New BCP Public Access Land Management Plan Released

[zrx24]

Hoping that call goes well!

The BCCP Coord. Committee is meeting this Friday at 1pm at the Austin City Hall chambers to take action on possible acceptance of the current Public Access Chapter, hopefully to include the last few changes mentioned above.  Anyone that can make the time to sit in on the meeting to show public interest in the actions of this committee would be greatly beneficial.  Persons in attendance can also sign up to speak their mind for 3 minutes, or allocate their time to another person that may need a little more than 3 minutes to get their points across.

 

 

Edited December 3, 2018 by zrx24

[cxagent]

19 minutes ago, zrx24 said:

The BCCP Coord. Committee is meeting this Friday at 10am at the Austin City Hall chambers to take action on possible acceptance of the current Public Access Chapter, 

Double check that time. Normally they do meet 10:00AM to 12:00PM. This meeting is scheduled for 1:00PM to 3:00PM according to the agenda that was just posted at http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=310880

 

[zrx24]

Thanks for the heads up!  The curve balls just keep coming.  I've edited my above post accordingly.

[cxagent]

Phone call finished up. They had addressed 2 of the 4 issues.

The BCP staff will work on the third issue to improve my suggested wording. I am fine with a wording change if the keep the intent. My intent is to recognize there is a lot of data, including the BCP's own data, that shows that public access does NOT harm the endangered species (warbler in this case). Other species, like plants, may not have such a positive impact if the public allowed to use the tract.

The forth issue is the toughest one. The current document defines 'authorized trails as trails shown on the map in the Tier III land management plan'. There is a problem with that statement - I can find only ONE Tier III land management plan that has a map at all. The 1999 Emma Long Tier III Land Management Plan contains the only trail map I can find. None of the 2007 Tier III plans include maps. BCP staff says they reference the 1999 plan for "background information". I don't think that reference carries any weight, it is only reference for "background information". Even the Emma Long 2007 plan (which could reference the 1999 plan and say it incorporated the same map), appears to indicate that no trails are authorized since there are no trails shown on the map. This kind of "confusion" has bit us several times in the past.

We will meet again to try to hash this out. In the mean time I will prepare comments for the Coordinating Committee meeting that can be "recommend approval" or "recommend disapproval" depending on these final two issues.

I will post more info late today.

If you can attend the meeting on Friday - your voice will help. Remember, the trails you save may be your own.

[Teamsloan]

In my line of work, revisions to documents take about 10 - 20 min. once the issue has been discussed. It's amazing to me how drawn out this process is.

[cxagent]

I will try to post some pictures of graphs that compare warbler population (territories) density and productivity (baby bird) density for a 5 year period per the BCP's own reports.

I would say their own data shows that if they want to increase the warbler population - everything should be open to the public. Realistically, they should be very very careful what and how they open the preserve to the public. Some areas can only be hurt. Some areas can only be helped. Let's look at those areas that need help.

 

[cxagent]

3 hours ago, Teamsloan said:

In my line of work, revisions to documents take about 10 - 20 min. once the issue has been discussed. It's amazing to me how drawn out this process is.

With large bureaucratic organizations (government), everyone can say no. But it just about takes a miracle to get a yes. If there is an agreement, then it goes up another level where the process starts over again.

[CBaron]

If I'm reading the charts correctly, then the numbers moved in similar directions for all aspects surveyed (both close & open).  Thus we could surmise that whether open or closed, it has not had (at least according to this level of graph) significant impact on the actual "CHANGE" of the trajectory?  I guess we could go further and analyze the 'degree' of change related to whether open or closed...and I think that may be where one could say being 'open to the public' shows a more favorable change.  But I was just looking at the trends of the graph, rather than the raw numbers.  

According to the objective of the BCP and their imposed methodology, you'd think (if your a proponent of their method), that the trend lines should go in opposing directions.  I.e....the closed lands have a Fledgling population that goes up, and the open land have a population that goes down.  But from what I can tell, this is not the case!

Just my quick observational analysis.

-CJB

[cxagent]

CBaron - your comments are correct. I would add that since the 'open to the public' tracts are better than 'closed to the public tracts' everywhere and in every year - the BCP's own data says that to improve the numbers and productivity of the warbler they should open more areas to the public. They were forced to develop a plan to do just that. It is called the BCP Trails Master Plan which can be found here - https://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Water/Wildlands/BCP/bcptrailmasterplan.pdf 

It is interesting to note that the roughly 2 times difference of the territory density is HUGE. That is clearly not a "statistical anomaly". 

These charts were developed based on a report written by the BCCP Scientific Advisory Committee back in the 1990's. It was appendix C of the October 2018 draft revision of the document up for approval on 12/7/2018. There is a link to it in the first post of this thread. The report said that to address the impact of public access on the Golden-cheeked Warbler, these two parameters needed to be reviewed over a five year period. Here is their own data showing the parameters they said were important over the period they said was needed. Now I wonder what "logic" will be used to say that we don't understand.

Edited December 4, 2018 by cxagent
Added link

[cxagent]

I keep wanting to add specific details on my recommendation to request approval or rejection of the revised Public Access Land Management Plan on Friday. I cannot make that specific recommendation - still. BCP staff is still working with us to try to get final issues resolved. Let me point out that this is the absolute best working relationship we have had with BCP staff. They are trying really, really hard to get issues corrected. I cannot thank them enough for their efforts.

The original 1999 public access document was written from a stand point of ' we don't know what impact public access has so we have to err on the side of the species'. I agree with that stand point in 1999. In 2007 when this same document came up for revision and update, that stand point was not nearly as valid. At that time we had a lot more data and knowledge about the impact of public access. The BCCP Coordinating Committee rejected that revision and instead voted on a policy statement in 2007 that said the BCP was an endangered species preserve first and foremost, but where possible public access should be permitted under carefully controlled and monitored conditions. I agree with that stand point as well. In 2017 the revision presented may not have been intended to, but it had a strong appearance that it was written to further restrict public access from even the 1999 version. It was never brought up for a vote due to all the comments from the public. This 2018 revision started with the same appearance as the 2017 revision, but watered down slightly. Or maybe it was better explained in the original 2018 revision versus the 2017 revision. Since it was released on October, the 2018 revision has gone thru substantial review and revision with many stakeholder groups. I want to give BCP staff credit again - this was not done in 2017 and the lack of review contributed to the appearance that it was intended to further restrict public access.

In my opinion, we are down to two issues - 

The current revision says that 'authorized trails are shown in Tier III plans' (Tier III plans as the specific tract by tract plans. e.g. Barton Creek Greenbelt, Emma Long, Bull Creek, St Ed's, etc.) The problem is that we cannot find any Tier III plan of any year that shows authorized trails with the single exception of the 1999 plan for Emma Long Park. One interpretation of pointing to non-existent maps is that no trail is authorized. Another interpretation is that 'we are still working on those and we will show them to you when we are done'. I don't consider either of those interpretation acceptable. The BCP staff response to the comment is that the 2007 Tier III plan shows the 1999 maps as "background information". "Background information" is not the same as "incorporated by reference" or better yet - copy the map into the 2007 plan. But we don't find any maps in the 1999 plans except for Emma Long. That response make me even more suspicious. This issue is a major concern.

The other issue is that 'flavor' throughout the current Tier II public access plan that 'public access is detrimental'. I looked for one place to correct this instead of a complete rewrite to remove that flavor everywhere. I suggested adding a sentence that 'data showing a positive impact to the species should not be ignored'. Staff is rewriting my comment to be a positive statement instead of a negative statement and trying to get management approval. I agree with rewording my suggestion as long as there is something that indicates that not all public use is detrimental to the endangered species. As shown above, the BCP's own data indicates that public use of the preserve may not be all bad. It may not be perfect but at least it shown in the public access land management plan that locking the public out of the preserve is not a solution.

The rest of the issues/comments have been worked out to the point I can recommend approval of this revision.

At this point I am planning to attend the Coordinating Committee meeting this Friday and commenting. If these issues can be worked out, I would recommend approval of the revised plan. If the issues have not been worked out I recommend postponing the approval vote and continuing to work on them until corrections are made. If the choice is only approve or reject today - I have to recommend rejection until corrections are made. These two issues are deal killers. No matter which way it goes, I plan to speak in glowing, positive terms about all the work BCP staff has put in to work out issues and try to find win / win compromises. They have really worked thru a lot of major and very contentious issues to get down to just these two remaining issues.

Edited December 4, 2018 by cxagent
corrected typo's

[cxagent]

You can find backup documentation including the current version of the public access land management plan at - http://austintexas.gov/cityclerk/boards_commissions/meetings/76_1.htm

I hope some people can be there to speak. I will be there. If you can be there but don't want to speak - please donate your 3 minutes to me or someone else.

[CBaron]

This sounds like good news....and I have to say its a bit refreshing.  Of course, I know very well to not get too excited until all is finalized.  

I'm going to do my best to attend the Friday meeting.  I may be able to bring my wife too.  This could permit her (or I) to give away our 3 minutes. 

I'd really encourage people to make an effort to be there.  If we are this ---> <---- close, and we are finally getting some willful partnership, then we need to turn up to get this finalized.

Thanks, -CJB

[crazyt]

what is the difference between territory density and fledgling density? Territory density looks bad for open.

[Ridenfool]

Could the offer of publicly available trail maps be of benefit?

Sites like Strava and other similar social media based trackers representing various user groups could be utilized as a way to provide clear examples of current usage without having to wait for someone to fund a survey and document the results. If so, things could move forward with reference to such existing data included in the current proposal.

Edited December 5, 2018 by Ridenfool

[cxagent]

11 hours ago, crazyt said:

what is the difference between territory density and fledgling density? Territory density looks bad for open.

Territories are where the warbler "claim an area" as their own. A warbler seen somewhere might be 'passing thru' (not a territory) versus has claimed an area (territory). That is not a perfect definition but it is my quick top of my head description. So higher territory density means there are more warbler in an area. Approx twice as high territory density like shown in the graph means there are twice as many warbler in an area. So the 'open to the public' in the graph above shows the warbler are approx twice as numerous in areas open to the public compared to areas closed to the public.

Fledgling density is the number of baby birds (fledglings) in an area. So the graph above shows there are more baby birds per unit area on open tracts than on closed tracts.

[cxagent]

13 hours ago, Ridenfool said:

Could the offer of publicly available trail maps be of benefit?

Sites like Strava and other similar social media based trackers representing various user groups could be utilized as a way to provide clear examples of current usage without having to wait for someone to fund a survey and document the results. If so, things could move forward with reference to such existing data included in the current proposal.

A recent development. late yesterday BCP staff provided trail maps from the 1999 Tier III plans that we could not find. I suggest adding a sentence to the current revision that says that if no map is shown in the currently adopted Tier III plan, then the trail map from the most recently adopted Tier III plan defines the authorized trails. That give us a starting point. Let's hope the BCP staff will accept that or suggest something like it.

As noted above, I was down to four make or break issues. It looks like we might have solutions to all four. If solutions are found to all four issues, I would recommend the approving the revised plan. There are a lot of things that can still go wrong but this is the best I have seen this process work.

I have to thank BCP staff again for working so hard to find solutions and make corrections.

Late breaking news - It looks like BCP staff agrees and will be recommending the changes we requested. Keep your fingers crossed!!!

Edited December 5, 2018 by cxagent
Added late breaking news

[Shinerider]

Good news all around - thank YOU again for taking up the charge and making strides in the right direction. 

[crazyt]

thanks cxagent!

It seems like territory density went up then came back down in open areas.  Does territory density mean the number of territories? So If warblers can find food more easily they have smaller territories and therefore the density of the territories goes up? I would bet the density of territories goes up when there is more rain, resulting in more food. 

The reality is animals, just like people easily get habituated. If there are lots of people, the birds are going to get used to lots of people. If there are no people, then the birds are going to be easily scared by people.

Frankly at this point Im incredibly disappointed in the birdwatchers. They essentially want all uses except theirs closed. They even like to ban hikers with dogs.  They seem to not understand the more users, the more muscle we have to protect against development, mining, and logging.

My other sport is kitesurfing which is banned at all national seashores due to bird watchers.

Edited December 5, 2018 by crazyt

[Anita Handle]

Kent, effing great work.

This is probably a dumb question but what is the outcome of your negotiations? Is it to merely not lose standing or is there the possibility of gaining some additional standing, even if not additional access?

 

[AustinBike]

Kent, thanks for staying on top of this.

[Tree Magnet]

Kent - we all owe you a few beers each. You should never pay for a cold one in this town again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cxagent]

16 hours ago, Anita Handle said:

Kent, effing great work.

This is probably a dumb question but what is the outcome of your negotiations? Is it to merely not lose standing or is there the possibility of gaining some additional standing, even if not additional access?

 

I don't have time right now for a real answer but here is a very quick answer.

What "we" stakeholders / park / trail users want and think we have reached is a public access plan that is fair, balanced and a reasonable compromise to all of the parties. Without beating a dead horse again, past history makes some of us feel that fair or even compromise were not possible in the past. Does that mean the negotiations created a perfect plan that will solve all the problems? Not even close. But it creates a frame work that all sides can be represented and their views considered based on data / documentation. The Tier II plan (this one) is a high level plan that does not address details. So a framework is all that can be expected in this plan. There will be negotiation / compromise / loss / gain / etc as the details are worked out in the Tier III plans (site by site, trail by trail).

My hope is the fair, respectful, transparent working relation that has been developed will carry forward. For this group, I have to expect that we will lose some trail that will cause major heartburn. Some are trails I want to ride forever. Keep in mind that there is a legal framework over and above anything in the BCP. Even if 'it has been done before / for decades', there may be good reason why it should not continue. I hope we can gain some too. I have reason to believe that we may actually gain some. Data posted above is but one reason I have that hope. The efforts of the BCP staff is another.

[Anita Handle]

Thanks for clarifying.

[cxagent]

Probably the last update before the meeting -

I will be there. I speak in support of the revised plan. The major issues have been worked out. It is not a perfect document but I think it is fair.

I will thank the BCP staff for all of their work. This is a working relationship I hoped for but thought would never happen. It is a Christmas miracle.

I invite anyone and everyone to come to the meeting. But it is not anywhere near as important to have a large number of supporters/speakers as it is when we are opposing something. Come on down if you have something to say or just want to watch. But don't cancel other plans or take vacation time for this meeting. We might need you at a later meeting.

[CBaron]

Thanks Kent for the update.  And super stoked for that good news, lets hope it finally gets ratified!  I was planning to slog my way downtown (from Round Rock), but seeing as work is picking up today and traffic is exceptionally poor due to the weather, I think I may stay put.  Looks like the heavy lifting has been done, and WE REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO PARTNER WITH THEM ON.  This year makes 20 years since the initial BCP meeting down at the LCRA building which lead to the closing of Forest Ridge.  A lot of water has past under that bridge.  There's so much potential that could be had with a healthy working relationship in place.

Thanks again, -CJB