interpretive trails/program
-Trail info
-Land Acquisition
-Connecting trails
(Conducted by The Centers at CU Denver March 2, 1999)
Importance of trail and other outdoor activities to respondents' quality of life:
Top Ratings
Walking/hiking
Camping
Middle Ratings
Hunting/fishing
Bicycling
Water and team sports
Low Ratings
Snowmobiling
Motorbiking/ATV
Rollerblading/skateboarding
Horseback riding
Four-wheel driving
Follows same rating as above
Importance and Frequency of Use
Highest Rating
Local Community Trails (50% of respondents)
Moderate Ratings
Back country trails
Regional trails
% Respondents Reporting Incompatible Uses as a Problem 37%
Motorized vehicles 31% (of 37%)
Mountain Bikes 15% "
Animals- dogs, etc. 11% "
% Respondents Concerned with Trail Impacts on the Environment 44%
Types of Impacts mentioned:
ORV's, snowmobiles 57% (of 44%)
Mountain bikes 8% "
Off-trail Use 7% "
High Use levels 6% "
% Respondents Agreeing with statement:
"Would support limits on trail use
if natural habitat is being damaged." 69%
Disagreeing 8%
Highest Priority for Allocation of State Parks and Trails Resources
Better protection of natural features and wildlife habitat
Maintaining or rebuilding existing trails
Improving trail access to persons with disabilities
Expanded youth opportunities
Bike trails along rural roads
Nature education
Medium Priority
Trail signs and maps
Land acquisition for future parks and trails
Connecting trails to systems
Lesser Priority
New trail development
Increasing access points to rivers and lakes
More campsite amenities
Developing backcountry campsite and hut systems
Survey of Residents February, 1999
Summary of Findings
Importance of Wildlife to Coloradans quality of life:
76% of respondents gave this a top rating
Recommended DOW Top Priorities
Enforcing existing wildlife laws 78%
Protecting habitat 66%
Protecting Threatened and Endangered Species 60%
Youth Programs 61%
GOCO STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS
Questionnaire Responses Nov 1998
Most important statewide need (with number of mentions):
Open space 311
Wildlife 144
Outdoor recreation 90
State/local parks 52
Trails 51
Rivers 36
Youth 21
Education 18
Agricultural land 4
The report notes: "Within the consensus of protecting Colorado outdoors, there continues to be a balance between the desire for accessible recreation uses and more pristine open space and natural areas.”
Additional High Priorities from Focus Groups
Need to consolidate, close and obliterate some trails
Need for monitoring and enforcement
Identification of some areas where trails should not be built
 |
 |
 |
 |