HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.15.15 OSBT Packet
(Please note that times are approximate.)
1
1
The Bobolink Management Areas are the exception and have not yet been identified/chosen. OSMP staff will be
incorporating new data from the hayfield monitoring to determine which fields may provide the best opportunity to
meet Bobolink conservation objectives. Due to the interrelatedness of the two plan components a determination on
specific fields to be managed for bobolinks will be made in conjunction with the recommendations on the diversified
vegetable analysis.
2
With the exception of horse livery operations at Boulder Valley Ranch which ceased operation over twenty years
ago, there have been no other alternative agricultural operations in the history of the OSMP agricultural program.
2
&DWHJRU\&ULWHULRQ
'HSHQGHQFHRQDQDJULFXOWXUDOVHWWLQJDQGRU2603
ODQGV
5HODWLRQVKLSWRVHWWLQJ
RUXQGHUVWDQGLQJRI2SHQ6SDFHSXUSRVHV
&RPSDWLELOLW\ZLWKUHVRXUFHSURWHFWLRQ&RPSDWLELOLW\ZLWKWKHSUHVHUYDWLRQRIDJULFXOWXUDO
UHVRXUFHV
&RPSDWLELOLW\ZLWKH[LVWLQJIDFLOLWLHVDQG&RPSDWLELOLW\ZLWKDORZOHYHORIH[LVWLQJIDFLOLWLHVDQG
VHUYLFHVVHUYLFHV HJSDUNLQJPLQLPDOPDLQWHQDQFH
HQIRUFHPHQWPRQLWRULQJHWF
&RPSDWLELOLW\ZLWKSURYLGLQJDVDIHUHFUHDWLRQDO
H[SHULHQFH
&RPSDWLELOLW\ZLWKRWKHUDFWLYLWLHV&RPSDWLELOLW\ZLWKRWKHUUHFUHDWLRQDODFWLYLWLHVRWKHU
2SHQVSDFHODQGPD\QRWEHLPSURYHGDIWHUDFTXLVLWLRQXQOHVVVXFKLPSURYHPHQWVDUHQHFHVVDU\WR
SURWHFWRUPDLQWDLQWKHODQGRUWRSURYLGHIRUSDVVLYHUHFUHDWLRQDORSHQDJULFXOWXUDORUZLOGOLIHKDELWDW
3
XVHRIWKHODQG
4
forDi
Supporting local agricultural producers is a longstanding tradition at OSMP. Environmental constraints
such as soil quality and water availability limit most of the agricultural production on OSMP lands to
livestock or hay/forage production rather than diversified vegetable farming. However, the recent
growing interest from both Boulder’s city leaders and the general community to support a greater
diversity of local foods has led OSMP staff to evaluate the suitability of OSMP lands for diversified
vegetable production. The purpose of this Best Opportunity Analysis is to identify OSMP properties
1
most appropriate to expand diversified vegetable farming, integrated vegetable and livestock farming
2
and/or for operating a pasture-based dairy.
There are currently five properties on OSMP lands with 27 acres in diversified vegetable farming and no
pasture-based dairies.
Methodology
The analysis first identified OSMP properties which have suitable soils, adequate water availability, and
3
have or are nearby infrastructure necessary to support diversified vegetable farming. (The evaluation
criteria are described in more detail below.) The properties which met these essential agricultural
characteristics were classified as candidates for further analysis.
The candidate properties were evaluated for compatibility with management area designations, pre-
established resource management goals and other resources including sensitive species. (The
evaluation criteria are described in more detail below.) Staff conducted a site-specific evaluation of the
infrastructure at each candidate property to determine the type(s) of operation the existing
infrastructure is best suited to support. Staff then identified and estimated the costs of infrastructure
improvements and other needed management actions to convert and maintain the property as a
diversified vegetable farm. Lastly, a recommendation for each of the candidate properties will be
developed (TBD) and management strategies identified to provide additional direction to guide the
conversion and management of properties identified for diversified vegetable farming.
1
Farmers commonly desire to keep pastured livestock in conjunction with a vegetable farm as it is both economical and a
sustainable agricultural practice in that produce unfit to market or surplus product can be feed to the pastured livestock. Keeping
pastured livestock provides the farmer with not only a way to get rid of unwanted products but also provides them with either a
modest source of additional income (e.g. selling eggs) and/or food. The recommendations will distinguish between vegetable
only farms and farms integrated with pasture-based livestock because of the different size (acres needed) and infrastructure
requirements and identify the type(s) of operations the property can support and any differences in management actions.
2
Pasture-based dairies are small micro-scale dairies. The number of animals permitted is typically based on the zoning
designation and parcel size. For example, in areas zoned Agricultural, four animal units per acre are permitted. Pasture-based is
distinctly different from feed yards, where feed is imported on the property to sustain a higher density of animal units on the
parcel than otherwise permitted. Pasture-based dairies were included in this analysis because the infrastructure necessary for this
type of operation exists on several OSMP properties. Only properties with the existing supporting infrastructure were
considered. The recommendations will identify the type(s) of operations the property can support and any differences in
management actions.
3
All of the properties with the infrastructure to support micro-dairies are located on properties that meet the soil and water
requirements.
5
Evaluationǣ
Infrastructure
Diversified vegetable farming requires outbuildings suitable for prospective lessees/growers to process
and store their products. It is also customary for growers to reside on the property, for reasons of
convenience and efficiency, as evidenced by the existence of residences on all of the properties which
have outbuildings. In addition, on-site housing is often necessary to attract qualified lessees. For this
first phase of analysis staff identified all OSMP properties which have outbuildings and residence to
support diversified vegetable farming. Staff also included properties within 0.5 miles from agricultural
properties with the necessary infrastructure, including existing private farms and farms on other publicly
owned lands currently leased for diversified vegetable farming, because those sites could be used to
expand existing operations.
The ability to use a property to cultivate vegetables is dependent on having a suitable soil type.
Suitable soil types have the right combination of physical and chemical characteristics such as texture,
slope, pH and permeability. It is of equal importance that the soils are neither excessively erodible nor
saturated with water for long periods of time, as annual vegetable fields are dominated by bare ground
and therefore prone to erosion, and vegetable cultivation is not compatible with water-logged soils.
In order to identify OSMP properties with suitable soils, staff referenced a soil survey of the Boulder
4
area conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1975. The survey identifies
the types and locations of soils found in eastern Boulder County, and groups soils into Capability Classes
based upon their suitability for agricultural production. As the Capability Class increases, the greater the
limitations are on the practical use of a soil type for agriculture. Appendix A lists the soils in the various
Capability Classes and identifies the limiting factors for each soil type and Capability Class.
Staff determined properties comprised principally of soils in Capability Classes I through III were
suitable, with appropriate conservation practices, for diversified vegetable farming. Properties
dominated by soils in Capability Classes IV through VI pose severe cultivation limitations, such as being
highly erodible, stony, or excessively wet and staff determined were not suitable for diversified
5
vegetable farming.
A reliable and adequate water supply is necessary to support diversified vegetable farming. Both the
volume of water available and length of time the water is available were used to evaluate a property’s
potential for diversified vegetable farming.
All of the properties with the necessary infrastructure and appropriate soils were evaluated to
determine which could be adequately watered with OSMP’s water portfolio. Colorado State University
4
Soil survey of Boulder County Area, Colorado. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service in
cooperation with the Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station. January 1975.
5
Capability classes VII and VIII exist, however none of the properties with the necessary infrastructure are comprised of soils in
these classes. In addition soils in capability classes VII and VIII have such severe limitations they are unsuited to cultivation.
6
agronomists recommend at least 1.5 acre-feet of water per acre. All of the properties with appropriate
infrastructure and soils met the minimum criterion for water volume. In addition, diversified vegetable
farming requires less water than the current use, hay/forage operations; this is due to the differences in
efficiency of flood irrigation used for hayfields versus the drip irrigation and overhead systems for
6
diversified vegetables.
In addition to requiring a minimum amount of water, diversified vegetable farming also requires a
consistent source of irrigated water - typically longer than the current hay/forage operations. Staff
identified those properties which in addition to having enough water, have a long enough average
duration of irrigated water to support vegetable farming. Staff chose 100 consecutive days of water as
the threshold based on the water requirement of tomatoes. Tomatoes are one of the most popular
vegetables grown on diversified vegetable farms and take anywhere from 65 to 120 days to reach
maturity which is representative or longer than the maturation time for most other types of vegetables
grown in the area.
Twenty-four OSMP properties meet the above infrastructure, soils and water requirements necessary
for diversified vegetable farming (Figure 1). The infrastructure, soils and water supply for each of the
candidate properties are described in greater detail in the individual Property Assessments.
EvaluationCriteria
The following section describes the Phase II Evaluation Criteria.
The Visitor Master Plan (VMP) categorizes OSMP lands under one of four management area
designations: Agricultural, Passive Recreation, Natural and Habitat Conservation. These designations
provide the foundation for determining what types of opportunities/activities are allowed and the level
of resource protection. The management area designation and corresponding goals (Appendix B) of the
candidate property and adjacent areas were evaluated for compatibility with diversified vegetable
farming.
While diversified vegetable farming may be a more obvious potential fit for properties designated as
Agricultural Areas, properties with other management area designations were also evaluated to
determine the potential to meet the resource management goals while also providing an opportunity
for diversified vegetable farming.
Visi
Ȁ
Existing OSMP trails and conceptual trails identified in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan were
considered, to the degree they went through or approached candidate sites. While visitor
infrastructure or the associated activities may not preclude a property from being converted it may
6
Byelich, B, Cook J., and Rowley, C. Small Acreage Irrigation Guide. Colorado State University and USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service. June 2013.
7
q
*MKYVI
Swede Lakes
City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks
Allens
Candidate Properties
Res.
Agricultural Plan
Lagerman
Reservoir
Plateau Rd.
Lefthand
Reservoir
DELUCA
DELUCA
Ogalalla Rd.
HESTER
HESTER
Oxford Rd.
Nebo Rd.
CAMPBELL - North Oxford Rd.
CAMPBELL - North
Nimbus Rd.
Joder
Spurgeon
Reservoir
Reservoir
STRATTON
STRATTON
No. 1
Neva Rd.
Niwo
Left Hand Valley
JOHNSON - East
JOHNSON - East
Reservoir
(Private)
Monarch Rd.
AXELSON, WEST
AXELSON, WEST
AXELSON, EAST
AXELSON, EAST
Loukonen
Reservoir
M
Coot
Lake
JOHNSON - South (SW)
JOHNSON - South (SW)
Lookout Rd.
WARNER I
WARNER I
Culver
derland
Pond
KOLB I
KOLB I
Lake
#1
HARTNAGLE
HARTNAGLE
Walden Ponds
KOLB II
KOLB II
BELL I
BELL I
South
South
Sawhill
Linden Dr.
FELL
FELL
Valmont Dr.
Ponds
BIDDLE
BIDDLE
Teller
Lake #5
Hayden
Lake
Pit D
STRATY - CLINE
STRATY - CLINE
KING - HODGSON I
KING - HODGSON I
BELL II
BELL II
Valmont Rd.
KOA
Valmont Reservoir
Balsam Ave.
Pond
(Private)
TELLER FARM
TELLER FARM
Leggett-Owen
ISENHART-JONES
ISENHART-JONES
Reservoir
(Private)
Teller
Hillcrest Lake
Lake #1
(Private)
Hartman
Canyon Blvd.
HUNTER-KOLB
HUNTER-KOLB
Burke
Arapahoe Rd.
KOLB BROTHERS
KOLB BROTHERS
LEWIS
LEWIS
STENGEL - KING
STENGEL - KING
BASELINE / 75TH
BASELINE / 75TH
Land Meets Soil
Baseline Rd.
Baseline Rd.
Baseline Rd.
and Water Criteria
Baseline
Reservoir
ST. WALBURGA ABBEY
ST. WALBURGA ABBEY
Candidate Property
(Private)
Stream
Louisville
Reservoir
OSMP Ownership
Table Mesa Dr.
OSMP Conservation
00.250.51
00.250.51
8
Easement
Miles
Miles
Harper
User: HodgT1 Date: 6/4/2015 Document Path: E:\MapFiles\Agriculture\AgPlan\Maps\OSBT_June2015\CandidateSelection.mxd
Lake
influence the area for consideration or management actions may be identified to mitigate any potential
conflicts.
Prairie dog activity, such as burrowing and feeding, is incompatible with irrigated agricultural production
and water management. Irrigation and related agricultural practices associated with diversified
vegetable farming are likewise incompatible with the life requirements of prairie dogs.
The Grassland Plan identified management area designations for prairie dogs and associated species.
The management area designations were determined by evaluating factors such as prairie dog habitat
suitability (a prairie dog habitat suitability model and analysis were completed as part of the Grassland
Plan), block size, urbanization, recreational activities, irrigated agriculture and adjacent land
management goals. The management area designations are Grassland Preserves, Multiple Objective
Areas, Prairie Dog Conservation Areas, Transition Areas and Removal Areas. The candidate properties
were evaluated for compatibility with the management area designation of the property and
surrounding lands. Appendix C describes the management objectives of the various prairie dog
management area designations.
In addition to the prairie dog management area designation, historical (maximum extent) and current
prairie dog occupation were also considered as prairie dogs will eventually attempt to re-colonize lands
previously occupied. Where candidate properties or adjacent lands are or have been occupied,
management costs and actions to prevent re-colonization were considered and included in the
recommendations.
All the candidate properties being considered for conversion to diversified vegetable farming are
currently irrigated hayfields or pastures. By virtue of historic irrigation, mowing and grazing practices
some of these semi-native hayfields and pastures support wildlife not commonly found elsewhere on
OSMP lands such as bobolinks. Bobolinks are grassland songbirds thought to be undergoing a non-
cyclical population decline due to a variety of factors including habitat destruction. Conservation of
bobolink habitat has been part of OSMP’s land management since the 1980s.
The Grassland Plan identified the goal of establishing or continuing agricultural management practices
that support habitat for bobolinks by designating Bobolink Management Areas (Class A and Class B).
Converting a candidate property to diversified vegetable farming would preclude managing that portion
of the property for bobolink habitat as it would no longer be an irrigated hayfield or pasture. Several of
the candidate properties were either designated as Class B Bobolink Management Areas or were
identified as candidates for Class B designation in the Grassland Plan and others have recently been
recognized as important bobolink habitat.
The presence of sensitive species and/or habitat on a candidate property was considered in determining
the property’s suitability for diversified vegetable farming. The sensitive species/habitats considered
were:
9
Northern leopard frog habitat
Raptor nests
Rare and state tracked plant communities (includes Ute ladies’-tresses orchid)
Preble’s meadow jumping mouse occupied habitat
Like almost all other landowners in Colorado, OSMP is required to eradicate certain state “A-listed”
weeds. Management may include the application of pesticides or herbicides. While the presence of
state A-listed weeds may not preclude a property from being converted to vegetable farming it may
affect the timeline for organic certification since in order to be certified, land must be pesticide free for
at least three years.
Many of the candidate properties are comprised of historic structures or structures eligible for historical
designation. Staff determined as long as any improvements to the structures are done in accordance
with the applicable preservation policies and laws diversified vegetable farming is compatible with and
in some cases may improve the condition of these cultural resources.
In addition to the structures, staff evaluated the candidate properties to determine if other cultural
resources (prehistoric and historic archeological and paleontological) are present or known to exist on
the candidate farms that would preclude the conversion of the property to a diversified vegetable farm.
Staff determined that none were known to exist. However, some of the properties have not been
adequately surveyed. For these properties the individual Property Assessments identify the need for a
cultural resource survey. If the survey identifies significant cultural resources that would or could be
adversely affected by the conversion of the property, the agricultural management of the property will
need to be revaluated and the property may be removed from consideration.
A property assessment was completed for all of the candidate properties. Some of the properties were
grouped and evaluated together based on geographic proximity. The property assessments include the
following:
A description of Phase I: Essential Agricultural Characteristics (infrastructure, soils, and water).
An evaluation of the property’s compatibility with other resources and management goals
(Phase II Evaluation Criteria).
An evaluation of the infrastructure, management actions and costs associated with converting
the property to a diversified vegetable farm.
TBD - A recommendation on whether the property should be converted to a diversified
vegetable farm, integrated vegetable and livestock farm and/or a pasture-based micro-dairy.
10
ristics
Infrastructure
There is a residence, one-small outbuilding/garage and grain bin on the southern portion of the property. On the
northern building site, there is a Quonset hut, a two car garage, two loafing sheds, corrals and hay storage facilities.
Water
An adequate amount of irrigated water (-feet) from the Left Hand Ditch delivered via the Starr lateral is
available April 1 to October 31, approximately 210 days. Fields 39 and 60 are not irrigated. There is a domestic well on
7
the property
.
Soils
Over eighty acres (80.9) across fields 40, 41, 48, 49, and a portion of 42 are primarily Valmont clay loam with 1-3%
slopes, Capability Class III, suitable for diversified vegetable farming.
8
Agricultural
M
BVCP (and VMP) Conceptual Trail Alignment
Alignment: Axelson Trail Alignment
Grassland Preserve and Transition Area
designation
Grassland Preserve isoccupied and encroaching
cupation
into Transition Area
TBD – Not identified as Class B or Class B candidate
in the Grassland Plan.
Seasonal Osprey closure. Closure does not
extend into fields with suitable soils and water.
Rare and state-tracked plant communities are
found on this property but do not intersect
with agricultural fields that meet the soil and
water criteria.
Mediterranean sage
9
Clean up property
Cost Estimate: $ 10,000
o
Updateoutbuilding to accommodate a cooler and wash area.
Cost Estimate: $20,000
o
Construct a livestock pole barn
Cost Estimate: $40,000
o
7
Colorado Water Laws allows domestic wells to be used for livestock water as well as for irrigation up to one acre of land.
8
The tables provide summary information only. Please refer to the maps provided for each property for more detailed information on the locations
of the resources.
9
All properties will require a level of general clean up as all properties have dilapidated/abandoned infrastructure and/or equipment left from
previous agricultural operations.
11
Construct a small (1/10 acre-foot) irrigation pond near the headgate of the Starr lateral to facilitate the delivery
10
of irrigation water to any planting beds.
Cost Estimate: $5,000
o
Construct a fence to separate fields 48 and 49 for diversified vegetable farming from the rest of the property
which may be grazed.
Cost Estimate: $10,000
o
Construct a prairie dog fence to separate prairie dog colonies from the portion of property suitable for vegetable
farming.
Cost Estimate: $30,000
o
Passive relocation of prairie dogs
Cost Estimate: $50,000
o
Make efforts to ensure the fields are properly irrigated to avoid prairie dog encroachment from the adjoining
Grassland Preserve.
Cost Estimate: ongoing/unknown
o
Total Cost Estimate: $165,000
Recommendation
TBD
10
Irrigation ponds are only to be used for the temporary storage, less than 72 hours, of water.
12
City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks
Axelson West
Agricultural Plan
Current Agricultural UseManagement Area
Designations
BERMAN
BERMAN
BROTHERS
BROTHERS
38
40
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
41
North (NE)
North (NE)
42
DAWSON
COULTER CEDAWSON
COULTER CE
DAWSON
DAWSON
39
CE
CE
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
Farmstead
Farmstead
North (SW)
North (SW)
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
Area
48
Area
CE
CE
AXELSON, WEST
AXELSON, WEST
49
51
AXELSON, WEST
AXELSON, WEST
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
(Development Rights)
(Development Rights)
South (SW)
South (SW)
54
59
52
55
65
60
ELLISON
ELLISON
BOULDER VALLEY RANCH
BOULDER VALLEY RANCH
Agricultural Field
(with field number)
Meets Soil and
Water Criteria
Boulder Reservoir
Grass/Alfafa Hay
Grass Hay
Grazed Field
Agricultural FieldBVCP Conceptual
Natural Area
OSMP/
/
/
Trail Alignment
Ownership
Passive Recreation
BOULDER VALLEY RANCH - 103 CORP.
OSMP
BOULDER VALLEY RANCH - 103 CORP.
BVCP Proposed
OSMPArea
Conservation
Trail
Conservation
Easement
Trail Managed By OSMP
Easement
Stream
Agricultural Area
Trail Not Managed
05001,000
025050005001,000
0250500
By OSMP
Feet
Feet
Feet
Feet
Recommendations
Natural Resources
38
40
13 ac.
11 ac.
42
41
41 ac.
17 ac.
Starr Ditch
Starr Ditch
39
213 ac.
48
49
14 ac.
52
21 ac.
9 ac.
51
54
11 ac.
4 ac.
59
55
8 ac.
23 ac.
60
65
80 ac.
2 ac.
Boulder Reservoir
Agricultural Field
(with field number)
Intermittent
Preble’s OccupiedMultiple Objective
Agricultural Field
Stream
HabitatArea
Mediterranean Sage
Ditch
Osprey SeasonalPrairie Dog
(State list A
Closure AreaTransition Area
noxious weed)
Ditch Lateral
Prairie Dog
Grassland Preserve
Purple loosestrife
Removal Area
OSMP
(State list A
Prairie Dog
Ownership
noxious weed)
Prairie Dog
Conservation Area
Active Colonies (2014)
OSMP
Rare and state-tracked plant communities are
Conservation
found on this property but do not intersect
Stream
Easement
agricultural fields that meet soil and water criteria
13
05001,000
05001,000
Locations are not shown due to their sensitivity.
0250500
0250500
Feet
Feet
Feet
Feet
User: hodgt1 Date: 5/13/2015 Document Path: E:\MapFiles\Agriculture\AgPlan\Maps\OSBT_June2015\AxelsonWest.mxd
ǡl-ǡƬͷ
th
Infrastructure
There is a residence, a large barn (formerly used for milking and storage), a pole barn for covered hay storage, four
sheds and a three bay garage on the Lewis property.
Water
For most of the Lewis property, an adequate amount of irrigated water (-feet per acre) is available from the
Enterprise and Cottonwood #2 Ditches and is available May 16 to August 8 (84 days), and May 16 to September 12 (119
days), respectively. Field 262 is served solely by the Enterprise Ditch and therefore lacks 100 days of irrigation water and
field 53 is not irrigated.
th
On all but one field on the Stengel-King and Baseline & 75properties, there is an adequate amount of irrigated water
(>1.5 acre-feet per acre) available from the McGinn Ditch, which runs April 29 to October 10, approximately 164 days.
th
Field 271 on the Baseline & 75property is not irrigated.
Soils
Approximately 40 acres on the Lewis property are suitable for diversified vegetable production. Field 245, 3.7 acres, is
comprised entirely of Nunn Sandy clay loam with 1-3% slopes, Capability Class II. Fields 244, 251, and 256 (36 acres), are
comprised of a combination of Nunn sandy clay loam with 1-3% slopes and Ascalon-Otero Complex with 3-5% slopes,
Capability Class III.
Approximately 4 acres on the Stengel-King property are suitable for diversified vegetable production. Field 442 is
comprised primarily of Ascalon sandy loam with 1-3% slopes, Capability Class II.
th
Sixty-one acres on the Baseline & 75property are suitable for diversified vegetable production. Fields 267, 280, 283,
and 285 (51.5 acres) are comprised of Ascalon sandy loam with 1-3% slopes, Capability Class II. Field 265 (9.5 acres) is
comprised of Ascalon sandy loam with 1-3% slopes and Ascalon-Otero Complex with 3-5% slopes, Capability Classes II
and III, respectively.
Agricultural
BVCP Conceptual Trail Alignment: Dry Creek Trail
N/A
designation
N/A –not occupied
TBD
Rare and state-tracked plantcommunities are
found on all three properties and intersect with
agricultural fields that meet the soil and water
criteria.
No
Clean up properties
Cost Estimate: $15,000
o
Perform a historic structures assessment on the house, barn, and outbuildings on the Lewis property.
o
14
Cost Estimate:
$15,000
o
Rehabilitate residence
Cost Estimate: $400,000
o
Rehabilitate barn and other outbuildings
Cost Estimate: $100,000
o
Update outbuilding to accommodate a cooler and wash area.
Cost Estimate: $30,000
o
th
Construct two small (1/10 acre-foot) irrigation ponds, one on Baseline & 75, one on Lewis, near the vegetable
cropping areas to facilitate the delivery of irrigation water to any planting beds.
Cost Estimate: $10,000
o
Cultural resource survey for Stengel-King
Total Cost Estimate: $570,000
Recommendation
TBD
15
City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks
Lewis, Stengel - King, Baseline / 75th
Agricultural Plan
Current Agricultural UseManagement Area
KOLB
KOLB
Designations
BROTHERS
BROTHERS
Farmstead Area
HUNTER-KOLB
HUNTER-KOLB
Lewis
Arapahoe Rd.
MERLE-SMITH
244
245 MERLE-SMITH
251
AWEIDA II
AWEIDA II
Stengel - King
442
LEWIS
LEWIS
256
SWARTZ
SWARTZ
262
53
STENGEL
STENGEL
- KING
- KING
271
267
COHAGEN
COHAGEN
Agricultural Field
BASELINE
265 BASELINE
(with field number)
/ 75TH
/ 75TH
Grass/Alfafa Hay
METHVIN
METHVIN
Grass Hay
COHAGEN
(BRANDT)COHAGEN
(BRANDT)
280
CE
CE
Baseline
Grazed Field
Meets Soil and
Water Criteria
KLEIN
KLEIN
KLEIN
KLEIN
OSMP
EAST
EAST
WEST
285
WEST
Ownership
283
OSMP
Agricultural FieldBVCP Conceptual
Conservation
Natural Area
/
/
/
(with field number)Trail Alignment
Easement
CLOUGH
CLOUGH
Passive Recreation
OSMP ConservationBVCP Proposed
Area
Railroads
EasementTrail
Trail Managed By OSMP
Stream
ST. WALBURGA
Agricultural AreaRailroads
ST. WALBURGA
Baseline / 75th
ABBEY -
ABBEY -Trail Not Managed
0250500
0250500
OCONNOR
MARSHALL -
OCONNOR
MARSHALL -
01,0002,000
01,0002,000
Open Space
Open Space
By OSMPStream
Feet
Feet
FAMILY -
Open Space
FAMILY -
Open Space
Feet
Feet
purchase
purchase
Natural ResourcesRecommendations
Arapahoe Rd.
245
244
4 ac.
13 ac.
251
10 ac.
442
256
4 ac.
262
13 ac.
53
5 ac.
4 ac.
271
3 ac.
267
19 ac.
265
10 ac.
Agricultural Field
280
(with field number)
Baseline
10 ac.
OSMP
Ownership
OSMP
Conservation
285
Easement 283
Prairie Dog
Agricultural FieldGrassland Preserve
13 ac.
Transition Area
9 ac.
Railroads
Prairie Dog
Burrowing Owl Seasonal
Prairie Dog
Conservation Area
Closure Area
Removal Area
Stream
Multiple Objective
Prairie Dog
Railroads
Area
Active Colonies (2014)
Ditch
Rare and state-tracked plant communities are
Stream
Ditch Lateral
found on this property and intersect agricultural
fields that meet soil and water criteria. Locations
0250500
0250500 16
01,0002,000
01,0002,000
are not shown due to their sensitivity.
Feet
Feet
Feet
Feet
User: hodgt1 Date: 5/15/2015 Document Path: E:\MapFiles\Agriculture\AgPlan\Maps\OSBT_June2015\LewisBaseline75thStengelKing.mxd
Infrastructure
There is a historic residence on the Hartnagle property and seven outbuildings including a large barn that was used for
hay storage, milking and shelter. Livestock shelter is available on the property.
Water
For the portion of the Hartnagle property south of the Boulder Creek, an adequate amount of irrigated water (
acre- feet per acre) from the Dry Creek Davidson Ditch is available May 21 to Sept 1, approximately 103 days. Field 435
is not irrigated. There is a domestic well on the property.
For the Warner property, an adequate amount of irrigated water (-feet per acre) from the Leyner Cottonwood
#2 Ditch is available from May 2 to September 18, approximately 139 days.
Both properties have a third of the interest in the storage water rights to Teller Lake #5. However, due to the junior
status of these rights, it is not a reliable water source in dry years.
Soils
All of the property, approximately 54 acres on the Hartnagle property is suitable for diversified vegetable production.
Fields 167, 173 and 175 (21.6 acres) are primarily Manter sandy loam with 1-3% slopes, Capability Class III. Fields 169
and 176 (5.3 acres) are primarily Ascalon sandy loam with 1-3% slopes, Capability Class II. Fields 154, 159, 161 and 163
(27 acres) are comprised of Ascalon sandy loam with 0-1% slopes, Capability Class I.
Thirty-three acres on the Warner property are suitable for diversified vegetable production. Fields 157 and 162 are
comprised of Ascalon sandy loam, 0-1% slopes, Capability Class I.
Habitat Conservation Area
OSMP managed East Boulder - White Rocks Trail
Prairie Dog Removal Area
designation
Currently active
TBD
Bobo
Rare and state-tracked plant communities
are found on the Hartnagle property but
do not intersect with agricultural fields
that meet the soil and water criteria.
Leopard frog habitat
No
Pre
Clean up of Hartnagle property
Cost Estimate: $10,000
o
Rehabilitate the deteriorating residence which is currently uninhabitable.
17
11
Cost Estimate: $300,000 – $500,000
o
Assess the historic outbuildings to determine if they are historically significant.
Rehabilitate the deteriorating outbuildings/or construct new and accommodate a cooler and wash area
Cost Estimate: $80,000
o
Construct two small (1/10 acre-foot) irrigation ponds on each property adjacent to vegetable cultivation areas to
facilitate delivery of irrigation water to any planting beds.
Cost Estimate: $10,000
o
Remove prairie dogs
Cost Estimate: $40,000
o
Construct a prairie dog fence along western boundary
Cost Estimate: $40,000
o
12
Renovate the milking barn to be brought up to code. (The necessity of this management action is dependent
on what type of operation is proposed for the property, i.e. pasture-based cow or goat dairy)
Cost Estimate: $40,000
o
Total Cost Estimate: $480,000-$720,000.
Recommendation
TBD
11
An historic structures assessment is underway, which will provide a more accurate estimate.
12
Subject to local, state and federal oversight via Boulder County Public Health, Colorado Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration
18
City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks
Hartnagle, Warner
Agricultural Plan
Current Agricultural UseManagement Area
Designations
Hartnagle
TL III
TL III
White
White
ocks
ocks
ERTL II
ERTL II
- North
- North
CULVER
CULVER
HARTNAGLE
HARTNAGLE
Warner
154
ERTL III
ERTL III
CULVER
CULVER
- North
- North
- CE
- CE
157
159
161
WARNER I
WARNER I
162
163
DEXTER
DEXTER
ERTL III
ERTL III
WARNER I
WARNER I
Agricultural Field
- South
- South
ERTL II
ERTL II
Grass/Alfafa Hay
167
ERTL II
ERTL II
Grass Hay
- East
- East
Grazed Field
169
173
Meets Soil and
Water CriteriaTELLER LAKE (1/3
TELLER LAKE (1/3
Warner, Dexter,
TELLER
Warner, Dexter,
TELLER
OSMP
BELL I
BELL I
Hartnagle)
FARMHartnagle)
FARM
Ownership
176
Farmstead BELL I -
Farmstead BELL I -
175
OSMP
Development
Development
Area
Conservation
Area
Rights
Rights
Agricultural FieldHabitat ConservationTrail Managed
Easement
Area (HCA)By OSMP
Railroads
OSMP Conservation
Valmont Dr
Railroads
UNKEFER
UNKEFER
Stream
Easement
- Bell
- Bell
05001,000
05001,000
0250500
0250500
Stream
Agricultural Area
Feet
Feet
Feet
Feet
Martinson
Martinson
Recommendations
Natural Resources
Culver Pond #2
ERTL II
Culver Pond #2
ERTL II
Oxbow
Oxbow
Harnagle
Harnagle
Oxbow
Oxbow
Culver
Culver
Culver
Culver
Pond #3
Pond #3
Pond #4
Pond #4
154
8 ac.
157
ERTL II
ERTL II
Pond #9
17 ac.
Pond #9
159
161
9 ac.
4 ac.
162
13 ac.
163
6 ac.
Agricultural Field
(with field number)
167
OSMP
8 ac.
Ownership
169
4 ac.
OSMP
173
Conservation
2 ac.
Easement
Railroads
Prairie DogPrairie Dog
Agricultural Field
Active Colonies (2014)Transition Area
Stream
175
176
Bald Eagle Seasonal
Prairie DogPrairie Dog
Closure Area
Harnagle
Intermittent
Harnagle 12 ac.
1 ac.
Conservation AreaRemoval Area
Stream
Leopard Frog Slough
Slough
Railroads
Habitat Blocks
Valmont Dr
Ditch
Rare and state-tracked plant communities are
Stream
found on this property but do not intersect
Ditch Lateral
19
agricultural fields that meet soil and water criteria
05001,000
05001,000
0250500
0250500
Locations are not shown due to their sensitivity.
Feet
Feet
Feet
Feet
User: hodgt1 Date: 5/18/2015 Document Path: E:\MapFiles\Agriculture\AgPlan\Maps\OSBT_June2015\HartnagleWarner.mxd
Hunter-
Infrastructure
There is a historic residence and eight outbuildings including a milking barn, loafing shed, a tower silo and grain bin.
Livestock shelter is available on the property.
Water
An adequate amount of irrigated water (-feet per acre) is available from the Enterprise and Cottonwood #2
Ditches and is available May 16 to August 8, 84 days, and May 16 to September 12, 119 days, respectively. There are two
domestic wells on the property.
Soils
Approximately 51 acres are suitable for diversified vegetable farming. Fields 445, 446, 447, and 448 (51.2 acres) are
comprised primarily of Ascalon sandy loam with 1-3% slopes, Capability Class II.
Agricultural
No
N/A
designation
N/A –not occupied
TBD
Rare and state-tracked plantcommunities are
found on the Kolb Brothers property but do not
intersect with agricultural fields that meet the soil
and water criteria.
No
Clean up property
Cost Estimate: $10,000
o
Rehabilitate residence
13
Cost Estimate: $300,000
o
Assess the historic outbuildings to determine if they are historically significant
Cost Estimate:
$5,000
o
Rehabilitate the deteriorating outbuildings/or construct new and accommodate a cooler and wash area
Cost Estimate:$80,000
o
Construct a small (1/10 acre-foot) irrigation pond near the Cottonwood #2 headgate to facilitate the delivery of
irrigation water to any planting beds
Cost Estimate:$5,000
o
Construct interior fence to separate vegetable fields from grazing areas
Cost Estimate: $10,000
o
13
This estimate was provided by The University of Colorado Denver’s Center of Preservation Research, part of the College of Architecture and
Planning who performed an historic structures assessment on the residence May 2014.
20
Renovate the milking barn to be brought up to code. (The necessity of this management action is dependent on
what type of operation is proposed for the property, i.e. pasture-based cow or goat dairy.)
Cost Estimate: $50,000
o
Total Cost Estimate: $410,000 - $460,000
Recommendation
TBD
21
City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks
Hunter-Kolb, Kolb Brothers
Agricultural Plan
Current Agricultural UseManagement Area
HILL - Outlot CE
HILL - Outlot CE
Designations
HILL - Life Estate
HILL - Life Estate
FORSBERG
FORSBERG
Hunter-Kolb
Kolb Brothers
ISENHART-JONES
ISENHART-JONES
UTE INDUSTRIAL PARK
UTE INDUSTRIAL PARK
TELLER FARM - Open Space
TELLER FARM - Open Space
448
445
KOLB BROTHERS
KOLB BROTHERS
AWEIDA I
AWEIDA I
449
446
HUNTER-KOLB
HUNTER-KOLB
WOODLEY
WOODLEY
MERLE-SMITH
MERLE-SMITH
447
AUTREY
AUTREY
Farmstead
Agricultural Field
(with field number)
Area
LEWIS
LEWIS
Annual Crop
SWARTZ
SWARTZ
(Grain)
/
/
/
Grass/Alfafa Hay
STENGEL - KING
STENGEL - KING
Agricultural FieldBVCP Conceptual
Meets Soil and
Natural Area
/
/
BASELINE / 75TH
BASELINE / 75TH
/
Trail Alignment
Water Criteria
COHAGEN
COHAGEN
SPICER
To BeSPICER
COHAGEN
COHAGEN
OSMP
BVCP Proposed
OSMP
CE
CE
Determined
Conservation
Trail
Ownership
Easement
Trail Managed By OSMP
Stream
Railroads
Agricultural Area
Trail Not Managed
0250500
0250500
Stream
By OSMP
05001,000
05001,000
Feet
Feet
Feet
Feet
Recommendations
Natural Resources
445
448
18 ac.
14 ac.
446
449
15 ac.
5 ac.
447
5 ac.
Agricultural Field
(with field number)
OSMP
Ownership
Stream
Prairie Dog
Agricultural FieldRailroads
Intermittent
Active Colonies (2014)
Stream
Burrowing Owl
Stream
Prairie Dog
Seasonal Closure Area
Ditch
Conservation Area
Rare and state-tracked plant communities are
Ditch Lateral
found on this property but do not intersect
22
05001,000
agricultural fields that meet soil and water criteria 05001,000
0250500
0250500
Feet
Feet
Locations are not shown due to their sensitivity.
Feet
Feet
User: hodgt1 Date: 5/18/2015 Document Path: E:\MapFiles\Agriculture\AgPlan\Maps\OSBT_June2015\HunterKolb_KolbBros.mxd
ǡǡ ǡ
Characteristics
Infrastructure
There is a residence and two outbuildings, an attached garage and small storage shed on the Deluca property. There are
no loafing sheds or barns on the DeLuca property. There are two small barns on the northeastern edge of the Campbell
property.
Water
Most of the fields on the DeLuca, Campbell Hester and Stratton properties have an adequate amount of irrigated water
(-feet per acre) available from the Left Hand Ditch, from April 1 to October 31, approximately 210 days.
Portions of fields 457 and 458 on the Stratton property are not irrigated.
Soils
Approximately 70 acres on the DeLuca property are suitable for diversified vegetable farming. Fields 14 and 19 (44.4
acres) are comprised of a mixture of Valmont clay loam, 1-3 % and 3-5% slopes, both Capability Class III. Portions of field
13 (25.8 acres) is comprised of Valmont clay loam, with 1-3 and 3-5% slopes, Capability Class III.
The entirety of the Hester property, 39 acres on fields 17 and 18, is comprised of Valmont clay loam with 1-3% slopes,
Capability Class III, suitable for diversified vegetable production.
Approximately 50 acres of the Campbell property are suitable for diversified vegetable production. Fields 21, 23 and
459, and the northern portion of field 24 are comprised of Valmont clay loam with 1-3% slopes, Capability Class III.
Approximately 10 acres on the Stratton property are suitable for diversified vegetable production. A portion of field 457
is comprised of Valmont clay loam with 1-3% slopes, Capability Class III.
Natural Area
No
Stratton - Removal Area
Campbell – Transition Area
designation
Deluca & Hester – N/A
Stratton – Occupied
Campbell – Not occupied
Deluca & Hester – N/A
TBD
Rare and state-tracked plantcommunities are
found on the Deluca, Campbell and Stratton
properties and intersect with agricultural fields
that meet the soil and water criteria.
No
23
Clean up property
Cost Estimate: $15,000
o
Construct new outbuildings to accommodate equipment storage, a cooler and wash area
Cost Estimate: $100,000
o
Construct a series of small (1/10 acre-foot) irrigation ponds on each property adjacent to vegetable cultivation
areas to facilitate delivery of irrigation water to planting beds
Cost Estimate $5,000 each
o
Construct interior fence to separate vegetable fields from grazing areas
Cost Estimate: $10,000
o
Cultural Resource survey for Deluca
Total Cost Estimate: $130,000-$145,000
Recommendation
TBD
24
Deluca, Campbell,
City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks
Agricultural Plan
Hestor, Stratton
Current Agricultural UseManagement Area
Designations
Deluca
SUTHERLAND
SUTHERLAND
Hester
14
17
Campbell DELUCA
DELUCA
HESTER
HESTER
19
(North)
18
DAGLE
DAGLE
CAMPBELL
CAMPBELL
DAGLE II
DAGLE II
NORTH
NORTH
23
21
WRIGHT
WRIGHT
DAGLE
DAGLE
Farmstead
Farmstead
JODER II
JODER II
24
459
Area
Area
COX
COX
SCHOOLEY
SCHOOLEY
STRATTON
STRATTON
BREWBAKER
BREWBAKER
Agricultural Field
(with field number)
BEECH
BEECH
467
WEST
WEST
BEECH
BEECH
Grass Hay
EAST
EAST
Grazed Field
FOOTHILLS
FOOTHILLS
Meets Soil and
468
BUSINESS PARK - CE
BUSINESS PARK - CE
Water Criteria
Stratton
OSMP
BEECH - East - Temporary Closure
BEECH - East - Temporary Closure
Ownership
OSMP
Agricultural Field
Conservation
Natural AreaTrail Managed By OSMP
Easement
Trail Not Managed
OSMP Conservation
Stream
25
By OSMP
27
Easement
Habitat ConservationStream
05001,000
05001,000
01,0002,000
01,0002,000
Area (HCA)
Feet
Feet
28
Feet
Feet
Recommendations
Natural Resources
14
27 ac.
17
12 ac.
19
18
18 ac.
25 ac.
21
23
10 ac.
8 ac.
24
459
9 ac.
29 ac.
457
Agricultural Field
51 ac.
(with field number)
OSMP
Ownership
OSMP
458
Conservation
Easement
21 ac.
Prairie DogPrairie Dog
Agricultural Field
Stream
Active Colonies (2014)Transition Area
Mediterranean Sage
Prairie Dog
Intermittent
Grassland Preserve
(State list A
Removal Area
Stream
noxious weed)
Multiple Objective
Stream
Area
Ditch
Preble’s Occupied Habitat
Rare and state-tracked plant communities are found
Ditch Lateral
on this property and intersect agricultural fields that
01,0002,000
01,0002,000
25
05001,000
meet soil and water criteria. Locations are not shown05001,000
Feet
Feet
Feet
Feet
due to their sensitivity.
User: HodgT1 Date: 5/26/2015 Document Path: E:\MapFiles\Agriculture\AgPlan\Maps\OSBT_June2015\DelucaCampbellStrattonHestor.mxd
Johnson
Infrastructure
There is a residence and a milking barn on the Johnson property.
Water
An adequate amount of irrigated water (-feet per acre) is available from the Left Hand Ditch and delivered via
the Star lateral from April 1 to October 31, approximately 210 days, for both the Johnson and Axelson properties with
the exception of a 5.38-acre portion in the southwest corner of field 62 that is unirrigable.
Soils
125.2 acres on the Johnson property are suitable for diversified vegetable farming. A portion of fields 36 and 37, 43.6
acres north of Monarch Road, are comprised of Valmont clay loam with 1-3% slopes, Capability Class III. South of
Monarch Road, there are 81.6 acres spread over fields 46, 47, 57, 58, 62, 64 and 66 comprised primarily of Valmont clay
loam with 1-3% slopes, Capability Class III, but there is a 9-acre portion of field 66 that is comprised of Nunn clay loam
with 1-3% slopes, Capability Class II.
The entirety of the 38-acre Axelson East property, fields 56 and 61, are comprised of Valmont clay loam, 1-3% slopes,
Capability Class III, suitable for diversified vegetable production.
Agricultural
BVCP proposed trail
Transition Area
designation
Occupied
occupation
TBD
Rare and state-tracked plantcommunities are
found on the Johnson property and intersect with
agricultural fields that meet the soil and water
criteria.
Johnson Property - Mediterranean sage
Presence
Clean up property
Cost Estimate: $10,000
o
Assess the historic residence and outbuildings to determine if they are historically significant
Cost Estimate:
$10,000
o
Rehabilitate residence
Cost Estimate: $500,000
o
Update outbuilding to accommodate a cooler and wash area
Cost Estimate: $30,000
o
Construct a livestock pole barn
Cost Estimate: $15,000
o
26
Construct a small (1/10 acre-foot) irrigation pond near the vegetable cropping area to facilitate the delivery of
irrigation water to any planting beds
Cost Estimate: $5,000 per pond
o
Construct a fence to separate fields 46, 47, 58 and 64 for diversified vegetable farming from the rest of the
property which may be grazed
Cost Estimate: $15,000
o
Construct a prairie dog fence to separate prairie dog colonies from cropping area on Johnson
Cost Estimate: $25,000
o
Passive Relocation of prairie dogs off of fields 46, 47, 58 and 64
Cost Estimate: $50,000
Renovate the milking barn to be brought up to code (The necessity of this management action is dependent on
what type of operation is proposed for the property, i.e. cow or goat dairy.)
Cost Estimate: $50,000
o
Total Cost Estimate: $660,000-$710,000
Recommendation
TBD
27
City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks
Johnson, Axelson East
Agricultural Plan
Current Agricultural UseManagement Area
Designations
Johnson
East
36
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
NORTH (NE)
NORTH (NE)
DAWSON
DAWSON
DAWSON - CE
DAWSON - CE
Monarch Rd.
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
LYNCH CE
LYNCH CE
NORTH (SW)
NORTH (SW)
EAST
EAST
Axelson
JOHNSON - CE
JOHNSON - CE
47
46
Monarch Rd.
50 East
AXELSON, WEST
AXELSON, WEST
COWLES
COWLES
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
SOUTH (SW)
SOUTH (SW)
58
61
5756
AXELSON, EAST
AXELSON, EAST
64
63
62
66
Agricultural Field
(with field number)
Johnson
Grass/Alfafa Hay
I.B.M.
I.B.M.
South (SW)
CE
Grass HayCE
Farmstead
Area
Grazed Field
Boulder Reservoir
Meets Soil and
I.B.M.
I.B.M.
Water Criteria
OPEN SPACE
Agricultural Field
OPEN SPACEBVCP Conceptual
Natural Area
/
/
/
I.B.M.
OSMPEASEMENTI.B.M.
EASEMENT
Trail Alignment
Ownership
Passive Recreation
OSMP
BVCP Proposed
Area
OSMP
Conservation
Trail
Boulder Reservoir
Conservation
Easement
Trail Managed By OSMP
HART-JONES
Easement
HART-JONES
Railroads
Agricultural Area
Trail Not Managed
HART-JONES - Exchange
HART-JONES - Exchange
0250500
0250500
Stream
Lookout Rd.
By OSMP
05001,000
05001,000
Feet
Feet
Feet
Feet
Recommendations
Natural Resources
36
39 ac.
Monarch Rd.
Starr Ditch
Starr Ditch
50
6 ac.
46
47
Monarch Rd.
26 ac.
36 ac.
58
57
61
56
64
14 ac.
10 ac.
19 ac.
20 ac.
9 ac.
62
63
21 ac.
6 ac.
66
13 ac.
Boulder Reservoir
Agricultural Field
(with field number)
OSMP
Preble’s OccupiedMultiple Objective
Agricultural Field
Ownership
HabitatArea
Mediterranean Sage
OSMP
Prairie DogPrairie Dog
(State list A
Conservation
Active Colonies (2014)Transition Area
noxious weed)
Easement
Prairie Dog
Grassland Preserve
Osprey Seasonal
Stream
Removal Area
Closure Area
Boulder Reservoir
Prairie Dog
Ditch
Railroads
Conservation Area
Rare and state-tracked plant communities are found
Ditch Lateral
Stream
on this property and intersect agricultural fields that
28
meet soil and water criteria. Locations are not shown
05001,0000250500
05001,0000250500
Lookout Rd.
due to their sensitivity.
FeetFeet
FeetFeet
User: hodgt1 Date: 5/18/2015 Document Path: E:\MapFiles\Agriculture\AgPlan\Maps\OSBT_June2015\Johnson_AxelsonEast.mxd
Kolb
Infrastructure
There is a residence, a large barn formerly used for milking and storage, a shed and two pole barns on the property.
Water
An adequate amount of irrigated water (-feet per acre) is available from the Green Ditch, Butte Irrigation and
Milling Ditch and the Jones and Donnelly Ditch. Collectively, these ditches run from May 6 to October 28, 175 days.
There is also a domestic well on the property, which has gone dry during past droughts.
Soils
Approximately 40 acres of field 160 is comprised of soils suitable for diversified vegetable production: Loveland soils,
Capability Class III.
Habitat Conservation Area
No
Transition Area
designation
Not occupied
TBD
Bald eagle nesting area (Closed to human
activity Nov. 1- July 31)
Northern leopard frog habitat
Rare and state-tracked plant communities
are found on the property and intersect
with agricultural fields that meet the soil
and water criteria.
No
Clean up property
Cost Estimate: $10,000
o
Assess the historic residence and outbuildings to determine if they are historically significant
Cost Estimate: $10,000
o
Rehabilitate residence
Cost Estimate: $150,000
o
Rehabilitate existing barns and outbuildings
Cost Estimate: $100,000
o
Update outbuilding to accommodate a cooler and wash area
Cost Estimate: $30,000
o
Construct a small (1/10 acre-foot) irrigation pond near the vegetable cropping area to facilitate the delivery of
irrigation water to any planting beds
Cost Estimate: $5,000
29
Renovate the milking barn to be brought up to code (The necessity of this management action is dependent on
what type of operation is proposed for the property, i.e. pasture-based cow or goat dairy.)
Cost Estimate: $ 50,000
o
Total Cost Estimate: $305,000-$355,000
Recommendation
TBD
30
City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks
Kolb
Agricultural Plan
Current Agricultural UseManagement Area
136
ERTL III
ERTL III
Designations
WHITE ROCKS
WHITE ROCKS
WOOD BROTHERS
WOOD BROTHERS
KAUFMANN
KAUFMANN
151
WEISER
WEISER
KOLB I
KOLB I
KOLB II
KOLB II
NORTH
NORTH
Farmstead
158
Area
KOLB II
KOLB II
SOUTH
SOUTH
ERTL III
ERTL III
160
SAWHILL PONDS
SAWHILL PONDSSOUTH
SOUTH
FELL
FELL
MANCHESTER
MANCHESTER
BIDDLE
BIDDLE
KING - HODGSON I
KING - HODGSON I
Agricultural Field
Agricultural AreaRailroads
ECCHER
ECCHER
Agricultural Field
Habitat Conservation
Grazed FieldRailroads
Stream
(with field number)
State Natural Area
Area (HCA)
Meets Soil and
Stream
Grass/Alfafa Hay
Water CriteriaOSMP
Trail Managed By OSMP
Conservation
KING - HODGSON II - (CE-BE)
KING - HODGSON II - (CE-BE)
410
OSMP
Grass Hay
EasementTrail Not Managed
0250500
0250500
181
182 Ownership05001,000
05001,000
KING - HODGSON II - (CE- Irrigated Crop Zone)
KING - HODGSON II - (CE- Irrigated Crop Zone)
By OSMP
412 Feet
Feet
411
413 Feet
Feet
KING - HODGSON II - (CE-Pasture)
KING - HODGSON II - (CE-Pasture)
Recommendations
Natural Resources
151
64 ac.
158
33 ac.
160
82 ac.
Prairie DogMultiple Objective
Agricultural Field
Active Colonies (2014)Area
Bald Eagle Seasonal
Prairie DogPrairie Dog
Closure Area
Conservation AreaTransition Area
Agricultural FieldIntermittent
Railroads
Rare and state-tracked plant communities are found
Railroads
(with field number)Stream
on this property and intersect agricultural fields that
meet soil and water criteria. Locations are not shownStream
OSMP
Ditch Lateral
31
Stream
due to their sensitivity.
05001,000
05001,000
Ownership
0250500
0250500
Feet
Feet
Feet
Feet
User: hodgt1 Date: 5/18/2015 Document Path: E:\MapFiles\Agriculture\AgPlan\Maps\OSBT_June2015\Kolb.mxd
ǡ
Infrastructure
No infrastructure is present on the property.
Water
For the Teller property, an adequate amount of irrigated water (1.5 acre-feet per acre) from the Leyner Cottonwood,
Marshallville and Dry Creek ditches. Collectively, these ditches run from May 16 to September 12, approximately 119
days. The entirety of fields 178, 204 and 206 as well as portions of 205 and 406 are non-irrigable.
For the Bell I and II properties, an adequate amount of irrigated water (-feet per acre) from the Leyner
Cottonwood and Cottonwood #2 Ditch is available, both run from May 6 to September 12, approximately 119 days.
Field 184 (24.6 acres) is not irrigated, and fields 179 and 180 (28.9 acres) are irrigated by the Andrews-Farwell ditch,
which only has irrigation water for 52 days a season.
Soils
On the Teller property there are 124.3 acres suited for diversified vegetable production spread over fields 186, 187, 200,
205, 207, 210 and 406. The soils are a mixture of Manter sandy loam with 1-3% slopes, Capability Class III, Manter sandy
loam with 3-9% slopes, Capability Class III, Hargreave fine sandy loam with 1-3% slopes, Capability Class III, Ascalon
sandy loam with 0-1% slopes, Capability Class I, Ascalon sandy loam with 1-3% slopes, Capability Class II, and Ascalon
sandy loam with 3-5% slopes, Capability Class III.
Eighteen acres on the Bell I property are suited for diversified vegetable production. Field 189 is comprised of a mixture
of Manter sandy loam with 1-3% slopes, Capability Class III, Manter sandy loam with 3-9% slopes, Capability Class III, and
Ascalon sandy loam with 1-3% slopes, Capability Class II.
On the Bell II property, 33.5 acres are suitable for diversified vegetable production. Fields 190 and 193 are comprised of
Manter sandy loam with 1-3% slopes, Manter sandy loam with 3-9% slopes, Ascalon sandy loam with 3-5% slopes, all
Capability Class III and Ascalon sandy loam with 1-3% slopes, Capability Class II.
Agricultural
OSMP East Boulder/Teller Farm Trail
BVCP conceptual trail: East Boulder Trail
Transition Area
designation
Subset occupied
TBD
Teller property – northern leopard frog
habitat
Rare and state-tracked plant communities
are found on the Teller property and
intersect with agricultural fields that meet
the soil and water criteria.
No
32
Clean up property
Cost Estimate: $5,000
o
Construct a small (1/10 acre-foot) irrigation pond near the vegetable cropping area to facilitate the delivery of
irrigation water to any planting beds. There are several cropping areas on each property
Cost Estimate: $5,000 per pond
o
Construct a fence to separate the cropping area of a diversified vegetable farming operation from the rest of the
property which may be hayed/ grazed
Cost Estimate: $ 25,000
o
Total Cost Estimate: $35,000-$50,000
Recommendation
TBD
33
City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks
Bell, Teller Farm
Agricultural Plan
ERTL III
ERTL III
Current Agricultural UseManagement Area
- North
- North
WARNER I
WARNER I
Designations
HARTNAGLE
HARTNAGLE
179
180
ERTL
ERTL
DEXTER
DEXTER
WARNER I
WARNER I
Bell I
II - CE
II - CE
178
CE
CE
ERTL III
ERTL III
SOUTH
SOUTH
184
ELL
FELL
TELLER
TELLER
BELL I
BELL I
LAKE
LAKE
187
UNKEFER
UNKEFER
189
- BELL
- BELL
186
Bell II
190
193
EDDY CE
EDDY CE
BELL II
BELL II
KING - HODGSON II
KING - HODGSON II
194
ING -
ING -EDDY
EDDY
TELLER
TELLER
CE
CE
DGSON I
DGSON I
FARM
199 FARM
200
BIXLER,
BIXLER,
204
HILL
HILL
Agricultural Field
HANNAH
HANNAH
CE
CE
(with field number)
Teller
(NW)
(NW)OVERFELT
OVERFELT
206
Annual Crop
BIXLER,
BIXLER,
(Grain)
RALPH
RALPH
207
NHART-JONES
NHART-JONES
(SE)
(SE)
Grass/Alfafa Hay
210
PHERSON
PHERSON
Grass Hay
205
Alfafa Hay
WOODLEY
WOODLEY
Grazed Field
406
HERS
HERS
Meets Soil and
WILLIAMSON
WILLIAMSON
AWEIDA I
Water Criteria
AWEIDA I
/ MOORE
/ MOORE
ANDERSON
ANDERSON
Habitat ConservationBVCP Conceptual
/ HOLMES
/ HOLMES
Agricultural Field
OSMP/
/
NORTH
NORTH
/
Area (HCA)Trail Alignment
Ownership
COLUMBINE
COLUMBINE
215
OSMP Conservation
To BeBVCP Proposed
UNITY CHURCH
OSMP
UNITY CHURCH
Easement
DeterminedTrail
Conservation
Easement
Agricultural Area
Trail Managed By OSMPStream
AUTREY
AUTREY
Stream
ANDERSON
ANDERSON
Trail Not Managed
PACLAMAR
01,0002,000
01,0002,000PACLAMARRailroads
05001,000
05001,000
- Central
- Central
By OSMP
FeetFARMS
Feet
FARMS
Feet
Feet
(BROOKS)
(BROOKS)
Natural ResourcesRecommendations
Harnagle
Harnagle
Slough
Slough
Valm
179
180
13 ac.
178
16 ac.
34 ac.
184
25 ac.
187
16 ac.
189
18 ac.
186
190
38 ac.
25 ac.
193
194
9 ac.
40 ac.
199
26 ac.
200
18 ac.
204
206
3 ac.
3 ac.
207
210
Agricultural Field
13 ac.
19 ac.
(with field number)
OSMP
205
Ownership
9 ac.
OSMP
Conservation
406
Easement
40 ac.
Stream
Leopard FrogPrairie DogPrairie Dog
Intermittent
Habitat BlocksActive Colonies (2014)Transition Area
Stream
Bald Eagle SeasonalMultiple ObjectivePrairie Dog
215
Closure AreaAreaRemoval Area
Ditch
36 ac.
Rare and state-tracked plant communities are found
Stream
Ditch Lateral
on this property and intersect agricultural fields that
meet soil and water criteria. Locations are not shown
Railroads
34
05001,000
05001,000
due to their sensitivity.
01,0002,000
01,0002,000
Feet
Feet
Feet
Feet
User: HodgT1 Date: 5/26/2015 Document Path: E:\MapFiles\Agriculture\AgPlan\Maps\OSBT_June2015\BellII_Teller.mxd
Infrastructure
No infrastructure is present on the property.
Water
An adequate amount of irrigated water (-feet per acre) from the Cottonwood #2 and Butte Irrigation and
Milling Ditches is available from May 16 to September 12, approximately 119 days.
Soils
Ninety-nine acres on the King Hodgson property are suitable for diversified vegetable production. Fields 185, 188, 192,
196, 197 and 432 (52 acres) are comprised entirely of Ascalon sandy loam with 1-3% slopes, Capability Class II. Field 198
(47 acres) is comprised of a mixture of Ascalon sandy loam with 1-3% slopes and Ascalon–Otero Complex with 3-5 %
slopes, Capability Classes II and III, respectively.
Agricultural
No
N/A
designation
Not occupied
TBD
No
No
Clean up property
Cost Estimate: $5,000
o
Construct a small (1/10 acre-foot) irrigation pond near the vegetable cropping area to facilitate the delivery of
irrigation water to any planting beds
Cost Estimate: $5,000
o
Construct a fence to separate the cropping area of a diversified vegetable farming operation from the rest of the
property which may be hayed/ grazed
Cost Estimate: $15,000
o
Cultural Resource Survey
Total Cost Estimate: $25,000
Recommendation
TBD
35
City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks
King - Hodgson I
Agricultural Plan
Current Agricultural UseManagement Area
KOLB II
KOLB II
NORTH
NORTH
Designations
KOLB II
KOLB II
SOUTH
SOUTH
ERTL III
ERTL III
432
SOUTH
SOUTH
FELL
FELL
B
B
-
-
185
LE
LE
MANCHESTER
MANCHESTER
S
S
188
192
UN
UN
CHER
CHER
KING -
KING -
KING -
KING -
HODGSON I
HODGSON I
197
HODGSON II
HODGSON II
196
CE
CE
Agricultural Field
(with field number)
Grass/Alfafa Hay
Grass Hay
HILL -
HILL -
HILL
HILL
198
Life
Life
CE
CE
Grazed Field
Estate
Estate
Meets Soil and
Water Criteria
OSMP
FORSBERG
FORSBERG
Ownership
ISENHART-JONES
ISENHART-JONES
OSMP
Agricultural Field
ConservationAgricultural AreaNatural Area
Easement
Habitat Conservation
Railroads
OSMP Conservation
Area (HCA)
Stream
Easement
05001,000
025050005001,000Stream
0250500
Feet
Feet
Feet
Feet
Natural ResourcesRecommendations
432
5 ac.
185
8 ac.
188
14 ac.
192
10 ac.
197
196
7 ac.
8 ac.
Agricultural Field
198
(with field number)
44 ac.
OSMP
Ownership
OSMP
Conservation
Easement
Stream
Prairie DogPrairie Dog
Agricultural Field
Conservation AreaTransition AreaDitch
Bald Eagle Seasonal
Multiple Objective
Railroads
Closure Area
Ditch Lateral
Area
Prairie Dog
36
Stream
0250500
0250500
05001,000
05001,000
Active Colonies (2014)
Feet
Feet
Feet
Feet
User: hodgt1 Date: 5/18/2015 Document Path: E:\MapFiles\Agriculture\AgPlan\Maps\OSBT_June2015\KingHodgson.mxd
Ǥ
Infrastructure
No infrastructure is present on the property.
Water
An adequate amount of irrigated water (-feet per acre) from the McGinn Ditch is available, which runs from
April 29 to October 10, approximately 164 days. A portion of fields 303 and 308 are not irrigated.
Soils
Approximately 59 acres of the St. Walburga Abbey property are suitable for diversified vegetable production. Field 302
(27.1 acres) is comprised entirely of Nunn sandy clay loam with 0-1% slopes, Capability Class I. Field 303 has 17.3 acres
of irrigated land consisting of Nunn sandy clay loam with 0-1% slopes and Valmont clay loam, 1-3% slopes, both
Capability Class III. Field 308 has 14.8 acres of irrigated land comprised of Valmont clay loam with 1-3% slopes,
Capability Class III.
als
Natural Area
No
N/A
designation
N/A
TBD
No
No
Clean up property
Cost Estimate: $5,000
o
Construct a small (1/10 acre-foot) irrigation pond near the vegetable cropping area to facilitate the delivery of
irrigation water to any planting beds. There are three fields on this property
Cost Estimate: $5,000 per pond
o
Construct a fence to separate the cropping area of a diversified vegetable farming operation from the rest of the
property which may be hayed/ grazed
Cost Estimate: $15,000
o
Total Cost Estimate: $ 25,000-$35,000
Recommendation
TBD
37
City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks
St. Walburga Abbey
Agricultural Plan
Current Agricultural UseManagement Area
METHVIN
METHVIN
COHAGEN
(BRANDT)
COHAGEN
(BRANDT)
Baseline Reservoir
Designations
CE
CE
KLEIN
KLEIN
WEST
WESTKLEIN
KLEIN
EAST
EAST
Baseline Reservoir
CLOUGH
CLOUGH
303
302
ST. WALBURGA
ST. WALBURGA
ABBEY
ABBEY
LIU
LIU
MARSHALL
MARSHALL
SUITTS
SUITTSBRIDGE
BRIDGE
SCHOOL
SCHOOL
308
MARSHALL
MARSHALL
CE
CE
VAN VLEET
VAN VLEET
Agricultural Field
EAST
EAST
(with field number)
Candidate Fields
OAKLEY
OAKLEY
Grazed Field
Agricultural FieldHabitat
State Natural Area
Grass Hay(with field number)Conservation
Area (HCA)
OSMPTrail Managed By OSMP
OSMP
Conservation
Ownership
Natural Area
BVCP Conceptual
Easement
/
/
/
OSMP
Trail Alignment
Passive Recreation
Conservation
Agricultural Area
Area
BVCP Proposed
Easement
01,0002,000Trail
01,0002,000
YUNKER
YUNKER
0250500
0250500
Feet
Feet
- North
- North
Feet
Feet
CHURCH OF
CHURCH OF
CHRIST
CHRIST
Natural ResourcesRecommendations
TELLER LAKE (1-3)TELLER LAKE (1-3)
Baseline Reservoir
Baseline Reservoir
303
302
22 ac.
27 ac.
308
20 ac.
Agricultural Field
(with field number)
OSMP
Ownership
OSMP
Prairie DogMultiple ObjectiveConservation
Agricultural Field_
Active Colonies (2014)Area
Easement
Preble’s Occupied Habitat
Prairie DogPrairie Dog
Ditch
Conservation AreaTransition Area
Rare and state-tracked plant communities are found
Ditch Lateral
Stream
on this property and intersect agricultural fields that
38
0250500
0250500
meet soil and water criteria. Locations are not shown
01,0002,000
01,0002,000
Feet
Feet
due to their sensitivity.
Feet
Feet
User: HodgT1 Date: 5/26/2015 Document Path: E:\MapFiles\Agriculture\AgPlan\Maps\OSBT_June2015\St_Walburga.mxd
Biddle
Esse
Infrastructure
No infrastructure is present on the property.
Water
An adequate amount of irrigated water (-feet per acre) is available from the Green Ditch, Butte Irrigation and
Milling Ditch and the Jones and Donnelly Ditch. Collectively, these ditches run from May 6 to October 28, 175 days.
Soils
Fifty-two acres are suitable for diversified vegetable production. Fields 182 and 183 are comprised of Manter sandy
loam with 0-1% slopes and Loveland soils, both in Capability Class III.
Agricultural
No
N/A
designation
N/A
TBD
Rare and state-tracked plantcommunities are
found on the property but do not intersect with
agricultural fields that meet the soil and water
criteria.
No
Man
Clean up property
Cost Estimate: $5,000
o
Construct a small (1/10 acre-foot) irrigation pond near the vegetable cropping area to facilitate the delivery of
irrigation water to the planting beds
Cost Estimate: $5,000
o
Construct a fence to separate the cropping area of a diversified vegetable farming operation from the rest of the
property which may be hayed/ grazed
Cost Estimate: $15,000
o
Total Cost Estimate: $25,000
Recommendation
TBD
39
City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks
Biddle
Agricultural Plan
Current Agricultural UseManagement Area
KOLB I
KOLB I
Designations
KOLB II
KOLB II
NORTH
NORTH
WEISER
WEISER
KOLB II
KOLB II
SOUTH
SOUTH
ERTL III
ERTL III
SOUTH
SOUTH
SAWHILL
SAWHILL
PONDSFELL
PONDSFELL
182
BIDDLE
BIDDLE
MANCHESTER
MANCHESTER
183
Agricultural Field
(with field number)
Current Vegetable
Production
ECCHER
ECCHER
Grass/Alfafa Hay
Grass Hay
KING -
KING -
HODGSON I
HODGSON I
Grazed Field
Meets Soil and
Valmont Reservoir
Water Criteria
OSMP
Ownership
Agricultural FieldHabitat Conservation
Trail Managed By OSMP
HILL -
HILL -
Area (HCA)
OSMP
Life
Life
Conservation
Trail Not Managed
Estate
OSMPEstate
EasementNatural Area
By OSMP
Conservation
Easement
Railroads
Railroads
ISENHART-JONES
ISENHART-JONES
0250500
0250500
Agricultural Area
05001,000
05001,000
FeetStream
Feet
Feet
UTE INDUSTRIALFeet
UTE INDUSTRIAL
FORSBERG
FORSBERG
PARK - /Lots 2-29
PARK - /Lots 2-29
Natural ResourcesRecommendations
182
20 ac.
183
32 ac.
Agricultural Field
(with field number)
OSMP
Ownership
OSMP
Conservation
Valmont Reservoir
Easement
Intermittent
Leopard FrogPrairie Dog
Agricultural Field_
Stream
Habitat BlocksConservation Area
Osprey or Bald Eagle
Ditch
Prairie DogPrairie Dog
Seasonal Closure Area
Active Colonies (2014)Transition Area
Ditch Lateral
Rare and state-tracked plant communities are found
Railroads
on this property but do not intersect agricultural fields
Railroads
that meet soil and water criteria Locations are not shown
Stream
due to their sensitivity.
40
0250500
0250500
05001,000
05001,000
Feet
Feet
Feet
Feet
User: hodgt1 Date: 5/18/2015 Document Path: E:\MapFiles\Agriculture\AgPlan\Maps\OSBT_June2015\Biddle.mxd
Fell
Essenti
Infrastructure
There is no infrastructure on the property.
Water
An adequate amount of irrigated water (-feet per acre) is available from the Green Ditch, Butte Irrigation and
Milling Ditch and the Jones and Donnelly Ditch. Collectively, these ditches run from May 6 to October 28, 175 days.
Portions of field 174 and 181 (15.6 acres) are not irrigated.
Soils
On the Fell property, 29.6 acres are suitable for diversified vegetable productions. The acres are split between fields 174
and 181 and are comprised of a combination of Manter sandy loam with 0-1% slopes, Manter sandy loam with 1-3%
slopes and Loveland soils. All of these soil types are in Capability Class III.
Agricultural
No
N/A
Prairie
designation
N/A
TBD
Rare and state-tracked plantcommunities are
found on the property and intersect with
agricultural fields that meet the soil and water
criteria.
No
Man
Clean up property
Cost Estimate: $5,000
o
Construct a small (1/10 acre-foot) irrigation pond near the vegetable cropping area to facilitate the delivery of
irrigation water to the planting beds
Cost Estimate: $5,000
o
Construct a fence to separate the cropping area of a diversified vegetable farming operation from the rest of the
property which may be hayed/ grazed
Cost Estimate: $15,000
o
Total Cost Estimate: $25,000
Recommendation
TBD
41
City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks
Fell
Agricultural Plan
Current Agricultural UseManagement Area
KOLB I
KOLB I
Designations
KOLB II
WEISER
KOLB II
WEISER
NORTH
NORTH
174
KOLB II
KOLB II
SOUTH
SOUTH
ERTL III
ERTL III
SOUTH
SOUTH
FELL
FELL
BIDDLE
BIDDLE
MANCHESTER
MANCHESTER
Agricultural Field
(with field number)
181
Grass/Alfafa Hay
KING -
KING -
Grass Hay
HODGSON I
ECCHER
HODGSON I
ECCHER
Grazed Field
Meets Soil and
Water Criteria
Agricultural FieldHabitat ConservationTrail Not Managed
OSMP
Area (HCA)By OSMP
Ownership
OSMP ConservationState Natural
Railroads
Railroads
EasementArea
HILL -
HILL -
HILL -
0250500 HILL -
0250500
05001,000
0 Life 5001,000
Stream
Life
Agricultural Area
Feet
Feet
Feet
Feet
Outlot CE
Outlot CE
Estate
Estate
Natural ResourcesRecommendations
174
23 ac.
Agricultural Field
181
(with field number)
22 ac.
OSMP
Ownership
Railroads
Intermittent
Leopard FrogMultiple Objective
Agricultural Field
Stream
Habitat BlocksArea
Bald Eagle Seasonal
Prairie DogPrairie Dog
Ditch
Closure Area
Active Colonies (2014)Transition Area
Ditch Lateral
Rare and state-tracked plant communities are found
Railroads
on this property and intersect agricultural fields that
42
0250500
0250500
meet soil and water criteria. Locations are not shown
05001,000
05001,000
Feet
Feet
due to their sensitivity.Feet
Feet
User: hodgt1 Date: 5/18/2015 Document Path: E:\MapFiles\Agriculture\AgPlan\Maps\OSBT_June2015\Fell.mxd
Isenhart-Jones
Infrastructure
No infrastructure is present on the property.
Water
There is an adequate amount of irrigated water (-feet per acre) from the Cottonwood #2 Ditch from May 16 to
September 12, approximately 119 days. Field 139 (22.4 acres) is non-irrigable.
Soils
There are 31.3 acres suitable for diversified vegetable production. Field 82 and 91 are comprised of Ascalon sandy loam
with 1-3% slopes, Capability Class II and Ascalon-Otero complex with 3-5% slopes, Capability Class III.
Agricultural
No
N/A
designation
N/A
TBD
Rare and state-tracked plantcommunities are
found on the property but do not intersect with
agricultural fields that meet the soil and water
criteria.
No
Clean up property
Cost Estimate: $5,000
o
Construct a small (1/10 acre-foot) irrigation pond near the vegetable cropping area to facilitate the delivery of
irrigation water to the planting beds
Cost Estimate: $5,000
o
Construct a fence to separate the cropping area of a diversified vegetable farming operation from the rest of the
property which may be hayed/ grazed
Cost Estimate: $15,000
o
Total Cost Estimate: $25,000
Recommendation
TBD
43
City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks
Isenhart - Jones
Agricultural Plan
Current Agricultural UseManagement Area
Designations
KING -
KING -
KING -
KING -
HODGSON II
HODGSON I
HODGSON II
HODGSON I
CE
CE
91
HILL
HILL
CE
CE
129
ISENHART-JONES
ISENHART-JONES
82
TELLER FARM
TELLER FARM
Agricultural Field
(with field number)
Grass/Alfafa Hay
AWEIDA I
AWEIDA I
WILLIAMSON /
WILLIAMSON /
MOORE / HOLMES
HUNTER-KOLBMOORE / HOLMES
HUNTER-KOLB
Grazed Field
WOODLEY
WOODLEY
KOLB
KOLB
BROTHERS
BROTHERS
Meets Soil and
Water Criteria
Agricultural FieldHabitatTrail Not Managed
OSMP
ConservationBy OSMP
Ownership
AUTREY
AUTREY
Area (HCA)
OSMP ConservationBVCP Conceptual
OSMP
/
/
/
EasementTrail Alignment
Conservation
Natural Area
Easement
BVCP Proposed
Agricultural Area
To Be
Trail
Stream
Determined
Stream
A
A
0250500
0250500
Trail Managed
05001,000
05001,000
Feet
Feet
By OSMP
Feet
Feet
Natural ResourcesRecommendations
129
22 ac.
91
18 ac.
82
17 ac.
Agricultural Field
(with field number)
OSMP
Ownership
OSMP
Conservation
Prairie Dog
Easement
Agricultural Field
Active Colonies (2014)
Stream
Leopard Frog Habitat Blocks
Prairie Dog
Conservation Area
Rare and state-tracked plant communities are
Ditch
found on this property but do not intersect
Prairie Dog
agricultural fields that meet soil and water criteria
Ditch Lateral
Transition Area
Locations are not shown due to their sensitivity.
44
0250500
05001,000Stream0250500
05001,000
FeetFeet
FeetFeet
User: hodgt1 Date: 5/18/2015 Document Path: E:\MapFiles\Agriculture\AgPlan\Maps\OSBT_June2015\IsenhartJones.mxd
Straty-Cline
Infrastructure
No infrastructure is present on the property.
Water
An adequate amount of irrigated water (from the North Boulder Farmers Ditch, from
May 9 to September 28, approximately 142 days.
Soils
On the Fell property, 13.6 acres are suitable for diversified vegetable production. A portion of Field 408 is comprised of
a mixture of Loveland soils, Capability Class III and Calkins sandy loam with 1-3 % slopes, Capability Class II.
Natural Area
No
Prairie Dog Removal Area
designation
Subset is Occupied
TBD
No
No
Clean up property
Cost Estimate: $5,000
o
Construct a small (1/10 acre-foot) irrigation pond near the vegetable cropping area to facilitate the delivery of
irrigation water to the planting beds
Cost Estimate: $5,000
o
Construct a fence to separate the cropping area of a diversified vegetable farming operation from the rest of the
property which may be hayed/ grazed
Cost Estimate: $20,000
o
Cultural Resource Survey
Total Cost Estimate: $30,000
Recommendation
TBD
45
City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks
Straty-Cline
Agricultural Plan
Current Agricultural UseManagement Area
Designations
McKENZIE
McKENZIE
JAMES
JAMES
ANDRUS
ANDRUS
E
E
COLORADO
COLORADO
PADDOCK
PADDOCK
OPEN LAND II
OPEN LAND II
SH
S
AND
AND
-
-
SHORT AND
SHORT AND
408
STRATY / CLINE
STRATY / CLINE
MILNE
MILNE
COLORADO
COLORADO
SUNRISE CENTER II
SUNRISE CENTER II
OPEN LAND III
OPEN LAND III
EAST
EAST
- Sec. 22, SW-N
- Sec. 22, SW-N
Agricultural Field
VALMONT
VALMONT
(with field number)
BUTTE
BUTTE
VALMONT
VALMONT
COLORADO
COLORADO
INDUSTRIAL
Grass Hay
INDUSTRIAL
OPEN LAND III
OPEN LAND III
PARK
PARK
Grazed Field
COLORADO OPEN LAND
COLORADO OPEN LAND
COLORADO OPEN
COLORADO OPEN
III
III
Meets Soil and
LAND II
LAND II
Water Criteria
OSMP
Agricultural FieldBVCP Conceptual
Natural Area
/
/
/
Ownership
(with field number)Trail Alignment
OSMP
Trail Managed By OSMP
OSMPBVCP Proposed
Conservation
ConservationTrail
EasementTrail Not Managed
Easement
By OSMP
Railroads
Habitat
Stream
COLORADO
COLORADO
Conservation
OPEN LAND II
OPEN LAND II
01,0002,000
01,0002,000
0250500
0250500
Stream
Area (HCA)
- Sec. 28
- Sec. 28
Feet
Feet
Feet
Feet
Natural ResourcesRecommendations
TELLER LAKE (1-3)TELLER LAKE (1-3)
Independence Rd.
408
50 ac.
Agricultural Field
(with field number)
OSMP
Ownership
OSMP
Conservation
Easement
Stream
Intermittent
Stream
Multiple ObjectivePrairie Dog
Agricultural Field
Ditch
AreaRemoval Area
Leopard Frog
Prairie Dog
Ditch Lateral
Railroads
Habitat Blocks
Transition Area
46
0250500
0250500
Prairie Dog
Stream
01,0002,000
01,0002,000
Feet
Feet
Active Colonies (2014)
Feet
Feet
User: hodgt1 Date: 5/15/2015 Document Path: E:\MapFiles\Agriculture\AgPlan\Maps\OSBT_June2015\Straty_Cline.mxd
Appenǣ
Capability Class I
: soils have slight limitations that restrict their use.
NnA: Nunn Sand clay loam, 0-1 percent slopes
AcA: Ascalon sandy loam, 0-1 percent slopes
Capability Class II
: soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or require
moderate conservation practices.
14
NuA: Nunn clay loam, 0-1 percent slopes (shallow, droughty, or stony
)
NnB: Nunn sandy clay loam, 1-3 percent slopes (erosion)
NuB: Nunn clay loam, 1-3 percent slopes (shallow, droughty, or stony)
WIA: Weld loam, 0-1 percent slopes (shallow, droughty, or stony)
WeB: Weld fine sandy loam, 1-3 percent slopes (erosion)
AcB: Ascalon sandy loam, 1-3 percent slopes (erosion)
AoB: Ascalon-Otero complex, 0-3 percent slopes (erosion)
WIB: Weld loam, 1-3 percent slopes (erosion)
CsB: Colby silty clay loam, 0-3 percent slopes (excess water)
Mm: McClave clay loam, 0-1 percent slopes (excess water)
NuC: Nunn clay loam, 3-5 percent slopes (erosion)
CaA: Calkins sandy loam, 0-1 percent slopes (excess water)
CaB: Calkins sandy loam, 1-3 percent slopes (excess water)
CoB: Colby silty clay loam, 1-3 percent slopes (erosion)
Nv: Nunn-Kim complex, 0-3 percent slopes (erosion)
WoB: Weld-Colby complex, 0-3 percent slopes (erosion)
Me: Manvel loam, 1-3 percent slopes (erosion)
HeB: Heldt Clay, 0-3 percent slopes (erosion)
Capability Class III
: soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or require
special conservation practices or both.
MdA: Manter sandy loam, 0-1 percent slopes (erosion)
MdB: Mater sandy loam, 1-3 percent slopes (erosion)
WdB: Weld loamy sand, 1-4 percent slopes (erosion)
AcC: Ascalon sandy loam, 3-5 percent slopes (erosion)
AoC: Ascalon-Otero complex, 3-5 percent slopes (erosion)
VaB: Valmont clay loam, 1-3 percent slopes (erosion)
HaB: Hargreave fine sandy loam, 1-3 percent slopes (erosion)
Lv: Loveland soils, 01- percent slopes (excess water)
MdD: Manter sandy loam, 3-9 percent slopes (erosion)
VaC: Valmont lcay loam, 3-5 percent slopes (erosion)
Capability Class IV:
soils have very severe limitations that restrict the choice of plants or require
very careful management or both.
AcD: Ascalon sandy loam, 5-9 percent slopes (erosion)
14
Limitations listed in parenthesis
47
AoD: Ascalon-Otero complex, 5-9 percent slopes (erosion)
WoC: Weld-Colby complex, 3-5 percent slopes (erosion)
GaB: Gaynor silty clay loam, 1-3 percent slopes (shallow, droughty, or stony)
KuD: Kutch clay loam, 3-9 percent slopes (erosion)
RnB: Renohill silty clay loam, 1-3 percent slopes (shallow, droughty, or stony)
RnD: Renohill silty clay loam, 3-9 percent slopes (erosion)
GaD: Gaynor silty clay loam, 1-3 percent slopes (erosion)
Capability Class V:
soils have little or no hazard of erosion but have other limitations, impractical to
remove, that limit their use mainly to pasture, range, forestland, or wildlife food and cover.
VcC: Valmont cobbly clay loam, 1-5 percent slopes (shallow, droughty, or stony)
Capability Class VI: soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuited to cultivation
and that limit their use mainly to pasture, range, forestland, or wildlife food and cover.
ReD: Renohill loam, 3-9 percent slopes (erosion)
Class VII:
soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuited to cultivation
and that restrict their use mainly to grazing, forestland, or wildlife.
Te: Terrace Escarpments, (shallow, steep, stony, erosion)
Class VIII:soils and miscellaneous areas have limitations that preclude their use for
commercial plant production and limit their use to recreation, wildlife, or water supply or
for esthetic purposes.
48
Appendixǣ
Agricultural Area Goals:
Maintain the efficiency of agricultural production and operation.
Manage agricultural production and operation to ensure safety for operators and visitors in the
vicinity.
Provide, where appropriate, public access and passive recreational opportunities that have
minimal impacts on agricultural production and operation or other resources.
Manage visitor access in areas of intensive agricultural production or operation to ensure visitor
safety.
Eliminate undesignated trails when they are redundant or damaging to resources.
Passive Recreation Area Goals:
Provide a high level of public access to destinations and connection through designated trails.
Maintain or improve passive recreational and educational opportunities, while protecting and
preserving natural lands and resources.
Accommodate high levels of visitor use with appropriate management, trails and trailheads, and
services.
Reduce conflicts among visitor activities.
Minimize the number of undesignated or “social trails,” eliminate undesignated trails when they
are duplicative or damaging to resources.
Natural Areas Goals:
Accommodate low-impact visitor activities where adequate trails exist or can be built, and
resource impacts can be minimized.
Provide opportunities for passive recreational and educational activities that require
topographic relief or a natural setting.
Protect the quality of natural and agricultural resources (especially where high value resources
exist).
Eliminate undesignated trails when they are redundant or damaging to resources.
Habitat Conservation Areas (HCA) Goals:
Maintain, enhance, and/or restore naturally functioning ecological systems.
Maintain, enhance, and restore habitat for species of concern identified in the Boulder County
and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plans.
Provide public access and passive recreational opportunities that foster appreciation and
understanding of ecological systems and have minimal impacts on native plant communities and
wildlife habitats or other resources.
Eliminate all undesignated trails, unless they are made part of the designated trails system or
provide specialized access to appropriate low-use destinations.
Where sustainable infrastructure exists, continue to allow public access to appropriate
destinations.
49
Cǣ
Grassland Preserves
Grassland Preserves are areas where prairie dogs and their associated species are part of large and
ecologically diverse grassland habitat blocks. These areas are considered the best opportunity to
conserve prairie dogs and their associated species. In most cases, prairie dogs will be allowed to persist
without removal in Grassland Preserves. However, removal will be allowed for the purposes of
maintaining existing irrigation facilities such as headgates, ditches, lateral ditches, reservoirs and
irrigated fields. In addition, to ensure protection of habitat within Grassland Preserves, the need for
limited removal from a Grassland Preserve will be assessed if prairie dogs occupy more than 26% of the
Grassland Preserve (i.e. viability drops below “Good”) and indicators of vegetation composition fall
below thresholds identified in the Grassland Plan. Inactive, previously occupied colonies within
Grassland Preserves could serve as relocation receiving sites (where there is an existing burrow
infrastructure) and if the area meets relocation criteria (identified in the Grassland Plan). However,
prairie dogs will not be relocated into irrigated fields nested within Grassland Preserves. Following a die-
off or other disappearance of prairie dogs from an area, they could be excluded to allow for habitat
restoration or to protect existing habitat restoration projects.
Multiple Objective Areas
In Multiple Objective Areas, preservation of prairie dogs and their associated community is one of
several management objectives. Prairie dogs will be allowed to persist without removal except for the
purpose of maintaining existing irrigation facilities such as headgates, ditches, lateral ditches, reservoirs
or irrigated fields. Multiple Objective Areas will not be used as receiving sites for relocated prairie dogs.
Exclusion of prairie dogs attempting to re-colonize a Multiple Objective Area could occur to allow
habitat recovery.
Prairie Dog Conservation Areas
Prairie Dog Conservation Areas are areas where the conservation of the prairie dog is the primary
management objective and are managed opportunistically for associated species. These areas would
serve as receiving sites for relocation with the requirements described in the Grassland Plan. No
removal of prairie dogs would occur in Prairie Dog Conservation Areas except for the purpose of
maintaining an existing irrigation facility such as a headgate, ditch, lateral ditch, reservoir or irrigated
field. Prairie dogs will not be relocated into irrigated agricultural fields within Prairie Dog Conservation
Areas.
Transition Areas
Transition Areas are grassland areas where the preservation of resources other than the prairie dog and
associated community takes precedence. Prairie dogs may inhabit transition areas, but will be relocated
away from the property when feasible (i.e. relocation receiving site is available). Following relocation,
die-off or other natural events such as dispersal that leads to a reduction of the population and result in
uninhabited areas, re-colonization could be prevented or discouraged using barriers, re-seeding,
grading, burrow destruction, passive relocation or other methods available to the department. After
efforts are made to trap and relocate all remaining prairie dogs, removal through lethal control will be
50
allowed in accordance with applicable regulations and policies, and if numbers do not exceed 20
individuals. Removal would be allowed at any time for maintenance of existing irrigation facilities such
as a headgate, ditch, lateral ditch, reservoir or irrigated field. Continued irrigation will also be allowed in
irrigated fields regardless of prairie dog occupancy.
Removal Areas
In removal areas, prairie dogs are incompatible with OSMP management objectives. The designation of
a property as a Removal Area provides the option to remove prairie dogs from the property in
accordance with applicable regulations and policies. Following removal, efforts would occur to prevent
re-colonization including restoration or irrigation of the property, destruction of burrow system,
exclusion structures, etc. Continued irrigation will be allowed in irrigated fields regardless of prairie dog
occupancy.
51
An Alternative Agriculture Policy will provide direction on the types of agriculturally related
activities/enterprises permitted on city open space. Examples of alternative agriculture are
agritainment (corn mazes, petting zoos, etc.), farm stands, community gardens and farm dinners or
events. A more complete list along with more detailed descriptions is provided below in the
Definitions section.
Alternative agriculture can provide opportunities for agricultural producers to diversify their income and
market their products. Providing farmers and/or ranchers with these opportunities may increase the
success of local food producers and contribute to an increase in local food and/or vegetable production,
consistent with Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan policies. These activities also provide opportunities
for members of the public to connect with the land and agricultural heritage of the Boulder Valley.
These types of agriculturally related enterprises have also been increasing in popularity nationwide thus
increasing the relevance of these activities to OSMP lands and the departmental need to assess their
suitability. However, the umbrella term of alternative agriculture covers a wide range of
activities/enterprises with substantial differences among them. This analysis will evaluate each type of
alternative agriculture activity/enterprise to determine its suitability on OSMP lands.
Defin
ȋǡȌ
Agritainment refers to a variety of commercial enterprises that provide an opportunity for
entertainment or recreation in an agricultural setting. The most common agritainment activities
include pumpkin patches, corn mazes, u-pick enterprises, petting zoos and hay rides. These
activities are often provided together, or in groups, as the combination of
activities/entertainment options tends to attract more customers.
Farm events are defined by the Boulder County Land Use (BCLU) Code as a group between 26
and 99 people participating in an event where the farm is used as a venue. This includes farm to
table dinners, weddings, wedding receptions, and any other gathering where eating and
socializing occur and where the majority of the food served at the event is made with
ingredients grown or raised locally often by the host farmer(s).
52
Ȁ
Farm stands are places where agricultural and horticultural products are sold. Farm ƐƚĂŶĚƐ are
defined by the BCLU Code as operating 42 days or less annually. Farm ƐƚŽƌĞƐ are defined as
operating more than 42 days annually. The BCLU Code requires that agricultural and
horticultural products must comprise at least 90% of annual sales.
A demonstration farm is a farm used primarily to demonstrate, teach, or evaluate various
farming, ranching and agricultural techniques. Many demonstration farms not only have crops,
but may also have various types of livestock. Participants often sign up for a series of classes or
workshops. These farms may also offer programs to the general public to increase public
awareness of food production and preparation practices. Demonstration farms are typically
owned and operated by educational institutions or public agencies and the educational benefits
are of greater focus than profits from agricultural production.
A farm camp (overnight camps not included) is similar to a demonstration farm however it is
generally geared toward non-industry related participants such as youth or the general public.
While providing an educational experience, the camps can also be for-profit ventures. Farm
camps generally do not evaluate various techniques but instead focus on teaching or sharing
basic farming practices.
ȋǡȌ
Food forests are similar to orchards, but modified in accordance with permaculture principles.
Permaculture is a systems approach where agricultural systems are modeled from natural
ecosystems. Food forests are primarily composed of perennial food-producing plants, including
fruit and nut trees, vines and shrubs and perennial and annual vegetables, and are arranged in a
way that functionally and structurally mimics woodland ecosystems. The diversity has been
shown to improve resiliency and reduce maintenance when compared to traditional orchards.
Food forests are open to the public and are seen as a way to transform unused lots or more
typical ornamental-focused parks into food-producing areas that promote land stewardship and
create ties between community members and food production.
Community Gardens are composed of land divided into individual or shared plots for people to
grow vegetables, fruits, nuts, grains and ornamental plants. Community Gardens are seen as a
way to transform unused lots or more typical ornamental-focused parks into food-producing
areas that promote land stewardship and create ties between community members and food
production. Community gardens allow community members to play a direct role in growing
food locally. Land for these gardens may be public or private and is often located near schools,
hospitals, neighborhoods, or parks.
53
Section 176 of the City Charter lists the purposes of open space which includesPreservation of
agricultural uses and land suitab For the past 40 years, OSMP policy has
been to limit the activities allowed under an agricultural lease to agricultural production and those
activities necessary to support the operation.
open space lands. Agritainment, or its most common activities, were not listed among the passive
recreational activities.
In 2005 City Council approved the OSMP Visitor Master Plan (VMP). The VMP introduced a
management zoning system for all OSMP lands. Among the four zoning designations was the
Agricultural Area designation. The goals for lands designated as Agricultural Areas are:
Maintain the efficiency of agricultural production and operation.
Manage agricultural production and operation to ensure safety for operators and visitors in the
vicinity.
Provide, where appropriate, public access and passive recreational opportunities that have
minimal impacts on agricultural production and operation or other resources.
Manage visitor access in areas of intensive agricultural production or operation to ensure visitor
safety.
Eliminate undesignated trails when they are redundant or damaging to resources.
Passive recreation and the necessary infrastructure, i.e. trails, are permitted in all OSMP Management
Area designations, including Agricultural Areas.
In order to evaluate the various alternative agricultural activities and determine their suitability on
OSMP lands staff applied a slightly modified version of the Passive Recreation Activity Assessment
(Activity Assessment), as all of the activities with the exception of the farm stand/store are activities
with a recreational/entertainment component. The criteria identified in the Activity Assessment have
been used to evaluate potential activities since the adoption of the Visitor Master Plan in 2005,
providing staff and the community with a consistent method of evaluation and starting point for the
discussion on whether and how new activities should be considered passive recreation. The alternative
agricultural activities were assessed with criteria in four categories:
54
Category Criterion
Dependence on an agricultural setting and/or OSMP
lands
Relationship to setting
Ability to increase peoples appreciation of agriculture
or understanding of Open Space purposes.
Compatibility with resource protection Compatibility with the preservation of agricultural
resources
Compatibility with existing facilities and Compatibility with a low level of existing facilities and
services services (e.g. parking, minimal maintenance,
enforcement, monitoring, etc.)
Compatibility with providing a safe recreational
experience
Compatibility with other activities Compatibility with other recreational activities and
For each criterion, the activity was identified as ha.
For criteria with considerations, staff identified potential mitigating strategies to determine if the
activity could be made more compatible.
A distinction was made between activities that OSMP may provide and those that an agricultural
producer or lessee may provide. Agritainment, farm events, farm stands/stores, and farm camps are
activities that an agricultural producer or potential lessee may be interested in providing, as they could
increase the profitability of their agricultural operation. When evaluating the activities that an
agricultural lessee could provide, staff determined that in order to remain consistent with the charter
purposes, agricultural production would need to remain the primary use of the property and these other
activities would need to be accessory uses. Staff interprets the City Charters re
as agricultural production and those activities directly supporting an agricultural operation. Staff
believes maintaining agricultural production as the primary use on agricultural lands is aligned with the
intent of the Charter, and that if other more recreation-oriented activities became the dominant use of
agricultural land it would not be consistent with the intent of the charter. Therefore the activity
assessments for agritainment, farm events, farm stores and farm camps are limited to evaluating those
uses as accessory, occurring only on farms where agricultural production is the primary purpose.
55
Agritainment
Dependence on an agricultural setting and/or OSMP lands
Considerations:
Agritainment depends upon an agricultural setting.
OSMP lands are not the only agricultural lands in Boulder County.
There are currently opportunities in Boulder County to participate in agritainment activities on
private agricultural property.
Considerations:
Agritainment may increase visits to open space; these visits may lead to an increased awareness
of agricultural open space lands. However, these activities are generally not designed to be
educational, they may or may not aid in a visitors understanding of agricultural production or
the agricultural importance of open space lands. The educational benefit may be limited to
answering basic questions a small child may have about farming.
U-pick operations may be different in nature from the other activities as visitors engage in an
aspect, harvesting, of agricultural production which could foster an appreciation or
understanding of the growing and harvesting of food/commodities and the types of food grown
locally.
Compatibility with the preservation of agricultural and other resources
Considerations:
With the exception of u-pick operations, agritainment is not directly related to an aspect of
agricultural production - the growing, harvesting, or selling of agricultural products; it is not an
extension of an activity directly related to agricultural production.
Agritainment would require land, which could not simultaneously be used for agricultural
production (e.g. corn or hay maze).
hͲƉŝĐŬŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐǁŽƵůĚŶŽƚƚĂŬĞůĂŶĚŽƵƚŽĨĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĂůƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶ͖ŽŶƚŚĞĐŽŶƚƌĂƌLJŝƚŝƐ
R
ƌĞůŝĂŶƚƵƉŽŶůĂŶĚƐƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶŐŝŶĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĂůƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶ͘
Depending on the activities offered and number of customers, agritainment could interfere with
the efficiency of farming operations.
Mitigation Tools:
Agritainment could be allowed only in areas unsuitable for agricultural production, in pasture
areas, and/or in farmstead areas. However, limiting agritainment to farmstead areas might
create more interference with the efficiency of farming operations.
Compatibility with a low level of existing facilities and services (e.g. parking, minimal maintenance,
enforcement, monitoring, etc.)
Considerations:
Agricultural operations require a higher level of facilities/infrastructure than passive recreational
activities. Agritainment does not require a higher level of facilities than agricultural operations,
but requires a higher level of facilities than other passive recreational activities permitted on
OSMP lands.
Agritainment requires a parking area.
Unlike the other types of recreational activities on OSMP lands which are free, agricultural
56
operators would likely charge a fee. While commercial operators often charge a fee,
participants and other OSMP visitors also have an opportunity to engage in the activity for free
on OSMP lands without the services provided by the commercial outfitter.
tŚŝůĞƵͲƉŝĐŬŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐǁŽƵůĚĐŚĂƌŐĞĂĨĞĞ͕ŝƚǁŽƵůĚďĞŝŶĞdžĐŚĂŶŐĞĨŽƌŐŽŽĚƐͬƉƌŽĚƵĐĞ͘
R
Mitigation Tools:
Prohibit lessees from charging admission fees. However, diversifying income is the main
incentive/purpose for the lessee.
Compatibility with providing a safe recreational experience
Considerations:
If the activities are allowed in farmstead areas participants would be in an area with farmers
operating equipment some of which is motorized and/or mechanical. The concentration of
these two uses in a single area may not be safe for participants.
Mitigation Tools:
Limit the hours of operation to times when activities related to agricultural production are not
occurring. (e.g. weekends or evenings)
Considerations:
While OSMP farms are open to the public they are not currently popular destinations for OSMP
visitors. The lack of visitor activity leads to the conclusion that there would not be a high level
of visitor conflicts with participants in other activities. However, the concentrated nature of
these activities would make it difficult for visitors to enjoy/engage in other activities.
sŝƐŝƚŽƌƐĐŽƵůĚƐƚŝůůǁĂůŬƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƵͲƉŝĐŬĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĂůŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂƐŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐĂƌĞŶŽƚ
R
ĐůŽƐĞĚƚŽƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐ͕ƚŚĞLJǁŽƵůĚŽŶůLJďĞƵŶĂďůĞƚŽƚĂŬĞĨŽŽĚͬŐŽŽĚƐǁŚŝĐŚŝƐĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚ
ǁŝƚŚĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘
U-pick operations are more compatible with agricultural production as this activity relies on land
remaining in agricultural production. U-pick operations also do not require specialized infrastructure,
and while they charge a fee it is in exchange for agricultural products. Any operations would be
required to comply with the applicable sections of the Boulder County Land Use code which provides
guidelines for parking requirements. All operations would also require the approval of OSMP staff.
Due to compatibility issues with agricultural production, i.e. land being removed from agricultural
production and interference with the efficiency of farming operations and the high level of visitor
facilities and services required, staff recommends that of the activities in the category Agritainment,
only u-pick operations be allowed on OSMP lands, and only as an accessory use.
57
Dependence on an agricultural setting and/or OSMP lands
Considerations:
Farm events are by definition dependent upon occurring on a farm.
Most agricultural producers/lessees wanting to host an event do not own an alternative venue.
However, some OSMP lessees operate farms on other lands they own, which could serve as
alternative locales to OSMP lands.
There are currently opportunities in Boulder County to participate in farm events on privately
owned farms.
Considerations:
Farm events may increase visits to open space. Depending on the type of event, they may or
may not aid in a visitors understanding of agricultural production or the agricultural importance
of open space lands.
Events such as celebrations, corporate dinners and weddings may not offer a suitable
R
platform for the farmers to market their products and/or CSA membership, nor for
participants to engage with the farmer. Typically at celebrations/corporate dinners the
main focus of the event is not the food/farm itself.
Events such as farm-to-table dinners are more likely to provide a better platform for
R
farmers to share with participants inform
and products, market their CSA, and more directly engage with participants. At farm
dinners the main focus of the event is the food/farm itself.
Mitigating Tools:
Create a distinction between the various types of farm events, farm-to-table dinners hosted by
the farmer, versus other events where the farm is mostly used as venue.
Compatibility with the preservation of agricultural and other resources
Considerations:
Farm events are not directly related to an aspect of agricultural production the growing,
harvesting, or selling of agricultural products; they are not an extension of an activity directly
related to agricultural production.
Farm-to-table dinners, hosted by the farmer are directly related to the selling of agricultural
production; they are an extension of an activity directly related to agricultural production.
Farm events depending on the size and frequency could interfere with the efficiency of
agricultural production.
Mitigating Tools:
Confine farm events to farmstead areas.
Limit the number of annual occurrences to avoid disruption of efficient agricultural operations.
Compatibility with a low level existing facilities and services (e.g. parking, minimal maintenance,
enforcement, monitoring, etc.)
Considerations:
Farm events would require parking and an event space.
58
The event space could be in an existing permanent structure such as a barn or farm
R
residence or could be a temporary structure such as a tent.
The level of facilities and services increases with the size of the event.
Farm events would require some level of oversight by OSMP staff.
While farm events charge a fee, it is not for access but in exchange for a meal with products
grown on-site.
Mitigating Tools:
Require lessee to provide all temporary facilities (e.g. tents).
Limit the size of the events to reduce the level of facilities and services needed.
Limit parking to the farmstead area or area approved by OSMP staff
Compatibility with providing a safe recreational experience
Considerations
If the activities are allowed in farmstead areas, participants would be in an area with farmers
operating equipment some of which is motorized and/or mechanical. The concentration of
these two uses in a single area may not be safe for participants.
Mitigating Tools:
Evenings and weekends, the times farm events and dinners are likely to occur, are not common
hours of operation for farming.
Considerations:
While OSMP farms are open to the public, they are not currently popular destinations for OSMP
visitors. The lack of visitor activity leads to the conclusion that there would not be a high level
of visitor conflict with participants in other activities.
Visitors could still walk through the farm as operations are not closed to the public, they
R
would only be unable to participate in the dinner/taking food without paying which is
consistent with current regulations.
Due to compatibility issues with agricultural operations and the potential high levels of visitor facilities
and services, staff is recommending allowing farm-to-table dinners, but no other farm events. Staff
recommends that farm-to-table dinners be permitted with conditions since they offer educational
benefits to the community and direct marketing opportunities for lessees.
Farm to Table Event Conditions:
Only permitted on properties with farmstead infrastructure appropriate for accommodating this
R
use.
All activities will be confined to within the farmstead area.
R
1
OSMP leasees would be limited to two farm-to-table dinners annually.
R
Dinners would be limited to 50 persons.
R
1
Agricultural Properties in Boulder County are permitted per the Boulder County Land Use Code, as a use-by-right,
six farm events annually, and possibly 7-12 with additional review. A venue hosting 12 or more events is
considered a Reception Hall or Community Facilities Meeting Use.
59
Dinners with fewer than 26 people, and not considered events per the Boulder County Land Use
R
Code, would still require compliance with these conditions as long as a fee is exchanged for
goods.
Rent must be up to date.
R
All outstanding management issues (identified by OSMP staff) must be addressed.
R
All events must be approved by OSMP staff.
R
Events with 1-26 participants require OSMP staff approval and count toward the maximum (=2).
R
60
Ȁ
Dependence on an agricultural setting and/or OSMP lands
Considerations:
Farm stands/stores do not require an agricultural setting (e.g. farmers market).
Most agricultural producers have alternative venues to sell their products such as CSAs and
Considerations:
Farm stands/stores may increase visits to open space. Their presence could aid in a visitors, or
persons passing by, understanding of agricultural production on OSMP lands and the locally
grown products available.
Farm stands/stores may connect people, who live near or frequently pass by the farms, to the
agricultural production occurring in their surrounding community.
Compatibility with the preservation of agricultural and other resources
Considerations:
Farm stands/stores are directly related to an aspect of agricultural production, i.e. selling; it is an
extension of an activity directly related to and supporting agricultural production.
Farm stands/stores provide farmers additional venues and opportunities to directly sell their
products to consumers.
Compatibility with a low level existing facilities and services (e.g. parking, minimal maintenance,
enforcement, monitoring, etc.)
Considerations:
Farm stands/ stores would require a structure. The stand or store could be in an existing
permanent structure such as a barn or other outbuilding existing on the farm or could be in a
temporary structure such as a tent.
The level of facilities and services increases with the size and frequency that the store is
operated.
Farm stands/stores would require some level of oversight by OSMP staff. The most staff time is
anticipated during the initial Boulder County Land Use review/approval process and site set up.
Mitigating Tools:
Require lessee to provide all temporary facilities (e.g., tents).
Compatibility with providing a safe recreational experience
No Considerations
No Considerations
Staff is recommending permitting farm stands/stores on locations approved by staff and in compliance
with the BCLU Code. Farm stands/stores are both compatible with agricultural production and may
directly help connect the products to local consumers.
61
Dependence on an agricultural setting and/or OSMP lands
Considerations:
Demonstration farms and farm camps require an agricultural setting.
Boulder County Parks and Open Space staff runs a demonstration farm.
Farm Camps, catering to youth, are offered on private farms in Boulder County.
ing of Open Space purposes
Considerations:
Demonstration farms and farm camps would aid in a participants knowledge of agricultural
production on OSMP lands, as the purpose is to share, teach, or evaluate farming practices or
techniques.
Compatibility with the preservation of agricultural and other resources
Considerations:
Demonstration farms are directly related to an aspect of agricultural production i.e. evaluating
farming practices or techniques and teaching those techniques to farmers.
Farm camps are not directly related. Farm camps generally do not evaluate various
R
techniques but instead focus on teaching or sharing basic farming practices to non-
industry or youth participants.
Providing farmers and/or interested people the opportunity to learn about farming techniques
can contribute to the long-term sustainability of agriculture in the Boulder Valley, the success of
local farms and engage the next generation of farmers or local food enthusiasts.
Demonstration farms and farm camps would need suitable land and all the accompanying
structures and infrastructure. It is unlikely a traditional agricultural operation could
simultaneously operate as a demonstration farm or farm camp (using the same facilities/
outbuildings). The activities related to a camp or demonstration farm may interfere with the
efficiency of agricultural operations and production.
Mitigating Tools:
In order to keep land leased to agricultural operators in agricultural production, demonstration
farms and farm camps on OSMP lands could be limited to those administered by the
department and/or a department/educational institution partnership.
Compatibility with a low level of existing facilities and services (e.g. parking, minimal maintenance,
enforcement, monitoring, etc.)
Considerations:
Demonstration farms and farm camps would require parking.
Demonstration farms and farm camps would require the typical farmstead/agricultural
structures.
Demonstration farms and farm camps, if administered by the department, would require a
substantial amount of staff time. However, outreach and education is an established and
important OSMP service provided to the community.
Compatibility with providing a safe recreational experience
No Considerations
62
Compatibility with other acti
No Considerations
While OSMP farms are open to the public, they are not currently popular destinations for OSMP
visitors. The lack of visitor activity leads to the conclusion that there would not be a high level
of visitor conflict with participants in other activities.
Visitors could still walk through the farm as operations are not closed to the public; they would be
unable to participate in the demonstration/camp without paying or registering which is consistent with
current regulations.
Due to demonstration camps and farm camps compatibility with agricultural production, interference
with daily agricultural operations, staff is recommending these activities continue to not be permitted
on OSMP leased agricultural lands. However, due to the educational benefits, support to the farming
community and potential benefits to agricultural production, staff recommends that demonstration
farms be permitted on OSMP lands/farmsteads operated by OSMP staff or in partnership with OSMP.
63
Dependence on an agricultural setting/OSMP lands
Considerations:
Community gardens do not depend upon an agricultural setting. The preferred locations for
community gardens are locations in close proximity or adjacent to high/medium density
residential areas. Participants are often seeking a convenient and proximal location to their
residence.
There are currently opportunities in the City of Boulder and Boulder County to participate in
community gardening.
Ability
Considerations:
Community gardens may increase visits to open space. These visits may lead to an increased
awareness of open space lands and knowledge about gardening/growing food. However, it
would not aid in a visitors understanding of agricultural production or the agricultural
importance of open space lands.
Compatibility with the preservation of agricultural and other resources
Considerations:
Community gardens would require land to be taken out of traditional agricultural production.
Although the land used for community gardens might still be considered to be in
R
agricultural production, as successful participants would harvest food, it is up to the
particio decide what to plant and not all participants will be successful
in producing food.
The land will be removed from cultivation by an experienced/proven farmer and instead
R
be cultivated by interested people with varying levels of skills, interests and time.
The properties suitable for community gardens are limited by soil and water requirements and
are the same as those suitable to be leased for diversified vegetable farming. Prime farmland
which meets the soil and water requirements is uncommon on OSMP lands.
Community gardens would remove prime farmland from traditional agricultural production.
Compatibility with a low level of existing facilities and services (e.g. parking, minimal maintenance,
enforcement, monitoring, etc.)
Considerations:
Community gardens would require a parking area and irrigation infrastructure.
Community gardens would require a very high level of visitor services.
in a relatively small area. In more traditional forms of
agricultural stewardship, a single lessee has responsibility for large areas. Establishing,
operating and maintaining a program would require substantial and additional staffing.
Mitigating Tools:
A site could be could be leased to a community group which could in turn, sublet garden plots
and address the operation and maintenance of the program.
Compatibility with providing a safe recreational experience
No Considerations
64
Considerations:
Community gardening would likely have no more impacts to other visitors than vegetable farms.
The properties could potentially remain open to non-participating members of the public.
Due to compatibility issues with agricultural production, i.e. taking prime farmland out of agricultural
production, the high level of visitor facilities and services community gardens would require and
preferable existing and potential locations on other lands, staff recommends that community gardens
not be permitted on OSMP lands.
65
Dependence on an agricultural setting and/or OSMP lands
Considerations:
Food forests do not depend upon an agricultural setting.
There are currently no food forests in the City of Boulder or Boulder County. An edible
educational demonstration garden is planned for City lands.
Considerations:
Food forests may increase visits to open space. These visits may lead to an increased awareness
of open space lands and knowledge about permaculture principles. However, such visits by
themselves would not aid in a visitors understanding of agricultural production or the
agricultural importance of open space lands.
Compatibility with the preservation of agricultural and other resources
Considerations:
Food forests would require either land to be taken out of traditional agricultural production or
the conversion of other open space land with suitable soils and water.
Although the land used for food forests might still be considered to be in agricultural
production, the primary purpose is not agricultural production but recreational in nature.
Converting a ŶŽŶ-agricultural property into a food forest would require the planting of a garden
of non-native plants on natural open space lands. One of the purposes of OSMP is the
preservation and restoration of natural ecosystems.
Visitors to the food forest are encouraged/allowed to pick and eat fruit which might require the
visitor to travel off trail. Extensive or repeated off-trail travel could lead to areas denude of
ground vegetation. Encouraging visitor to be off trail in some areas of OSMP would be contrary
to direction in the VMP encouraging on-trail visitation.
Mitigating Tools:
Create a trail system to serve the food forest. This would likely be a higher density of trails than
found on other OSMP properties as the trails would need to wind through the forest to be
effective in mitigating the ground disturbance created by visitors going to the base of the
various trees and shrubs.
Compatibility with a low level of existing facilities and services (e.g. parking, minimal maintenance,
enforcement, monitoring, etc.)
Considerations:
Food forests would require a garden/orchard of perennial food-producing trees and shrubs.
Typically the only visitor infrastructure provided for passive recreation activities are trails and
trailheads. Activities which require more infrastructure are not considered passive recreation.
Food forests, depending on the site, might require irrigation infrastructure.
A trail and/or access for visitors would be required.
Food forests would require pruning and ongoing maintenance, a higher level of ongoing
maintenance than the natural ecosystems comprising open space.
66
Mitigating Tools:
Only permit food forests in areas that have adequate groundwater conditions to support
perennial trees and shrubs without added irrigation infrastructure.
The land could be leased by a community group that would be responsible for maintenance,
similar to a structure often used by community gardens. However, leasing land to interested
community groups in order to provide their desired recreational visitor experience (even if
shared by OSMP) and maintaining the infrastructure is inconsistent with the departments past
practices and operational policies.
Compatibility with providing a safe recreational experience
No Considerations
Considerations:
Visitors would typically be either hiking, biking, or riding a horse through a food forest. Food
forests provide an alternative landscape/backdrop to the currently permitted passive
recreational opportunities.
Due to compatibility issues with the preservation of agricultural and natural resources and the high level
of visitor facilities and services, staff is recommending that food forests not be permitted on OSMP
lands.
67
The City Charter allows for structures and other improvements on Open Space lands for permitted uses,
as long as they are necessary for ŽƉĞŶĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĂůƵƐĞ. The types of agricultural structures permitted,
especially greenhouses and hoophouses, have come into question with more frequency as there has
been an increased desire to diversify the types of agricultural operations on OSMP lands to include more
diversified vegetable farming. In 2010 City Council directed staff to explore whether City Charter
provisions related to structures on Open Space should be amended to allow for infrastructure to
increase the length of the growing season.
This analysis is intended to provide clarity surrounding the agricultural structures permitted on city
Open Space, including answering the question of the appropriateness of greenhouses and hoophouses
on OMSP lands. This analysis also provides a framework for evaluating proposed new or replacement
agricultural structures.
Existin
The Boulder City Charter (Charter) 176 prohibits the improvement of open space land after it has
been acquired by the city unless the improvements are necessary to protect or maintain the land or to
provide for passive recreational, open agricultural, or wildlife habitat use of the land.
The City Council approved 1995 Open Space and Mountain Parks Long Range Management Policies
(LRMP) also address agricultural facilities through the following policies:
Facilities can be constructed on OSMP land if necessary to support approved activities as specified in
R
an Open Space management plan (and in accordance with the Charter 176).
Structures should be consistent with Open Space purposes, be compatible with natural processes,
R
functional, energy efficient and cost-effective.
Existing buildings will be considered before new construction is contemplated.
R
All facility costs including initial construction, refurbishment, or restoration, ongoing maintenance
R
and operational costs should be considered.
Facilities will be integrated into the Open Space environment so as to result in minimum impact.
R
Facilities will be designed and developed to avoid competing with or dominating Open Space
R
features.
68
Ȍ
ak
Greenhouses are used to extend the growing season
earlier in the spring and later in the fall.
They are permanent structures. The frames are
made of aluminum, galvanized steel, or wood.
Glazings are glass, rigid clear plastic, or
polyethylene. Greenhouses have heat, mechanical
ventilation, artificial light, and irrigation systems.
Greenhouses offer a controlled environment and
plants are not typically grown directly in the ground.
ȋȌ
Like greenhouses, hoop houses are used to extend
the growing season. They are typically tall enough
to allow walk-in access. The frame is PVC,
aluminum, or galvanized steel, with wood for hip
and baseboards. The frames are then covered in
plastic. Plants are typically grown directly in the
ground. Hoop houses lack the precision of an
environmentally-controlled greenhouse, as they rely
on passive heating and cooling.
While there is not a standard definition for open agriculture, OSMP staff interprets it to mean:
Agricultural production where the products are grown (or raised) in a manner in which they can
interact with the environment.
Staff considers hoophouses and the crops grown in them as open agriculture because the crops are
grown in the ground and while the covering moderates temperatures it is not a tightly controlled
environment. Using the same criteria, greenhouses do not meet the standard for open agriculture.
However, the issue becomes more complex if crops are only started in a greenhouse and then
transplanted to an open space field. opinion that crops started in a
greenhouse and then transplanted to Open Space could classify as open agriculture. In response, staff
has included both types of structures in the evaluation.
69
Under the most strict or narrow interpretation, neither hoophouses or greenhouses are ŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJ for an
open agricultural operation. There are multiple types of agricultural operations such as livestock, hay or
other perennial production that do not require hoophouses or greenhouses. Annual vegetable farms do
not ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞ hoophouses or greenhouses. The growing season is generally long enough in the Boulder
Valley to produce a limited selection of vegetables. However, structures to extend the growing season
are necessary for vegetable farms to be economically viable and competitive. The primary factors that
contribute to the viability are the longer season of production and the broader diversity of crops. The
value of these structures for agricultural production predates the current and increasing interest in local
foods as the Charter seems to anticipate the need for improvements to support agricultural operations.
In that regard and acknowledging ,
staff considers hoophouses and under certain limited circumstances greenhouses consistent with the
relevant sections of the Charter.
Alterna
Recognizing the necessity of hoophouses or greenhouses for successful vegetable farms, staff focused
next on selecting the most appropriate type of structure to meet the need. When choosing between
alternative structure types, staff looked to the guidance provided by the Open Space LRMP, and
determined that energy efficiency and cost effectiveness were the key criteria for comparing
alternatives. In regards to hoophouses and greenhouses there are significant differences in both energy
1
efficiency and cost effectiveness. Traditional greenhouses are notorious energy hogs, both for heating
and supplemental lighting, while passive solar and net zero greenhouses lack the production capacity of
2
traditional greenhouses and cost 13 times more per square foot to construct. The construction costs
and energy used per unit area are much higher for greenhouses. One study estimated glass-panel
greenhouse construction at over $30.00 per square foot. Given the suitability of hoophouses to extend
the growing season at much lower initial and ongoing costs including less energy, staff is recommending
hoophouses be permitted on OSMP lands with staff approval and greenhouses be prohibited on OSMP
lands.
The following flowchart illustrates the process for determining if a type of structure is appropriate for
OSMP lands.
ǡǤǡ ǡ
ǤǡǡǤǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǣʹͲͳʹ
ͳ
Ǥ͵Ͳ ʹͲͳͲǤ
ǣȀȀǤǤ ȀʹͲͳͲȀͲ͵Ȁ͵ͳȀȀ͵ͳǤǫαƬ̴αͲ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǣȀȀǦ
ʹ
ǤǤȀȀ Ȁ Ǥ
70
Not permitted
no
on OSMP lands
yes
Structure Alternatives?
yes no
Cost Effective? Staff Review:
Not permitted
no
Energy Efficient? Aesthetic Impact
on OSMP lands
Costs
Neighborhood Compatibility
Building Site
yes
Other Structures
Staff Review:
Aesthetic Impact
Permitted on
Costs
OSMP lands
Neighborhood Compatibility
Building Site
Other Structures
Permitted on
OSMP lands
71
The types of structures permitted on OSMP agricultural lands must be consistent with Open Space
purposes, necessary for open agriculture, and a cost effective and energy efficient way to meet the
agricultural need.
The following types of structures are permitted on OSMP lands
Barns
Corrals
Loafing sheds
Livestock shelter
Hoophouses
Outbuildings
Storage sheds
Irrigation water distribution structures
The following types of structures are not permitted on OSMP lands:
New residences (residences on Open Space are limited to those existing on the properties at the
time of acquisition)
Greenhouses
Replacement or new structures/facilities on agricultural properties may be allowed, but first require
OSMP staff approval and be allowed per the Boulder County Land Use Code. OSMP staff will consider
the following when making a determination on a case-by-case basis:
Structures/facilities shall not remove land from agricultural production.
Structures/facilities will be integrated into the Open Space environment so as to result in
minimum impact. Facilities will be designed and developed to avoid competing with or
dominating Open Space features.
All structure/facility costs including initial construction, refurbishment, or restoration, ongoing
maintenance and operational costs.
Neighborhood compatibility.
Proximity to building sites.
Number of and uses of existing structures.
72
AGENDA ITEM 5 PAGE 1
AGENDA ITEM 5 PAGE 2
AGENDA ITEM 5 PAGE 3
AGENDA ITEM 5 PAGE 4
AGENDA ITEM 5 PAGE 5
AGENDA ITEM 5 PAGE 6
Antelope Trailhead
µ
Date:5/18/2015
Hall Ranch
Picture Rock
North Trail Study Area
Bitterbrush
Subareas
Northern
Properties
Hygiene Rd.
Hygiene Rd.
Pella West
Foothills
Reservoir
North
(Private)
Pella East
Foothills
McCaslin
Lake
Boulder Valley
Ranch
St. Vrain Rd.
Trevarton
Reservoir
Wonderland
Davis
Lake
Reservoir
Clover Basin
Reservoir
Wapiti
Bohn
Lake
Nelson Rd.
Swede Lakes
Allens
Lagerman
Res.
Lagerman
Reservoir
Plateau Rd.
Lefthand
Reservoir
Oxford Rd.Oxford Rd.
Oxford Rd.
Nebo Rd.
Nimbus Rd.
Joder
Spurgeon
Reservoir
Reservoir
No. 1
Neva Rd.
Lefthand Valley Grange
Dodd Lake
Niwot Rd.
Lefthand Valley
Reservoir
Monarch Road
(Private)
Monarch Rd.
Loukonen
Niwot Loop
Reservoir
Coot
Lake
Longhorn Rd.
Anne U White
Heatherwood
Jay Rd.
Bald Mountain
Wally Toevs Pond
Cottonwood Marsh Pond
Fourmile Link
00.512
Valmont Rd.Valmont Rd.
Miles
Balsam Ave.
NORTH TRAIL STUDY AREA BASEMAP
Legion Park
Canyon Blvd.
Betasso
Arapahoe Rd.
OSMP TrailheadOSMP Hiking/Equestrian TrailNTSA Boundary
"
i
Bummer's Rock Trailhead
OSMP Access PointOSMP Multi-Use TrailNTSA Subarea
!
(
A
OSMP Recreational Feature AccessOSMP Gliding AccessOSMP Fee and Managed Property
!
(
R
Baseline Rd.
Baseline Rd.
Boulder County TrailheadNon-OSMP Managed Hiking TrailOSMP Easement or Jointly Owned,
Baseline Rd.
!i
County-Managed Land
Non-OSMP Managed Multi-Use Trail
User: csekj1 Date: 5/18/2015 Path: E:\MapFiles\TSA\NorthTSA\NorthTSA_Basemap.mxd
AGENDA ITEM 6 PAGE 1
AGENDA ITEM 6 PAGE 2
AGENDA ITEM 6 PAGE 3
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
AGENDA ITEM 6 PAGE 4
AGENDA ITEM 6 PAGE 5
AGENDA ITEM 6 PAGE 6
AGENDA ITEM 6 PAGE 9