Travis County Commissioners Court

November 6, 2007
Item 3

3 is a habit hearing to receive comments regarding revisions, including public access, to the balcones canyonlands preserve land management plan for 2007.

>> move to open the public hearing.

>> second.

>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.

>> judge, Commissioners, I’m kevin conley with Travis County t.n.r. Natural resources. I’ve been asked to give a little bit of background, history about the balcones canyonlands preserve and the conservation plan to sort of set the context for the comments that you are going to be receiving from the public today. The screen in front of you I think we have set up with media to have this information available to the public as well. I’ll try to keep these comments brief because I know there are a number of people that would like to speak to you this morning. The balcones canyonlands preserve conservation plan -- federally mandated protection of our area's endangered native wildlife. It requires a minimum of 30,428-acres of endangered bird habitat and 62 important cave features be protected in a system known as the balcones canyonlands preserve. The plan benefits all county residents by providing landowners with a streamlined pathway to compliance with the federal law and there be facilitates economic growth and development in our community. Efforts to create a mechanism that balance this local growth with federally mandated species protections began about 20 years ago as a collaborative effort between the county, city of Austin and the u.s. Fish and wildlife service. The original framers of the permit believed that as many as 150,000 acres would be necessary to adequately protect the imperiled species in Travis County. Travis County obviously is approximately 633,000 acres in size. A preserve of 50,000 would require setting aside approximately one out of every four acres in the county. U.s. Fish agreed to reduce the total preserve acreage to 75,000 acres once the permit holders made a commitment to intensively manage the smaller preserve for the benefit of the covered species. Our obligation of 30,428 acres is the required minimum local contribution to that 75,000-acre total. With the expectation that the balcones wildlife refuge will provide the additional 45,000 acres. Today the b.c.p. Is one of the largest urban preserve systems in the entire nation, consists of 27,927 acres of endangered bird habitat, 34 karst features, 92% of the land, 71% of the cave protections required to meet our terms and conditions. The b.c.p. Managed to conserve all of our native wildlife and protect the enhanced populations of endangered species to offset the losses due to development and changing land uses throughout the balance of our community. By setting aside the managing wildlife habitat the b.c.p. Also provides ecological services to our community such as air and water quality benefits. Four documents provide the regulatory framework and policy guidance for management of the b.c.p., those are the specie act permit issued on may 2nd, 1996, fish and wildlife services biological opinion regarding supporting services of the permit, habitat conservation plan in March of 1996 and the interlocal agreement between the city of Austin and Travis County dated August 3rd, 1995. The importance of these discussions is a couple of definition. Primarily of the term take. Take is defined to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect any threatened or end dangered species. Harm may include habitat modification that impacts a listed species through impairment of any essential behavior. Our federal permit is very clear on the number of items, special conditions c of our permit require that's the authorization granted by the permit is subject to compliance with ail of the terms and conditions of the habitat conservation plan, biological opinion and the other specific additions of the permit. Special condition p requirements for golden cheeked warblers and black capped vireos, we must control ... Any adverse impacts to the species on the acreage acquired as preserve land. The habitat conservation plan states ...

>> [reading graphic]kest, east,

>> the interlocal agreement between the city and county points out that the goal is tonight sure protection of the habitat and species, to operate and maintain the preserves, to recovery -- to contribute to recovery of the species in an affordable way, including public education, all of the uses of the preserves must be compatible with that primary goal of habitat preservation. All b.c.p. Preserve systems will be managed in a manner which will not jeopardize the permit and in accordance with the land management guidelines. The land management and where we are today. From 1996 until 1999 all of the b.c.p. Tracts were managed under the land management plans and guidelines. The first land management plan created as a collaborative document between the city of Austin, Travis County and was approved and sent to fish and wildlife services in 1999. The land management plan working group was created and began revising that plan in August of 2004. It's been revised and updated to incorporate new science, best management practices and describe newly acquired lands incorporated into the preserve. The current draft land management plan was presented to the public and the citizens and scientific advisory committees in November of 2005. Public review process was initiated, this was input from user groups and citizens. Land management plan revision updates recorded at each coordinating committee scientific advisory and citizens advisory committee. There have been a total of 39 of those meetings since we initiated the update and review process in 2004. Citizens communications are recorded at each of these meetings, incorporated into the record. A website created in November of 2005 to relay the entire text of the draft plan and providing additional opportunities for the public to comment during a four-month, 120 day public review and comment period. Notification was placed in various media outlets for the public. Print and digital copies of the plan were on line, in place at the Austin history center. Austin central library, various coffee shops to make the plan available to as much of the public as possible. Citizens advisory committee hosted two public hearings themselves over the course of that 120 day public review and comment period and public comments were additionally received by postal service and e-mail. Expense and scientific committees reviewed and discussed the draft plan independently as well as in one joint meeting. Committees submitted them on July 24th, the full text included in the current draft of the plan. The land management plan working group reviewed these as well as the comments submitted by the public to determine whether or not they complied with the terms and conditions of our federal permit and the working group then incorporated changes based on those comments where they did not conflict with those permit terms and conditions. Again the full text of all comments received are also found in the plan. The entire text of the land management plan, including all of the public comments received arably yore line at the website, links are also available from the county website. Printed copies and digital copies are also available at the Austin library and the Austin history center downtown. Briefly I want to talk about the changes that have been incorporated since the last plan was approved in 1999. We appropriated changes from the u.s. Fish and wildlife including comments and suggestions that chair food regulatory requirements and expectations of the permit holders. Addressed new biological and ecological data from scientific research and practical experience gained from managing the preserves. We included peer review published research and new scientific information especially as it addresses threats to species and best land management practices. Spig can't input from the public regarding questions related to public access, which led to the creation of a public access process that staff believes complies with the terms and conditions of the federal permit and all of the separate guidance documents. B.c.p. Access is I think the hot topic of the day. So we wanted to point out a couple of bits of information that I think will be helpful as you consider these comments. It's important to remember that the preserves were created with one clear public purpose in mind, that is they were created to maintain local control over economic growth and development by offsetting destruction of endangered species habitat in the remainder of the county ... The preserves are not now nor have they ever been off limit to the public. The permit holders worked to accommodate access in manners consistent with the terms of the permit and with staff and budget constraints. No Travis County managed preserve tract has ever removed or reduced any public authorized access or use, no trail has ever been closed or had any grandfather uses removed. The city of Austin and Travis County currently manage over two-thirds of the lands that makeup the preserve. Have always managed portions for year round public access, properties such as hamilton pool preserve, emma long park, wild basin are good examples of year round public access properties that are part of the preserve system. Approximately a quarter of the city's b.c.p. Lands are managed for recreational, jointly managed for ... And parks and recreation department. Travis County and city of Austin currently provide approximately 35 miles of authorized public trails on the b.c.p. For comparison the balance copies canyonlands wildlife research 22,000 acres, the data they have provided to us show there are approximately 7.4 miles of trails on their 22,000 acres. And of those 7.4 miles of trails, only 1.76 those miles are actually within warbler habitat. The b.c.p. Hike and lecture series provides monthly opportunities for the public to visit and learn more. City and county both offer interpretive hikes, preserve tours and volunteer activities throughout the preserve. The last version of the land management plan had no provisions whatsoever for the public to request additional access within the preserve. Tear ii a chapter 12 provides a public access process that allows for new activities within the preserve that are in compliance with the terms and conditions of our perm. The public access process is a collaborative process that encourages interested parties and user groups to work with staff to identify the regulatory issues and agency constraints and provide a clear pathway to achieve a yes to requests for additional access. It applies to city of Austin and Travis County managed properties only. There are other managing partners in the b.c.p. That have their own process to accommodate access on those lands. Briefly I want to talk about, we mentioned the definitions of take. I want to point out the consequences of take if it occurs within the preserve. Any actions that result in take or harm within the preserve constitute a violation of our federal permit. Actions that negatively impact covered species populations or their habitat would alter ... Special condition a of our federal permit readings if during the tenure of this permit the amount of incidental take is exceeded the issuance of participation certificates must be stopped and the permittee goes must reintake it -- reinitiate with u.s. Fws to avoid violations of section 9 of the endangered species act. This would effective put an end to the b.c.p. Streamlined compliance with the act that false at the same timed the economic growth and development in our community and cedes control to the federal government. Next steps, on August 15th the bccp secretary certified that the draft land management as it currently exists compliance with all of the terms and conditions. Additional public comment has been received. Next step involves approval by the bccp coordinating committee and submitted for final approval. That's the end of my brief presentation. There's a lot of folks that want to talk today. I’m going to submit. I don't know if dr. Robber she will or mr. -- dr. Rochelle, unless there's questions for the court.

>> I think it's important for everybody to understand so much history from the b.c.p. That I continually am learning. Is it the understanding, this may be a legal question, I think we can answer it here, does the coordinating committee, mayor wynn and myself, do we have the sole responsibility for signing off on -- on the land management plan? I know the county wants to hear all of the neighbors. I certainly wanted all of the court to hear the concern. But when push comes to shove john or kevin or judge, whoever wants to weigh in on this. Definitively who is it that really gets to make that call on the land management plan?

>> what I was read in this the interlocal agreement, the shared vision, it's part of it, incorporated into it, it states that this is -- we're talking about the -- this would be an amendment to the shared vision. That's it is way you presented it, right.

>> the amendment is adopted if the governing bodies, city of Austin, Travis County, adopt the amendment, furnish the coordinating committee secretary with certified copies of the adopting resolution, this is after the coordinating committee makes a recommendation to the governing bodies. So -- so Travis County and the city of Austin do have a role in the process.

>> okay.

>> so is that the reason that we would bring it back to each of our bodies, council and the Commissioners court and it would have to be the action of those two bodies and it really would not take place simply with mayor wynn and myself and the coordinating committee?

>> you all have made the recommendation, as I understand it from the history, you all have made the recommendations from the two bodies. That's finally -- that will be -- once the amendment is adopted and sent off to u.s. Fish and wildlife.

>> john, I think the meeting at which the coordinating committee will decide or take a vote on approving the plan is scheduled for next week.

>> uh-huh.

>> the schedule for the 15th.

>> because the coordinating committee has not yet voted or taken action on the draft plan that's --

>> this will have to come back to the Commissioners court again a week or two after that.

>> if they show choose

>> [multiple voices]

>> it takes two bodies. That was like the situation when we deal with the

>> [indiscernible] when would this go fort.

>> judge, willie conrad is the secretary of the coordinating committee. Can you weigh in on this?

>> judge and commissions, my name is willie conrad the secretary for the bccp coordinating committee. Our understanding says that the coordinating committee has the authority and responsibility to approve left hand management plans. The only time it has to go back to the governing body is if it serves as some sort of an amendment to the policy supporting the plan. At this point, I’ve certified the plan as compliant with the terms and conditions of the permit. And the plan guidelines. Because of that at this point there is no amendment that changes the level of litigation or the level of commitment between the city and county and fish and wildlife service. At this point it's my understanding that action by the governing body is not required. Now what I understand from Commissioner and mayor win while they are not required to get your direct -- direct approval they wanted to make sure that the public had the opportunity to speak to you as the governing body, give feedback to your appointed representative to the coordinating committee.

>> what you are saying, if I’m understanding you correctly. What you are saying is the determination that you make supercedes our trumps our -- our -- puts the other governmental bodies out of the picture because basically your decision of the plan is what -- what is the final situation without the governmental entities having a role in that.

>> well, i.

>> I understand through the interlocal agreement you delegated things to your -- clearly that is individual, which is Commissioner Daugherty for the Commissioners court, has been delegated some authority but also my understanding is acting today to take this issue back to you to get your feedback and if it's your wish to approve it, that certainly is within your power to do so.

>> sir, are you saying that there's not an amendment to the shared vision? That we are just changing what? Is that -- because I think that --

>> yeah. I mean the terms and conditions of the permit basically require us to assure that we don't alter the level of mitigation committed to the plan. At this point we haven't done that. There are other things in the plan that you all have consider and approved or rejected regularly. For instance, the fees that are charged for participation certificates are actually spelled out and outlined in the interlocal agreement. At a specific dollar amount. Every year that you have been asked to reconsider those fees when they were reduced and at this point there have been approvals coming forward to raise those over time. So again that's a -- that's a change in the commitment that was made by the city and the county when the permit was written. So it has to go back to the governing body. At this point, I’ve been with the working group for three years now, it's been our heartfelt effort to avoid something that changes the commitment.

>> if there is no change, there is no amendment, there really is nothing for them to approve.

>> that's correct.

>> that's basically --

>> [multiple voices]

>> what it boils down to.

>> judge, the reason I wanted everybody to understand this is because obviously even though I am the appointed person from the Commissioners court to make this call, I think that the mayor feels the same way, we would like to make sure that our body is understanding what we might do. I would much rather at some point in time when can he do this, bring this back to the court and make sure whatever my vote is going to be is really the will of the Commissioners court because after all I think that is really what people are going to look for us to do. I mean, I’m happy to say hey go make the call, but I know that, you know, this community, you know, is very judicious in the way it likes to have things dealt with. I want to make sure that it is the will at least the Commissioners court whenever I raise my hand or keep it down, when it comes time for the coordinating committee. That's -- I just wanted to lay that out and hopefully there's an understanding with the court as to kind of how this will happen. I want to bring this back, make a motion if that's the case that -- that the court wants to go forward with, well then we'll call the coordinating meeting, the mayor and I will get back, I’m sure that he will have probably the same kind of Marching orders. Is that understandable.

>> two questions. Your position that is the recommended revisions are not amendments?

>> yes, sir. That's my position.

>> and the city attorney shares that view?

>> we discussed it with holly noelke and mitzie cotton they have no problem.

>> they agree it is not an amendment.

>> yes, sir. The revision is provided for as part of the interlocal agreement.

>> john, why don't you touch base with the city attorney and make sure that we are in agreement with that. Even if not required I would think that our representative on the coordinate being board would want to know the position of the mayor on the city council. When will this be on the city council's agenda?

>> this Thursday, sir.

>> okay. Anything else? Any other comments from you?

>> I think the way that we probably outing to do this. Obvious -- ought to do this, the diserns and scientific committee, dr. Steve are you fine with that? Would -- with you coming forward.

>> I can do our committee's presentation. And really is --

>> [indiscernible]

>> we need you on the mic. If you are --

>> dr. Steve go ahead.

>> if he's coming.

>> go ahead and introduce yourself or come up to the mic.

>> we were asked to provide a response to mr. Sills presentation to the coordinating committee at its last meeting. I think he's going to give that presentation here and ours is a follow-up to that. With our take on his presentation. So -- so cliff is going to do that. I have a few summary statements but I will save those for last if I may, please.

>> with that -- with that consideration would it be okay if we went after gary.

>> somebody is going to have to go now.

>> dr. Rochelle is that fine.

>> absolutely. Have somebody get in line here. I do know that we have for example former Commissioner valerie bristol is here, I don't know whether valerie wants to weigh in and say anything. Obviously we will have a lot of --

>> we have a coordinated presentation and two of my presenters will need to leave shortly. If I let them go first, then I will do mine and then we can open it up for the scientific committee.

>> is that good for you, judge?

>> I just want --

>> just do it.

>> [laughter]

>> thank you, my name is john

>> [indiscernible] I’m with the Austin ridge riders, a volunteer director of the Austin mountain bike patrol which provides first aid and mechanical aid to people on trails in Austin, also a volunteer director for kids

>> [indiscernible] which teaches youth how to ride mountain bikes civil and responsibly. I make a living by handling medical malpractice claims for doctors here in Austin. The Austin ridge riders is a non-profit corporation and is Austin's largest and most active bicycling club with over 150 members. The Austin ridge riders also an affiliate of the international mountain biking association will we are a volunteer based organization that promotes trail access and environmentally responsible off road biking. Our activities include sanctioning sustainable trails and ongoing maintenance at public and privately owned properties. Bicycle trail patrols to provide mechanical and minor first aid to people.

>> skill clinics. Safe and proper use of mountain bikes and guided club rights. The Austin ridge riders believes a responsible off road biking is a quite union power and -- does not negatively affect existing ecosystem and biodiversity. Particularly during the golden cheeked warbler nesting activity. They are keenly interested in the protection, appropriate utilization of natural resources, we oppose all environmental degradation by unauthorized trail construction, irresponsible bicycle riding and a lack of regard for plants and animals. Over road biking is a low impact activity compatible with hikers and off road runners. In order to -- international biking association published a book in 2007 for land managers titled managing mountain biking, fwaid to providing great riding. This is the book right here. This book was a collaborative effort for financial support from the u.s. Federal highway administration's recreation trails program along with the sponsorship of the national parks, rivers, trails, assistance program in the states of pennsylvania, minnesota and tennessee. Indeed bike and pro environmental was acknowledged recently at the national level when imba and the national park service, definitely a tough nut to crack to get in favor with the park service, signed a partnership agreement in may of 2005 brought together ... Included 12 partnership projects, three unique pilot programs beginning in 2006 that caused for a major study of the benefits and potential impact that's off road biking brings to our national parks. One of the pilot projects it's in big bend national park. At the local level, the government

>> [indiscernible] state natural area in san antonio was opened to the public in October of 2005 and became a haven for hikers and bikists alike. Sections include protected habitat for the golden cheeked warbler and the black capped vireo. Trails are currently closed to biking. However access is granted during the non-nesting season. The park is the result of a successful partnership between public and private entities including Texas parks and wildlife department, the edward's aquifer authority, the san antonio water system, the trust for public land and the federal government's land and water conservation fund. Finally, we have a history of volunteer trail stewardship, 1500 hours annually for trail building and maintain. Walnut creek park in partnership with the parks and rec department, completed a signage project recently and selected for the pard and Austin parks foundation nancy boman award. We have a long history of building sustainable authorized trails in partnership with private landowners and public land managers with the city, county and state level. Includes with the lcra

>> [indiscernible] recently with the rhyme reimers ranch acquisition in Travis County, with the coa water quality protection lands at the slaughter creek tract currently a trail that's almost finished. We recognize that the future of our sport depends upon the trust and cooperation that we have with these land managers responsible for our public and private lands. So we in conclusion propose amending the land management plan guidelines to permit biking on bcc tracts and to give as much public access and enjoyment to the b.c.p. Lands as possible with access periods with both science and common sense. We recommend the trails and public access master plan that adds sustainable trails in a partnership with the local land managerred and b.c.p. Staff to include ongoing trail maintenance, protection and enhancements of the preserved habitat. Such a partnership will benefit all native species, safe and protect the land, public private model. Finally I have a permit to go on the track forest ridge. I hike there. I’m an avid hiker as well. I the trails are in bad repair, I believe it's because they don't have a volunteer base to serve them. I went to the initial field trip, I was with the biologist, looking at one of the trails that comes up from the 360 access. Highly eroded. He says yeah it's terrible shape, they don't have the people and staff to help them. With no access you are for the going to have the volunteers willing to put the time and effort into helping preserve the habitat. That's all that I have to say. Thank you for listening.

>> thank you.

>> questions?

>> what was the process that you had to go through to become a permitted user?

>> I had to take an online test. Studied the habitat and issues, take the test. Sign up for a -- kind of a guided hike basically. I believe it was like two hours or so. My wife and I both did it together. You showed up as -- in a group and you were assigned a different staff, b.c.p. Staff person to take you out on the land. I remember talking to them actually about the issue because I used to ride out there and he wasn't opposed to it himself individually, but when I looked at the particular trail going up, really rutted on a fall line so water just runs down it, he says yeah we need to do something about that we don't have the staff.

>> did you find the permitting process onerous.

>> no. I taught it was informative and educational. I don'ting if it was changed. Two years. I found it beneficial actually.

>> thank you.

>> your big question is why can't bikers have access during the non-nesting season for walker

>> [indiscernible]

>> right, being a layperson not a scientist, I have a hard time understanding that, particularly since if you were to use the existing trails, as they are, how you would be affecting the habitat whatsoever. The perfect mountain bike trail is similar to a hiking trail. It's narrow and you don't damage --

>> I just wanted to make sure that I had your point.

>> yeah.

>> what's the answer? We need to get -- whoever has the answer back in here, may as well go get the question answered.

>> perhaps we should wait until we do the science presentation.

>> I would like to get the answer right now if you don't mind.

>> that's right.

>> he wants to know why bikers cannot have access to one or more of the preserves during the non-nesting season of warblers.

>> because the current rules do not allow it.

>> that's not an answer.

>> conley or whoever has the answer. I didn't think it was that tough. We may have to take your advice. Write these questions down then.

>> [multiple voices]

>> very important question.

>> question number one, yes, sir.

>> good morning, my name is hill able. I am a resident of Travis County for 29 years. I have been the chair of the board of directors of the international mountain biking association for the past five years. I’ve been a volunteer board member for the past 14 years. Contrary to popular belief the modern mountain bike has existed for less than 30 years. Imba was formed 22 years ago in response to trail closures. Specifically starting in california, california tends to be the genesis of a lot of our cultural trends. Takes where the mountain bike started. Those trail closures were initially because of social conflict. That was conflicts between mountain bikers and hikers. The mountain biker was the new kid on the block, unknown to he could quest ran, hikers, we have been very effective at informing and educating the mountain biking community about the appropriate way to behave on trails. We have been a model of creating sustainable trails for the last 15 years. We have two trail builders groups. Subsidized by subaru. We have two, two man groups that go across the country putting approximately 45,000 miles on vehicles every year to go into communities, work with mountain biker organizations, teach them how to build sustainable, ecologically low impact trails across the country. We have been doing that for the last 10 years. We have had impacts, we've had interactions with approximately 100,000 different mountain bikers across the country and Austin has been visited by this crew approximately eight times in the last 10 years. The point that I would like to make today is we do not have to have that artificial divide between the mountain bike community and the environmental community. Mountain bikers are environmentalists. We have a strong conservation ethic. We are very concerned about the species that exists on this property. We simply ask for a reasonable opportunity to prove that we can be good stewards, that we can contribute to the resource because we have never had that opportunity. Since 1996, when the b.c.p. Was formed, we have attempted to put in our volunteer efforts where we have been very successful on other tracts of land. The slaughter water quality protection property is one great example where we have built a trail that is going to open in approximately six weeks that was a public private partnership that has created a trail opportunity that we think is going to demonstrate the power of the volunteer base of the mountain bike community here in Austin. We would just ask the Commissioners court and the judge to -- to give us that opportunities to demonstrate our efficiency and effectiveness as a volunteer group. Thank you.

>> thank you.

>> [one moment please for change in captioners]

>> one great example in the north, northwest quadrant of Austin anne Travis County there are no legal mountain biking opportunities except for one trail off of spice woods springs road. We feel it's important to spread the impact out and create new opportunities for people to recreate.

>> northwest metro parks is going to have bike trails, I believe northwest metro parks is going to have bike trails? I mean southwest, sorry.

>> southwest, yes, it is.

>> and this is a question that goes to the crux of the matter for me. The population is increasing in Travis County enormously. It is increasing in northwest Travis County in large measure because the bcp exists. It's allowed to increase. There's a permit agreement that is the bcp.

>> yes.

>> my question is this. As the popularity of mountain biking grows, and I love to mountain bike, by the way. As the popularity grows and the population gross, what do you recommend--grows, what do you recommend as the way to limit the access to endangered species habitat?

>> what do I recommend is the way to limit access to?

>> we plainly couldn't allow everyone that wants to mountain bike on the bcp because that would endanger its core mission.

>> I see.

>> so how we recommend that it be limited and monitored so we can ensure that it isn't resulting in a take of the endangered species for which the bcp was created?

>> I think that is a great question and one of the ways is the permit process just spoken to. That is a way for hikers to use the property during the nesting season.

>> during the nonnesting season, the offseason.

>> actually, you can hike on the tracks during the nesting season if you have gone through the educational program. You can hike without that permit during the nonnesting season. So effectively a hiker has access to the property if he is willing to take the course year-round.

>> my question, though, I hear what the Commissioner is coming, what everyone is saying, but still not convinced at this point that access should be made to the bcp preserve. I’m just not convinced. I guess going out there and looking at those particular endangered species and the nesting habitat, my problem is that who will be able to monitor this to make sure that those that are not maybe like you will be placed in check and controlled where they won't disyou are not only the nesting area but the other areas out there so they won't be violated. A lot of things that we have out there that I think need protection from intrusion for it to be a continued preserve. Not saying that you personally wouldn't go out and destroy things. How do we guarantee that vandalism and all these other kind of things that take place for whatever reason, they take place and it happens whether we like it or not. In our parks today all over the county we have incident reports that come back to us and we review them and read them. You, surprised the things that go on in parks. Just parks. And preserves, I think, the whole habitat, in my mind, has to be protected. That is what it's for. Still having a little trouble being convinced that it should be disturbed from those folks that may not be in the realm of where you are and what you are trying to do. I hope you understand where I’m coming from.

>> yegs, Commissioner--yes, sir, Commissioner, I certainly do. We share that cerb. We feel we can be the eyes and ears for the land managers when we are on the property. As a responsibility user group it's in our best interest to protect the property. We're seeing vandalism today. It's being pa trold by security. I don't feel like that should be the responsibility of the responsible mountain biker use to eliminate that. I don't think that is going to change.

>> right.

>> but we thought we can contribute a considerable resource in the way of volunteers, volunteerism, knowledge about how to build sustainable trails. John spoke to the trail at forest ridge currently there. A trail that we work on approximately 12 years ago and did quite a bit of revenge tages close--vegetation, closing trails. We feel we could be a major force in vegetating that trail and creating sustainable trails that would be for all in the community to use. What we see today is old bulldozed twop development--development on the forest range track they are trails that have created enormous erosion gullies probably have a significant impact on the water resource. We have the know how and skill and willingness, which I think is important, to support the land managers in rehabilitating this property and making it a better tract than it has been previously.

>> rehabilitating it for humans.

>> I believe that any rehabilitation, any way that we can go in and do a job of protecting the canopy and preventing erosion is not only good for humansrb it's good for all the species on the property. And we will certainly work within any parameters that the sciencetive ec community can bring to us and say, this is the type of vegetation that we need to see, something that we think we have done a great job at the slaughter tract of doing, a tract purchased for water sqalt protection, we think it's going to be a home run in demonstrating how we can be a responsible user and protect water quality yet still have hundreds of people using that tract of land on a weekly basis.

>> I hear everything you are saying.

>> yes, sir.

>> again, it's going to take some pretty mighty persuasion for me to, and let me say this to you. I applaud you for what you are doing. I think it's great, for the things that you do. There are some instances where by ume intervention shouldn't be allowed. In other words, the least amount of human contact, the better, for the things that we are trying to protect, especially habitats and the environment within that to make sure those protections are warranted. So again, I’m hearing everything you are saying but it's going to take a tall order, I think, to convince me that the intrusion of that habitat is something that we need to be looking at as far as doing. I’m not there yet. I applaud you though.

>> thank you Commissioner. One of the issues that another person will take up is the scientific basis to demonstrate that the mountain biking has a detrimental impact on the resource. The two test sites if you want to call them are the motorcycle park, and one of the that has not been spoken to is that that piece of property has been intensively used by motorcycles over all the years of any study that's happened and that is nowhere in the science, that that property is degraded by motorcycle use and not mountain bike use. The fact that those trails were not designed and built sustain bring. The other tract is the balora tract on the fort hood military reservation where there is heavy me machinery and artillery on the property on a regular basis. I think we have not had the opportunity to demonstrate that we can have a low to no impact riding opportunity these preserves. I understand your reticence on allowing public use.

>> thank you, can we see the hand of those that plan to have testimony on had this item today. Why don't we forget this order. It's not working. You are next and we need three more people to come forward and give us your testimony.

>> if I might.

>> yes. Right here. You want to be second?

>> yes, sir.

>> you will be second. You are first.

>> my name is cindy wisinger, I am a cyclist, mountain road and otherwise. I’m here to represent the Austin mountain biking community. I’d like to follow up on a couple of things just discussed and I’d like to point out as well a couple of things in the master plan and the use plan that concern me a little bit. You all were just discussing studies and reasons to allow or not allow public use of the property. There is some wording in the plan that talks about, that basically it says, and it's in the plan in several places in different ways, but it says, any research to address effects of recreational activities on the protected species must not take priority over conservation and management priorities and must not divert staff or mental resources from the mimary research priority, ani don't have my glasses on, species monitoring or land management. In my opinion that statement preclouds any requirement for bcp to do and research. I don't know of a single organization had a has enough staff time or money to complete all priorities. But saying they are not going to divert staff or money do a study there's not going to be, I fear that there won't be a study done. I have heard of the opposite question of Commissioner Davis, my question is why not allow people on the property. We don't have any evidence to say why we shouldn't allow people on the property. I completely respect the goals of the bcp. It is necessary , it is required we should do what we should do to protect the land and the endangered species. But we need to determine whether or not public access is a problem.

>> that is where you have to convince me. I am not convinced that your intrusion, radless--regardless is going to detriment or harm the habitat itself. With the vandalism going on now, it is pretty apparent that there are some things that just can't be monitored or controlled. We see reports, again, with our court systems where vandalism and just the normal park system is at a high level. So I’m still, in other words, convince me. Right now, go ahead.

>> I’m not sure which parts you are talking aboutment if you are talking about city parks with easy access for lots of people, that is one thing. I think the bcp lands are primarily further out you're not going to have groups of kids.

>> you're talking about Travis County parks.

>> Travis County parks?

>> yes.

>> I don't know what all those are. But the bcp lands are further out and are usually going to require automotive transportation to get to. I’m a juvenile probation officer. I know that teenagers commit a lot of time. I thought of something to tell you all. I think the general public has a miss conception of who mountain bikers rnmp I am a mountain biker and my friends are. We are in our 30s, 40s, 50s. We are adults and allow abiding. Most mountain bikers r there's a few, sure, no population that's perfect. There are going to be people out there that are going to blow by on you a trail and not be polite. Most mountain biners are going to have a great respect to the land. We want the access and will do whatever is necessary to maintain that access, which means police each other, which we already do. And one of the things that I would like to propose, it's already been brought up a couple of times, about a relationship with Austin ridge riders. I’m with Austin ridge riders. And we exist to provide education to the public and to teach people how to mountain bike and to follow the rules of mountain biking, one of which is to leave no trace. That is what we do, and that is what we could offer to the bcp as a help. I like the permitting process as an option. When you say how are you going to control the crime, and yes there's not enough people to police it, but I have to tell you that recently when I was hiking at saint edwards park when I got to the top of the trail and saw the big fence for the first time and big sign that says no mountain biking and if you do we will fine you $2,000, that has an impact on me. Not that I would have done it anyway. But there are measures that can be put into place to help protect the land, which is the goal, to protect the land. We completely understand and support that.

>> you have a very reasonable position. We're looking for the appropriate balance. Of course the bcp wasn't created for human recreation. So we are looking at, I mean, appropriately so, public hearing is about exploring options for human recreation that wouldn't irrepair ably harm.

>> I would like that bcp be retired to do a study regardless of how it effects resources. To continue to deny public access to land without scientific study is inappropriate.

>> as I said, it wasn't created for human access. Yes, it's public land but you're jumping to the assumption that because it's public land it is therefore inappropriate to exclude humans. It's a preserve.

>> that's true. And the bcp plan includes seven levels of effective land management strategy. Of those, one is no access, which is the current strategy used. It also lists seasonally restricted hack assess, rotation of access between reserves over a period of years, prohibited access to sensitive areas, selected access to nonhabitat areas, and careful trail location and design and guided access. I would propose that the bcp implement a demonstration project with some of these different management strategies to see if in fact there is impact on the land. That would be my proposal.

>> thank you very much.

>> for your comments.

>> yes, sir.

>> I’m gary lashelle, a user. I’m going to flip through this presentation.

>> we need you on the mike.

>> grab a mike.

>> I can do this. The most important part of my background is to note that I represent the five foot hills neighborhood and the friends of balcones canyonlands preserve. These organizations have formed coalitions to provide you with a cohesive response from the public on this issue. In my presentation, that didn't work. Try again. The message, there will be three messages, a message about science and choice. The endangers speese id act allowed significant choice in what we do with represerves. We can use trails when and where the birds are absent. In monitoring confirm the coexistence of trails and waters. The second piece shows amendments from the friends of the bcp. Finally, to provide for you a description of a proposal to demonstrate responsible trails on the canyon vista react. First the permit that we operate under prohibits harm or harassment but both are defined as significant affects. Mthe legal language you will see hills, you will see significant, significantly, essential, injury significantly, likelihood. It's important to recognize that the policy and the rules that we operate under are reasonable rules that don't require no effects, they require there to be no significant effect. The permit allows public access. We have a spectrum of choice. The specific policy in permit specifically says public access may be allowed when and where such access does not significantly threaten the welfare of the target species nor cause degradation of the vegetation or water resource we have two choices on how to manage the lan. We can maximize the public enjoysment of the land, which means we can change that may to shall and actually claim the right to use the land in the way that maximizes public enjoyment, and we can plan and implement responsible trails that are limited by species protection and satisfy that objecttive. Or we can take a second shoyce with our land. The second choice is to minimize public access, which is change the significant effects to no effects, to maximize the conservation of the flora and fauna, which could be noble, and add guidelines to the plan that limit public access. The staff and the current plan that has been proposed takes the second choice. We would urge you to consider the first choice. The questions of science, which I will now address. If you choose choice one, the questions are where, when and how can we use trails without significant effects. What is significant? Are there any significant effects during the off season? How much use is significant during nesting, to dogs or bikes warrant additional restriction. If you choose choice two, the question is much simpler, are there any effects that justify the exclusion of hikers, dogs and bikers, and there are significant becomes irrel if you have made the second--irg relevant if you make the second choice. Significant we would choose to define as measurable loss of water. I lead you through this rational. Population is what counts on these preserves both legally and morally. We want to conserve the birds. On a typical hundred acre site, we'll start with about 120 male birds. And--20 male birds. When we count, turns out regardless of how you do it, the count is always plus or minus two because there is variability. You try to come pair sill lar tracks they will be different. If you do it on the same track there's reproduceability in counting. Sample size is awful small, it's hard to get good numbers. Counting birds is the most accurate way we have of measuring how we are doing and of addressing the legal and moral issue. Significant effects are present. We know what two of the significant effects are. When we cut down trees, birds go away and we lose 19 warblers and we don't do that. If you cut a corridor to one of the tracts wider than 30 feet, turns out birds leave on a hundred years either side of the corridor and we lose a significant number of birds because of that. These are significant effects that we know about. What we don't know is what are the significant effects for trail use. Are they going to be in this range of plus or minus two warblers. What we are looking for if the effect is less than two warblers per hundred acres loss to effect of trail, we have no harm to the warblers legally and morally. A good example of the result f we perform an experiment on trail use and propose, let's go to a site where there's currently no trailer let add trails and measure the effects of adding trails and people to the sites. We will measure no effect of of trails unless the effect is greater than two warblers per hundred acres because there is simply no way to see that statistically.

>> this is your suggested equation for determining--

>> this is my definition of significant.

>> okay.

>> certainly significant can be, is defined other ways. But I would make the point that running experiments is not going to be much help if min fact the effects that we are looking for are less than s effects that we can measure. The bottom line is what are the effects that we can expect. If hikers, bikers and dogs use trails when there is no warblers that is in the off season, and answering your question, Commissioner Davis, or our view of that answer, and ladwill have a different way, we should be able to use the land when there are no warblers. In 1999 the scientific advisory committee suggested that bcp preserve land can be available during the nonnesting season as long as they do not result in any significant land or vegetational modification. Our primary concern on using the lands in the offseason is what the use does to the erosion, to loss of ground cover primarily. We would suggest that responsible trails with enforceable standards that require no loss of canopy, we don't cut trees down when we make trails, that require the loss of ground cover be less than one percent of the site and that require, keep the site clean of food and garbage by user patrol. In other words, responsible trails should have minimum effect when there are no warblers. We can grant fy the loss of ground cover. If there's a one percent loss of ground cover, a quick estimate, probably a generous estimate on the side of conservation, we will probably lose about a half percent of the warblers because in effect we precluded them from using that part of the ground. But the warblers are mostly in the trees and that is probably an overestimate of what we will lose. We also estimate we might lose some for some lesser effects not as well defined. We're concerned about oak wilt, concerned about fire damage. These are certainly lesser effects than the major concern here which is loss of ground cover. Our estimated loss of warblers is point two per hundred acres. The problem is we can't measure that because that is below the detection limit and therefore not significant. Further more, this impact from soil and water is also less than one percent. I would suggest that is not significant either. We can protect any isolated on they are species besides the golden-cheeked warblers and we would suggest trshould be no significant harm that we need to address. The other place and time where we can use warblers, excuse me, we can use trails is where there are few warblers. Turns out that warblers avoid these corridors that are wider than 30 feet and that is a good place to put trails, specifically along wide streams such as barton and wool creek, along legacy roads, for example, forest ridge am. Warblers require mature habitat and these would also be appropriate routes for trails. Therefore, when we use trails where there are no warblers, there should be no significant loss of population, no harm. Finally, we consider what happens when there are warblers. So can we use trails in occupied habitat? The primary mechanism here is flushing. The birds on the trail, the hiker by and bird get disturbed. Flushing depends on the intensity of use, user type, group noise. In this analysis I assumed a moderate intensity of use. Hikers and bikers typically flush to about 50 feet. If you figure okay, a hiker is in there for a hundred hours, while he is there the warbler effectively loses use of that poo feet of space that he is occupying, and we lose about point 04 warblers from had a effect. Hikers with dogs probably flush a greater distance, much greater than the literature might suggest, a hundred feet. We might lose point 08 warblers to that effect. The estimated flushing loss, therefore, is about point 12. If we throw in a loss for lesser effects, specifically predators that might be on the trail, we get a total loss, including loss of ground cover, of about point 4 warblers the problem is that is not measurable. We could run a , put --run an experiment, and we could predict we would see no measurable effect because the ability to make measurement on population is plus or minus two warblers on that tract. Let's skip this slide. For the second time. For the second time, moving on slightly, we have monitoring data which suggests that warblers can coexist with trails. This is a specific monitoring data from the turkey creek site which happens to be a city of Austin site. It's a heavily used trail by hikers with dogs off leach. It's fully canopied trail with six to eight feet of tread. This is the trail that comes through the site. These polygons represent warbler territories. There's about 25 territories on this site. If the we inspect impact to warblers, we should be looking at a corridor where there are no warblers and there is no such effect.

>> you mentioned the trail.

>> this rail is about a mile and a half.

>> okay. What is the width?

>> the width, I’m going to say about three quarters of a mile.

>> okay.

>> does that answer your question? I’m sorry.

>> the width of the trail itsel.

>> this particular trail is six to eight feet wide. It's very heavily used by dogs with hikers.

>> six to eight foot wide.

>> yes.

>> okay.

>> is that one of the trails grandfathered.

>> yes. Next slide. The bird count at this trail is high. This is a number of birds per hundred h ectares, we have been monitoring the trails for about seven years. The blue curve is the average density on city tracks they have been monitoring and the black curve is the density on this trail. You should notice that the density of birds on this trail is high, higher than the average. You should notice that the density of birds is increasing with time, which is observe throughout our preserves. And there are explanations for why it's higher but the important thing to note, it is not low. It is probably in the range where we expect it to be, and this particularly heavily used trail shows no effect of use by the warblers. Next slide. Let's skip these two. I’m going to skip right through to the canyon vista demonstration. I’m changing top thic at bit now. The purpose of changing the topic is to show you how we will go about implementing trails if we are allowed to do that. There is a pending proposal to develop a demonstration of responsible trails on the canyon vista tract, which is monitored by the county. This proposal involves the use of responsible partners and steak headers. Go ahead. It requires responsible use. That means we're going to have narrow trails on preexisting sustainable roots. In this case there will be no additional loss of ground cover because we will be using existing roots. There's no loss of canopy. There will be rules to protect the birds and habitat. There will be monitoring and reporting by trail steward, maintenance of trails, and in some instances vegetation and then trash removal. We expect trails will be better when we implement trails rather than worse. We propose responsible increasing access of all three types of users with progressive relax ago of controls. In the first three years we start with nonnesting season only. In the first year there will be a locked gate and we count registered user and they have a combination to get in and out. In the second year we open the gate for limited periods. We still count registered users and if possible add cameras or some other tool to get a count of the actual number of users. In the third year we'll open the gate wide during the nonnesting season. Again, make attempts to count users.

>> in can downand vista this is already the--canyon and vista this is already the plan.

>> this is a proposed plan. Very much proposed plan. In the fourth year we develop a plan for stakeholders for access in the nesting season. That has yet to be agreed upon because we haven't goten to that point yet. We propose responsible quantifiable result from this tell station. We are going to measure the warblers. We expect to see 19 on the site plus or minus three. We measure service compaction to make sure we stick to the standard that less than one percent of the preserve is impacted by our trails. We are going to count the number of people using, by registration or by camera, so that we will in fact be able to say, hey, this is the level of use on had this site. And we are going to clear the preserve of trash. Next slide. Next step in this proposal process is to build consensus among the steak hoard, am we need to work out details on access controls, trail roots, parking on access points and trail use, and the proposed commitment in this five-year management plan which is an amendment of the plan is that the tract will include a plan for trails. Next slide and I think I’m through. Yes. So we would conclude that responsible trail use by hikers, hikers with dogs and mountain bikers has no significant effect upon the population of golden-cheeked warblers in the nonnesting season, unoccupied habitat, and probably not in occupied habitat either. We would urge you to choose responsible trail use, not fences, and support the concept of a responsible demonstration at the canyon vista site. Thank you for your time.

>> two questions. So you are proposing the canyon vista project as a sort of demonstration project to measure impact?

>> yes.

>> okay.

>> let me add torque measure impact and to measure our ability to work as a public private coalition to implement a responsible site.

>> okay. You talked a lot about the e golden-cheeked warbler. There is also a virio, right?

>> I’m not aware of any other endangered species on the canyon vista tract.

>> on the other sm.

>> there are other tracks that have the virio and other endangered species, yes.

>> okay. We think there are other endangered species on the preserve lands, don't we?

>> we do.

>> okay.

>> when we address public access with trails, we will treat each of those species as a special case. Most of those other species are in isolated locations, specific tracts. For example, the caves represent one type of that.

>> okay.

>> we would not suggest that there should be major public access to those sensitive areas.

>> okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you very much.

>> can I talk?

>> yes, please.

>> because have I to go.

>> okay.

>> please.

>> I am a nurse. I am a bird watcher. And a parent. Your name.

>> your name, please.

>> my name is kerry banks. I do think we need more places for people to go. But I object to the unlimited unsupervised year-round public use of the balcones canyonlands or even just a segment of time. I think that if we have unrestricted, unsupervised use of this land, that it would cause a lot of problems. The balcones preserve was set aside to protect the golden-cheeked warbler which is a wonderful bird that we only have in certain areas in central Texas. It breeds here. People come from all over the world to see it bird watchers are a little quirky but we love to see this birdlve it attracted people to Austin because it's a wonderful little bird. So it is an endangered species and it is protected by federal allow--law. It is especially sensitive to human activities. I have seen the bird plane timeslve I’ve gone a field trips and led field trips. The bird does not like to be pursued and doesn't like human activities. Then we have also the black-capped virio that is also endangered and also very sensitive. There should be, I believe, no public area in the city of Austin that has unsupervised and unlimited public access. That means I feel that any place any park, any wildlife area should not be unsupervised. It's subject to some, we should have some sort of legal jurisdiction over any wildlife area because as Commissioner Davis has pointed out, we have had vandalism at parks. People don't always behave like they should. Natural areas have been defaced. We have graffiti. We even have extreme instances where we expect arson is causing the problem that we had in california. A lot of people don't know about the flora and fauna and might be coming to this area not realizing that they are going to harm what's there. So I feel that we as human beings do affect any land a that we go on. I feel we should have areas that we go but don't think the preserve set aside for the golden-cheeked warbler and black-capped virio should be used as public access. I want to address the man who want to take his dogs off leash to this area because I have a problem with unleashed dogs. Every place that I go these days there are unleashed dogs all over the place. And dogs are predators. They have teeth. They have caused human fatalities. I have been in areas where I have had to stop a dog from attacking a duck, and the dog went after the duckrb went to the neck of the duck, started to attack. The chased the dog away and owner says, what happened? What are you doing? I said the dog just athat bird. She said no, it didn't. She ignored it. One time I was at northwest park and dog was running wild, man was standing there just watching his dog as he was running around and the dog went after a green heron. You know, I asked him please put your dog on a leash, he is disturbing the wildlife habit tax this is not an area that accepts unleashed dogs and he just ignored me. I have asked many people, please restrain your dog. I don't want your dog to come after me or my dog as I’m walking my dog. I don't think dog owners are particularly conscientious people. I don't think that they restrain their dogs in a conscientious manner. That is my point. I feel that if we're going to provide an area for dog owners that they should maybe make some parks. We have like eight dog parks in the area. We have a lot of unofficial dog parks also. I know that the area by bull creek is an unofficially dog park. People go there and they take their dogs and their dogs run wild. There is an area also off of bull creek street that is a state land. I don't know if you guys know what I’m talking about, but people take their dogs there and that is also an area not supposed to be a dog park. So in conclusion, I feel that the golden-cheeked warblers and black-capped virios are beautiful and rare treasures and we should try to preserve them. They are sensitive and should be protected. The endangered species act protects these creatures. This is a federal law. If there is any doubt that human use would degrade an area and endanger the sensitive species that live in the area, it makes sense to close the land off to unsupervised and unlimit the access by human beings. If a dog owner or whoever wishes to take his pet to a place to run free he should secure some land of his own and not expect taxpayers to foot the bill for the pleasure of his pet. That's the way I feel bitlve I don't want it to take away from the golden-cheeked warbler and the black-capped virio because they are very sensitive. If we do anything to disturb their habitat, they will be doomed. Like a lot of other creatures. Thank you for your time.

>> thank you for your time.

>> judge, listen, I know this is going on. Bee have some folks here that we told them item number 30 would be coming up at 10:30. I definitely don't want to lose those folks either. We have several people signed in on item number 30, which is a 10:30 item to be discussed. I don't want to lose the flavor of that either. People might start leaving. We have 120, 30 people that have come in to testify on that. I just want to bring that to your attention.

>> we'll get to it as soon as we can.

>> all right.

>> yesjudge, commission--

>> thank you very much.

>> for your comments.

>> yes, sir.

>> I’m gary lashelle, a user. I’m going to flip through this presentation.

>> we need you on the mike.

>> grab a mike.

>> this is your suggested equation for determining--

>> this is my definition of significant.

>> okay.

>> you mentioned the trail.

>> this rail is about a mile and a half.

>> okay. What is the width?

>> the width, I’m going to say about three quarters of a mile.

>> okay.

>> does that answer your question? I’m sorry.

>> the width of the trail itsel.

>> this particular trail is six to eight feet wide. It's very heavily used by dogs with hikers.

>> six to eight foot wide.

>> yes.

>> okay.

>> is that one of the trails grandfathered.

>> in can downand vista this is already the--canyon and vista this is already the plan.

>> two questions. So you are proposing the canyon vista project as a sort of demonstration project to measure impact?

>> yes.

>> okay.

>> let me add torque measure impact and to measure our ability to work as a public private coalition to implement a responsible site.

>> okay. You talked a lot about the e golden-cheeked warbler. There is also a virio, right?

>> I’m not aware of any other endangered species on the canyon vista tract.

>> on the other sm.

>> there are other tracks that have the virio and other endangered species, yes.

>> okay. We think there are other endangered species on the preserve lands, don't we?

>> we do.

>> okay.

>> we would not suggest that there should be major public access to those sensitive areas.

>> okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you very much.

>> can I talk?

>> yes, please.

>> because have I to go.

>> okay.

>> please.

>> I am a nurse. I am a bird watcher. And a parent. Your name.

>> your name, please.

>> thank you for your time.

>> we'll get to it as soon as we can.

>> all right.

>> yesjudge, commission--

>> judge, Commissioners, my name is christy rollens. I’m a housewife and dog owner and member of Travis County search and rescue. I use the turkey creek portion of the park which is also a part of the bcp plan. I think there are some issues which need to be brought to light. It's more of a divided situation here. There are some people would would like increased access. I would like to speak to the grandfathered access that is already promised to the citizens of Austin and Travis County at part of the bcp. When the balcones canyonlands preserve was formed, some st existing parks that have been a part of city parks since 190s were used as--1930s were used as part of the preserve land to meet the 30,000 plus acre requirement. It was promised to the citizens that they would be able to retain the grandfathered uses at the time for those parks. So if you biked before, you could bike now. If you walked your dog there before, you could walk there now. In 1977, prior to any of the endangered species situations, turkey creek nature trail was by ordinance a leash free area for citizens of Austin to their dog and give dogs room to run, it has been a part of the 12 leash free parks in Austin since that time. Those uses were grandfathered in and it was part of the condition of the use of the park and for using the park as the preserve acreage. So there are two parts to this issue. One is expansion of access and one is retention of access. The people that use the trail on a regular basis, the turkey creek nature trail, are highly responsible. The bird counts, and I have charts, have gone up on the trail where the dogs are being allowed to run leash free. There is never, I take that back there was one incident reported to the parks on had a nature trail where a dog barked at someone. Gosh, if you are on a leash-free dog park, kind of wondering. There have never been any incidents or reports, according to pard, of any attacks, any kind of harassment of people by the dogs on that park.

>> these are grandfathereded city parks you're talking about.

>> yes, sir, there is.

>> there is no recommendation as to them, right?

>> there is no recommendation for change. However, the bcp plan outright bans dogs to be in this park.

>> although--

>> the current plan as well as the renewed plan.

>> I think perhaps we might have mr. Connolly speak to this. My understanding as I read over the rules is that the grand fathered use is the grandfathered use.

>> then the verbiage--

>> we have some of the verbiage here in the event that any negative effects are demonstrated by the studies of any or all types of recreation the activities, those activities should be permanently pre hibited on all nongrandfathered preserve tract.

>> currently the first plan written is in direct condition flick with the city ordinance that allows dogs to be on the trail and off leash dogs. If you read they are strictly prohibited and they are asking to renew that plan.

>> that is an issue of city ordinance.

>> it's a city ordinance. It was a city park that was used as a part of the preserve lands to get to the 30,000 plus acres. But the citizens were promised the grandfathered uses. So there is a direct conflict in the plan currently and as a renewed plan.

>> it's not a bcp issue. Sounds like a city of Austin.

>> it is a bcp issue because the bcp in their plan is prohibiting dogs from that tract of land which was grandfathered in. Who has the final authority? I think I agree with Commissioner Davis. I guess the people that go out there are very much in conflict. Is bcp running it? Is the city of Austin's ordinance overriding? Specifically in the bcp plan it says dogs are prohibited from the turkey creek nature trail. They can be in the parking lot. That is not in line with the grandfathered clause. They are asking to use the very same plan. This is about retaining the access we should have. The two things are in direct conflict, the grandfathered uses and recommendations on the plan and renewal of that very same plan. People don't want to go out there and feel like they have to look over their shoulder, am I breaking the law or not people out there are very responsible. Water has been tested, trash is picked up. You would be hard pressed to find a cigarette but or zipper pull out there. Water shows very, very low levels and acceptable levels, I believe it's called, ambient levels, of ecoli. It is something you would and do find in bull creek park where people have not cleaned up after their animals. People have been responsible at this park. Park is clean. Uses are grandfathered. Yet the plan states that dogs will be prohibited. The numbers of the birds are up and that is the goal. There are volunteers that want to go out there that work often on pard on improvements to the land to mitigate erosion, any kind of vegetation approximate out there. And unfortunately, volunteers that show up for those days feel very threatened that their work is going to be closed off to them because these two things are in writing, the ordinance and the bcp plan that says dogs are prohibited out there. Since 1977 there hasn't been an added dog park to the city of Austin, and I don't know the figures because I’m not a stattish tissue--statistics person. This property is pristine. This property should be a show case. For how parks can be managed, for how all this land can be managed and well cared for. It has been and it still is. I would urge all of you to go look at it and take your dogs or walk on foot. There are plen the ty of people that come out here that don't have dogs that enjoy it. Numbers of birds have gone up over the years, dramatically since 2002. We feel that we're not asking for additional access, though there are two component of this plan. We are asking you to address in an authoritative way the discrepancies between grandfathered uses and the plan as it exists now and is asking to be renewed.

>> thank you. I will need to ask our additional speakers to try to self limit their testimony to two minutes. We have been on this item more than an hour and a half. We have heard two presentations and I know that other have some new and different to say so we want to provide that opportunity. If would you try to limit it to two minutes, we would appreciate it.

>> yes, sir.

>> this will be back on the court's agenda instead of one week probably two. So there will be additional opportunity to give us e-mails, written comments, et cetera. Next time if we need to we can have another public hearing to allow testimony.

>> yes, sir.

>> yes, ma'am.

>> I have a question.

>> okay.

>> I keep hearing the word parks. I thought it was a preserve. Am I missing something somewhere?

>> you are right. We're supposed to be talking about the balcones canyonlands preserve.

>> I keep hearing parks, parks, parks.

>> point well taken. Let's concentrate on the item and try to protect our preserve.

>> judge, can I use time from david steed? We are here the to represent the scientific advisory committee of the bcp? I think it will take take long.

>> all right.

>> good morning, my name is clifton lad. I’m here as representative of the science titchic advisory committee. Mthe last couple of weeks and here today we have witnessed speakers testifying that the trail use on golden-cheeked warblers is statistically insignificant. I would like to give you a brief presentation about how statistics works in buy --biology and we would like to make the case for better use so we can have public access wherever that is appropriate. Statistical hypothesis testing works by developing initially a hypothesis and taking the reverse of that which would be the null hypothesis. That is what we actually test. Conducting the appropriate statistic thel test is next. By convention we would look at how 95 percent chance that the null hypothesis is incorrect. That is referred to as statistical significance in most testing. In medical tests it's common to extend that to 99 percent but typically in biological investigations we use 95 percent confidence interval. I’d like to kind of give a comparison to the climate change debate. We could look at the hypothesis is one that humans are affecting climate change. The null hypothesis is that human actions are not affecting climate change. Failure to reject the null hypothesis does not mean that it's right, only that we are confident, only that you are not confident that it is wrong. If the null hypothesis is inaccurate but not rejected this is referred to as a type two error. In a situation like this this is a significant risk of making this type of error. If we look at application of statistics to biology, we can take the hypothesis that golden-cheeked warblers are impacted by human recreation. The null hypothesis is that they are not impacted by human recreation. How would we measure that? We could use population estimates, we can use reproductive success, which is actually far more appropriate measure. In the short term, five to ten years of population counts may be not enough to ensure the species survival. Reproductive success ask a much better indicator of the true population condition. It is difficult to estimate. At this time neither the city nor county bcp staff have the appropriate resources to do this kind of research. They are busy with many other pressing management needs as some of with you I have heard today. It is possible to do, it's been done in other areas, fort hood as a give ongoing research program and they do gather that kind of data on their studies. Failure to reject the null hypothesis often rises from inadequate sample size, environmental sameness and noise and data but does not necessarily mean that the null hypothesis is true. Individuals demanding increased access have stated that if an effect on population cannot be measured with statistical significant it is not significant. Primary assumption is inaccurate. Bcp exists to mitigate the highly significant tack via development in Travis County any adverse effect can be seen as violation of the permit. At the least it would require additional mitigation of that effect. The bcp preserve system is already as small as it can possibly be to accommodate the take that is happening through you are pan development all around it. The preserve is not permitted to allow for take within its own boundaries. Therefore, we must either err on the side of insuring that there is noed a verse effect on the gcw or we must provide additional mitigation for that take, which means increased land purchases. We have not even finished the land purchases required for the b cc p. At the very least this would increase the cost of allowing access. Consequences. If we make a decision and we error on the side of caution and we are wrong, then the result is we would have continued carefully controlled access where that is allowed now. And it will continue. And recreation can continue to occur else where in Travis County. If we err on the side of recreation and we are wrong, we risk violating the bcc permit. Those actions with require additional mitigation and it could require suspension of permit which could threaten future development in Travis County and ec ming progress in the county which the bccp was partly designed do accommodate. This is a partly in answer to the question that you had, judge Biscoe, regarding consequences in the off season. Those, that use of trails in warbler habit during the off season can affect soil impact shun, sedimentation, increased chances for oak wilt, fire, which would be absolutely devastating to the warbler habitat, and it is difficult toi restrict access to just the nonbreeding season. We do need better information. All that said, we are sympathetic to trail users' concerns because we have long said that without good data and information we must err on the side of preservation of the species. But the needed research has not been performed. If the council, city council and Commissioners court which to arc they should instruct bcp staff to I know analysis of the data they have collected in a reasonable amount of time and provide staff and budget to ensure it is completed in a timely manner. We agree with the citizens advisory committee which has recommended funding the study of recreational activity on nonbcp sites. The city could use upcoming trail on the tract in the bull creek watershed and part of the city's walt quality protection land to assess effects. It's ner forest ridge and while as not as good habitat it could be a good study site. Finally, a recommendations, number one, complete the bcp preserve mission as it was permitted and agreed to. Complete paired studies documenting effects on populations and nesting success. Mitigate any adverse effects of recreation in advance, and then allow for whatever appropriate additional recreational access may be allowed. I would like to just close by saying that I passed out right before I gave my presentation copies of two items that were approved by the scientific advisory committee at their meeting may 19, 2006 of one is recommendations for public access revisions for revised land management plans and recommendations for research priorities for revised management plans. I’d like to make sure that that is made a part of the record here and that is where we stand. Thank you for your timedid the clerk get a copy of that--

>> did the clerk get a copy of that?

>> I will make sure.

>> of this that you handed out.

>> what is your response to the canyon vista demonstration proposal ?

>> I listened to that with interest. It's like to have the opportunity to look at that more later. Probably not on canyon vista because that is bcp land currently.

>> let's start and work our way around.

>> I don't have intellectual or a well thought through comment.

>> your name is barbara wilson.

>> my name is still barbara wilson. I apologize.

>> okay.

>> I have a very emotional reaction to what I have heard mentioned here this morning. I am livid when I think about the fact that we spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, an unprecedented sum, to purchase the wild basin property because there were golden-cheeked warblers on that property at the time. First year that it was open there was a fund raise tor go see the golden cheeks. The second year I said why don't we do it again? The staff there said because they haven't been back since the people got here. I’m told this morning by kevin that in fact there are a few golden cheeks hiding out in the furtherest canyons. By and large the population that existed when we bought the property disappeared when the people appeared. Why are we talking about putting at risk 120 million in investment and preserves so that people can use every piece of land that exists? To walk their dogs, ride their mountain bikes, to do whatever they want on? That is all I have to say.

>> thank you barbara wilsonand.

>> and you were less than two minutes.

>> richard victorien. Are we on? I guess to start with, to answer the lady's question and Commissioner eckhardt's question about parks, confusion between parks and the bcp. It would be really useful if we even had a map of the bcp up here so we could see what we are talking about as we engage in this discussion. The reason there is confusion between parks and the bcp is because approximately 55 acres of Austin parks were included in the bcp and ceded to bcp.

>> (inaudible)

>> previously owned by the county and incorporated.

>> okay.

>> Commissioner eckhardt, to answer your question about grandfathered uses, in chapter 12 of the rise management plans regarding public access, they call this conditionally grandfathered which created an oxy moren in my mind. That is the back door. The condition all qualification is subject to 1996 uses. Effectively they can put a turn style and say once that load gets there this day you're off the park. Bikes, hikkers, runners, dog walkers, everybody. I’m deviating from my remarks. I’m here to speak about chapter 12 of the bcp which is the public access approval process. That is a corruption of that name. This is a public access denial process. Of the nonpark bcp tracts, not one square inch has been opened in 12 years. Forest ridge may be an example but it is not fully opened to mountain bikes. It is closed five months a year, must have a permit five months a year. Chapter 12 of the revised land management process is merely an investment in the past and a process that has failed us in the past, failed us with the ridge riders at forest range, failed us at turkey creek, at canyon vista, and it will continue to fail us in had the future. One of the things I wanted to show as a prop I brought, this is 150 feet of public comment on the bcp and public access. Half the length of a football field, exactly four comments in this ask for less access to the bcp. Yet when preserve managers rewrote, these folks want access to the bcp, when preserve managers rewrote chapter 12 for access, walking on the bcp now requires a 12-page application. This is the most insane thing in the world. I’ve just never seen anything like it. And it's good for 12 months. That's all. If you go through this long approval process, it requires they take each one of the applications before fish and wildlife. Developers don't even have to go before fish and wildlife. That was the whole purpose of the bcp, that you take the developers out of the fish and wildlife piece. Yet trail users have to fill out this application and go before the bcp. There will be, when people get on the land, there will be a little bit of harm to the land. But why do we punish the 90 percent, 99 percent innocent just to get auto at the one percent getty. I understand Commissioner Davis has concerns about people having access to these preserves and parks but that is something we have on figure out a way to deal with either through the public groups to help us out or through additional investment of resources by the bcp itself. Chapter 12 says can't cause degradation of soil, tages--vegetation or water resources. Any trail is going to do that. So chapter 12 says no trails essentially. It also specifies the number of trails on grandfathered tracts may be decreased. It overtly says we're going to avoid the grand fathers pieces. Then it further more says the bcp does not document or establish 1996 levels or use on the grandfathers track. 24 saying they don't know what the load was then yet they are going to hold the grandfathers tracts to that standard. One of the main things I want to bring out about how they are limiting access is how they define passive recreation and active recreation. Passive recreation is defined as hiking, photography, nay you're objects vague and--observation and guided . Active patchation which would be prohibited except on grandfathered park land tracks prohibit activities including bicycling and exercise activities engaged in specifically for aerobic or muscle strengthing benefit such as jogging, cross-country racing or mountain biking. That was put in to remove trail users from the preserve, jogging from the preserve. You breathe hard on the preserve under the revised public access approval process, you are technically subject to trespass and they can engage enforcement activities on you. That's just wrong. Absolutely wrong. One of the abiding metaphores I have is where lussy keys up the ball and charlie tries to kick it. This is just more of the failure we have had in the past, more lucy teeing up theball and charlie brown running up to kick it and he never gets to kick theball. I assure you if the procedures currently offered under chapter 12 are implemented, if you approve them, will you have not one successful public access application over the next five years. I’m talking to maintain bikers who have spoken talk to anybody. You will not have any success with public access whatsoever. One last thing. In chapter 12 of the land management guidelines, they detail the different tracks and uses. I used to be a public sector auditor in a former life. I’m a cpa. Just in this four pages of tract reviews, I counted 17 errors or omissions, four errors or omissions, four errors or omissions, three errors or omissions. This is using source documents provided by the city, provided by the bcp's own source documents . It's riddled with holes. So many inaccuracies, it's not funny. I hope we take a good hard look at this plan before any approving goes into it at all. Thank you very much.

>> thank you.

>> yes, sir.

>> good morning, judge. I was hoping that mr. Davis would be here for this but I’ll go ahead anyway. My name is skip cameron. I’m the president of a bull creek foundation, an all volunteer citizen group since 1994. I and other citizens participated in the original public input process of the writing of the first bcp plan. Nonof the citizen input provided--none of the citizen provided in the mid 1990s for that plan was ever put into the plan. Not one word. This plan has had this much input from many respectable citizens and taxpayers. Not one word of citizen input has been put into this plan. So what you have before you, and Commissioner Daugherty to approve at the Commissioners court is a plan seriously flawed and not in keeping with the public interest or requirement. The bonds that were bought from public vote that approved the bcp acquisition included language of public access in keeping with the endangered species act. We do not have that. That needs to be fixed. I read an article just yesterday that was a group of students had interviewed justice clarence thomas of the supreme court. He told them that he bass his grandfather's son. That is the name of a book he wrote. And he said most of his principles are based upon the teachings of his grandfather who raised him. One thing he clearly remembers is an old saying, old man can't is dead, and I helped bury him. Folks, what you need to do for us citizens and taxpayers is bury old man can't relative to the bcp. What did I mean by that? I have been leading an all volunteer citizen group since 1994, whan we have been doing on the perimeters of the bcp on grandfathers park land that is counted as part of bcp, we have been improving habitat, removing invasive species, taking out horrible destruction of the habitat by four-wheel vehicles, removing homeless, removing vagrants, and providing on the job, on the trail, all the time policing and 911 calls when necessary to make sure that laws are abided with, habitat is protected and species are respected. That is right across the road from the forest ridge trail which you have heard descriptions of today, is horribly eroded, totally unmaintained, and off limits to the public unless you take a class and get a permit and you can walk it during the nesting season but you still can't ride a bike there or run. Now, in the first plan we recommended, as the stakeholder group for that area, that forest ridge be a study site, a study site in which we would have as the ridge ridders have proposed to you, a lot of volunteering to close off the network and cobb web of trails from previous uses wown trail that went from one access point to another point at saint edwards park. While that was taking place with hikers, bikers, dogs, and even horse back riding on the prim terf, that --perimeter, that we would take studies of the impact so we would have the data and science to manage from intelligence rather than supposition. What do we have today? You have already heard the testimony. We have nothing. The staff of the bcp, responsible for you and me, the taxpayer, have not done their job. Why not?

>> what is their job in your opinion?

>> their job is to maintain and manage the preserve for the preservation of the species.

>> bingo.

>> correct. And what they have not done, they have not done that very well because what they have done in direct opposition to the input from the stakeholders who have families that lived in those preserves for 150 years, they threw up seven-foot high fences, threw the public out, they fenced in, if erral hogsand deer populations that have exploded, they have had to, every meeting you go to in had the coordinating committee, the first thing on the agenda is the law enforcement report, hog population problems, people breaking through the fence, they have created the problem causing all their staff work. Rather than engaging the public as we had recommended and working with us as stakeholders in the area to improve the habitat, to educate people on what we have there and how to manage and take care of the species while enjoying a little bit of recreation. That's been refused. We have done the opposite of what the bcp plan allows across the road and next-door to the tracts in our watershed and have had tremendous success with the species of all kinds.

>> would you be willing to help in proving up the null proposition sm.

>> I would be happy to tell you, let me give you some statistics that nobody has given you.

>> would you be willing to help in proving up the null proposition?

>> yes. Let me give you some have been specific examples. Across the road from the forest ridge track there are 60 acres that we are fully responsible for it being part of water quality protection today. By citizen action it is there today. It's not 35 an apartments. It took us from 1999 purchase of the land, which took six year, and until 2005 November to get approval of a simple four-page memorandum with the city of Austin to adopt that tract, to go in and build a mile and a half educational trail for the public to use it will be open this Friday at ten a.m. Please come. We have two golden-cheeked warbler ter frisk. Both have had successful fledgling of one to four, they can't keep a good accurate count but one to four successful fledglings for the last two years that they have done studies. During those two years we have been building that trail. So we have example of public uses and no effect or in harm to the species. There is one of those--

>> is that tract bcp or not?

>> it is in water quality protection land which is a different category of land owned by the city. It's directly across road from the forest ridge preserve which is one of the most prolific golden-cheeked warbler habitats that we have.

>> okay.

>> one of those nesting sites is about 20 feet from the trail that we just cut through the woods. When I say cut through the woods key did not disturb the can my. It is complete. We have not actually disturbed the habitat at all. In fact, over the last five years we have improved the habitat for the species, not degraded the habitat for the species by a whole bunch of volunteer effort out there. So we do know, we have done for 12 years improved habitat in areas on perimeters of the bcp, land counted as part of the bcp, public park land that has been grandfathered, and we have demonstrated that what we can do improves the habitat, improves water quality, and improves the survivability of the species that we enjoy out there with public access, dogs running free off leash, people riding bikes and people hiking and running. When people tell that you human activity and golden-cheeked warblers are incompatiblelve, that is a bald faced lie. And that boards on malpractice. And you should remember that term. You should give the Gerald the authority and recommend that we need a perfect example of how to make a private public partnership between a group of citizens that ring that tract, that live up there, and our group arc broad coalition of citizens throughout the watershed, and take that tract and instead of seven-foot high fences and people out of there and you dealing with law enforcement issues, let's have a private public partnership that creates limited use during the nesting season and activity by citizen volunteers, not paid for by you or anybody else, to improve the habitat, to monitor and police the habitat, and to get results with the scientists on exactly what does that do to the species on the county tract. You don't have that data on the county tract and you need that data on a county tract. But you do have some ta on county tracts at hamilton pool where you have lots of public activity, have you golden-cheeked warbler populations that are active and stable and not declining. On the tract that is wild basin, you do not count the warblers there but there is somebody hired to do that. The virio also comes the that tract. The reports say that that information is the same as hamilton pool. With public access the population of birds coming there every year is stable and not declining. That ought to tell you something. I urge you, do not accept this totally flawed, extremely flawed bcp plan. It must be amended and you must listen to the taxpayers and do something this time to make this a real win-win public private partnership for all of us, every species thank you.

>> thank you, mr. Cameron. Yes, sir.

>> judge Biscoe, commission, excuse me I apologize to Commissioner Daugherty because he is very family with my position on this. I need about 90 seconds. I want to talk about one issue and that is the turkey creek nature trail.

>> your name.

>> sorry, sir, glen hall.

>> mr. Hall.

>> we have heard talk about amending the plan. I think that overlooks the facts that the original plan is flawed. Buried in several places in the plan, and I’m looking right now at tier 3, city of Austin and along metropolitan macrosite, there is a statement, this trail referring to the turkey creek nature trail, this trail had been designated by the parks and recreation department in November 1994 as an off leash area for dogs. The Austin 1999 edition st bcp land management plan environmented that designation. The current documents continue the stated restriction, no dogs allowed in the bcp portion of the park except in designate the parking areas. In the first place, this is a false statement that it was designated by the parks and recreation department in 1994. It was made so by city of Austin ordinance passed in 1997 by the mayor and city council, signed by the mayor. I am hoping that will be rectified. I have been using the trail for nine years and I have yet to run into a mean person or mean dog. I think the only other point, this is a blatantly false same in the existing plan and in the proposed revision, and I took the liberty of contacting mayor bruce todd who was mayor when the original plan was implemented and asking him if he was aware of the fact that this was buried in the various tiers of this massive document, and he said absolutely not, I would never have agreed to it. You have my permission to quote me any time you want. In fact, in his opinion, and I have not seen all the documentation, I haven't seen the interlocal agreement, but it was his opinion that the committee, the coordinating committee, does not have, has the authority of Travis County, has the authority of the city of Austin that is granted to it, it does not have the authority to void or overright the ordinances of either of those political subdivisions. So I think this is a defect, a false statement, an error in the plan that absolutely has to be corrected and should be corrected before it ever comes up for public hearing. Thank you, that's all I have.

>> thank you, mr. Hall. Your name, please.

>> my name is Sam facen. I’m representing audit ananud, audo b o n. Interesting the word preserve is defined as saving from destruction to keep in perfect or unaltered condition and to maintain in an unchanged form. Full access to the bcp lands and all that entails would lead to the deviation of the preserve's intent. It will decrease acreage from the bcp and from what it was originally intended. We feel that we need to preserve the bcp in its present state for the habitat of golden-cheeked warbler, other endangered species, and maybe sometime it might help preserve that species homo sapiens.

>> judge, Commissioners, I can see the passion has not gone away from this subject. I salute the Travis County Commissioners court for your leadership over all thee years in an understanding the importance of this grand compromise that was made in this community between do we develop, how much to we protect. The grand compromise was, as you heard earlier from kevin connolly, a con promice even within a compromise because we realized we afford to --couldn't afford to purchase and maintain enough land so we did the best kwee. That means within the preserves that we do have we have to be so careful. To lose an acre, to lose even a portion is reduce we --reducing what we propped we would do in exchange for being able to have homes, roads, electricity and water in other parts of the county. Let's stay true to our pledge. I have full faith in the Commissioners court that you will do so it is not easy when citizens are going, please, please, let me in let me in. It has been forgotten by many why we have the preserves. I will work with you any time to buy more parks for more people to have more places to go but let's be sure we honor our commitment on the balcones canyonlands. Thank you very much.

>> thank you. Yes, sir.

>> good morning, judge Biscoe and members of the Commissioners court. My name is charles zucker. I’m one of the many Travis County audo b on society members who flocked down here on this issue. I will only make a couple points. Number one is I have a dog. I walk all over the green belts and occasionally come across a sign that says no dogs allowed and I go oh, tavern. But there are thousands of wonderful places to walk your dog in the crit and county--in the city and county. I don't think the Commissioners court should see that as a major problem. Number two, I do think we should preserve some wild places and I think the canyonlands is one of them. I think have you to look at the black-capped virio and the golden-cheeked warbler as part of a larger problem. The specific discussion this morning concerns one or twbirds but I know the people who are officers in the audo b on society can tell you about a shocking decline in the overall number of birds in the united states over the last decades. And so I think the point has been made and I’d like to emphasize, in this particular case I think we need to err on the tide side of protecting the birds and a wonderful wild plac.

>> thank you.

>> my name is don conklin and I am not as politically involved as a number of folks here today. I’m just a resident in the area and have a few comments. I’m a third generation Austinite. My grand mother has pictures of I 35 when was east avenue. So I’ve seen this town in this area grow and evolve over the years. It's interest to go me in an area that celebrates the environment as much as Austin and Travis County does that there can very often be extreme knee jerk reactions to interests in that very environment. I’m just making some simple observations of things that I’ve heard today. I haven't heard the people who are asking for access, are not talking about full scale development. We're not talking about the kinds of amenities that tend to lead to the encouragement of activities that involve vandalism and destruction of areas. We're not talking about lighted soccer fields and pa vive --pa --pavilions where people will be drinking. What I have heard is a keen appreciation for the sensitive of the area they are asking for access toment they are not denying the need to preserve and protect the species. What they are doing is talking about the most minimal of impact activities that would provide access. Now, there's something that I haven't heard yet today which I’m a little concerned about. I’m also the committee chairman for boy scout troop 164 in northwest Austin. One thing I haven't heard is the wonderful educational opportunity that access to the bcp would provide residents of the area. We have heard the mountain bikers who have talked about repairing trails, about maintaining trails, about picking up trash. I recently led a group of boy scouts into the perks--pecos wilder ness in northwest mexico. We spent better part of a day improving a trail. It strikes me that people are responsible user interested in access. They are not only responsible, but willing to participate in pre investigation of the area, police the area, monitor the area, and maintain. They are not asking foremoney. They are simply asking for reasonable access. They are the most responsible of users. Bcp rents what--rents what I believe is a--represents what I believe is a wonderful opportunity within the organizations, the hiking and mountain biking community , within the boy scouts, to expand the opportunities to educate our youth and our general citizenry on responsible management and use of property. Where that goes and how that gets compounded in generations forward is the very thing we're talking about in emotional topics like global warming, talking about trying to explain to our kids so they have a more keen awareness moving forward. That same opportunity is represented in gaining responsible, limited, extremely low impact access to such a beautiful area, and an opportunity to demonstrate why it's important to have areas like that. The kind of development that I’ve heard about is not the kind of development that spawns the emotional reactions that I’ve heard from people opposed to it. That's all I have to say. Thank you very much.

>> thank you. Yes, sir.

>> judge and Commissioners, I’m david steed. I serve on the scientific advisory committee and I’m currently chair of that committee. I’ll be happy to answer or try to answer een any questions that you have but I’d like to make two point about some of the misrepresentation or at least lack of an understanding of the complexity of the ecology and behavior of our two primary protected species in these preserves. The count of birds on the preserves has gone up because they are flocking to these protected sites because their habitat else where has been destroyed by development. That results in increased interspecies competition. We do not have any other sites in the golden cheek's range where we have ever seen the density of golden cheeks that we currently see on some of the preserve tracks because of this loss of habitat else where. That is the only place they can go to. Second thing, every bird whether water fowl, rap tors, songbirds, every time one is flushed from activity, whether defending a territory , feeding its young, guiding its young, when the young are out of the nest, nesting or simply calling and forging, every time a bird is flushed from its activity, it decreases the survivalability of that bird, its life span, and certainly its nesting success. The difficulty in doing the kind of study that has been done on fort worth, we don't have that data yet. We have some preliminary information, but the difficulty in doing that kind of a study is that the observer has to find the bird without flushing it, signal the so called disturber, hiker or biker, to come through on the trail and then see if it's flushed. You have to find the bird first without flushing it, which is difficult itself. Every experienced bird watcher will tell you that. And that is why we have to get, in order to do these studies, we have to individually have a permit from fish and wildlife service, a scientific investigation permit for the species that we are doing work with. Because just in going into their habitat, trying to observe them, as quietly as possible and inobtrusive as possible, we still know that we flush them. Every time they are flushed, it decreases their survivability, life span and productivity. The work on fort hood is not available. We have some preliminary data from that. The reeb it's--reason it's not available is because the principal investigator abandoned the program of the construction, engineering and research lab had to renegotiate a contract. The work is currently being finished by the professor at oklahoma state university. They had to go out and interview everybody that had done work on the project. Many of them were volunteer students, graduate students, undergraduates and so forth, and technicians. What we have from that study that is preliminary at the current, and a written report will not be available until sometime after the first of the year, but trail work there, investigations show that nests add adjacent to trails with the average disturbance of approximately eight users per day going through the bird habitat, results in 30 percent less nest productivity. In other words, one out of three nests results in a take with only eight users a day on the average. Well, on some of the parks trails in the preserves, the city's data show that users have been in, I think, '04, as many as eight per hour. Average in the last year measured for which those data are available, up to ten users per hour. That kind of, that es flushing birds that are add adjacent to those trails is going to severely impact their survivability and productivity. We have to err on the side of caution to protect the species. That is the effort that we made in implementing this grand program. Thank you.

>> thank you. We previously announced that we would not take action on item number 28 if our intention is to have this back on the agenda after the city council actions, we are looking at next week or the week after. Aren't we?

>> I think we will need a couple weeks, judge.

>> judge, william connolly against. You asked plea to respond to your question at the end of the testimony. One was--

>> I’m willing to forego that today.

>> okay.

>> if you remember my question, I give you my card. E-mail the answer to me. I’ll copy the court. Must have been real important or I wouldn't have asked it. But I can wait and get the answer.

>> I’ll send it to you and the Commissioners.

>> I appreciate it. It looks like next week or the week after, I guess.

>> the 20th, I think.

>> let plan on the 20th for those that want to come down on a day we take action. We appreciate your patience. We never know whether the public hearings will take two or three minutes, as three did this morning, or whether they will be closer to a couple hours. But any time we get residents to come down, we certainly appreciate it. With that I move the public hearing be closed.

>> second.

>> all in favor. That passes by unanimous vote.

The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.

Last Modified: Wednesday, November 7, 2007, 18:30 AM

November 6, 2007 Item 3

November 6, 2007
Item 3