PLAN Jeffco ~ Looking Forward to Another 40 Years

/0 Comments/in /by

Continued stewardship of our open spaces cannot be taken for granted. PLAN Jeffco remains committed to its mission: ensuring that future citizens can enjoy the same quality of life and rich outdoor experiences that we do today, and that the value of open space lands is not forgotten or disregarded in exchange for short term gains.

Today, as the result of our fourdecade-long commitment to conserving open spaces, along with the community’s strong support and continued investment, we now enjoy a great variety of benefits. We all can be proud of the over 53,000 acres of lands that have been conserved in Jefferson County—the hundreds of miles of trails for all of us to enjoy, and that much of our treasured views, natural areas and wildlife are conserved.

PLAN Jeffco was formed by citizens concerned that open spaces would quickly vanish within the decade. In 1972, we initiated and campaigned for the ballot issue that provided for the ½ cent Open Space sales tax, which has funded our award winning Jefferson County Open Space program and provided millions of dollars to the cities and recreation districts. 

Open Space Citizen Survey

/0 Comments/in /by

In the Fall of 2011, the Open Space Department funded a scientific survey to gather public feedback on Jefferson County Open Space Parks. The survey covered usage characteristics of parks, trails and other facilities, community values with respect to open space, satisfaction with current facilities and the importance of various park features, views on park and trail management, and communication. This feedback and subsequent analysis was designed to assist Jefferson County Open Space in future planning and policy formulation efforts.

A total of 10,000 surveys were mailed to a random sample of Jefferson County residents in early October 2011, with 9,990 being delivered after subtracting undeliverable mail. The final sample size for this statistically valid survey was 1,345, resulting in a response rate of 13.5 percent giving a margin of error of approximately +/- 2.7 percentage points. A detailed summary of the survey is posted on the Open Space Website – the URL is: jeffco.us/parks/documents/2011-jeffco-open-space-citizen-survey/

Jefferson County Open Space 2011 Citizen Survey, 2011Respondents were almost equally divided female (52%) and male (48%). The random survey was targeted at residents 18 years and older. The age profile of responses is virtually identical to the County as a whole. The average age of respondents was 47 years. The average respondent had lived in Jefferson County for 19.6 years. About 24% of respondents had lived in the County less than five years.

The questionnaire contained a question designed to determine “household status” or the makeup of the family unit. About 28% of respondents reported that they are single. About 72% are couples, with 34% reporting that they are couples with children at home. Open Space use by children was 90% on family outings, 50% with friends, 35% with school groups, and 19% with youth organizations.

The results suggest that about 83% of County residents visited the Open Space Parks at least once each year. The most visited parks, by 10-11% of the residents, are Crown Hill, Lair o’ the Bear and Deer Creek Canyon parks. The results are similar for children’s activities and use with Lair o’ the Bear 20%, Deer Creek Canyon Park 13%, Apex 13%, Mount Falcon 12%, and Elk Meadow 11%.

The typical uses of open space were hiking/walking (87%) and hiking/walking with dogs (46%), enjoying the scenery (59%), wildlife viewing (40%), picnicking (33%) and mountain biking (29%). Most frequent uses were hiking/walking (45%) and hiking/walking with dogs (23%) mountain biking (10%) and running (4%).

About 95% of the respondents to “What is the greatest value of Open Space?” supported “Assurance that open space will be there for future generations” and “Outdoor recreation in a natural setting close to home.” Close to home was most important with similar ratings for respondents in older (over 40 years) and younger age groups.

Respondents to a question on how Open Space funds should be spent: Acquisitions was most important with 68% priority, 22% for protection of the land, 15% for recreation, 13% scenic, 9% for land preservation, and 9% for trail corridors. Capital improvements priorities were: 11% for capital improvements, 6% renovation of historic structures, and 4% for regional (off park) trails. Support was equal for preservation vs. recreation.

Support was even for designating trails for single and multiple use trails 56-58%, with high opposition to single use parks or alternate day use.

Positive response to “Friendliness and manners of other visitors” was 68%. Higher positive response was shown by both trail runners (78%) and mountain bikers (73%).

Comments by responders filled 280 pages.

Peaks to Plains Trail – Clear Creek Canyon Phase

/0 Comments/in /by

Earlier this year GOCO announced that grants would be available for developments along Colorado river corridors. Both Clear Creek and Jefferson Counties expressed interest in applying for grants. The GOCO Staff suggested that the two counties partner in a joint application.

In mid-March a joint application was submitted by Clear Creek and Jefferson Counties for development of trail along six miles of Clear Creek spanning the county line. Clear Creek County already has 14 miles of completed trail plus a number of miles of available frontage road along the 35 miles of Clear Creek in the County. The Clear Creek County portion of trail would begin at Tunnel 6 and extend to the County Line – about two miles. The Jefferson County portion would extend from the County Line to east of the Mayhem Gulch Parking Lot near Mile Marker 263 – about four miles. The map below shows the trail corridor, proposed parking areas, and bridges.

The application was approved for further consideration in the first round of evaluations. The GOCO Board visited the site in mid-April and final decisions were made in mid-June. $9.2 million was requested from GOCO to fund a little less than 60% of the project’s estimated cost. The estimated project costs were $6 million in Clear Creek and $10 million in Jefferson Counties. In June the GOCO Board awarded Clear Creek and Jefferson Counties $4.6 million. The two counties now have the problem of fitting the development into the funds available. In addition to Open Space development funds, Jefferson County has commitments for $145,000 from outside entities to assist in the funding. 

A Harvest for the Holly Days

/0 Comments/in , /by

That holiday tradition of “decking the halls” is a long one still well practiced today. Seeing our homes and streets festooned with greenery, we might think little has changed from those nostalgic Victorian Christmases we emulate. Gathering decorative greens, however, is a rite best practiced in places where sustained harvests are possible. How well have familiar—and some not so familiar—holiday plants withstood the pressures of our seasonal festivities?

Taking the old songs seriously, we might observe a notable lack of “boughs of holly” in our local decorations. I’ve seen quite a few Christmases, and I’ve yet to see more than a small twig of actual holly at a time. In the milder climates of England and southern Europe, where it is native, holly (Ilex aquifolium) grows into a tree some 70 feet tall, and it is perhaps still feasible to harvest entire boughs for the mantelpiece. According to one study, regeneration of holly trees is not dependent on the seeds eaten by birds, which are deposited under trees in great numbers, because seedlings cannot survive the deep shade and high competition there. Most successful young trees are found in well-lit patches where they are safe from grazing animals. Thus, cows may hold a key to holly’s long-term survival. Gardeners hold another: Many species of holly are also cultivated in milder parts of the U.S.A Harvest for the Holly Days. Illustration by Jan Ratcliffe (sketch of holly)

Ground pines, among my favorite plants, were once used to make wreaths—and may still be in lusher northern regions, such as Scandinavia. I think that most of us were born too late to see such abundance of this obscure plant in the U.S. You’ll find no red or white berries on this primitive plant—only spores. Other than decorative uses, those spores seem to be the most useful feature. They have been used for baby powder, to stop bleeding, and for flash powder for early photography. Thus the reproductive effort of these plants once literally went up in smoke

Ground pines, also known as clubmosses, have had their day, and that day ended more than 300 million years ago. Thanks to the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, we can imagine what these ancient trees of the coal age may have looked like. These plants invented trees—and forests! Lepidodendron, the ‘scale-tree’ as one example, was more than 100 feet tall, and grew in dense forests in the equatorial swamps then prevalent across North America and Europe. They, too, eventually went up in smoke: the vast coal deposits these prehistoric forests formed have kept entire countries warm for decades.

Now those ancient giants are gone, and only about 450 species of their lowly relatives survive. Most survivors belong to the genus Lycopodium, or ‘wolf’s foot’ to Greek enthusiasts. We have few species of Lycopodium in Colorado. Most abundant, though hardly common, is the unusual Lycopodium annotinum, or stiff clubmoss, growing on the West Slope in small patches. This species occurs from Greenland to Alaska, where it is found in mature forests, especially those not disturbed by logging for many decades, and is occasionally eaten by moose. It is ranked S4, “apparently secure”, in Colorado; very secure in much of Canada. Another species, L. alpinum, is “critically imperiled” in Colorado and Newfoundland, but rated apparently secure in the Yukon, British Columbia, and Alberta.

Are the remaining clubmosses on the way to extinction? If so, it may be that we have helped them down that road a bit. In moist forests of turn-of-thecentury New England, ground pines were harvested in great volume for wreath material and other halldecking. As a child in the northeast, I remember these wonderful plants but never found them in great abundance. About six inches tall at most, spreading outward in patches under the trees, these plants do resemble miniature pine trees. As with most “useless” plants of the forest floor, they are rarely discussed in forestry studies and rarely thrive in managed forests and tree plantations. In New York today, lycopods are protected on public lands, as they all, as a group, are considered to be declining and vulnerable to exploitation, in part because they regenerate very slowly after being harvested. Commercial collecting has made some species rare; the L. complanatum I remember is now considered “critically imperiled” in New York State, but L. obscurum remains secure there. [Explore the status of species of Lycopodium at NatureServe.org.]

Our wreaths and boughs today usually substitute easily gathered pine, spruce, and fir branches for these older plants. Some of us may be able to harvest boughs from our own backyards; most of us probably cannot. A few commercial collecting permits are offered in our nearby national forests; one year the Arapahoe-Roosevelt Forest sold commercial permits for about 8 tons of boughs at $50 per ton. (If you have a permit to cut a Christmas tree, you are allowed to pick up a few boughs for personal use.) Decorative boughs for wreaths and garlands are harvested from private lands in Colorado as well.

Some coniferous decorations offered for holiday sale here and elsewhere in the U.S. are imported from the Pacific Northwest, where trees are larger and grow more quickly. In fiscal year 2010 on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests in Washington State, more than 60,000 pounds of conifer limbs and boughs were harvested, not counting the bushels of cones and other “foliage.” Perhaps some of this year’s harvest—regional or imported—will end up brightening your own front door.

Copyright © 2013 Sally L. White

Snowbirds

/2 Comments/in , /by

Author: Ann Bonnell

Date: January 2012

Sometimes called “Snowbirds,” Darkeyed Juncos are slightly larger than House Finches, with white feathers at the outside edges of their tails. They always show up at your yards and feeders with the first snowfall of the season. The word junco comes from the scientific name for the genus coming from the Latin “a rush.” This remains a mystery as juncos are not normally associated with reeds or rushes, only occasionally found in bogs. It may be from Junco – Medieval Latin for the Reed Bunting which this genus resembles. Linnaeus gave them their scientific name Junco hyemalis. He was a Swedish scientist and noticed they showed up only in winter, the Latin hiemalis meaning of or belonging to winter.

At one time the juncos were separate species, however in 1973 most of them were lumped into Dark-eyed Juncos. The old species are now called subspecies, forms, races or types depending upon the author. Currently under Dark-eyed Junco are Slatecolored Junco, Oregon Junco, Pink-sided Junco, Gray-headed Junco, White-winged Junco, and the Red-backed Junco. The Yellow-eyed Junco is a separate species. The juncos that were lumped into Dark-eyed Junco can often be identified separately; however because of cross-breeding some identifications can be difficult. Those we can’t put in a definite slot we call “form.” Juveniles in mid-summer are a challenge as they look like streaky sparrows. The adult juncos we see have pale, pinkish-white conical shaped bills and they are not streaked. Currently juncos belong to the Sparrow Family. At one time they were included in the Finch Family.

Juncos nest in relatively open coniferous forests or mixed woods with patches of open ground and brush from 8,000′ to 10,000′ elevation. The nest is often tucked up against a log, tree, and shrub or in a crevice. The nest is made of grass, plant fibers, moss, rootlets, bark, and twigs lined with finer materials such as hair. The female builds the nest. The male will sing his one pitch, soft trill from the top of a nearby tree. During courtship a pair may hop about with wings drooped and tail held forward showing their white, outer tail feathers. She lays 3-5 whitish eggs speckled with brown. Incubation is about 12 days and hatching to fledging is about another 12 days. The legs of the immatures develop rapidly to aid in running from the nest if a predator shows up. Brown-headed Cowbirds sometimes lay eggs in junco nests. I observed an adult junco feeding a juvenile cowbird in the campground at Kenosha Pass. The junco was about ½ the size of the hungry cowbird. The eye color of Dark-eyed Juncos changes from gray or gray-brown to red-brown as they mature from juveniles to adults. In Colorado our breeding form of Dark-eyed Junco is the Gray-headed Junco. They live year-round in Colorado and are the only juncos we see in summertime. In fall as the weather gets colder and snows start our breeding Gray-headed Juncos move down in elevation and some may even leave the area heading farther south. The other juncos: Grayheaded from farther north, Oregon from areas north and west of us, White-winged from the Dakotas, Slate-colored and Pink-sided from farther north show up along the Front Range. In winter they hang out in small flocks sometimes mixed with chickadees, Bushtits, nuthatches and other species. This gives them a better warning system from predators.

The juncos like to feed on the ground hopping and scratching to find seeds, nuts, some fruits and many different types of insects. Their diet in summer is mostly insects. They feed the nestlings only insects, sometimes regurgitated when the nestlings are very young. In winter their diet is mostly seeds. At your feeder they prefer the small seeds they can crack open such as white millet. They will feed on the ground or at an elevated tray.

Their predators would be hawk, accipiters, egg or nestling eating mammals and snakes. At one time humans shot them for food. John James Audubon commented in his classic Birds of America: Dark-eyed Junco (“… flesh is extremely delicate and juicy”). In 1918 legislation enacted as part of the Migratory Bird Act stopped the hunting of migratory non-game birds except for scientific purposes.

In cold weather juncos, sparrows and finches use thermoregulation while foraging on the ground for food. They will drop down and cover their legs and feet with their breast feathers, pausing in their search for food to warm up. In winter a favorite place to look for juncos is on sunny, bare, south facing slopes.

Some identifying marks to look for in differentiating the adult forms of Dark-eyed Juncos we would normally see in Colorado are: Gray-headed Junco – Dark eyes and area around the eyes, pink bill, pale gray overall, white belly, not distinctly defined, neat, rufous back; Oregon Junco – Only junco with jet black hood contrasting with brown back – the female is paler; Slate-colored Junco – Slate gray with pink bill and white belly; Pink-sided Junco – Slightly larger than Oregon Junco, with pale, bluish gray hood, dark around eyes and rich orange-buff sides; Whitewinged Junco – Larger than Slate-colored, dark around eyes, pale gray throat, distinct, white wingbars and more white feathers at tail edges than other juncos. The Red-backed Junco form from New Mexico is not found in Colorado. The Yellow-eyed Junco is a separate species found in Arizona and Mexico.

How long do juncos live? There are several records of recaptures after 8 ½ years. Young juncos have been recorded returning after migration to nest within 50 yards of the nest location they fledged.

Mila et al. (2007) conclude the entire Darkeyed Junco species has undergone a rapid post-Pleistocene radiation from the south, diversifying in the past 10,000 years into the various forms we see today.

Information for this article was collected from many sources. Perhaps the Snowbirds will visit you this winter.

Copyright © 2013 Ann Bonnell

Mountain Area Land Trust (MALT)

/0 Comments/in /by

1992 – 2011

18,000+ Acres Protected

52 Conservation EasementsMountain Area Land Trust (MALT)

Located in Evergreen, Colorado, the Mountain Area Land Trust (MALT) was formed in 1992 to work collaboratively with private landowners and public entities to save scenic vistas, natural areas, wildlife habitat, working ranches and historic lands for the benefit of the community and as a legacy for future generations.

Since its inception, MALT has successfully protected over 18,000 acres in Clear Creek, Park and Jefferson Counties. These protected lands truly represent the best of Colorado – including rugged mountains, free-flowing streams, productive hay meadows, working ranches, wetland habitats, dense forests, diverse wildlife habitats and outdoor recreation areas. Perhaps most significantly, these successful projects protect water quality, which is critical to sustaining Colorado’s ecology and economy. MALT facilitates the placement of conservation easements on land that is both public and private. To-date 12,195 acres are protected through partnerships with private landowners and 5,965 acres are protected through facilitated public projects.

2011 was a banner year for Mountain Area Land Trust

As of early December MALT had closed on seven easements adding over 3,000 acres of conserved property. MALT is working on another four that they hope to have completed by the end of this 2011 or early 2012.

MALT has been approved and submitted all final paperwork for National Land Trust Accreditation. Did you know that out of the 1,800 land trusts in the USA only 135 are nationally accredited? That is less than 10%! MALT is on our way to being a part of that exclusive set of highly rated land trusts.

MALT continues to refine its conservation plan and reach out to its service area that stretches from Clear Creek to Jefferson to Park County. Presently MALT is searching for a next great public project.

The Mountain Area Land Trust staff take great pride in what they do but cannot do it without their supporters. Every single dollar that comes in helps them find more land to save. It enables them to continue to protect the open spaces, scenic vistas, working ranches and wildlife corridors forever. Please consider a tax deductible gift to support MALT’s work.

Mountain Area Land Trust Offices:

Evergreen, CO 80439

303.679.0950

www.SaveTheLand.org 

A Great New Park

/0 Comments/in /by

December 15, 2011 Open Space closed on the 613-acre Booth-Rogers property. As one can see on the accompanying map, the Northeast portion of the property is adjacent to the undeveloped Coal Creek Canyon Park and the South boundary connects to White Ranch Park via two trail easements. The property provides a second connection to Golden State Park from White Ranch and Coal Creek Canyon Parks via easements on the South and West sides. See map on the next page.

The property at one time was much larger and served as a cattle ranch. It had been in the Booth family for 127 years. In the early days, a wagon road passed through the property as an alternate route from Denver and Boulder to Central City.

Most of the property is a South-facing slope that is moderately wooded, with large meadows, some springs and ponds. The forested areas are in excellent health, without over growth, guess that cattle like the sprouting evergreens. Wildlife is abundant with resident deer, elk, and bear. Views are spectacular ranging from Denver the East, the foothills and Mt Evans to the South, and the Continental Divide to the West.

Road access is difficult as the Brumm Trail from the East is very narrow and steep. Alternate access from Highway 72 on the North is along an access easement that will be limited to maintenance vehicles. Early use probably will be for long hikes or rides starting from White Ranch. With later access from a Coal Creek Canyon Park Trailhead. 

PLAN Jeffco’s Comments to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Relative to the Environmental Assessment of the Land Exchange

/0 Comments/in /by

Dear Sirs:

PLAN Jeffco submits these comments in response to the Fish and Wildlife Services’ request for public comments as part of its NEPA scoping process relating to the Services’ development of an EA. The EA is being developed to analyze the impacts of the Service’s proposed transfer/sale of a 300-foot wide strip of land along the eastern boundary of the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge for use as a transportation corridor.

PLAN Jeffco is the citizens group that, in 1972, initiated the first county open space acquisition program in the country. We continue to monitor, advise and work with the staff, Open Space Advisory Committee and elected officials regarding the Jefferson County Open Space Program. In 1989, Plan Jeffco joined with other groups to urge the Open Space Program to preserve and acquire the important natural habitat in the Rocky Flats ecosystem including the acquisition of Section 16. That effort has resulted in much open space preservation by Jeffco which protects the habitat as well as the scenic vistas in the area near the Refuge.

We are very concerned about the planned scope of the NEPA analysis which would only look at the impacts of the transfer on the lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System and would ignore the impacts on the impacted communities outside of the Refuge System. To comply with NEPA, FWS cannot wear blinders nor can it avoid addressing the indirect impacts to the people, wildlife, scenic vistas, already congested Hwy 93, water, air quality, and noise resulting from the transfer of the land for use as a transportation corridor. The Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority, the JPPHA, has requested the corridor be transferred to it so it can use the land to construct a toll way; whereas the City of Golden has requested the land be transferred to it so it can construct a bike way for use by bikers, pedestrians or equestrians. The impacts of these two proposals on the affected environment outside of the Rocky Flats Refuge are obviously very different in intensity and in scope. These off-refuge impacts must be analyzed in the EA for the Service to comply with NEPA.

The type of detrimental impacts we are particularly concerned about are the future foreseeable effects from the construction and use of the toll way and from the induced accelerated development. These clearly fall within the definition of “indirect impacts” as set forth in CEQ’s NEPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 1508.8. Indirect effects include those “which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.”

Additionally, some of these off-refuge impacts also are significant and will require an EIS and not merely an EA. As shown by the following, these impacts fall within the terms included in CEQ’s regulatory definition of “significance” at 40 CFR Part 1508.27.

TRAFFIC IMPACTS

If the Service were to transfer the lands in the transportation corridor to the JPPHA, the foreseeable impacts to those of us who use the roads in the northern part of Jefferson County will be extremely negative and significant. Based on data in the JPPA System Level Study for the Jefferson Parkway (July 20, 2009) submitted to CDOT and DRCOG in July 2009, Golden prepared the map shown in Attachment 1. This map dramatically shows that by 2015, toll way traffic will cause a 38% increase in traffic on Hwy 93, which at certain times is at or above capacity causing stop and go conditions for miles. It also shows a 117% projected traffic increase on 64th Avenue and significant increases in traffic on C-40, parts of 6th Avenue, I-70 and C-470 and on other roads in the area. Attachment 1 shows that there are some anticipated decreases in the amount of traffic projected but they are more than offset by the size of the increases and negative effects on traffic on other roads. Also refer to Attachment 2, for a depiction of the 2035 traffic impacts which continue to predict significant increases in other roads due to the toll way.

These traffic volumes do not include the additional traffic that is projected to be generated by the development of the Candelas Property located south of the Refuge. The toll way is specifically designed benefit this planned development by transecting it so it could funnel traffic to and from this 1451 acre new urban center. The designs for the Property include high density office, commercial and residential development which will be accelerated by construction of the toll way. According to the System Study, by 2015 18,000-24,000 trips a day will be generated by Candelas development, greatly increasing the traffic load and commuter time on the roads shown on Attachments 1 and 2. Candelas generated traffic is projected to worsen by 2035 when 23,000-39,000 trips a day will enter and leave the development. These projected traffic increases will only worsen the traffic conditions on the roads in the northern part of Jefferson County.

These increased traffic volumes will not only lengthen the time spent by commuters sitting in traffic and on traffic flow, it will have air quality and noise impacts on those who live near and use the impacted roads. Based on the above described projections by JPPHA, the intensity and the severity of the impacts are significant. Similarly, the NEPA analysis should look at the indirect traffic impacts that would result from Golden’s bike way proposal.

POTENTIAL PLUTONIUM CONTAMINATION

PLAN Jeffco recognizes that before the Service accepted transfer of the lands comprising the Rocky Flats Refuge, EPA had certified that the clean-up was complete and that the lands were safe for refuge use. As you know, there are people and entities that dispute these findings. They contend this certification is not valid and that the construction and use of the transportation corridor for a toll way will create a significant human health risk.

There are several scientific studies that support these serious public health concerns. The latest information was sampled in April 2010 and analyzed by Marco Kaltofen, Boston Chemical Data Corp., Natick, MA. It showed plutonium contamination from dust blown from the Refuge onto land across from the Refuge on Indiana St. Additionally, the soil sampling conducted by the Citizens’ Environmental Sampling Committee conducted in 1993 and 1994 also found plutonium contamination that had originated on Rocky Flats in areas as far as 5-6 miles from the Rocky Flats plant. Finally, there is the 1975 study by the Jefferson County Health Department’s Director, CJ Johnson, that also showed potential health hazards due to plutonium in the dust that may be inhaled by humans.

Even after the EPA certification there continues to be a serious controversy over the health risks from digging up the transportation corridor for construction and use as a toll way; this constitutes a “significant” indirect impact of any alternative in which the Service transfers the transportation corridor to the JPPHA which intends to use the corridor to build a toll way. Based on this significant scientific controversy over human health effects, FWS should conclude that the land transfer to JPPHA is likely to have a significant impact on the human environment. Therefore, NEPA requires that this issue be analyzed in an EIS.

Furthermore, we have found no evidence that, prior to certification, EPA analyzed and evaluated the sufficiency of the Rocky Flats clean-up in relation to the future use of the transportation corridor for construction and use as highway. To the contrary, the EPA clean-up standard was based on the risks to a refuge worker working 4 hours indoors and 4 hours outside on the refuge for 18 years, not on a person grading the land during highway construction. Nor was the land cleaned up to a standard that would not risk the health of those living and using roads in the area, of refuge staff or visitors or of all of us in the Denver metro area that may breathe in the construction dust during and after the toll way is built.

The lack of EPA certification for construction and use of the corridor for highway, means that there may continue to be significant health risks resulting from using the transportation corridor for other than for refuge purposes. Because there is no empirical data for the Service to rely on to determine that the indirect impacts from disturbance of the surface and subsurface due to highway construction will not cause health risks, the Service must obtain such information prior to any FONSI or completion of an EIS and ROD. Although the indirect human health impacts from the construction and use of the corridor for a bike way should be much less than those from road construction, similar impact information should be obtained regarding potential bike way construction and use.

ECOSYSTEM DEGRADATION

As mentioned above, PLAN Jeffco was the catalyst for the Jefferson County Open Space Program. This program, along with the City of Boulder, Boulder County, the City of Westminster, and the City of Arvada have preserved wildlife corridors extending from the Foothills to the plains East of the proposed toll way. Migration along these corridors is significant and the toll way will provide a significant barrier to this migration.

In addition the dissecting of these corridors, the toll way and the development it will accelerated will diminish the other purposes for which these lands were preserved, i.e. open vistas, protecting the mountain backdrop, and providing natural areas for public enjoyment.

The Service must analyze the direct and indirect impacts of all the alternatives on the open space values, including scenery, wildlife, and recreation.

AIR QUALITY

The Service is required to take a hard look at the impacts associated with all alternatives under consideration. Relative to air quality, the Service must assess the effect the toll way and bike way would have on ozone levels in the region, and assess whether the toll way would contribute to the region falling out of compliance with the new and stricter ozone standards expected to be adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency in the next few months.

In 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency revised the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”) to 0.075 parts per million (“ppm”). See 40 C.F.R. § 50.15. However, the EPA has proposed to strengthen the ozone NAAQS by setting a limit of no more than 0.060-0.070 parts per million over an 8-hour period. See 75 Fed. Reg. 2938-3052 (Jan. 19, 2010). The EPA expects to finalize the new ozone NAAQS between 0.060 and 0.070 parts per million in July of 2011. See U.S. EPA, Declaration of Regina McCarthy (Dec. 8, 2010), available at http://www.epa.gov/glo/pdfs/20101208declaration.pdf (last visited July 28, 2011).

Even though the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) looked at ozone levels when they adopted the regional transportation plan (RTP), DRCOG did not assess the effects on ozone levels of the RTP relative to newer and stricter ozone standards adopted by the EPA in 2008 and likely to be adopted in 2011. Hence, the Service cannot rely on the DRCOG analysis and must conduct its own, and disclose the results, including the likelihood of non-attainment with the ozone standards, in the environmental analysis. Moreover, because the potential consequences of failing to meet the new ozone standard under the Clean Air Act are severe and significant, and because the public health impacts of increased ozone are so serious, the Service must undertake an EIS instead of an EA to comply with the NEPA regulations.

Lastly, the Service is required to analyze the impacts of the alternatives on other air pollutants for which the EPA has established NAAQS, including, but not limited to, the 1-hour nitrogen dioxide NAAQS (see 75 Fed. Reg. 6474-6537 (Feb. 9, 2010)), the particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter NAAQS (see 40 C.F.R. §§ 50.10 and 52.21(c)), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter NAAQS (see 40 C.F.R. § 50.13 and 75 Fed. Reg. 64864-64907 (Oct. 20, 2010)).

DRCOG is not required to analyze impacts to such NAAQS because the region is not designated nonattainment. However, simply because the area is not designated nonattainment at the present does not mean that future development related to the proposed actions will not jeopardize compliance with other NAAQS. Thus, the Fish and Wildlife Service should analyze all reasonably foreseeable air quality impacts, including impacts to the ozone, particulate matter, and nitrogen dioxide NAAQS resulting from the proposed transfer/sale of the corridor.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment. We urge the Service to undertake an EIS. If the Service declines at this point in the process to switch to an EIS, we ask that the Service ensure that there is an adequate period for public comment on the draft EA.

Sincerely yours,

Margot Zallen, Chair, PLANJeffco

Heritage Conservation Areas, the New Approach to Open Space

/0 Comments/in /by

By John Litz

The 10-year Funding Plan, discussed in the OSAC Notes in the June 2011 PLAN Jeffco Update, identifies significantly fewer dollars available for land acquisition from 2011 to 2020. The flat economy, which is generating only slight increases in sales tax revenue, is mostly responsible for this change. Servicing of the bonds is now taking almost one-half of the County’s share of sales tax revenue.

The Funding Plan emphasized several strategies to maximize acquisition and development potential, such as partnerships, the use of conservation tools, and alternative funding to make the best use of available dollars. Consequently, Open Space is looking at a targeted acquisition strategy that identifies large areas that have significant wildlife, natural resource, and scenic and outdoor recreation values. These areas are preliminarily being called “Heritage Conservation Areas.” It is hoped that this “landscape level’ approach can generate more partnerships and funding for future projects.

Four areas have been identified including: the natural drainages known as Ralston Creek, Clear Creek, Bear Creek, and Deer Creek. General outlines of these areas are shown on the map on the opposite page. All of the shaded areas are either lands already preserved by Jefferson County (fee or conservation easement), State Parks, Forest Service, and Denver Water, or have active acquisition proposals ongoing at the time of this publication.

The concept still is in the formative stages, with ongoing discussion and refinements anticipated over the next several months. A few years ago, a similar strategy employed on the Clear Creek Corridor was successful in obtaining a large Legacy Grant from GOCO for acquisitions. The hope is that history will repeat itself, and enable Open Space to preserve the unprotected lands in these Heritage Conservation Areas.