Mayhoffer Farm Management Plan Comments
Comentarios del plan de gestión de la granja Mayhoffer

As a south Lafayette resident, a bicycle enthusiast, and a father of a young bicycler I would like to push for Option C: Southeast Loop as I believe it will help increase bikeabikity from South Lafayette to downtown Louisville. Though you certainly can get to Old Town Louisville via Empire or by meandering through the sports complex it would be great to have a direct bike/pedestrian trail that took you nearly to Old Town in a safe manner protected from cars. Thank you for considering my input!

As a south Lafayette resident, a bicycle enthusiast, and a father of a young bicycler I would like to push for Option C: Southeast Loop as I believe it will help increase bikeabikity from South Lafayette to downtown Louisville. Though you certainly can get to Old Town Louisville via Empire or by meandering through the sports complex it would be great to have a direct bike/pedestrian trail that took you nearly to Old Town in a safe manner protected from cars. Thank you for considering my input!

Section 2.1.6 of the management plan has a section entitled "Trail Use Regulations and Non-Motorized Bicycle and Pedestrian Public Access". I would like to make a few modifications to the proposed regulations:

(1) Let's standardize on Boulder County Parks and Open Space policy and only allow class 1 and 2 e-bikes. Also, in the interest of consistency, let's remove the word "Non-Motorized" from the section title.

(2) Given the commuting and regional nature of the Coal Creek Trail system that this connects to, we should strongly consider not having designated hours allowed for trail use. I would have the trail be open 24 hours per day, 7 days per week instead.

In terms of more general comments on the proposal trail alignments:

(1) I would like to see the safety of the underpass at Highway 42 on the southwest end of the new proposed trail be improved. The width and height of the underpass probably can't be modified, but I proposed to the City of Louisville staff a couple years ago that lighting be added (likely solar powered) and I think that the time to do this is when the other trail changes are happening in the area.

(2) The concept of a soft surface trail is indicated in the plan, but it would be good to also acknowledge that a hard surface might be needed in more flood prone areas adjacent to the creek or the mining-related wetlands.

(3) We should make sure that the desire for trails in the southwest corner of the property is passed along to the group that is redesigning Highway 42. Let's not necessarily assume that they realize the desirability of trails in that area around the 90-degree turn in Highway 42. In essence, option C for the trail might be desirable, but just not within the context of this management plan.

Thank you for your work on this plan and the opportunity to comment. I applaud the effort to create an ADA accessible trail option in this beautiful area. I would just encourage the southern access of the proposed trail (in all options) be located far enough east, away from the underpass, to minimize user conflicts. I regularly bike this section of Coal Creek trail and the west side of the underpass is a bit of blind spot for trail users heading in both directions. Cyclists heading west downhill from Aquarius trailhead pick up maximum speed exactly where it looks like this new trail would intersect with the existing trail.

Hello,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide some comments about Mayhoffer Farm Open Space. I live very close to the open space for the past 9 years and I walk daily on Coal Creek trail. I see you have proposed three options, where two are not recommended. That leaves only one option. What I am missing from this is a basic objective which access points we want to connect - within Mayhoffer Farm and surrounding areas (like Coal Creek Trail, Louisville Sports Complex, Downtown Louisville, Hwy 42/Lock St, etc.). When we have that figured out then we should be able to have a long term project developed that can be carry out in phases over multiple years. What I see from your draft is that we don't have a lot of money, so we will do just a little bit. It's ok to start small, but it would be very nice to have a long term goals that can be accomplished if more resources/money become available in near/far future.

I do see you want to accommodate the agricultural lessee, which is understandable. What I can tell from looking at the property every day from my window throughout the day is that not much activity is happening there. They prepare the soil in Spring, cut hay one or twice a year and get stuff ready for winter. I would say maybe 7-10 days a year total somebody is there. So we don't want public to access the northeast portion of the property (option B), because there might be a tractor on site? I know that other communities do place "no access/agriculture use" signs on trails when there is operation so public is not interfering with heavy machinery. Or like 7th generation farm just north of there, they can cut grass, use trails (not put signs up) and everything is fine? (yes, people can wait a few minutes to let the tractor pass by). I would not really want to see option B dismissed just because there might be a tractor on site.

What I did not find in the draft was livestock on property. For the past nine years, I believe livestock was there only this year in Spring for just a few weeks. If the agricultural lessee will have cows on property, then you have to plan for additional fencing/gates. That's not covered in your draft altogether (unless I missed it).

Thank you!
Tomas Bartulec

I live on the other side of South Boulder Rd, about a 1/4 mile from this site. I just looked at the proposed plan and am thrilled to see this space staying as open space! I believe there was an attempt a few years ago to develop a portion into more residential with a hydraulic fracturing well. That would have been really really sad. We live in Lafayette because of the farms and open space. Losing them would make many of us second guess why we live here.

Anyway... super happy with the plan you've been developing! Excited to see BoCo collaborating with CU as well. If I were to choose I'd suggest Option 3. Creating a lollipop would allow for nice extensions for folks who run in this area. It would also be nice to have a few spots to jump onto the lollipop from 96th and/or Empire.

Again... Thank you so much for not developing this space into more residential!

Option A and Option C seem to be the best options for having blended use for all communities. I think option C seems to be the best idea as it sounds like eventually this is a goal to have the path extend in that area.
I appreciate that there are many options for multiple uses of this area.

First, please pardon my previous comment (Comment #1). I made it when I was more full of fire than information. I’m hoping to correct that here.

Based on the info in this draft plan, I’d like to present an alternate history of the Mayhoffer/Kerr family: They seized land that wasn’t theirs and immediately set to work destroying the short grass prairie ecosystem that had existed there for ~30,000 years. Shortly after the Kerr/Mayhoffer arrival, the discovery of coal on the property led to the extraction and combustion of a material that would render the land unfit for anything but agriculture and later present an existential threat to humanity. The family hunted wildlife to extinction, embraced ecologically harmful farming practices like the use of chemical pesticides, insecticides, herbicides and fertilizers, and secured the future use of these things before cashing out and selling the property to the public for a 79 percent markup. And all that in 160 years. I am not sure why we lionize them.

As regards the trail plan, I favor option C, which provides ADA-friendly Coal Creek connectivity and gives exercisers a loop trail which would be a similar experience to Teller Farm but without the backtracking or the parking of two cars. As a regular cyclist, I can tell you Empire Road is already bike friendly (it just needs some paint) and that no one is going to ride on Courtesy Road unless there is a protected/separated bike lane. Even so, we have something like that in Lafayette along 287 (between the Jax pedestrian overpass and Baseline), but the adjacent neighborhoods, without bike infrastructure, still offer the better way to get around. Most cyclists around here would rather spend more time on a safe and aesthetic route than have the most direct way. (If Louisville needs some bike infrastructure advice, they should tunnel under the railroad to connect the new trail north of S. Boulder Rd. with the existing network of neighborhood trails to the west of the tracks.)

Regarding “Education and Interpretation,” Lafayette has similar signage to what’s being proposed and they are vandalized, disused, or present a very one-sided interpretation of the land. The signs around Rock Creek Farm/Stearns Lake celebrate the destruction (“taming”) of the prairie; the coal-history signage on the Coal Creek Trail west of Public Road is dull and impossible to read; the “Raptor Rapture” sign south of Coal Creek Meadows is vandalized and lacks utility for wildlife ID. If people are interested in coal, can’t we direct them to the Mining Museum in Lafayette? (The peak ID sign at Aquarius is great, though.)

Cattle should be completely excluded from Coal Creek itself with fencing to preserve the riparian corridor on town-owned land, and livestock should instead watered via a stock tank, hydrologically isolated manmade pond, or via access to an extant irrigation ditch. Cow poop contributes to springtime e. coli blooms in Coal Creek. Plus, in our arid conditions, it takes years for cow poop to breakdown into its constituent parts that are useful to plant growth. It’s not like cows poop ready-to-go fertilizer. If cows pooped ready-to-go fertilizer, the farm wouldn’t need chemical fertilizers; this is not the case.

Furthermore, the use of agricultural chemicals should be discontinued within a Chemical Exclusion Zone around Coal Creek. Insecticides, pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer are entering the waterway here to the detriment of the creek, its ability to support wildlife, and downstream use/users. If agriculture is not economically viable without the use of such inputs, then it is neither economically viable nor ecologically wise for our community.

Prairie dogs should be managed using permaculture techniques. In 2017, Lafayette voters enacted the Climate Bill of Rights, which grants rights to ecosystems. Prairie dogs are a well-known keystone species to the short-grass prairie providing food to a bevy of carnivores, and their disused tunnels house burrowing owls, among others. Removing prairie dogs impinges the ecosystem’s voter-granted right to exist. Together with adjacent publicly owned properties, we are presented here with an opportunity to create a large connected zone for wildlife, encourage the return of mesocarnivores (lynx, coyotes, mink, foxes, etc.) and view a semi-functional prairie ecosystem. (Semi-functional because we’re unlikely to have an alpha predator; we can truck in some bison from nearby farms to graze it periodically, however.) Yes, it will take time to recover, but probably less time than it took to destroy. Wouldn’t a semi-functional prairie ecosystem (rare to nonexistent in this or any area) be more impressive to see than a monoculture farm or some signs that celebrate coal mining?

Build a shaded and elevated platform/blind for wildlife viewing instead of the two or three picnic tables, which would be farther from a parking area than most picnickers are willing to tote their gear. Lafayette has other areas, such as the Public Road Trailhead, that are already heavily impacted by impervious surfaces and could more easily support a shade structure or a public BBQ. Or add to that rock circle thingy where the Harney-Lastoka Trail splits off from Coal Creek.

Fund a ranger or support the training of volunteer rangers, such as are used in the Indian Peaks Wilderness.

As time gets on, we will realize that there is no higher use for the land than to preserve the natural world as the natural world. Beyond nature for its own sake, however, natural land is what draws people to an area to live and spend their money. This is our chance to do something beautiful and meaningful.

The following sentence is included in the draft management plan: " Unfortunately, the discovery of gold, the rush of new prospectors, and the beginnings of permanent settlement throughout the burgeoning city of Boulder displaced many of the tribes and led to violence and conflict."

What liberal whitewashing, going to such lengths to avoid saying the truth, which is: "White settlers violated the treaty and violently attacked Indigenous people, killing them and stealing their land, which we now acknowledge (vaguely, without admitting how we still reap material benefits from this genocide every day), yet refuse to do anything else to make restitution." Stop trying to do f**king meaningless land acknowledgements. Just return all public space in Boulder County to the stewardship of Indigenous tribes.

Since you of course would never consider that, I would like to make the following suggestions for the use of the stolen land now called the Mayhoffer Farm property: the highest priorities should be restoration of riparian habitat and preservation of sustainable agricultural operations. An ADA-accessible trail is fine, but I think that it's pointless and undesirable to waste space and funds on recreational use. There's already an excess of recreational park spaces across Boulder County, and many nearby 3-season picnic shelters exist closer to populated neighborhoods and are frequently deserted. Neither is it particularly important to me that the space include development for "educational" purposes, since I suspect any educational materials produced by the team behind this plan will include exactly the sort of saccharine revisionist history seen in the draft, and quoted at the top of my comment.

Thank you very much for bringing a diverse group of people to work on these plans. I appreciate the city's desire to use the land well, and I appreciate the opportunity for the public to comment. Your plans sound great, and I'll look forward to the changes and improvements.

Given the short term of the agricultural lease is it feasible to negotiate subsequent lease such that the agricultural use that impedes option B could be mitigated. Perhaps it is also possible to transfer enough land from the lease to mitigate the concern related to proximity to the water treatment plant. Even if 10's of acres are lost to what is leasable, this seems a minor cost to improve public (who paid for the land) experience. Along the same lines, how disruptive would it be to have a trail along the ditch that bisects the Mayhoffer section? While we don't want to overly diminish the value of the agricultural lease, some diminishment for the benefit of the public is worthwhile.

First off, thanks for conducting this planning process. The plan looks great, however, I believe the scope needs to be widened a bit.

Regarding the proposed trail options, I believe options B & C jointly offer the most promise. Adding more trails to this open space will encourage more use and increase it's utility. While I agree that recreation is how most use this space, adding more trails will also better connect Lafayette and Louisville and potentially reduce auto trips.

I also believe the plan partners need to be thinking about better ACCESS to the open space. In particular, a safe (grade-separated) crossing at or near Hwy 42 and Empire Drive is warranted given the significant development at DELO and now the proposed addition of new trails at the open space. The at-grade crossing currently at Hwy 42 do little to pique curiosity to explore this great resource.

Another issue not mentioned in the plan is the lack of sidewalk/side path along Empire Rd. (the old one cutting through the site, not Hwy 42). This is a beautiful country road that connects several open spaces and trails, but there are no bike/ped facilities at all along it. Trail Option C does add a portion of trail to the road, but something that reaches to the Coal Creek Trail crossing at Empire Rd or even all the way through to 104th would be helpful to better connect residents to this historical and cultural resource.

Again, thank you for the hard work that's gone into the plan. As a resident of the area, I look forward to walking, running, biking along the new trails soon!

In my opinion, Option B provides the best combination of increased trail connectivity and passive recreation opportunities. Providing an ADA accessible and family friendly alternative to the current Coal Creek Trail at Aquarius should be a top priority and Option B provides that while also adding loop opportunities for the adjacent neighborhoods and trail users that may access from the exist parking at the Louisville Sports Complex.

I suggest that the current Future 42 planning project be added to Section 1.5. This plan should include the anticipated future shared use path along CO 42 so it can be more easily implemented with that project.

I like it just the way it is. Nice big open fields. They are beautiful to look at. Coal Creek trail is close by if you want to take a walk. Why not improve the trails we have?

Mayhoffer Farm Management Plan, p. 28, "The trail shall be closed from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m., 7 days a week...."

Please do not add additional lighting and ruin the night sky views. I prefer the options B and C which provide for more trails and a loop. Please preserve the natural beauty of the open space and do not add any additional structures or public art. Please keep it wild.

Preserving the land would be extremely beneficial to wildlife and I fully support this proposal.

I would be madness to do anything but preserve this area for wildlife and support the Coal Creek riparian zone. To celebrate the human history of the area is to put used toiled paper in a museum. Save Coal Creek, full stop.