Get documents about "(Study Session memo sample)
Document Sample
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
Mike Patton, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Dave Kuntz, Division Manager
FROM:
Mark Gershman, Environmental Planner
Joe Mantione, Environmental Planner
DATE: July 14, 2004
SUBJECT: Study Session – Visitor Master Plan Policy Issues
I. PURPOSE
The study session with the Open Space and Mountain Parks staff and the Open
Space Board is to discuss four issues requiring more policy direction as part of
the final Visitor Master Plan. The four policy issues are: dog management, user
fees, competitive events and commercial use. Each of these issues requires
further direction on policy development. Each of them has potential future policy
implications as well.
II. QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD:
Dog Management
1. Is the “least restrictive” dog management approach acceptable?
2. Are the proposed changes in dog management likely to achieve the goals
of (a) providing visitors with dogs sufficient opportunities to recreate with
their dogs on OSMP lands and (b) ensuring that impacts from “dog-
walking activities” to other visitors and natural resources are acceptable.
User Fees
1. Does the Open Space Board of Trustees support the use of “user fees” to
generate revenue for the Open Space and Mountain Parks system?
2. Does the Open Space Board support mandatory user fees?
3. If so, does the Open Space Board have a preference between a parking
permit system or a per-person user fee?
4. Under what circumstance, if any, would the Open Space Board
recommend waiving the collection of user fees?
Competitive Events
1. Are competitive events (e.g., climbing competitions or foot races)
appropriate visitor uses for Open Space and Mountain Parks lands?
2. If so, should departmental staff be used to facilitate competitive events on
Open Space and Mountain Parks lands?
3. What conditions, if any, should be placed on competitive events on Open
Space and Mountain Parks lands?
Commercial Use
1. Is it appropriate to require permits for commercial operations on OSMP?
2. Is it appropriate for the OSMP department to place conditions upon
commercial activities to ensure compatibility with master plan goals, city
regulations or other relevant policies?
3. Is it appropriate for the City to deny or rescind permission to operate
commercial activities on OSMP lands if they are found to be incompatible
with master plan goals, city regulations or other relevant policies?
III. BACKGROUND
The background for each policy issue is described in the attached policy issue
papers (see attachments).
IV. ISSUES
Each policy issue is analyzed in the attachments and options presented for
review and consideration by the Open Space Board.
CONCLUSION / NEXT STEPS
Direction from the Open Space Board on policies necessary for clarifying and
resolving these four issues is requested by staff. Incorporation of approved
policies into the Visitor Master Plan will occur as part of the final master planning
process. The Visitor Master Plan will be reviewed and approved by the Open
Space Board and the City Council.
Attachments
A. Issue Paper on Dog Management on Open Space and Mountain
Parks Lands
B. Issue Paper on User Fees for Revenue Generation on Open Space
and Mountain Parks Lands
C. Issue Paper on Competitive Events on Open Space and Mountain
Parks Lands
D. Issue Paper on Commercial Use on Open Space and Mountain
Parks Lands
Issue Paper on Dog Management: Where Should We Go From Here?
Executive Summary – July 9, 2004
Background
Dog walking on Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) lands is a very popular activity. The
extensive trail system and trailheads and convenient access from many Boulder neighborhoods
contribute to dog walking being the most common activity other than hiking. Dog guardians
derive great enjoyment walking their dogs and having their dogs accompany them while they
participate in passive recreational activities (such as trail running).
Just like other recreational activities, dog walking creates impacts that need to be minimized or
mitigated, in order for the activity to be acceptable as a passive recreational activity. Current dog
management requires that dog guardians put their dogs on leash or have them under voice-and-
sight control. If the dog guardian and dog are adequately trained, voice-and-sight control
provides the same level of control as dogs on leash, in terms of avoiding or minimizing
unpleasant dog encounters with other visitors and impacts on resources. Dog management also
requires that dog guardians pick-up the excrement of their dog.
The current situation is that many dog guardians and dogs meet the dog management
requirements, but a significant share of them do not. Not enough data is available to accurately
assess the level of compliance with dog management requirements, but there is general
agreement that community efforts should be directed at improving the current situation. Given
the high level of use (dog visits are estimated at about 1 million per year), even a small share of
dogs not in compliance can detract from the quality of the visitor experience and the condition of
the resources.
The April Draft Visitor Master Plan proposed several changes to dog management that were
intended to improve the current situation. The Community Group Forum did not have sufficient
time to fully evaluate these dog management proposals and make recommendations to refine
them. Subsequently, OSMP staff then worked with Friends Interested in Dogs and Open Space
(FIDOS) to build a common understanding of the current situation, evaluate the needs for
changing dog management, and identify additional changes in the proposals that would further
strengthen dog management. This issue paper provides a context for the dog management issues,
summarizes diverse points of view on these issues, and provides new recommendations for the
second draft of the Visitor Master Plan.
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmpIssuePaperonDogManagement Revised_0714.doc 1
Policy Questions
1. Is the “least restrictive” dog management approach acceptable?
This approach would incrementally increase restrictions, if and where needed, to achieve
acceptable dog management standards. This approach will require: 1) collaborative
development of standards defining minimum acceptable levels of compliance for dog
management and development of a collaborative; and 2) a targeted research and monitoring
program to provide good baseline data on compliance levels, more definitive information on
specific dog impacts, and assessment of the results of management actions. It would support
adaptive management that adjusts management based practices and actions based on the
results what works and what does not. This approach would establish a general protocol but
would not prevent more expeditious / less incremental actions or restrictions if needed to
protect visitors or resources.
2. Is the proposed set of changes to dog management likely to achieve both goals of: a)
providing dog guardians with diverse opportunities to recreate with their dogs on and
off leash on OSMP natural and agricultural lands; and b) ensuring that impacts from
dog walking activities to other visitors and resources are acceptable?
The proposed dog management changes are designed to provide an effective package of
management actions to maintain most of the opportunities that dog guardians now enjoy but
increase compliance with dog management requirements to an acceptable level. The
proposals address enhanced visitor opportunities, education, enforcement, resource
protection, conflict management, and monitoring.
Recommendations
Based on public comment received to date, recommendations of the two Visitor Plan Advisory
Committees and the Community Group Forum, and additional staff analysis, staff recommends
several major additions and revisions to the dog management provisions contained in the first
draft of the Visitor Master Plan, as follows:
Enhanced Enforcement of Dog Regulations
• With community collaboration, OSMP will develop service standards for dog
management, for example, a minimum acceptable level of compliance for voice-and-
sight control for the dog walking activity as a whole (it could be 80%).
• OSMP will implement more stringent enforcement of dog management violations
with a system of graduated fines / community service requirements.
• With community collaboration, OSMP will implement a voluntary voice-and-sight
certification / licensing program, which would be required of dog guardians who want
to exercise the voice-and-sight privilege on OSMP lands and would be required of
repeat offenders who have lost and want to regain their off-leash privilege; phased
implementation of this requirement for off-leash dog walking will occur.
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmpIssuePaperonDogManagement Revised_0714.doc 2
Dog Management in Habitat Conservation Areas (HCAs) and Agricultural Areas (AAs)
• In HCAs and AAs, OSMP will require dogs to be on leash / on trail or prohibited in
certain areas as the default management strategy.
• OSMP will implement alternatives to dogs on leash in special circumstances, such as
on corridor voice-and-sight control to the mountain peaks on selected trails.
• OSMP will implement seasonal leash requirements on Big Bluestem and South
Boulder Creek Trails (also on-trail requirements); monitoring to determine if it is
sufficient (or should be year-round leash) would occur.
Collaborative Research, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management Program
With the collaboration of Friends Interested in Dogs and Open Space (FIDOS) and other
community groups, OSMP will:
• Create baseline data on the current level of compliance for voice-and-sight control
and for dog excrement pick-up (which would then define how far compliance would
have to improve to meet the service standard).
• Generate objective data and assess the impacts of dogs on other visitors and
resources.
Pilot Project for Leash Requirement at Selected Trailheads
With the collaboration of Friends Interested in Dogs and Open Space (FIDOS) and other
community groups, OSMP will:
• Collaborate in the selection of trailheads for the trailhead leash pilot project and its
implementation.
• Conduct project evaluation and make decisions on whether or not to make the
program permanent and expand it to other trailheads.
OSMP Staff Recommendations for Resolving Dog Management Issues in the
Visitor Master Plan
“If…we treat them [dog guardians] as a client group rather than as a problem
generator, their needs are considered as an integral part of the decision-making
process. We don’t dismiss or underestimate the conflicts but use a multi-method
approach to addressing both the needs and the problems generated (education,
enforcement, consultation, etc.), while simultaneously asking for more tolerance
from the rest of the community.” (Harlock et al. 1995).
The importance of this recommended approach is that it fosters an objective definition of the
issues of dog management, the investment of dog guardians and FIDOS in the problems and in
the solutions. It also encourages community collaboration in achieving legitimate community
goals of ensuring that dogs do not detract from the experience of other visitors or degrade the
quality of natural, agricultural, or cultural resources. This approach also fosters striking an
appropriate balance preserving dog guardian opportunities to recreate with their dog on OSMP
lands while reducing impacts to an acceptable level.
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmpIssuePaperonDogManagement Revised_0714.doc 3
Several overall principles are recommended to provide common ground and resolve dog
management issues:
• Take a comprehensive approach in revising dog management strategies, programs, and
regulations. This comprehensive approach will look at the full range of dog management
problems and opportunities, consider the needs of all stakeholders (the land and its resources,
dog guardians, and other visitors), identify interrelated issues and feedback, think both short-
term and long-term, while striking a balance to meet important OSMP goals simultaneously.
• Acknowledge the inadequacy of information on dog management and address the
situation. This principle will require collaborative actions among OSMP, FIDOS, other
community groups, and the public to develop and implement a monitoring and adaptive
management program. This will provide workable dog management strategies, programs and
regulations and enable them to be refined over time based on the results of what works and
what does not.
• Aim to provide a diversity and hierarchy of dog opportunities. This principle involves
providing a variety of opportunities to dog guardians and non-dog guardians alike. For dog
guardians, it means a diversity of on /off-leash opportunities. For non-dog guardians, it
means a diversity of places to experience no dogs, dogs on leash, and dogs off leash.
• Collaboratively set standards for compliance for adequate dog voice-and-sight control
and dog excrement pick-up. These quantifiable standards will provide the targets to
measure the dog management strategies. Collaborative dog management decisions and
programs can then focus on meeting and maintaining compliance with these standards. In
other words, the focus then can be on what specific actions are needed to move from the
current level of compliance to the target standards of compliance.
• Follow a least restrictive approach that incrementally increases restrictions, if needed,
to achieve dog management standards, in the context of the specific characteristics of
the management area and, in some cases, the subarea. Where a high level of protection is
needed and the best way of achieving this is no dogs or dogs on leash, then implement these
strategies. Where visitor experience conditions or resource sensitivities do not require this
level of restriction, allow for seasonal restrictions or dogs off leash. Where compliance has
not been achieve with less restrictive approaches, then incrementally increase the restrictions
to the point where the standards are achieved.
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmpIssuePaperonDogManagement Revised_0714.doc 4
Several integrated recommendations follow from these principles:
Foster Community Collaboration to Improve the Dog Management Situation. Strengthen
and expand the working relationship among OSMP, FIDOS, and other community groups to deal
with dog management issues such as:
o Target and enhance education and enforcement programs
o Develop and implement a research and monitoring program
o Design, implement, and evaluate the results of pilot projects
o Guide management decisions directed at enhancing the experience of dog guardians,
dogs, and other visitors and reducing the specific impacts of dog walking activities.
Incorporate a Comprehensive Set of Changes to Dog Management in the Visitor Master
Plan. These changes include additions, deletions, and revisions to the Dog Management
provisions in the April Draft Visitor Master Plan, as follows:
Visitor Opportunity Strategy
Add a New Priority Action (new in italics).
o Establish additional no-dog opportunities on some existing and new trails).
[Included in the FIDOS proposal]
Visitor Education and Outreach Strategy
Add to the Priority Action on Visitor Education and Outreach / Front-Country Leave-
No-Trace Program (addition is third sentence in italics)
o Continue focused education efforts to increase compliance with dog management
regulations (includes placing educational signs, conducting dog management classes
often in collaboration with other agencies, and trailhead and trail outreach contacts).
Install separate dog education / regulation signs at trailheads and along trails.
[Included in the FIDOS proposal]
Add a New Priority Action (new in italics):
o Implement a voice-and-sight control education program that would require dog
guardians to watch an educational video to receive recognition of compliance with
dog voice-and-sight control requirements; without this evidence dogs would be
required to be on leash. This voice-and-sight control / license requirement would be
phased in. [Included in the FIDOS proposal]
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmpIssuePaperonDogManagement Revised_0714.doc 5
Visitor Safety and Regulation Enforcement Strategy
Replace the Priority Action for a Pilot Program for Voice-and-Sight Certification with
a New Separate Action (strikethrough is deletion, addition in italics):
o Focus enforcement on compliance with dog regulations for voice and sight control
and waste removal. This focus involves prioritizing patrol areas, placing educational and
regulatory signs, and making trailhead and trail ranger contacts. [No change] This focus
may also involve, in collaboration with community groups, development of a pilot
program for voluntary certification for voice-and-sight dog control, designed to increase
compliance with dog management regulations.
o Implement (OSMP) a dog voice-and-sight certification system, which would be
voluntary except for repeat offenders who want to regain voice-and-sight privileges.
OSMP would collaboratively determine the standards and work with the Boulder
Valley Humane Society, dog trainers, other qualified providers, and others to
implement the program. [Included in the FIDOS proposal]
Add a New Priority Action (new in italics):
o Establish a graduated system of fines for violations for both dog voice-and-sight
offenses and dog waste pick-up offenses. Penalties would escalate from less to more
severe fines, loss of voice-and-sight privilege, and banishment, and they may involve
community service requirements. [Included in the FIDOS proposal]
Resource Protection and Preservation/ “Managed Access” Strategy
Add a Qualification that Recognizes the Need for Alternative Dog Management
Requirements in Selected Areas (second sentence in italics):
o Require dogs to be on trail and on leash in Habitat Conservation Areas and
Agricultural Areas, and prohibit dogs in sensitive areas. Exceptions will be considered
to on-leash requirements in HCAs and AAs to meet special circumstances, such as
seasonal restrictions, on-corridor voice-and-sight dog management, and others.
[Included in the FIDOS proposal]
Add a New Priority Action (new in italics):
o Establish a process with public input for deciding dog access and management on
newly-constructed trails.
Visitor Conflict and Reduction Strategy
Revise the Priority Action (revisions in italics):
o Develop a pilot program that would require dogs to be on leash at trailheads at selected
trailheads. If proven successful, this program may be made permanent and applied to
other selected trailheads. The size and configuration of the on-leash area will fit the
specific physical layout and management needs of specific trailheads. [Included in the
FIDOS proposal]
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmpIssuePaperonDogManagement Revised_0714.doc 6
OSMP Research and Monitoring Program (New chapter to be added to the plan)
Add a Version of the Following Text in an Appropriate Location (new in italics):
o Collaborate with the community to design and implement a program for conducting
various research studies and an ongoing monitoring program to inform dog
management. These information and evaluation efforts would improve
decisionmaking by providing objective credible data on degree of compliance with
dog management requirements, the impacts of dogs on other visitors and resources,
and the effects of management activities. [Included in the FIDOS proposal]
What is the Current Status of Dog Walking Opportunities and Issues?
• A City of Dogs. In Boulder County, there are more dogs than there are children (Marshall
2004). Dogs are clearly important to a large number of people in Boulder. Many people
consider dogs a family member and therefore are willing to advocate the interests of dogs.
• Dog Walking: A Major Activity on OSMP. Dog guardians and dogs represent a major
user group on OSMP. Dog walking / running is estimated to be about 1 million visits of the
total 4 million visits annually on OSMP.
• Dog Access on OSMP. OSMP currently offers a high level of access for dogs (94% of
designated trails), as well as opportunities for dogs to be off leash (68% and 2% of
designated trails for year-round and seasonal voice-and-sight control respectively).
• Prevalent Dog Management Practices. On the Front Range of Colorado, OSMP is an
exception to the norm for dog management requirements (see Attachment A). It appears that,
on virtually all open space or natural lands managed by other cities and counties along the
Front Range, dogs are required to be under complete physical control with a leash or other
physical constraint. No other land management jurisdiction besides OSMP relies on voice-
and-sight control as its predominant tool to ensure that dogs are managed properly.
• Dog Freedoms. As expressed in communications and public meetings, dog guardians as a
group desire to preserve their unique opportunities for walking dogs off-leash on OSMP
lands. Many dog owners consider their freedom to walk dogs off leash on OSMP lands a
major reason why they choose to live in or near Boulder and a major reason why they walk
or hike on OSMP lands frequently.
• Regional Destination for Dog Walking. OSMP has become a regional destination for dog
walking, because of the unique opportunities that dog guardians have here. Undoubtedly a
large number of east Boulder County residents travel to OSMP to walk their dogs off-leash,
because opportunities in their jurisdictions are very limited or non-existent.
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmpIssuePaperonDogManagement Revised_0714.doc 7
• Not Everyone Loves Contact with Dogs. As expressed in emails and public meetings,
many people in the community do not appreciate contact with dogs on OSMP. As reason,
they cite the annoying or distressing behavior of some dogs to charge, jump on, smell, bite,
or scare OSMP visitors, or they cite the unpleasant sights and smells of dog excrement that is
not picked up. Even some dog guardians express concern about unruly dogs, especially with
regard to misbehaved dogs that scare or fight with their dog. Other OSMP users or
supporters have complained about the impact of dogs on degrading wildlife and plant habitat.
• Consensus Agreement on the Need for Improvements in Dog Management. There are
different views on the scope and severity of dog management problems. However, most dog
guardians and other visitors would agree that compliance with OSMP regulations on dog
voice-and-sight control and dog excrement pick-up falls short of what the community
expects. There is consensus agreement that a diverse set of actions should be taken to
improve compliance with dog regulations, in order to reduce the level of conflict between
dogs and other visitors and reduce the level of impact on natural and agricultural resources.
• Concern about the Future. OSMP believes that the impacts of dog walking activities
created by some dog guardians and dogs are significant and could be more so in the future.
To improve the current situation and prevent unacceptable conditions in the future, OSMP
believes that a comprehensive approach to improving dog management is needed, which will
require changes from the current situation.
Proposals for Revising Dog Management in the April 2004 Visitor Master
Plan
OSMP is proposing a number of management strategies to motivate increased compliance with
dog management requirements, with the intent of preserving most current dog access and off-
leash opportunities, better protecting the rights of people who do not want unpleasant dog
encounters, and better protecting plant and wildlife habitat. The proposal outlined in the April
2004 Draft Visitor Master Plan includes several components (OSMP April 2004a):
Visitor Education and Outreach Strategy
o Continue focused education efforts to increase compliance with dog management
regulations (includes placing educational signs, conducting dog management classes
often in collaboration with other agencies, and trailhead and trail outreach contacts).
Visitor Safety and Regulation Enforcement Strategy
o Focus enforcement on compliance with dog regulations for voice and sight control
and waste removal. This focus involves prioritizing patrol areas, placing educational and
regulatory signs, and making trailhead and trail ranger contacts.
o Develop a pilot program for voluntary certification for voice-and-sight dog control
designed to increase compliance with dog management regulations. This pilot
program would be developed in collaboration with community groups.
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmpIssuePaperonDogManagement Revised_0714.doc 8
Resource Protection and Preservation/ “Managed Access” Strategy
o Require dogs to be on trail and on leash in Habitat Conservation Areas and
Agricultural Areas, and prohibit dogs in sensitive areas.
Visitor Conflict and Reduction Strategy
o Require dogs to be on leash at selected trailheads where visitor congestion and conflict
are significant problems. The size and configuration of the on-leash area will fit the
specific physical layout and management needs of specific trailheads.
Proposals for Revising Dog Management Offered by Friends Interested in
Dogs and Open Space (FIDOS)
FIDOS proposals are a package of integrated changes to dog management that they feel strikes
an appropriate balance if considered as a package. The intent of their proposal is to provide a
cost-effective, measured, fair approach by incrementally restricting dog uses, as necessary to
enhance visitor experiences and preserve environmental values. Their proposal includes several
components (FIDOS May 2004):
o Improve the education program for dog guardians and dogs by installing
separate dog signs at trailheads and along trails.
o Implement an education program for voice-and-sight control that requires dog
guardians to watch an educational video in order to receive recognition of
compliance with dog voice-and-sight control requirements; without this evidence
dogs would be required to be on leash. This video would demonstrate dog
behaviors that would meet voice-and-sight requirements and allow dog guardians to
assess whether or not their dog could meet the standards or would require further
training. A one year grace period would be implemented.
o Implement (OSMP) a dog voice-and-sight testing and certification system. This
certification would be voluntary, except repeat offenders would be required to obtain
certification to regain voice-and-sight privileges.
o Establish a graduated system of fines for violations for both dog voice-and-sight
offenses and dog waste pick-up offenses. The intent is to provide increased
motivation for compliance with dog management requirements.
o Collaborate with the community to design and implement a program for
conducting various research studies and an ongoing monitoring program to
inform dog management. These information and evaluation efforts would improve
decisionmaking by providing objective credible data on degree of compliance with
dog management requirements, the impacts of dogs on other visitors and resources,
and the effects of management activities.
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmpIssuePaperonDogManagement Revised_0714.doc 9
o Implement dog management strategies besides default on-leash or no-dog
requirements in Habitat Conservation Areas, Agricultural Areas, or other
management areas when special circumstances justify. In some cases, other less
restrictive strategies will adequately protect the resources, such as seasonable
restrictions, on-corridor voice-and-sight dog management, and separate trails for dog
walkers where multiple parallel trails exist.
o Provide the option of on-corridor voice-and-sight control for dog access to the
mountain peaks (an alternative to on-leash requirements in HCAs). This option
provides a much safer way for dog guardians and dogs to visit the peaks.
o Implement a pilot project to test the benefits and feasibility of dogs on leash at
trailheads. Results of the experiment would determine whether or not leash
requirements at trailheads would be permanently implemented.
o Establish a voice-and-sight compliance study for the Big Bluestem / South
Boulder Creek Trails and the Sage Trail. Results would determine whether or not
seasonal or year-round leash requirements would be implemented.
o Establish additional dog-free opportunities on some existing and new trails.
o Create an ongoing community forum and specific task groups to assist with the
implementation of the Visitor Master Plan. Some example tasks for this
collaboration include: developing a research and monitoring program, evaluating
social trails and deciding what to do with them, and devising and evaluating pilot
projects.
o Collaborate with FIDOS (OSMP) on emerging dogs issues before they become
problems.
What Are the Dog Impacts or Issues?
Virtually all recreational activities on natural and agricultural lands create some level of visitor
and resources impacts. This section focuses on the potential impacts of dog walking activities,
both on-leash and off-leash. Other types of activities may also create impacts and, in some
cases, these other impacts may be greater than those caused by dog walking.
• A small number of regional or municipal open space systems in the West allow dogs off
leash, and controversies about leashing dogs is common in those areas. Boulder’s
tradition of allowing relatively unfettered dog access and dogs off leash on OSMP lands is
long standing, ever since the Mountain Parks were first acquired over one hundred years ago.
Controversies about dog rights have periodically surfaced in Boulder since the 1950s, and a
Dog Roundtable was convened in 1995 to develop dog management recommendations, most
of which were implemented (Wheaton and Mills, undated). Boulder and cities along the is
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmpIssuePaperonDogManagement Revised_0714.doc 10
not alone in facing dog controversies, and arguments about the benefits and impacts of dogs
on natural areas can be found in many places (various localities in California, Boise, Helena,
Salt Lake City, cities along the Front Range (Louisville is a prominent example), and
others…see the variety of references from the internet).
• On lands managed by OSMP, as well as lands managed by many other public agencies,
dogs are required to be on leash or prohibited in certain areas, in order to avoid or
reduce many potential problems. Based on management agency experience and
documentation in the published literature, problems of dog walking activities include:
o Conflict with other visitors resulting in a reduced quality of visitor experience.
This conflict, due to dogs barking, approaching, chasing, biting, or jumping on
visitors (or their dogs), may be perceived as an annoyance or a safety issue. In
addition, many people find their serenity disturbed by dog guardians shouting
commands to dogs not adequately trained.
o Potential disturbance, displacement, and change in behavior of wildlife. Dogs
are perceived as predators, whether or not they are, and cause certain wildlife to
abandon areas or nests vulnerable to roaming dogs or resort to behaviors that reduce
their changes of survival. Even dog scent and scat can scare off wildlife or reduce
their use of otherwise good habitat areas (shrinking the amount of habitat or making it
less functional). Dogs may also dig up burrows or dens, destroying critical habitat
and causing wildlife to flee or find other shelter.
o Potential for mortality of wildlife. Off-leash dogs can and do kill small mammals,
nesting and brooding birds, or other wildlife (direct mortality) because of their
predatory instinct. Or they can flush animals from their camouflaged home or resting
place and then expose them to mortality from other predators. Indirect mortality
occurs when wildlife are stressed during certain times of the year or life stages when
they are most vulnerable or pushed to the edge of survival (e.g., winter, hot dry
summers, droughts, critical times of the nesting cycle, pregnant or newborn animals).
Chasing or harassment of wildlife by dogs may use up critical energy reserves of
wildlife, cause severe injuries, or separate young from parents.
References: Beckoff and Ickes 1999; Beckoff and Meaney 1997; Chester 2004; City of
Boise 2004; City of Helena 2004; Clarion and Associates and Colorado Division of
Wildlife 1996; Colorado Division of Wildlife 1998; Harlock et al. 1995; Miller, Knight,
and Miller 1998 and 2001; Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society 2004; Reid 2004;
Sakkestad 2000; Santa Cruz Socity for the Prevention of Animals 2004; and Sime 1999
and 2004.
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmpIssuePaperonDogManagement Revised_0714.doc 11
• OSMP, along with most other land management agencies, makes working assumptions
on the impacts of dogs and resultant management needs. The precise scope and severity
of these impacts is unknown, but it is assumed they are significant (i.e., worth worrying
about). These OSMP assumptions include:
o Dog guardians and dogs create a large amount of conflict with other visitors on
OSMP, based on citizen comments and anecdotal evidence. OSMP staff estimates
that 80% of citizen complaints received concern negative interactions of dogs with
other dogs, people, and wildlife.
o Some dogs scare other visitors, especially young or frail visitors.
o A significant segment of the public feels dog freedoms should be curtailed to
reduce unpleasant encounters with dogs on OSMP.
o If not under complete physical control, many dogs will chase, harass, and kill
wildlife.
o Dog excrement not picked up is a serious problem, because of: aesthetic concerns
of many visitors; the spread of weed seeds by attachment to fur and paws and the
input of nitrogen from feces and urine (which provides unnatural fertilization and
stimulates many weed species); the spread of diseases and parasites to other dogs,
wildlife, and people; and, the pollution of surface and ground water.
o Trampling and killing of plants, compaction and erosion of soils, and creation of
social trails are significant problems caused by off-trail travel by dogs. Only
some of these impacts are attributable to dogs, but their impact combines with the
impacts caused by human off-trail travel. These impacts are probably most severe in
riparian and wet meadow areas.
o On some OSMP properties, off-leash dogs harass or chase livestock, which is a
significant nuisance or worse for agricultural lessees. Historically, very few
livestock have been killed by dogs. This impact occurs most frequently at Boulder
Valley Ranch.
o Dogs create undesignated trails parallel to designated trails. These trails result in
loss of vegetation, damage to soils, and spread of weeds.
o Dog access to water for play and drinking can and does cause vegetation
trampling, bank disturbance / erosion, soil compaction, and disturbance to the
stream or pond vegetation. Water quality may also be affected through increased
siltation or transmission of bacteria.
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmpIssuePaperonDogManagement Revised_0714.doc 12
References: Beckoff and Ickes 1999; Beckoff and Meaney 1997; Chester 2004; City of
Boise 2004; City of Helena 2004; Clarion and Associates and Colorado Division of
Wildlife 1996; Colorado Division of Wildlife 1998; Harlock et al. 1995; Miller, Knight,
and Miller 1998 and 2001; Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society 2004; Reid 2004;
Sakkestad 2000; Santa Cruz Society for the Prevention of Animals 2004; and Sime 1999
and 2004.
What Are the Limitations of Our Knowledge About Dog Issues?
Little empirical research exists to prove the scope and severity of dog impacts on other
visitors or resources—either that significant impacts occur or that they do not occur. For
example, we do not know:
o The magnitude of visitors that experience significant conflicts with dogs
o The extent that dogs on OSMP are out of compliance with dog control and excrement
pick-up regulations
o The extent or frequency that dogs scare or kill wildlife
o The extent that dogs traveling off trail exacerbate / accelerate the spread of weeds
o The proportion that dogs contribute to the problems caused by recreation in general
vs. humans in particular (for example, disturbance of wildlife, social erosion, and
spread of weeds)
It is assumed that the burden of proof is shared by those who believe that dog impacts are
significant and those who do not. A reasonable survey of the scientific literature and a review of
research conducted on OSMP did not turn up very many useful sources of information. This
information is sketchy at best. However, in the absence of good data, there are impacts on
visitors and the land occurs and decisions about dog management still have to be made.
The major results from the few empirical studies identified are summarized in Attachment B. An
attempt to survey the literature did not reveal other relevant empirical studies. Some university
researchers believe that there is a dearth of this kind of research to inform the decisions of land
management agencies as they provide or limit dog access and opportunities (Sakkestad 2000).
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmpIssuePaperonDogManagement Revised_0714.doc 13
Several anecdotal / observational studies have been conducted by OSMP and others (these
studies are not scientifically structured or replicated). These studies conclude that dog
issues are significant, and they include:
o Compliance with voice-and-sight control varies by area but is assumed to be
below community thresholds of acceptability. Both the following studies provide
some information concerning the level of compliance with dog management
requirements. However, they significantly underestimate non-compliance because
they were observational studies, i.e., many or most dogs were observed under ideal
conditions without major distractions and were not called back by their dog
guardians.
1) A 1999 study of compliance with Leave No Trace principles on OSMP lands
showed that over 40% of dog waste was not picked up by visitors, and that
about 35% of the dogs on Open Space were not in compliance with voice-and-
sight regulations (Mertz 2002).
2) The 2003 Dog Contact Data Collection Pilot Project (City of Boulder, May
2003), which was conducted at several busy trailhead areas, indicated that
about 30% of the dog guardians observed by rangers did not comply with dog
management regulations (they were issued either warnings or a summons
citation for violations).
o Ranger-issued summons for violation of dog management regulations are the
overwhelming majority of total summons for all violations combined. In a
tabulation of summons for the two-year period of 2002-2003, 64% of total OSMP
ranger summons were related to dog control and dog excrement removal (OSMP
ranger data base).
o Trails are vectors for the spread of weeds due to disturbed soil conditions and
nitrogen enhancement. The occurrence and pattern of weed dispersal and
establishment suggest that dogs contribute to the weed problems. This effect may be
due to dogs since they carry weed seeds, contribute nitrogen to soils through their
waste, and disturb soils by traveling off trail or off tread.
o Most ranger contacts with dog owners are educational. For every dog summons
(ticket) issued, OSMP rangers have about 20 educational contacts (2003 Dog Contact
Data Collection Pilot Project).
o Ground nesting birds have disappeared from Chautauqua Meadow, NCAR
meadow, and Boulder Valley Ranch. Heavy visitor use, including dogs, is likely a
major contributing factor. (Steve Jones 2004)
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmpIssuePaperonDogManagement Revised_0714.doc 14
• Major concerns or reservations about the anecdotal / observational information voiced
by FIDOS include:
o For the dog contact pilot project performed by OSMP rangers, observations,
warnings, and summons are not systematically generated or compiled, and data was
not collected over a sufficient amount of time (it was a short pilot).
o Compliance rates with dog regulations not only depend on actual dog behaviors, but
also on the level of effort given to enforcement activities (and OSMP has not put
enough level of effort into enforcement).
o The number of summons issued to dog guardians in 2002-2003 was 378—a
statistically insignificant frequency of non-compliance, given the estimate of 1
million dog visits a year (i.e., the scope of the problem is small and does not justify
drastic changes in dog management).
o For the Leave No Trace study (Jones and Bruyere 2004), the amount of compliance
with “Manage Your Dog” was 66% and with “Pick Up after Your Dog” it was 60%.
Neither of which justifies major changes to dog management; also the conclusion is
unfounded that non-compliance would have been higher if dog guardians had been
asked to call their dog.
• Surveys results reveal the public’s attitude that dog issues are a serious concern on
OSMP (City of Boulder April 2004b). Some of these results are:
o Dog-related complaints topped the list of OSMP most-needed improvements (19%).
o The majority of respondents feel that enforcement of dog regulations dealing with
voice-and-sight control and dog excrement pick-up is inadequate or very inadequate
(52% for voice-and-sight control, 58 % for dog excrement pick-up).
o Large majorities of respondents overwhelmingly support strengthening of current dog
management (80% or more): leashing dogs in the first 100 yards from trailheads, dog
voice-and-sight certification, and prohibiting or leashing dogs in high wildlife habitat
value areas.
o Conflicts between dogs and other activities were the second most identified (23%),
after conflicts between bikers and other activities (37%).
o Over 2/3 (69%) of respondents said encountering dogs on leash made their experience
more pleasant.
o 60% said encountering dogs off leash made their experiences less pleasant, of which
28% respond “much less pleasant”.
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmpIssuePaperonDogManagement Revised_0714.doc 15
• Major concerns or reservations about the surveys voiced by FIDOS include:
o Survey results would be more valid and useful if they polled OSMP users, not
city voters, since:
1) Those respondents who don’t use OSMP would not have sufficient
information to answer many of the questions.
2) The young and non-city users were under-represented and may have different
opinions than many respondents (which could significantly change the
results).
o Survey results are not objective because many of the questions:
1) Gave the impression that the severity of OSMP dog problems is unacceptable
(even though respondents overwhelmingly gave high marks for the quality of
the OSMP visitor experience (96%) and facilities (90%)--either excellent or
good).
2) Elicited “problems” or “conflicts” with push-pull questions by asking
respondents to solve them by selecting from a pre-determined, biased list of
strategies, with undefined terms such as “high”.
3) Asked for responses based on hearsay (“tell me based on what you know or
have heard”), rather than direct experience or observation…a situation that
allows respondents to say things for various reasons, including giving an
uninformed opinion.
4) Presented strategies which are rigid and leave room for only positive or
negative, not alternate responses, and there is a presumption built into the
questions that these options are the “best” solutions for the supposed
“problems”.
o Many of the questions are invalid because they are misleading ,or the context for
the question and its interpretation are incomplete, for example:
1) The efficacy of increasing enforcement compared to other strategies is not
acknowledged (even though respondents call for increased enforcement).
2) The fact that dogs are not cited as a reason for feeling unsafe in OSMP (while
90% of the respondents feel safe).
3) 42% of the respondents did not perceive conflicts among OSMP activities
(while the question implies that conflict is a significant problem).
o The interpretation of the results seems biased against dogs, based on the
conclusion that dog-related complaints are very prominent when only 19% identify
the need for improvements, while 81% have no dog-related complaints. Further, dog-
related results are singled out compared to other issues, with examples of:
1) The fact that 8% of the 19% relate to dog droppings is cited as significant,
while similar conclusions are not reached for survey results of the same
magnitude that apply to the deficiencies for other activities.
2) 7% in favor of stronger enforcement of leash rules is cited as a significant
number, while other responses of the same magnitude for other activities are
not.
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmpIssuePaperonDogManagement Revised_0714.doc 16
What Are the Arguments in Favor of Continuing Current Dog Access and
Dog Management Requirements?
This section summarizes the arguments in favor of continuing current dog access and dog
management requirements. The following section summarizes arguments in favor of more
restricted dog access and dog management requirements. The source of these two contrasting
sets of arguments includes comments from the public, the various advisory committees, FIDOS,
staff observations and analysis, and published and unpublished literature.
• Benefits to the welfare of dog guardians and dogs:
o Enjoyment of dog guardians and dogs while recreating outdoors. Dog walking is
very popular and provides enjoyment to a large group of OSMP users that benefit by
access to outdoor recreation opportunities on OSMP.
o Healthy bodies and healthy minds. Walking a dog encourages dog guardians to
exercise, provides a way of coping with stress, and contributes to better physical and
mental health. The therapeutic benefits provided by dog as companions are well
documented.
o Protection provided by dogs. Many dog guardians believe that dogs provide an
essential service by providing protection from wild animals and people in both front-
country and backcountry recreation areas.
o Dog exercise and socialization opportunities. Dogs need exercise to support both
their physical and mental health, and they need opportunities to interact with other
dogs and people on public lands in order to learn to learn acceptable behavior and be
good members of society. Regular exercise, diverse experiences, and socialization on
public lands all contribute to good dog behaviors (which benefit society at large).
o Dog Aggression. In general, dogs are more aggressive on leash (Reid 2004, Santa
Cruz SPCA 2004). If expansion of on-leash requirements occurs, complaints about
dog aggression to other dogs will likely increase.
o Dispersal of dog walking activities. Spreading dog walking activities over a larger
number of areas prevents the damaging concentration of resource impacts in those
areas.
o Keep Boulder special. The traditions of providing open and free access to most of
OSMP’s land to dogs and allowing dogs to recreate off leash with their companions
has great value to many Boulder area residents. Maintaining current privileges and
freedoms for dogs is one of the things that make Boulder unique and special. And it
is one of the reasons that many people live in or near Boulder.
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmpIssuePaperonDogManagement Revised_0714.doc 17
• Benefits to the community at lare:
o Enjoyment of non-dog guardians. Some non-dog guardians enjoy coming in
contact with or seeing dogs on OSMP. Dogs may stimulate social interaction among
OSMP visitors.
o Teaching the children. Allowing adults and children to recreate outdoors with dogs
teaches children the value of treating dogs and other pets humanely, how to be
responsible, and how to share. Spending quality time with dogs also helps foster
family cohesion.
o Healthy communities. Allowing dog guardians to exercise and recreate with their
dogs creates healthier and happier people who then are able to interact with
neighbors, coworkers, friends and others in more constructive ways, contributing to
the overall mental health of the population.
• Fairness for all OSMP users including dog guardians. Dog guardians are a legitimate
recreational user group and deserve to be treated the same way as other visitors. Dog
guardians are often denied their fair share of access and subjected to greater accountability
for the impacts of their activity than other users.
o Dog walking should not be singled out in restricting access or opportunities, unless
dog impacts are demonstrated to be more severe than other recreational activities. No
hard data shows that dogs cause more resource degradation than climbers, bikers, or
equestrians.
o More formal studies should be required before justifications are valid to restrict dog
activities on OSMP.
o Dog guardians that feel they are treated fairly will be motivated to higher levels of
compliance and to better stewardship of the land.
• Possible unintended effects of reduced off-leash access for dogs. Attempts to solve the
problems caused by some dog guardians and dogs may result in unintended consequences,
such as:
o Additional crowding and conflict in areas that still allow dogs on leash.
o More severe resource impacts due to concentration of dog activities in fewer areas.
o Increase in wasteful driving to limited areas that allow dog access and dogs off
leash, causing more air pollution, energy consumption, and lost time.
• Dog companions provide an essential service contributing to the safety of visitors. Many
visitors depend on their dogs, especially women, to protect them from potential dangers from
wildlife predators and human deviants when they are recreating on OSMP.
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmpIssuePaperonDogManagement Revised_0714.doc 18
What Are the Arguments in Favor of More Restricted Dog Access and Dog
Management Requirements?
This section summarizes the arguments in favor of more restricted dog access and dog
management requirements. The previous section summarizes arguments in favor of continuing
current dog access and dog management requirements. The source of these two contrasting sets
of arguments includes comments from the public, the various advisory committees, FIDOS, staff
observations and analysis, and published and unpublished literature.
• Meeting the desires of a portion of the public (as revealed in complaints, surveys, and
public comments). A significant portion of the public feels that the impacts of dogs are
unacceptable and consequently dog management should be more strict.
o Many people feel that voice-and-sight control does not work because of their direct
experience with unpleasant dog encounters.
o Many feel that the amount of dog excrement not picked up in certain areas is
unacceptable.
o Many people feel that the biggest problem with dogs historically and currently is their
impact in degrading the quality of wildlife habitat and causing stress and harm to
wildlife.
o Many people have asked for additional opportunities for no-dog trails, in order to
avoid the annoyance or wildlife impact caused by dogs not under adequate control.
• Protecting natural ecosystems and agricultural productivity. The quality of the natural
resources and the naturalness of ecosystems on OSMP is the primary reason that many
people recreate on OSMP. Further, OSMP’s mission under the City Charter provides the
responsibility to land managers to preserve, protect, and restore the land resources on OSMP
lands over the long haul for both the sake of humans and the inhabitants of OSMP lands. If
the existing dog management practices do not adequately support this mission, then OSMP
should seek more dog walking restrictions that will support the mission.
• Dealing with uncertainty in a responsible and cautionary way. OSMP natural
ecosystems harbor an incredibly diverse and rich community of plants and animals. Many of
these plants and animals may be vulnerable to impacts from visitor activities. Some of these
species and populations may have the potential to decline or disappear if they cannot tolerate
human presence or impacts. The contribution of dogs to the decline of sensitive species and
ecosystems, is largely unknown. Given this uncertainty, and the reality that once some of
these species are gone they cannot be restored, it would be prudent for OSMP to implement
more restrictions on dogs to protect plants and animals, as the overwhelming majority of
other public land agencies do.
• Reducing or eliminating the regional draw of dog walkers and associated impacts on
OSMP. Overuse of OSMP lands by visitors in many places is evident by degradation of
trails and natural resources. To the extent that Boulder’s OSMP is a magnet for drawing
many out of city and out of county visitors, and they contribute to this degradation, then it
would seem prudent to eliminate the incentive for people to travel to OSMP to walk their dog
off leash.
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmpIssuePaperonDogManagement Revised_0714.doc 19
Attachment A
Dogs on Leash Requirements in Various Jurisdictions
Note: These jurisdictions were surveyed via posted internet regulations or phone contact with
appropriate officials. Except as noted, dogs on leash is a management regulation used by the
following jurisdictions:
Adams County (except for a portion of the Fairgrounds)
Arvada
Denver (including the Denver Mountain Parks)
Douglas County
Boulder County
Broomfield County
Fort Collins
Jefferson County
Larimer County
Lafayette
Lakewood
Longmont
Louisville (only exception a small part of Davidson Mesa)
Loveland
Superior (all land within the city is on leash, no open space properties yet)
Westminster (only exception Colorado Hills 20-acre open space property)
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmpIssuePaperonDogManagement Revised_0714.doc 20
Attachment B
Summary of Major Results from Empirical Studies
on Dog Management Issues
Bekoff, M. and R.W. Ickes. 1999. Behavioral interactions and conflict among domestic
dogs, black-tailed prairie dogs, and people in Boulder, Colorado. Anthrozoos 12(2):105-
110.
Observational Study at Dry Creek Open Space
• About 60% of all visiting dogs barked at prairie dogs, ran towards burrows, chased prairie
dogs, or chased and attempted to extract concealed individuals.
• Dogs at Dry Creek went off trail more often and further than dogs at other locations,
probably because of the presence of prairie dogs.
• Some dogs were repeated nuisances, while others never disturbed prairie dogs.
• Large dogs disturbed prairie dogs more than small dogs.
• Prairie dogs disturbed by dogs were alert more often and played less often than undisturbed
individuals.
• Disturbed prairie dogs were less wary and more habituated to the presence of humans than
undisturbed individuals.
• Negative effects on the health, mortality, or reproductive success of prairie dogs due to
disturbance by dogs is unknown.
• It was concluded that the scope of dog-related problems do not require more than continuing
current education and enforcement efforts for dog management.
Beckoff, M. and C.A. Meaney. 1997. Interactions among dogs, people, and the environment
in Boulder, Colorado: a case study. Anthrozoos 10(1):23-31.
Observational Study
• Off-leash dogs generally did not travel far off trail, and when they did, it was for short
periods of time.
• Off-leash dogs were rarely observed to chase dogs, disturb people, chase wildlife, or destroy
vegetation.
• There was no trailhead effect: dogs’ behavior differed little when they first were let free,
during their travels in intermediate sections of the trail, and when they completed their walks.
Questionnaire
• Dog owners and non-dog owners agreed that people were more disruptive to the environment
than dogs, and that unruly people were more problematic than unruly dogs.
• A significantly higher proportion of non-dog owners thought that there were too many piles
of dog feces left on or near trails (although in both cases the proportion was less than one-
third).
• Large majorities of respondents thought:
o Dogs should not be banned from Open Space.
o Additional areas where dogs could run free should be established.
o There should be stricter enforcement of voice and sight control.
o People were comfortable with dogs off leash.
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmpIssuePaperonDogManagement Revised_0714.doc 21
Jones, M.K. and B. Bruyere. June 2004. Frontcountry leave no trace program evaluation,
City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks. International Symposium on Society
and Natural Resources, Keystone, Colorado.
Pre/Post Education Campaign Surveys
• OSMP visitors have a high level of knowledge about Leave No Trace (LNT) principles.
• LNT knowledge was already high and increased minimally after concentrated six-month
LNT educational effort.
• The most cited reason to not pick up poop was no bag.
• The most cited statement (over half) by dog walkers that would influence their dog
management compliance was “Not controlling my dog may lead to a loss in dog-walking
privileges.”
• How much one knows or how long someone thinks about Leave No Trace practices,
including “picking up poop” and “keeping your dog under voice and sight control,” had
almost no effect on their likelihood to comply with the respective behavior. This indicates
that further education on the reasons to comply with LNT, including dog management, is not
likely to have an effect with those not complying with a behavior.
• Familiarity with the regulation to “pick up poop” has a somewhat greater affect than the
number of reasons on their intention of dog walkers to pick up poop. This indicates that
focusing on the rules will likely have somewhat more effect at changing pick-up behavior.
• It was concluded that raising awareness about potential consequences of non-compliance
(i.e., education about and increased enforcement, or education about potential loss of
privileges) would be the most effective focus of improving desirable behavior.
Jones, M.K. and R. Lowery. June 2004. Effectiveness of trailhead education on cleaning
up dog litter. International Symposium on Society and Natural Resources, Keystone,
Colorado.
Counting dog waste
• Intensive trailhead education using the “1+ 1” program likely caused a meaningful short term
and longer term (six months) reduction in the amount of dog litter along the trail.
• Over 80% of dog walkers at the study site had a bag with them.
• It was concluded that:
o Trailhead education is a necessity and important part of the solution to dog litter not
being picked up, but it is not the total solution.
o The amount of dog litter piles within the studied 150 trail length, while an
improvement, is not likely an acceptable level of dog litter for the general public.
Miller, S. G., R. L. Knight, and C. K. Miller. 2001. Wildlife responses to pedestrians and
dogs. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:124-132.
• Wildlife species are disturbed by human presence, but the actual wildlife response varies
with several variables: the type of species, the individual animal, the degree to which it has
been habituated to the disturbance, the habitat type and amount of cover, the season and time
of interaction, proximity to human activity, and type of activity (Clarion et al.. 1996).
• Wildlife may be flushed if the human activity becomes too close. This flushing distance
varies by species, but it is affected by the presence of dogs.
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmpIssuePaperonDogManagement Revised_0714.doc 22
• For two grassland bird species, one forest bird specie, and mule deer, several generalizations
can be made about wildlife response:
o The shorter the distance between the animal and the human activity (including dogs),
the greater the likelihood of flushing or alert behavior.
o For some species (in this case the mule deer), the presence of dogs alone or dogs on
leash with humans has a greater disturbance effect than humans alone (greater area of
influence, flushing distance, and distance moved); it is hypothesized that these
animals recognize dogs as predators and are therefore more wary of dogs.
o For grassland bird species, the presence of humans alone or dogs on leash with
humans has a greater disturbance effect than dogs alone; it is hypothesized that these
birds do not consider dogs a predator and / or birds may seek to remain undetected
and not flush until necessary.
o In all cases (humans alone, humans with on-leash dog, and dogs alone), off-trail
activity causes greater disturbance than on-trail activity.
o For certain species (in this case robins in the forest), dogs on leash have the same
disturbance effect as humans alone; it is hypothesized that the animals may perceive
them the same.
Miller, S.G, R.L. Knight and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on
breeding bird communities. Ecological Applications. 8:162-169.
• Trails affected the composition of bird communities in forests and grasslands
o Some species avoid trails (interior habitat species), while some species prefer trails
(habitat edge or generalist species); it is hypothesized that some birds feel more
secure by trails because humans have scared off their predators.
o Nest predation increases
o Nest parasitism increases (in forests)
• The zone of influence approximated 250 feet from the trail for most species.
• Trail effects on wildlife are related both to the presence of the trail and the intensity of the
on-trail activities.
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmpIssuePaperonDogManagement Revised_0714.doc 23
References
Bay Area Trails Preservation Council. Trail Guardian. Should dogs have rights on public lands:
land managers grapple with this issue. www.trailspreservation.org/summer01.htm.
Bekoff, M. and R.W. Ickes. 1999. Behavioral interactions and conflict among domestic dogs,
black-tailed prairie dogs, and people in Boulder, Colorado. Anthrozoos 12(2):105-110.
Beckoff, M. and C.A. Meaney. 1997. Interactions among dogs, people, and the environment in
Boulder, Colorado: a case study. Anthrozoos 10(1):23-31.
Chester, T. 2004. The effects of dogs on wildlife. http://tchester.org/srp/lists/dogs.html.
City of Boise, Idaho. 2004. Information about their Dog and Open Space Advisory Committee
proposal for dog management.
www.cityofboise.org/parks/parks_facilities/Dog_areas_trails/DOSAC_proposal.pdf.
City of Boulder, Open Space and Mountain Parks Department. April 2004a. Draft Open Space
and Mountain Parks Visitor Master Plan.
City of Boulder, Open Space and Mountain Parks Department. April 2004b. 2004 Attitudinal
Survey.
City of Boulder, Open Space and Mountain Parks Department. May 2004. 2003 Dog Contact
Data Collection Pilot Project.
City of Helena. 2004. City of Helena Open Lands Plan, Chapter on Wildlife Protection.
http://www.ci.helena.mt.us/parks/holmp/assets/8_Wildlife.pdf.
Clarion and Associates and Colorado Division of Wildlife. 1996. Managing Development for
People and Wildlife: A Handbook for Habitat Protection by Local Governments.
Colorado Division of Wildlife. May 1998. Free-roaming dogs pose a threat to wildlife.
www.dnr.state.co.us/cdnr_news/wildlife/199861512282.html.
Friends Interested in Dogs and Open Space (FIDOS). June 2004. Proposal for Dog
Management in City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks.
Harlock Jackson Pty Ltd, Blackshaw, J.K., and Marriott, J. 1995. Public Open Space and Dogs:
A Design and Management Guide for Open Space Professionals and Local Government.
www.petnet.com.au/openspace/frontis.html.
Jensen, D.P. April 7, 2004. Mill Creek Canyon to have dog-leash patrol. The Salt Lake
Tribune.
Jones, M.K. and B. Bruyere. June 2004. Frontcountry leave no trace program evaluation, City
of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks. International Symposium on Society and
Natural Resources, Keystone, Colorado.
Jones, M.K. and R. Lowery. June 2004. Effectiveness of trailhead education on cleaning up dog
litter. International Symposium on Society and Natural Resources, Keystone, Colorado.
Kretschman, B. 2004. Rip and tear take a walk: dogs and leashes a perfect match for
wilderness. Colorado Journal. www.coloradojournal.com/dogs-leashes.htm.
Marshall, L. April 11, 2004. Daily Camera. Hot for dogs: it doesn’t get any canine-friendlier
than this.
Mertz, S. 2002. Compliance with Leave No Trace frontcountry principles: a preliminary
examination of visitor behavior. City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks
Department.
Miller, S.G, R.L. Knight and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird
communities. Ecological Applications. 8:162-169.
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmpIssuePaperonDogManagement Revised_0714.doc 24
Miller, S. G., R. L. Knight, and C. K. Miller. 2001. Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:124-132.
Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. 2004. Effects of Dogs on Wildlife.
www.montanatws.org/pages/broch6.html.
Reid, Dr. P. 2004. Dogs gone wild! How to combat aggressive dog behavior. Prindle, M.
www.newyorktails.com/aggressivedog.htm
Sakkestad, G. December 7, 2000. Dogged pursuits. Metro Newspapers of the San Francisco
Bay Area, MetroActive Service.
www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/12.07.00/cover/dogs-0049.html.
Santa Cruz Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). 2004. On-leash
aggression. www.santacruzspca.org.
Sierra Club Yodeler. April 2002. Golden Gate National Recreation Area is wrong place for
unleashed dogs: Park Service must protect fragile ecosystems.
http://sanfranciscobay.sierraclub.org/yodeler/html/2002/04/feature4.htm.
Sime, C.A. 1999. Domestic Dogs in Wildlife Habitats. Pages 8.1 - 8.17. In G. Joslin and H.
Youmans. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: A Review for Montana.
Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society.
Sime, C.A. 2004. Dogs in national parks. www.nps.gov/jotr/manage/dogs/dogs.html.
Wheaton, G. and Mills, E. Undated. The history of dog management policy in Boulder.
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmpIssuePaperonDogManagement Revised_0714.doc 25
Issue Paper on User Fees for Revenue Generation on
Open Space and Mountain Parks Lands—July 9, 2004
Executive Summary
Background
Funding for the acquisition and management of Open Space and Mountain Parks comes
almost entirely from sales tax revenues collected within the City of Boulder. Open Space
user fees are being considered to help pay for system improvements identified in the
proposed OSMP Visitor Master Plan. The Open Space and Mountain Parks Department
(OSMP) has been examining a variety of mechanisms to help fund the Visitor Master
Plan. User fees are among these. This memo provides information about three
alternatives; including two types of user fees and a voluntary donation system. For the
purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that user fees would only be applied to adult out
of county residents1.
Questions for the Board
1. Does the Open Space Board of Trustees support the use of “user fees” to generate
revenue for the Open Space and Mountain Parks system?
2. Does the board support mandatory fees?
3. If so, does the board have a preference between a parking permit system and a
per-person user fee?
4. Under what circumstances, if any, would the Board waive the collection of user
fees?
Recommended Actions
If user fees are to be included in the Visitor Master Plan, staff recommends the following
approach. More details about these recommendations are provided in the body of the
memo.
1. Direct revenue from the fee system to address maintenance and capitol needs in
the visitor infrastructure and make it clear that these funds will be used to pay for
projects that visitors care about.
2. Continue the Flagstaff Mountain parking permit fee system.
3. Direct revenue from the fee system to the Open Space Fund.
4. Institute a broader parking permit fee system at selected trailheads where out-of-
county visitors focus their use and where neighborhood impacts are least likely to
arise.
5. Address safety and environmental impacts of roadside parking.
6. Increase the cost of daily and annual parking permits from $3 and $15 to
$5 and $40.
7. Encourage but do not require Boulder County residents to make voluntary
contributions in parking fee areas.
1
Under this proposal, Jefferson County residents would not be charged for access to City of Boulder
OSMP lands that lie in Jefferson County
1
8. Expand fee/donation stations to other busy trailheads if donation program
successful in expanded fee areas.
9. Evaluate the costs and benefits of the fee system after one year; and make
adjustments based upon what is learned from implementation.
Current Situation
A user fee system for the Mountain Parks areas of Flagstaff Mountain and Gregory
Canyon was approved by City Council in 1992 and was implemented in May of 1993.
The system, still in effect, requires that all out of county residents purchase either a $3
daily parking permit, or a $15 annual parking pass. Boulder county residents who
register their vehicles in Boulder County are allowed to park in the fee area at not cost.
User fees could reduce the degree to which general tax revenues subsidize facilities or
services provided to a specific and identifiable group of people. Fees are most often used
when a service or facility meets two criteria. First, the use of the service or facility by
individuals for their personal benefit results in direct fiscal costs to the community.
Second, the group of users responsible for the cost is identifiable and distinct from the
general population that bears the cost for service or facility. Sometimes user fees are
applied to services that are used by a subset of the population (e.g. art lessons at the
recreation center, or visits to a municipal pool). User fees can also be used to offset the
costs of providing services to people who do not bear the cost of providing the facility or
service. These people are most often non-residents. For example, Boulder charges higher
fees for some services (sewer and water) to out of city users.
Recreational use of OSMP lands results in direct fiscal costs to the community. A
significant part of OSMP management is involved in maintaining and rebuilding the
trails, trailheads and other visitor facilities due to wear and tear of daily use, accidents
and vandalism. Direct costs for maintenance of visitor facilities on Open Space and
Mountain Parks are greater than $3 million each year. In addition, other visitor services
such as emergency response, educational programming and law enforcement all result in
direct costs to the community. Providing visitor services accounts for well over half of
the operating budget of the OSMP department.
It is likely that some visitors to OSMP lands do not make significant contributions to city
of Boulder sales tax. Retail growth in Broomfield, Superior, southwestern Longmont,
Lafayette and Louisville coupled with the loss of Crossroads Mall has resulted in the city
of Boulder losing its position as a primary regional shopping destination. At the same
time, the OSMP program has continued to acquire land and invest in visitor services.
The question of who is actually paying for open space in the region has become
extremely complex. The population is extremely mobile with individuals and families
traveling to various destinations to work, study, live, shop and recreate. Until the early
1970s, Boulder was the only community in the nation that taxed itself for the preservation
and maintenance of open land. However, today there are 50 funded public Open Space
programs across the state with a sales tax supported programs in every city and county
that is contiguous to the Boulder area. Therefore, while it is relatively straightforward to
2
identify where someone lives, it is much more complex to identify where and to what
level they pay taxes and for what services.
Although there are now sales tax-funded open space programs in all the cities and
counties contiguous to Boulder, OSMP lands remain a regional destination for outdoor
recreation. Recent visitation studies indicated that somewhere between 10 and 20 percent
of the visits to Open Space and Mountain Parks lands originate outside of Boulder
County. This suggests that there is a group of Open Space and Mountain Parks visitors
who use facilities and services for their own benefit, and yet do not contribute
significantly to funding OSMP and operation and maintenance costs. A user fee could
help remedy this inequity by establishing a program through which all visitors help fund
the services and facilities they enjoy.
Visitor fees have uses beyond revenue generation. For example, contacts between
visitors and rangers improve the visitor experience by providing people an opportunity to
have their questions answered and offering assurances that rangers or other staff members
are available to offer assistance. Conversations between visitors and OSMP staff are also
useful to pass on information about how to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
User fees also act, to some degree, as disincentives for the use of public lands and can
therefore be used to control demand. While these are relevant factors for a consideration
of user fees, this memo focuses upon the role of user fees in generating revenue to close
the potential budget gap identified in the draft Visitor Master Plan.
Alternatives
There are two dominant models for recreational user fee systems. Open Space and
Mountain Parks currently uses a parking fee. In a parking fee system, a permit is
purchased for each motor vehicle parked in designated areas. The permit is typically
displayed on the dashboard, as decal in the window, or some other place easily viewed by
enforcement staff. Some land management agencies charge a per-person user fee. A
per-person fee would require that each person entering Open Space and Mountain Parks
lands have a permit in their possession which could be produced to show compliance.
Issues
This section explores the key issues associated with user fees as a revenue generation
tool: 1) potential revenue from an OSMP-wide user fee system, 2) costs associated with
implementation and 3) feasibility issues. Feasibility is described in terms of the
complexity and “do-ability” of user fees as well as considerations of how different
approaches are aligned with the motivations of Open Space and Mountain Parks visitors.
3
Benefits
Potential revenue for a non-resident user fee system depends upon several variables (Table
1).
Table 1: Variables that determine user fee revenue
• Total number of visits
• Percent of out-of-county visits
• Rates of compliance with fee regulations
• Fee amount
• Type of fee structure (parking permit v. per person fee)
• Number of visitors turned away because of
cost/unwillingness to pay
Total Visits
The best available information for estimating total number of visits to the Open Space and
Mountain Parks system is derived from the Open Space visitation study completed in 1993
with subsequent updates and a visitation study conducted on Mountain Parks in 1996. The
1993 Open Space study estimated approximately 1.5 million annual visits. In 1996,
estimated Open Space visitation grew to 1.7 million; and in 1998 to 1.9 million. The 1996
Mountain Parks study estimated approximately 1.5 million visits. Based upon conservative
growth factors the Open Space and Mountain Parks Department estimates there will be
between 3.5 and 4 million visits to City of Boulder OSMP in 2004 (see table 2 for
estimated visitation projections). A yearlong visitation study is currently underway to
provide an up-to-date measure of current visitation levels.
Table 2: Estimated and projected visitation levels based upon a 5% annual growth rate.
Annual rate of visitation change estimated on Open Space 1993-1998 = 5%.
Open Mountain
Year Space Parks Total
1993 1.5 n/a n/a
1996 1.7 1.5 3.2
1997 1.8 1.6 3.4
1998 1.9 1.7 3.6
1999 2.0 1.7 3.7
Open Space and Mountain Parks
2000 3.9
2001 4.1
2002 4.3
2003 4.5
2004 4.8
Millions of visits
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmp_issue paper_user fees_0714.doc 4
Percent of Out-of-County Visits
The most recent field data available (1993 report for former Open Space system and 2000 for
former Mountain Parks system) are summarized in table 3. This information suggests that
somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of the visits to OSMP originate from outside Boulder
County. Numbers are higher from the former Mountain Parks system. This is likely because
Flagstaff Mountain and Chautauqua are popular destination for sightseers and visitors.
Table 3: Origin for Open Space and Mountain Parks Visits
PLACE OF RESIDENCE
Other Total
Boulder Metro Colorado Out of Out of
Year Location Boulder County Denver (other) State County
1992-3 Open 75% 16% 2% 4.8% 3% 9.8 %
Space
2000 Mountain 60% 18% 9% 2% 8% 19%
Parks
Based upon visitation and origin figures, the number of out of county visits per year to
OSMP could range between 350,000 and 800,000.
Rates of Compliance
Compliance rates are difficult to estimate because there are many factors that affect whether
or not a visit to Open Space and Mountain Parks will result in fee payment. Some visitors
will avoid fee areas because they cannot or do not wish to pay. Traditionally, willingness to
pay has been measured using a survey question such as: “Would you be willing to pay $X for
day use in Boulder’s Open Space and Mountain Parks?” Surveyors have not used this
specific question. However, in a recent survey of Boulder residents, user fees were rated as
the least appropriate of 12 management strategies. User fees were twice as likely to be
considered inappropriate when compared with other strategies.
Research has indicated that education increases willingness to pay among visitors. First,
visitors must be aware of the fee requirement. In some places, such as many national parks,
attendants collect fees at the major entry points leaving no room for ambiguity. On land
systems like OSMP with hundreds of access points, media campaigns, signs and patrolling
rangers are used to inform the public about fee requirements. Education about the use of fees
is also important. People are far more likely to support fees when revenue is being used for
identifiable, on-site projects directly associated with visitor use.
Willingness to pay is also affected by enforcement. Some fee programs lack enforcement
because they lack a reliable way of verifying regulatory compliance. Others may have sound
verification, but have inadequate enforcement. Compliance with mandatory fees tends to be
higher where fee payment is verifiable and the fee regulations are enforced.
Based upon estimates of visitation, out-of-county use, and actual revenue collection for the
year 2000, compliance rates for Flagstaff Mountain in that year were estimated at about 30%.
Given the range of variables that affect willingness to pay and their dependence upon the
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmp_issue paper_user fees_0714.doc 5
way in which a user fee is implemented, initial compliance rates could fall within a wide
range.
Fee Amount
The amount charged is a key variable for assessing the revenue generation capability of user
fees. The fee amount, especially the price last paid for similar services, is another factor that
affects visitors’ willingness to pay. A $3 daily parking fee has been charged to out-of-county
residents on Flagstaff Mountain since 1993. Records indicated that no other parking or use
fees have been assessed on OSMP lands. Out-of-county residents may also purchase an
annual pass for $15. These are not unusually high day use recreation fees for Colorado.
Colorado State Parks charges between $3 and $7 per day depending upon season and location
(Eldorado Canyon charges $6). The US Forest Service charges a $5 fee per day in the
Arapaho National Recreation Area in Grand County. Larimer County Parks and Open Lands
charges $6 to 7 per day for access to selected properties. Boulder Reservoir charges per user,
with fees ranging from $2.50 to $5.50, depending upon age.
Estimates of Potential Revenue
The Flagstaff Mountain parking permit fee system is in its 12th year of operation. Parking is
free for all Boulder County residents who register their car in Boulder County. All others are
required to pay either a $3 daily fee or a $15 annual fee to park at Gregory Canyon or on
Flagstaff Mountain. A summary of permit revenue is provided in Table 4. The average
annual revenue from parking permits has been about $39,000.
Table 4: Revenue from the sale of parking permits
Source of data: 1993-1996-Internal Accounting; 1997-2003-City of Boulder Finance System (BFS)
Year Total Revenue
1993 $27,302.00 (six months)
1994 $41,689.00
1995 $40,926.00
1996 $38,858.00
1997 $ 44,911.80
1998 $ 42,792.50
1999 $ 43,733.40
Entrance
2000 $ 42,507.60 station closed
2001 $ 37,512.54 &
2002 $ 35,939.58 Enforcement
reduced
2003 $ 33,464.05
Although rangers have traditionally issued tickets for violation of the parking permit
regulations, fines collected for these violations are retained by the General Fund to help
offset costs of the Municipal Court. Alternative “ticketing” approaches have been tried to
avoid extra work for the costs and lost revenue for the management agency. The Forest
Service provides visitors with a “ticket” that gives visitors a second chance to pay the user
fee by mail.
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmp_issue paper_user fees_0714.doc 6
A fee revenue calculator was developed by staff to estimate revenue under a variety of
scenarios based upon the values listed in Table 1. Table 5 contains derived revenue estimates
for both parking permits and per-person user fees under low, mid and high revenue scenarios.
It is very possible that net revenues will be closer to the “low” scenario. The Flagstaff
Mountain parking fee system has generated only an average of $39,000 per year. This area
has consistently contained a large percentage of all OSMP visits and trails. It also has a
relatively large number of defined parking spaces, relatively controlled access to the land
(Flagstaff Road) that virtually requires most visitation to occur form the road, and six pay
stations. Therefore, it might not be reasonable to assume that we could get more that a 50%
increase for adding fee collections in other areas of our system.
Table 5: Revenue projections from selected scenarios for parking permits and per-person user
permits
% Cost
Out of Fee Annual Annual No Approximate
Scenario Visitation County Amount Pass Pass Pay2 Revenue
Parking Permit
Low 3 million 10% $3 0.1% $15 75 $67,500
Medium 3.75 15% $4 0.2% $25 63 $311,200
million
High 4.5 million 20% $5 0.25% $40 50 $929,800
Per Person User Permit
(assuming 10% of visits are children for whom there is no permit
fee)
% Cost
Out of Fee Annual Annual No Approximate
Scenario Visitation County Amount Pass Pass Pay1 Revenue
Low 3 million 10% $1 0.1% $10 75 $47,700
Medium 3.75 15% $2 .2% $20 63 $324,000
million
High 4.5 million 20% $3 .3% $40 50 $1,180,000
Revenue from the Flagstaff Mountain parking fee system is deposited in the City’s Open
Space Fund. Each year funding from the General Fund is transferred to the Open Space
Fund to help support the management of the previous Mountain Parks system (Table 6). The
General Fund transfer is based on a calculation of subsidy for services less projected
revenues from the parking and facility rentals in the Flagstaff Mountain Area. In order for
revenue from an expanded fee system to provide an increase in available funding, fee
revenue should be designated or restricted as an increment to the Open Space fund and not
used to offset the existing General Fund transfer.
2
No pay = those turned away + those who park and do not pay + those given waivers by city policy
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmp_issue paper_user fees_0714.doc 7
Table 6: General Fund Transfer for Mountain Parks (2005 values proposed)
Year Amount Annual Change
2001 $1,241,722 n/a
2002 $1,243,083 0.16%
2003 $1,221,462 -1.77%
2004 $1,011,921 -17.12
2005 $ 990,779 -20.35%
Net change since inception of transfer -18.45%
(2001-2004)
Costs
The start-up costs identified for the Flagstaff Mountain parking permit fee system were
estimated to be $6,000 in a 1992 staff memo to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.
This amount included the costs of self-service pay stations and signs. The estimate did not
include the cost of staff training or construction of the Panorama Point entrance station,
which is no longer in use.
The annual operational costs of the Flagstaff parking permit program were estimated at
approximately $57,000 (1992 dollars). This included funding for three rangers dedicated to
fee system enforcement, one vehicle, an entrance station attendant at Panorama Point, and the
cost of printing permits. The annual cost estimate did not include the administrative costs
associated with processing annual permit requests or handing and accounting for permit
revenues. A recent audit of the fee system indicates that annual administrative costs were
about $2,000 at the time the Open Space and Mountain Parks programs were consolidated.
OSMP currently estimates that it costs over $12,000 annually to collect and count the fees
exclusive of enforcement costs or administrative overhead.
Instituting a system-wide parking permit program on OSMP lands would have additional
costs for start-up as well as operation and maintenance. Start up costs would be necessary for
staff training, education, and fee stations. Depending on the type of fee station, installation
costs for signs and the stations could range from $2,500 per location for traditional pay tubes
(“Iron Rangers”) to over $20,000 per location for solar powered automated fee collection
stations. Pass vending machines have several advantages over Iron Rangers. They allow
visitors to pay using either cash or a credit card. Some visitors take permits from an Iron
Ranger dispenser and do not pay, hoping that enforcement staff will not be comparing the
contents of the payment vault with the stubs on the dashboard. With vending machines,
tickets are only produced when payment is made. There are 33 designated trailhead parking
lots on Open Space and Mountain Parks lands. Pay tubes are already in place at six of these.
Placing fee stations at the remaining trailheads would cost between $70,000 and $660,000
depending upon the number of automated dispensers and Iron Rangers used. It is likely that
if vending machines were used at all, they would only be recommended for areas where cost
recovery was likely because of high levels of out-of-county visitation. Also, parking fees
would only be recommended at trailheads where minimal neighborhood parking impacts
would be likely to occur. Other start up costs would include staff training and educational
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmp_issue paper_user fees_0714.doc 8
initiatives associated with the roll-out of the fee system. The cost for these elements is
estimated at approximately $10,000.
Because of changes in the state’s vehicle license plate system, enforcement staff needs a new
way to verify that a vehicle is registered in Boulder County. This could be done by providing
residents of Boulder County with identifying stickers. It would cost approximately $40,000
annually to produce decals for the county’s approximately 200,000 registered vehicles.
Alternatively, OSMP staff could access the motor vehicle registration database. Installing
equipment to allow for mobile database access would cost approximately $6,500 per vehicle.
The parking permit fee system could also require an annual computer maintenance fee and a
subscription to the motor vehicle registration database (additional $2,000/year).
Start up costs for a system-wide per-person user fee would be slightly less than those for a
parking permit fee system because there would be no need to verify county of registration for
vehicles. Signs, education, staff training and the installation of fee stations would also be
required.
Annual expenditures for a system-wide fee system would include printing and distributing
permits, as well as collecting and processing fees. The cost for these services is estimated at
approximately $65,000.
Enforcement is a significant cost of either fee system approach. Research has demonstrated
that consistent enforcement, especially in the early years, is critical to the success of a fee
program. The dispersed nature of much of the OSMP land system makes enforcement
challenging. Staff charged with enforcement would spend considerable time traveling from
one OSMP property to another. On Flagstaff Mountain, the bulk of staff time is spent
actually enforcing the fee regulations, not driving from property to property.
Enforcement costs of a per-person user fee would be greater than a parking permit fee. In
order to enforce a per-person fee, staff would need to verify that each individual had a valid
permit. In most cases this would require a staff member to stop and speak with a person to
determine if they held a valid permit. This requires considerably greater time than checking
vehicle license plates and dashboards.
A minimum of three staff positions for the per-person user fee would be needed to provide an
average of 11 hours of daily coverage seven days a week. Partial coverage (weekends from
Oct-March; 11 hours/day Apr-Sept) would require 1.5 FTE. This staffing level would not be
sufficient to provide daily coverage to the entire system. One seasonal ranger position
equipped with uniform, radio, and a vehicle would cost about $35,000/year.
Table 7 shows a summary of low and high cost and gross revenue estimates for system-wide
parking and per person user fee systems. Table 8 gives net revenue (or deficit) estimates for
four cost/revenue scenarios.
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmp_issue paper_user fees_0714.doc 9
Table 7: Cost and revenue estimates for user fee proposals
Parking Permit Per-Person Fee
Low High Low High
Costs
6-year Cost $ 742,300 $ 1,885,060 $ 1,148,000 $ 4,842,880
Revenue (see table 6)
6-year Gross $ 405,000 $ 5,578,800 $ 286,200 $ 7,080,000
Net Revenue $ (337,300.00) $ 3,693,740.00 $ (861,800.00) $ 2,237,120.00
Table 8: Six year net revenue estimates for user fee proposals.
Parking Fee
Net Revenue
Low Revenue High Revenue
Low Cost $ (337,300) $ 4,836,500
High Cost $ (1,480,060) $ 3,693,740
Per User Fee
Net Revenue
Low Revenue High Revenue
Low Cost $ (861,800) $ 5,932,000
High Cost $ (3,694,880) $ 2,237,120
Feasibility
A recent public opinion poll indicates that there is relatively little community support for user
fees. Several factors contribute to this public sentiment. There is an understandable preference
for free access to public lands. User fees have been criticized as an example of unfair “double
taxation”, with some members of the public expressing the sentiment that sales tax revenues
should be sufficient to fund both purchase and management of OSMP properties.
Some “out of town” visits are due to people visiting friends in Boulder, or staying in Boulder
lodging. In 1992 the Boulder Hotel & Motel Association (a local business group) expressed
concern about the then-proposed parking fee for Flagstaff Mountain. They noted that visitors
contribute significantly to the local economy and accommodations taxes are already high in
Boulder. The association also noted that the attractive and pleasant environment of the
community is due in part to Open Space and Mountain Parks lands and questioned the impact on
Boulder’s image that would result from charging a fee to “view Boulder from the top of
Flagstaff”. More recently the Boulder Chamber of Commerce has expressed similar concerns
over proposed user fees.
User fees also have inequities for certain individuals or groups. The City and the Open Space
and Mountain Parks program seeks to be inclusive in services and facilities provided to the
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmp_issue paper_user fees_0714.doc 10
community. There is also prevailing public sentiment that outdoor recreation lands should be
open and available to all socioeconomic classes. If user fees are established system-wide, some
individuals will be unable to pay and will be turned away. Fees have a disproportionately high
effect on people with lower income and result in excluding them from fee areas. Even with the
absence of fees, low income families spend less time engaged in outdoor recreation. A
discriminatory effect of user fees would further reduce their use of public lands for recreation,
especially in urbanizing landscapes where the travel costs from urban centers are relatively low.
There are some policy options that could reduce the equity issues of user fees such as “free
days”, rotating “no fee” areas, vouchers, coupons or rebates.
Jefferson County (Jeffco) has a well developed Open Space system that serves as a destination
for residents of Boulder County. The Jeffco Open Space system offers especially well-
developed opportunities for mountain biking that are important destinations for Boulder County
cyclists. With the fee system under consideration, residents of Jeffco would be required to pay
user fees on OSMP lands in Boulder County. Such a policy might cause Jeffco Open Space to
re-examine their free access policies and begin charging out of county residents. The net effect
could be the reduction of free access to important open space destinations for members of both
communities. This effect would be especially severe for Boulder County cyclists who have few
areas on OSMP lands with challenging terrain.
Feasibility Issues Specific to a Parking Permit Fee System
The Flagstaff Mountain system has demonstrated that parking fees can be implemented on
OSMP. Verification of county of registration is more difficult now than in 1992, but there are
technical ways to address this issue.
Two key issues arise over the consideration of parking permit fees: neighborhood impacts, and
the creation of undesignated trails. If parking in OSMP trailheads is no longer free, there will be
an economic incentive for visitors to park elsewhere, including residential neighborhoods.
Increased parking levels in neighborhoods has proven to be a significant community issue
elsewhere where parking restrictions, fees and limits are in place.
In order to avoid parking fees, visitors will also park along roadsides. This can result in
dangerous conditions for visitors as they enter and exit their vehicles. Roadside parking can also
result in environmental impacts to City lands as undesignated trails develop between parking
areas and destinations on OSMP.
Neither of these concerns emerged as issues for the Flagstaff Mountain parking permit fee
system because nearby neighborhoods were not affected and alternative roadside parking areas
were not available. However, if a parking permit fee system is to be expanded to other parts of
the OSMP system, it may be necessary to consider neighborhood parking permit programs (such
as are used around downtown Boulder, and near Boulder and Fairview high schools), or establish
no parking areas along roadways around OSMP trailheads and access points. Working with
neighborhoods to establish such programs would require extensive public input, and result in
significant costs for not only OSMP but other agencies.
Feasibility Issues Specific to Per-Person User Fee
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmp_issue paper_user fees_0714.doc 11
One of the reasons for the success of the parking permit system on Flagstaff Mountain was the
ease with which OSMP staff could determine if a vehicle needed and had a permit. The process
of verification and enforcement was quick and typically did not inconvenience or even involve
the visitor. Enforcement of a per-person user fee is more difficult than a parking permit fee.
Verification is more difficult because rather than checking cars parked at a trailhead, OSMP staff
would need to verify each visitor’s permit. In most cases this would require a staff member to
stop and speak with a person to determine if they hold a valid permit. Reaching the many
destinations throughout the system on a regular enough basis to make the enforcement presence
known would require considerably greater time than checking vehicles for permits.
It may be difficult to gain acceptance of a per-person user fee system because of the requirement
for visitors to carry and present permits. Visitors engaged in many activities prefer to travel
freely and without interruption. This is especially true for runners and cyclists. For many, being
stopped by a ranger to check compliance with user fee system would decrease the quality of their
experience. Furthermore, the notion of having to carry a permit or pass may also inconvenience
visitors, reducing their level of enjoyment.
Any new fees will require an extensive component of public information and education including
the media, as well as education and outreach throughout the community and at on the land
system.
Staff Recommendation
If user fees are to be included in the Visitor Master Plan, staff recommends the following
approach.
1. Direct revenue from the fee system to address maintenance and capitol needs in the
visitor infrastructure and make it clear that these funds will be used to pay for projects that
visitors care about.
Compliance with a fee system and community support for user fees is likely to be higher if it is
clear that user fees will be used to pay for projects visitors care about. Therefore, the OSMP
department will clearly commit the use of these funds to accelerate deferred maintenance and
priority capitol trails projects.
2. Continue the Flagstaff Mountain parking permit fee system.
3. Direct revenue from the fee system to the Open Space Fund.
Each year the OSMP department receives an allocation from the General Fund which was
established at the time of the consolidation to help pay for managing the former Mountain Parks
lands. The mountain backdrop is most in need of expensive trail reconstruction and replacement
and has suffered from deferred maintenance for many years prior to the consolidation in 2001.
The costs for managing the mountain backdrop far exceed the annual General Fund transfer.
Since the formation of the OSMP department, an amount targeted to offset facility and parking
revenue generated on Flagstaff Mountain has been deducted from the calculated “subsidy” of the
General Fund transfer. Given the capital funding needs identified in the Visitor Master Plan, and
the desire of the Boulder community to maintain visitor resources, it is appropriate for the OSMP
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmp_issue paper_user fees_0714.doc 12
department to retain use and facility fees in addition to the General Fund appropriation. All
incremental funding increases resulting from any fee program should be retained for OSMP
management needs.
4. Institute a broader parking permit fee system at selected trailheads where out-of-
county visitors focus their use and where neighborhood impacts are least likely to arise.
If current estimates are correct, there are Open Space and Mountain Parks areas other than
Flagstaff Mountain that are receiving substantial use by out of county residents. However, there
are also places where the vast majority of visitation comes from people within Boulder County.
Because of the costs associated with establishing and servicing a fee area, OSMP should focus
efforts where revenue is likely to be highest. The trailheads in the southern portion of the system
are nearest to neighboring counties and therefore are most likely to be providing facilities and
services to residents of Broomfield and Jefferson counties.
Parking fee areas should be located so as to minimize unintended consequences for residential
areas and to avoid environmental impacts to Open Space and Mountain Parks lands. If avoiding
residential areas is not practical, staff may need to work with residents to develop other methods
of addressing their concerns, such as a neighborhood permit parking program.
5. Address safety and environmental impacts of roadside parking.
Some people will park along the roadways to avoid parking fees. It may be necessary to work
with city, county and state agencies to establish no parking areas in the vicinity of trailheads and
request that OSMP rangers be granted limited commissions to allow them to enforce parking
violations in road right-of-ways.
6. Increase the cost of daily and annual parking permits from $3 and $15 to $5 and $40.
The cost of a parking permit has been unchanged on Flagstaff Mountain for 11 years. A modest
increase in the cost of a permit is not likely to result in a significant drop in compliance, and is
the simplest way to increase net revenue generated by the fee program. These recommended
rates are consistent with fees charged by other local land management agencies.
7. Encourage but do not require Boulder County residents to make voluntary contributions
in parking fee areas.
Encouraging voluntary donations at established fee stations could increase revenue and provide
community members a means to participate in improving the current situation. There will be
additional costs associated with signs and focused outreach effort to inform visitors about the
benefits making a donation to OSMP.
8. Expand fee/donation stations to other busy trailheads if donation program successful in
expanded fee areas.
Some of the most visited OSMP areas are probably not those most used by out of county
residents. If there is found to be a general responsiveness to a donation system in established fee
areas, it may be reasonable to expand fee/donation collection to other areas.
9. Evaluate the costs and benefits of the fee system after one year; and make adjustments
based upon what is learned from implementation.
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmp_issue paper_user fees_0714.doc 13
This recommendation is intended to provide OSMP with information about the effectiveness of
the fee program. The evaluation would look at actual costs and revenues, and other issues that
emerge around feasibility of the program. Based upon the outcome of a year end analysis, the
program could be changed, expanded or discontinued.
S:\OSMP\OSBT\WEB\0714\vmp_issue paper_user fees_0714.doc 14
Issue Paper on Competitive Events on Open Space and Mountain Parks Lands
July 9, 2004
Background
Managers of Boulder’s Open Space and Mountain Parks lands have historically not
allowed competitive events. On lands managed by the former Open Space program
competitive events were handled until 1995 by an informal policy. A staff-level
determination had been made to deny requests for competitive events on Open Space
lands. This decision was based in part on concerns about the cumulative impacts of such
events, and the limited management personnel available to oversee competitive events
and ensure they did not conflict with resource protection or the experience of visitors. In
1995, this policy was formalized in the Open Space Long Range Management Policies
(LRMP) approved by the Open Space Board of Trustees and the City Council. The
policies state, in 9.C.1 Special Uses, that: “. . . Competitive, organized sport or benefit
events shall not be permitted.” There was no public opposition to this policy expressed
during the public process that led up to the adoption of the LRMP.
The question of competitive events came up again during the development of the Open
Space Visitor Master Plan. A committee made up of stakeholders from a variety of
groups developed a set of guidelines for evaluating uses as “passive” or consistent with
the Open Space charter purposes. The first “filter” for an activity or event was the list of
criteria given below:
1. Does the activity contain any of the following elements that are not acceptable on
Open Space?
If so, the activity is not appropriate for Boulder’s Open Space and further evaluation is
not necessary. If unsure, please continue with the next steps in the evaluation process.
a. Motorized activity (except motorized wheelchairs).
b. Involves collection of natural or cultural features (except by permit or license).
c. Requires visitor facilities beyond designated soft-surface trails or requires a high
level of services and/or equipment to safely accommodate proposed use or to
minimize impacts.
d. Has significant adverse impacts [sic] to natural, cultural, scientific, or agricultural
values.
e. Competitive sporting event. (emphasis added)
The report of the Visitor Plan Advisory Committee was available for public comment,
and was approved at a public meeting of the Open Space Board of Trustees. There was
no public opposition to excluding competitive events from those activities considered
“passive” or allowed on Open Space lands.
According to a staff member from the former Mountain Parks program, Mountain Parks
also had an informal policy of prohibiting competitive events. Because Mountain Parks
was part of the Parks and Recreation Department, there were departmental policies
encouraging or supporting competitive events elsewhere in city parks and recreation
facilities. Apparently these policies did not extend to the Mountain Parks. According to
1
accounts, rangers would attempt to shut down competitive events (in this case trail
running races) which came to their attention. There is no mention of a competitive events
policy in the 2001 Boulder Mountain Parks Resource Protection and Visitor Use Plan.
In April of 2003, a Boulder resident approached the department with a request to hold a
race on Open Space and Mountain Parks lands. In keeping with departmental policies, the
request was denied by staff, first verbally and then in writing. The race proponent came
before the OSBT to request a reversal of the staff decision. The event was allowed as a
pilot project to evaluate the costs and benefits of competitive events on Open Space and
Mountain Parks. The race was examined from the perspective of the visitor experience,
the visitor infrastructure and other environmental factors. The Open Space and
Mountain Parks staff communicated to the Open Space Board of Trustees that the event
was “successful” in regards to these three criteria. There was no policy discussion by the
board about the implications of the pilot project for subsequent proposals.
The topic was raised again by the Boulder City Council during a study session (5/11/04)
about the OSMP Visitor Master Plan (VMP). Several members of council expressed a
desire to see competitive events be reconsidered as part of the VMP process.
Questions for the Open Space Board of Trustees
1) Are competitive events (e.g. climbing competitions or foot races) appropriate
visitor uses for Open Space and Mountain Parks lands?
2) If so, should departmental staffing resources be used to facilitate competitive
events on Open Space and Mountain Parks lands?
3) What conditions, if any, should be placed on competitive events on Open Space
and Mountain Parks lands?
Alternatives
The Open Space and Mountain Parks examined three alternatives for handling
competitive events in the Visitor Master Plan: 1) continuing the current policy
prohibiting competitive events, 2) establishing a process for reviewing and permitting
competitive events, and 3) integrating competitive events with the existing special use
permitting process.
Analysis
The department’s chief management concerns for competitive events are impacts to other
visitors, impacts to the OSMP environment and time away from higher priority
community services. The staff’s experience indicates that there is nothing inherent in
competitive events that make them have a greater impact on visitors or the environment
when compared to similar non-competitive events, however the impact on staff resources
could be significant.
In order to address the opportunity costs of competitive events, the staff recommends
placing a limit on the number of events allowed, and evaluating after one year the time
spent on responding to requests for competitive events and facilitating those that are
approved.
2
The OSMP department has a process in place for reviewing requests for special uses of
OSMP lands. The special use permit process (Attachment A, and box below) describes
the process for groups of 50 or more to request permission to engage in passive recreation
activities. The draft Visitor Master Plan recommends lowering this threshold to 25.
Events that involve fewer than 25 people are thought to have a minimal amount of visitor
and environmental impact.
Criteria used by staff for evaluating special use permit applications
• consistency of activity with mission of City of Open Space and Mountain
Parks
• impacts from activity on natural environment (natural and cultural
resources, riparian areas, wetlands, and sensitive species) -- season, time,
intensity, duration
• impacts on adjacent public and private lands (noise, trash, traffic, parking)
• impacts on other users/uses of Open Space and Mountain Parks (safety,
potential conflicts, trailheads)
• compliance with appropriate city regulations and ordinances (attached)
• staff and equipment requirements (enforcement, monitoring, education)
• alternatives available; appropriate uses/events sited in designated areas
• availability of toilet/parking facilities to accommodate proposed special use
• reclamation of disturbed areas
Integrating competitive events into the existing special use permitting process would
require a few minor modifications. One significant difference between some competitive
events and other special uses of OSMP is the likelihood that there would be spectators.
The permitting process would need to be explicit that the numerical threshold triggering
the need for a special use permit (50 or 25) includes spectators. Event proponents would
also need to make a reasonable estimate of the number of spectators anticipated for an
event.
Recommendations
1) End the prohibition of competitive events on Open Space and Mountain Parks lands.
2) Integrate requests for competitive events into OSMP’s existing special use permitting
process.
3) Suggest or require that participants in approved competitive events assist with the
management of OSMP lands, especially trail or trailhead maintenance or
construction.
One of the strongest arguments made in favor of competitive events during Council
and Board discussions was the potential “win-win” nature of these events. The pilot
project’s proponent linked the event with a service project for the participants. Given
the backlog of trail and trailhead projects on OSMP, the combination of competitive
events and community service was a persuasive argument in favor of this event.
3
OSMP would like to encourage broad community participation in land stewardship.
Staff recommends that the special use permitting process be modified to suggest or
require that applicants consider participation in one or more identified stewardship
projects, especially projects related to the interest of their group or the maintenance
of a facility associated with their type of recreational activity.
4) Permit up to four competitive special uses the first year of the program.
5) Assess the program after year one and make adjustments based upon the first year’s
experience.
This policy would be considered successful if it allowed fair consideration of
proposals for competitive events on OSMP lands without significantly affecting
staff’s ability to implement other aspects of the Visitor Master Plan or other
departmental priorities. The policy would be even more successful if it resulted in the
completion of priority stewardship projects by volunteers that would have otherwise
been done by paid staff or not completed at all. A year end report will account for the
costs and benefits in terms of staff and volunteer time, events reviewed, events
approved and stewardship project completed.
Attachment A: Special Use Permit Process
4
CITY OF BOULDER OPEN SPACE AND MOUNTAIN PARKS
SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
Permits for Organized Events (Ordinance) B.R.C. 8-3-14
No person shall organize, promote or stage a recreational, athletic, or social event intended for or which can reasonably
be expected to draw an attendance of 50 or more participants and spectators in any park, parkway, recreation area or
open space without first obtaining a permit from the city manager.
What requires a permit? What will not be permitted
in Mountain Parks and Open Space?
organized non-profit events of 50 people or concerts, amplified events
more (non-profit educational groups, training fund-raising events without city sponsor
sessions, group outings) fires
passive recreational uses of 50 or more organized, recreational sport events
people (including nature study, hiking, commercial uses or profit-making events
climbing, photography and, if specifically (concession permits may be approved for
designated, bicycling, horseback riding, or specific activities)
fishing) any motorized vehicular access or use
public schools are not required to get a organized events requiring off-trail use or
permit; however, schools are required to special facilities not consistent with the
contact the appropriate department to purposes of the area
coordinate the time and place of the activity sale or dispensing of alcohol
any use/event which violates city, county, or
*Parks and Recreation shelters and facilities are rented
state laws
through the Facility Use Agreement and are exempt
from the special use permit process. Please call the
Parks and Recreation Department at 303-413-7200 for
more information.
Criteria used by staff for evaluating special use permit applications
• consistency of activity with mission of City of Open Space and Mountain Parks (see below)
• impacts from activity on natural environment (natural and cultural resources, riparian areas, wetlands, and sensitive
species) -- season, time, intensity, duration
• impacts on adjacent public and private lands (noise, trash, traffic, parking)
• impacts on other users/uses of Open Space and Mountain Parks (safety, potential conflicts, trailheads)
• compliance with appropriate city regulations and ordinances (attached)
• staff and equipment requirements (enforcement, monitoring, education)
• alternatives available; appropriate uses/events sited in designated areas
• availability of toilet/parking facilities to accommodate proposed special use
• reclamation of disturbed areas
Purposes of City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks
City of Boulder Open Space lands are to be preserved and used for the (1) preservation and restoration of natural areas,
(2) preservation of water resources in their natural or traditional state, scenic areas or vistas, wildlife habitats or fragile
ecosystems and (3) preservation of land for appropriate passive recreational use/uses (e.g., hiking, photography or
nature studies and, if specifically designated, bicycling, horseback riding or fishing).
Event Name:
Event Date & Time:
Site/Activity Plan - To be completed by applicant.
Type of activity:
Purpose of event (social, fund raising, etc.):
Time and duration of event:
Organizers: Sponsors:
Address:
Phone number:
Number of participants: Observers: Event personnel:
Map of event (general location, identify specific locations of all aspects of the event- i.e. parking, trash,
restrooms, aid stations, etc.) - please attach to application.
Notification of event - how are participants being notified:
Resources/facilities you are intending to provide (event personnel, restrooms, trash, transportation, parking
and marshals, aid stations, signs, medical personnel, tables, chairs, canopies, etc.):
City resources you are requesting (these resources may or may not be available) - check the appropriate
boxes.
ٱ Trash receptacles ٱ Parking
ٱ Restrooms ٱ Picnic facilities
ٱ Staff (law enforcement, medical, etc.) ٱ Signs
ٱ Equipment ٱ Other - please specify:
ٱ Trails/entry ways
Please provide details on the resources checked above (show location on site map, quantity of resources
needed, time frame, etc.).
Does the event provide any liability insurance? If so, please provide details on the amount of coverage and
who is covered.
How will the event be organized and conducted? (Dispersed, one large group, etc.)
Who will be responsible for cleanup of the site and trash removal?
What safety measures are planned for the event (medical personnel, safety precautions, etc.)
Alternative sites considered and reasons for sites chosen and not chosen.
Any other pertinent information that will aid in the evaluation of your permit. (See evaluation criteria).
General requirements for special uses on Open Space and Mountain Parks
1. All applications are required to be submitted at least 14 days in advance. It is recommended that
applications be submitted as soon as possible to allow for event scheduling and notification of
participants.
2. No alcohol shall be sold or dispensed (except where permitted on certain areas of Mountain Parks).
3. Toilet/parking facilities must be adequate for the proposed use/event.
4. Event signs must be approved by the department. No signs advertising the use/event are permitted.
5. Event/activity organizers must remove all trash and approved event signs.
6. Organizers are responsible for providing safety and medical coverage for the use/event.
7. Please note, approval of event does not give exclusive rights to a location or parking facilities.
8. It is the organizers responsibility to take all reasonable means to notify participants of event
cancellation and the conditions of permit approval.
9. The application must be signed by at least one adult resident of the city.
10. If a special use permit is issued, no fees or charges will be assessed by the event organizers for the
use/event.
11. The applicant is responsible to assure that all event spectators, participants, and personnel comply with
all applicable state and city laws (see attached regulations).
Rain-out policy - In the event of rain/snow within 48 hours of proposed event/activity, the event/activity may
have to be rescheduled or cancelled.
Refund policy - Security deposits will be returned in full or a portion (depending on extent of damages
incurred).
Fees and Deposits - Security deposits of permitted uses/events will be determined by the appropriate
department based upon reviews of the permit application. The minimum charge will be $100.00.
That I, my heirs, executors and assigns indemnify and hold harmless the City of Boulder for any claims,
amounts, and/or damages that may arise during the special use permit. That I release the City of Boulder and
all of its agents from all liability for any injury which might be inflicted on third persons or property during
the special use permit period.
Signature of Applicant Date
Department Approval Date
Conditions of Approval
Disapproved Date
Reasons for department disapproval:
Issue Paper on Commercial Uses on
Open Space and Mountain Parks Lands—June 9, 2004
Background
Commercial uses are activities involving the use of Open Space and Mountain Parks
(OSMP) lands where fees are charged or for profit services are provided. Commercial
uses may be either “for-profit” or “not-for-profit”.
OSMP provides a venue for a wide range of commercial uses (see table below). The
range of commercial enterprises is a reflection of the many ways that OSMP fosters
connections to the natural world and supports activities that bring people together.
Providing such connections are important services provided by OSMP. The department
seeks to ensure that commercial uses are compatible with all of the program’s charter
purposes and the specific objectives of the Visitor Master Plan.
Examples of Commercial Uses of Open Space and Mountain Parks Lands
Schools/Lessons Hiking-Related
Rock climbing Singles hikes
Hang and Para Gliding Nature hikes
Race training (e.g. Bolder Boulder)
Environmental Education Services
Edible/Medicinal Plants Dog walking businesses
Outdoor Survival Portrait Photography
Art (painting, drawing, etc.)
Dog Training
Kayaking
Fly fishing
Meditation
Horse Liveries
Commercial operators typically value and care for the OSMP land system. They have a
strong motivation for stewardship—OSMP is the setting that attracts their clients.
However, with increasing use levels, the department would like to learn more about the
levels of commercial use on OSMP lands. Staff also considers it responsible
management to have some involvement in the way commercial users operate while on
OSMP lands. Currently only commercial liveries are required to obtain a permit to
conduct business on OSMP lands. (BRC 8-3-7)1. Many land management agencies have
similar policies affecting a wider variety of commercial uses of public lands. These rules
reflect a widely held perspective that land managers should have the responsibility and
authority to protect the public interest. In this case, to ensure that tax payers are not
burdened with the cost of impacts resulting from an individual’s or organization’s
commercial use of public lands.
1
No owner, agent, employee, operator, or concessionaire of any commercial horse stable, riding school, or
livery shall use any park, parkway, recreation area, or open space for grazing or pasture of livestock
without first obtaining a permit from the city manager.
1
Staff has been exploring a policy to help it better understand commercial use on OSMP
lands and develop guidelines to ensure that such uses are compatible with departmental
purposes and that operators of commercial business are accountable for any potential
impacts resulting from their activities.
Questions for the Board
1. Is it appropriate to require permits for commercial operations on OSMP?
2. Is it appropriate for the OSMP department to place conditions upon commercial
activities to ensure compatibility with master plan goals, city regulations or other
relevant policies?
3. Is it appropriate for the City to deny or rescind permission to operate commercial
activities on OSMP lands if they are found to be incompatible with master plan
goals, city regulations or other relevant policies?
Alternatives
The following alternatives were considered in drafting a set of recommendations for
addressing commercial uses on OSMP: 1) Continue the status quo, requiring only horse
liveries to register as commercial users, 2) Broaden existing permitting requirement to
cover a range of commercial activities, and 3) Request that the City Council revise the
existing ordinance that requires a permitting requirement for equestrian operations.
Issues
The key issues considered in staff’s initial analysis of commercial uses were
compatibility and accountability.
Compatibility
Commercial uses of OSMP cover a wide range of activities and it is impossible to make a
general statement about compatibility with relevant regulations and policies. Many
commercial uses seek to provide connection with the natural world. This may take the
form of instruction in rock climbing or some other form of passive recreation, education
about the natural world, or training in an outdoor living skill. These uses are compatible
with Visitor Master Plan objectives aimed at improving the quality of the visitor
experience. Although compatible with some goals, some commercial uses can result in
repeated or intense use in some areas leading to resource impacts that are not compatible
with the protection of OSMP resources.
By knowing about and working with commercial operators, OSMP can develop
educational materials custom tailored to their clients. This information could provide
ideas about opportunities for a particular activity on OSMP, and suggestions of ways to
ensure compatibility with environmental protection and preservation. A commercial use
registry would also provide OSMP with an opportunity to work with operators to identify
locations where their activities would be least likely to cause conflict with other users or
impacts to the environment. If necessary, a permitting process would provide the City
with the ability to deny permits for commercial uses that were found to be incompatible
with OSMP management.
2
Some commercial operators cannot be readily distinguished from other similar users and
do not introduce incremental levels of use or impact by virtue of what they do. Examples
of this sort of commercial use are individual photographers or painters. While OSMP
should make available best practices for all users to avoid environmental impacts, it
would not be beneficial or practical to require registration of this sort of commercial
operator.
Commercial filming, including advertising and the production of motion pictures, falls
into another category of commercial activities. These activities typically do not seek to
build a connection with OSMP, but rather try to use the scenery and qualities of OSMP as
a backdrop or to build a connection between clients and products. This type of
commercial activity often requires special access and staffing and unless properly
managed can have significant impacts upon the OSMP environment, and take staff away
from other work. The City Manager’s Office is coordinating a city-wide examination of
commercial uses of city property and facilities. OSMP staff is participating in this
project and anticipates that it will provide guidance for OSMP to address requests for
commercial filming and advertising on OSMP.
Accountability
Existing regulations addressing impacts to OSMP (damaging public property, disturbing
wildlife, etc.) do not distinguish commercial operators from other individuals.
Regulations allow for fines and, in some cases, payments for reclamation of damage.
However, should a commercial operator cause damage to OSMP, or significant impacts
on other visitors, the existing regulations do not enable the City to place conditions on the
way that operator does business in the future. In rare occasions it might be useful for the
City to have the ability to deny or revoke a permit for an operator who exhibited obvious
or repeated disregard for OSMP visitors or the environment.
Staff Recommendation
1. Broaden the permitting process in place for commercial equestrian operations to
include most commercial uses on OSMP.
The outcomes of the permitting program would be to provide OSMP:
a. A registry of commercial activities, including the type of activity, the
location, and frequency of commercial operations using OSMP lands.
b. An opportunity for OSMP staff and volunteers to work with commercial
operators to educate their clients about relevant opportunities on OSMP
lands and ways to reduce the environmental impact of their activities.
c. The ability to approve, deny, or place conditions upon permits to ensure
compatibility with appropriate policies and regulations.
Staff recommends that the permitting process would not apply to commercial
activities that are undertaken by individuals and that are indistinguishable
activities of individuals who are not engaged in a commercial activity. This
threshold is meant to address nature photographers, painters and others who work
alone and abide by the applicable regulations.
3
Staff also recommends that commercial use permitting program should recover at
least a portion of administrative costs by charging a permit review fee.
2. Develop the commercial use policy with the input of individuals that offer, lead or
sponsor commercial activities on OSMP lands.
Key to the success of any commercial use policy is the support from the
individuals and groups that will be affected. There is likely to be a wide range of
opinions, ideas and concerns about commercial use permitting. Integrating
community input into a permitting program will improve its practicality and
effectiveness.
3. Participate in the City Manager’s effort to develop a coordinated approach to
address commercial uses of city property and facilities.
4
Related docs
