Anemone Hill, ca. 1909-1916 (Carnegie Library)

I am 93 years old, arrived in Boulder in September, 1946, and lived in the uppermost cottage (701) in Chautauqua. I had grown up in New York City, but had been a young naturalist since age 5. When I was twelve I became an  avid birder, and learned my first botany in the field using a book on the trees and shrubs of the New York City region in winter condition. I was given a mint copy of Gray’s Manual of Botany by a biology teacher who had to have the book for a college course but had never opened it. With the help of a lady from the New York Botanical Garden I learned to use this, my first botany book, sitting in the meadows and learning how to use the keys.

By the time I was hired at the University of Colorado, I had already learned the flora of New England and New York State, spent three years in Iowa studying the flora of the mid-western prairies, and five years in the Pacific  Northwest studying the floras of the Canadian Rockies, Washington, Idaho, and Oregon. My early experience was extremely useful here in Colorado, because it is here that all of these geographical elements merge in a very interesting way.

Anemone Hill Trail-Open Space Board of Trustees Recommendation (http://1.usa.gov/rJmBst) click to enlarge

The area now including the Mountain Parks and Open Space was already famous because of the occurrence, in Long Canyon, of the eastern North American Paper Birch, Betula papyrifera, and the colony of a fern, Asplenium  adiantum-nigrum, on Ricky Weiser’s property at White Rocks. There were few trails, and few people, no horses, and no dogs.

I helped the staff of Parks and Open Space in assembling an herbarium of the vascular plants. In addition, Ron Wittmann and I have assembled and provided the open space herbarium with a set of the bryophytes (mosses) as far as we have discovered them. Jim Corbridge and I have published a little book of colored pictures of 75 species of the mostly easily recognized lichens. Urless Lanham’s daughter published a popular account of the plants of the Mesa Trail. My books on the entire Colorado Flora were preceded, in1949, by a mimeographed book on the flora of Boulder County. I have trained a great many students in my field courses by using the Mountain Parks as their outdoor laboratory. One of these, Tim Hogan, has published a new catalog. Perhaps it is not generally realized how much scientific work has been published about this remarkable area (see references). It is internationally recognized as a ecosystem treasure.

When I arrived in Boulder the Flatirons were recovering from an earlier period of exploitation. A quarry scarred the lower face, and great numbers of trees had been burned or cut by the early settlers. Our little town numbered 14,000 residents. We had no idea that population pressure would soon descend on this extraordinary area, so rich in vegetation and wildlife. The mere press of bodies with feet, the automobile exhausts, and deliberate defacing of the rocks soon began to tell, and many residents made plans to move to higher ground close to nature.

Some foresighted individuals got together and began to resist this development. I was active in the preparation of arguments supporting the Blue Line Amendment, and I was a member of the citizens’ committee to oversee the construction of NCAR. The cooperation of the scientists was a strong beginning to a serious effort for preservation, and at the time preservation was the most important mission.

Times change, and memory goes as we oldsters disappear. The turnpike, more water from the western slope, the population explosion, the growth of the university, and our vigorous climb out of the Great Depression has made Boulder a resort. Not only has the town become a city re-created from its lowly birth, but it is now recreated (without the hyphen!). Extreme recreation is the current rage. Climbing, bouldering, mountain biking, and horse riding have taken over. Preservation? Aren’t there other immense areas of mountains and forest easily available?

We no longer have neighbors, we don’t greet each other on the street, we don’t walk, but we have dogs. I love dogs. I had two papillons. My daughter has seven Border Collies, and she trains dogs, but she has to go far afield to find a barn where dogs could get proper training. How many people who love dogs take the trouble to train them, or to train themselves to be considerate of other dogs or people? Where is the millionaire who would donate a center for the training of people and their dogs in what I am beginning to feel is the doggiest town in America. Dogs are just as happy walking beside us on the street.

It was my student in General Biology in 1947 who missed classes before a weekend, and when questioned about his absence, he replied that he had been in jail. It was Joe Matesi, later a physician in Indiana. He had gone up on the third Flatiron at night and painted CU on the face. Subsequently, the CU was modified by the an Oklahoma fan to OU, and later to ICU. The modifications were only temporary, and an attempt was made to erase the original letters. But in the proper lighting, the CU is still visible after 65 years! How many folks riding the Skip even look out the window to see it?

I myself was guilty of a early insult to the area. In the search for a small Christmas tree, Sam Kipp and I cut two small Douglas-fir trees from the upper Bluebell Canyon. At the time, there were evidently no restrictions, but the guilty memory will not be erased.

Centuries after Man has wreaked his havoc on the last places on earth that can be said to be at all pristine, our “protected” places will still recover and outlive us all, but is it too much for us Boulderites to remember the real reasons why we have tried to save what we still have? A week or so ago, I took some of my family to the west end of the bike path in lower Boulder Canyon. I intended to show them the display of mosses that I had seen on the steep slope by the trailside. This was one of the only spots where I had easy access to my four-wheel walker. The slope was totally denuded of mosses. Human feet loosened the soil, resulting in landslides. The mosses, still alive, were only surviving in the ditch at the bottom. Some one or ones simply had to get to the climbable cliff above! Bit by bit, we chew on our finest local scenery and the ecosystem that occupies it.

Let’s agree finally to leave our open space alone!

References

Cockerell, T.D.A. 1905. Tables for the identification of Rocky Mountain Coccidae (Scale Insects and Mealybugs). Univ. of Colo. Studies 2:189–208.

Cockerell, T.D.A. 1907. The bees of Boulder County, Colorado. Univ. of Colorado Studies 4:239–260.

Cockerell, T.D.A,. 1907. The Protozoa of the University Campus. Univ. of Colorado Studies 4:261.

Cockerell, T.D.A. 1911. The fauna of Boulder County, Colorado. Univ. of Colorado Studies 8:231—236.

Cockerell, T.D.A. 1912. The fauna of Boulder County, Colorado, II. Univ. of Colorado Studies 9:41–52.

Cockerell, T.D.A. 1917. The fauna of Boulder County, Colorado. III, IV. Univ. of Colorado Studies 12:5–26.

Cockerell, T.D.A. 1927. Zoology of Colorado. Univ. Of Colorado Centennial Series, Vol. 3. 262 pp. Illustr.

Dodds, Gideon S. 1908. Geology and physiography of the mesas near Boulder. Univ. of Colorado Studies 6, No.1.

Hogan, Tim. 1993. A floristic survey of the Boulder Mountain Park, Boulder, Colorado. Natural History Inventory of Colorado No. 13. 63 pp. Univ. of Colorado Museum.

Froiland, Sven Gordon. 1952. The biological status of Betula andrewsii. Evolution 6:268–282.

Henderson, Junius. 1904. Paleontology of the Boulder area. Univ. of Colorado Studies 2:87–94.

Henderson, Junius. 1904. Additional list of Boulder County birds. Univ. of Colorado Studies 2:95–106.

Henderson, Junius. 1909. An annotated list of the birds of Boulder County, Colorado. Univ. of Colorado Studies 6: 215–218.

Hicks, Charles H. 1926. Nesting habits and parasites of certain bees of Boulder County, Colorado. Univ. of Colorado Studies 15:215–248.

Juday, Chancey. 1904. Fishes of Boulder County, Colorado. Univ. of Colorado Studies 2: 113–114.

Ramaley, Francis. 1908. Climatology of the mesas near Boulder. Univ. of Colorado Studies 6, No. 1.

Ramaley, Francis, & Leon Kelso. 1931. Autumn vegetation of the foothills near Boulder, Colorado. Univ. of Colo. Studies 18:239–156.

Robbins, W. W. 1908. Distribution of deciduous trees and shrubs on the mesas. Univ. of Colorado Studies 6, No. 1.

Robbins, W. W. 1912. Preliminary list of the algae of Colorado. Univ. of Colorado Studies

Rohwer, Sievert A. 1909. The Bembicid wasps of Boulder County, Colorado. Univ. of Colorado Studies 6:243–248.

Rohwer, Sievert A. 1913. The sawflies of Boulder County, Colorado. Univ. of Colorado Studies 9:91–104.

Weber, W.A. 1946. Botany of the Boulder area. [in] Natural History of the Boulder Area. Univ. of Colorado Museum, Leaflet 13. Pp. 43–46.

Weber, W. A. 1948. White Rocks. Green Thumb, October. Pp. 6–8, 5 photos.

Weber, W. A. 1949. The flora of Boulder County, 200 pp. Mimeographed. Dept. of Biology.

Weber, W. A. 1965. Plant Geography in the Southern Rocky Mountains. Pp. 453-468, in The Quaternary of the United States (H. E. Wright Jr., & D. G. Frey, eds.)

Weber, W.A.2003. The Middle Asian Element in the Southern Rocky Mountain Flora of the western United States. Journal of Biogeography 30:649–685.

Weber, W. A., & J. N. Corbridge. 1998. Colorado Lichen Primer. 48 pp. 72 color plates. Univ. of Colorado Press.

Weber, W. A., & R. C. Wittmann. 2011. Colorado Flora: Eastern Slope. (In press) University Press of Colorado.

Weber, W.A. 2001. Colorado Bryological Hot Spots. 1. Boulder Mountain Park. Evansia 18(4):1430–146.

Weber, W, A. 2007. Bryophytes of Colorado: Mosses, Liverworts, and Hornworts. 222 p., 8 plates. Pilgrims Process.

Weber. W. A. (With S. V. Clark and Vera Komarkova). Map of mixed prairie vegetation, Rocky Flats, Colorado. Inst. Alpine & Arctic Res., Occasional Paper 35:1–66, map.

Weber, W. A. (With Richard Zander). 1997. Didymodon anserinocapitatus (Musci, Pottiaceae), new to the New World. Bryologist 100:237–238.

Weber, W. A. (with Richard Zander). 2003. Anoectangium handelii (Pottiaceae, Bryopsida) in the New World. Bryologist 107:48–49.

Zander, Richard H., & Ryszard Ochyra. 2001. Didymodon tectorum and D. brachyphyllus in North America. Bryologist 104:372–377.

The West TSA encompasses Boulder’s mountain backdrop from Eldorado Springs Drive in the south to Linden Drive on the north. © 2004 Raymond Bridge

The process of developing a management plan for the West Trail Study Area— encompassing Boulder’s mountain backdrop and everyone’s favorite trails and climbs—has now been going on for well over two years, and the results are scheduled to go to City Council next month, on March 15.

In addition to being viewed by most Boulder citizens as the heart of their open space system, the West TSA is the largest TSA, at 11,200 acres, has the most visitors, estimated at about 2 million a year, and has many entrances—51 formal access points, as well as thousands from residents’ back yards, from other public lands, or from roads. (Figures from OSMP documents.) Hence, developing a management plan was destined to be a complex and contentious undertaking. Boulderites love their open space, and they are quick to express their opinions on how it should be managed!

Background—What’s a TSA?

The history of Boulder’s open space and the West TSA is too long to cover here, but management issues have been with us since residents purchased what is now Chautauqua in 1898. The emphasis in the Open Space Charter incorporated into the City Charter and approved by the voters in 1986 is preservation, but the stated goals also provide for passive recreation, and recreation has always been a major purpose of what was once the Boulder Mountain Parks, merged into the Open Space Department in 2001, because the purpose of the Mountain Parks was deemed to be that of open space, rather than parks and recreation.

In developing management policies for open space, however, it was recognized that the sometimes conflicting demands of preservation and recreation needed to be resolved, and a long community discussion and debate, including two citizen advisory committees, resulted in the Visitor Master Plan (VMP), adopted by City Council in April 2005. The VMP provided for trail study areas to be covered area-by-area by more detailed management plans, and the first two completed were the Marshall Mesa-Southern Grasslands TSA (Dec. 2005) and the Eldorado Mountain-Doudy Draw TSA (Dec. 2006).  These were basically developed by staff with input from interested parties, and public presentation and input at major decision points, a process that was time-consuming for staff, expensive for the department, and not viewed as completely satisfactory by anyone. Recreationists complained that their needs were not met, that the process was too cumbersome, that some segments received an inappropriate level of protection without any scientifically demonstrated need, and that some users were being shut out from land they had paid for through sales taxes. Dog Walkers complained that they were too restricted in the places they could hike with their dogs, particularly off-leash. Conservationists objected that the process began with users drawing lines on a map for their desired activities and that the natural resources had not been inventoried before laying out trails, nor were there plans to monitor impacts.

The Process

Work on the West TSA was officially initiated with an Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) study session in September 2008, followed by a public meeting in October. Well before those events, Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) began a substantially different and more thorough preparation for the TSA that covers the heart of the OSMP system—the West TSA. This is an area that is recognized worldwide as ecologically significant, and its recreational opportunities are treasured by Boulder citizens and visitors alike. Many residents of the area have a strong love for, and vested interest in, the West TSA. It arouses fierce loyalties and opinions from many points of view.

By the time of the study session, OSMP had decided to start the process with a thorough inventory of the West TSA resources: natural, recreational, cultural/historical, and paleontological, and to come up with a planning model for using these inventories in the decision-making process and for measuring and managing the results. The methodology was well-documented in the Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan, developed in parallel with the start of the West TSA, and adopted by City Council in May 2010, and the resource documents themselves are available here.

OSMP also struggled to come up with a more accelerated process for public input, while still achieving a process of community collaboration, hoping to get more community input of higher quality, while still achieving a faster review. Hope springs eternal!

Community Collaborative Group (CCG)

OSMP and OSBT ultimately agreed that the best way to approach the West TSA was to take a radically different process from the previous TSAs. They chose to convene a stakeholder group with representatives from many segments of the community to do the initial draft of the West TSA management plan, using an outside neutral facilitator, and operating under consensus rules—that is, the TSA plan would begin with a draft to which every single member of the CCG agreed. Any member could veto a proposal.

The CCG did not have any decision-making authority. That authority remained with OSMP, the Open Space Board of Trustees, and finally with City Council. This was always made very clear, though some members of the CCG had difficulty accepting the fact. The CCG essentially had the task of presenting community input to OSMP and OSBT.

There have been many arguments about the process as it proceeded; however, I think there is no question that the West TSA has had more extensive public input and involvement than either of the previous TSAs. There are various reasons, good and bad, but the community discussion has been intensive. Every CCG member has received hundreds of communications, each has communicated with her/his caucus, and every meeting has had provision for public input. A lot of this input has been documented, and much of it has not.

Returning to the establishment of the process, OSMP hired a facilitator from the Keystone Group to assist. He contacted and interviewed a variety of interested community members and proposed the composition of the CCG, in an iterative discussion with OSMP staff and OSBT.

In the end, OSBT decided that the CCG should be selected by caucus at a public meeting, where each member of the public decided on his/her primary interest, and the representatives were chosen to compose: 5 conservation representatives, 5 recreation representatives, 3 neighborhood representatives, 1 cultural/historical representative, and 2 representatives from OSMP, to be appointed by the department.

Controversy over the caucus process led to a number of disputes, particularly over the selection of the neighborhood representatives. In the end, months later, two of the neighborhood representatives resigned and were replaced by their alternates, and the aftereffects contributed to the departure of the original facilitator.

CCG meetings began in October 2009, and continued through 31 official meetings of 3-4 hours each over the next 16 months. In addition, there were countless communications with constituents, meetings with other CCG members, and meetings of subgroups. OSMP staff spent much of its time during this period supporting the CCG process.

Do the results justify all this time and effort?  Time will tell, depending on the contents of the final plan, the actions of City Council, and general community acceptance. Most importantly, we will see how well this unique area is sustained over the coming years and decades, based on implementation of the final plan.

The original campaign for open space promised to preserve it for our children, and their children, and their children…. The success in fulfilling that promise will be the final verdict.

CCG Recommendations

The CCG finally produced a set of consensus recommendations in January of 2011, and the OSBT accepted those recommendations as a package.

• Undesignated (social) trails. One of the main tasks of the CCG was to make recommendations on all undesignated trails in the West TSA—either to designate them or recommend that they be closed and reclaimed. The CCG did, in fact, come to consensus on designating approximately 12 miles of social trails and closing about 19 miles (see the Additional Summary Results table below). Another 26 miles were left for staff to decide.
• Rerouting trails to improve habitat, sustainability, and visitor experience, and recommend sections for repair. The CCG recommended repair of about 7 miles of trails and rerouting of 9 miles of existing trails, in a number of cases significantly expanding highly suitable habitat blocks.
• Dog regulations. The Visitor Master Plan calls for an increase in opportunities for dog-free hiking. This was a particularly difficult goal, since 95% of the trails in the West TSA currently allow dogs, and the ones that don’t are far from the normal trailheads. Increasing dog-free opportunities, even a little, requires closing someone’s favorite trail to dogs. The CCG did manage to come to consensus on some recommendations, which increase dog-free opportunities, and increase both voice-and-sight and leashed dog walking opportunities. (See the table below.) The agreements on dog regulations were the result of many hours of difficult negotiations between the dog walker representative and conservation representatives. There has since been a split among dog advocates in the community over whether they support the agreements made by the CCG dog representative. OSBT and OSMP accepted that this package of agreements had to be accepted as a whole, lest it unravel. It remains to be seen whether City Council will agree.
• Horse regulations. The CCG agreed to a complicated package of horse regulations that is included in the draft plan. The City Charter allows equestrian use of open space where designated. The CCG recommendations fill in the designations, as required by the TSA process.
• Mountain bikes. The CCG did not come to consensus on whether mountain bikes should be allowed on trails in the West TSA. All the alternatives proposed by the mountain biking representative were considered in detail, however, and studied on the ground. One large public meeting was held, and in the end, the conservation representatives and two of the neighborhood representatives agreed that consensus would not be reached on the mountain bike proposal then on the table.

The Draft West TSA Plan

According to the original charter for the CCG, all issues on which consensus was not reached would be decided by the OSMP department, so once the CCG recommendations were accepted by the OSBT, OSMP generated a draft that included all the CCG recommendations and made provisional decisions on the remaining issues. These included decisions on many remaining undesignated trails, several reroute decisions that were discussed extensively by the CCG, but that still needed to be resolved, and, of course, the issue of mountain bikes.

The draft plan was released to the public on February 1, and OSBT held a public hearing on it a week later, followed by a study session with staff. Some of the statistical summaries of actions are included in the tables below, and the bike issue is discussed in the following section.

Some Summary Aspects of the CCG Recommendations and the Draft Plan

The tables above are part of the memos from staff to the OSBT 2/9, available here.

Mountain Bikes in the West TSA?

The question of whether mountain bikes should be permitted on the trails in the West TSA was bound to be contentious. Indeed, mountain bikes were allowed on some of these trails in the early 1980s, and they were subsequently banned in 1987 as a result of conflicts with other users. I think it was always clear that this issue would end up being resolved by City Council.

In the draft plan, OSMP proposed two mountain bike uses in the West TSA:

1. Continue to pursue an Eldorado Springs-Walker Ranch connection with other agencies and potential acquisition of private land. Mountain bikers all agree that this a very desirable connection, but they are reluctant to accept it as useful, since it relies on negotiations with other parties to reach fruition. Conservation groups have generally been supportive of the initiative.
2. Pursue a connection from Boulder Canyon to the Flagstaff Saddle via Chapman Drive. Bikers have the same objection as above, but recent events have made achievement of this goal much more likely. Conservationists are also supportive of this alternative, with the proviso that bikes should be allowed on Chapman uphill-only, with descent via Flagstaff Road.

Though the CCG did not come to consensus, it did carefully consider all the routes proposed by the mountain biking representative, Mark McIntyre, and by Guy Burgess, one of the neighborhood representatives. In the end, none of the proposed north-south routes proved to be workable, because they would have caused significant environmental damage, or because of user-conflict issues, or both. Some proposals also elicited substantial neighborhood opposition.

There are two reasons that it is difficult to come up with a viable north-south bike route without unacceptable impact. The first is that the strip between the city boundary and the steep rocks to the west is narrow and interrupted by durable rock formations and sometimes by federal land. The second is that there is already a dense network of trails in our well-loved mountain front. These factors guarantee that any prospective route will fragment habitat, encounter fragile and valuable riparian corridors, and conflict with established hiking trails.

The mountain bike community has since advocated strongly for other alternatives that it was not willing to consider before. These will be problematic and contentious, because they are last-minute, and they cannot receive adequate analysis or public input at this late date.

Recent Events

February 1, The Draft West TSA Plan was released. It is available here. A supplementary document specifically addressing mountain bikes is here.

February 9, OSBT meeting on Draft West TSA Plan was held at City Council Chambers, with well over 100 members of the public speaking, primarily on the mountain bike issue. Everyone who wished to speak had an opportunity.

February 10, OSBT Study Session with Staff on the Draft Plan at the East Community Center. Public meeting with no public input. OSBT requested clarification/further study on a number of points.

What Happens Next?

Friday, February 18, final West TSA Plan is due to be released. It should be available at westtsa.org.

Wednesday, February 23, OSBT Meeting to act on Final West TSA Plan, there will be a public comment opportunity, at Boulder City Council Chambers.

Tuesday, March 15, (and Wednesday, March 16?) City Council Meeting to consider West TSA Plan. There will be public input on 3/15. City Council could take several routes, depending on whether it wants changes, but at least one more meeting on the plan is likely, probably on the next night.

Almost two years ago, in January of 2009, the City’s Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) Department began a process designed to assess trails, trail sustainability, visitor access, and natural resource protection in the West Trail Study Area (TSA). Regarded as the crown jewel of the Open Space system, the West TSA extends from Eldorado Springs Drive to Linden Avenue and includes all Open Space property west of Broadway – the Flatirons, Green Mountain, Bear Peak, Chautauqua, Mt. Sanitas, and the many spectacular landmarks of Boulder’s mountain backdrop. That long process appears to be on a final approach for landing.

With two previous trail study areas, the OSMP staff with community input generated recommendations about trail use, modified them based on public meetings, and obtained approval from the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT). For the West TSA, the OSMP staff decided to try a different approach – one that most people admitted was a bit of an experiment. The idea was to select a group of volunteer citizens whose charge was to produce a set of recommendations on all matters related to trails in the West TSA; that group was called the Community Collaborative Group (CCG, last acronym!). Selected in a rambunctious meeting on September 15, 2009, the CCG members comprised four caucuses representing conservation (5 reps), recreation (5 reps), neighborhood (3 reps), and cultural interests (1 rep). The CCG also consisted of two OSMP representatives for background support plus a set of alternates.

And then the work began. For three months CCG members familiarized themselves with previous OSMP management plans, inventory reports, and relevant research. They went on field trips and learned about habitat suitability models. They studied existing conditions for recreation, natural, and cultural resources. They were taught about trail-building techniques and costs. For another two months, the CCG representatives pored over maps and walked the trails in order to formulate desired future conditions and identify key destinations. Throughout these five months, the CCG members fulfilled their roles as representatives by communicating with their constituent groups through public meetings, email lists, and web sites. And equally important, despite widely differing opinions and perspectives, the CCG members learned to communicate with each other and form functional relationships that would be essential in the next stage of the process.

In April 2010, the process entered a new phase as CCG members began formulating specific recommendations about building new trails; rerouting and maintaining existing trails; and closing or designating social trails and access trails into nearby neighborhoods. They proposed regulations for equestrians, dogs, and mountain bikes for each trail. They discussed trail signage, historical features, and trailhead improvements. Working through the summer on an increasingly demanding schedule, each caucus assembled a packet of recommendations. Needless to say, many of the recommendations in these packets were incompatible.

In October 2010, guided by the remarkable negotiating skills of CCG facilitator Heather Bergman, the representatives began the grueling process of giving and taking, horse-trading, and compromising. The goal was to reach complete (100%) consensus on as many recommendations as possible. In some cases, consensus could be reached only by combining seemingly unrelated issues into one super-package held together by multiple concessions. Issues on which unanimous agreement could not ultimately be reached (such as a mountain bike route from Chautauqua to the south Mesa Trail) were sent to the OSMP staff as non-consensus items.

A spectator of the final CCG negotiating sessions could not help but be moved by the high drama of these intense four-hour meetings. Much agonizing and teeth-gritting took place as representatives wrestled with their own personal convictions and the (often conflicting) desires of their constituents. More than a year of difficult work was finally converging on these final high-pressure decisions. Equally impressive was the admirable level of civility that was maintained throughout the negotiations. If they didn’t know it already, the CCG members had mastered the art of agreeing to disagree.

It’s too early to say much about the final outcome. The preliminary recommendations of the CCG will be presented to the public (at a December 6 open house) and the OSBT (in a study session on December 15). The CCG will meet in a final negotiating session on January 6 before presenting its final report to the OSBT on January 19. The final TSA report, which includes the CCG recommendations plus the OSMP staff recommendations on non-consensus items, will be presented to the OSBT on February 23. Regardless of the specific details of the final report, we know it will be the product of compromise. As a consequence, it’s safe to say that no CCG member will get everything s/he desired, and it is certain that each member will have given up something that s/he truly hoped for. The hope is that averaged over the West TSA, and indeed over the entire Open Space system, all users can find gains and improvements. The greater hope is that moving forward, Open Space users can adopt the tolerance and respect for other users that CCG members cultivated among themselves.

Regardless of the feelings that people may have for the content of the final CCG report, it is important that we all stand back and acknowledge the prodigious effort that produced that report. We can all reach consensus on that point! It would be difficult to estimate the number of hours of strenuous work, late-night study, emotional overdrafts, lost sleep, and frustrating emails – in addition to full-time jobs and family lives − that went into this project on the part of both the OSMP staff and CCG members. The volunteer CCG members particularly deserve our gratitude and admiration for a truly extraordinary act of public service.

The synthetic turf playing field at the renovated Casey Middle School is a lot of things: centrally located, environmentally friendly, guilt-free green— and off-limits.  A grey Master lock and a BVSD sign declare use of the field restricted to properly authorized individuals who have reserved it ahead of time.

No kids with kites.
No Snow Day sledders.
No Frisbee-tossing teenagers.

The field where generations of Boulder kids learned to throw a ball or turn a cartwheel is now closed to casual use. Casey officials have indicated that the field will remain locked up like “all District turf fields,” despite earlier promises to provide public access to the space.

This unfortunate decision comes at a price for local youth. Recently, the police showed up because a few neighborhood boys had scaled the fence to play Frisbee. The message to these teenagers? “Playing outside can get you in trouble.” In an age of epidemic child obesity, isn’t it irresponsible for a public institution, renovated with over $30 million in tax dollars, to take away a communal space that has been used primarily by children for outdoor recreation?

The lock-out seems especially unfair given that access to the field and adjacent sledding hill was a major point of discussion during the planning phase of the Casey renovation project. The sledding hill has been a fixture of central Boulder for years, and community members attended design meetings to ensure its availability after project completion. School officials assured the public that access to the field and hill would be preserved.

The reason now cited for the closure—protection of the newly-installed synthetic turf—runs counter to the justification provided for installing the turf field in the first place. In addition to the major benefit of conserving water, the synthetic turf was touted as being tougher than grass. Limiting access also runs counter to one of the guiding principles for BVSD facility planning, as articulated in the Educational Facilities Master Plan, which describes the projects funded by the 2006 Bond Issue (including the Casey renovation): to “[c]ontinue to encourage community use of facilities.”

Nothing discourages community use of a field more than a lock and a sign urging residents to report its unauthorized use. Boulderites value an active lifestyle. Our public schools should promote this value by providing more places for kids to play, not less. Unstructured outdoor play is one of the basic joys of childhood. If we want to raise a generation of healthy adults, we need to start today in our own backyards—and playing fields.

photo courtesy Jason Vogel

On Monday, September 13th, Open Space and Mountain Park’s (OSMP’s) West Trail Study Area (TSA) Community Collaborative Group (CCG) held a meeting dedicated to mountain biking. At that meeting, the conservation caucus would not consent to or allow discussion to continue on mountain bike access proposals in the West TSA, effectively returning the issue to OSMP staff  to devise an appropriate management solution. The Boulder Mountainbike Alliance (BMA) supported the CCG attempt to come to a community consensus about bike access in the West TSA. During the discussions, BMA has largely stayed silent to provide the CCG with the decision space necessary to reach agreement. Unfortunately that silence has been filled with anti-bike outbursts, often based on fear and misinformation.

It is time to clear the air and begin an honest, respectful discussion of the appropriate place of mountain biking on city open space. To this end, BMA has developed a position paper that spells out what mountain bikers want, BMA’s overall vision for mountain bikes on city open space, BMA’s West TSA requests in support of that broader vision, and how BMA intends to support that vision and those requests. The BMA position paper can be found at http://www.bma-mtb.org/getinvolved/BMAWestTSAPositionPaper.pdf.

It is my sincere hope that BMA’s position paper will quell some of the misinformation about bikes in the West TSA (e.g., “Mountain bikers want access to all trails! “- No, we do not), and put the discussion into the broader context of Boulder’s sustainability goals and the quality-of-life issues that motivate mountain bikers to be so engaged in the Boulder political process. Mountain bikers are willing and energetic partners in managing our open space lands. I am hopeful that we can find a way to move forward as a community that recognizes the valid interests of the mountain biking community and that brings mountain biking into the fold for the betterment of us all.

What do mountain bikers want?

• Mountain bikers want to share in the open space experience that binds all Boulder residents together – including trails that go through forests and trails with views of the Flatirons.
• We want to be able to recreate from our homes, with our families and without our cars, just like our neighbors who choose to hike.
• We want to feel welcomed as part of the Boulder open space community. We are not caricatures – we are responsible Boulder citizens who are solutions-oriented and want to be treated as such.
• We want to be treated as an asset for the open space program. The enthusiasm, volunteerism, and political support exhibited by the mountain biking community should be leveraged by OSMP for the betterment of our public lands. We want to be viewed as part of the solution, not part of the problem.

photo courtesy Jason Vogel

The BMA vision

• We want a baseline of access that can serve for generations while increasing the sustainability of the open space system as a whole. This is a very achievable goal, and we have a vision for how to accomplish it.
• We do not want City of Boulder open space to become a “destination” for mountain bikers. There is little chance of Boulder becoming another Moab, Crested Butte, Salida, or Fruita for mountain biking. We should manage mountain bike access primarily to serve the Boulder community and its neighborhoods.
• We believe that mountain bike access should be managed to minimize conflict and maximize opportunities for a fossil-fuel-free recreation experience. This can be achieved by providing modest access on trail from the city core to shared use trail systems with lower user density to the north (Boulder Valley Ranch), south (Marshall Mesa/Doudy Draw), east (Teller Farms/White Rock), and west (Walker Ranch/Betasso/USFS lands).
• We want families, neighbors, and city residents to be able to recreate where they live in support of Boulder’s sustainability goals and in recognition of the realities imposed by the future carbon constrained world. Bikes will only become more the norm under such a future.
• We believe that the majority of near-town trails should remain hiker only so those who prefer a hiking-only experience have many options.

It is my sincere hope that this article can act as a new beginning. It is always acceptable for neighbors in a shared community to disagree. The key is to do so without being disagreeable. Mountain bikers are your colleagues, your neighbors, and your friends. There is so much more that binds us together as a community than these small differences that keep us apart. Recreation and conservation need not be in opposition. Neither should new Boulder residents be in opposition to long standing community members. We all have shared values, we can all enjoy our open space together, and we can create a better Boulder in the process. I hope this new beginning will lead to the removal of such false divides. They have no place in Boulder’s future.

from COB-OSMP gallery

The City of Boulder’s Community Collaborative Group (“CCG”) could not agree in September on a proposed mountain bike trail running north and south through Boulder’s mountain parks, and at a PLAN-Boulder forum on October 15 a panel of mountain bikers and conservationists could not agree, either.

Joe Mantione, the principal planner in the Open Space and Mountain Parks Department for the West Trail Study Area (“West TSA”), related that the CCG for the West TSA was commissioned about a year ago and consists of fifteen members representing recreation, conservation and neighborhood interests and cultural resource preservationists. Mantione recounted that the 2005 Visitor Master Plan provided for the possibility of establishing more mountain bike trails in the City’s Open Space and Mountain Parks system. Indeed, the Marshall Mesa Trail Study Area and the Eldorado Springs/Dowdy Draw Trail Study Area have subsequently authorized new mountain bike trails.

Mountain bikes have not been allowed since 1987 in the West TSA, which covers the city’s mountain parks west of Broadway from Eldorado Springs Drive north to Linden Avenue. However, this summer the Boulder Mountain Bike Alliance (“BMA”) proposed a mountain bike trail stretching about seven miles from Chautauqua Park to Eldorado Springs Drive that would use some existing hiking trails and also create new links. The BMA also proposed a much shorter loop through Shanahan Ridge, as well as a bike trail from Flagstaff Mountain along Chapman Drive to Boulder Canyon by the Red Lion Inn, and another from Eldorado State Park to the Walker Ranch.

Google Earth map of bike access proposal (click for larger view)

At its September 15 meeting the CCG reached an impasse about the BMA’s proposed north-south trail. Consequently, Mantione explained that the Open Space and Mountain Parks staff will make a recommendation about a north-south bike trail in its report on the West TSA. That report will be reviewed in draft form by the CCG and then released to the public and the City Council at the end of January or early February. The City Council will probably make the final decision about the BMA’s proposed north-south trail in the spring of 2011.

The other panelists at the PLAN-Boulder forum were Frances Hartogh, a former member of the City’s Parks and Recreation Board and a mountain biker; Keith Jimmerson, a member of Save Open Space Boulder; Gary Sprung, former president of the High Country Citizens Alliance in Crested Butte and a member of the BMA; and Eric Vogelsberg, a former member of the Boulder County Open Space Board and a current member of the BMA.  They exchanged a variety of points and counterpoints about the proposed north-south trail:

• Jimmerson predicted that it would turn Boulder into a magnet for mountain bikers, and remarked that, since the population of the Denver metropolitan area is projected to increase 50 percent in the next 25 years, the influx of mountain bikers would be massive. Sprung and Vogelsberg claimed that the trail would not attract many outsiders and asserted that its major purpose would be to allow city residents who live fairly near the mountain parks to ride their bikes to existing bike trail networks north and south of the city rather than driving their cars to those destinations. Audience member Spenser Havlick argued that bikers already can use a trail from central Boulder south to Marshall Mesa to reach that area.
• Hartogh and Jimmerson insisted that hikers would be driven off many trails in the West TSA due to conflicts with bikers and the degradation of the hiking experience. Vogelsberg noted that a large portion of the proposed trail would be newly built for bikes and consequently would not create any conflicts. Hartogh said she had counted 26 intersections of the proposed bike trail with existing hiking trails and claimed that those intersections would cause discomfort and danger for hikers. Vogelsberg and Sprung asserted that most mountain bikers are polite, and that the reckless ones can be trained and/or disciplined to be careful. Jimmerson and Hartogh responded that a lot of bikers are carefree, young males and that a small number can create distress and danger for others. Vogelsberg maintained that during his term on the Bounty Open Space Board hikers remained the majority of users on trails open to both hikers and bikers.
• Jimmerson recounted that mountain bikes had been permitted in the West TSA for several years in the 1980’s and had finally been banned by the City Council in 1987 because of conflicts with hikers. He read from an editorial in the February 26, 1987, issue of the Daily Camera calling for bikes to be prohibited. He charged that the same problems would arise if the proposed trail were allowed. Vogelsberg claimed that the alignment of the proposed trail would prevent the same amount of conflict as in the 1980’s and that mountain bikers would be overwhelmingly respectful and responsible.
• Hartogh argued that the West TSA is a unique resource which must be preserved for future generations and that the new bike trail would degrade the natural environment. She remarked that some new parts of the bike trail would intrude into pristine terrain, such as the Sound of Music Meadow. She also predicted that trailheads would be further congested by the vehicles of mountain bikers. Vogelsberg and Sprung charged that the environmental impact of bikes is about the same as that of hikers and they noted that the BMA is asking for only a small percentage of the trail network in the West TSA. They said that the BMA would withdraw demands for any segments of the proposed trail that are shown to be likely to damage the environment. Sprung also contended that mountain bikers can provide youth and fresh energy to a graying environmental movement and that they should not be alienated by being denied access to new biking areas.
• Jimmerson contended that approving the proposed trail would just encourage further demands in the future from mountain bikers for more trails in the West TSA. He cited the statement, “No trails closed to bikes,” which he said appeared on the BMA’s website until about a month ago, as evidence for this fear. Vogelsberg and Sprung vehemently denied that the BMA will seek more trails in the West TSA, with the few exceptions mentioned above, and observed that the vast majority of the city’s Open Space and Mountain Parks trails are available only to hikers.
• Vogelsberg persistently maintained that mountain bikers deserve the same degree of respect as other citizens who use open space, that the proposed north-south trail in the West TSA would represent only a very modest expansion of mountain bikers’ access to the city’s network, and that denial of the proposal would unfairly discriminate against them. Hartogh and Jimmerson implied that mountain biking is generally just not compatible with hiking on the same trails and that the West TSA is too valuable a resource to be jeopardized by this use.

Vogelsberg cautioned that the bike trails the BMA has requested from Flagstaff Mountain northwest to Boulder Canyon and from Eldorado State Park to Walker Ranch cannot be created in the foreseeable future. He said that Chapman Drive on Flagstaff Mountain is privately owned and closed to the public. Moreover, he claimed that Eldorado State Park has not been cooperating with the plan for a bike path to Walker Ranch and that the Boulder County Open Space Department is not interested in it.

As Blue Line readers know,  a tremendous amount of citizen work has gone into establishing Boulder’s Blue Line and also into the acquisition of our Open Space.  We, who came here later, appreciated and supported our exceptional environment.  Through our 40 years here we voted to tax ourselves and we voted for all the bond issues to purchase open space.

To preserve and conserve has never been easy, but it has become more difficult recently. Our beloved mountain trails are overused.  Conservation of the natural environment is compatible with low impact recreation, but it has never been intended that trails be created for mechanized travel routes through designated open space.

Until recently the Boulder Mountain Bike Alliance (BMA) website stated their goal of no trails closed to mountain biking. When new trails were constructed south of Eldorado Springs the BMA successfully persuaded Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) to open all but 1.2 miles of the new trails to mountain bikes.  Bikes were to yield to hikers and equestrians, but that rarely happens. As a result, few hikers frequent these lovely trails. Bikers and runners use the Spring Brook Loop (SBL) trails but families with children or hikers in search of quiet walks abandoned them. As a result, not surprisingly, OSMP staff reports minimal conflicts between bikers and hikers.

Hikers and conservationists need to be considered.  On narrow trails biking and hiking are not compatible on the same trail at the same time.

Some Boulder County trails are closed to biking one weekday and one day on the weekend. This still allows bikes 70% of the time, a possible solution for the SBL trails.

The Parks and Recreation Department has begun constructing a new 45-acre Valmont Bike Park at the cost of $ 4.1 million.  According to the department, 85% of the cost is borne by Boulder taxpayers.

Most of us have not been aware of these changes until the BMA demanded a trail through the Open Space in an area west of Broadway from Chautauqua to Eldorado Springs.  As studied by environmental professionals, this is an area of unusual natural flora and beauty. Those of us who spoke to hikers at the various trailheads found that 90%, some mountain bikers themselves, were opposed to this idea.

At a time when money is short and open space purchases are difficult it is important that our city departments consider public opinion and help conserve Boulder’s unique beauty for which so many worked so hard to preserve.

Because of its proximity to our urban center, as well as the CU campus, this new riding opportunity will become a popular destination in and of itself.  How could it not? The result could easily grow into issues of overuse, a rise in user conflicts, accidents and a big black eye on the entire mountain biking community, risking future access to the Northern corridor. This is bad strategy.

At our Southern border are the trails of Marshall Mesa, Community Ditch and Dowdy Draw. These are great trails but finite in terms of miles and future opportunities. To the north, besides an endless network of dirt roads, is Heil Valley Ranch, Hall Ranch, the Picture Rock trail, Eagle trail, Lefthand trail. Add to this possible future access to the feeder canal for the Boulder Reservoir. All this adds up to lots of miles and trails and open space for all levels of riders.

A western access trail to the south will be popular with CU cyclists who are ever changing and, as a result, difficult to educate on proper trail etiquette. Mountain bikers say they want trail access to the riding opportunities south of town. But, there has been access to the south of town for years via the Broadway bike path. We already have a safe alternative to Broadway. Sure it’s not dirt but it IS access. An access trail at the west side of town would add ride time, miles and effort to any ride at the south end of town. As a result, riders will still drive to those trailheads.

The Big Bluestem trail, with its long downhill and even bigger sight-distance, would allow a biker to go as fast as 20 mph. That’s like walking down one side of Ninth street between Maxwell and Alpine with traffic whizzing by at the speed limit. Not a good idea when you have a broad mix of users.

Mountain biking is mechanized travel, clear and simple, with all it’s advantages and that is what sets this form of recreation apart from other user groups. This is why mountain bikers need to pick their battles.

A more sensible discussion may be a northern access trail to where there are numerous riding opportunities, fewer people on the trail and a wider dispersion of users. To the mountain bikers that want it all: Be careful what you wish for!

I want bicycling in the Boulder open space because I care deeply about the natural environment and about the environmental movement that works so hard to protect nature. It may seem contradictory to say that, since it seems many environmentalists and hikers don’t want bicycling in the open space, or at least not anywhere in the lands in front of the Flatirons. But I’m asking the hikers and nature-lovers to embrace bicyclists, to welcome us as fellows who share your love for nature and your concerns for its protection.

From the beginning of mountain biking, some have argued that bikes cause harm to nature. Bicycling does affect the natural environment, for sure, in small ways… in ways that are much the same as hiking. Science has increasingly demonstrated that the effects of bicycling and hiking on critters, on flora, and on trails are not that different. You cause impact when you’re hiking, when your riding a bike, when you’re riding a horse, when you climb, when you watch the birds, when you fish or boat the rivers, and even when you stop and smell the flowers. Generally, though, such non-motorized, peaceful activities cause impacts that are trivial compared to the real threats, such as urban sprawl, weeds, and pollution.

Many people have come to understand the rough equivalence of our recreational nature impacts. The arguments against bikes today have more to do with sharing trails.

Yes, cyclists do affect hikers in ways that hikers do not affect cyclists. The difference in speed is the primary reason. There is an asymmetric nature to user conflict. Yet in most places where people have really tried to get along they have succeeded. Cyclists — even the young, hot headed, super-enthusiastic ones — can be taught to properly yield the trail. They should not assume hikers will move aside. They should slow down when passing and give friendly notice when approaching from behind. Hikers can decide to accept that it’s reasonable to share the trails with people whose activity is silent, non-polluting, muscle-powered, health inducing, and likely to breed appreciation of nature. Managers can takes actions that reduce conflict. The Open Space and Mountain Parks Department recently proposed some good ideas.

Management and courtesy can go only so far and it’s reasonable for hikers to want some hiking-only routes. I know how when hiking a trail with a lot of cyclists on a busy weekend, one sometimes must step off the trail rather often. Bicyclists certainly don’t want access to all the trails. I want plentiful hiking-only trail resources.

But you can imagine how cyclists must feel when there are people saying bicycling does not belong AT ALL in the open space. What justifies total exclusion from the Flatirons? Are bicyclists bad?

Consider the impact of bike bans on young people who don’t have the hiking background I grew up with. The conservation movement obviously must reach and teach youth, but there are obstacles. Kids play in natural places a lot less these days. The streets are have become less safe to ride a bike, so kids are in cars that much more.

My young friend Jason asked me, “Have you ever played any of the new video games?” No, I spend enough time on a computer working and when I play I like to go for a hike, run, or bike in nature. “Well take a look at them,” he said, “the games are super-cool, rich, fun, exciting, and entertaining. That’s what kids have in their lives these days. To many young people, hiking is boring.” But mountain biking, we agreed, can be exciting and challenging enough to actually compete with the huge world of indoor entertainment. And maybe some of those cycling youth might learn that hiking is cool, too. Riding horses, too.

Consider a recent, peer-reviewed article about nature experience and support for environmental organizations. A team of sociology scholars from the University of Illinois, the Nature Conservancy, and the Red Rocks Institute last year published “The Impact of Nature Experience on Willingness to Support Conservation.” Studying recent outdoor recreation and visitation trends, they found that “all major lines of evidence point to an ongoing and fundamental shift away from nature-based recreation,” particularly among young people. Their studies show “a steady decline in nature recreation since the late 1980s correlated strongly with a rise in playing video games, surfing the Internet and watching movies.”

They found a strong correlation between hiking and backpacking and giving to groups such as Sierra Club and Nature Conservancy. “Environmental groups depend on a very narrow base of support from elite, active outdoor enthusiasts — a group that is predominantly white, college-educated, higher income, and over 35,” they reported in a press release. The decline in hiking “portends a coming decline in the ranks of conservation backers…. people who engage in vigorous outdoor sports, like hiking and backpacking, tend later to become supporters of mainline conservation groups, while those who only go sightseeing or fishing do not.”

“There’s a much broader market — more diverse and urban — that can be tapped by conservation organizations,” said researcher Patricia Zaradic. “Those groups haven’t been spoken to in a way that attracts them.”

That sounds like a pretty strong case for getting both kids and adults onto bikes in nature, and doing it close to where they live.

Protectors of nature need to pay more attention to the constituency for conservation.  Most mountain bikers — okay, maybe not the armor-clad downhillers, but yes, most mountain bikers — appreciate nature and care about protecting it. We are an obvious constituency for the movement, perhaps more like the environmental movement than any other group.

Bicyclists have been enthusiastic volunteers for public lands. Some of us are learning to go beyond trail maintenance by volunteering for the wonderful projects of the Wildlands Restoration Volunteers. I think this could happen much more. Bicyclists could become a big source of new political energy for the environmental movement. The leaders of mountain bike advocacy definitely want that.

I would much rather spend my political time protecting the Earth than fighting trail closures. But I do work for bike access because I think it means so much to the future of the conservation movement. Since the beginning of mountain biking, the environmental movement — particularly its public lands and wilderness aspect — has pushed cyclists “? away. Meanwhile, motorized advocates have beckoned cyclists to oppose preservation efforts. The fact that very few mountain bikers have moved into the anti-enviro camp says a lot about the nature of the cyclists. We care about the Earth!

Can the conservation movement afford to alienate bicyclists? Do we want young cyclists to think of environmentalists as “just those people who want to kick us off the trail”? It’s time for a change. It’s time for hikers and environmentalists to embrace mountain bikers. We can build a beautiful partnership.

Should mountain bikes be allowed in City of Boulder Open Space in the West TSA?  The Community Collaborative Group (CCG) will be discussing this, the issue that has generated the most controversy in the current planning process for use of our community’s Open Space properties to the immediate west of Boulder, Monday evening September 13 starting at 5:30 at the East Boulder Recreation Center, 5660 Sioux Dr.

The impetus for allowing limited bike access likely has much to do with how the neighborhoods to the south were built (and the difference in mileage that a hiker or a mountain biker can cover).    Please understand that whether I’m riding or hiking I’m looking for a bit of solitude, some connection with nature and the joy of being outside in this beautiful piece of Colorado that belongs to all of us.  If I am on my bike, I do not want to run anybody down.

So, let me explain:

For over 40 years I have lived north of Pearl in the old section of Boulder where streets and alleys are laid out on a grid pattern.  Riding my mountain bike north on 4th Street quickly takes me directly into the system of trails north of town.  Fourth Street, one of the main north/south corridors in this part of town, is heavily used by runners, bikers and parents pushing kids in strollers.  We all get along.  People who drive in the neighborhood may use 4th Street for short distances but most auto traffic quickly diverts over to 9th Street or to Broadway.   Because there is pretty good connectivity to some trail system in this area most bike users are satisfied with the status quo.  It is easy and pleasant for me to manage a 14 mile bike round trip out to Boulder Reservoir in a couple of hours or so.  (Now, if I could just get into the county’s system starting at Heil from my house, maybe I could manage 30 miles or more on a round trip north–not likely to happen while I can still ride and that’s a whole other topic.)

The pattern of a traditional street grid extends south to Baseline.  The area to the south of Baseline has been built out with a street pattern intended to discourage auto traffic, and by default bike traffic, through the neighborhood.  In order to negotiate through this part of Boulder, all traffic is funneled onto collector streets such as Table Mesa and Lehigh.  These two streets do have bike lanes but their connection to any of the trail network entails riding south out of town on Highway 93 with Marshall Road as an alternate route.  From my home, that’s a good 25 to 30 miles of riding with about half on trails–most is not pleasant.

What I am hearing from the biking community is a request for a better way to get out of the neighborhood and into the trail system.  It’s a fair a request to ask the community to make remedy for a street network that serves the automobile driver much better than either bike riders or pedestrians.   We are highly unlikely to use the powers of eminent domain to make connections to trails through private property.  We do have ownership in common of our Open Space lands and a provision in the charter to provide for passive recreation.   Riding a bicycle is considered passive recreation.   Let’s work together to find a suitable trail corridor to the west of our south neighborhoods.  Mark McIntyre’s proposal is a good start.

From past experience, I know that the mountain bike community could work with Parks and Open Space to design a sustainable new trail and raise volunteers to build and maintain that new trail.   Let’s work together to accommodate a legitimate need, not anticipated at the time of development of our south neighborhoods, for a substantial segment of our community.

Link to City of Boulder’s website for the West TSA: http://www.westtsa.org

Link to “neighborhood” website for the West TSA: http://west-tsa-neighborhood-comments.blogspot.com/

Link to City of Boulder’s website of bike route map: http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8853&Itemid=2979#BIKEPED