Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 03/20/1996For reference: MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD SPECIAL MEETING 1400 REMINGTON MARCH 20, 1996 Phil Murphy, NRAB Chair - 491-6303 Gina Janett, Council Liaison - 493-4677 Tom Shoemaker, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Jan Behunek, Linda Kirkpatrick, Ed Secor, Phil Murphy, Phil Friedman, Bill Miller, Katy Mason, Kelly Ohlson Staff Present Tom Shoemaker, Karen Manci, Randy Balok, Dave Mosnik, Rodney Albers, Virgil Taylor, Edith Felchle The meeting was called to order at 6:33 p.m. Staff Presentation The members of the Open Lands Guidance Team were introduced to the Board and citizens. Karen Manci gave a slide presentation outlining some of the values and uses of the four foothill's sites that are being considered in the draft Foothills Management Plan. The four sites under consideration are: Pineridge, Campeau Reservoir Ridge, Maxwell, and Coyote Ridge. The Board received information in their packet concerning a summary of public comments received at the open house and written comments. Ms. Manci stated that she also had a notebook of all the original comments and made that available to the Board members for review. The Board also received a table that compared some of the Natural Resources Advisory Board --Natural Areas Subcommittee feelings about some of the items presented in the plan compared to what was presented in the Foothills Management Plan and public comments received. A summary sheet of information comparison of open space natural areas and rules and regulation from other areas was given to the Board. The Board received a copy of the General Management Guidelines approved in 1994. A map was also shown of the four areas being considered. Public Comment The following public comments were heard: David Roy thanked the Board for their time and energies spent on this issue. He finds it onerous that people are trying to extract from the few natural areas left in this region for their own personal enjoyment, taking the areas away from the wildlife that inhabit them. He feels the wildlife cannot be safe when dogs are running loose, horses are trampling around, and mountain bikers are creating new trails at will. He believes the areas should be returned to look the way they did before the City purchased them. Natural Resources Advisory Board March 20, 1996 Page 2 Connie Stone stated that she had attended the last Parks and Recreation meeting and had learned a great deal at that meeting. She pointed out that Parks and Recreation had determined that Pineridge should not be included with the other three areas. She feels Pineridge is used completely differently and is much more accessible than the other areas. Ms. Stone stated that she has been going to Pineridge since 1979, and she notices the prairie dogs themselves spreading and doing a lot of destruction. She also believes that the trails should not be paved because this will result in more traffic. Ms. Stone felt it would be nice if dogs could be allowed to be under voice control but not necessarily on a leash. Ms. Stone doesn't feel that dogs off -leash have been a problem. She also feels that horses will not be ridden through prairie dog colonies. She believes Pineridge is a good family area to go bike riding and feels most of the people stay on the trails. She added that the trails were roads at one time, and the traffic on these roads is not as destructive as it has been made out to be. She believes Pineridge is unique because it is open enough that from any entrance people can see each other coming down the trail which allows dog owners time to get the dogs back under control and put on a leash. She is willing to have some changes made but doesn't want everything taken away from her, which is what she feels this plan will do. Martha Falk said that she lives adjacent to Pineridge open space area. This was the first time she has attended a meeting like this and had two questions for the Board: 1) How do the results of the surveys weigh into the Board's decision making process? 2) What is the next stage of the management plan? Mick Scarpella stated that his backyard is on the east side of the east ridge of Pineridge. He feels real concern with the strictness of the regulations that go along with this plan and is speaking to Pineridge in particular. He didn't feel that the slides presented were a true representation of what is at Pineridge and what it is used for. He added that the east ridge of Pineridge is an old shale -paved road that has probably been used for 100 years and is not reclaimable. He stated that he sees generations of people walking and quietly talking up on the ridge all the time with the kinds of values that he believes are important for Fort Collins. Mr. Scarpella believes that the paved trail does not fit with the area at all. He believes that if an individual wants to walk through the area and take a picture, this plan will not allow that. Forty years ago he sledded on the hill that goes down to Dickson Reservoir, and this plan will no longer allow that. If an individual wants to set an easel up to paint a picture, he does not believe this plan allows that. He believes that the plan will change the demographics of who uses the Pineridge area, and right now it is a family area that has family values. He believes that nobody will use the area if the plan is implemented, and the tax payer's money paid for the area so it should be used. Deanna Nagel stated that she is glad there are open spaces to be enjoyed in the area and believes it is important to protect all of the animals. She stated that she believes the sensitive species are important but so is her dog. She believes that they are all animals and so are humans, and everybody should be equally important. Ms. Nagel is requesting at least one fairly sizable space for dogs to Natural Resources Advisory Board March 20, 1996 Page 3 be able to run free. She has never witnessed a fight between dogs in these natural areas, nor has she seen any dogs kill any wildlife. Ms. Nagel believes that the prairie dogs and her dog have fun chasing each other. She also doesn't understand why an A can be painted on the side of the mountain, which probably doesn't protect a whole lot of plants, yet the land can't be used in ways that she feels is healthy for the animals. Scott Bliss stated that he has seen dogs running loose in the natural areas, but these dogs seem to be mostly in voice control. He added that if you see another individual coming, the dogs can be put back on a leash. He also has never seen any dogs fight. He has seen some of the dogs interact with the prairie dogs in the areas but has never seen a dog catch a prairie dog. He also believes horses are not a problem in the areas. Mr. Bliss said that the plan is too restrictive. He believes that there should be some natural areas left, but Pineridge should be viewed separately from the rest of the areas. He believes that the City is forgetting that man and woman are a part of nature too, and it seems that humans are being taken out of the equation of nature. Maureen Fager stated that she has been using Pineridge for almost two years to ride her horse. She has had two dangerous experiences with dogs not on leashes and feels that the leash law gives her some legal recourse if an injury was to occur. She also feels her horse is under control but does not see that with the dogs. She has seen many occasions where voice commands don't control the dogs. Ms. Fager also stated that she does not want the proposed trails closed because that would result in the east and west ridge trails becoming too congested. She also believes with the housing developments coming in, the population of use for Pineridge justifies leaving the trails open. She stated that attempts to close the trails will fail because people will continue to use them due to the congestion that will be felt. Bryce Rockwood stated that he has moved from California to this area. He pointed out that California also has open spaces, but they are managed more through enforcement. He believes that a facilitator should be utilized to assist people in using the facilities correctly. Mr. Rockwood added that he is not a dog person but has had no problems with any dogs in the areas. He would like the area to remain natural but believes open space should be preserved for human use. John Ambler addressed Pineridge specifically, stating that focus is being placed on the environment for all of the open areas but feels that Pineridge is almost beyond that point. He believes that Pineridge is getting a lot of use now, and his perception is that the City is trying to take back and reclaim the area into something that it hasn't been for 50 years. More and more rules seemed to be implemented with respect to Pineridge, and he sees it as being a user-friendly environment right now. Mr. Ambler believes that a lot of users will be denied the pleasure of going to the areas if the plan is put into place. He added that perhaps Pineridge should be a people -use area. Natural Resources Advisury Board March 20, 1996 Page 4 Jennifer Lacy stated that we have a growing community, and what seems to happen as the community grows is we expand to meet it. However, what she sees happening here is a shrinking to meet the growth of the community. She has been using Pineridge for five years and believes the space should be managed to the best of our abilities. It should be expanded to make more room for people to ride bikes, for people to take their dogs, so less impact per acre occurs. Jeffrey McClure said that he had recently had an opportunity to walk through Pineridge. He witnessed 20 or 30 people, none of which were off of the trails and none of which were abusing the space that they were enjoying. He witnessed people enjoying nature very close to home. He believes that it is a safe environment where people watch out for each other. Doug Oreun stated that he has been using Pineridge since 1988 for mountain biking. He doesn't believe the area should be closed to dogs. He does believe a more pro -management approach should be taken toward the area. He believes better trail management and better trail construction could decrease the amount of erosion and problems that are happening. Sean Miller stated that he uses Pineridge and pointed out that it is not only the backyard of the people who are close to it, but it belongs to all of Fort Collins. He said that what is an appropriate rule in the City park may be an onerous rule in the Pineridge area. His question to the Board was, is there a compelling reason for that rule to be there? If that is not the case, perhaps that rule isn't required. He has not had problems with dogs, horses, or mountain bikers. He admitted to being a little undereducated on all of the issues surrounding Pineridge but also believes that people are also a part of nature, and if the desire is to protect the land from people use, an outlet for using the land must be given. He believes in fewer rules, more management, less enforcement, and perhaps more education. Mr. Murphy asked if any other citizens wished to comment, and seeing no one, closed public comment. In answer to Ms. Falk's question, Mr. Murphy said that in terms of surveys and public input, the Board takes that information very seriously. He added that the Board listens to the comments made and takes notes on them, and public input is highly valued. Mr. Shoemaker answered Ms. Falk's question in terms of the next stage of the plan. He stated that comments are being solicited from the public and boards. Staff will then consider the input and recommendations against the policies that were adopted by the City Codes, et cetera. At that point staff will make a determination as to what changes they would recommend on the final draft of the plan and determine whether there are significant policies that need to be elevated to City Council. He added that it would be his suggestion that a joint meeting be held between the Parks and Recreation Board and the Natural Resources Board at an appropriate point in time. Natural Areas Subcommittee Presentation Natural Resources Advisory Board March 20, 1996 Page 5 The following items were issues unanimously agreed to by all five subcommittee members present in a meeting held with staff concerning the natural areas. Staffs interpretations of the issues are as follows: No dogs should be allowed in City Natural Areas, with the exception of dogs on leash on paved trails and dogs in use for those with disabilities. At the very minimum no dogs should be allowed in any new natural area unless on paved trails or dogs in use for those with disabilities. Speaking for himself, Mr. Ohlson stated that he believes dogs should not be allowed in natural areas on leash or not, period. However, after listening to public input and taking into account a little of the historic -use aspect of the area, he believed that perhaps the subcommittee members may be willing to entertain dogs on leash in Pineridge. Ms. Mason stated the main priority of the Board and of the natural areas is to protect some of the natural environment for future generations, and her belief is that there are a lot of people who are not responsible dog owners and often times dogs in these areas are not under voice command. With so much usage Ms. Mason firmly believes that the dogs must be on leashes, and the leash law must be enforced. If the law cannot be enforced then dogs must be banned. Mr. Ohlson noted that the subcommittee's focus was on the appropriate use of the area, and the public doesn't necessarily mean appropriate. He also noted that the subcommittee believes the City should consider pursuing appropriate areas for people to run their dogs off -leash. However, that is not part of the natural areas plan, nor should it be achieved from open space moneys. Mr. Friedman stated that he cannot think of ever having had a time on either the trails in this community or any of the open spaces when he was out that he did not have a dog encounter and found it hard to believe that people in the audience had never encountered a problem with dogs. Mr. Ohlson added that dogs do not have to catch wildlife to harm it. Stress to the wildlife caused from being chased is also a great harm. Mr. Murphy questioned whether a change in the City Code with regard to the leash law would have to take place before dogs could be allowed off -leash in Pineridge. Ms. Manci affirmed that this would be true. Ms. Kirkpatrick stated that she lives relatively close to Pineridge and has had a number of negative experiences with dogs. She agreed that dogs on leash would be acceptable but also wonders about the safety issues involved with bicycles, pedestrians, and dogs on small trails. Mr. Behunek noted that one of the primary purposes as stated in the Natural Areas Policy Plan for public land management is to manage, maintain, and enhance the areas to ensure ongoing conservation of plants and animals that are in need of protection and their associated ecosystems. The plan also states that improvement of aesthetics is important, and opportunities for public use will be provided. In his opinion that summarizes the potential conflict, which is public use and preservation of the environment. Natural Resources Advisv, y Board March 20, 1996 Page 6 Mr. Behunek added that the problem with dogs, specifically, is the abuse of current regulations due to the fact that almost all of the dogs in these areas are off -leash. Given this abuse he would suggest a good basis for deciding which areas should have dogs allowed on leash would be the areas that can be effectively patrolled by rangers. Speaking for the subcommittee Mr. Ohlson noted that enforcement of the leash law must take place. Otherwise, the subcommittee would not support the compromise being suggested. Mr. Miller stated that he had performed the boundary survey for the location that was to become known as Pineridge open space. He points out that Pineridge and Maxwell became open space areas long before the concept of a management plan came about. Now the problem exists of activities having taken place at the areas for a long period of time by virtue of the fact that enforcement of regulations has not taken place. Mr. Miller also takes part in several wildlife related activities, and these areas are becoming more and more critical as humans continue to convert lands from their natural state. He noted that the wintering raptor survey from the City of Fort Collins has determined that the raptors now avoid Pineridge because of the activities that take place there. Also, the dogs off -leash and off trails can disrupt birds that nest on the ground, rabbits, and other animals that are burrowing and nesting during the spring. Mr. Secor noted that without good management and perhaps more restrictive management, the increased use of Pineridge will severely degrade the area. A conflict of needs exists between preservation of natural areas and need for some recreational areas. He suggested that perhaps another program in the City needs to be developed to identify some other recreational areas. He added that 30 percent of Pineridge has been purchased with natural areas sales tax money and should be managed according to the intentions of the natural areas. He stated the primary use is preservation and secondary use is human use. Low impact use is appropriate, and photography, and art work are the kinds of activities that are appropriate for the natural areas. Mr. Miller noted that open lands are for passive recreational use as opposed to organized recreational use and asked what the difference would be. Mr. Balok stated that organized recreational use usually involves a special sport tool and team and not necessarily what individuals would do by themselves. Mr. Ohlson stated that it is important not to love these areas to death, to destroy the very resource that people voted on, and a balance must exist to ensure this destruction does not take place. Mr. Behunek questioned why Pineridge was classified as sensitive. Ms. Manci stated that the area has many different characteristics that place it into that category: 1) The Division of Wildlife has classified that area on their state map as a key winter mule deer habitat. 2) The State of Colorado has designated the area as important for the rare Bells Twin Pod plant. 3) Local biologists have classified the area as a key corridor for migratory songbirds, resident songbirds, and wetland birds. 4) The Colorado Division of Wildlife has identified the area as Natural Resources Advisory Board March 20, 1996 Page 7 a key area for native grasses and wildflowers that are unique to Fort Collins. 5) Two CSU doctors have identified the area as containing unique insects, rare plants, and residential and migratory butterflies. 6) Regional biologists have identified the area as crucial due to the prairie dog colonies that support threatened species of raptors. 7) Unique rock outcroppings exist in the area. Mr. Ohlson added that impacts over the entire system will occur if Pineridge were treated differently from Maxwell and Campeau Ridge. Mr. Murphy noted that a main reason for letting dogs loose is probably to allow the dog to get exercise. He noted that CSU will allow people to run their dogs loose in the field surrounding the football stadium. He suggested people utilize that area for exercising their dog and added that people could throw a ball for the dogs to chase instead of allowing their dogs to chase the wildlife. Mr. Murphy asked the subcommittee if they had given any thought to specifying certain unpaved trails in some natural areas that dogs could be allow on leash. Mr. Ohlson stated that the overall personal philosophies of the majority of the subcommittee member were that dogs do not belong in natural areas. That is not what the areas are intended for. Mr. Ohlson pointed out that he felt Ms. Felchle, and Ms. Manci had done an outstanding job in communicating the subcommittee's feelings in the memo. Ms. Mason proposed allowing dogs on leashes in Pineridge and Maxwell. Ms. Manci stated that Pineridge, Maxwell, and Campeau are connected, and allowing dogs in only two of the areas may be burdensome to people wanting to walk through all three. Mr. Ohlson also addressed the issue of dog waste and noted that the existing City code states unless you own the property or are the sole occupant of the property, you must immediately clean up your animal's waste. Ms. Mason agreed that this code must also be enforced. Ms. Manci questioned if the feeling was no dogs would be allow in future urban natural areas as well as the sensitive natural areas. Mr. Ohlson stated that the subcommittee's discussions had not gotten that specific. Ms. Mason added that the important point is the intent behind the discussions, but obviously, a recommendation is not being made tonight about future natural areas. Bike use should be restricted to a few dirt trails and allowed on all paved trails. Appropriate places outside of natural areas for biking should be identified. Mr. Ohlson noted that the determination of appropriate dirt trails in which biking is allowed will be left to professional judgment. Mr. Miller stated that part of the rationale behind the subcommittee's thinking was the fact that bikes do have an impact. He stated that bird watchers have found that for approximately half a mile in the area along the bike trial downstream from Lemay Avenue, bird species have decline primarily because of Natural Resources Advisory Board March 20, 1996 Page 8 the amount of human visitation. A considerable amount of this visitation is high- speed biking. Mr. Behunek stated that part of the rationale behind limiting use to appropriate trails is hikers need areas where they do not feel they are going to be run over, and also, some trails have become too eroded to realistically be maintainable. Mr. Miller added that sensitive areas are generally on areas with relatively steep grades, and bike traffic definitely contributes to erosion. Ms. Mason noted that Boulder is now prohibiting mountain bikes in some of their parks due to overuse and abuse of the trails. She is hoping that trails can be kept open and well maintained so everyone can enjoy biking in them. Her desire is to leave some of the trails open due to historic use. She added, however, that if compliance with the rules is not achieved, a review should take place on the possibility of banning biking in the areas. Ms. Kirkpatrick commented on the mountain bikes at Pineridge stating that many bikers use Pineridge in part to get to Horsetooth Reservoir and to the foothills trail. She believes such use is good because it encourages people to use their bikes and not their cars. She would like to see the appropriate trails at least extend through Pineridge and up the county roads for this reason. Mr. Murphy stated that locations can be easily found where no bikes have been ridden, and yet, trail degradation is evident solely due to people walking. Therefore, degradation from people also needs to be examined. Mr. Friedman noted that on a hot dry day damage done to a trail system by a bike is relatively minimal. However, on a cold wet day the damage can be tremendous. Therefore, one of his concerns is that there be some enforceable mechanism that allows the City through a ranger or through posting of signs to prohibit mountain bike use, possibly people use, and possibly horse use when trail conditions are poor based upon weather conditions. Mr. Ohlson suggested that the language proposed could be changed into a positive mode of what will be allowed versus what won't be allowed. Mr. Miller pointed out that the National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service say "on designated trails only." Mr. Ohlson also suggested that bike racks should be provided allowing people to safely park their bikes and walk on trails which do not allow biking. Horse use should be restricted to a few minimal trails. Appropriate places outside of natural areas for horseback riding should be identified. Concerns expressed included the fact that horse droppings bring exotic weed seeds into natural areas. Mr. Ohlson suggested that again the language could be made more positive. Mr. Secor suggested that due to safety reasons, perhaps there should be some trails that allow for horses but not bikes and vice versa. Mr. Ohlson added that in determining appropriate areas, some areas may by appropriate for bikes and horse, some just for bikes, some just for horses, and some just for pedestrians. Natural Resources Advisory Board March 20, 1996 Page 9 Mr. Miller stated that he believes in some of the areas where there is space to provide separation, it would be to the City's benefit to do so. Mr. Ohlson noted that, again, enforcement of the rules needs to take place. He suggested signage stating something to the effect of "Please help us observe these rules or more stringent policies will have to be enforced." Ms. Manci pointed out that this is merely a five-year management plan and not a plan that can never be changed. Ms. Mason asked if a review could take place sooner than five years if blatant problems exist and asked if staff will be monitoring the conditions so that problems can be brought to the attention of the Board. Mr. Shoemaker stated that he believed monitoring would take place. He also stated that if a problem is recognized by staff, the Board, the community, or Council before the five-year period is up, then that problem will be examined. No paved trails should be built at the foothills areas. The Foothills Management Plan proposes to build a paved trail to provide some handicapped use of the foothills area. Mr. Ohlson stated that he does not truly believe that the paved trail is proposed for that reason. He noted that he was the liaison to the disabled community for four years and strongly supports handicapped access to the areas as much as possible, but he feels there are other ways of achieving that goal. Mr. Behunek stated that he completely supports Mr. Ohlson in this regard and notes that trail surfaces other than concrete and asphalt are preferred. Ms. Mason added that one reason she disagrees with the paved trail for people with disabilities is because she feels it is absolutely the wrong terrain to attempt wheelchair accessibility. Ms. Kirkpatrick questioned the use of smaller asphalt trails that may be constructed to perhaps prevent erosion. Mr. Ohlson stated that the recommendation refers to the major trail system standard. Mr. Murphy questioned if the subcommittee was equating the word "paved" to be a ten -foot concrete trail or if some smaller trails constructed of perhaps asphalt would be acceptable. Ms. Mason stated that the subcommittee never discussed asphalt areas. Ms. Mason questioned why the trail along the ridge of Pineridge is proposed to be closed. Ms. Manci replied that the primary reason is due to the growth of the Bells Twin Pod plant but added that a trail will cross that ridge so the people can see the plant. Ms. Mason questioned where the plant actually grows. Ms. Mend replied that it grows along nearly the entire length of the ridge, on the sides of the ridge somewhat. A small population grows at Campeau Ridge, and an extensive population grows in Coyote Ridge. However, as the use increases, the plant will not be able to survive up on the ridge of Pineridge. Mr. Miller questioned the alternative of constructing a trails on either side of the ridge with opportunities in less sensitive areas to go up to the ridge so people can still enjoy the vistas, skyline at night, et cetera. Ms. Manci replied that erosion on the sides would have to be carefully examined. Natural Resources Advisury Board March 20, 1996 Page 10 Mr. Friedman stated that he would hate to see the trail closed on the east ridge due to the fact that that is one of the most desirable attributes of the Pineridge area from a visual standpoint. He believes everything possible must be done to protect the Bells Twin Pod, but as more restrictions are implemented in the effort of preserving the area, every possible aspect where people can come to enjoy the area is eliminated. He would like to see a compromise struck between preserving the Bells Twin Pod and providing more than just one transverse cross trail to the site. Mr. Ohlson questioned the probability of being able to attempt such a compromise. Mr. Manci said the trails could be looked at again. Mr. Shoemaker added that it is important to remember that the main arterial trails are also part of the adopted City policies and plans. Mr. Ohlson replied the City policy could be changed, and perhaps values have changed since implementation of the policy. Herbicides should be severely limited on the sites and used only as a last resort. Decisions regarding herbicide use should not be left to staff because staff will use stronger chemicals than needed. Mr. Ohlson stated that the second sentence of the recommendation was not accurate and should be discarded. He added that the message the subcommittee was trying to send was that herbicides should be used only as a last resort. Mr. Behunek agreed that the second sentence is incorrect. He questioned whether the Board wanted to say "severely limited" in terms of herbicide use or simply "limited." He agrees that it should be a last resort. Staff stated that a policy does exist to first attempt to eliminate problems through cutting and mowing. It was suggested that perhaps the Board should receive a copy of the City's written policy concerning herbicide use. Mr. Murphy noted that the plan itself talks about controlling wildfires that threaten nearby property. He wanted to add that he feels that fires can play an appropriate role in controlling noxious weeds. Other comments were also made by individual Board members but were not unanimously agreed to at the meeting. These are the items which were discussed at this meeting and staff summarized those comments as follows: Don't kill prairie dogs just because a neighbor complains that prairie dogs have moved into their area -- no killing of prairie dogs on City land. Mr. Ohlson stated he felt this sentence again contained poor wording and added that the subcommittees recommendation is there must be more science utilized in determining when and to what extent prairie dogs are killed. He added that he did not like the words "if requested." He preferred to use words such as "where it is appropriate as a last result," with appropriate education and notification of the public. Mr. Friedman stated that there is a time and a place that certainly may be appropriate to limit prairie dog populations for certain reasons. Ms. Mason added that her thinking on this issue was reinforced after reading the public comment on prairie dogs. In the public comment people that responded didn't want automatic killing of prairie dogs because neighbors complained. Mr. Natural Resources Advisory Board March 20, 1996 Page 11 Friedman stated that when prairie dog control needs to be undertaken it needs to be done very sensitively and very openly, telling the community why it is being done. Limit deer hunts. Mr. Ohlson stated that the subcommittee's recommendation was, if possible, deer hunts should not be handled as a recreational hunt, but rather hunts should be performed by professionals. Ms. Manci noted that the City wants the ability to thin deer populations in the case of site degradation. She also believed that if a hunt were to occur, it would be performed by Division of Wildlife officers. Build parking lots for normal usage, not largest expected use. Mr. Ohlson stated that access needs to exist but asked the design be sensitive and as aesthetic as possible. Want to be able to roam off trail for birding, et cetera, in some places -- suggest that a person obtain a permit to go off trail. Mr. Friedman add that this idea goes back to his example of closing the trail on the east ridge. He questions how much restriction can be placed before it is going to have a negative consequence on people wanting to visit the area. He also believes it would be a very difficult thing to enforce. He suggested in place of the permit system an education program or system explaining the impacts of off -trail usage could be developed. Mr. Secor agreed stating that signs could be posted along certain areas. Mr. Murphy noted that if trails are built properly, 90 percent of the people will stay on the trail. If the trails are not built properly, however, people will wander off of them. Mr. Secor stated that he did not believe a blanket ban should be placed on all off -trail use. He believes that areas could perhaps be closed if it is getting a lot of off -trail use. Ms. Mason stated that she did not believe off -trail use should be promoted and encouragement should be placed on staying on trails. Mr. Ohlson suggested that all attempts should be made to keep people on the trails by design, education, and signage, but in some areas appropriate off -trail use could be allowed unless it becomes too damaging. Ms. Manci stated that the rule of having no off -trail use would essentially be for convenience in enforceability when it is needed. Mr. Ohlson asked for the personal opinion of each staff member present on how strongly they felt about no off -trail use. Each staff member felt that use should stay on trails. Mr. Shoemaker stated that he felt it was important to enforce, but he would probably take a soft touch to it. Mr. Ohlson then stated he would defer to Mr. Shoemaker's opinion and believes this would be the most lax enforcement of any of the regulations, but the regulation needs to exist in the event of a problem. Natural Resources Advises. y Board March 20, 1996 Page 12 Mr. Secor stated that his concern would be trying to use enforcement on one individual when that individual could point to others off trail and question why they were not being made to stay on the trails. Mr. Ohlson stated that enforcement would have to be a judgment call. Mr. Ohlson asked for the opinion of former Board member Tim Johnson, who was in the audience. Mr. Johnson stated that he was in favor of being allowed to wonder somewhat, but in terms of a legal perspective, he feels the tool is a useful one. The Board was unable to reach a unanimous decision on the subject. Other questions concerning the proposed plan. Enforcement: Mr. Ohlson noted that he could find no wording in the plan that addressed enforcement. All wording seemed to address education. Mr. Shoemaker stated that he believed the purpose is to implement some code changes so the ability for enforcement is present. However, the preferred approach is education and warnings. Ms. Manci stated that staff agrees that consequences must take place at some point, and the wording of the plan will be examined. Rangers: Ms. Felchle stated that it is proposed to have three people employed as rangers. Ms. Mason asked when the rangers will begin working. Mr. Felchle replied that staff is still in the early stages of talking to the police. The police have said that once a decision is made as to the position, it would be six to nine months of training before a ranger would be on the grounds. Mr. Shoemaker added that the police also said that there are very likely some interim step that could be taken, and the desire is to have a ranger working as soon as possible. Mr. Friedman asked if the ranger would have a biological or natural history background or strictly be law enforcement. Ms. Felchle replied that staff want people with the ability to enforce, with the tools to protect themselves and other people, but with the training to be very sensitive and only use that enforcement when absolutely necessary. Mr. Ohlson stated that the sheriffs department has an individual leaving who has a passion for wildlife and wildlife history. He suggested perhaps a similar individual may exist in the police department who has already gone through training. The issue of salary for the ranger has still not fully been resolved. Sledding: Ms. Mason asked if sledding was really a problem at Pineridge. Ms. Manci replied that the General Management Guidelines identify sledding as an active recreational use. Therefore, staff felt sledding in the natural areas should not be allowed. Also, it is not a groomed slope, and from a liability aspect it becomes a problem to allow sledding. Mr. Balok stated that prohibiting sledding will not be vigorously enforced immediately. • • Natural Resources Advisory Board March 20, 1996 Page 13 Kite flying: Ms. Mason questioned the problem with kite flying. Ms. Manci stated that that is a use that is typical in the developed park areas. Vegetable gardens: Mr. Secor questioned the problems with vegetable gardens. Ms. Manci replied that that provision comes from the General Management Guidelines and noted that in certain areas people have let their vegetable gardens grow onto City property. Other business Mr. Ohlson noted that at the last meeting, the Board had very serious concerns on a number of items concerning the parks issue. He didn't believe that those concerns were communicated clearly enough or strongly enough. He would like to discuss those items on the next agenda. Mr. Ohlson also stated that the Overland Trail extension will impact all of the things discussed tonight and would like to have that item placed on an upcoming agenda. Also, he believes the Board should be able to take part in the aesthetics of the Water Department building that will be built. Adjournment Mr. Murphy thanked the staff members present for their time. The meeting adjourned at 11:20.