Loading...
5A - Draft Greenways Master Plan of August 2001, Includes COLOR MAPSDRAFT GREENWAYS MASTER PLAN ~~ ~~ ~~ x tl~ ,, ~ t~ ~§ ; ~~~~ ~~~r~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ `~z;`~~ ~~~ t~ ~~~`~ ~w-v ? bb .•~` ~ . ~ ~ ~ } u m ~~ ~~~~~~ i~~ '1 „3 .~['~'P•~ ^` nzF~x ~~~ ~, ~~ ., ,~ ~ ;. ~~ ~~, ~ ~ ,~ ~Y ~ ~ ~~ :--4 ~,,~'~,r,~~~ ~~~~j ~ P~.~ ~ b ~ ~~~~ TO OBTAIN A COPY OF THE FINAL MASTER PLAN, PLEASE RETURN THIS DOCUMENT TO: ANNIE NOBLE CITY OF BOULDER 1739 BROADWAY, SECOND FLOOR BOULDER, CO. 80302 oR cnLL (303) 441-3242 AUGUST 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS I.Esecutive Summary ........ ........ ... . ........ ................ ... 1 1 A. Introduction . ... ..... ....... ....... ........ ..... . .... .1 ~ B. Purpose of Master Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ;t C. Scope of Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ~ D. Issues ........... ............ ..................... ..... .. .... .2 E. Projects & Opportunities, F~nr~,iBg,=X~gapll¢att~onal Structure and Maintenance 6 ~ F. Summary of other 11~~aster~lan Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ~~ ~~,~ II.BackgroundInfornuatian ..... ..... ........ . ................... ... .9 ~ A.Introduct~rtu....... . ................ .. ........... .. .... .....9 ~ B. History .. ..... ...... ....... ...... . ................. .. .... .9 C. Purpose and Objectives of the Program . . . . . . . . . ., ~ . . . . . ,~. . . . . . . . . . . 12 ~ Graenways Purpose Statement . . . . . . . . . .. . .. :. ... . .. . . .':~,., . . . . . .. 15 "/ D. Current Policies, Procedures and Practices thak Hi~tate ~rvice Levels .. .. 15 ~ ~reenwa~Capital ~prave~ent ~rogram De~ela~ment .... . ..16 ., ~ . ... . ......... ... ....... .... ...... .. .... T~e Con~~~+ a~d ~viranmental Assessme.nt P~ess (CEAP1 . ... 17 M1~Vetlan~s ~rm~ 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 : ~Modplain Devel~ment . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 "^ e~i n . . ......... ..... .... .. . ..... .......... .....21 ., ~.''OHStI'LLCtIOII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 ; Maietenance ..... . ..... ............ ...... .. ......... .... 22 ~ E. Summat~uf Past Funding . . . . . . . . . .~.,a . ... . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . 24 + F. Chronolo~ ~f~'rq~,ects and CategorizaHon Based On Paogram Goals ... ..... 26 ; Bonlde~e~kk P~aiect1985-198~ ............. .......... ...... .....26 - .... .. . Fourmile ~e~en Creek , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 ~ Wouderland`Cr~c~c.. ..,............... ..4 .............. .. .... 37 "' Goose Creek ................:..:... ............ ..... ... ... .37 - Elmer's Twomile Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 ; Skunk Creek ................. ...... . .. .. ........ ... .. 37 ~ Bear Canyon Creek ...... ..... ......... ................ .....38 ., South Boalder Creek ..... ..... . .. ..... ....... ... .... 38 ' G. Survey of Current Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 °~ . . ....... .. ... .. Environmental Resources . . . . . . . . . . 39 . : Wildlife Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 ~ Sensitive Species .. ................... .......... .......... .....40 ~ Corridor Landscapine and Wetlands Preservation and Restoration .... 40 Water Ouality ..... ............... . . ........... ....... ....40 ~ Urban Forest .. . ... ....... ... .. ........ ...... ..... .... 41 Transgortation and Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Safe . .. ...... ...... ... .42 ...... ...... .............. . ~ Flood Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 H.Program Evaluation ... ... ... .. ..... ... .... .... ..... ....44 Greenwavs Master Plan Undate Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Intemal Greenways Pro~ram Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 III. Plan Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 A. Introduction .... . ........... . .. ... .. ....... . . .. 65 B. Baseline Studies ... ........................ .. ....... . ... . . .66 Environmenta~aluation . ... .. .. .... ... . . . .....66 Cultural ResnurcesInventorv.. .... ... . ........... .67 .. C. Program Goals and Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Terresttaal Habitat Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Water Ouality Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Drai~a¢e, Flood Manaeement and Water Resources Goals ... .. . 71 Re~eation Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 'Pransportation Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Caltural Resoarces-~'roals -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 D. Project Opportunitie~s . ~ . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 E. Environmeatal.~'rbjcat~3dear~ifiCSti~°n .. ...........»~...._ ......... ........... IV. Planning, Permitting aad Feblic Involvement I~rocESSes ., A. Gree~vays ProjectReview Process . . . . . . . C~ital Improvement Program (CIPI . . . . . . In~ividual Project Review Process . . ., . . . . Eateraal Review of CIP and CEAP . . . . . . . . B. Cdecklist~f~ Permit Compliance . . . . . . . . . Standard 1~rejgct Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ Interdepa~rtmeptal,Coo~erative Procedures . Eaternal Revi~ an~ Aq~~~av,al Precesses .. Post-Project Mom`tb~e~o~,t . . . . _ . , . . . ....... . ........ .77 . .... ....... 83 .. . . .... . .. 83 ...... ......... 83 . .. ......... ......83 .. ... ......... ......83 .......... ...... .. 84 .......... ......... 84 .. .. . .. ... ......84 . . . .... . ......85 . . . ...... ......85 V. Service Provision Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 A. Boulder Valley Compre6ensive Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 B. The Storm Water and Flood Management Utility and the Comprehensive Drainage Utility Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 C. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 D. The Transportation Department and the Transportation Master Plan ....... 89 E. The Parks and Recreatiou Department and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan ... ............... .. ..... .... .... ........ .. .. 90 F. Open Space and Mountain Parks Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 G. The Urban Open Land Program and the Urban Open Lands Master Plan . 92 A. Planning and Development Services, Subcommunity Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 ~ ~ . , ., VI. Future Programs . ...... . . ........ . .... .. ................ 95 ~ A. Education and Community Opportuniries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 B. EnvironmentaUHabitat Improvement and Preservation ~ ............ ....... . ....... . .. ..... . ............... .96 ~ Environmental Proiect Fundine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 ; Wetlands Bankine . . ....... .. ... . . . ....... ..... 96 i C. Stewards of the Greenways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 ~ D. Monitoring Program ... ........... .. .. .... .......... . ..97 E. Additional Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 ~ ... .............. Providing R~s~rooms ...... ......97 .... .. . ~ .. ... . ............... Drinkin~~vntains . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 .... ~ TrashdCaas .................. . ... . . .. .......... . ...97 ! Ligl~[g..... .......... . ............. .......... .. ....97 Benches .. ...... . . . .................... ................ . 98 3 Q#her Improvements . . . . . . 98 VII. Future Op~ortuniHes . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 . ...,,. ... . . ... A. Greenways Projects ~a~SAgporti~itie,s, ._. . . ~ . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 B. Criteria fwr~~ets . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 C. Cu~ral Resources ~commendaHons . . . _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 ~storic Site Siga~€icance . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Mana~ement Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 VIII. Maintenaace Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 A. Maintea~pce Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . _ ... . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 B. Consistent~~intenance Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 C. Weed Contrn7~~d Iiabitat Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 D. Forestry Mainte~nce ......... . .. ... ~ . .... .. . ...159 E. Streets and Bikewa;~`A~,ainkenanc-e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 F. Landowners' ResponsYb~ities w . . . , ~ ... .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 IX. Organizational Structure and Finance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 A. Greenways Program Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 B. Long Term Funding Plan .. ..... . .. . . .. ....... . .....165 C. Other Funding Mechanisms ..... ....................... .... .....166 X. APPENDICES .. Appendix I-1: Appendix II-1: Appendix II-2: Appendix II-3: Appendtx III-1 Appendix IV-1: Appendix V-1: ... . ............ .................. .... ...... 169 Greenways Master Plan Map Greenways Master Plan Update Survey Executive Summary Community and Environmental Assessment Process (August 2001) List of Tributaries to Boulder Creek Summary of Cultural Resources Parks and Open Space Managed Land Along Crreenways Tributary Greenways Guidelines for Open Space and Pazk Lands Appendix VII-1 • List of Transportarion Changes from the May 1998 Crreenways Map Appendix VII-2• Cost EsUmates for Proposed Improvements by Reach Appendix VII-3 Descript~on of Environmental Projects Appendix VIII-1: Mazntenance Map LIST OF TABLES Table II-1: Chronology of Gree~wa~s~rojects By Year. . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Table II-2: Funding Contrib~ticros Toward Crreenways Objectives i985-2000 .... .. 32 Table II-3 • Tributary Greeu~vays Inventory of Exishng Conditions . . . , . . . . . . . . . 49 ~~ Table IIi-1: Ob~ectrves and Goals of the Greenways Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 ° Table III-2: Cnteria for Ranking Greenways Pro~ects by Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '78 , Table III-3: Ranking Crreenways Objectives By Reach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Tabie VII-1: Gr~enways Master Plan Update Reach Inventor~,~'rojeets and Oppnrtunities .. 102 , Table VII-2: Eacisiing and Proposed Greenways Projects aad ~pp0rhutities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 ' Table VII-3• S~mary Table From ~vtress Anal~sis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 ~' Table VII-4. Summary Table from Ranking I~vl~hod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 ~~ Table VIII-1: Cvrrent Maintenance Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 ' ,~ Table VIII-2: Enhanced ~viainte~e Praetices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 ~~ Table VIII-3 • Cost Summary for V~eed Control . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 "„ Table IX-1 Crreenways SystemsProposed Improvemeats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 ~ ~. ,.. .~ ~ .~ .~ ~ ~ Greenways Master Plan ~, ~ ,1 ;~ ,.,~ ~ ,~~ ~„, ~~~~~ ,~ ,. ,a ,,, ~~r ~~ . ~.,. .. ~ ~. ,.~, ~. ,~ .~ .. y .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ +~~r+ w~ir ~ "~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I. Executive Summary A. Introduction The Greenways Program was originally envisioned as a multi-object~ve program. While all of the ob~ectives of the Greenways Program can be addressed in sepazate programs, the Greenways Master Plan mtegrates these together as a special resource to allow coordmated achon involvmg multiple departments. Tlus Master Plan update provides an opportunity to evaluate the city's efForts to balance goals and objectives wrthin the Greenways Program and to allow mid-course correction of the Program. It is also an opportunity to provide clarity about the purpose of the Program, to define how the Program is gomg to be carried out, to fully express the onginal mtent of the Program and to create a plan that will provide the vision and integration to protect and manage the creeks and nparian areas mto the future B. Purpose of Master Planning Process The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and subcommunity plans provide the overall policy direction for the master plans. The city's master plans are developed consistent with the pohcies, plans and populahon and employxnent projections provided by the Comprehensive Plan. Master plans provide a long-range policy and implementation framework for service provision and capital unprovement prograniming Master plans provide planmng for the delivery and funding of specific services, facilihes, programs, and identtfy costs associated with current deficiencies and replacement needs, and those associated with growth. The master plaris establish the policies, pnorines, service standazds, and facility and system needs. The facilEty and service pnonties and funding plan estabhshed through the master planning process provide the basis for capital improvement programming and annual budgeting They also provide a conceptual fraznework to make decisions on dehvering and coordinahng services in the most efficient and effective way, providmg a long term perspective within wtuch day to day service delivery and resource allocahon decisions can be made C. Scope of Master Plan The city of Boulder Greenways system is compnsed of a series of comdors along riparian azeas including Boulder Creek and six of its tributaries, which provide an opportunity to integrate multiple objectives, including habrtat protection, water quahty enhancement, storm draznage and floodplain management, trails, recreahon and cultural resources. A purpose statement was developed for the Program and is as follows The city of Boulder Greenways system is compnsed of Boulder Creek and six of rts tributaries. • South Boulder Creek • Beaz Canyon Creek • Skunk Creek • Goose Creek ~ ~ Wonderland Creek Fourmile Canyon Creek The Cneenways Program seeks to coordinate and integrate as appropnate the following management object~ves: • Ripanan, floodplain & wetland protect~on and restoratton (I-Iabitat) • Water quahty enhancement • Storm drainage (Flood Ivut~gation) • Alternadve transportataon routes for pedestrians and bicychsts (Trails) • Recreahon Protechon of cultural resources There aze 13 maui tributaries to Boulder Creek and several smaller draznages within the city hmrts of Boulder. During the Master Plan update process, d~scussions of expanding the Gteenways Program to include all of the tributaries, as well as irrigation ditches, wrthin the city of Boulder took place An expanded Greenways Program provides a greater opportucuty to comprehensively manage the npanan comdors to meet all of the stated ob~echves While concerns were raised of limited resources to expand the Program, the interdepartmental staff group mvolved in the update process felt that a comprehensive approach is necessary so that Greenways values could be applied on a city-wide basis. Staff recommends an incremental approach to the expansion of the Program, with this Master Plan update focusing on the six designated tributanes and Boulder Creek and a subsequent update utilizing the cntena developed in tlus update to evaluate the remauiing tributanes and irrigat~on ditches within the city Future recommendations for expansion of the Greenways Program will be developed and presented to the Greenways Advisory Committee, comprised of one representaUve of the Planning Boazd, Open Space Boazd of Trustees, Water Resources Advisory Boazd, Pazks and Recreation Advisory Board and Transportatron Advisory Boazd. The Greenways Advisory Committee will provide recommendation to staff and City Council conceming proposed program changes D. Issues A number of issues and tasks associated with the unplementat~on of the Greenways Program and the mazntenance of the system have been identified and addressed as part of the Master Plan update These mclude• Environmental Perform a system wide envuonmental analysis (Chapter III, "Plan DevelopmenY') As a part of the Master Plan update process, teaestnal and aquatic habitat have been evaluated for all stream reaches, and a cultural resource inventory of the Greenways has been completed. The Reach Inventory, Projects and Opportunities (Table VII-1) presented in Chapter VII includes the results of these analyses. Develop a list of environmental enhancement pro~ects (Chapters VII, "Future Oppor[unities") All of the Greenways goals and ob~ectives except the environmental ob~ectives aze addressed in indrvidual master plans and associated city work plans A pnoritized hst of env~ronmental pro~ects and opportunities has been developed to facilrtate 1 identificahon of potenhal funding sources for these pro~ects ~ • Establish a process to pnoritize competrng goals (Chapter III, "Plan ~ DevelopmenY') Each stream reach has been ranked by ob~ective for the purpose of balancmg ~ conflicUng interests and identifying opportunihes to address mult~ple objecuves at E the t~me a pro~ect is taken forward. Conflicts have been identified on seven creek ~ segments (Table III-3). • Balance the environmental goals wrth other competmg goals (Chapter VII, ~ "Future Opportwuties") Z Conflicts (Table III-3) anse in azeas where the aquahc and nparian habrtat were ) erther classified as tugh and flood mamtenance actrvities, flood improvements or a ~ path has been proposed Proposed projects may also conflict wrth Open Space management philosophies. Specific recommendations on how to address these ,~ conflicts through the evaluahon of design altematives have been identified m the ~ Reach Inventory, Projects & Opportunities (Table VII-1) ~ • Look at wetlands mitigat~on bankmg (Chapter VI, "Future Programs") ~ There aze many potenhal benefits associated vinth the development of a city , wetlands bank, includmg ensuring no net loss of wetlands and streamlining ~ ° f permittmg process for future pro~ects The city should continue to explore the ~ development of a wetlands bank ; • Coorduiate wetlands protection or mit~gation early in the design phase of a pro~ect -, as a part of the Commiuury and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) ~;~ (Chapter III, "Plan DevelopmenY') ~' The emphasis of the CEAP analysis is a general scopmg of unpacts and associated ~: impact auoidance/mit~gation strategies in order to allow a comparative impact '~ assessment of selected ma~or altematives. CEAPs for future pro~ects wittun the ,,. Greenways should mclude identificahon and considerahon of the weUands ~ protecuon and mitigation opporhuuties that have been identified for each creek ~ a segment in the reach inventory '~ Funding (addressed m Chapter IX, "Organizational Structure and Finance" ... • Evaluate fundirig mechanism and pnonty for environmental improvements ~ (Chapter VII, "Future Opportuniues") ~ All Greenways Program goals and objectives except the envuonmental ob~ectives ,~ aze covered under individual master plans and associated city work plans. Stand- ~~ alone environmental projects were iden6fied for each stream reach, and the .,, projects were pnoritized The top 10 envuonmental projects idenrified using the ~ ranking method were fmther considered m terms of potential opporhuustic , w' funding sources in the development of the 2002 - 2007 Capital Improvement ~ Program (CIP). ~~ • Establish appropriate fundmg for maintenance (Chapter VIII, "Maintenance .,,, Plan") aer A.r. NV .w ~.r 3 ., „r +u w/ ~ ~wr ~ The Greenways system is currently mamtauied by several maintenance work groups withu- the city, which are responsible for different locahons and tasks (see Chapter In. Additional mazntenance needs were identified during the Master Plan update. Addrtional funding required to pursue all of the mazntenance activities ident~fied during the Master Plan update would be difficult to secure. The recommendauon for the 2002-2007 CIP is to divert one thud of the Greenways budget from capital projects into a weed control and habitat maintenance effort. Tlus would be split evenly between the current funding sources for the Greenways. Providing the level of funduig adequate for all program purposes (Chapter IX, Orgaxuzational Structure and Funding) Excludmg proposed improvements wtuch would be considered under the CIPs for other departmenu such as Transportation and Flood Control, potenhal Greenways projects identified in tlus Master Plan update have an associated total construction cost of almost $16 nullion (without design, property acqwsition or studies costs). At the current annual fundwg of $450,000 per yeaz, wrth $150,000 being dedicated to habitat maintenance, proposed improvements could be completed over a 53-yeaz period, assuming all these improvements aze funded solely through the Crreenways budget Organizational Structure (addressed m Chapter IX, " Organizational Structure and Finance") • Define Program purpose (Chapter II, "Background Information") The Greenways Program purpose statement appeazs in Section I C, above • Decide on orgazuzational structure for the Greenways Program (Chapter IX, "Organizational Structure and Finance") The Greenways Coordinator will be part of the UtihUes organizational structure, reporring to the Utilities Project Coordinator. The Greenways Coorduiator will work v~nth an interdeparhnental staff review group (the Greenways Coordination Team) representing the various objectives of the Program. The Greenways Coordination Team will be responsible for coordinating information about the Program wrth theu board members and other city staff from their departments. A new advisory committee, the Greenways Advisory Committee (GAC) will be formed. T'he CIP and CEAP for Greenways projects will be reviewed by the GAC in a public hearing. Maintenance (addressed in Chapter VIII, "Maintenance Plan") Develop a comprehensive maurtenance plan The maintenance plan is contained m Chapter VIII. establish maintenance standards (signs, reclamation, weed control etc.) Maintenance standards for snow removal, path system inspechon and trash collechon have been established (Table VIII-2). Identify (cleazly defined) maintenance responsibihties Maintenance responsibihUes for each work group performing mauitenance of 4 ~ the Greenways is shown m Table VIII-1. Maintenance responsibilities by geographic locahon have been mapped (Appendix VIII-1). Estabhsh appropriate fixndmg level for maintenance As a part of the Master Plan update, the Crreenways Coordinauon Team reviewed the current maintenance practices within the Greenways system to develop standazds and to provide clazification for routine maintenance and periodic improvements of the Greenways system Specific implementat~on guidelines and restorahon tecluuques will be developed as a sepazate document in conjunction with an update of the Greenways Design gwdelmes. , ~~~ ~ ~~ ,'~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ i~ 4 ~',~ . ~' ~ ,, ~W ,~ ~ ;~ ,+r ~~, ~_ ~,r ~~ ~~ .~ .. ,~ .~ ~ ,„~ ~~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~? ~ ~ ~ .., ~r ~ ~.+ ..~ ~r Process (addressed m Chapter IV, "Plazuung, Permittmg and Pubhc Involvement Procedures") • Developmg a public review process that mtegrates all interests for each project (Chapter IV, "Planning, Pemutting and Public Involvement Processes") The update of tlus master plan has resulted m the creahon of a new advisory comuuttee, the Greenways Advisory Committee (GAC) which will review the CIP and all Greenways project CEAPs m a public hearing. Specific procedures for coordmatrng the pubhc review process for pro~ects which may be undertaken outside the Greenways Program have also been developed. • Clarify permitting and approval process requirements (addressed in Chapter IV, "Plamung, Permitting and Public Involvement Procedures") The usual and customary permitting requirements and processes for Greenways projects have been included in Chapter IV Other processes which may apply to some projects, depending upon land ownerslup and project locaUon, have been hsted. • Develop a mutual acceptance of responsibihty between work groups. Develop a way to coordu-ate and flag problems to deal with them (Chapter VIII, Mazntenance Plan) The Greenways Coordination Team has clarified mamtenance responsibiht~es among the work groups. It was decided that all Greenways maintenance problems can be reported to the Street and Bikeway Maurtenance hofline at 303- 413-7177 Maintenance responsibilities by geograpluc locahon have also been shown on a map contained m Appendix VIII-1 • Idenrify property acquisition Property will be acquired m accordance with the Greenways Master Plan map and flood acqmsitron list. • Identify future projects and programs (Chapter VI, "Future Programs" and Chapter VII, "Future Opportumhes" ) The Ctteenways Coorduiation Team idenrified several opportunit~es to add or expand the current Greenways Prograxn, including education and community opportwuties, volunteer maintenance and project opportunides, and a variety of addit~onal services which could be provided in the future. The Greenways Coordmatron Team also idenUfied projects and opportunities for each of the ~ Greenways objectives along Boulder Creek and the designated tributaries These pro~ects and opportumties have been added to the Greenways Master Plan Map Design Guidelines (addressed m a separate document entitled Boulder's Greenways Des:gn Gutdel:nes, to be revised through a sepazate process) • Evaluate altematives to concrete trazl, where appropriate • Evaluate safety concerns • Evaluate maintenance needs during project design • Develop consistent nomenclature (greenways, bike path, flood channel) • Establish when Greenways guidelmes apply E. Projects & Opportuniries, Funding, Organizational Structure and Maintenance The Greenways Capital Improvements Program budget is currendy funded at $450,000 per year, wrth equal contnbutions made from the Transportahon Fund, Flood Control Fund and the Lottery Fund. The acUvrties of the Program aze coordmated by the Greenways Coordmator who currently works under the direction of the UtiliUes Project Coordinator in the Public Works Department The Greenways Program was admimstered through the Public Works Transportation Division from 1989-1998 The responsibihties of the Greenways Coordinator include coordmating the planning of pro~ects that mvolve the mterests of many city departments and divisions (Transportation, Utilities, Pazks and Recreahon and Open Space) and include the construcuon of uazls and transportation improvements, flood improvements, and stream and npanan habrtat improvements wittun the Boulder Creek comdor and the six designated tnbutaries to ensure comphance with the Greenways Master Plan. The Greenways Coordmator develops and oversees the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and yeazly Greenways budget in coordination wrth the other crty depattments and divisions perfornung work within these riparian comdors. The Greenways Coordinator, in cooperation with departmental Project Managers, is responsible for takmg projects through the public process and msunng compliance with regulatory requirements The Greenways Coorduiator also coordinates the acuvities of the Greenways Program with outside agencies, such as the Umversity of Colorado, Boulder Valley School District, the Urban Dramage and Flood Control District (LTDFCD), Boulder County and pnvate developers. Maintenance of the Greenways is performed by a vanety of departments and divisions within the city, as well as the UDFCD and private entihes. Table IX-1 presents an overview of proposed improvements wrttun the Greenways system. These improvements aze shown on the attached map (Appendix I-1 and descnbed in the Greenways Master Plan Update Reach Inventory, Projects & Opportunities (Table VII-1). Total costs for all identified Greenways projects is almost $63 million. Greenways project funding rehes not only on the Greenways Program budget, but on the capital improvement budgets of other city departments, as well as opportumstrc funding through outside agencies, such as the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District and private development efforts. 6 ~ If it is assumed that caprtal improvement projects such as underpasses, dnnking fountains, and flood control measures aze funded by other city deparnnents and outside sources (at a total construchon cost of approximately $47 million, not mcluding design, property acquisition, flood studies, etc.), Greenways trajls and environmental restoration and protection opportunities account for~ust under $16 million of the total estimated construction cost (wrthout accounting for design, property acqwsition and studies costs). Assuming all of these improvements are taken on solely by the Greenways Program, at the current annual Greenways Program funding of $450,000 with $150,000 being dedicated to habrtat and maintenance, complehon of these projects would reqmre more than 53 years. ~ F. Summary of other Master Plan SecHons .~ The Master Plan presents the followmg mformahon ; y • Chapter II, Background Informadon, provides an overview of the lustory of the , .~, ,~ , a~ PalR YNI ,.,~ ~M,i ~~.:9 ,~ i ~~ . ~ ,,. ,~ ~ ~ ,~~ a,~ .~ „~ wr ".~ ~~ „~ k~ ~ ~ ~ ~ +~ N~' ~ ~ ~ ~ 'A~ ~.i °~ ' aYY Greenways Program and rts development and evolut~on to its current configuraUon. • Chapter III, Plan Development, explains the processes used to complete this Master Plan, including the methods used to identify and pnontize pro~ect oppom-nities. • Chapter N, Planning, Permitting and Public Involvement Process, explains the methods for pro~ect plamm~g, evaluation and review • Chapter V, Service Provision Policies, presents information pertinent to the Greenways Program from comprehensive plans and other city master and subcommunity plans. • Chapter VI, Future Programs, ident~fies possible future opportunities to address Greenways Program ob~ectives • Chapter VII, Future Opportumties, ident~fies Greenways projects and opportunihes for each of the Greenways stream reaches. • Chapter VIII, Maintenance Plan, defines consistent maintenance standards and idendfies responsibilihes for maintenance of Greenways pro~ects. • Chapter IX, Orgacuzational Structure and Finance, presents a discussion of the orgazuzational structure of the Greenways Program and a long term funding plan for the program • Chapter X, Appendices, contazns supportmg informahon used in the completion of this Master Plan II. Background Information e A.Introduction ~ The Greenways Master Plan bwlds on pohcies ouflmed in several existing adopted plans including the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Drainage Uhlity Master ~ Plan, the Transportation Master Plan, the Pazks and Recreahon Master Plan, the Open Space ~ Charter, and the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan. Greenways pro~ects are designed and , constructed in compliance with the city's floodplam regulations and wedands protection regulations, and Clean Water Act Section 404 permrts Projects for which Urban Drainage and ~ Flood Control Dishict (UDFCD) funds aze sought aze designed and built to meet or exceed ? UDFCD standazds while ensunng that the city's envuonmental standazds v~nll be followed. The r Greenways Program is admimstered by the Crreenways Coordinator in the Public Works y Department, who works in conjunction with the Planning, Open Space and Mountazn Parks and ,~ Pazks and Recrearion Departments and other work groups wrttun Public Works (Water Quahty ~r and Transportation). ,, ~. ' ;; B. History ;~ In 1910, Fredenck Law Olmstead, Jr warned the Boulder Civic Improvement AssociaUon of the , dangers of encroaching upon the floodplain of Boulder Creek (Olmstead 1910) His report ° descnbed the possible scenario of filling the land neaz the creek with private uses, ~ ;; ".. thus resiricting the flood channel of the stream and sooner or later causing calamitous ^ floods. This is on its face a plain, straightforward question of hydraulics and municipal . common sense. If the people of Boulder only have the sense to take wammg by the ' experience of other towns they will deal v~nth it now, wlule it can be dealt with cheaply ~ and easily, instead of waztmg til a catastrophe forces them to remedy their neglect under conditions that will make a solution faz more costly and less satisfactory." ., Olmstead recommended against the construchon of a deep, artificial flood channel. Instead he ~ suggested that Boulder Creek be allowed to remam m a small shallow channel for the ordinary ~ stages of the stream, wrth occupation of a much broader floodplain during lazger storms. ; Recognizing the need to dedicate the land to a useful purpose, he suggested the plan of "keepmg .. open for public use near the heart of the city a simple piece of pretty bottom-land of the very sort ,~ that Boulder Creek has been floodmg over for countless centunes" as the cheapest way of ~ handling the flood problem of Boulder Creek (Olmstead 1910). ~ In 1969, the city of Boulder was impacted by a moderate flood which caused $5 milhon in ~. damages. The following decade marked the city's first senous effort in flood control. Init~al ,, mveshgat~ons focused on the then-traditional flood mitigation techniques, such as hard-limng "" stream channels and using concrete structural facilrties to channelize stream flow. However, + r these plans later contradicted the crty's commitment to improve the quality of life and the urban ;"~,~ environment and evoked considerable public opposrtion ~ With the goal of maintaimng and enhancmg the aesthetic and environmental integrity of Boulder ~ ~ 9 ~ wr +~ +r ~ ~ O Creek and its tnbutaries, the city decided to pursue alternadve solutions to flood control. In 1978, the c~ty adopted a"non-contamment" policy for Boulder Creek as part of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. This policy promoted ongoing crty efforts to protect pubhc safety by restrictmg development wittun the floodplain associated wrth Boulder Creek and rts mbutaries. In 1984, the city adopted the Boulder Creek Comdor Plan wluch recommended development of a continuous path along the entire length of Boulder Creek to serve both as a flood hazard mit~gation measure and a hneaz urban park for recreational and transportahon use, as well as provide restorahon and enhancement of wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat. Design Gwdelmes were established to set standazds for appeazance, quahty and placement of elements which were incorporated in the Boulder Creek comdor. The Design Guidelmes were drafted by the Pazks and Recreation Deparhment, wrth input from many other city departments. The Design Csuidehnes were reviewed and approved by the Pazks and Recreation Advisory Boazd, Planning Board, Open Space Boazd of Trustees, Ciry Council, the University of Colorado, and the Boulder Valley School District When completed in 1987, the Boulder Creek comdor provided not only recreational and transportahon opportunities, but a buffer zone between the stream channel and neazby development as well The buffer zone is designed to retain storm water which might otherwise cause considerably more damage m the event of a severe flood. Wetlands were created and enhanced along the corridor to provide water quahty protechon through the natural retenrion and filtering of storm water Lands were purchased by the city to provide addrtional storm water retention or to remove structures from the high hazard zone' The Boulder Creek pro~ect also preserved and/or enhanced the npanan environxnent along the creek, wluch had been considerably damaged. Natural vegetation was planted and corridor use was redirected to the Boulder Creek path to reduce on-going damage Aquatrc habitat, which had been severely affected by diuumshed stream flows and efforts to channelize the creek, was enhanced, and a self-sustaining creek channel and healthy aquahc habrtat were established with the implementation of muumum stream flow agreements for Boulder Creek The Cneenways Program was an outgrowth of the Boulder Creek Comdor Pro~ect. It was created on the basis of recognit~on that stream corridors aze a vital link m the lazger environmental system and that each stream is a natural and cultural resource. The pubhc acclaim of the Boulder Creek project led to increased public discussion about the desirabihty of extending and conUmm~g the concept of the Boulder Creek project along Boulder Creek's tributaries within the city. '"High hazazd zone" means those portions of the floodplazn where an unacceptably lugh hazard to human safety exists, because the product number of flow velocity (measured in feeUsecond) times flow depth (measured m feet) equals or exceed four, or because flow depths equal or exceed four feet (Boulder Revised Code 9-2-2(a)). 10 The city designated over 20 miles of stream comdors along the followmg six tributanes of Boulder Creek for mclusion m the origmal Greenways Program South Boulder Creek Beaz Canyon Creek Skunk Creek Goose Creek Wonderland Creek Fourmile Canyon Creek „ „ . r ~, ~ > ~ ~ ~r ~., w ~ ~ Q ~ . ~ w~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v~ ~ ~.r Elmer's Twouule Creek was later added as a tnbutary to Goose Creek because it was considered an important transportatron corridor Other stream corridors were not mcluded m the ongmal Greenways Program because it was beheved at the Ume the program was created that they were too pnstme or completely lost to urban development Fundmg for a Greenways Plan was approved by City Council m December 1987. A master plan was developed for the Greenways Program by staff from the Plannmg, Public Works, Parks and Recreahon and Real Estate and Open Space Departments The first Tributary Greenways Master Plan was adopted by City Council ui January 1989 and mcluded the six designated tributaries to Boulder Creek A refined Tnbutary Greenways Master Plan, design gmdehnes, a capital improvement program and a more detailed reproducible map were approved by Council in September, 1990. The mtent of the origuial master plan was to articulate the overall policy direcUon for the Program. The map indicated a conceptual layout of the proposed trails and the design guidelines addressed environmental preservahon and restoration, trazl location and desig-, as well as pnvacy, safety and intermodal conflicts. The Tnbutary Greenways Master Plan described the purpose of the Program as providing a unique opportunity for creating a comprehensive Greenways system for the community that can be creatively developed to function as storm drainage and flood channels, efficient bicycle and pedestrian transportation systems, open space and wildlife comdors and attractive recreauon areas It was immediately recoguzed that these purposes may conflict at tunes. With ttus in mind, staff has followed a design process predicated on public participation and conflict resolution. Each major project is publicly reviewed dunng the design process. This process includes pamcipation by concerned neighborhoods, city boazds, city staff, and other affected mterests. It is built azound the need to have neighborhood values, environmental values, and pro~ect needs mtegrated in the design of all projects Ctteenways projects aze evaluated through the Communiry and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) wtuch has been undertaken by one or more city advisory boards. (In the future, Greenways pro~ect CEAPs will be reviewed by the Greenways Advisory Committee, which is described in Chapter IV.) Boazd recommendahon(s) aze subject to City Council review and 11 ,~ approval. Addrtional opportuniues for pubhc comment and review aze available through the vanous permitting processes associated vinth indrndual projects, and through the development of the annual city budget In August 1993, City Council directed the Greenways Coordinator to convene an mterdepartmental team to update the Master Plan, wrth the major focus on the revision of the map The Master Plan goals and critena did not change substanhally from the onginal Master Plan Onginal and updated goals aze presented m sechons C and D, respechvely. In addirion, the update was to provide an evaluation of the successes of the Program to date, based on how well the goals and cntena of the Master Plan had been aclueved, with identification of any mid- course corrections Ttus Master Plan update was to coincide wrth the Transportauon Master Plan update, wluch was delayed for a number of years. The information requested was presented to Council on May 5, 1998. The May 5, 1998 submittal to Council included an updated Greenways Master Plan map which depicted factual changes, mcludmg completed pro~ects, as well as a Ctteenways Master Plan update survey which was completed by the National Reseazch Center. The "Executive Summary" from the survey is provided as Appendix II-1 to this report. The Master Plan map was reviewed with recommendations for approval from the five boards that oversee the Greenways Program (Water Resources Advisory Boazd, Transportation Advisory Boazd, Pazks and Recreation Advisory Boazd, Open Space Boazd of Trustees and the Planrung Board). On May 5, 1998, City Council approved the Greenways Map and directed staff to update the Greenways Master Plan The Greenways Coordmator position was vacated soon after this duection was given, providuig city staff an opportumty to reevaluate wtuch work group would assume the responsibility of the Program and carry forth course duection. It was decided that in the neaz term, the Pubhc Works Uhlities Division would assume the responsibihties of the Greenways Program (formerly in the Public Works Transportation Division). A public meeting w~s held in September 1998 to develop an approach for public mvolvement in the Master Plan update process. It was the group consensus that the process would involve numerous opportucuhes for public comment on a crty staff written Plan. A core group of staff, representtng multiple city divisions and departments was assembled to evaluate issues and participate in the development of the Crreenways Master Plan update. C. Purpose and Objectives of the Program The 1989 goals and cntena of the program were as follows• Goals and Criteria A Envuonmental Preservation/Restoration 1 To identify and preserve ecologically important areas, a biological assessment will be done during project design pnor to construction 2 Relahvely intact azeas of stream comdors wluch support shghtly disturbed 12 ecosystems will be idenhfied wrth the goal of preservmg them 3 Fish and aquadc habitat and wetland improvement opportunities vv~ll be considered as the corndors aze developed. 4 Based on a cazeful analysis of need, a vegetation and planhng program for each stream comdor will be implemented The city will pursue and develop water quality improvement strategies , B. Trails and Recreation 1. Existing and proposed trails and bikeways aze an important planning ~ consideration and may be accommodated in or neaz the creek corridors. , 2. Every effort will be made to respect the nghts of adjacent property owners as greenways pro~ects aze designed and unplemented Specific trails may be ~ redesi~ed, rerouted, or excluded from occumng on pnvate property to protect mdividual pnvacy 3 All tnbutary greenways improvements will be designed to be accessible to ' handicapped people where such access is reasonable. ~ 4 To preserve the stream comdor environment and provide guidance for the design ,, of trails, design guidelines have been developed ~ C. General z;; 1 The flood carrying capacity of creeks will not be reduced and, as a part of exishng •~ draznageway master plans, may be increased :, 2. Selective acquisitions of property interests along the greenways will be pursued -" 3 Critical portions of property and improvements will be sought by donation or -~ dedicaUon when property with creek frontage is developed, redeveloped, or ,,;" annexed ». 4. A coordinated management plan for maintenance of city land and improvements "; along the creeks will be developed ~ ta. The objectives of the 1989 Tributary Greenways Program aze fiuther described as follows. 4i, 1. Floodplazn Management ~ Since most greenways are m sh~eam comdors, they aze sub~ect to flooding The '~ integration of floodplain management techniques wluch preserve open space, protect - existmg vegetation, wedands and wildlife habitat, and provide for connecUon between r surface and ground water, is a goal of the Greenways Program. ~ ,~ 2. Water Quality ~ Natiu~al stream comdors, as well as streams wluch aze reconstructed and revegetated to resemble natural channels, provide numerous water quahty benefits Smce a11 tributaries i~? cazry water to Boulder Creek, the quality of water in streams is important regazdless of ~ the presence of permanent flow dunng dry spells Most of these benefits cannot be ,~ duphcated in lined channels or channels without vegetation. Moreover, concrete lined ~ channels provide little or no groundwater rechazge. T'herefore, stable natural and man- ~ ~„~ 13 ~ fl "~ made stream channels wluch support npanan vegetation should be preserved whenever possible If stream channels must be mtensively mazntained or reconstructed, sound hydrological, ecological, and geological pnnciples are to be followed Preservation of water quality is also important in use of tributanes for fislung and wading achvities Non-structural design approaches can better support improved habrtat and water quahry goals Fish and Wildhfe Habitat Fish and wildlife habrtat consists of areas wluch provide food, cover, and comdors for movement. Stream corridors wrth wide riparian and wedand zones provide some of the most valuable habitat m the semi-and west. In the Boulder azea, most wildlife species aze dependent on stream corridors for one or more habitat functions. It is important to provide azeas useful to wildhfe through either protection of existing habitat or creating new habrtat. Fish habitat may be created m streams with adequate flows and water quality. Existmg pockets of good qualiry habrtat are key to the re-population of enhanced habrtat in the future. 4. Trails The trails proposed under the Tributary Greenways Program provide connections between homes and neighborhood schools, employment and activrty centers, as well as other trazls and transportation facihhes. In addihon, these trails provide ample ogportututies for recreational use Trails within sueam corridors may conflict with wildhfe habitat because of possible environmental impact and the presence of trail users. Where high value habitat is present, trazl hnks aze routed azound the habrtat. Pnvacy is also a concern in resident~al neighborhoods when trail pro~ects aze being considered Sensitivity in locating and desigmng trails to address pnvacy concems is a pnority. Various methods are used to provide buffering, mcludmg trazllocaUon and physical barriers such as plants, fences, distance, and grade separation The design guidelines discuss tlus issue in detail. Passive Recreahon In addition to recreation related to trails, other passrve recreation is encouraged where envuonmental impacts will be acceptable and where appropnate real property mterests have been secured Passive recreaUon consists of activiUes which aze not programmed such as photography, resting, bird and wildhfe observation, picmcking, reading, fislung, walking, wading, etc 6 Aestheucs Proper scale and relationships between greenways and their surroundings aze important aesthe6c considerations for the hibutary greenways The landscape should be natural m 14 chazacter Vegetation should be nahve and ripanan m chazacter and, m addition, natural stream functions should be permitted to operate. Whenever possible, modificahons to stream corridors are made to not appeaz to be obviously man-made except for h~ails and ma~or related improvements Greenways Purpose Statement As part of the process of updat~ng the Master Plan, a purpose statement has been developed for the Greenways Program as follows The city of Boulder Greenways system is compnsed of Boulder Creek and six of its tributanes• • South Boulder Creek • Beaz Canyon Creek ,~ • Skunk Creek ' • Goose Creek ~ r • Wonderland Creek ~ ` • Fourmile Canyon Creek r e A ~"~ The Greenways Prograu- seeks to coordmate and mtegrate as appropriate the follovinng ~~w ~° ~ management ob~ecuves ; • nparian, floodplaui & wetland protection and restoraUon (Habitat) ~ ~ • water quahty enhancement r , • storm drainage (Flood Mrtigahon) ' • altemaUve transportation routes for pedestrians and bicyclists (Trails) > • recreauon ;~ • protection of cultural resources ; The Greenways Program has always been a multa-objective program. While all of the ob~ectives °° of the Greenways Program can be addressed in sepazate programs, the Greenways Master Plan ~ mtegrates these together as a special resource to allow coordinated acUon involving mulhple ° departments In evaluadng the Greenways Program purpose, the mter-departmental staff group ... workuig on the Master Plan update proposed consideration of applying Greenways values for `~ environmental, storm water management and recreational and trail system opportunities to '*~ include the crty-wide tnbutanes and irrigatron drtches The mtent of expanding ffie scope is to ; develop a more comprehensrve plazming tool for managing the enhre Greenway/drainageway «~ system to better integrate all of the multiple objechves of the greenways corridors throughout the „ ciry Now that the surveys for Boulder Creek and the six idenrified tributanes have been "' completed, staff recommends at some pomt m the future to exanune the remaining tributanes and '-% irngation ditches in the city of Boulder in ways that coordinate and integrate the six stated ,'^ management ob~ecnves. However, funding to expand the program is not currendy available ~ ~.. .,. "` D. Current Policies, Procedures and Practices that Dictate Service Levels w~J It can be seen from the above discussion that the ob~ectives of the Greenways Program may ~ conflict at tnnes Wrth tlus in mmd, staff has followed a plamm~g and design process pred~cated ~"9 ,~ 15 :r~ ~ w- ~.. ~.r on public part~cipation and conflict resoluhon. Each ma~or project is pubhcly reviewed dunng the design process This process includes participation by concemed neighborhoods, city boards, city staff, and other affected interests. It is bmlt around the need to have neighborhood values, environmental values, and pro~ect needs integrated m the design of all projects An evaluat~on of the current prachces witlun the Greenways Program is divided mto the following categories• • Plamm~g • Design • Construct~on • Mamtenance Greenways Capital Improvement Program Development The Transportation Division was responsible for admimstenng the Tnbutary Greenways Program from 1989-1998 During this penod, a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) was developed by the Greenways Coordinator, who was workmg under the direction of the Transportahon Project Coordmator. The Tnbutary Greenways CIP identified specific caprtal pro~ects for the upcomu-g yeaz and the following yeaz Money was identified m the CIP for specific pro~ects with the intent that those expendrtures would take place m that yeaz. Although money was designated for a panc~ulaz pro~ect m the CIP, money was not always expended for that particulaz pro~ect during the year identrfied m the CIP. The Grreenways CIP program was developed m conjuncuon with the Transportat~on Division, Utilrt~es Division, Pazks Department and Open Space CIPs using an opportumshc approach Greenways pro~ects would be identified to complete the missmg links in trail connections, flood unprovements, habitat and stream restorat~on and water quality improvements. A master plan of unprovements was developed on a bluehne map, wtuch identified pro~ects based on all of the objectives of the Greenways Program. The blueline map was first developed m April, 1990, and updated in January, 1993, June, 1997 and November, 1997 The mitial Tributary Greenways CIP was developed m 1990 and has been updated annually by the Tributary Greenways Coordinator, workmg in associafion with other mvolved departments and divisions. In addihon to CIP projects, the Tributary Greenways Coordmator also prepares budgets for on-going efforts such as signage, habrtat surveys, comdor assessments and water quahty and stream improvements. At the beginning of every yeaz, a work plan was developed for the Greenways Program, based on the CIP for that yeaz. The fundmg splrts between the three funds contributing to the Greenways budget were determined for each pro~ect by the Greenways Coordmator based on the program objectives addressed by the components of each pro~ect and the relative panc~ipation m the project by each of the funding drnsions. In addition to specific caprtal projects, money was budgeted for miscellaneous trail connechons, 16 rest areas, signs, habitat surveys, comdor assessments and water quahty and stream improvements. The Transportarion Fund contribution was $300,000 per yeaz, until 1999, when rt was reduced to $150,000 Lottery Fund contributions consisted of 49 5 percent of the Fund until 1992, when contnburions were reduced to $150,000 per yeaz Contnbutions from the Flood Control Utility Fund were $200,000 per yeaz unUl 1995, when they were reduced to $150,000 per yeaz. 1'he current program budget is $450,000 contnbuted from the Transportation, Lottery and Flood Conh~ol Utility Funds In accordance wrth city policy, the prepazat~on of the annual CIP for the Greenways Program has been coordinated by the Planning Department. The department selects capital projects for inclusion in the CIP based on pnorihes identified in the master plan. Project managers esUmate the budgets for pro~ects and determine CEAP requirements The departments submit project descriptions and justificaUons, cosUrevenue estimates, an evaluaUon of relevant citywide and master plan goals, and a discussion of CEAP requuements to the Planning Deparhnent for inclusion in the CIP. ~; The Planning Department reviews department CIP lists for consistency and accuracy. An «~, mterdeparhnental staff team reviews the CIP for CEAP requirements. Suggest~on aze made to `° the department concerning CEAP reqwrements. The Plamm~g Department compiles the citywide . ~, '° CIP for Planning Boazd and City Council review. The Planning Boazd conducts a CIP hearing W ~ and reviews the budget in terms of citywide project coordinatron, consistency wrth adopted ~~• master plans, balance among citywide goals and CEAP requirements. ,. ' Pro~ects are planned and designed by city staff, in con~unction wrth appropriate outside Ii ~~ consultants. Detailed planning and design efforts begin during the CEAP process for projects :; identified in the CIP for funding and construction. The design of each project is modified ~~ through the process based on public mput, permit requirements and the development of more •~r „.. accurate informarion. - The Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) „~ The Community and Envuonmental Assessment Process (CEAP) is a formal review process to +~ consider the impacts of pubhc development projects CEAP review consists of• a project ,^ description; a discussion of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and master plan goals that "' the project will address; a review of the unpacts of the project in checklist form, and; a ~ descripuon of the proposed impact mingadon measures and their associated costs. The CEAP ~.4 guidelines and checkhst are contazned m Appendix II-2. ~ CEAPs occur during the project plamm~g and preliminary design phase of the Project Plamm~g and Approval Process. After funds have been appropnated for project planning in the CIP ~ budget, a CEAP is conducted for selected major project alternat~ves to determine its prefened $'~ type, locatron, and conceptual desig-. The emphasis of the CEAP analysis at ttus stage of pro~ect ~ plamm~g is a general scoping of unpacts and associated impact avoidance/mitigation strategies, ~ ~ 17 ~ ~ ~ ~ m order to a11ow compazative unpact assessment of ma~or altemahves The CEAP also provides the opportuiuty to balance multiple community goals through a public project by lookuig at a project wrtlun the context of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and master plans The CEAP allows "fatal flaws" mherent m the conceptual design of a pro~ect to be discovered, thereby suggesting elurunatron of certam altemahves. The CEAP documentarion is submitted to Plamm~g and Development Sernces for development review If a site review or subdivision is reqwred for the pro~ect, the appropnate applications aze submmed concurrently wrth the CEAP (Certazn pemuts, as discussed below, aze obtamed in later phases of the pro~ect and aze not submitted with the CEAP) The pro~ect manager then provides pubhc noUce of the CEAP apphcahon. The Development Review Committee (DRC), reviews the CEAP, comments on the assessment and develops a recommendat~on The project manager may redesign the project to address DRC comments and prepazes a recommendahon mcluding DRC and pubhc comments for advisory boazd review The advisory boazd may approve the project and CEAP findings, suggest modifications, or deny approval If modification to the project or CEAP are sigmficant, it is resubmitted to Plazuung and Development Services for development review The same process is conUnued until the pro~ect is accepted in concept by the advisory boazd. A revisiting of no- build and non-capital alternauves may be necessary if commumty and environmental impacts are deemed unacceptable Advisory boazd decisions on the CEAP aze sub~ect to City Council call- up. In the future, Greenways project CEAPS will be reviewed by the Greenways Advisory Committee, plus other boards as warranted for pro~ects of lugh interest Wetlands Permittin¢ Greenways pro~ects aze sub~ect to two wetlands permitting processes. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U S C 1344) prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States wrthout a pernut from the U S Army Corps of Engmeers Section 404 permittang reqwrements apply to all waters of the Umted States, mcludmg ad~acent wetlands and tributanes to navigable waters of the United States. All pro~ects wkuch modify drainage channels and/or otherwise affect adjacent streams~de vegetataon generally require tlus type of pernut Most Greenways projects can be addressed through Corps of Enguieers "nationwide pemuts", which authonze broad categories of pro~ects such as maintenance, uUlity lme backfill and bedding, etc In applying for tlus type of pernut, the city must describe its proposed project, describe project impacts, includmg effects to weflands, and outline measutes to be taken to avoid or reduce adverse effects to wetlands and to ensure full rehabihtation of disturbance following pro~ect completion. Where permanent loss of wetlands is unavoidable, restoratron of neazby wetlands which have been damaged or degraded, at a rate exceedmg the azea of permanent loss, is generally reqmred The city of Boulder has adopted a wetlands protection ardinance (BRC Tide 9, Chapter 12) to preserve, protect and enhance wetlands by discouragmg development acrivities ui wetlands and adjacent azeas The ordinance estabhshes a goal of no-net-loss of wetland acreage and function 18 by regulatmg activities in and azound wetlands These rules apply to all wedands mapped wrthin Boulder's crty hmits as well as all wetlands on crty owned land, and all city achvitres affechng wetlands regazdless of locahon C~ty wetlands permits are required for Greenways pro~ects which affect wetlands and associated buffer zones surroundmg wetlands along the designated tnbutary drainages. ~ Wetlands and sunoundmg buffer zones, which vary in size based upon the significance of the ~ wetland, aze referred to as "regulated azeas". Any achvity within a regulated azea which reduces the extent of a wetland or reduces the degree to which a wedand perForms any function reqwres a ~ wetlands pernut. However, mamtenance of an existing public or private road, structure, or > facility, includmg drainage facihties, water conveyance structures, dams, fences or trails, as well J as any facihry used to provide transportahon, elecmc, gas, water, telephone, telegraph, .~ telecommwucations, or other services, aze permissible, sub~ect to the reqwrement of best management pracUces as identified in Ciry of Boulder Wetlands Protecteon Program Best ~~' Management Practices (May 1995). The maintenance activihes may not matenally change or ";, enlarge any existing facility, structure or road ,, Wetlands permit applicat~ons contain a descnption of the proposed achvity; a discussion of why " avoidance and less damaging alternatives have been re~ected by the applicant; a site plan; ,~ ~ ~ locaUons and specifica6ons for all proposed regulated actavrties and the associated 'unpacts; '; ; descriptions and statements concerrung proposed fill materials; and a referrallist for property F^ owners within 300 feet of the pro~ect and other interested parties. The Floodplain and Wedands ,~ Coordinator reviews wedands permit apphcaUons and may refer them to the Planning Boazd. ""' The Planning Boazd may call up wedands pernut applications within 14 days of the approval, and ~~ the City Council may call up Planning Boazd recommendations. .». w. ~ In order to obtain city wedands permits, projects must *nin,m;~e adverse unpacts to a wetland ~ and its functions and must not jeopazdize the conUnued existence of habitat for plants, animals or ; other wildlife species hsted by the federal government, State of Colorado, or in the Boulder •- County Comprehensive Plan as threatened, endangered, raze, special concern, of undetermined ; status, or critical. In addrtion, the project must be demonstrated to be in public interest in M. comparison to the anticipated effects The permit may be conditioned to further reduce project ~ nnpacts. A mrtigation plan is typically required to provide restoration or creation of wetlands m "" order to offset losses resulting from the permitted achvifies ..~. wr ~ Floodplain Development ~ Because of Boulder's location at the mouth of a canyon watershed, the city's creeks periodically ~ flood. The city has developed zomng and land use programs, in addition to the construcUon of improved drainageways, drversions, and other structures to help prepare the city to deal with o floodmg more effectively. ~ ~ Stormwater collection is sepazate from the wastewater system, allowuig stormwater from streets ~ and other paved azeas to drain through a network of pipes directly to azea creeks In unpaved ~1 ~ 19 ~ ~ "~ ~ azeas, overland flow from storms or excess irrigation may be collected through stormwater drains or will naturally percolate through the soil, eventually reaching groundwater Tatle 11, Chapter 5 of the Boulder Revised Code (BRC) establishes the development requirements related to stormwater wrtlun the city of Boulder. The City Manager is charged wrth the development of a master drainage plan for the crty to include all completed or proposed dramage facilities required to carry surface waters without overflow or dischazge, as well as all drainageways and basins that directly or mdirectly affect dramage witlun the city BRC 11-5-4 requires that all development of land wrtkun the city must ensure adequate draznage and management of storm waters and floods falling on or flowmg onto the property. Title 9, Chapter 9 of the BRC establishes the land use regulations which apply to the floodglains, conveyance zones and lugh hazard zones associated wrth draznageways wrthin the city. To ensure compliance with these regulations, the property owner or buildmg permit applicant must obtazn a Floodplam Development Permrt. The flood permrt apphcation mcludes an acceptable, detailed storm water and flood management plan wtuch indicates the boundaries and specificaUons of any drainageways or facilities located on the property and provides for faciliries necessary to ensure that storm waters and floods, includuig drainage from other lands that will contnbute runoff to the property, will be controlled, as provided in the city of Boulder Department of Public Works, "Design and Construction Standards (November 2000) In addihon, on-site detenhon storage, designed m accordance with the Design Cnteria and Standazd Specifications, is required for all developments other than individual smgle family lots that aze not part of a lazger development. In order to obtazn a building permit for pazcels of land through which a natural drainageway flows, the owner must grant the city at no charge a permanent easement to construct, mauitain, or reconstruct the channel along the draznageway and provide a fmancial guarantee for the construcuon of drainage faciliUes shown m the approved master plan A Floodplain Development Permrt is required for all development in the floodplain. General maps of the floodplain, which include lugh hazard, conveyance, and flood fnnge zones, aze maintazned by the city's Floodplains and Wetlands Management Office Greenways pro~ects reqwre a floodplain development pemut because they mvolve construchon of facilities wiflun the floodplazns of the draznages included in the program. "Development Review" is the process estabhshed by the city to evaluate and make decisions concerning proposed developments. The Planning and Development Services group evaluates all water, wastewater, stormwater, flood management and transportation impacts of pnvate development pro~ect for compliance with the Design and Construction Standards, master plans, policies, and other pertinent regularions. Where more than one permittmg procedure is involved, a coordinated review process is used Floodplaui Deveiopment Pemut apphcations aze reviewed by the Floodpiain and Wetlands Coorduiator, who provides public notice of the application (if high hazard or conveyance zones are affected) and makes a recommendation of approval, with or wrthout conditions, or denial of 20 the apphcation Among the concerns considered m the review of a floodplain development permrt aze compliance wrth regulations governing floodplauis, conveyance zones and lugh hazard azeas (BRC 9-9), effects on draznage efficiency or capacity, whether the project will have an adverse environmental effect on the watercourse, includmg banks and streamside vegetation, effect of the project on adjacent, upstream and downstream properties, the relationslup of the pro~ect to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and applicable floodplun management programs, and whether the cumulahve effects of the pro~ect wrth other exishng and anticipated uses will increase flood heights ~ Floodplam Development Permit apphcations for the conveyance and high hazard zones aze ~ referred to the City Council as an informaUon item The City Council may call up the staff ' approval withu- 21 days of the approval. If called up, the CiTy Council reviews the applicahon, . • holds a pubhc hearing, and reaches a decision concerning the development. ,' .~~ ~~~ DesiQn ~ ,, Greenways pro~ects are designed in accordance with Boulder's Greemvays Des:gn Guidel:nes, ° adopted m Mazch of 1989 The design guidehnes build upon the Boulder Creek Corridor design ~' guidelmes adopted in April 1985 for the Boulder Creek pro~ect. While acknowledging that not all : Crreenways reqmre alteration to meet the program objectrves, the design guidelines establish a ~ framework for pro~ects that aze undertaken by private landowners, developers, public agencies ~ and city officials to ensure consistent, but creative development along the Greenways. - Design guidelines have been developed for: .. ~ • Stream comdor modifications, including channel modification and stabilizaUon, . construction of energy dissipaters and drop structures, and bank stabilization. ~ • Vegetarion guidelines, including protectron of exisW-g vegetat~on, design and planting of ~ new vegetation and revegetation guidelines ~ • Trails and related facilities, includmg all types of trails, pazallel trails, street crossmgs, ^ underpasses, bridges, signs, railings, retaining wa11s, and measures implemented to . protect the privacy of adjacent landowners. ~ Private landowners, developers, and public agencies outside of the city may be assisted by the ,"w; city m either project design or implementation. The Greenways Coordinator is responsible for -~^ coordinatuig city assistance in these azeas. .,,, '~ The Design Guidehnes aze m the process of being updated to better address environmental ~ objectives and stream restoration practices. ~ ;*~ Construction ~ Most Greenways projects are put out to public bid through the city's biddmg process. If fundmg ~ contribuuons aze made from an outside public enUty (e.g CDOT, UDFCD or the County) their biddmg process may be utilized. Smaller Greenways projects ut~lize contractors that have a ~ ~ 21 ~ ~ *^ ~ ~ _~ contintung service agreement, with ucut prices determined from an annual bid After awazd of a contract, pro~ects aze overseen by the Pro~ect Manager, Greenways Coordinator and city mspectors as needed Construchon is monitored to assure comphance wrth plans and specificatzons, permits, budget and any required field changes. At the tune of conshucrion complehon, a final mspection is performed pnor to pro~ect acceptance. A one yeaz guazantee is normally requued for most work An new approach currendy under evalua6on is to include fundmg needed for on-going momtormg, mamtenance and weed control in the pro~ect budget. Maintenance The Greenways comdors aze curretnly maintained by several maintenance work groups witlun the ciry through informally agreed upon prachces Tasks aze divided up by geograplucal locahon as well as by function The responsibility of each work group is described below • Boulder County Pazks and Open Space mazntains the Boulder Creek path from the mouth of Boulder Canyon to Fourmile Canyon. • The Pazks Department mazntenance stafF is responsible for mauitenance of Greenways that traverse a city pazk, as well as the Boulder Creek Path from Eben Fine Park to 55~' Street. • Street Maintenance is responsible for snow removal and general path maintenance (debns removal and sweeping) along all of the Greenways paths, except those pomons of path mamtamed by the Parks Department • The Open Space and Mountam Pazks Department is responsible for maintenance of natural, environmentally sensrtive, or revegetated azeas on open space land and easements. Currently this mcludes portions of Boulder Creek east of 38~' Street and Arapahoe Avenue and portions of South Boulder Creek from KOA Lake to Mazshall Road. • Flood Utility Maintenance is responsible for mazntazmng the flood carrymg capacity of all of the Greenways channels, which pnmarily mvolves removing tree limbs and downed trees from obstrucdng the flow in the channels, removal of channel sediment, and bank stabilization. • Urban Drainage and Flood Control Distnct (LJDFCD) performs maintenance on sections of Boulder Creek and all tnbutanes included in the Greenways Program • City Forestry, University of Colorado (CLn, ditch companies, and Xcel Energy aze also mvolved in mauitenance along the Greenways. Wrthin the city of Boulder there aze currently 47 total miles of mulU-use paths, 17 rrules of which aze Greenways paths. The Pazks and Recreation Department maintains the Boulder Creek path, which is approximately 5.5 miles long The University of Colorado, Boulder County and pnvate enUries mazntam approximately 13 miles of the system, and the Streets and Bikeways Maintenance work group maintazns the remauung 28.5 miles, which includes both Greenways and non-Greenways paths. T'he Streets and Bikeways Maintenance budge for maintaining these 28.5 rtules of multr-use paths is currently $26'7,388 per year including personnel expenses A 22 one-trme allocat~on of $30,000 for a truck was also received m 2001. In addi6on, the Transportation Drvision's current budget for ma~or mamtenance of bikeways is $175,000 This is utihzed to replace bndges and sigiuficant sect~ons of path. ~ ~~,R .,~ ; ,~. ,~ .,~ ~~ ~ ~~ a~ ~. .,.e „~ „~. ,~. ,~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ,., .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ The Pazks Department has one full time and two, 16-week seasonal employees involved in mazntenance of ciry pazks, including Greenways corndors and the Boulder Creek comdor There aze approximately 5.5 miles of Greenways that traverse city pazks. The Open Space and Mountain Pazks Deparkment is responsible for maintenance of natural, environmentally sensitive, or revegetated azeas on open space land and easements. Currendy, this includes porhons of Boulder Creek east of 38~' Street and Arapahoe Avenue and porhons of South Boulder Creek from KOA Lake to Mazshall Road There aze approximately 4 8 miles of concrete trails within the Greenways system that coincide wrth Open Space land (this does not include soft surface trails wluch serve as part of the Greenways system, such as South Boulder Creek Trail from the East Boulder Commwuty Center to Mazshall Road). Flood Utility Maintenance is responsible for mazntaimng the flood cazrying capacity of all of the Greenways channels, which primarily involves removing tree l~mbs and downed trees from obstructing the flow in the channels, removal of channel sediment, and bank stabilization. Adjacent landowners aze required to handle leaning trees or trees that have fallen away from the creek channel. The Flood Utihty has a budget of approximately $82,000 for maintenance of flood carrying capacity of the creek channels wittun the crty. The budget provides for 1.8 FTE, approximately $51,000 m personnel costs and $30,000 for non-personnel costs. The Urban Drainage and Flood Control Distnct (UDFCD) is responsible for mazntaining and preserving floodways and floodplains in areas eligible for UDFCD maintenance and funded by the UDFCD. The Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (iJDFCD) performs maintenance on sections of Boulder Creek and all tributaries included in the Crreenways Program. UDFCD maintenance is limrted to facilities that are publicly owned or are in a pubhc drainageway easement and aze categorized into routine, restoration and rehabihtaUon projects. Routine maintenance consists of scheduled mowmgs and trash and debns pickup on major draznageways during the growing season It may also mclude small revegetation efforts and linuted weed control. Restorarion projects address local erosion problems, exishng structure repair, detenuon pond restoration, tree thinning, removal of sedunent deposits from flood control facihties and revegetafion work. Rehabihtation pro~ects are major reconstrucuon efforts that would be included as CIP pro~ects in the ciry of Boulder. The City Forester is responsible for full service for trees on crty street nghts-of-way and wrttun city pazks There is no spra}~ng or tree replacement program. Forestry is responsible for contrachng out pruning and removal work along Boulder Creek adjacent to pazk sites They also provide monitoring of tree health conditions along the entire lengih of Boulder Creek from the mouth of Boulder Canyon to Stazio Ball Fields. Tlus office is the one generally contacted by the pubhc concerning ffee issues. It is common for the City Forester to determine who is responsible 23 for tree problems reported by the public. Where the city has easements along the greenways, maintenance of the corridor off the paths and path shoulders usually hes with the landowners. In general, the city mazntains the trail and flood components associated with a geenway, wlule weed control, tree maintenance, etc offpaths and path shoulders aze landowner responsibiliues unless otherwise stated. Maintenance standazds have been developed to reflect the multiple ob~ectives and uses of Greenways segments Current and proposed mamtenance programs are compazed m Chapter VIII~ E. Summary of Past Funding The Tnbutary Greenways Capital Improvement Program funding between 1991 and 2001 was as follows • Transportation Funds: $300,000 per yeaz until 1999, when funding was reduced to $150,000 per yeaz. • Lottery Funds 49.5 percent until 1992, when it was reduced to $150,000 per yeaz. • Flood Control Utility Funds: $200,000 per year until 1995, when funding was reduced to $150,000 per year • Other funds, mcluding state, federal and dismct grants, and private donations • Pro~ects undertaken by the Greenways Program aze supplemented by pro~ects and pro~ect components which aze funded directly by the Transportarion Division, Flood Control Ut~hty, Open Space, and Parks Departrnent, or which aze constructed by private developers Transportahon funds aze admmistered by the Public Works Depaztment and have been used to construct trails and related facilities wtuch provide a transportarion benefit Flood Control Utility funds aze administered by the Pubhc Works Department and have been used for improvements providing or maintauung flood safety along streams, including such things as box culvert installafion, channel restoration, and bank and channel stabihzahon. Many of these projects include aquatic habrtat improvements as well as wedand and nparian comdor restoration which also provide terrestrial habitat and storm water quahty unprovements Lottery funds are administered by the Parks and RecreaUOn Departrnent and have been used for trazl and related facihty construcuon, envuonmental rehabihtation pro}ects, and passive recreational improvements. The city's Caprtal Improvement Program (CIP) is a six-year plan for public physical improvements The CIP provides a forecast of funds available for capital projects and identifies all planned capital improvement projects and theu estimated costs for the six-yeaz period The process is coordinated by the Planning Department and evaluated by the Plamm~g Boazd. The Planning Boazd makes recommendations to the City Manager and City Council regazding pro~ect consistency with the long-term goals and pohcies of the Boulder Comprehensive Plan, the scope, 24 pnorihes, and scheduhng of CIP pro~ects, the resoluUon of policy issues raised by pro~ect locahon and design, and Commumty and Environmental Assessment Process requirements for each pro~ect T'he Greenways Program has adopted an opportucust~c approach to aclueve mult~ple objectives throughout the system. Frequently, specific efforts within a greenway comdor can be completed m conjunchon with transportation, flood hazazd mitigation, or pnvate development projects funded from outside the Greenways budget. Ma~or outside funding from such sources as the Urban Dramage and Flood Control District (UDFCD), the Colorado Depaztment of Transportation (CDOT), and Federal Aid for Urban Services (FAUS) has allowed the Greenways system to expand and complete pro~ects at an accelerated rate, with a much lower d'uect cost to the city Cooperation wrth the University of Colorado and the Boulder Valley School District has resulted in extension of Greenways facilities through properties owned and managed by those entities Through the site review process, pnvate developers may provide conservation easements to the city along the program tnbutanes, as well as fund and construct trazl links, pazk connectaons and underpass mstallations ,; Coordination with the UDFCD concerning potential funding availabihty is an on-going process ' r involving Utilities staff. The city attempts to coordinate its CIP, which is prepazed m June, v~nth ~ ~ the UDFCD CIP which is prepared in September to October of each yeaz The focus of city ° ~ involvement with UDFCD has been in the azeas of master planning, maintenance, and capital . improvement projects The city is currently cooperaring with UDFCD and Boulder County in ; master planning efforts for Fourmile Canyon Creek, South Boulder Creek and sections of - Wonderland Creek. T'he UDFCD may contribute up to 50 percent of study costs for multi- ', jurisdictional master planning efforts. The UDFCD may also contribute matching funds for „ master-planned CIP projects which aze requested, owned and maintained by local governments. ,,. These projects then become ehgible for UDFCD maintenance funding. ~. % UDFCD funding of the Greenways Program has been substanual Total construction "~ expenditures by the UDFCD within the city since 1969 are approximately $9.2 million. - Examples of projects completed with significant UDFCD participation include flood conveyance . capacity increases from 28~' to 30`~ Streets on Fourmile Canyon Creek, the Mohawk underpass on "'' Beaz Creek, the Martin to Moorhead Beaz Creek channel improvements, and the 1996 Boulder + Creek bank stabilization efforts at Eben Fine Pazk. ~ ~ TransportaUOn project funding from the Colorado Department of Transportation and the Federal ~ Aid Urban System (FAUS) have also contributed to the achievement of Greenways objecrives. ~ FAUS contributions, wluch pertain to transrt pro~ects and the secondary network of roads that serve local urban transportat~on needs, were used in the complerion of the Valmont Connector ~ pro~ect on South Boulder Creek, as well as porhons of the Beaz Creek trazl. ~ Pro~ects by private developers haue resulted m the construct~on of trail segments and ~ environmental restoration efforts along portions of the Greenways system. Private developers ~ 25 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ contributed to the trail construction, flood conveyance improvements, channel restoration and wetland creauon projects from Kalmia to the Diagonal on Wonderland Creek, Fournule Canyon Creek corridor pro~ects from 28`~ Street through the Palo Pazk Subdrvision, Wonderland Creek from 47`~ Street to V almont, and portions of the Boulder Creek path F. Chronology of Projects and Categorization Based On Program Goals The Chronology of Greenways Pro~ects by Yeaz (Table II-1) hsts all of the pro~ects funded through the Greenways budget. A project descnption is provided wrth an explanation of the goals, as well as the distribuUon of funding wrthin the Greenways budget. Addrtional pro~ects were constructed wrtlun the Greenways system through funding sources outside the Greenways budget All of the pro~ects constructed wrttun the Greenways system since 1985 aze listed in Table II-2, t~tled Fundmg Contributions Towazd Greenways Ob~ectrves, 1985-2000. The followtng pazagraphs provide a general overview of pro~ects within each creek comdor. A hst of all of the tributanes along wrth theu basin size and length through the crty is included m the Appendix II-3 of ttus master plan, along with a map showing their locat~on Boulder Creek Project 1985-1987 The Boulder Creek Corridor Plan was adopted by the city m 1984. The complehon of the Boulder Creek path in 1987 marked the successful integration of multiple ob~ectives. Since 1987, the Greenways Program has continued to develop and enhance the Boulder Creek comdor In 1993, the trail through the Boulder High School azea was relocated to the north bank of the creek as part of a ma~or flood control pro~ect. Restoration and replacement of creek side vegetation was undertaken at Eben Fme Pazk m 1996, and numerous rest azeas were bmlt. Fourmile Canyon Creek Trazl construction and wetlands preservation work was performed in the sect~on of Fournule Canyon Creek between 28th and 30th Streets m 1991 by the Greenways Program. In 1995, an underpass was constructed under Broadway along Fourtnile Canyon Creek. Tlus was funded through the Transportation Division budget utihzang Transportanon Excise Taac funds Contnbu6ons were also made from the Greenways budget. The secrion of the Fourmile comdor between Broadway and 28th Street has not had any trail improvements except for the construction of a trail connection in 1997 from Tamazack to Riverside, which was funded by Grreenways Program. The trail was continued east from 30'" to 47`" Sh~eets as a part of the Palo Pazk subdrnsion development, using developer funds in conjunction with the Pazks Department development of the Pleasant View Soccer Complex Wetlands occur mtermittently along tlus reach, which also includes sen§itive riparian habitat, and a wedand restoration site is located in this azea. Trazl construction and channel unprovements were made in 1998 from Yellow Pine Avenue to Broadway. Tkus work was funded through the Greenways budget and the Urban Drainage District Maintenance Funds. The city is currently preparing a Fourmile Canyon Creek Master Plan in conjunction with the UDFCD. 26 ~~~VV~~IJI/l~~l~~~F/l~t 4~Y+{x{1{DVi'F)63atCfg.t:::.. ,:,:u~~.~.s~.`..___ __ DRAINAGE 1985-1987 Boulder Creek 1989 Skunk Creek 1991 South Boulder Creek South Boulder Creek Beaz Creek TABLE II-1 CHRONOLOGY OF GREENWAYS PROJECTS BY YEAR (1985-2000) FUNDING BY GREENWAYS BUDGET SOURCE WITHIN PROJECT DESCRIPTION/GOALS GREENWAYS BUDGET Boulder Creek Project Comprehensive Greenway corridor from Eben Fine Park to 55'" Street; completed accordmg to the approved Boulder Creek Master Plan. CU Reseazch Park Stream channel reconstruction, flood University of Colorado control tmprovements, wetland and pond creat~on, water quality improvements, trail constructton. 55`^ to Central Central to Stazio Baseline to US 36 though CU property Trail construchon, mcluding a new bndge and low water crossmg. Trail construction including low water crossing and railroad underpass One underpass and trail connections to CU Mam campus, Apache Trad and Williams Village. I $148,000 (Lottery) $ 67,000 (Lottery) $ 70,000 (Flood Control) $ 8,700 (Transportation) $ 58,000 (Flood Control (FAUS ) 27 Fourmile Creek I 28'~ to 30'~ Street I Flood conveyance capacrty mcrease, I$ 6,000 (Lottery) wetlands preservation, and trail $ 13,000 (Urban Drainage) construction 1992 Wonderland Creek Broadway Underpass Flood capacity increase, channel $ 45,000 (Transportation) restorahon, nparian vegetat~on restorat~on, wetland and pond creation Wonderland Creek Valmont Underpass Flood capacity mcrease, trail underpass $ 3Q000 (Transportahon) $ 45,000 (Flood Control) (FAUS) South Boulder Creek Valmont Connector Channel restoration to natural $ 53,000 (TranspoRation) configuration, wetland creation, riparian $ 3,000 (Flood Control) vegetst~on plantmg, trail connection and (FAUS ) underpass Skunk Creek Colorado to Aurora 7 Tra~l construction from the crossing $ 50,000 (Bikeways) under Colorado Avenue to Wellman $ 5,000 (Flood Control) Canal, wetlands creation Bear Canyon Creek Baselme through Park Trail reconstrucUOn $ 57,000 (Lottery) Easi (Wellman Canal to $ 50,000 (Flood Control) Mohawk) $ 89,000 (B~keways) South Boulder Creek Stazio to Arapahoe Paved trail construction, railroad $ 57,000 (Lottery) underpass, wetland creation. $ 6,Q0~ (Transportarion) $ 55,000 (Flood Control) 28 ~' d~ !~ 4~ ~) ~~ e~ () ~ R ~ e~ ~~ n~ ts ea e e~ :+ .. ~ w .. ... .. .~ ~. .. ._ .,. ... . - - e f~tlt3~~~3~~~~~~3~t~t,~iti~c~~.r,r~~+c3Us;:,.,~~t;~~:~~~~ ~-~ - ~ 1993 Wonderland Creek Bear Canyon Creek South Boulder Creek Kalmia to the D~agonal Mohawk to Gilpin Flood improvements, channel restoration, r~parian forest preservat~on, wetland creatwn, and trail. Riparian habitat widening and restorahon, wetland creation, landscaping and two underpasses, trail construction Developer and c~ty funds $ 28,000 (Lottery) $ 55,000 (Transportation) $ 84,000 (Flood Control) Arapahoe Underpass South Boulder Creek , Boulder Creek 1994 Wonderland Creek Beaz Canyon Creek EBCC Pedestnan Bridge Boulder HS Trail (N side of creek) Kalmia to 28`~ Street Martm to Moorhead Tra~l underpass New trail bridge and soft-surface trail approaches Relocation of Boulder Creek trail Trail and flood improvements Food improvements, two underpasses, trail connechons $ 93,000 (Lottery) $ 55,000 (TranspoRation) $ 45,000 (Flood Control) $ 18,000 (Lottery) $ 2,000 (Flood Control) $ 56,000 (Transportation) $ 9,000 (Flood Control) Developerfunds $ 48,000 (Lottery) $ 18,000 (Transportation) 1995 Fourmile Broadway Underpass Trail underpass and flood capacity improvements $148,000 (Lottery) $335,000 (Transportation) $599,000 (Flood Control) $ 4,000 (Lottery) $ 75,500 (Transportat~on) $ 10,000 (Flood Control) 29 Goose Creek Tra~l Connection to Pearl Trad connectwn $ 47,000 (Transportation) Street $ 22,000 (Flood Control) Goose Creek Trail Connection at 30`" Tra~l through new 30`" Street underpass to $ 9,000 (Transportation) Street Mapleton $ 1,000 (Flood Control) Bear Creek Mohawk Underpass Trail underpass and flood capacity $ 93,000 (Transportation) improvements. $ 75,000 (Flood Control) $200,000 (Urban Drainage) 1996 Boulder Creek 13`" and Arapahoe Rest Trail rest area. $ 10,000 (Lottery) Stop $ 3,000 (Transportahon) Private Donation Boulder Creek Library to Jushce Center Tra~l relocation, riparian zone restoration $ 53,000 (Transportation) Trail Reconstruction $ 6,500 (Lottery) 1997 South Boulder Creek Baseline to EBCC Underpass, habitat restoration and trail $ 61,000 (Transportatwn) connection $ 82,000 (Lottery) $ 52,000 (Flood Control) Boulder Creek/Skunk Rest Area Trail rest area $ 4,000 (Lottery) Creek $ 7,000 (TranspoRation) $ 4,000 (Flood Control) Fourm~le Creek Tra~l Connection - Trail connect~ons. $ 12,000 (Lottery) Tamarack to Riverside 30 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t! ~ ~ 4 ~ E ? S ~ ~ ; ! ~'! • $ R ~ i #r &S }~ ~3 ~ ~~ '-~~ ~ ;~ ~ ~ w s~ i+. w~ E~ : a . ' ' ' _ a _ ' ' ' ' ' ~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ f , r c f t i ~ i ~ i e ~ c v ~ , q , i i i i , Bear Creek ~ Gilpm Underpass 1998 Fourmile Creek Yellow Pine Avenue to Broadway Boulder Creek Teahouse Trail 1999 Fourmile Creek Yellow Pme to Broadway Fourmile Creek Pleasantv~ew Soccer Field Fourmile Creek At Sumac 2000 South Boulder Creek At Baselme Boulder Creek At SSth Flood control, pedestrian and bicycle underpass. Trail construction and channel ~mprovements Tratt relocation and two bndges Wetland planting and low water crossing Wetland planting and low water crossing Trail connection Trail restorahon Streambank restoration $ 6,500 (I,ottery) $ 63,000 (Flood Control) $211,000 (Transportation) $ 97,000 (Urban Drainage) $100,000 (Transportation) (Urban Drainage Maintenance funds~) $55,000 $28,000 $25,000 $6,000 (Urban Drainage) $6,000 (Urban Dramage) 31 Fourmile G= Greenways OS=Open Space Broadway to Violet Violet to 19th St TABLE II-2 FUNDING CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARD GREENWAYS OBJECTIVES, 1 WATER REACH TRAIL FLOOD QUALITY HABITAT West of Broadway G 1998 UDFCD G 1998 UDFCD Broadway Underpass G 1995 T 1995 G 1995 G 1995 G 1995 19th to 26th St G 1999 (Sumac) Tamarack to Riverside G 1997 26th to 28th St 28th to 30th G 1991 UDFCD 30th to 47th Palo Park Sub P UDFCD 30th to 47th Fourmde Creek Sub P 47th St to Diagonal & Underpass CDOT T RR & Old Diagonal ~roadway Underpass ~roadway to 19th St 9th to 26th St 6th to 28th St 8th to Kalmia ;almia to Diaqonal haqonal to Foothdls oothdls to Valmont 'almont Underpass ~almont to N Goose F=Flood P/R=Parks G 1991 UDFCD P UDFCD T 1992 T 1992 IG 1992 T 1992 )FCD G 1989 UDFCD G 1989 1994 P T G 1994 P 1993 P G 1993 P T P 1992 T 1992 G 1992 T 1999 G 1999 UDFCD RECREATION P/R 1999 31991 UDFCD G 1991 UDFCD ~ G 1999 IP P/R 3 1992 T 1992 G 1992 T 1992 3 1993 P G 1993 P P G 1999 P P/R P 3 1999 G 1999 P/R 1999 T=Transporatat~on UDFCD=Urban Dramage and Flood Control D~stnct CDOT-CO. Dept. Transportation *=Federal fundmg P= Private TURAL 32 r e~~~~~~e+se~~.~~ ~~t~..__~~ ~ - ~ ~ 1 (~ !~ s l~ a - € 1 c ~ ~ ~? ~ ~ ~ .~ . ~ - ~ ~a ~ +o~ ~ ~m _ e = o ,~ ~~ _ ,_ . ~ _ ~ .. ~ _ (~~3~3~~~~~~~~~1~~~'~~~~~~'~3t~ar:rtsl~art,drt:asi~c~as~r~,:~~~~ ~ ~ _ _ - TRIBUTARY REACH TRAIL Goose Creek 19th to Folsom P Folsom to 28th 28th to 30th St F 1999 UDFCD F 1993 UDFCD 30th to Foothdls G 1995 Foothdls to Pearl G 1995 North Goose Foothills to Wonderland Wonderland to Bldr Creek T 1986-88 South Goose Foothdls to Bldr Creek P 1986-88 Rest Area P Elmers Twomile 26th to Ins Ins to Glenwood F UDFCD Glenwood to Valmont F UDFCD Valmont to Goose Boulder Creek Fourmde Canyon to ..-'----- .._.._~. F 1999 UDFCD F 1993 UDFCD F UDFCD F UDFCD F UDFCD Underpass to Eben Fine T Eben Fme to 6th St BCP UDFC white water course 6th St to 9th St BCP 9th to Broadway BCP G 1996 13th & Arapahoe Rest Area BCP G 1996 Teahouse Trad G 1998 G= Greenways OS~pen Space F=Flood T=Transporatation P/R=Parks CDOT-CO. DepL Transportation 1997 WATER QUALITY HABITAT RECREATION CULTURAL RESOURCES F 1999 UDFCD F 1999 UDFCD F 1993 UDFCD F 1993 UDFCD F UDFCD F UDFCD P/R 1999 UDFCD 1997 P/R P UDFCD=Urban Dramage and Flood Control D~strict *=Federal fundmg P= Private 33 .TURAL Creek G= Greenways 05=0pen Space ~roadway to 17th 7th to Fotsom olsom to 28th St 8th to 30th St Oth to Foothdis oothdls to 55th St 'earl Parkway Valmont ~ndqe 'earl Parkway lollyberry to NOAA IOAA to Broadway Iroadway Underpass Iroadway to Moorhead Iwy 36 Underpass 7oorhead to Basehne ~aseline Underpass Iaselme to 30th St 8th Street on ramp Inderpass Otfi to Colorado :olorado Underpass :olorado to Boulder Creek ~oulder Creek Rest Area :olorado to Aurora 7 ~CP G 1993 ~CP ~CP UDFCD 999 ~CP UDFCD 999 ounty T 1999 1999 1997 1999/2000 " 1999 . * 1994 CDOT ' * 1994 CDOT ' 1996 * 1994 1 1989 1997 P 1992 P 1992 UDFCD ~FCD 1999 ~FCD 1999 wnty T County T T ' 1999 F 1999 1989 1989 ICU 1989 F=Flood T=Transporatation UDFCD=Urban Dramage and Flood Control District P/R=Parks CDOT-CO. Dept. Transpartation *=Federal funding P= Private 34 ~~~~4~~~6~F~~~~~riF~16~?E~~~~'~~@~~~swwas±~~~~a---~es _ ~ _ _ _ _ ~, I w -- ~ _ _~ €~~St3t3~~f3~Jt3t.3~3~f.3~3l3fif3frc,~t~if~.;o,c,.j.....,.,.~,,.~ _ ----~ Creek Boulder to Lehiqh ah to Broadway dway Underpass dway to Martin in Underpass in to Moorhead rhead Underpass rhead to Hwy 36 36 Underpass 36 to Baseline :line Underpass :line to Gilpin n Underpass n to Mohawk ~vak Underpass awk to Colorado rado to Arapahoe ahoe to Boulder Creek ' 1998 1998,2000 F 198 1994 T DFCD 1994 T DFCD 1994 T 1991 T * . 1991 T' 1997 T 1993 1995 1992 Broadway to Hwy 36 OS 1985, 1998 Hwy 36 to South Boulder Rd OS 1985 WATER CULTURAL FLOOD QUALITY HABITAT RECREATION RESOURCES T'1998F T*1998F UDFCD UDFCD F 1998 UDFCD F 1998 UDFCD UDFCD 1999 G 1994 T UDFCD G 1998 F UDFCD G 1994 T UDFCD G 1997 G 1993 G 1993 G 1993 G 1995 G 1992 OS 1998, 1999 OS 1997 OS 1994, 97, 98 OS 1997 G= Greenways F=Flood T=Transporatation UDFCD=Urban Drainage and Flood Control District OS=Open Spsce P/R=Parks CDOT-CO. DepL Transportation "=Federal fundmg P= Private 35 REACH EBCC Pedestnan Bndge South Boulder Rd to EBCC EBCC to Baseline Baseline Underpass Baseline to Arapahoe Arapahoe Underpass Arapahoe to Stazio Stazio to Central Stazio Connection Central to 55th 55th to Valmont 1993 i 1994 1997 OS 1994 1997 T )FCD 1999 1993 1992 T 1991 1992 1991 1992 T' 1996 1998 G= Greenways F=Flood T=Transporatation OS=Open Space P/R=Parks CDOT-CO. Dept. Transportadon (lUALITY 3 1992 3 1992 1997, 1998 1980s,1998 1992 1992 UDFCD=Urban Dramage and Flood Control District *=Federal funding P= Pr~vate TURAL ~S 1997 ~S 1997 JS 1997 JS 1997 ~S 1997 1997 36 ~)4)Elt'# E~f1t~~~~~+ ~~'~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :~ e~..Aee es r~ ,~ ~. . "' ' ' '# Wonderland Creek Box culverts were installed under Wonderland Creek's Broadway and Valmont crossings in 1992, wittt Transportation contnbutions to the Crreenways Program Trail construction and channel unprovements from 28`" Street to Kalmia were begun m 1993 v~nth developer funds and continued in 1994 using Greenways Program funds. Trail construchon, channel improvements, riparian forest preservahon, and wetland creation were completed in the Wonderland Creek corridor from Kalmia to the Diagonal as a~oint city/private developer pro~ect in 1993 and 1994. In cooperaUOn with the Urban Drainage District, the trail between 26`" Street and 28`" Street was completed in 1989. The city is currently cooperahng with the Urban Drainage District in the preparation of a master plan for Wonderland Creek for the azeas between 28`" Street and Foothills Parkway. ,a Goose Creek Two Greenways Program projects have been completed on Goose Creek. Dunng 1995, trail +~~+ connections between Pearl Street and 30~' Street were constructed Flood control improvements '; ; were completed by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control Distnct in the 30`" Street to Foothills ^A Pazkway segment of Goose Creek in 1993. Additional flood control improvements aze currently .~., under construction in the 28`" to 30'" Streets reach by the city and the Urban Drainage and Flood "~ Control District. The Flood Conuol Utility and UDFCD completed trail construction, flood ~ hazazd miUgation work, water quality protechon and habitat improvement projects along the .,'"",~ sect~on of creek from 30'" Street to the Foothills Pazkway m 1993. In 1995, the trail was ~ completed from Foothills Pazkway to the Peazl Parkway by the Crreenways Program. Trail ~ construction, flood hazard mitigation, and water quality and habrtat improvements within the " secrion of creek from 28`" to 30'~ Srteets is scheduled for 1999. Trazl construchon, water quality ~ and habitat improvements associated v~nth development of a pazk aze also being constructed in ' the section of the Elmer's Twomile Creek reenway between Iris and Glenwood. ,, Elmer's Twomile Creek '"' The UDFCD did flood improvements to Elmer's Twomile Creek between 26`" Street and - Glenwood. The Pazks Department plans to receive bids for park, hab~tat and path construction ~' between Iris and Glenwood during the Fall of 2001. Federal funding for an underpass under Iris ~^ Avenue has been granted and is scheduled for distribution m 2003 Construction of flood . mitigation and trazl improvements &om Goose Creek north to Valmont is anticipated to begin ;"' during 2002. ~ ~ Skunk Creek ~ In 1989, the University of Colorado completed Skunk Creek stream channel reconstruction, flood ,,,~ control improvements, wetland and pond creation, water quality improvements and trail "'~ construcUon from Boulder Creek to Colorado Avenue m con~unction with the development of ~ the CU Reseazch Park. The Greenways Program completed the trail from the crossing under ',"~ Colorado Avenue to the Wellman Canal neaz Awora 7 School in 1992. This project also ~ included wetlands creat~on. The city installed underpasses beneath Baseline, U.S. 36 and the ~ U.S. 36 on raznp at Baseline as a component of the 1995-1996 bndge replacement project on ~ U.S. 36. In 1997, a rest azea was constructed neaz the Skunk Creek confluence with Boulder ~ 37 ~ ~ ~ ,~ Creek, south of Arapahoe Avenue. An underpass at Broadway was constructed by the Transportation Division in 2000 A master plan is currently being completed for the segment of Skunk Creek between Broadway and U S. 36 Bear Canyon Creek The city's inihal efforts to address flood hazard mrtigation for Bear Canyon Creek occuned m 1991, when an underpass at Baseline and trail connect~ons to the CU mun campus were constructed. In 1992, trail reconstruchon was completed between the Wellman Canal and Mohawk Drive In 1993, the trail was extended between Mohawk and Gilpin Dnves Tlus project also included ripanan habitat widemng and restoration, wetland creation, landscaping, and the construction of an underpass at Arapahoe Avenue and a low water crossmg downstream of Mohawk Drive An underpass beneath Mohawk Drive was added in 1995 Flood capacity unprovements and trail connections, as well as underpasses beneath Martin and Moorhead, were completed m 1996 In cooperat~on with the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, addihonal flood unprovements were completed and a pedestnan and bicycle underpass was added at Gilpm Dnve During 1998, the city worked wrth the Boulder Valley School Distnct to enhance ripanan vegetation neaz Martin Pazk Elementary School to create a nature educat~on azea. From 1997-1998, a pedestrian/bicycle underpass and associated flood 'unprovements were completed at South Broadway and Beaz Canon Creek. Modificahons to Marhn Pazk allowed the enUre 100-yeaz flood to be contained within the park property, removing approximately 200 propertaes from the 100-yeaz floodplain The project also provided storm water quahty oppominities for a major storm sewer outfall mto Beaz Canyon Creek. South Boulder Creek The Greenways Program began work m the South Boulder Creek corridor with trail conshvction, mcludmg a new bridge and low water crossing, between 55`" and Central Avenue in 1991 Also in 1991, a trail was constructed between Central Avenue and the Stazao Ballfields This pro~ect mcluded a low water crossmg and a razlroad underpass. Dunng 1992, the trail was extended around Valmont Reservoir to Valmont Road and an underpass beneath Valmont Road was constructed. In conjunc6on with tlus effort, the creek channel was restored to its natural configurat~on, wetlands were created and riparian vegetation was planted. Also during 1992, paved trail construction, a raikoad underpass and weflands creation efforts were completed between the Stazio Ball Fields and Arapahoe Road. In 1993, a trail underpass was constructed beneath Arapahoe Road. A new trail bndge and soft-surface trail approaches were created from the South Boulder Creek corridor west towazd the East Boulder Community Center. Dunng 1997, the Greenways Program constructed a trail underpass beneath Basehne Road and completed the trail connecUon between South Boulder Creek and the East Boulder Commucuty Center The city is currendy participaUng in South Boulder Creek master plamm~g efforts in association wrth the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Boulder County and the Umversity of Colorado 38 G. Survey of Current Resources As a part of the Greenways Master Plan update, an mventory of existing condrtions, reflecting the six ob~echves of the program, was compiled for each of the tributanes by stream reach 11us inventory (Table II-3) was developed and reviewed in consultation with the interdepartmental work group involved m the master plan update The inventory matnx was provided to the public for review at the June 8, 1999 open house to discuss the master plan update. ~ Identification of future Greenways opportunities for development and enhancement was based upon: ~~ • A comprehensive, city-wide habitat evaluation to identify azeas where restorauon and "p enhancement programs will result m the greatest benefits; ~~ • identification of special concern species and their habitats, ~ • wetlands preservation/restoration opportunit~es, • recreaUon opportunities, ^ ~ • bilceways oppommides; ;~ • on-gomg flood hazard autigaUon ob~echves; ~ 3 • opportunities for protection and enhancement of the cultural envuonment; and ~~ • opportuniues to provide water quality improvements. % Environmental Resources ~;; In keeping with guidance from the ongmal Tnbutary Greenways Master Plan, the city continues '~ to recognize that environmentally sensihve and ecologically important areas occur along the ,r stream corridors, particulazly on the fringes of the wban azea These include nesting areas for ,A b~rds, critical habitat for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, important wedand azeas, and nparian ~ comdors in general ~, ~ A frequent comment conceming the implementarion of the Greenways Program has been the , need to examine environmental resources and impacts on a pro~ect-specific basis. In the past, "' wildlife comdors and habitat have been documented in the course of preparation of project- ~. -~ specific CEAP analyses. In its August 1993 duecrion on the update, the City Council specifically ; stated that Greenways CEAPs would be conducted on logicai stream reaches mstead of the ~ previous project-specific basis ~ "" Wildlife Habitat +~ During the summer of 1999, the city began a city-wide habitat evaluaUon project to identify azeas ~ where restoration and enhancement programs will result m the greatest benefits. This study was ~, conducted using a standardized methodology developed specifically for the Greenways system. ~ The goal of this assessment was to evaluate the quahty of urban, tenestrial habrtat along Boulder Creek and its tributazies to better achieve the program goal of protecting and restormg nparian ~ azeas, floodplains and wetlands withm the Greenways system. A senes of habitat assessment ~ factors pertaining to the physical, biotic and human use components of each tributary were +~ developed along with assessment methodologies which would provide a systemaUc and objecUve ~ evaluation of each riparian azea. The study was designed to facihtate comparison of habrtat ~ ~ 39 ~ 0 f~ values with the competing goals of trails, recreation and flood hazazd mitigation during the plazuung phase for each Greenways project. This mformation was used to idenhfy and prioritize environmental pro~ects (see Chapter VII). S~ensitive Species In con~unction with the wildlife habitat assessment study, habitats of species of naUonal, state and local concern were identified using federal and state standards and gmdelines, Colorado Natural Heritage Program information, and data from the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and Boulder County agencies. Due to the location of the Greenways system along drainages, the Greenways comdors often encompass suitable habitat for two federally-listed species, the Ute Ladies'-Tresses Orclud and the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse. Some azeas of smtable habitat for these species have been idenUfied on the current master plan map. The black-tailed praine dog is a species of current local/state concem for which suitable habrtat also exists wrttun the Greenways comdors OpporturuUes for protecuon and enhancement of sensitive species habitat were identified and these opportumties will be reflected m future Greenways pro~ect development. Corridor Landscaping and Wetlands Preservation and Restoration The Greenways corridors contain numerous opportumties for the preservation, restoration and creauon of wetlands. Weflands creaUon/enhancement pro~ects aze also oppomuuties to preserve or create lugh-value wildhfe habitat The Greenways corridors have the potential to be used as a "wetlands bank", within which existing wetlands aze enhanced, or new wedands aze created, to compensate for wetlands losses due to developments in other parts of the city. Wetlands banking wnttun the Greenways corridors would create the opportumty for weUands enhancement and creation with fundmg from outside the city. Water Ouality As part of the Master Plan update process, opportumhes to improve water quahty m Boulder Creek and its tributaries have been identified. Base flows will be maintamed m stream channels as opposed to being enurely intercepted by imgation drtches and other users wherever possible. The South Boulder Creek Inventory prepazed by the Open Space Department has identified insh~eam flow goals for South Boulder Creek from Gross Reservoir to its confluence with Boulder Creek. Achievmg minimum slream flow protection will involve a coordmated effort among the major South Boulder Creek water diverters. 'I'he Public Works Department has completed the Boulder Creek Watershed Study, which includes a water quality assessment tool combining water quality, aquatic tiabitat, and land-use data to charactenze each sub-basm and help support management decisions (e.g. stream restoration opporhuuhes, land-use controls). Products of the Watershed Study include a water quality database, GIS mapping of water resources, sub-basms classificahon and prionhzahon based on resource needs, chazactenzation of pollutant loadings and impacts, and a implementation plan for pollution control, habrtat mrtigaUon and restoration 40 Urban Forest The onginal Tnbutary Greenways Master Plan recognized the need far sustained vegetation management and planting to maintain and enhance the ecology of each sh~eam. Trees lost to age and storms will need to be replaced Vegetation along banks and in sensiuve azeas may need mcreased maintenance as the use of these azeas increases Thuuung may be necessary to preserve diversrty. The Urban Forestry Program provides planting, caze and mazntenance and removal for city-owned trees on street rights-of-way and wrtlun crty pazks. The Forestry staff currendy provides full service maintenance for over 40,000 trees withm the city °~ ~ Trees located on city-owned lands wrtlun the Greenways comdors should receive rou6ne mspecuon ;~ for the purposes of diagnosmg problems and controlhng disease. ConsultaUon with Forestry staff concercung path and landscape design may prevent tree damage as a result of Crreenways project ~~ } construcUon and facilitate the development of healthy, sustaimng forest communities withu- the `° j comdors Current fundmg of Urban Forestry is inadequate to actueve these goals wrthin the '~:~ Crreenways corridars. Tree mazntenance is discussed further in Chapter VIII. ~;~ ;:,~ i~ /PM~ ar ;.: •~s .w ,~ .. .., ;; .~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v""~ ~ ~ w~i+ ~ ~ ~ ,~. ~ ~ ~ Transportation and Recreation The Greenways Master Plan Update Survey (1997) provides informaUon on the public perception of the nature and extent of current and future Crreenways bike and pedestnan path use and recreational use. Tlus survey mdicates. • Almost half of the surveyed households reported using the trail system 26 or more times in the last 12 months Only 10 percent of the households did not use the Greenways paths wrthin the last 12 months. • The most common acrivihes performed on the trails were biking and walking. • Almost half of the respondents rated the number of people using the system as "about nght"; 28 percent felt there were too few people using the system, and 16 percent felt there were too many users. • When asked what could be done to mcrease the use of the Greenways trails, the most common response was to increase the number of trails, access points and connections. • Survey respondents overwhelmingly (79%) preferred off-street to on-street bike lanes After hearing information on the advantages and disadvantages of each (including environmentat effects), about 64 percent suggested that the city pursue off-street bike paths as compazed to their on-street counterparts • When respondents were asked to rate how well each of the Greenways goals aze being met, the provision of recreat~on opportunities was judged to be the best met goa1, even though environmental preservation was judged to be the most important goal. The target of the Transportation Master Plan Update for the Boulder Yalley (July 1996) is to shift I S percent of all daily trips currently made by single-occupant autos to other forms of transportahon. The &cycle System Plan (June 1996) specifically calls for an increase in the bicycle mode share that translates mto doubhng the total number of bicycle trips from 80,000 per yeaz in 1994 to 160,000 per yeaz in 2020 41 ~ The original Greenways Master Plan acknowledges that trails and bikeways aze an important planning consideration that may be accommodated m or neaz the creek corridor, when balanced with the other goals for the program. Safe The Greenways system is considered by the public to be a relat~vely safe environment Respondents to the Greenways Master Plan Update Survey (1997) felt relauvely free from harassment (81 on a 100-point scale), cnme (77 on a 100-pomt scale) and colhsions (65 on a 100-pomt scale). While on average, respondents felt safe from harassment and cnme, there was less of a sense of secunty from colhsions The Boulder Police Department records mdicate a total of 26 crimes specifically idenrified wrth bike or creek paths from 3anuary 1,1997 through Apnl 30,1999. The ma~onty of the reported incidents occurred along the Boulder Creek Corridor. The Boulder Police Department has made the following suggestions to ensure conhnued safety of the Greenways system. • Adequate hghtmg of future Crreenways trazls should be provided • "Unfriendly" vegetation (e.g., thorny bushes, vegetation too thick to provide human access, vegetation designed so that it does not provide hidmg places, etc.) should be used near paths and bike ways. • 911 access telephones should be provided at convement intervals along a11 trails Where colhsion hazard is lugh, mstallat~on of pazallel soft-surface trails, when in keeping wrth environmental goals and objechves, may reduce pedestrian conflicts with bicyclists and roller bladers. Adherence to the design guidehnes whenever possible will reduce the incidence of unsafe curves, grades, and headroom on paths and truls. Flood Mitigation It is one of the basic goals of the Greenways Program to integrate floodplain management tectuuques which preserve open space, protect exishng vegetation, wedand and wildlife habrtat, and which provide for contact between surface and ground water. In addition, it is city policy that the flood carrying capacity of the creeks will not be reduced and, as a part of drainageway master plans, may be increased. The city's Storm Water and Flood Management Utihty (also referred to as the flood control utility) is empowered to purchase interests, mcluding ownership and easements, m land that may be necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare from damage &om storm water runoff and floods. The pre-flood property acquisition program provides fundmg to acquire property within the lugh hazard zone These properties typically coincide with azeas suitable for use in nparian habitat preservation or restoration, trail, pazk and water quality improvement projects. This provides opportuniUestoleverageproperryacquisitionresourcesforthesemultiplepurposes Whereproperty acqwsrtion is not necessary for the purposes of flood hazazd mitigation, easements aze needed for 42 normal drainage of water and associated drainage maintenance Easement acquisition costs can be leveraged among the vanous Greenways Program ob~ectives The flood utihty requires access trails smtable for heavy equipment along the drainages in order to adequately mamtain the dramages. This srtuahon provides opportumties to leverage the need for mamtenance access wrth pubhc transportahon needs along the Greenways corridors. The city's flood utility works in cooperaUon wrth the Urban Drainage and Flood Control Distnct (UDFCD) to increase public safety and the protection of property within the flood hazard zone. 1'hree master planning efforts, mvolving Fourmile Canyon Creek, South Boulder Creek, and Wonderland Creek from 28th Sh~eet to Foothills Pazkway, aze in progress. The UDFCD is involved in multiple maintenance projects within the city. The UDFCD is a major source of funding for flood miugarion pro~ects, which may also represent other Greenways pro~ect objectives, within the crty Cooperation with UDFCD in the azeas of maser plamm~g, design and construction, and maintenance will conhnue throughout the period reflected m this Master Plan Funding for projects within the drainages currendy ehgible for UDFCD pro~ect support will continue to be actively pursued. , ~ Historic and Cultural Resources ,I~ Historic and cultural resources help define the aesthetic and cultiual qualihes of the Crreenways corridors. The Greenways system should respect the chazacter of exishng and lustoric land uses, ~~~~ pubhc gathenng locaUons, histonc sites and other cultural resources along the Greenways comdors. "; When desigmng trails, flood mitigation measures, or other pro~ects along the Greenways, the city . should identify, document, and seek to protect any lustonc or cultural resources that may be ~ disturbed by construction. The city should promote its historic and cultural resources throughout the ~ Greenways system by nnproving access and providing signage and other educational devices. ` Boulder's eazly settlers and Native American populat~ons used the azea's creeks, streams, and r .~. tributaries to help determine transportation routes and settlement pattems. The Greenways system ~ therefore contains some of Boulder's oldest and most valuable historic resources. The city, through its Histonc Building Inventory Record, has identified and documented many historic buildings and : sites along the Greenways comdors. Histones of the Silver Lake, Anderson and Fazmers Ditches r have been published. However, relatively little has been done to identify, document and preserve ~, Boulder's azchaeological and cultural hentage r. ~ The city recognizes and protecu historic resources under Tide 10, Secuon 13 of the Boulder Revised ~3 Code. Histonc resources aze defined as buildings, structures, sites, or azeas of histoncal, ~ arctutectural, and/or envuonmental significance to the city of Boulder Histonc resources generally ~ fall mto one or more of the followmg categones: ~ • Sites or structures recogmzed by the crty as individual landmazks • Sites or structures that contnbute to locally designated historic districts ~ • Sites or structures that contribute to potentiat local historic districts ~ • Srtes or structures deemed eligible for local landmazking ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 43 .~ At the present rime, there aze six local tustonc distncts and more than ll0 individual tustonc landmazks within the crty In addihon, the crty has identified several potent~al lustoric distncts and completed surveys of potentially sigmficant histonc resources throughout many of the older neighborhoods. The existmg Greenways system contams one individual landmazk, the Boyd Smelter Site, and several sites and structures that aze considered eligible for local landmazking In addition, the Boulder Creek Comdor passes through the potenhal H~gtiland Lawn lustoric distnct Drainages added to the Greenways system in the future may pass through other potential lristoric districts The city should contmue to identify and document historic sites and structutes along the Greenways corridors. In addiUon, the city should expand its Histonc Buildmg Inventory Record to identify and document potentially significant azchaeological and historic resources associated with the Greenways comdors. The city has consulted with Histonc Boulder, Inc to help define Greenways system locations wrth associated known cultural resources. In addition, Historic Boulder, Inc. has designated areas m which special design considerations may be appropriate to preserve the tustoric character of neighborhoods In con~unction with the Master Plan update, a cultural resource inventory of the Greenways comdors was completed. A summary of the inventory findmgs is contained in Appendix III-1 of this plan. H. Program Evaluation Upon complehon, the Boulder Creek path was widely recogmzed as an ariractive and innovative method of enhancingthe urban environmentwtule addressingthe mult~ple objectives of floodhazard mitigation, alternatrve transportauon, recreation, water quality protection and nparian environment preservation and enhancement. Tlus pro~ect has won numerous nauonal awazds, mcludmg the American Rivers Symposium Trailblazer award in 1995 and the Trail Town USA awazd from the Amencan Hiking Society in 1996 The development of the Greenways system, based on the success of the Boulder Creek Corridor pro~ect, sumlazly became a model of economic, aesthetic and cultural success. The program continues to attract national and intemational attention. The Greenways Coordinator frequently receives calls for informauon on the program from urban planners azound the country and the world. Greenw~s Master Plan Update Survev The Greemvays Master Plan Update Survey conducted by the Na6onal Reseazch Center in 1997, provides an evaluat~on of the overall Greenways Program from the perspective of those who use it, the citizens of Boulder Based on a randomly selected, representahve sample of Boulder households mterviewed by telephone (approximately 400 completed surveys), public perceptions of the successes of the Greenways Program aze. • All of the goals of the program aze perceived as important Respondents rated the goal of envuonmental preservation as the most important goal, followed by flood protection, 44 transporta6on and recreation y • In terms of how well each of these goals is bemg met, the respondents thought that recreation ~ was the best met goa1. Flood hazard protection was rated lowest. • Almost half of the households surveyed reported using the Greenways trails system 26 or ~'~ more rimes during the preceding 12 months. ~9 • About half of the respondents reported that the number of people usmg the system was ~ "aboutrighY' ~ • System users rated connections to recreation centers or the workplace and school of adult household members best in terms of system connectavrty ~ • About 60 percent of the respondents supported the city pursmng construction of new paths '~ • When informed that the Greenways system was about 50 percent complete and that the +~ current city goal was to complete the system wrttun 15 to 20 yeazs, 46 percent of the ,~ respondents felt the proposed time frame was just about nght ' • Sales tax was the preferred method of funding acceleratron of the Greenways Pro~am by 44 +~~ percent of respondents (regazdless of their opinion on whether or not tlus acceleration should <',~ occur) w~~~ • About half of those surveyed supported expansion of the Greenways system to connect to ,~ every major school, pazk, employment center and neighborhood for pedestrians and bicychsts ~ij~ without impacting any existing creek corridor. +~ • About 64 percent of the respondents felt the city should emphasize off-street bike paths as ;~ opposed to their on-street counterparts. ,~ .~ Negahve percepuons of the program were few. However, certain findings identified issues which ""` were addressed through the Master Plan update process. ~~ • A majority of the respondents (62 percent) reported they had not heazd of the Greenways ;'~ Program ~ • The unportance of the envuonmental goal was significandy greater than the recreadon goal, ,~,~ yet residents felt the recreation goal was better met than the environmental goal. ""' • Regazding pubhc use of the system, 28 percent of the respondents felt too few people were ~ usmg the system, and 16 percent said too many people aze using the system ;~ • When rating connecUvity to destinations, connections to other cities in Boulder County were ~ rated lowest. ~ • On average, users reported a perception of safety from harassment and crime on the system trails, however, there was less of a sense of security from collisions. ~ • When the positive and negahve aspects of new path construction were presented, including d$~ potential damage to open azeas, unique ecosystems and endangered species, almost one ~ quarter of the respondents opposed the construction of new paths and trails, and 17 percent ~ were undecided. • If acceleration of program complehori ' to the nea~t five years would cost $1.5 to $2 million ~ more per yeaz than is currently budgeted, almost half of those opposed acceleration of the ~ ~ " Questions conceming the acceleration of program completion pertained to the projects idendfied in the previous master plan 0 ~ 45 ~ ~ ~ plan. When presented wrth the advantages and disadvantages, including impacts to the natural environment, of off-street bike paths, 21 percent responded that on-street bike lanes should be emphasized Interual Greenways Program EvaluaHon The city conducted a staffdebnefing on the Greenways Program on December 8,1998. The meetmg included representat~ves from Transportation, Utihties, Planning, Public Works Admimstration, the City Attorney's Office, Development and Inspechon Services, Facihry and Asset Management, Open Space, Streets and Bikeways Maintenance, Pubhc Works Administration, Parks and Recreahon, and Water Quality. Staff percephons of the successes of the Greenways Program mcluded Overall Program • The oppommistic approach of the program is successful. • The program has accomplished a lot - 50 percent of the system is complete, and 80 percent of the proposed trails have been completed"" • The Greenways system is a safe, wonderful, recreational system. • The Greenways system is popular with cihzens. • The Crreenways system has promoted a renewed appreciation for the creeks. • Conflicts between flood and environmental issues within the riparian comdors were resolved • The program has provided a model for other commumhes, locally and nationally • Public awazeness of the need for water quality enhancement has been raised. • The program has resulted in the enhancement of urban open space. • T'he program has represented mulUple purposes and ob~ectives as outhned in the onginal master plan. • There is a perception that the Greenways system is an enhancement of the city. Program Organization and Implementation • Havmg a central point of contact for the program has been helpful • The team approach to the pro~ects has been successful Funding • The program has done a good job of leveraging non-crty financial resources • The program has been successful in streamlining multi-departmental funding. The program has facilitated private sector cooperation. Justification and accounting for funduig from multiple sources has been done well. "` This statement pertains to projecu identified in the previous master plan. 46 Project Design, Const~ction and Maintenance • Multiple purposes were evaluated dunng the design and construchon of pro~ects • Conhmm~g maintenance of pro~ects was facihtated because the right people were included in the design phase. • The projects have been well-managed and the construction has been well done. • The projects have had tugh quahty, aesthetically pleasing designs • Project designs mcorporate water quality enhancement measures. • The design process allows for on-gomg adjustments during a project. • The projects have been well-maintazned. • The project designs have included good access for mazntenance purposes. Staff perceptions of azeas wittun the Greenways Program which could be improved were used m the development of issues to be addressed m the master plan update process. These issues include: ~ ) Overall Program ~, • Creek sides and underpasses are subject to flooding. ; ~ • Nomenclature and terminology (e g, greenways, bike path, flood channel) should be consistenUy defined and used ~ • Better balance is needed between envuonmental and transportation concerns. .','~ • Environmental objectives have not been a priority ,~ • There have been interdepartmental struggles over such tlungs as weflands proj ects, CEAPs, , ~ and maintenance. ' • Improvement is needed in mterdeparhnental staff communication. W~' • Seven drainages within the city aze not included in the plan. Environmental preservation and v,y balance among objectives aze needed in these azeas too S~ „y Program Organization and Implementation " ~ • Inter-departmental involvement is not always a smooth process. ;~% • Responsibihty v~nthm the program is not always cleaz to the staff or the pubhc. ~'~ • CEAPs should be more comprehensrve, u-stead of being mcrementally prepazed for each ~ project. ~ • There is a lack of clarity and consistency m program direction • The project permitUng and approval processes aze complicated It is not always apparent ~ when and if certain pemuts or approvals are required. ~ ~ Funding ~ • As projects aze completed, there hasn't been new funding for maintenance purposes. ~ Project Design, Construction and Maintenance ~ • Maintenance responsibilrties are fragmented, leadmg to confusion over who is responsible ~ for what ~ • Responsibilities for installation and mazntenance of trees need to be clarified. • Some pro~ects were not constructed according to plan/design. ~ ~ ~ 47 ~ :.~ ~ ~- • National safety guidelmes (e g., headroom, curves and grades on paths) have not always been met. • Project designs sometimes do not take maintenance access into considerafion • The 26`" to 28`~ Street segment of Goose Creek may or may not have been completed according to the established design gmdelines Based on the survey, the 12/8/98 debrief and the various public meetings held during 1998 to 2000, staffidentified a senes of high level actions needed within the Greenways Program Measures wluch have been taken to address these achon items in the process of the master plan update aze summarized below• • A system-wide environmental analysis with mapping has been completed. ' • Environmental enhancements withu- the Greenways system should be highlighted. ~ • A list of environmental enhancement projects has been compiled. , • Priority for environmental objectives and fundmg mechazusms for environmental ^ enhancement projects have been developed. ~ • A comprehensive mazntenance plan has been idenufied. '" • The possibihty of a dedicated maurtenance group for Greenways was explored. r • Consistent, defined temunology and nomenclature has been developed. ,~ • The organizational structure for rumm~g the Greenways Program was defined. " ,~ • Use of the Greenways comdors for a weflands mitigation bank, in which wetlands can be ~~ created enhanced to compensate for wetland impacts in other parts of the city, will continue ", to be explored !~~ ~ 48 ~ ~ ~. .. ~, ~ ~ ~~ ' ~~ n ~ , ~ X ~ y ~ ~~ ee~"1 ~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~z~ ro ~ ~ x 6 ~ p < ~ ~ Q A O ~ $ u a ~' B :: fCD C e '~ O g ' fe O ro A ; ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ °~ ° ~ 4] ~ ~ ~ F A v~ r e o ~~ ~ °z~ e ~ ' ' e m ~°o ~°o °w ~°o ° 3 y e~ ~ ~~~~ t ~ Paved ~ ~ Unpaved ~ None ~ ~ At-Grsde Crossing ~ ~ Grade-Separated Crossing < < Flood Hazard Mrtigation y i.'~. p .0 . Minor Drainage Improvement z? d ~ ~f ~1 ~f ~f j G' ~ n p a ? y ro ro ~ ro ~ Native Plant Hsbitat ~ C C ~ ~ G] ~ ~~ ~ C 9 ] G Vegetative Structure y y~ ro ro ro ro ro ~ B~rd Species Richness Rest Stop < < ' ~ 'r~i. Drinking Fountain z ~ ,.`"y S' ~ < < < Connection to Park ~ Landmark/Site Eligible tor Landmarking < < Existing Historic District ~ O ~ Potential Historic District qp y~ Other Cultural/Htstoric Resource C ~ Connectionto Urban Center i~ ~ 1~ i p N G $' ~ '1 ~ ~ ~ n dk,~ _ ~~~ ~~~~~y~~ Kz~ ~~ ~ x ~ w a, a~ ff ~ ~ a m ff O O w n C 'r 9 ~ ~ s c O ~ a Q ~ O ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ; R , A ~ m ~ y ~ a m ~ ,~ ~, ~ -~ a ~~ p ~ ee 6 e N ~ Y on m z~ ra ~a a~ ~ y n ~ n w n o0 ~ 00 n ~ ~ .. .. .. J ~l ~l .. ~l ,. fr1 .. .. ~J N .. N ~ Vi ~~y y v U G ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ Paved ~ Unpaved None ~ AbGrade Crassiug o ~ ~ ~ Grade-Separated Crossing < < Flood Hazard Mitigation y ~ ~ ° ~ ~ Minor Drainage Improvement z a d Y ~ ~ ~ ~n ~ ~ C~ G~ y ~'~ r ~ y ro ro ro ro~ ~ ro ro Native Plant Hsbitat G~ C~ G~ C9 G~ ~ C C G~ < G~ ~~~ 'j ~ Vegetative Structure y h ro ro ro ro ~ ~ G~ C ro C ro i i h ness Bird Spec es R c C Rest Stop ~~y> < < Drinking Fountain N z ~ ~ ~ C C Connection to Park ~ Landmark/Site Eligible tor Landmarking Ex~sting Historic District o ~ ~ Potential Historic District p ~ ~ ~ < < Other Cultural/Historic Resource ~ < < Connection to Urbsn Center r +~. ~iY -Wr w +ww ~+. .. t ~., a. sc/ ww . , ww 'w V/ 6r „~ .W . wr .w .r w wun w~' Y~' W" iw 'lII 'Mr !~ w~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .+ b ~ C a " y~ A a ~ ~ °e y ~ l~ Ctl t~ L~ ~ ~b ~ ~tr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 R, ~ ~ 9 ~ 70 K~`e ~ ~ 9 a ~ ~ ~ a s °~ ~ ~ ~ d m y o .. w n C', o a 0 a o y ~ = 9 m `' y Q o ~ ° -Ai ~ F ; ~T' `° a '~ ~ < c~ . o ~ ~ $ L . o ia o' g H ~ a ~o „ o tilO G~ p ~ ~ n p~ o C eo '. ~ M ~ g " on xr r ~ N N Q W N ~D ~1 J N n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A N ~ ONO ~ N N ~ ~ ~ C ` < < Paved Unpaved None ~ At-Grade Crossing ~ ~ Grade-Separated Crossing C ~ C ~ Flood Hazard Mitigatwn ~~ ~ O x~ d Minor Drainage Improvement 9 ~ ~ ~n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~nc Y ~ ~ ro b ~ ~ ~ ~ ro ro ro ~ Native Plant Habitat ~ ~ C~ C~ C~ C~ C C ~ ~ ~ C ~ y~~., ~ G) G~ ~ Vegetative Structure „j ro ro ro s b b Bird Species Richness < < Rest Stop >~a < < Drinking Fountain ~ ,OZ ~ ~ < < Connection to Park Landmark/Site Ehgible for Landmarking Existing Historic District o x~ E ~ Potential Historic District p ~~ C < < < < Other Cultural/Historic Resource < < < < Connection to Urban Center o e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ A ~ , ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Otl n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 K 7~tl '~ ~ ~ ~ A z ~ ~ x ro m ro m ~ G ~f 0 ~f O tin O Y ~ > ~ w G w G 1 3 n ~ s o ~ Q ~ m m a > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m y ~, m m ~ ~ c~ ~ a " ; ~ ~° A ~W °, u 6' o° ~. e°e ~ o w a• a A ~o ('T ~ mb p ~ x~ U A A ~ ~ ~ i J ~ ~ r i ~[ 1 O N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~• < < < , t Paved ~ Unpaved H None ~ At-Grade Crossing N ~ ~ ~ ~ < < Grade-Separated Crossing < < < Flood Hazard Mrt~gation ~ ° ~g ~ Minor Drsmage Improvement z a o Y Y C~ ~ c~ ~ ~n ~ G~ ~ ~ q a , y ro ro ~ ro ,~ ~ ~ ,~ Native Plant Habitat ~ ~ c~ n c~ n ~ ~ y~~ Vegetative Structure y Bird Specles Richness ~ [ Rest Stop ~~ ~ Drinking Fountain y ~ z ~ ~ Connection to Park Landmark/Site Eligible for Lsndmsrking Existing Historic District O ~ ~ Potential Historic District p ~~ Other Cultural/Historic Resource ~ Connection to Urban Center yr. +Yr iir 4. ,.. ,w. a.. a.. w. ww v ... r w~.o V.~ ~.r V` ..r ~r / V~`~ '~ V~ r.r V w vr v~ .w ~.v ~/' .sY .M~ .~+ '~ ~'~/ ~ w C ~ ~ B , ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ A ~ f~ ~ n ~ n ~ f~ ~ f] ~ A ~ A ~ A ~ A ~ A ~ "j ;v K ~K N W p jJ . i -. .~ ~ ~D ~ ~ 2 o~`'e ff a ~. a a "~ y o a ~ s C a C s ,O~C o W a ~ $ n a n ; N ~ n a w m ~ ; N w n a w : ; ~ ~ ~ a ~ ! a ~ ! o ., n . 'o' °' 6' ~ e ~ ao' F+ ~ ~ e n ~ ~ p+1 O l w io ~ ~ Q ~ C •, w ~ ~ G7j ~ ^ u ~ ! ~ ~v ~ ° A za r ~ t~ hn A ~f A ~ Pf ~ A nn A ~r A +n Pf ~ A hn A ~ f~ ~ Y A N N ~'~" J J ~ ~ O W ~ ~"~~''~ A N J N C r~~]~• ~ ~ Paved Unpaved None ~ At-Grade Crossing ~ ~ Grade~Separated Crossing t < < < < < < C < < Flood Hazard Mitigation ~ ~ "~ O x~ d Minor Drainage Improvement Y n C 'i7 'if 'i7 K7 '~1 "if '~f 's7 'zf 'i7 'i7 ~ ~ Y ' y ro ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ b G~ ~ ~ Native Plant Habitat ~ ~ Cf G~ G] C~ C ~ CCi ~ C 4~ 'v 9~~ G) C~ Vegetative Structure y y~ ~ ro ~ ~ ~ ro ro B~rd Species Richness Rest Stop a~y ~ Drinking Fountain ~ p ~ S' ~ Connection to Park Landmark/Site Eligible for Lsndmarking Existing Historic District ~ ~ ~ Potential Historic District p ~~~ < < < Other Cultural/Historic Resource °' ~ Connection to Urbau Center o ° a ' „ e. e f~ a ~ A ~ 0 ~ ~ '~ '~ '~ '~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ p~p 'Y] ~ v v ~.~i ~ N N N ~ ~ (~ ~ ~ N n ~ ...~. ~ ~ v ~~ ~~ ~~~ O~~ ~ T ~ 2 o ~' 7C e~ 'rS1 C l7 C7 B ~ B 6 F y ~ "* A ~ ~ o _ 0 _ 0 ~ $ d A a $ l'f o ' H ~ ~ ~ ~ O m ~ C' s~y C ° '~S _ 'y ° ~ ~ ~ ~c~ y ro° ~ ~ '+ Q S a = ~ ~ a A ~ z~ - i y y p Qti O UO A A Q ~ ~ N ~ t,y ~ tsf . + Y' ~ , y~ z . . .. a .. ~ ~y ~t ~ ~ ~ c c c C Paved ~ Unpaved Nane ~ At-Grsde Crossing ~ ~ e e e e Grade-Separated Crossm¢ ~ Flood Hazard Mitigation i."~. ~ °z $ < < < Minor Drainage Improvement ? d ~ G] G~ ~1 h1 ~1 ~1 ~f ., ~ ~ A yA~ b ro ro ro ~ ~ ~ Nstive Plant Habitst c~ c~ c~ c~ n c~ c~ Y ~ °° ~ Vegetative Structure ,a,3 t" ro ro Bird Spec~es Richness Rest Stop y ro ~j Y ` Drinking Fountsin z ~ ~ < < Cannection to Park Landmark/Site El~gible for Landmarking I Existing Historlc District I Potential Historic District ~ I Other Cultural/Historic Resource O~~ ~O y~ Connection to Urban Center ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~S ~ W .Aw. ..Aw. a ~ uni on+ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ro ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~~ x x b N N N N b+ ~+ aJ 6i' b~' m 6 G C 6 a ~ o ~ 9 B; n; ~; n a O n ~ ~ u w w 6 a. ! 171s1 ~ ~ a m~ v~ a~a o ~n ~~jJ ~ 70 ~ F p e ~ ~ 7 _ n ~ °z~ ,6,~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o 0 0 ~ t ~ ~ '( ~' ~ ~+ z ~ , .• O o ~D o 00 b O~ o N o W ~~~c C ` ` CHV¢U Unpaved None ~ < < ~ ~ At-Grade Crossing ~ ~ Grade-Separated Crossing < < Flood Hazard Mitigation ~ i.'~. O < < Mmor Drainsge Improvement x ? ~ Y ~ ro ro ro ,~ ~n ~ G~ G~ ~ n q y > y ro ro ro b ~ C~ G~ ro ro C~ C~ C~ C~ C~ ~ C'~ ~ C9 ~ Native Plant Habitat ro ro ro ro ~~ ro ro b C~ G~ G~ ~ ~ y~~ Vegetative Structure Bird Species Richness Rest Stop Drinking Fountain Connection ta Park ~~~ O ~ .~'.~ z ~ Landmark/Site Eligible tor Landmarking Existing Historic Diatr~ct Potential Historic District < < < Other Cultural/fiistoric Resource Oyr qO n~ C Connection to Urbsn Center ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ k ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n f~ A f] f'f A A f'f A A n 70 ~f „~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Khe ~ ~ A N ~ ~ + i. ...i F ~ m O S ~ O ~ G y ~ ; e e w ~ ~ ~ n ~ n o ~ ~ w ryy n~ w ~ w ~ a ~ . i G. ~ r i. ~ fi l7 Qp1 e 'z O m C N ~ ~ J Q 7 Q 7 0 RJ ' 47 V p y C~ 0~ ~ 6 O ~ ~ o ~ ~ " e Q ~ I Q .1 ~ ~ ^ z~ G~ ~ ~ ~ n n ~ ~ n n ~ ~ ~~~~, o .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. by~~,~,wW W W..~Q ~~ A a ~j W ~~~ ~ ~ rn ~ ~ ~ Paved Unpaved None ~ ~ At-Grade Crossing ~ Grade-Sepsrated Crossing ~ [ . < < < Flood Hazard Mitigation y~ ~ "~ ° ~~ < < < Minor Drainage Improvement z ~ d a ,~ ro ro ro b b ro ro b ro ,~ q ~ c ~ ? y ro ~ GC'~ GCy ~ t~ K7 t~f G~ G~ ~ Native Plant Habitat ~ c ro ro b ro ~ ro ro ro ro c~ G~ < ro ~~ ~ ~ ~ Vegetshve Structure y y~ b ~ ~ ~ C ro c ro ~ ' ro ro ro c ro ~ ~ v o e ' Bird Species Ric6ness Rest Stop ~~ C Drlnking Fountain ~ ~ z ~ ~ < < ConnecNon to Park Landmark/Site Elig~ble tor Landmarking Existing Historic District ~ ~ ~ Potential Historic District Cp n~ Other Cultural/Historic Resource `~' Connechon to Urban Center x ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ; A ' ° q~ e~v '~ e „ g ~Y~ m r r W G~ A G] A A A Un~l I,I O~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ n 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p O ~" G ^~ 6 G G nr a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ o a 0 ~ o°, ~ ~ ~ a ~ ; o w e' ° ~ a ~ °° ~ y d~p ~ O ~ ~ ~ Cj ~ O~ a ~, 70 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A '+ o a 2Y r A ~ ~ ~ W W J J J U~1 O A G+f ~~!s1 ~ ~j W V~i ~ '~ f~/1 i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Paved - Unpaved None ~ At-Grade Crossmg ~ ~ ~ ~ Grade-Separated Crossing ~ Flood Hazard Mitigation y~ ~ ~ O x'~ d Minor Drainage Improvement ' ~ a ro ro ~ ~ ~n ~ ~n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y b ro ~ ro b ro ro Native Plant Habitat ~ ~ ~ dtl C ~ ro , ~ ~ C ~ C ~ ' ~ ~ Vegetative Structure y r CI G~ G~ 'd 'd B~rd Speciea Richness Rest Stop ~ > ~ Drinking Fountain ti z ~ ~ C C Connection to Park Landmark/Site Eligible for Landmarking Existing Historic District o ~ ~ Potential Historic District p ~ ~ < < < Other Cultural/Fiistoric Resource °1 Connection to Urban Center ~ ~ ~ ~ B '° ~ ~ Q Q M eti f C~ o G~ ° ~ O ~ ry o ~ ~~yy 2 y ~ t O ye,~ "3 "~ ~ "'1 ~ e'o .. A ,. A .. A ~, A r ~ ~ ~ ~ y C ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ n Kz~ ~ ~ ~ro H ~ _. n ~ ~ A ~ ~'• ~ ~• a a ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~r 8 ro ~ ~ g ; " ~ a n ~ ; y n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~, ; ~ ~ ~ ~' o ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ro O p d O " ~ C ~ ~ n ~ ~~~y q n • i ~ o ~ x t" ~ A N N N N ~ n ~ y ~ ~ A A w ~ ~ A ~ T ~ ~ y . ~ < < Paved Unpaved None ~ ~ At-Grade Crossing ~ ~ ~ ~ Grade-Separated Crossing ~ Flaod Ha~ard Mitigation y ~ ~ p ~G~O x ~ Minor Drsinage Improvement '~ b Y ro ~d ~O n7 ro ro ro ro ~n~ ? a H ~ ~ ~ M M ) ~ G G ~ Native Plant Habitat ~ ~ ~ b b ro ~ ~ ~ ~~~ Vegetative Structure y ro ro ro ro ro Bird Species Richness ~ Rest Stop ~~yi ~ ~ Drinking Fountain z ~ ~ [ Connection to Park LandmarkiSite Eligible for Landmarking Existing Historic District Potential Historic District Other Cultural/Historic Resource Connection to Urban Center ~~~ ~~~ TRIBUTARY GREENWAYS MASTER PLAN MAP AND INVENTORY REACH , Etmers Twomile Cr. cont(ETl) (ETlI (ETl) Skunk Creek (SC~ (SC~ (SCS/SC4) (SC4) (SC4) (SC4/SC3) (SC4/SC3) (SC3) GEOGRAPHICAL DESCRIPTION Glenwood to Valmout Valmont Crossing Valmont to Goose Aollyberry to NOAA NOAA to Broadway Broadway Crossin~ 27" Crossm~ Moorhead Crossmg Highway 36 Crossing Moorhead to Baseline Basetine Crossmg ENV. I ASSESS- MErTI' REACH ET0405 ETOS ET05 SC01-04 SC06 SC06 SC07 SC09 SC07 SC07 SC07/OS d ~ ~ ~ d G 0 / / / / Y Ir 59 FLOOD MI1'IGA- TION o ~ b~ L ~ O ~ i d ~ ~ «y x a a 0 1° w Q C ~ / ' / AQUA- TIC AABTTAT P P ' P F F F F F F F P-F V Y ~ ~ G a 0. ~ a z TERRES- TRG1L HABITAT M u 7 I ` ~ V Y ~ I > v > VP-G G G VP-E VP VP P P P P VP-P G G G P-VG G G VG VG VG VG VG ~ ~ 0 a c ~ ~ Ca P P P P-E P P P P P P VP-P PASSIVE RECRG ATION ~ = ~ ~ ~ a ~ V a w° c O C V rn C ~ U 00 C L W e ~ Q 0 ., a w M ~ ~ ~' 'O C ~ ra CUI HL RES .y ~ Q i « ~ ~ '~ L~ .1'IJR iTOR oux~ ~ ~ ' AI, L ' W c 0 Q~ ~I/ [C ;ES i L ~ 4 C : s : C ~ ~ 2 C / W w ~ G ~ a .7 r c 0 u w G O O U F ~~ A ~ ~zy e~ ~i~y ~ ~N~ -. -. -. -. .. .. -. -. -, e „~ ~ .C3 r r N ~ N W W ~ W ~ A ~~~ U1 -.W.~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ N ~ ~ ~ C n A Y O O ONO p b C ~~ ~ ~ ~ 6 Q~ G w 6 ~ ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. n a ~ A+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C '~ ~~ o o ~ w o~~ y d~ ~ ; ~ 3 ~. ~ o ° ~ ° ~~i ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ .~ ~ n 'O ~ ~y y a ~ o~ ; b , z ~, ~ 1 N ~ ~ ~ ~,~j 00 O~ 01 N O ~ J 0~0 0~0 ~ ~ y ~ i+ Q O r ~ ~O N OC O ~~~ ~ rn 0 ~ Paved Unpaved None ~ At-Grade Crossing ~ < < ~ Grade-Separated Crossing Fload Hazard Mitigation y~ ~ ~ O~ x d Minor Drainage Improvement '~ ~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~n ~ ~ ~ ,~ ,~ `° ~ n Iy a . y ~ e~ ~ ~ ro ro ro ~ ~ ~ "d "~ Native Plsnt Habitat ~ ro b ~ C~ C ~ C~ C~ < C ~ C C ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ Vegetative Structure y y~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~v ~ ~ c ro Bird Species Richness ~ Rest Stop ~~~ Drinking Fountain z ~ ,.`°y S' `~ Connectiou to Park Landmark/Site Eligible for Landmarking Existing Aistoric District ~ ~ ~ Potential Historic District p ~~ C Other Cultural/Historic Resource ~ Connection to Urban Center TRIBUTARY I GREENWAYS MASTER PLAN MAP AND INVENTORY REACH Bear Creek ($CC~ (BCCSBCC4) (BCC4) (BCC4) (BCC4) (BCC4/BCC3) (BCC3) (BCC3) (BCC3) BCC3) GEOGRAPHICAL DESCRIPTION Mountams to Lehigh Lehi~6 to Broadway Broadwsy Crossin~ Broadwsy to Martm Martin Crossing Mar[in to Moorhead Moorhead Crossin~ Moorhead to Hi~hway 36 Hi~hway 36 Crossmg Hiqhwav 36 to Baseline ENV. ASSESS- ME1V1' REACH BRCOl-06 BRC06-I l 8RC11/12 BRC12-16 BRC16 BRC16 BRC16/18 BRC18 BRC18 BRC1&22 / / / / TRAII. / / / ,/ FLOOD MITIGA- TION o ~ I ~ ,~ e , _ o ~ 6 'V ~ ~ ~ I Q~ 'i ~ ~ = o ~ a o 'w ~ 0 G ~ AQUA- ' TIC HABTTAT F-G F F F F F F F P-E P P-G P-G P P P P-G 1'ERRES TRIAL HABITAT L d y ~ u x ' Y C ~ W ~ QI V i ~ z ~ P-VG ' P P-G G VG VG VG VG w W C r a ~ .~ ~ ~ ca P-G VP-G P-G VP-P G G G G PASSIVE RECR~ ATION a ~ ` O V~ .~ ~ ~ g s a k+ G ~ ~ G V ~i C Q v / / m C L a e 7 G ~ W a .~ w w ~ a E' ~ e a a CUI IiI: RES Y V Q ~ ~L M ~4 ~ ~ ~ W T[JR ITOR ~UR< Y .` ~ a V Y ~ .~ a: 1IJ [C .~ a ~ ~ 8 0 i .` G ~ ~ C ~ C d N U W L ~ V ~ a d e c 0 U I/ 61 m ~ ~~ n ~ ~~ ~ °o ~ ~k~ ~S~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ y ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ O c~ 9 c~ ,d ~ y ~ w m ~ ~R m ~ R p o G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s p ~ C ~ O ~ n d o ~ o ~ n a ~ g o A a .~ m w 6' P0 ° = ' ' ; ~ ° o ~ ~ e ro a ~ o a a ~ o ~ ~ e m ~ ~ n ~ ~ y tw ~ ~ ~ ~ n n ~ ~ n n ~~y O ~O J J ~. A N N ~ ~~ y N b J A ~ ~ c c < < < re~~a Unpaved None ~ At-Grade Crossing ~ N ~ < < < Grade-Separated Crossing < < < < Flood Hazard Mitigation y ~'~ '"' O Minor Drainsge Improvement z? d ~ A 's7 Kf 'sJ °~f K7 k7 '~f ~1 ~ C ynY y ro ,~ ~ ro ~ G~ G~ ~ `d Nahve Plant Habrtat C~ ~ G~ C] Cf G~ C~ C ~ ~ ~~ ~ Vegetative Structure y y~ Bird Species Richness Rest Stop a~'y Drinking Fountain y ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ Connection to Park Landmark/Site Eligible for Lsndmarking Existing Historic District I Potential Histor~c Distr~ct < < I Other Cultural/Historic Resource ~ Connechon to Urban Center ~~~ 0 ~~ TRIBUTARY I GREENWAYS MASTER PLAN MAP AND IIWENTORY REACH GEOGRAPHICAL DESCR[PTION South Boulder Creek (SBC4) (SBC4) (SBC4/SBC3) (SBC3) (SBC3) (SBC3 /SBC2) {SBC2) Broadway to Hi~hway 36 Highway 36 to South Boulder Hi~hway 36 Crossin~ South Boulder Rd. Crossm~ South Boulder Rd. to Baseline Baseline Crossin~ Baseline to Wellman Canal Wellman Canal to Arapahce Arapa6ce Crossm~ Arapahoe to Stazio ENV. I ASSESS- MEN1' REACH SBC00-O8 SBCOB/09 SBC09-13 SBC13-19 SBC19 SBC19-2.1 TRAIL /I / / / / /~ / / / / 63 FLOOD MIT[GA- TION o d OD N ~ O ~ ~ ' a, ~ E ., x W C °o ~ W Q L O C ~ / I/ AQUA- TIC i HABITAT ' F-G G G ' F-G F F TERRES TR(AL HABTTAT ~ _ ~ ~ u L Y ~+ r/~ C ~ ' ~ = a • > ~ d z > VGE ' VG I P-VG VP-G G G G-VG G-VG G G-VG VG P-VG a°~ O V ~ .~ a ~ 9 ~ G-VG VG GVG G PASSIVE RECRE- ATION ~ C L ~ C ~ W = ~.~i ' ~+ w C bp O C ~ C G Q U / / / / OU C i ~ Pi 9 C a° `o ., a b0 w V Y li W , E' ~e C Q ~ C[Il ~ RES Y Q ~L V ~ e ~ k w ~TI7R iTOR DURI Y Q V ~ ~7 W a° \I./ [C :ES i 4 C P t i a ~ ~ ~ a i C / / / / / / r W C a a « G 0 r d ~ C O v o ~~ ~ a ~ ~~ k~ n ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~~ z •e ~ ~ . N. ° ' ~ e`~e `~ ~ro (~ ~ N ~ W < ~g ~ ~ ~ o „ ° o .. o ~ ~ 3 e°~ o ro nGj ro° °e ` ~ ~ O~ za r w w W N v, N m yyy ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' r r+ ~ r i~+ ~, ~ ~ "'~ A f i fiJ r i.+ i.+ ~ , ~ ~ Psved Unpaved None ~ At-Grsde Crossing A ~ ~ Grade-Separated Crossing Elood Hazard Mitigation y~ ~."`~, "" O Minor Drainage Improvement x~ b K7 K7 'i7 '=J ~ y p y~a y C~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ Nstrve Plant Habitat ~ G~ G~ ro Vegetative Structure ~~~ ~ Bird Species Richness Rest Stop ~ ~~~ Drinking Fountain ~ ~y ,'~'.~ k~ ~ C Connectton to Park LandmarkiS~te Ehg~ble for Landmarking Ex~sting H~storic District o ~ ~ Potent~al Historic District qp n~ < < Other Cultural/H~staric Resource O1 Connectionto Urban Center III. Plan Development A. Introduction ~~.~1 al~~ 3, ~I;~1 _'~;~ ~ d,~ d°,~ ~,`~ 4a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s~3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !r ~ ~ ~ a, ~.. ~, ~ ~. ~ A public meet~ng was held in September 1998 to develop an approach for public involvement in the Master Plan update process. It was the group consensus that the process would involve numerous opportunities for pubhc comment on a city staff written Plan A core group of staff, representmg multiple ciry divisions and departments was assembled to evaluate issues and participate m the development of the Greenways Master Plan update All owners of properry adjacent to Greenways were nohfied by duect mailing of all Greenways Master Plan public meehngs Pubhc nohces were also placed in the Daily Camera, on the Greenways web site and on signs along the Greenways. An implementation plan for the Master Plan update was developed based on the input received in the pubhc meeting and the core staff group's understandmg of the purpose and components of a master plan Tlus implementation plan was distnbuted in November 1998 to City Council, the five boards involved v~nth Greenways and other interested parties. The Master Plan Implementat~on Plan was intended to be dynamic m order to allow for and mcorporate public comment mto the process The Implementation Plan was drnded into three phases. Phase I included an evaluation of the program to date and lustorical information about the program. During Phase II, pro~ects and opportunities for each of the Program's objectives were developed. The final phase of the Master Plan update included reaclung consensus on the following issues: • the development of prcedures and processes for project planning and public involvement; • an organizaUonal structure; • a financing plan, and; • a maintenance strategy. The Phase I draft report was distnbuted to the boazd members, City Council and interested members of the pubhc on June 8, 1999, m conjunction with a Greenways Open House. Over 100 people attended the Open House. In addition to providu-g information about the Greenways Master Plan update, the Open House was also intended to provide general information and to solicit comments about the Program. Several other Greenways forums were held over the summer of 1999 to solicit pubhc mput. The Circle Boulder by Bicycle ride/run was held in June. This event provided an opportunity for citizens to become fanuliaz wrth the Greenways corridors. Three additional bicycle rides were held in September, which were mtended to inform ciUzens about upcoming projects along the Greenways corridors, as well as sohcit comments from the pubhc. In August a stafFbicycle ride was held for the purpose of evaluahng past pro~ects and identifying what worked well and what did not. A Greenways web srte was established in May to provide a better informational link and can be found at www.ci.boulder.co.us under Sernces and Departments. In order to complete the second phase of the Master Plan, a Greenways Riparian Habitat Assessment 65 as perFormed during the summer of 1999 to fill the data gaps m the city's envvonmental mformation. A pubhc presentaUon of the results of the study was held on Oct. 23, 1999. This study represents a comprehensive evaluation of the quality of the riparian habitat along the 13 creeks that run through the city of Boulder. The methodology was desigied to specifically compaze the quahty of ripanan ecosystems witlun an urban envuonment and assesses both existing habrtat quality as well as restorahon potential. This data was utilized to idenrify azeas along the Greenways corridors for restoration, protection and management. B. Baseline Studies Environmental Evaluation The current status of terrestrial habitat within the draznages mcluded m the Greenways Program was assessed and mapped in 1999 ("Greenways Ripar~an Hab:tatAssessment," October 23,1999). T'his assessment included a rahng of the exishng vegetahon structure, natrve plant habitat, and bird habitat for all stream reaches wrthm the city of Boulder The terrestnal habrtat inventory provides the basehne agamst which future Greenways projects may be evaluated and has idenhfied oppomuuties for preservation of high quahty habitat and habrtat restorahon throughout the Greenways system. The city has also evaluated aquaric habitat in the stream reaches included m the Crreenways Program. Data aze available conceming existing condiUons for primary (streambed), secondary (channel morphology) and terhary (bank stability) aquatic habitat characteristics, as well as vegetative bank stability ("Ciry of Boulder Aquatic Hab:tat Assessment, " 1995) These data have been used to identify opportumties for aquatic habitat preservation and enhancement through Greenways pro~ects. The city's storm water program was developed m order to address the impacts of urbanization upon water quahty and riparian habrtat, mcluduig increases in pollutant quantity and runoff amount and rate, increases in stream sediment loading and temperatures; and degraded stream habitat and wetlands In the past, federal regulations focused on controlling and permitting discharges from pomt sources such as wastewater treatment plants and industnal discharges. In recent yeazs, the EPA has expanded its dischazge pernut system to include discharges from storm sewer systems. Tlus expansion of the pernut system is directed by the Storm Water Quality regulations promulgated under the Federal Clean Water Act in 1990 and takes a two-txered approach. Phase I of these regulations required wbanized azeas with populaUons greater than 100,000 to pemut their storm sewer systems. Regulations for Phase II were finatized inNovember 1999 and will require urbanized azeas wrth greater than 50,000 populaUOn to permit their storm sewer discharge systems Regionally, the crty, Boulder County and Longmont are automatically sub~ect to the Phase II regulations. Louisville and Lafayette aze idenhfied as potentially sub~ect to these pernuthng requirements, pending the results of the 2000 Census. The city's permit applicaUon would be due at the end of December 2002. Storm water quality pernuts v~nll be admimstered by the Colorado Deparhnent of Public Health and Envuonment, under the Colorado Discharge Permrt System. 66 Tradihonally, dischazge permit comphance has been based on water quahty monitonng of discharges and receiving waters to confum that a dischazge is meetmg numeric targets Rather than numenc hmits, compliance with the Phase II storm water quahty regulauons focuses on the implementation of procedures and programs, application of water quality protecUOn techniques and documentat~on of these actrviUes Specifically, the Phase II Storm Water Quahty regulations require the implementafion of the followmg six programs: • Public education/outreach: Implement a pubhc education program to provide information on storm water impacts ,~5 ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ I'~ J ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~h itiW ~ ~~~ d'u'~ ~e~~ ,A ~~~~ ~, wr ~. ~ ~, wr ~ ~ ,~ .w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w $~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -, ~ , .r • PubGc involvemenUparticipation: Provide opporhuuties for the pubhc to panc~ipate in program development and implementation. • Illicit discharge detecNon and elimination: Prohibit ilhcrt discharges to storm sewer system. • Construcrion site storm water runoff control: Implement a program to reduce pollution from conshvction site runoff for sites larger than 1 acre m size. • Post-construction storm water management in new development and redevelopment: Implement a program to reduce runoff pollution from new development and redevelopment. • Pollution prevention/ good housekeeping for municipal operations: Implement operation/mamtenance/trauung programs to prevent or reduce runoffpollution from municipal operat~ons. The city's compliance strategy will mclude an analysis of local needs, goals and existang control systems Options will be developed to address gaps in the regulations, standazds and programs. Community input will be used to idenUfy and evaluate these opUons. AddiUOnally, the city will look to share resources with other ~urisdictions in the watershed and between city departments. Educational efforts will work with other ongoing efforts such as the League of Women Voters and the state's non-point source programs The resulting implementaUon plan will provide direcdon for the permrt application. The city recognizes the importance of watershed protection as expressed in numerous resolutions passed by the City Council and advisory boazds and by rts adoption of watershed and water quality protection provisions in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan A watershed approach to compliance with the Phase II regulations offers the oppomuuty to leverage existmg local resowces to create a more comprehensive and effective process for water quality protection. In accordance with these policies, the city has begun discussions wrth Boulder County to identify appropriate areas of coordination. A task force began meeting in 1998 to explore the pracucalities of a~omt program Cultural Resources Inventorv The city conducted a cultural resource mventory of the following eight corridors within the Greenways system. Fourmile Canyon Creek (Footlulls Community Pazk to the Diagonal Highway) 67 • Wonderland Creek (Wonderland Lake to Valmont Pazk) • Elmer's Twomile Creek (Pazkside Pazk to Goose Creek confluence) • Goose Creek (23`d Street to Valmont Pazk) • Boulder Creek (Eben Fme Pazk to 55~' Street) • Skunk Creek (Holly Berry to C U Reseazch Pazk • Beaz Creek (Lehigh Street to Boulder Creek confluence) • South Boulder Creek (Baseline Road to Valmont Lake) T'he ob~ecrives of the study were to locate and document all visible prekustonc and tustonc cultural resources within these Greenways corridors and to assess their significance so that appropnate management decisions may be made regazding their protechon and interpretation and to produce a comprehensive mventory of culhual properties in the Greenways corridors, pulling together information from a vanety of research sources and the field investrgations. Significance of cultural properties is defined in terms of ineeting specific criteria of eligibihty for nomination to the NaUonal Register of Histonc Places (NRHP), the State Register of Historic Properties (SRHP) or for local landmazking. The vanous ehgibility criteria and the results of the inventory aze summanzed in Appendix III-1 Cultural site information is included in the Reach Inventory, Pro~ects and Opportuiuties presented m Chapter VII. The cultural resource inventory has identified opportunities for preservation of sigmficant cultural resources throughout the Crreenways system. Cultural properties by definition achieve kustonc status at 50 yeazs of age. Future cultural resource inventory updates will be needed to record and assess the significance of additional properties as they achieve historic status C. Program GoaLs and Criteria Program goals were developed by the interdiscipl~nary staff work group based upon the goals, objecuves and policies from related master planning efforts, current federal, state and local regulahons, standazds and cnteria, and public comment obtauied through a senes of public meetings convened in the course of updating tlus master plan Quanhfiable criteria for measuring program success at acluevmg the goals have also been developed. Ideally, these criteria would be evaluated for each Greenways project at the design stage and agazn at pro~ect completion. An overview of Greenways Program success could be developed by combining the pro~ect evaluations for a specified hme penod. T'he objecuves and goals for the Greenways Program aze summarized in Table III-1. Program goals and criteria, as well as methods to measure Greenways Program and individual pro~ect success at addressing these goals aze presented by program objechve, below The order of presentaUon does not necessarily correspond with importance Every stream reach is somewhat unique in terms of configuration and characteristics and each will, therefore, vary m terms of the pnonty and importance of each of the various goals. 68 TABLE III-1 Objectives & Goals of the Greenways Program ) ~! ,) ) ,~ '; 9 ~~ ;, ~ ~~ ~~ +~,J ~a.~ ~~ „~ ~~r ~;~ :~ ~~ ~~ ,m~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~1 ~ ~ ~ + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,1 ~ • Riparian, floodplain & wetland protection and restoration (Habitat) • Protect and enhance areas v~nth high habrtat value • Restore habitat for native species • Protect azeas for species of concern • Protect and restore lugh quahty wetlands • Water Quality Enhancement • Preserve and enhance ecologically important azeas • Maintain and enhance stream channel stability • Preserve and enhance stream corridor water quahty function • Stnve to meet all current state of Colorado stream use classification cntena • Storm Drainage & Flood Mitigation • Mitigate flood hazards and reduce the potenrial for properry damage & loss of hfe • Mmimize routine storm drainage problems • Maintain eausting drainageway facilities • Manage water resowces to provide appropriate m-stream flows and protect water quality and nparian habrtat • Alternative Transportation Rontes for pedestrians and bicyclists • Provide a high degree of mobility for pedestnans & bicyclists • continuous, well connected, off-road • beautrful, safe, asset to community • minimize envuonmental unpact • provide adequate signing and connections to road system • grade separated • maintazn yeaz round • priority grven to provide access to public facilities & major activity centers • Recreation • Promote Physical & Mental Health and Fitness • Nourish the Development of Children and Youth • Help Build Strong Commumties & Neighborhoods • Promote Envuonmental Stewardslup • Provide Beautiful, Safe & Functional Facilities • Protection of Cultural Resources • Protect Historic Resources • Preserve & Promote Archeological Resources • Promote Public Understandu-g and Appreciation of Histonc and Archaeological Sites Construct the Greenways system in a cost effective manner, taking advantage of unique opportunities, partnerships and multi-purpose projects. 69 Terrestrial Habitat Goals l. Protect and enhance areas with high habitat value. Areas of high habitat value mclude those azeas of tugh bird species richness, areas of lugh nauve plant habitat value, azeas wrth h~gh vegetahon structure score and wetlands with high or very lugh wildlife habitat value. Such azeas would be protected from future alterahon or degradanon Riparian azeas meeting these cntena would be protected and enhanced 2. Restore habitat for native species. Degraded areas witlun a drainage that has high habrtat values, which have good restorauon potential and mnumal confhcts with ad~acent land uses, would be identified for restoration achvities. 3. Protect areas for species of concern. Areas which currently contain species of concern would be protected Potential habitat for species of concern with good restoration potential would be restored. These areas should be protected from future degradation 4. Protect and restore high quali[y wet[ands. All wetlands which are categorized as significant under the city's wetland ordinance would be protected from degradation Siguficant wetlands include those which• aze categonzed under cntena set forth in the Boulder County Comprehensrve Plan, perform at least one wetland funchon to a high or very lugh degree; provide habitat for threatened, endangered or special concern species, could be made sigmficant through reasonable changes in management prachces, and/or, have a hydrological connecdon to a significant wetland and which, if impaired would adversely affect the significant wetland. High pnority wetlands would be enhanced and restored, and tecluuques would be explored for protecting buffer zones surrounding these wetlands from degradation Criteria jor Evaluating Program Success at Achieving Goa/s: Using current data, proposed Crreenways proj ects can be evaluated in terms of the following cntena to evaluate their ability to achieve the stated goals. • acres of very good bird habitat affected; • acres of very good native plant habitat affected; • acres of very good vegetauon structure afFected, • acres of enhanced or restored bud habitat; • acres of enhanced or restored native plant habitat; • acres of enhanced or restored vegetation shucture; • acres of habitat for special concern species affected; • acres of potential habrtaz for special concern species enhanced or restored, • acres of wetlands temporarily/permanently affected; • acres of wetlands enhanced or restored 70 Water OuaGtv Goals I. Preserve and enhance ecologically important areas. The city will maintain or improve aquatic habrtat conditions. The city will incorporate protection strategies for aquatic habrtat pazameters in the Greenways Design Guidehnes. 2. Maintain and enhance stream channel stability. The city will minimize stream bank erosion and maintam and enhance stream bank vegetation stabihty to an average of "good" for stream reaches within urbanized azeas. To aclueve this goal, it will be necessary to incorporate wetlands protechon best management practices, and a vegetation enhancement program mto the Greenways Program design cnteria ~ ~'J ~ 3. Preserve and enhance siream corridor water quality function. T'he city will protect and enhance the groundwater recharge function v~nthui the Greenways azeas by achieving no overall net loss of "+~ existing wedands and riparian azeas, functions and values To achieve ttus goal, it will be necessary 'll~'J to develop and implement design standazds which mnumize the use of concrete and other non- ,;~ porous materials in npanan azeas, and to identify areas of potential wetlands bankmg (improving, I~ restoring, expanding existing wetlands to compensate for loss of wetlands m other azeas) ' ~ opportwudes y~~~ ~I;~ 4. Sbive to meet aU current classifuarion cr#eria under state of Colorado stream use z~i~ classifuarion for Bou[der Creek and its tributaries. The ciry must maintain water quahry suitable i,~ for recreatron uses such as fislvng, wading and boating m Boulder Creek and its mbutaries Accomphshment of ttus goal will requue monitoring and trackmg of Boulder Creek and tributary ~~ water quality, education of homeowners along the creeks and trail users regazding appropriate ,~, handling of household chemicals and human and animal waste, and educahon of homeowners, city ~^*~ staff and contractors regarding appropriate choice and handlmg of fertihzers, herbicides, peshcides ;;, and other chenucals in azeas adjacent to stream comdors ~ ~ Criteria for Evaluating Program Success at Achieving Goals: ~ Using current data and the aquatic habitat assessment methodology, proposed Greenways projects ~ can be evaluated in terms of the following critena to evaluate their ability to actueve the stated ,~ drainage, flood management and water resources goals. '~ • linear feet of preserved high quality, primary, secondary and tertiary aquat~c habitat; ~ • lineaz feet of improved pnmary, secondary and tertiary aquatic habitat; ~r • linear feet of stream banks improved to "good" or better vegetation stability ranking; ~ • acres of created, restored or enhanced wetlands; • achievement of stream designated use. ~ • ~ Drainage. Flood Management and Water Resources Goals ~ I. Mitigate flood hazards and reduce the potential for property damage and loss of life. The city ~ will continue to regulate new uses and developments withm the azea wiuch could be expected to be inundated by a 100-yeaz flood The 100-year flood plain, for purposes of regulation, is divided into r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 71 the flood storage azea, the flood conveyance zone, and the kugh hazazd zone In developed urban areas, where practical and desuable, the city attempts to eliminate existing uses and construction within the 100-yeaz flood plazn, flood conveyance zone or high hazard zone that are mconsistent wrth the regulations. The practicality and desirability of elunina6ng exishng uses is based on cost/benefit comparison, potential for loss ofl~fe, aesthehc and environmental issues and availabihty of financial resources. The city also may also implement measures to reduce the azea encompassed by the 100- year flood plain, flood conveyance zone or high hazazd zone in developed urban azeas. This allows existing uses to contu-ue while meeting the goal of the regulations. Where rt is not practrcal or desirable to eluninate exisUng uses and construct~on or reduce the azea encompassed by the 100-year flood plain, the city considers the ob~ectives for more frequent flood events, such as the 25-year or 50-year flood event. Where prachcal, the city will also provide emergency access along city sUreets dunng ma~or storm events. 2. Minimize routine storm drainage problems by providing adequate faci[ities along major drainageways. In tlus regazd, the ciry endeavors to design and construct drainageway faciht~es that aze aestherically pleasmg and beneficial to wildlife habitat and wluch mmimize damage to development and pubhc infrastructure, erosion and impacts to water quality 3. Maintain existing drainageway jacilities. The crty mes to identify drainageway improvements that reduce the expense and impacts associated wrth on-gomg maintenance, provide adequate draznageway easements and access for on-going maintenance, and maintain flood flow design capacity, with mitiganng associated temporary impacts to wetland and wildlife habitat 4. Manage water resources to provide appropriate base Jlows and protect water quality and riparian habitat The crty has as a goal to negot~ate agreements with irrigation ditch companies to separate the crossmg of irrigarion drtches with major drainageways to ehminate the potenUal for damage to development and public infrastructure along the irrigation ditches and to secure a base flow in the ma~or drainageways. Criteria for Evaluaring Program Success at Achieving Goals: Using current data, proposed Greenways projects can be evaluated in terms of the following cnteria to evaluate their abihry to aclueve the stated dramage, flood management and water resources goals. • Reduction m the number of structtues sub~ect to impact due to locauon wrttun the 100-yeaz flood plam; • ReducUon in the number of structures subject to impact due to locarion within the high hazazd zone. • Reduction in azea (acres) encompassed by the 100-yeaz flood plain; • Number of drainage/ungation ditch crossings eliminated; 72 Recreation Goals 1. Promote optimum physical and mental health and fitness in a balanced lifestyle which prepares people for full and productive participation in family, work, socia[ and community life. The city desires to provide, coordinate and/or facilitate vaned opportunities within Gteenways azeas for a broad spectrum of recreation mcluding mdividual and team sports, indoor and outdoor programs, and organized and unorgazuzed achvit~es Achvrties near Greenways azeas will support workplace productivity and morale and will address the social, emotional, creative and spiritual needs of users. ~ .~ ~~ ~~~ u~~ ,,,, a~,~ ~~~ ~~~ ~"~ ~~ , ~r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, vr ~ `.r 2. Nourish the emotional, physica! and social development of children and youth. In order to achieve ttus goals, the city will prov~de, coordmate and facihtate services neaz Greenways which address the specific needs of children, youth and their famihes; coordinate and facilitate opportunitaes for safe, construchve and challenging use of leiswe time, enhance opportuniUes for leaderslup development; and promote the development of lifetime leisure skills. 3. Help build a strong sense of community and neighborhood identity and deve[op understanding and harmony among community users. To aclueve this object~ve, the city must provide public gathenng places and focal points wiUun and near the Greenways comdors; sponsor and support commututy-wide, neighborhood, and special interest events witlvn and along the Greenways; provide equity in access to Crreenways for all cihzens; pmvide programs which bring diverse mdividuals together m a spint of mutual leammg and cooperation; and promote volunteerism and volunteer trainuig opportumries for development, use and maintenance of the Greenways. 4. Act as stewards in preserving and restoring the health ojthe natural enviroxment The city will pmtect and expand the urban forest envuonment. It is necessary to maintam a balance between serving public needs for recreational programs and facihties and respectang and being sensihve towazd the natural envuonment 5. Provide places of function and beauty which refresh the spirit and increase life satisfaction. The city will balance ease of maintenance, functionality, and aesthehc appeal for both users of services and those passmg through pazk and recreahon lands through the design and landscapmg of parks. The crty will allow opportumties for tranquil reflechon on the complexity and beauty of nature, while maintaining park and recreation facilities along the Greenways in excellent conditaon and managmg them so they do not exceed design or carrying capacities. Measures will be taken to enhance visrtor and employee safety and reduce vandahsm and other criminal acUvity in pazk and recreational facilities along the Greenways corridors. Criteria for Evaluating Program Success at Achieving Goals: Proposed Greenways pro~ects can be evaluated m terms of the following cnteria to evaluate theu ability to achieve the stated recreahon goals• number and type of recreational uses supported by proposed Crreenways pro~ect; number and type of recreational uses specifically for children and youth supported 73 r by proposed Greenways project, • number and type of neighborhood and commumty events anticipated in proposed Crreenways pro~ect area; • access hmitations; • type/description of volunteer opportumties provided by proposed project; • number ofwmplaints/complements received from recreational users of stream reach; • number of accidents/injunes/reqiured repairs by stream reach. Transportation Goals l. Provide a system of continuous, well-connected, off-road routesjorpedestrians, bicyclists and other users. The city will eliminate breaks and discontinmtres in the sidewalk system, upgrade existmg pedestrian facilities cooperaUvely with land owners, inventory and evaluate multi-use paths, and ensure adequate connections of the pedestnan system to pubhc transit In addition, primary and secondary bicycle corridors will be idenhfied with the goal of providmg continuous facihties wrtlun these comdors. Comdors will be coordmated wrth other entiUes and ~unsdichons. 2. Construct faci[ities that are beautijul, safe and an asset to the surrounding community. 3. Construct and maintain Greenways paths in a way the minimizes negative environmental impact whi[e still maintaining the transportation function. 4. Provide adequate signing and connections to the road system to integrate the Greenways trails with the overall transportation system. S Consbuct the Greenways paths to be grade separated to providesafety and comfort to aUleve/s of users, especia[ly children and novice riders that are not equipped to ride on the roadway system. 6. Maintain Greenways paths year-round to support their function as a transportation faciliry and to meet the eYpectations of users. 7. Prioritize construction ofGreenways segments to provide access to publicfacilities and major activities centers. Criteria for Evaluating Program Success atAchieving GoaJs: Proposed Crreenways pro~ects can be evaluated in terms of the following criteria to evaluate theu abihty to achieve the stated transportat~on goals. • length of path bwlt wrthin any stream reach, • number of users • number of reported accidents and crimes wiUun any stream reach; • number of adjacent properry owner complaints/complements; • length of path bmlt that provides off-road connection to a school; • number of snow, ice, etc maintenance complamts received for each stream reach; • public facilihes/ma~or actrvities centers connections for each project; 74 number of Greenways projects mcorporating muluple purposes and sources of fundmg Cultural Resources Goals 1. Protect Hutorrc Resources. Siguficant cultural properhes should be act~vely preserved and maintauied, whether or not they haue been hsted on the NRHP or designated as a C~ty Landmazk. Cultural properues which aze owned by the city, such as Eben Fme and Central Pazks, should have preservation of theu tustorical mtegrity as a prionTy Wkule ditches and razlroads have their own legally protected rights-of-way, the owners should be encouraged to maintain the propemes m their histoncal condrtion whenever possible. The Boulder Va11ey School District and the University of Colorado should be encouraged to mauitazn siguficant historic resources on their properties wluch mtersect the Greenways system. ^~ 2. Preserve & Promote Archaeological Resources. Pretustoric and historic azchaeological srtes w,~ wrthm the Crreenways system aze rare due to obhteration by flooding, historic disturbance associated i~ wrth development of the azea, and Greenways trail and landscapmg projects. Archaeological srtes .~ such as the Boyd Smelter and City Dump at Scott Carpenter Pazk should be protected from looung i~ Any future earth disturbmg acUvities neaz these sites should be momtored by a professional r azchaeologist to ensure that azchaeological site components aze not destroyed w~ y~ 3. Promote public understanding and appreciation of historic and archaeological sites. Interpretive signs and/or brochwes discussing specific cultural resources and general historical data ~'~ can be useful and informative to the public Interpretive signs can be placed anywhere a cultural *+~ property is encountered along a Greenway The most appropriate locat~on for lustorical ;,~ interpretat~on is along Boulder Creek, Reach 7- from Eben Fine Pazk to 9`" Street - or to Broadway. ~~ While some the history of tlus azea cannot be illustrated by physical remains or structures, rt can be ,~ readily demonstrated with historic photos. This should be done in a manner to provide continwty "' with the interpretive signs installed by Boulder County far the Pioneer Trail, which extends west up ~~ Boulder Canyon from Eben Fine Pazk. vw ~ Criteria for Evaluating Program Success at Achieving Goa/s: ~ Proposed Greenways pro~ects can be evaluated in terms of the following cnteria to evaluate their ability to achieve the stated cultiu~al resources goals• ~ ~ • Number of significant cultural resources wtuch aze nominated to the NRHP, SRHP ~ or designated as local landmarks wrthu- any stream reach; ~ • Number of cultural resources for which Greenways Project design and implementation mcludes act~ve preservahon strategies; ~ • Number of opportucuties for histonc mterpretation that aze developed wittun any ~ stream reach ~ D. Project Opportunities Based upon the goals identified for each of the Greenways Program objecUves, as well as the ~ ~ 75 «n ~ ~. +~r ~ .r ., ..- Transportahon Master Plan, the Comprehensive Drainage Uhlrties Master Plan, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan, the Aquahc Habitat Study and the Greenways Ripanan Habitat Assessment, stafF identified and evaluated pro~ects and opportucuUes for each of the Greenways objectrves along the designated tnbutaries and Boulder Creek. This information was presented at a public meeting held on March 2, 2000, as well as 6 pubhc hearings during July and August 2000 in front of the five boards that haue an interest in the Greenways Program with City Council accepting the proposed pro~ects and opportunities on September 19, 2000 Cultural resource information was added follovrnng complet~on of the Cultural Resource Inventory of the Boulder Greenways in February 2001. Based on this input, staff has prepazed a hst of pro~ects and oppomuuties that aze shown on the Greenways Master Plan Map (Appendix I-1) and descnbed in the Greenways Master Plan Update Reach Inventory" (Table VII-1 m Chapter VIn The Greenways Program has adopted an opporhuushc approach to achieve its multiple ob~ecuves throughout the system Frequently, specific efforts withui a Greenway corridor can be completed in con~unction with transportauon, park, flood control, or pnvate development proj ects funded from outside the Greenways budget Ma~or outside funduig from such sources as the Urban Drainage and Flood Control Distnct (LTDFCD), the Colorado Deparhnent of Transportation (CDO'I~, and Federal Aid for Urban Services (FAUS) has allowed the Greenways system to expand and complete projects at an accelerated rate, with a much lower direct cost to the city. Cooperation wrth the Umversity of Colorado and the Boulder Valley School District has resulted m extension of Greenways facihries through properties belongmg to those enhdes Through the site review process, pnvate developers may provide conservation easements to the crty along the program tributaries, as well as fund and construct trail links, pazk connecUons and underpass mstallahons. Pro~ects for most of the objechves of the Greenways Program aze budgeted under other departmental and divisional budgets. Since all of the Greenways goals and ob~ectives except habitat restorafion aze covered under the mdividual master plans and associated city work plans, a list of environmental projects and opportunities has been developed as stand alone pro~ects to be undertaken by the Greenways Prog~am These projects aze shown on the Greenways Master Plan Map (Appendix I-1), described in the Reach Inventory, Pro~ects and Opportunihes (Table VII-1), and the top ten envuonmental projects aze hsted in Appendix VII-3. VJhile the envvonmental pro~ects have been prioritized, staff does not intend to pnoritize the other proposed projects for the purpose of determining when projects will be scheduled. Some of these projects will be incorporated into the Greenways capital unprovement program budget and others will be part of the individual departmenddivision budgets, based on their pnonty within the mdividual caprtal unprovement programs. Staff has developed criteria for ranking each reach in terms of each objecUve Ranking criteria aze presented in Table III-2 Reach rankmgs were combined mto a matrix that ranked each reach by objective for the purpose of balancing conflictu-g interests at the t~me a project is taken forwazd. Tlus matrix is included in Table III-3. Tlus matrix can also be used to idenufy opportunities to improve low quality habitat m conjunction wrth other projects. 76 Conflicts anse in azeas where the aquaric and ripatian habitat were erther classified as high and flood mamtenanceactiviUes,floodunprovementsorapathhasbeenproposed. Proposedprojectsmayalso conflict with Open Space management philosophies Conflicts have been idenhfied on seven creek segments. Specific recommendations on how to address these conflicts through the evaluahon of design alternatives have been identified in the Greenways Master Plan Reach Inventory Pro~ects and Opportunit~es (Table VII-1) {~ ~a t~ i~ t,'J 5~ f~~ i„~ C'„~ ~ ~J~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~, .r E. Environmental Project Identitication As part of the Crreenways Master Plan update process, an mterdisciplinary staff team reviewed recent envuonmental assessment data, field notes, photos, and aenal maps in order to identify oppomuuues for envuonmental pro~ects along the Greenways corridors. The team included individuals with expenence and training m environmental plamm~g, water quality, nparian plant ecology, aquahc biology, stream restoration, fluvial geomorphology, and floodplain management. In a series of team meehngs the group re~newed the current condrtion of the stream comdors in Boulder, idenUfied areas appropriate for preservanon, and identified opportumties for environmental enhancement and restorarion pro~ects Types of environmental projects on the Crreenways Master Plan Map and Reach Inventoryinclude • Preservation of tugh quality teaestrial and aquatic habitat • Enhancements to tenestrial and aquahc habitat • Restoration and creation of riparian wetlands • Construction of water quality best management practices for treahnent of pollutants at stormwater outfalls, sediment collection and removal, and non-point source pollution filteruig • Removal of bamers to fish passage • Increasing the width of expression of the riparian wetland and upland buffer azea • Linuting mowmg • Weed control • Day-lighting piped, underground creek sections • Removmg structural channel segments and replacing with bio-engineered methods • Property acquisition Additaonally, programs were identified to address system-wide environmental concerns. These included landowner educahon related to creek care, a maintenance program including weed control to mazntau~ the Greenways to a"habitat" standard, and a revision to the Greenways Design Guidelines to help direct project designs in an envuonmentally sensiUve and sustaznable manner. 77 f TABLE III- 2 Criteria for Ranking Greenways Projects by Objective " Hab~tat High • highest ranked reaches m R~panan Habrtat Assessment for vegetatrve shvcture, natrve vegetat~on and bud ~ habIIat , • reaches with spec~es of concem • reaches with vreplaceable complexdy & structure ' Medium • average ranked reaches m R~panan Habrtat Assessment • somewhat replaceable vegetahon (good natrve, but poor shuctwe) ` Low ~ • low rankmg reaches m Ripanan Habrtat Assessment ' • azeas su~table for restorarion ~ Water uali High ", • h~ghest ranked reaches m the Aquat~c Habrtat Assessment ~ • high quahty aquahc habitat coutc~dent wrth high qualrty terresh~al habitat ~ • fa~r aquatic habrtat ad~acent or between high ranked aquahc hab~tat '~ Medmm , • fau aquatic habrtat ' • confluences wrth Baulder Creek ~~ • npanan or aquahc habitat good over ma~onry of stream length but not necessanly overlappmg ~ Low ` • poor aqnahc hab~tat '~ Transoor[ation-cnter~a listed in order of ~mportance • relat~onship to ma~or desUnat~ons such as parks and employment centers • populaaon density served, part~culazly relatrve [o ma~or deshnahons • the lack of good alternahve routes, part~culazly the ~c~abihty to stay off of busy streeu • the amount of connecanty to the system added by the segment • amount of the comdor already completed Recreation High • cntical trul component is planned to connect or is wrtbm a current or future park, recreat~on azea or commumty or crtywide faciltry Medmm • proposed unprovement m this Greenways reach may unpact the connectrvity between pazk and recreahon azeas Low • proposed ~mprovement m this Greenways reach is not bcated near and wdl not unpact the connect~nty to current or future pazk or recreat~on azea Flood-criteria listed m order of importsnce • removes property from the h~gh hazard zone or conveyance mne • removes property from the floodplam • reduces storm dramage problems Cultural Resources • presence of cultural stte(s) wh~ch aze Itsted or elig~ble for l~stmg on the Nahonal Reg~ster of Histonc Places, State Reg~ster of Histonc ProperGes, aze Histonc Landmarks, or aze eLg~ble for landmazkmg 78 . TABLE III-3 y RANKING OF GREENWAYS OBJECTIVES BY REACH - for the purpose of determining overlapping opportunities and conflicts Revised September 1, 2000 y REACH LOCATION ~ - F ~ ~ 0 a W w H w T U ~ ~ ~ Q ~ F~ O U a' ~ ~ ~ w a' -o v i a~ a ~ x ~ O ~ a~ a ~~ O ~~ ~ ~ W C4 U~ ~~ C) ~ z , ~ ~ ~ .~ H ~ ~ Fourmile Canyon ~~ FC 1 Diagonal to west H H L M L / / 4jl side of soccer ~ fields ~ ~~ FC 2 west of soccer M M N/A N/A H / / ~// ~ fields to 28th St. 1Ffl~ ~.~. p Mg~t ~ ~ FC 3 28th St. to 19th St. M M H H H / / ~ FC 4 19th St. to 13th St M M H H H / ~ FC 5 13th St. to Open M M H H H / / / ~ Space ~ Wonderland ~ ~ ~ ~,1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ WC 1 North Goose L M H H L / Creek to Valmont Rd. WC 2 Valmont Rd to M M N/A N/A L / / Foothills Pkwy WC 3 Foothills Pkwy to H M M H M / c% ~][ab 28th St ~~ WC 4 28th St. to 26th St M M H H L / ~ '~ 79 ~ ~, zw ~,. ~ ~ ~ ~ REACH LOCATION ~ E~"_, ~ ~ q ~ F v ~ ~ : F, E O av ~ ~a U d ~ d ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~„ v~ a ~ w x ~ ~ U a~ a ~w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v~ ~p V ~ ~ 3 ~ ' H ~ WC 5 26th St to west L L M L L / ~ ~ side of Centennial r~ ~ WC 6 Centetuual to 15th M M L L L ~' . St ~ ~~ WC 7 15th St to M H N/A N/A L ;' Broadway ~ ,~ . WC 8 West of Broadway M H N/A N/A L / / / ~~R ~«~ Goose Creek `" ~~, ~, GC 1 Pearl Pkwy to L L H H N/A / ,~~ North Goose Footlulls Pkwy ~,, ~ GC 2 Pearl Pkwy to L M L L N/A ~^ South Goose Foottulls Pkwy. ^„ ~ GC 3 Foothills Pkwy to H L N/A N/A N/A / ^" _ RR ~ GC 4 RR to 28th St L L N/A N/A H / / C,.."° ~ GC 5 28th St to Folsom L L H M H / ° ~ .. GC 6 Folsom to 13th St. L L N/A N/A M „~. .~ Elmers Twomile ^~` .. ETC 1 Goose Creek to L L H H H / ~ Pazkside Pazk '"` .. .~ Boulder Creek `" ~ BC 1 63rd to Goose H H H H L / // ~b ,,. ~'rmm~s "~ .. ~., .~ 80 .~ .. rM ~' n~ ~r ~, ~ REACH LOCATION ~ F z ~ z ~ Ca o ~ E.W~., U ~' ~ F. P~ -- ~ Q ~ ~ a w ~ U r„ ~ T~ ~O ~ ~ ~ W w ~ y v . - -~ x ~ p U ,.~'.~v~i a ~w O H ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ BC 2 Goose to Foothills H H M L L / / % fi~~b ~" ~ ~'a~s i~ ~~ BC 3 Foothills to M H N/A N/A L / Arpahoe ~ I~ BC 4 Arapahoe to 30th H H L M M ~ St. ~ BC 5 30th to Folsom L H L H M / / / ~ BC 6 Folsom to 17th M H N/A N/A H /+°' / ~ BC 7 17th to mouth of H H N/A M H /+ / / Canyon ~ o Skunk Creek ,~ SC 1 Arapahoe to H M N/A N/A L ~ Reseazch Park ~ SC 2 Research Park to H M L L L ~ Wellman Canal a SC 3 Weilman Canal to M M M M L / ,~ Baselme Rd ~ SC 4 Baseline to M M H L M ~ Broadway ~ SC 5 Broadway to cny H H N/A N/A L / / ~ limits ~ Bear Canyon ~ ~ ~ ~ "' + Connotes the presence of multiple siguficant cultural srtes. ~ 81 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ REACH LOCATION ~ F z z ~ ~ V R1 ~ O O ~ ~ a CJ ~ ~ .° a' V Q ~ ~ w r x ~ ~~ a x ~ o ~ a~ ~ ~W o W v~ c4 U~ ~ ~ U F -~ ~ ~ ~ F~ BCC 1 Boulder Creek to H M N/A N/A M / / Footlulls Pkwy. BCC 2 Foothills to H L N/A N/A L / / Basehne BCC 3 Baselme to Hwy H L L M L 36 BCC 4 Hwy 36 to L L N/A N/A L / Broadway BCC 5 Broadway to L L M M L Letugh BCC 6 Lehigh to city H H N/A N/A L / / limits South Boulder SBC 1 KOA Lake M M N/A N/A L / / SBC 2 Lake to Arapahoe H M L M L / / / Rd. SBC 3 Arapahoe to H H M L L / / / c% II~ ~ Baseline 'Il's~s C SBC 4 South of Baselme H H N/A N/A M / / // ~~ ~l~d ~, .. . .. ~ ~ .. ~ 82 ~ ~ ..- ~ ~ L IV. Planning, Permitting and PubGc Involvement Processes A. Greenways Project Review Process The interdepartmental nature of Crreenways projects has in the past required pro~ect reviews by mulhple boazds. As a part of the Master Plan update, a less cumbersome process for Greenways project review and approval has been developed. The new process mvolves the estabhshment of a Greenways Advisory Committee (GAC) The GAC ~nll be made up of one representahve from the Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB), Transportarion Advisory Boazd (TAB), Parks and Recreation Advisory Boazd (PRAB), the Open Space Boazd of Trustees (OSBT) and Plazu~mg Board, designated by the chair of each of the boazds The members of the GAC will act as the representahve and liaison for their respective boazd on Crreenways issues and mterests The Committee will provide a smgle pomt of contact for the public to bring comments and allow an opportunity for discussion where all of the Greenways Program ob~ecrives aze represented ;~ :) .,? " ~9 i ,;~ ~ ..~ .„, t / ,~, ~«. . ai .aw, ~ ~, ~. ., ~ r, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ +~.+ fl ~ '~ ~ ~ "`~ ~ ~ ~ .,r Cauital Improvemeat Pro~ram (CIP1 The Crreenways Coordinator, in conjunction v~nth a group of staff representing all the objectives of the Greenways Program (Greenways Coordmation Team) identifies projects for the CIP based on development achvrties, available outside funding sources and the opportunity to coordinate work with other city proj ects. The CIP is developed for a 6 yeaz period consistent wrth the rest of the city. Individual Project Review Process The Greenways Coordinator or project manager, in conjunction with the Crreenways Coordination Team develops alternatives and conceptual plans as part of the CEAP. Development of the CEAP for Greenways projects is consistent with other city CIP projects and includes review by the Development Review Committee In general, a CEAP is prepazed for projects which may have a significant impact on environmental, social or cultural resources; which mvolve neighborhood or community controversy, or; wluch involve one or more conceptual altematives that require community input. All caprtal projects ($50,000 or more) proposed within a Greenway (whether funded through the Greenways Program, a pnvate developer or another crty workgroup) will be reviewed by the Greenways Coordinator and Greenways Coordinatron Team for compliance with the Crreenways Master Plan and Greenways Design Gwdelines Eaternal Review of CIP and CEAP The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Commumty and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) for Crreenways pro~ ects will be reviewed by the Greenways Advisory Committee (GAC) m a pubhc hearing. The Water Resources Advisory Boazd (WRAB), Transportation Advisory Board (TAB), Parks and Recreation Advisory Boazd (PRAB) and Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) will receive a copy of the CIP and CEAPs as an information rtem (non-agenda) with comments directed to the GAC and/or the Greenways Coordinator. The Cneenways CIP will aiso be brought to the Plannmg Boazd for recommendation, consistent will all other city CIPs. 83 The GAC will provide recommendations to staffand the Planning Board on the Greenways Program CIP and will approve the CEAP subject to Council call-up All projects on land managed by Parks or Open Space aze taken to those respective boazds in a joint heanng with the GAC for approval of the CEAP, subject to Council call up. Pro~ect CEAPs for projects witlun a Greenway that aze being funded outside the Greenways Program budget will be provided to the GAC as an information item to grve the GAC an opportumty to provide comments to staff and/or the sponsoring advisory boazd, wrth the sponsoruig advisory boazd approvmg the CEAP, subject to Council call up. B. Checklist for Permit Compliance 'There aze usually a series of standard pemut requirements for Greenways projects, and under certam circumstances, additional external reviews aze needed. Standard Project Permits: • Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit The U.S. Army Corps of Engmeers District Enguieer determines if the project quahfies for authorization under Narionwide Permits (most Greenways projects can be authonzed under Nationwide Peruuts). If a Nationwide Pemut is not deemed appropriate, an individual pemut is requued The individual pemut process has specific public noUficaUon provisions. Municipal Wetlands Permit The city nohfies owners of properties with~n 300 feet ofthe project boundary and any other mterested parties who have requested notificarion. These people have 14 days to comment on the proposal. The Floodplain and Wetlands Coordinator posts notice of the wetland permit applicaUon with the comment deadline. The Floodplazn and Wetlands Coordinator may approve the pemut application, deny it, or refer it to the Plamm~g Board for decision. Floodplvn and Wetlands Coordinator approvals or demals are subject to Plamung Boazd call-up Denials may be appealed to the Planning Boazd. Decisions not appealed or called up by the Plamm~g Boazd become final 14 days followuig not~ficataon Floodplain Development Permit The Floodplain and Wetlands Coordinator reviews and decides on all apphcahons, however, if a change in a watercourse is proposed, the apphca6on is referred to the Planning Boazd. For high hazard and conveyance zone pernuts, the Floodplain and Wetlands Coordinator forwazds the pemuts to City Council and publishes a newspaper notice. The permit becomes effective 21 days after issuance. City Council may call up variances or approvals Interdepartmental Cooperative Procedures It has been established and agreed that Greenways pro~ects affecting either Pazks or Open Space property will be reviewed by the Parks and Recreahon Advisory Boazd and/or the Open Space Boazd of Trustees, as appropriate. The Greenways Master Plan Map (Appendix I-1) shows Pazks and Open Space sites and a list of these sites is also provided in Appendix IV-1 Appendix V-1 provides guidelines for projects on Pazks and Open Space 84 ';~ ,~ ~~ ~~ n~ ,;;~ ,,, ~,.r .~ ~ a~ ;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ w. ~ ~ External Review and Aoproval Processes (as needed, dependmg upon ~urisdichon) • Urban Draznage and Flood Conh~ol District The UDFCD reviews and provides comments on proposed developments m or neaz floodplains at the request of local governments The UDFCD also requires that drainage and flood control facihties constructed by, or approved for construction by, local governments be approved by the UDFCD m order for those facih6es to be ehgible for assistance from the UDFCD Mazntenance Program • Colorado Depaztrnent of Transportation Pro~ects which affect Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) right-of-way of which rely on CDOT fundmg are subject to CDOT review • Boulder County Greenways projects which affect lands under Boulder County junsdichon may require a County permitting process, ranging in scope from a County floodplain pernut to a bwlding or gradmg permit to an Areas or Activiries of State Interest (1041) Pernut. Most Boulder County pernutting processes mvolve Plaiuung Commission or other County advisory boazd review, as well as a public hearing before the Boazd of County Commissioners. • Umversity of Colorado Greenways pro~ects which affect Umversity of Colorado land will be coordinated wrth the appropnate Umversity personnel. • U.S Fish and Wildlife Service - Threatened and Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service review of proposed projects for impacts to threatened and endangered species usually occurs m conjunchon wrth the wetlands pernuttmg process. The USF W S is provided with survey results or a statement of why surveys for mdividual species are not needed. The USFWS generally issues letters of cleazance when projects will not adversely effect threatened and endangered spec~es • Federal land managmg agency review Pro~ects which affect federal land undergo review by the land managing agency to ensure compliance with all federal legislation and management direcrives, mcluding the NaUonal Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and National Historic Preservation Act Federal review processes usually have oppommides for pubhc review and panc~ipation. Post-Project Monitorin¢ R~ort During project design, pemutting and construction, each Greenways project will have a post-project monitonng procedure developed by the Crreenways Coordinator and Greenways Coordination Team This procedure will oufline any monitonng and reportrng requirements associated with pro~ect pernuts (e g, a Municipal Wedands Permit may require 5 yeazs of monitoring followmg complerion of the project) and identify measures of project success and momtonng intervals for each of the primary goals and ob~ecrives addressed by the project. The Greenways Coordmator v~nll be responsible for ensunng that post-project momtormg is completed and the results aze reported to the Greenways Coordination Team The Greenways Coordination Team will be responsible for developing a plan for correctmg any post-pro~ect problems. Completion of corrective programs may be undertaken by maintenance staff, or, if under warranty, by pro~ect contractors 85 ~ Following complerion of all monitoring reqwrements, a post-project monitoring report will be prepared for each project T'he report will mclude • frequencies and types of monitonng; • results of momtonng mcluding photographic documentation; • problems encountered (includuig complaints received, if any) and how they were resolved, • suggestions for future pro~ects. In addition to providuig valuable informahon concermng successful strategies for pro~ect completion, the post-project monitoring report will provide a baseline for evaluating pro~ect " , con ~hon over tune. ~I~ 86 V. Service Provision Policies ~ , ~~ ~ ,* ~ ., . ~, ~ ~ _~, w ~ ~ «r ~ ~,r ,~ ~r ,., ~ ~ ~ wr .., W. ,,.. ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ... ~ w ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W +~1 Y~V The Greenways Master Plan builds on policies outlined in several existing adopted plans and pohcies including the Boulder Vatley Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensrve Drainage Utihty Master Plan and the Transportation Master Plan. A. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Policies 4 07 and 4.15 of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, wkuch is being updated during 2001, are addressed as part of the Crreenways Program• 4 07 4.15 The functional and aesthetic quahhes of drainage courses and waterways shall be preserved and enhanced A noncontamment approach to flood management shall be used on Boulder Creek. A generally non-structural approach to flood control that emphasizes a natural appeazance shall be used on all major water courses and drainageways. In some cases a shvctural soluuon may be used, consistent v~nth adopted master plans. The city sha11 prepaze and maintain drainage utility plans that define maintenance needs, pnorities for improvements, funding requirements, the character of necessary structurat improvements, and water quality issues. The crty shall prevent redevelopment of sigruficantly flood-damaged propemes m lugh hazard azeas The city sha11 prepaze a plan for property acqmsition of flood-damaged and undeveloped land in flood lugh hazard azeas. Undeveloped flood high hazard azeas will be retained in their natural state whenever possible. Compatible uses of riparian corridors, such as trazls, recreation facilities, wildhfe habrtat, and wetlands shall be encouraged wherever appropnate The Greenways Program incorporates flood control measures as described by policy 4 07 in con~unction with riparian corridors, trails, recreation opportwuties, wildlife habitat and wetlands. B. The Storm Water and Flood Management Utility and the Comprehensive Drainage Utility Master Plan The Storm Water andFlood ManagementUtility ofthe Public Works Departmentmanages the entire storm water and flood management system for the city. T'he purpose and func6on of the uUhty, created in 1973, is to m;n,m;ze the threat of flooding and flood damage resulting from storm water runoff. The November 11, 1988 Comprehensive Drauiage Ufility Master Plan (CDUMP) oudines the long-term program for flood management in terms of caprtal improvements; flood hazard mitigation; storm and surface water quality; and other utiliry efforts such as flood warnmg and education, protection and enhancement of wetlands, and property acquisition. The CDUMP is currently in the process of being updated A reduction to life-safety hazards and property damage, as well as improving water quality, are the mam purposes of the plans and projects proposed m the CDLTMP. The city regulates the use and construction within the azea which could be expected to be inundated by a 100-yeaz flood This 87 floodplain, for purposes of regulat~on, as well as for determming caprtal pro~ect pnoriTy, is divided into the flood storage azea, the flood conveyance zone, and the high hazard azea For purposes of designmg capital pro~ects, the ciry will apply an additronal cost-benefit standard For example, the city may consider improvements to less than a 100-yeaz standazd in some cases depending upon the cost of the project compazed to the nsk to lives or property. The highest priority capital unprovement pro~ect is currently the complehon of the Goose Creek channel from 30`" Street through Folsom Street. Other small, locahzed drainage problems will be addressed, dependmg upon the availability of funds Property in the floodplam, especially withm the lugh hazazd zone, will be purchased, v~nthm fundmg limitahons, both ui pre-flood and post-flood modes The Storm Water and Flood Mana~ement Utility is funded through monthly sernce chazges mcluded m the city's uulity bills. Single family dwellmgs aze charged a flat monttily rate based on square footage of the lot Business chazges aze denved using a formula that accounts for total area, amount of runoff, and amount of water stored on the property Currently, the Storm Water and Flood Management Urihty contnbutes $150,000 per year to the Greenways Program Flood Uhhty funds are admmistered by the Public Works Department and can be used for unprovements providuig or mazntammg flood safety along streams, conveyance faciliUes includmg box culverts, water quality enhancements and habitat improvements Several flood control and dramage ut~lity easements along the major draznageways and m azeas throughout the floodplain aze owned and managed by the city for the purposes of ensunng flood mit~gation and stormwater conveyance. Most of these azeas aze mcluded wrthin the Greenways system C. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District T'he Urban Drainage and Flood Control District was established by the Colorado legislature m 1969 for the purpose of assisting local governments m the Denver metropolitan azea with mult~- ~urisdichonal drainage and flood control problems The District operates five programs: Master Plamm~g, Design and Construct~on, Mazntenance, Flood Plain Management, and the South Platte River Funding for these programs is derived from levies of 0 756 mill m Adams, Arapahoe, Denver, Douglas and Jefferson Counties, and 0 676 mill in Boulder County (Boulder County is not levied the 0.1 mill earmarked specifically for the South Platte River Program ) The four progams relevant to the city of Boulder aze described below. The Floodplain Management program was established to prevent new flood damage potenhal from being introduced into the 100-yeaz floodplains while encouragu-g the uUlizahon of non-structural methods of flood damage mingation The District works with local govemments to assure that they remain m the National Flood Insurance Program, assists local governments wrth floodplain regulations; delmeates flood hazard azeas; and assists local govemments in the development of flood warning plans and the installation and maintenance of flood detection networks. The District funds a pnvate meteorological service to provide daily forecasts of flood-producing events to local 88 govemments. It requues that drainage and flood control facilihes constructed by, or approved for construction by local governments must be approved by the Distnct for those facilities to be eligible for assistance from the DistncYs Maintenance Program. Eligibility for assistance is determined by the Floodplain Management Program. ~ The Distnct's Master Planning Program provides up to 50 percent of study costs for master plamm~g ~ efforts requested by local govemments and having a multi jurisdictional dimension. The five major concentrations in the Master Plamm~g Program aze ma~or draznageway master planning; outfall ~ systems planning, draznage critena; support of local government stormwater NPDES dischazge „~ pernutting efforts, and; special pro~ects, such as channel and structure design in special ~' circumstances, benefit-cost analyses, and wetland issues , ~~ The Design and Construction Program provides funds for master planned unprovements wtuch are , J requested, owned and maintazned by local govemments. District funds must be matched by local w*~ governments. The Dishict adopts a five-yeaz capital improvement program each year wluch lists pro~ects and District panc~ipation by county. From 1974 through 1998, the District expended $91 °'~ million in design and construcUon, of wluch approximately $9.2 miliion has been expended in the • ~ city of Boulder .a w .J ~ The DistncYs Maintenance Program provides funding and assistance to local governments for ,~ drainageway mazntenance activides in accordance with expendrture priorities established by the "'"' District. Disirict-owned facilities receive funding first, followed by District-funded proj ects, projects +~ funded by others, ummproved urban drainageways, and unimproved rural dratnageways. From its y;~ mception in 1981 through 1998, the District has spent over $58 million on drainageway maintenance. ~. From 1983 through 1998, the District Maintenance Program has expended over $3.2 million wrthin „„ the city of Boulder. ~r : The work is divided into three types of activities: routme, restoration and rehabilitation. Routine ° maintenance consists of mowing, trash and debris cleanup, weed control and minor revegetation . efforts. Restorahonworkissite-specificconstructionworktorepairisolateddrainagewayproblems, ~ includmg detention pond mucking; trash rack cleazung; tree tlumung; repainng local emsion A~ problems, and; local channel grading, shapmg and stabihzation. Rehabilita6on projects are ma~or ;; design and construction efforts which aze intended to reclann and re-estabhsh existing facilities ~ wtuch have been damaged or neglected such that structural pmblems have developed. Examples ~ include rebuilding or replacing drop structures, building low flow or tnckle channels; establishing "" maintenance access into drainageways, and providing protection for existing channel improvements, ~ box culverts, retaining walls, bridges and other facilities. ~ ,.,, D. The Transportarion Department and the Transportation Master Plan ~ 'Through the TransportaUon Master Plan, the city attempts to reconcile two somewhat conflicting "" goals. The first goal is to provide mobility and access witlun the city in a way that is safe and '"~ convement. The second goal is to preserve Boulder's quality of life by m;nimizing the impacts from ~ auto traffic such as air pollution, congestion, and noise. ~ '"~ 89 ~ ~. ~ ~ ~, ~ The Transportation Master Plan balances these goals by creating a transportahon system that provides not only good auto transportaUon, but also altemative forms of transportation such as walkuig, bicycling, and h~ansit The Plan proposes strategies to maintain and actually unprove the auto system wlule at the same time creating new opportunities for other modes by compleUng the bicycle and sidewalk system and providing new types of transrt opdons The Plan also provides a funding mechatusm to maintain and complete the auto, bicycle, and pedestrian systems. The Transportation Master Plan includes a hst of objectives which descnbe the desired future condmon of Boulder's transportaUon system Ob~ecnves for the yeaz 2020 mcluded in the current Transportat~on Master Plan include no growth m long-term vehicle traffic, reduchon in single- occupant vehicle traffic to 25 percent of daily trips, conUnuing reduchon m mobile source emissions of pollutants; and, no more than 20 percent of artenal roadways congested. The Bicycle System Master Plan is a component of the 1995 update of the Transportation Master Plan which articulates the crty's goal to double the total number of bicycle trips between 1994 and 2020 from 80,000 to 160,000 trips per yeaz The Greenways paths which pazallel a bicycle corridor, uicrease mobihty wiflun the system, or provide new corridors opportunities aze incorporated duectly mto the bicycle corridor network In some cases, the Greenways system provides access not available m the street gnd The Bicycle System plan acknowledges that the Greenways system will remain important to cychsts who opt to ride away from traffic or who ride pnmarily because they enjoy the human and natural interactions wtuch the Greenways paths provide. The Transportation budget contributed $150,000 per yeaz to the Greenways Prograzn &om 1989 through 1992, after wluch the contnbution was increased to $30Q000. Tlus contribuUon has been reduced to $150,000 since 1999 Transportation funds aze admuustered by the Public Works Department and may be used to construct trails (usually paved) and related facilities which provide a substantial transportation benefit to a relat~vely lazge number of users. The Transportahon Master Plan is updated every five years. The current update, which is based upon trends and projechons to the yeaz 2020, was adopted by city Council in July 1996. E. The Parks and Recreation Department and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan A pnmary mission of the Pazks and Recreation Department is to provide recreation programs to serve the needs of the crtizens of the city of Boulder. The basic fabnc of the pazks and recreation system is the neighborhood and community pazks Other components of the crty's pazk and recreation system mclude regional pazks, park corridors, preserves, athletic complexes, recreation centers and various special use facilities. Smaller pazks typically provide the visual relief of a quiet, green place with a picnic table or benches and perhaps a cluldren's play area, lazger pazks tend to have more defined areas for different uses - playing fields, basketball courts, shelters, bazbecues, a more extensive playground. Some urban pazks incorporate sigmficant land m a lazgely natural state and can be used for exploration and nature study 90 The Parks and Recreation Master Plan recogcuzes the community need for more undeveloped open land or natural pazks withm the city for qmet, passive recreation Among the vanous goals for the future, the Pazks and Recreafion Master Plan envisions a system of safe and scenic paths and trails connectrng a11 pazks and facilihes and recommends cooperahon with the Greenways Program to expand and complete the urban trails system linkmg pazks. The Greenways Program complements the ob~ectives of the Pazks and RecreaUon program by providmg passive recreation azeas along tributary drainages, by protecting and reclaiming open azeas along the included drau~ageways, by linkmg pazks and recreational facilities within the city, and by providu-g a Urail system for rollerblading, bicycling, rumm~g and other recreational activities. The Pazks and Recreahon Department administers Lottery funds The Greenways Program received 49.5 percent of lottery funds from 1989 through 1992, after which funding was reduced to $150,000 per yeaz. Lottery funds may be used for trail and related facility conshuction, environmental rehabihtation projects, and passive recreational improvements. ~ F. Open Space and Mountain Parks Department The Open Space and Mountam Pazks Department operates in accordance with Open Space Charter ' provisions and missions, among which aze to preserve and restore natwal azeas with associated J unusual, spectacular, lustoncally important, scientifically valuable or rare examples of native flora ~~ and fauna; preserve water resources in their natural or traditional state, including wildlife habrtats ~ or fragile ecosystems; promote uhlizarion of program lands for passrve rectearional use; preserve agncultural land uses and land suitable for agricultural producUon and; utilizauon of lands to prevent % encroachment on floodplains. ~ The Open Space Program has geatly contributed to the preservation of native ecosystems and to the ~ uUlization of land for shaping the development of the city. The Crreenways Program complements ""' the Open Space Program by idenUfying addrtional strategies for preservmg ripanan wildhfe habrtat 9~ and natural ecosystems vinthm the city, by providing additional passrve recreation opportucuties and ;,~ - azeas, and by linking the crty's open azeas. , ~, ';~ In 1993, the Open Space/Real Estate Department, in conjunction wrth the Pazks and Recreation and '"^' Public Works Departments, issued gwdelines for tributary greenways on open space and pazk lands. i These guidelines facilitate the integration of the goals and objectives of the Crreenways, Pazks and ~ RecreaUOn, and Open Space programs, promote the evaluation of community and environmental ~ impacts and benefits as well as project costs; present methods for planning, construction and management of proposed greenways on open space and park lands in a manner beneficial to the ~ public and in keeping with the provisions of the Open Space Charter; and define a process for ,~ tributary pro~ect review, pubhc hearing and final approval pnar to wnstruction. The Tributary ~ Greemvay Gutdehnes for Open Space and Park Lands aze included as Appendix V-1 of tlus Master ~ Plan. r The Open Space and Mountam Pazks Department follows Long Range Management Policies to ~ define program goals, decision-making process and implementation techniques within a 20-year ~ plamm~g horizon L.ong Range Management Policies are updated every five yeazs In addrtion to ~ '"~ 91 ~ a, ~ ,», ~ .. ~.r the Long Range Management Policies, resource plans and area management plans aze developed to further gwde management of Open Space lands Resource plans provide system wide management guidance for various resources and aze integrated into specific on-the-ground acrions contazned within area management plans. The goals of area management planning aze to provide guidance and direction for management of specific areas of Open Space; develop a framework for evaluat~ng and incorporating appropnate uses of Open Space according to the Open Space Charter; prepaze mventones and analyses of resources, provide opportuniUes for pubhc participation, and, to coordinate resource management, protection and planning v~nth other city departments and public and pnvate landowners G. The Urban Open Land Program and the Urban Open Lands Master Plan Urban Open Lands was identified in the 1996 Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan as a proposed system of open places within the city of Boulder wluch collechvely provide oppomuuties to experience the natural environment, meet as a commmury, and move through the city The Urban Open Lands Plan was a comprehensive bluepruit for buildmg tlus system by linkmg public and private open spaces and developing cooperative relationslups among diverse partners. This plan was not adopted but warrants further consideration. The Urban Open Lands program would weave together multi-functional, human-made and natural systems wrthin the city to define a new urban design framework Urban systems such as pazks, schools, and ma~or transportation comdors could be lmked to natural systems, creating a rich mosaic of interconnected undeveloped spaces This interconnected system would also provide water quality enhancement functions by filtering and treating stormwater as rt flows to Boulder Creek and its tributaries The Greenways Program would complement the Urban Open Lands Plan by furthering open land and wildhfe corridor protection goals within the crty, wtule providing for bicycle and pedestrian connections within the city's flood control system Many segments of the Greenways system aze mcluded in the plan for the Urban Open Lands network H. Planning and Development Services, Subcommunity Planning Boulder's service azea has been divided into nine subcommunihes. The goal of subcoxnmunity plamm~g is to address multiple planning issues on an azea-wide level, including transportahon, land use, zoning, recreation and open land availability. Subcommtuuty plans addtess Greenways Program ob~ectives related to recreat~on needs, environmental protection, bicycle and pedestnan connections, and subcommunity identity and character A plan for the North Boulder subcommunity was adopted by the City Council in August 1995. Tlus plan outlines a framework and unplementation strategies for the Greenways Program v~nthin that subcommtuuty The Greenways Master Plan map and update have been reviewed for consistency with the North Boulder subcommunity plan. The North Boulder Subcommumty Plan mcludes specific goals, ob~ectives and acuon plans that aze relevant to the Greenways Program. Among these aze recommendaUons for channel, wetland, habitat, and water quality protection, restoration and enhancement along segments of Fourmile Canyon Creek and Wonderland Creek The action plan for aclueving these goals includes wefland 92 miUgaUon, Greenways improvements, and site acquisiUon. In addiUon, one of the prunary concepts of the subcommunity plan is to provide improved bicycle and pedestnan facilifies by connecting the existing pedestrian and bicycle network along and neaz Fourmile Canyon Creek 1 ~) '9 ~ J 93 VI. Future Programs e ~1 ~ ;,1 i '~1 ~ w~ , ~~y ~ '~ n ~~1 „~) µ _~ ~ „3 . ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ d'3 3~ v~r ,~ ~ :r~ ~ +~ ~ li~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ During the Master Plan update process, several opportunitres to add or expand current Greenways activihes were ident~fied by the mterdepartmental Greenways Coordination Team. A. Education and Community Opportunities Possible future pubhc education efforts could include a program designed to educate adjacent property owners concerning the effects of weeds and ornamental escapees on the vegetaUon structure and habrtat value of the Greenways and encouraging removal of exotic plantings. Several restoration themes have been suggested as a result of the habitat assessment study These include• • Creek Caze 101. A certificate training program for people of groups whose property includes nparian azeas could be estabhshed. This program could include basic lessons in creek hydrology, npanan ecology, and tramir-g in management techniques appropnate for restorarion and maintenance of the natural functions Each training course could culminate with an on-the-ground project in the focus area/tributary. • Land Stewardship Extension This program would provide brochures, web documents, handbooks, access to tools and other forms of technical assistance to give people the information and implements they might need to undertake restoration projects. • Adopt-a-Reach. Many busmess facilities aze located along the creeks (Arapahoe Village, CU Research Pazk, Flatiron Pazk, Goose Creek downstream of Folsom St., etc.). Establishing a htter/trash pick-up program equivalent to the adopt-a-road program couid improve condit~ons along the creeks and provide pubhc relations benefits. Eventually, more significant projects could be undertaken. • Interpretave Program: The Greenways trails aze central and accessible. Many people use them as transportation comdors and recreaUonal facilrties. Fewer know the interesting stories the corridors have to tell Crty staff and local naturalists could offer nature walks and rides, uistallinterpretive signs,and develop brochures • Partnerships with Schools• Several public and private schools are involved in environmental studies programs Many aze examining water quality the Colorado Division of Wildlife's River Watch program Many opportumties e~st to broaden the educational experience to mclude botany, zoology and issues of land management. Another pubhc education opportunity exists for the interpretation of cultural resources within the Greenways system. Interpretive signs and/or brochures discussing specific cultural resources and general historical data can be useful and informative to the public Interpretive signs can be placed anywhere a cultural property is encountered along a Greenway. The most appropriate location for tustorical interpretataon is along Boulder Creek, Reach 7- from Eben Fme Pazk to 9th Street or to Broadway. The considerable and fascinatuig lustory of this area is summarized in Appendix III-1. Wlule some of the histonc srtes in this area have no visible physical remains, they can still be readily demonstrated with historical photos. 11us would also 95 provide some continwry with the mterpretive signs done by Boulder County for the Pioneer Trail, which extends west up Boulder Canyon from Eben Fme Pazk B. EnvironmentaUHabitat Improvement and Preservation Environmental Project Fundine Environmental improvement and preservahon pro~ects that have been identified for the Greenways will be mcluded in the Capital Improvement Program and accomphshed using Greenways Program funds Complet~on of these projects might be accelerated through encouraging contributions from private development, obtaimng grants, etc. Wetlands Bankin¢ A wetlands mingaUon bank is a wetland azea that has been restored, created, enhanced or preserved, wluch is then set aside to compensate for future conversions of wedands for development acdvities The city currently does not have a wetlands mitigation banking process, although the possibilrty of ttus type of prograzn has been evaluated m the past. Among the benefits of establishing a wetlands mitigation bank are that uncertaznTy and delay aze reduced for qualified projects, and that successful mrtigat~on can be ensured, smce compensatory wetlands azeas exist and are funchonal in advance of proposed project impacts. Further discussions of such a program aze warranted. A weUands bankmg program basically facihtates mitigahon m advance of weflands impacts. As wetland enhancement projects along the Greenways aze completed, they are "banked" as credits agamst future city projects which may be unable to avoid wedand effects The credrts banked in advance of proposed impacts may streamline pernutUng processes In addition, smce mitigation has been successfully completed in advance of proposed wedands unpacts, replacement areas aze already estabhshed and functioning The development of a wetlands mingation bank would not only benefit future Greenways projects, but other city projects (Transportat~on, Utilities, etc ) which may involve wetland impacts `Banked" wetlands could also serve as examples of successful wetlands mitigation projects for pnvate developers C. Stewards of the Greenways Public stewazdship for the Greenways could be encouraged through an"Adopt-a-Trazl" program. Members of the public would be encouraged to collect trash, monitor conditions along a specified reach, etc and report any perceived problems to the Greenways Program Vanous counties and states throughout the country have implemented successful "Adopt-a-Trail" programs A few of the programs that are especially perUnent to the Greenways Program aze• Greenways Walkers. People who frequent the Greenways can be encouraged to pick up trash and report maintenance problems to the Street and Bikeway Maintenance hotline at 303-413- 7177. Crreenways Adopters: Adopters my be individuals, families or groups. Basic tasks, following appropriate traimng by city staff, would include vegetation h~mming, drainageway cleazung and httler removal. With expenence, volunteers could be mvolved in the performance of 96 more complicated mazntenance and enhancement tasks. Special Projects: Groups or mdividuals may be interested in involvement m single project, rather than on-gomg momtoring and maintenance responsibilities. The Greenways Coordmator could establish and mazntain a list of pro~ects for commwuty volunteers. 9 / '~~ 3 ; ,~ , ~~ ni :~ , ,~i ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Mr w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .r ~ v~r .. ,... D. Monitoring Program All future Greenways projects will have a specific momtoring plan which will be developed dunng design as a part of the construcUon budget for the project The plan will identify critena through which to evaluate project success, will estabhsh a schedule for achieving these criteria, and will specify the frequency and duraUon of monitoring that is required for project pemut compliance (e.g , wetlands monitoring usually continues on an annual basis for 5 yeazs following project completion), and any srte-specific condihons that should be monitored. Monitoring plans will help to ensure that appropriate corrective measures aze implemented if problems arise dunng the critical post- construction penod. E. Additional Services Additional services that are not currently bemg provided and are not included as part of the enhanced practices were also identified and evaluated These services include• Providin¢ Restrooms Restrooms aze provided on a seasonal basis at Even Fine Pazk and Martin Pazk The initial cost for a restroom is $150,000 to $200,000. The cost to maintam a restroom includu-g cleaning two hmes per day is about $700 per month. While there haue been requests for restrooms, they are a major cleazung and mazntenance problem As an atternative, the group decided to evaluate the locahons of exist~ng public restrooms neazthe Greenways forthe purpose ofmakmgUus mformation avazlable to the public. Drinldn¢ Fountains There are several dnnking fountau-s along the Boulder Creek Path. The inihal cost for a frost-free (yeaz-round) fountain is about $3000, if there is a neazby water line. Drinking fountains require minimal mazntenance Drinkmg fountains have often been donated. Proposed locations of drinking fountains have been identified on the Greenways map and aze shown in the Reach Inventory presented m Secfion VII Trash Cans Trash cans aze primarily located along the Boulder Creek Path and in city parks. The initial costs of a trash can ranges from $30 to $1000 each. Emptying of cans would need to be done at least 2 times per week and up to once each day, depending on theu locaUon. One full-time employee plus one vehicle would be required for the entire system. Dump fees would also be incurred While there have been requests for additional trash cans, the limited number of existing cans has not caused a trash problem Li¢hting Lighting can be an important factor in Greenways safety A street light cutrently costs about $2700, 97 ~ plus on-gomg electricity costs. Street lights must be individually evaluated m terms of their effects on habitat, and posirive and negauve impacts must be compazed on an individual basis Benches Benches cost between $280 and $1200 and aze usually provided through memonal donations. Associated mamtenance costs are very low. Other Improvements , A number of other potential improvements, such as construchon of rest azeas, providing for mcreased pohce protection, uistallahon of safety phones, and installation of addit~onal signage have ~ been suggested. These nnprovements were not individually evaluated in tlus master plan update "' , 98 VII. Future Opportunities A. Greenways Projects and Opportunities Based on information presented m the Transportahon Master Plan, the Comprehensive Dramage Ut~lrty Master Plan, the Pazks and Recreation Master Plan, the North Boulder Subcommumty Plan, the Aquatic Habrtat Study (part of the Boulder Creek Watershed Study), the Greenways Ripanan Habrtat Assessment and the goals and crrtena for each of the Program objectives, the Greenways Coorduiation Team identified projects and opporturuties for each of the Greenways ob~ ecrives along Boulder Creek and the designated tributaries Projects and opportunities aze shown on the Greenways Master Plan Map (Appendix I-1) and aze described m Table VII-1 (Reach Inventory, Projects and Opportumhes) A summary of Transportation Changes from the May 1998 Greenways Map represented on the current map and reach mventory is contamed m Appendix VII-1 A summary of the idenhfied projecu and opportucuUes is shown in Table VII-2. Cost estimates for each of the proposed improvements aze contamed in Appendix VII-2 ' B. Criteria for Projects The Greenways Program has adopted an opportumsUc approach to aclueve its multiple ob~ectives ~~~~ throughout the system. Frequently, specific efforts witlun a greenway corridor can be completed m {~~ con~unction with parks, transportation, flood mrtigaUon, or pnvate development pro~ects funded ~~ from outside the Greenways budget Pro~ects for most of the ob~ect~ves of the Greenways Program s~ ~ aze budgeted under other departmental and divisional budgets. It was detemuned that the purpose '"~ of the Greenways budget is to provide an oppommity to conshuct a project which meets more than a~~~r~ one of the objectives of the Program and may not necessanly be a pnonty when the ob~ectives aze w~~ viewed sepazately ~ All of the Greenways goals and objectives except the environmental ob~ectives aze covered under ~ individual master plans and associated ciTy work plans. Consequenfly, a priorihzed list of ~ environmental pro~ects and opportumties was developed to facihtate idendficafion of potential ,~, funding sources for these pro~ects. A method was developed in order to pnorit~ze stand-alone ..~ environmental pro~ects along the Greenways as part of the Master Plan process. The prioritizahon '"" method ranks the projects idenufied on the Greenways Master Plan Map and Reach Inventory, +' % Pro~ects and Opportuniues usmg scores from recent environmental studies, the matnx of overlappmg „~'"`„~ and confhcting objectrves, and the results of a stress analysis on environmental impairment of water ~ quality and habitat. ~ The stress analysis was based on a methodology developed by The Nature Conservancy ent~tled, ~av+ "The Frve-S Framework for Srte Conservation." The method involves identifying specific functions ~ of the Greenways that aze environmentally impazred system-v~nde, linkmg the impairment to an ~ achve threat or stress to the system, evaluatmg how severe and widespread the stresses aze, and ~ determining midgation strategies for alleviaUng the stresses. These mrtigation strategies were then assigned weightmg factors in terms of feasibility, cost, and effechveness m reducmg the idenhfied ~" stresses. The results of the stress analysis aze provided m Table VII-3 ~ a`$) ~ 99 ~ ~, ~ ~, Smce the stress analysis was system-wide, rt was necessary to apply the results to srte specific projects and strategies. The environmental pro~ects and opportumhes identified as part ofthe Master Plan were tabulated and evaluated to determme which strategies were proposed for each project The rankmg method uhlized this tabulated list, with the strategies weighted according to the results of the stress analys~s Addmonal components of the ranking method mcluded the quality ofthe habitat based on environmental scores from recent studies, the amount of overlap or conflict v~nth other pro~ects proposed for other Greenways ob~echves v~nthin the reach, the ownerslup of the properry, and the nsk of failure The results of the pro~ect rankmg procedure are provided in Table VII-4 T'he top 10 environmental pro~ ects idenhfied usmg the ranking method were considered for the 2002- 2007 CIP. Descriptions of these projects aze included m Appendix VII-3 The inclusion of specific env~ronmental pro~ects was based on the razilced list and on the timing of other projects along the Greenways following an opportumstac approach Stand-alone environmental pro~ects do not have a dedicated fundmg source at tkus hme, therefore additional funding will be necessary to complete stand-alone pro~ects C. Cultural Resources Recommendarions The Greenways cultural resources inventory identified the lustorical sigcuficance of mdrvidual lustonc sites withm the Greenways corridors Greenways projects which potentially affect srtes l~sted or eligible for listing on the National or State Register of Histonc Places should consider the potential effects of pro~ect unplementahon on site siguficance as a part of the Project CEAP CoordmaUon w~th the Landmarks Board will be needed for pro~ects affectmg city landmazks Historic Site Significance • Of the previously recorded sites in the study azea, only 5BL358, the Switzerland Trazl, is listed on the NRHP • Three sites are City Landmazks - Highland School (SBL364), the Bandshell (SBL5680), and the Boyd Smelter (SBL7094). • Unaltered segments of the Boulder & White Rock (SBL859), Silver Lake (SBL3813), Anderson (SBL3935), Boulder & Left Hand (SBL5820), Farxners (SBL6632), North Boulder Farmers (SBL6879), and Wellman (5BL8819) ditches aze all eligible for nominarion to the NRHP for their associatron wrth the development of Water Storage and Irrigadon. • The V almont Power Plant (SBL799) and associated Leggett Inlet and Outlet is ehgible to the NRHP for its associahon with energy development • The Colorado & Southern RR (SBL400), Umon Pacific RR (SBL469), and the Colorado & Northwestern Trun (SBL606) aze ehgible for nommation to the NRHP for their association with Transportahon • Boulder High School (5BL4675) is eligible for nomination to the NRHP as a type of construction and for rts associaUon with significant persons and events (Educahon) • The Watts Residence (SBL5929), the Pazce/Ronshoot/Pollazd Residence (5BL6167), and the Pollazd/Tisone Residence (SBL6169) aze individually eligible for nomination to the NRHP as a type of construction and for their association with sigiuficant persons. They are also eligible as elements of a potenhal Hillside Road Distnct. • The Green Mountam Cemetery (SBL5954) is eligible for nommarion to the NRHP for rts 100 associahon wrth Commtuuty Development and as a type of construchon • The Crty Dump (SBL8820) is eligible for nommat~on to the NRHP as an azchaeological srte, as it is hkely to }neld informahon important to history " • The Civilian Conservation Corps stonework (SBL8821) is eligible for nomuiat~on to the ~ NRHP as a type of construchon and for its association vv~th Education and wrth the CCC and ; the Great Depression. ~ • Sites wluch aze not mdividually ehgible for norcunation to the NRHP may be eligible as elements of dismcts They are also eligible for nommahon to the SRHP or for City ~ Landmazking This would mclude Eben Fine Pazk and the shelter and restroom (SBL6015- I? 6017), Central Pazk (SBL6063); the field bmldmgs at Boulder High (SBL5990-59994), the I~ Broadway Bndge (5BL6062), Yocom Studio (SBL1129), and, Wonderland Lake , , (SBL3814) Management Recommendations In addmon to recommendatrons concerrung indiv~dual lustoric srte sigmficance, the Crreenways Cultural Resources Inventory made the followmg general cultural resource management recommendahons for the Greenways Program • Significant cultural properties should be achvely preserved and mamtamed, whether or not they have been hsted on the NRHP or landmazked. • Cultural propemes wtuch aze owned by the crty, such as Eben Fme and Central Parks, should have preservahon of their histoncal integnty as a priority. The azchaeological sites such as the Boyd Smelter, and Crty Dump at Scott Carpenter Park should be protected from looting Any new trail construchon or alterahon, or any earth disturbing achvity neaz these srtes should be momtored by an azchaeologist to msure remams aze not destroyed. • Wlule ditches and razlroads have their own legally protected nghts-of-way, the owners should be encouraged to maintain the properties m their historical condirion whenever possible • The Boulder Valley School Distnct and the Umversity of Colorado should be encouraged to maintain the field buildings at the High School (several of wtuch aze not currently used) and the CCC stonework neaz the High School and on CU property Some of the stone walls and tenaces at CU aze in need of repair. • Interpretrve signs and/or brochures discussmg specific cultural resowces and general tustorical data can be useful and mformahve to the pubha Interprehve signs can be placed anywhere a cultural property is encountered along a Crreenway. The most appropriate location for historical interpretation is along Boulder Creek, Reach 7- from Eben Fine Pazk to 9th Street or to Broadway. While some of the tustory does not have extant cultural manifestations, rt can shll be readily demonstrated wrth historical photos Tlus would also provide some conhnuity with the mterpretive signs done by Boulder County for the Pioneer Trail, which extends west up Boulder Canyon from Eben Fme Pazk 101 ~ TABLE VII-1 Greenways Master Plan Update Reach Inventory, Projects 8~ Opportunities ~ Stream: Fourmile Canyon Creek ~ ~ Reach 1 (FCC 16) LocaUon: Diagonal Hwy to west side of Pleasantv~ew soccer fields HabiWt condi8ons Vegetation structure Good Native plant habitat Poor Bird habitat Very good Aquahc habrtat Fair Pnmary (streambed) Good Secondary (channel morphology) Fair Tertiary (bank stabddy) Good Vegetatrve bank stability Good Other conditions: • Trail runs along south side of creek and wetlands • Minor drainage issue under 47th St / Flood water overtops 47th St frequentiy • Channel is choked with fallen debns from trees Opportumties. Tre nsportation/Recreation • Complete trad connection and underpass under Diagonal and RR tracks Flood management. • Mitigate flood hazard and drainage issues according to the Fourmile Canyon Creek Master Plan • Increase flood capacity under 47th St to drain overbank flooding south of creek • Maintam flood conveyance capacaty through a cambination of sediment removal and seledrve debns removal and vegetative thinnmg Hnthin the conveyance zone Non-natrve speGes should be selected for removal over natrve species Habitat protecUon. P-32, 33 + Nreeds • Preserve and enhance high quality bird habitat • Control non-native vegetahon (Remove Russian olives and other weedy species) Water quahty • Protect existmg wetland at stormwater outfall at 47'" St for conUnued water qualiry treatment capaary ~ FI r A , ~ P Yi 102 Stream: Fourmde Canyon Creek Reach: 2 (FCC 16, 15, 14) Loca4on: West of Pleasantview soccer fields to 28th St ~ Hab~tat condrtions: ~ Vegetatwn structure Good ~ Natrve plant habitat Poor to good Bird habitat Poor to very good ~ Aquabc habdat Fair ~ Primary (streambed) Poor to good ' Secondary (channel morphology) Fair to good ~ Tertary (bank stabdity) Good Vegetative Bank Stability Good ~) i' ~ Other conditwns ~~ • Trad runs along north side of creek • Wide trapezoidal channel v~nth concrete cut-off wall drops m Palo Park is highly aggraded and contains ii ,~ heavy sediment deposdion ; a • Channel is sand bottom and wide wdh no defined banks m certam areas `~ • Sediment dredged from the low flow crossmg is stockpded in the ad~acent wetland to the east ~ • Some flood capaGty may be lost due to sedimentation in channel "~ • Good signs of vegetative successwn with heavy hydrophylic vegetation Weeds are dominatmg on 4F~ deposded sediment areas Opportunit~es. Flood management: • Mitigate flood hazard and drainage issues according to the Fourtnde Canyon Creek Master Plan • Mamtain flood conveyance capaaty through a wmbination of sediment removal and selectrve debns removal and vegetatwe thmnmg ~nnthin the conveyance zone Non-natwe specaes should be seleded for removal over natrve species • Acquire properties in the high hazard zone accordmg to the cdys preflood acqwsition program • Create low flow meandenng creek and lower terrace wetland/npanan zones between 28th and 30th St Habitat protection: R-43 + weeds • Enhance npanan area m Open Space easement where bird habitat quality is very good by planting native vegetation along impacted channel and managing weeds • Morntor for weeds and sediment problems downstream of 30th St • Improve habitat quality Hnth flood capacrty improvements 103 ~ Waterquality WQ-41,42 • Restore disturbed areas along the banks and improve stream bank stabil~ty using bio- engineered methods • Construct BMPs to actrvely manage sediment downstream of 28'" Street • Incorporate BMP's at development west of 26'" Street to treat storm sewer outfalls and parkmg lot runoff Stream: Fourtmle Canyon Creek Reach 3 (FCC 12, 11, 09, 0~ LocaUOn: 28th St to 79th St Habitat conditions Vegetation strudure Natrve plant hab~tat Bird habdat Aquatic habitat Pnmary (streambed) Secondary (channel morphology) Tertiary (bank stability) Vegetatrve Bank Stabdiry Good to very good Very poor to good Poor to good Fair Fair to good Poor to fair Good Fau to good Other conditions. • No paved trad Soaal trad exists along the north side of creek from 28th to 26th St • Lots of bank sloughing and severe bank erosion along some areas m the Elks property and GRhens Acres • Lots of trash and debris in creek along entire route • Banks stabilized wrth rock walls, concrete walls, and cancrete rubble OpporWn~ties Transportation/Recreation: • Complete trad connections accordmg to tfie North Boulder Subcommunrty Ptan • Manage access to and use of the ripanan areas and creeks Hnthin Elks Park • Complete connedion from 26th St to 28th St (Locate trad out of npanan area and noRh of creek), and from Fourmile Creek to Wonderland Creek • Construct soft-surface pedestrian only path between Gamet Ln and 19th St • Re-evaluate multi-use path from 19th to Gamet Ln and between Gamet Ln and 26th St • Construct trail underpass at 19th St and combine a new bndge and culvert at 26th St with a trad underpass n , a A' ~ A 1 r~~ r 104 , Fiood management. ~ • Mdigate flood hazard and drainage issues accordmg to the Fourtnde Canyon Creek Master Plan ~ • Excavate and grade overbank and expand nparian and buffer areas • Consider passrve flood management in paRs of the reach - especially m the Elks Park , • Eliminate driveway crossing near Sumac Ave ~ • Improve capacaty at 19th and 26th St culverts ~ • El~mmate spill flow to Wonderland Creek ~ • Maintain flood conveyance capacity through a combination of sediment removal and selective debris remaval and vegetative thinnmg v~nthin the conveyance zone Non-natrve species should ~ be selected for removal over natrve species ~ • Acquire propertes m the high hazard zone accordmg to the aty's preflood acquisdion program ~ ,~ Habitat protection P&R-28, 29, 30, 31 +weeds, • Protect high quality vegetation structure and enhance Hnldlife and native plant habRat quality »~ • Expbre mcreasmg m-stream flow ~ • Enhance understory and ground cover Hnth natrve plantings ~ • Improve and expand quality of npanan buffer and manage weeds, exotics, and dumpmg ~ through homeowner education Water quality. • Remove conuete and other bank sVudures and revegetate banks where needed Culturel resources• SBL6632 - Farmers Ditch bisects the creek at Elks Park NOTE - 4 aenai crossings of the creek by pipes carrying water from 58L3813, The SAver Lake Ditch These are feeders from a lateral of the ditch, and whde the Silver Lake Ditch is significant, feeder ditches are not considered sigmfirant elements of the ditch These are between 19th and 26th streets NOTE - A vanery of creek bank treatments are present between 19th and 26th streets, mcluding stacked cobbles, stones in cement, and concrete These bank treatments are only in a few places, and none appear to be very old 105 ~ Stream. Fourmde Canyon Creek Reach• 4 (FCC 07, 05, 04) I ~ locat~on• 19th St to west s~de of Soulder Valley Meadows Park (13th St) ~ Habitat cond~tions Vegetation structure Very good Native plant habitat Poor to good Bud habitat Poor to good Aquatic habdat Fair Pnmary (streambed) Fau Secondary (channel morphology) Poor Tertiary (bank stab6dy) Good Vegetative Bank Stabiliry Fair to Good Other conditions. • No trail exists • The creek is getting considerable use with lots of trash, human waste, and debris along the creek OpportumGes Transportaron/Recreation. • Off-street trad connections from 19th St to Broadway • Locate trail near Violet and outside of npanan area • Construct trad between Violet and 19th St in the future neighborhood park site • Construct trad underpasses at Violet Ave , Upland Ave , and 19th St Flood management • Mitigate flood hazard and drainage issues accordmg to the Fourtnile Canyon Creek Master Plan • Excavate and grede overbank m park and expand nparian and bu(fer areas • Eliminate spill flow to Wonderland Creek • Mamtam flood conveyance capaGty through a combinahon of sediment removal and seledwe debns removal and vegetat~ve thmnmg wrthin the conveyance zone Non-native speaes shouid be seiected for removal over native speaes • Acqwre properties m the high hazard zone according to the Gty's preflood acqwsdion program Habitat protection P&R-27 + weeds • Enhance Hnldlife habitat quality through weed management and natrve plantmgs • Explore opportundies for enhanGng npanan area through park development • Remove and revegetate soGal trails Water quality WQ-40 • Stabilize impacted banks through biostabdization • Explore opportunity for water quality best management practice and flood mdigation in park i r ~~ n P r 106 Stream Fourmde Canyon Creek Reach 5 (FCC 03, 01) ~ Location. West side of Boulder Valley Meadows Park to Ope~ Space ~~ Habitatconditions Vegetatwn structure Poor to good Natrve plant habitat Good to very good ,1 Bird habitat Good ~ Aquatic habrtat Poor ~ Pnmary (streambed) Fau (to Broadway) ~ Secondary (channel morphology) Poor ,r Tertiary (bank stabdity) Fair ~ Vegetative bank stabihty Fair to good Other conditions• • Trail runs along south side of creek west of Broadway • Channel is very straight with constructed drop/pool structures • Sediment and cobble collect in pools • Low water crossing problem at the Broadway underpass Opportunities: Tra ns porfati on/Recreation • Compiete trail connection ta North Boulder Foothills Park and the Foothills Tred • Locate tra~l oufside of npanan area • Complete trad from 13th St Flood management • Mitigate flood hazards and dramage issues according to the Fourmile Canyon Creek Master Plan • Construct new underpass at Broadway for conveyance capacity and trail connection • Capture and direct floodwater to creek near Open Space • Excavale and grade overbank and expand npanan and buffer areas • Eliminate spol flow to Wonderland Creek • Maintain flood conveyance capaaty thraugh a combination of sediment removal and selechve debns removal and vegetative thinning within the conveyance zones Non-native speaes should be selected for removal over natrve spec~es • Acqu~re propeRies m the high hazard zone according to the aty's preflood acqwsition program 107 f HabiUt protection. weeds • Enhance habitat quality through weed management and native plantings Closely monitor the success of vegetation/plantings • Explore opportunities to widen riparian areas through redevelopment Water qual~ty WQ-78 • Construct BMPS with new development to manage sediment loads • Mamtam pools regularly to manage sediment • Provide BMPs at ma~or outfalls when feasible Cultural resources 56L3813 - Sdver Lake Ditch crosses the creek wa an aenal pipe SVeam Wonderland Creek Reach 7 (WC 16) Location. North Goose Creek to Valmont Rd. Habitat conditions: VegetaLOn structure Poor Native plant habitat Poor Bird habrtat Poor Aquatic habdat Poor Primary (streambed) Poor Secondary (channel morphology) Poor Tertary (bank stabdity) Fau where channel exists Vegetative bank stability Poor where channel exists Other conditions: • New creek channel and trad are under construchon (summer 2001) Opportun~ties Transportation/Recreatian: • Provide connec6on to future trail to 63rd St and Gunbarrel • Prowde connection through Valmont park to North Goose Creek Flood management: • Mitigate flood hazards and dramage issues according to CDUMP • Construct new channel between Goose Creek and Valmont Rd • Maintain flood conveyance capacity through a combination of sediment removal and selectrve debns removal and vegetative thinning within the conveyance zone Non-natrve speaes should be selected for removal over native species • Acqwre properties m the high hazard zone according to the city's preflood acqwsihon program Habitat protectioNWater quality R-51, D3 • Recreate aquatic habitat during channel construction r n i a s 108 Stream Wonderland Creek ~ Reach: 2 (WC 16, 15, 14, 13) Location Valmont Rd to Foothdls Parkway J ~ ~ `~ ~ Habitat conditions Vegetation structure Natrve plant habitat Bird habitat Aquatic habitat Pnmary (streambed) Secondary (channel morphology) Tertiary (bank stabiliry) Vegetative bank stability Other conditions • Trail exists Poorto good Poor to excellent Very poor to poor Poor Poor Poor Fair Poor to Fair • Channel ends at Boulder and Lefthand ditch A large drop/pool is to be constructed here Opportunities Flood management • Mitigate flood hazards and drainage issues according to CDUMP • Complete new channel and drop/pool upstream of Valmont Rd • Open underpass under Valmont Rd Hnth channei construction • Capaaty improvements along existing drainageway • Excavate and grade overbank and expand nparian and buffer areas • Mamtain flood conveyance capacity through a combination of sediment removal and selectrve debris removal and vegetative thinning within the conveyance zone Non-native species should be selected for removal over natwe spec~es • Acqwre properties m the high hazard zone according to the Gtys preflood acquisition program Habitat protection P-7 + weeds • Manage weeds in Noble Park and Christiensen Park • Widen npanan area in Christensen Park and limit mowmg Water quahty R-8 • Preserve existmg wetland bottom channel for water quality benefits • Improve water quality of pond at Noble Park 109 Stream Wonderland Creek Reach 3 (4VC 13, 12, 11, 10, 9) ~ Location: Foothills Pkwy. to 28th St I Habitat conditions: Vegetation structure Native plant habitat &rd habrtat Aquatic habitat Primary (streambed) Secondary (channel morphology) Tertiary (bank stability) Vegetative bank stability Poor to very good (mostly good) Poor to excellent Very poor to poor Poor to fav Mostly fair, some poor Poor Fair Mostly fair, some good Other Condi6ons: • Creek is piped afong 28'" Street Opporturnties Transportation/Recreatian. • Construct underpass under Diagonal for flood management and traii connection • Construd new underpasses at 28th St , 30th & the Diagonal, 34th St and at Iris for flood management and trail connedion • Construct trad from 30th St to 47th St Route undetertnined, but to be located outside the wetland area • Provide connechon to Howard Heuston Park Flood management • Mitigate flood hazards and drainage issues according to CDUMP • Capaaty improvements along existing drainageway between 34th St and the Diagonal • Excavate and grade overbank and expand npanan and buffer areas • Mamtam flood conveyance capacity through a combination of sediment removal and select~ve debris removal and vegetat~ve thinning vnthin the conveyance zones Non-natrve speaes should be selected for removal over nahve species • Acquire properties in the high hazard zone according to the cRy's preflood acqwsition program . Improve capaaty at the Diagonal Hwy , Ins, and 28th St culverts • Ehmmate ddch capWre HabiWtprotecGon P&R-9, t0+weeds, P-11, R-52 • Work with landowners to improve habitat conditions by controlling exotic weed speues, remowng Russian olives and thistle, and limiting mow~ng • Control reed canary grass mfestation downstream of 34th St and manage for natrve vegetation • Preserve wetland upstream of foothdls • Widen riparian area by defining mowmg edge • Control grade of underpass under the Diagonal to minimize drainage of upstream wetlands • Widen riparian area upstream of Ins 110 ~, Water quality WQ-4, 58, 59, 79, D-2 • Improve water quality through best management practices and bioengineering • Provide a BMP near the Boulder Bank • Daylight creek along the east side of 28th St and provide a BMP behind the existing parking lot • Remove of soften (bury and re-vegetate) drops and concrete north of Kalmia Restore to a more natural condition to enhance water quality • Explore opporturnty for outfall treatment at 28'" Street ~ ~ D ~ Stream: Wonderland Creek ~ Reach 4 (WC 09, 08, 07, 06) ~ ~ Locabon: 28th St to 26th St. HabiWt conditions: Vegetation structure Natwe plant habitat Bud habdat Aquatic hab~tat Pnmary (streambed) Secondary (channel morphology) Tertiary (bank stabdity) Vegetatrve bank stabdiry Very poor to good Poor to good Very poor to good Poor Poor Poor Fair Poor to fair (Concrete wall tnckle channel ) Other conditions. • No trad exists OpportumUes• Trens portation/Recreation • Instail a box culveR under 28th St with a trad connedion • Construct tratl connection accordmg to the North Bouider Subcommumty Plan • Provide trad connection between Wonderland and Faurmde Canyon Creek through the Elks propeRy Flood management• • Mrtigate flood hazards and drainage issues according to CDUMP • Acqwre properties in the high hazard zone according to the aty's preflood acqu~sition program • Maintain flood conveyance capacity through a combination of sediment removal and selective debns removal and vegetatrve thinn~ng vnthin the conveyance zone Non-natrve species should be selected for removal over native speaes I11 ~ Habitat protection• R-12 • Improve riparian habitat by planting nalive trees and shrubs Water quality • Remove concrete from channel and replace v,nth targeted structurai improvements and bioengineenng for bank stabilization Culturai resources SBL6632 - Farmers Ditch runs east along Nonvood Ave , then north along the west s~de of 26th St , then crosses 26th, and runs northeast The ditch is in a concrete channel here SVeam Wonderland Creek Reach 5 (WC O6, 05) Location. 26th St to west side of Centennial Middle Schaol Habitat conditions: Vegetation structure Native plant habdat Bird habitat AquaUC habdat Primary (streambed) Secondary (channel morphology) Tertiary (bank stabdity) Vegetatrve bank stabdily Good Good Good to very good Fa~r Poor to fair Fair to poor Fau to good Fair to good Other condit~ons No trail exists No channel through the school property Opportun~Ues TrensportaUOn/RecreaUon. • Construd trail connection along noAh and east side of school Flood management: • Mdigate flood hazards and drainage issues according to CDUMP • Mamtain flood conveyance capacaty through a combination of sediment removal and seledive debris removal and vegetative thinning ~nnthm the conveyance zone Non-natrve species should be selected for removal over native speaes • Acqwre properties in the high hazard zone according to the city's preflood acquisition program Habitat protection P-13 + weeds • Control exotic species and reduce mowing in buffer area through homeovmer education • Promote native revegetation of woody species along drainage area • Protect and enhance high quality wetlands in Pampas Ct ~ ~ R R 6 R i~ a f, ~ a r~ r~ 112 Water quality D-1 • Explore daylighting creek north of Centennial field ~ Cultural resources ~ 5BL6632 - Fartners Ditch runs east along Norwood Ave , then north along the west side of 26th St , ~ then crosses 26th, and runs northeast The ditch is in a concrete channel here ~ ~ Stream Wondedand Creek ^ ~ I Reach• 6 (WC 04, 03, 02) ~ y Location: West side of Centennial Middle School to 15th St ''' 9 Habitat condrtons 11 ' Vegetation structure Poor to good il~ Native plant habitat Poor to good Bird habitat Poor to good °j'~ Aquatic habdat Fair ~ ~ Pnmary (streambed) Poor to good ~~ Secondary (channel morphology) Fair to poor .~ Tertiary (bank stabdity) Fair ~~ Vegetative bank stabddy Fair to good , ~~~ Other condiGons ti ,,, • No trad exists "'~ • Unconfined channel ,r • Subdiwsions and new house construcUon are hawng an impact on the condition of the habitat ,~'~' • Fenang, water diversions, and mowing are also causmg an impact ,. «+' Opportumres• .. r~* Trensportation/Recreation ~ • Construd trail between Gamet and 19th St, and beriveen Garnet and Poplar "' • Re-evaluate off-street trad opportunities considenng North Boulder Subcommunity Plan ~ ~ ~ Flood management + • Mitigate flood hazards and drainage issues according to CDUMP ~ • Consider passrve flood management "~ • Mamtam flood conveyance capaaty through a comb~nation of sediment removal and seledroe ~,,, debns removal and vegetahve thinnmg ~nnthm the conveyance zone Non-native species should '" be selected for removal over natrve speaes ~ -. • Acquire properties m the high hazard zone according to the city's preflood acqwsition program "" • Re-estabhsh channel near 19th St ,.. w. ~ ,,,. .- w ~ v/ ;; 113 ~, ... .., r Habitat protection P&R-15 + weeds ~ • Improve native plant habitat quality and vegetative strudure r • Control weeds and exotics (espeaally reed canary grass and knapweed), and dumping of yard waste through homeowner education ° Water quahty WQ-6 , • Explore opportumties for BMPs at 19th St outfalls • Improve stream bed charadenstics at upstream end of this reach by providing appropnate r ~ substrate and nffles ` • Preserve and enhance meandenng low-flow channel i • Use vegetation to mamtain bank stabiiity in downcut sect~on , • Remove cross basin transfer m pipe to Four Mde Creek at 19'" St " • Evaluate potent~al for re-colonization downstream of 19'" St ~ . Culturalresources i NOTE - A fiouse foundat~on is present ~ust east oT 19th St at Redwood Ave This appears to be post . ,, World War II, thus too young to be a cultural resource ` ' Stream: Wonderland Creek Reach: 7 (WC 01) Location: 15th St to 8roadway HabrtatcondiUOns: Vegetation structure Good Native plant habitat Poor Bird habdat Poor Aquatic habrtat Pnmary (streambed) Good Secondary (channel morphology) Good Tertiary (bank stabddy) Good Vegetative bank stability Good Other condiLons: • No trad exists • Ciry drainage easement along the channel Channel is concrete wall wnth a tnckle channel Easement ~s mamtamed by the homeowner's association 114 Opportumties ' Flood management i • Mdigate flood hazards and dramage issues accordmg to CDUMP J • Mamtam flood conveyance capaaty through a combmation of sediment removal and selechve debns removal and vegetative thinning within the conveyance zone Non-native species should ~~ be seleded for removal over na4ve speaes J • Acquire propertes m the high hazard zone accordmg to the aty's preflaod acqwsdion program a~ ~ HabiWt protecUon• • Improve native plant habitat and vegetative structure ~D • Work vnth homeowners to vnden and enhance riparian area through revegetation of natrve ;a plants and hmdmg mowmg in buffer area ~ Water quahty WQ-5 ;~ • Prowde BMPs near 15th St ~ Stream Wanderland Creek j Reach: 8 (WCOt) ~ ~ Location. West of Broadway Habitat conditions Vegetation structure Good Natrve plant habdat Poor Bird habdat Poor Aquatic habdat Pnmary (streambed) Good Secondary (channel morphology) Good Tertiary (bank stability) Good Vegetatrve bank stability Good Other conditions • Trail connects from Broadway to Broadway underpass • Managed as open space by the Open Space Department 115 ~ OppoRunities Habitat protection• P-14 • Follow management gwdelmes as speafied m the Open Space Area Management Plan Culturel resources SBL3874 - Wonderland Lake SBL3815 - Degge Fish Rearing Complex, both on Open Space Stream Goose Creek ~ , Reach 1 ~ Location: North Goose Creek from Pearl Pkwy. to Foothills Pkwy I Habdat condrtions Vegetation structure Not rated Natrve plant hab~tat Not rated Bvd habdat Not rated Aquatic habdat Not rated Other cond~tions • The creek in this location is a wide, dry, grassed-lined trapezoidal channel There is very little diversity of vegetation in this reach The Kline water nghts underdrain dewaters most of the creek m this area Opportum6es Trans portationlRecreation. • Construct trail underpass under Foothills Pkwy • Construct treil along North Gaose Creek between Foothiils Pkwy and existmg tratl near Cily Yards and prowde connections to Valmont City Park n . '~~ ~ 116 J ~ Flood management • Maintain flood conveyance capaaty through a combinat~on of sediment removal and selectrve debris removal and vegetative thmmng wdhm the conveyance zones Non-natwe speaes should be selected for removal over native specaes • Acquire properties m the h~gh hazard zone according to fhe aly's preflood acqwsition program Habitat protect~on R-38, R39 • Restore North Goose Creek channel as a fundional wetland with native plantings - possibly through mitigation banking • Develop pilot restoration pro~ect below confluence of Wonderland and North Goose Creek Remove structured channel and restore wetlands using bioengineering approaches Water quality • Investigate opportunity to purchase water rights to estabiish base flow in North Goose Creek ~ Stream: Goose Creek _ Reach 2 (GC 16, 15, 14, 13) I I Location• South Goose Creek from Pearl Pkwy. to Foothiils Pkwy Habitat canditions Vegetation structure Very poor Native plant habitat Poor to very good Brzd habitat Very poor to good Aquat~c habitat Poor Pnmary (streambed) Poor Secondary (channel morphology) Poor Tertiary (bank stability) Fair Vegetatwe bank stabdity Poor Other canditions: • Previous improvements used rock bank stabilization along narrow tnckle chan~el • Outfall with red preapitate at intersection of Boulder and Goose Creek paths Opportun~ties Transportation/Recreation • Construct new trad along one s~de of the channel • Construct underpasses at northbound offremp of Foothills Pkwy, 47th St , 48th St , and 49th St & Pearl Pkwy Flood management • Maintam flood conveyance capaGty through a combination of sed~ment removal and selective debris removal and vegetatrve thmning vnthm the conveyance zone Non-natrve specaes should be selected for removal over nahve speaes • Acqwre propefies in the high hazard zone aaording to the aty's preflood acqwsition program 117 ~ Hab~tat protection• R-41842, P-40 • Improve wetland habitat conditions • Restore wider wetland habitat within trapezoidal channel - possib~y through mitigation banking • Consider pilot restoration proJect in con~undion with Pearl Pkwy improvements Water quality WQ-55, 56, 75 • Provide BMPs for outfalls from City Yards and along Pearl Parkway • Restore aquatic habitat qualRy by removing rock drops and structural channel and replacing with bioengineered approaches • Improve stream bed and cha~nel morphology charactenst+cs • Remove barriers to fish movement, especially between outlet of Goose Creek and the pond connectmg to Boulder Creek • Improve water quality treatment functions of pond at ~unction of Wonderland and North Goose Creeks SVeam• Goose Creek ~ Reach 3 (GC 09, 08) ° ~ Location Poothills Pkwy, to RR ~ Habitat conditions: Vegetation structure Native plant habitat Bad habdat Aquatic habitat Pnmary (streambed) Secondary (channei morphology) Tertiary (bank stability) Other condit~ons: • Trad exists Very poor to poor Good to excellent Poor Fau to poor Poor Poor Good Opportumties Trensportation/Recrea~on • Improve connechons to business park Flood management: • Maintain flood wnveyance capacity through a combination of sed~ment removal and selective debns removal and vegetative thinnmg within the conveyance zones Non-native species should be selected for removal over natrve species , r ~ 118 Acquue properties in the high hazard zone according to the city's preflood acquisition program Habitat protection• P&R-37 + weeds • Maintain and improve high quality native plant habitat Improve vegetation structure by planting more nahve trees and shrubs • Manage weeds and morntor vegetation to protect good native plant habitat • Inventory for Preble's meadow ~umping mouse with any future improvements , Water quality. WQ-74 • Prowde water quality treatment features at storm water ouffalls ' • Replace drop structure with structure which allows fish movement ~ , Cultural resources: ' J 5BL5820 - Boulder & Left Hand Ddch ~~ ~ 5BL6879 - North Bouider Farmers Ddch - These two ddches are routed over the Goose Creek drainage ~" ) and through the Foothdls Parkway, flowing in from the southwest and curvmg to the northeast ~' NOTE - There are two pieces of oid agricultural eqwpment on the south side of the drainage, a manure °"' spreader and a hay rake The machinery belongs to W W Reynolds, owner of the property along Pearl Y~ St The machmery wdl probably not be left here mdefindely n ~~ ~ ~~ ' Stream Goose Creek ~ " "" Reach: 4 (GC 08, 07) +~wr ~^~ ~ LocaUon• RR to 28th St i 4iiwy HabiWt conditions: Vegetation strudure Very poor to poor Natrve plant habitat Poor to excellent Bird habdat Poor AquaUc habdat Fair to poor Pnmary (streambed) Fair to poor Secondary (channel morphology) Fair to poor Tertiary (bank stabdity) Fair Other condrtions • Trail exists up to 30th St • Goose Creek channel improvements from 30th St to 28th St are neanng completion (summer 2001) Trait connections, flood improvements, and channel creation are included in the pro~ect • Construded channel is not conducrve to supportmg aquatic communities 119 ~ Opportunities Trans portati on/Recreation • Complete connections from 30th St to 28th St according to Goose Creek Improvements Plan • Provide connections to 29th St & businesses east af 30th St and to 30th St Flood management • Complete new channel from 30th St to 28th • Maintain flood conveyance capaaty through a combination of sediment removal and seledive debris removal and vegetative thinning within the conveyance zone Non-natrve speaes should be selected for removal over native speaes • Acqwre properties in the high hazard zone according to the aty's preflood acqwsition program Hab~tat protection weeds • Improve habitat quality from 30th St to 28th St by restonng channel and planting native vegetation • Manage weeds Water quahty WQ-63 • Improve water quality function from 30th St to 28th St with new channel construction • Provide water quality treatment feature at 30th St for outfalls Culturel resources 5BL400 - Colorado 8 Southem Railroad - The radroad crosses Goose Creek, going north-south, at the Reach 3/Reach 4 line The radroad is elevated above the creek Stream Goose Creek . Reach: 5 (GC 05, 04) ~ 1 Locat~on: 28th St to Folsom St I Habitat condit~ons Vegetation structure Very good NaUve plant habitat Poor Bird habdat Poor Aquatic habdat Pair Pnmary (streambed) Fair to good Secondary (channel morphology) Fair Tertiary (bank stab~hty) Fair Vegetative bank stability Fa~r to good t' ~ 120 Other cond~tions • No traii exists ~ • No channel exists for much of the reach ? • See Goose Creek Channel Improvements Plan T Opportumties Trans portation/RecreaUon ~ • Construd trail connections and underpass according to the Goose Creek Channel .5 Improvements Plan ~ • Construct underpass at Folsom St for flood mitigation and trail connection Flood management: • Construct flood improvements according to the Goose Creek Channel Improvements Plan • Mamtain flood conveyance capacity through a wmbination of sediment removal and selective debns removal and vegetative thinning within the conveyance zone Non-native speaes should be selected for remova~ over native species • Acqwre properties in the high hazard zone accordmg to the aty's preflood acqwsition program • Construd culvert and trail connection under 28th St Water quahty WQ-62 • Provide BMPs upstream of 28th St in con~unction v~nth Goose Creek Channel Improvements • Replace grade control structure in trailer park which blocks fish movement Culturel resources. 5BL859 - Boulder 8 White Rock Ditch - Goose Creek ~s channeled mto the Boulder & White Rock Ddch ~ust west of 28th St I Stream. Goose Creek ~ Reach• 6 (GC 03, 01) ~ Location: Folsom St to 13th St. ~ Habitat conditions Vegetation structure Poor to good Nahve plant habdat Poor Bird habdat Poor Aquatic habitat Primary (streambed) Poor to good Secondary (channel morphology) Poor to fair Tertiary (bank stability) Fair to poor Vegetatwe bank stabdity Fair to poor 121 ~ OthercondRions • Banks are extremely unstable between 19th St and Folsom • Drop structure at Folsom creates fish barner OpportuniGes. Trensporta4on/Recreat~on • Provide underpass at Folsom Flood management ~ • Mitigate flood hazards and drainage issues according to CDUMP ~ r • Maintain flood conveyance capaaty through a combination of sediment removal and selectrve ~ debris removal and vegetative thinning within the conveyance zones Non-natrve species ~ should be selected for removal over natrve species ~ • Acqwre properties m the high hazard zone according to the aty's preflood acquisition program „ Hab~tat protection P&R36 +~,~reeds, R-53 + weeds • Enhance quality of the vegetat~on structure and bird habitat • Use homeowner education to enhance vegetation and control weeds Water Quality WQ-60, 61, D-4, 5 • Use bioeng~neenng approaches to enhance vegetatrve bank stabdity • Prowde water quality treatment features for outfalls along Edgewood Dnve • Evaluate potential to dayltght creek from 13th to 19th Streets • Improve ripanan habitat to serve as BMP for storm sewer outfalls along reach • Redesign drop structure at Folsom to allow fish passage Stream: ElmePs Two Mde Creek ~ Reach 1 (ETC 05, 04, 03, 02, 01) ~ LocaLon: Goose Creek to Parkside Park Habitat condi6ons Vegetation structure Very poor to good Natrve plant habitat Very poor to good Bird habrtat Very poor to poor Aquatic habitat Poor Primary (streambed) Poor Secondary (channel morphology) Poor Tertiary (bank stability) Fa~r Vegetative bank stability Poor 122 Other condit~ons ~ • No trad exists . • Weedy understory and overstory Frequent mowmg in buffer area has lim~ted habitat quality f • Upstream of Kalmia, the creek is constructed of concrete and gabions wdh no natural features Downstream of Glenwood, the concrete is gone and the vegetation spreads out to make a more natural ~ area 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ;~ ,~~ OppoRuniGes. Trensportation/Recreation • • Construct off-street trad from Parkside Park to Goose Creek • Construct underpasses under Valmont Rd , 26th St , Ins Ave, and Glenwood in con~unction with flood improvements Flood management • Flood mitigation and capaaty improvements along channel south of park and north of Valmont • Improve flood conveyance underpass at Glenwood • Construct channel between Goose Creek and Valmont Rd to mitigate flood hazards • Maintam flood conveyance capacity through a combmation of sediment removal and selective debris removal and vegetative thinning within the conveyance zone Non-native species should be selected for removal over native species • Acqwre properties m the high hazard zone according to the city's preflood acquisition program • Construcl ddch flume at Boulder and Whderock Ddch Habrtat protectian: R-44 • Enhance npanan area through Elmer's Park and Parkside Park • Modify creek to have more natural gradient where possible - combine w~th flood and trail improvements • Remove concrete along the channel where possible and restore to a more natural condit~on • Discontmue ditch capture in mobde home park and remove concrete channel Water quality WQ-52, 53, 54, 72, 73, 80 • Prowde BMPs ad~acent to Kmart and other parking areas ad~acent to creek (See Elmer's Park master plan) • Improve habitat at Elmer's Park with vegetatrve bank stabilization approaches ~n low flow channel • Prowde BMP at storm sewer outlet north of Glenwood and at 26'" St • Remove concrete from Elmer's Park down to Glenwood and restore creek banks usmg biostabil~zation 123 .~ ~ SVeam Boulder Creek Reach. 1 Location: 63rd St to Goose Creek Hab~tat condiUons Vegetatwn strudure No Data Native plant habitat Bird habdat Aquatic habitat Primary (streambed) Secondary (channel morphology) Tertary (bank stabdity) Vegetative Sank Stabd~ty Other condrt~ons • Trad exists • Concrete revetments on the right bank are failing and are undercut There is a concrete drop structure with a concrete block ~utting oul of the creek • The vegetation is dominated by exotics Linear cover by sandbar wdlow along the creek wuld provide good cover for Preble's meadow ~umping mouse OpportuniUes TransportaUon/Recreation • Provide a trail connection to Gunbarrel and connection to Valmont City Park Flood management • Mitigate flood hazard and dramage issues according to CDUMP • Mamtain flood conveyance capaaty through a combination of sediment removal and seledive debris removal and vegetative thinrnng vnthm the conveyance zone Non-natwe speaes should be selected for removal over natwe species • Acqwre properties in the high hazard zone acwrding to the city's preflood acquisition program Habitat protec4on • Proted and enhance high quality habitat in Open Space • Manage weeds and replant with natrve vegetation • CoMrol dlegal ramping m area Water quality WQ-39 • Implement BMPs for the outfall from the office use at 55th St and Boulder Creek • Remove faded and undercut concrete bank protectwn and replace v~nth bioengmeenng approaches Remove concrete block from drop/pool 124 , Stream Boulder Creek Reach• 2 (BC 51, 50, 49, 48, 47) ~ ~ LocaUon Goose Creek to Foothdls Pkwy ~ ' Habitat condrtions 8 Vegetation structure Good to Very Good ~ Natrve plant habdat Poor to good ' Bird habdat Poor to good ~ Aquahc habitat Fau to good ~ Pnmary (streambed) Good ~ Secondary (channel morphology) Good ~ Tertary (bank stabdity) Fair to good a Other conditions• • Trad exists • Wetlands ad~acent to Pearl St Business Park have Ute ladies tresses orchid • Cottonwood Grove is dominated by exotics, primarily crack and golden osier wtllows • Creek has mainly riffles • Natural channel processes taking piace downstream Erosion, channel bars, pomt bars, cross-overs No real drops, but pools are present at failen trees Opportunities Transporta4onlRecreation • Prowde trad access from Arapahoe Ave on 48th St to the Boulder Creek trail mirnm¢ing impacts to Boulder Creek • Manage soGal trad system Restrict soft trail use by closing and revegetating nondes~gnated soaal trads Flood management: • Widen drainage swales from Arapahoe Ave to allow more drainage collection and enhance wetlands • Improve levee beh~nd Syntex praperty • Mitigate flood hazard and dramage issues according to CDUMP • Maintain flood conveyance capacity through a combmation of sediment removal and seledrve debns removal and vegetative thinning within the conveyance zone Non-native speaes should be selected for removal over native speaes • Acquire propertes m the high hazard zone according to the city's preflood acqwsdion program 125 ~ HabiWt protect~on- P&R-47, 22 + Weeds, P-26 + weeds • Widen and revegetate ripanan corridor where feas~ble • Protect and enhance wet meadow and conveyance zone on property east of Foothtlls Pkwy • Protect and enhance Cottonwood Grove • Control weeds and replant wdh nafives • Remove concrete debris • Work with landowner north of the creek to protect and enhance existing Sp~ranthes dduv~al~s population Water quality WQ-34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 49, 57 • Implement BMPs as part of new development at the property at Arapahoe and Foothills Pkwy , in con~unction with the Syntex levee improvements, and at the outfall from Pearl St Business Park • Opporturnty for stream restoration near RR bridge • Protect good qua4ty aquatic habitat in lhis reach • Improve water quality treatment functions of pond between outlet of Goose Creek and the pond conneding to Boulder Creek Cultural resources• 5BL400 - Colorado & Southern Radroad - The radroad crosses Boulder Creek, running northwest- southeast Sfream Boulder Creek Reach: 3 (BC 45) LocaGon: Foothdis Pkwy to Arapahoe Rd. Habitat conditions: Vegetation structure Good Native plant habitat Very poor &rd habrtat Poor Aquatic habitat Fair Primary (streambed) Good Secondary (channei morphology) Good Tertiary (bank stability) Fair Vegetative bank stability Fair to good Other conditions ~ Trail exists • Channel banks are relatively steep, but vegetated with rootwads and moss Many access points • Stream corndor gets very narrow ~ust upstream of Foothiils Parkway Concrete rubble and other debns in the creek Non-native speaes should be selected for removal over native species Exotic vegetation dominates canopy, subcanopy, and herbaceous groundcover a r ~ e i ~ ~ . 126 Opportumt~es• ~ Flood management i • Mitigate flood hazard and drainage issues according to CDUMP • Maintam flood wnveyance capaaty through a combination of sediment removal and selectrve ' debris removal and vegetative thinning within the conveyance zone Non-natrve species should a be selected for removal over native speaes ) • Acqwre propertes m the h~gh hazard zone accordmg to the c~ty's preflood acquisdion program ~ ~ Habitat protection• • Control weeds 9 • Enhance and widen npanan area with na4ve planhngs ~ • Manage tramplmg of streambank by revegetating impacted sections and by managmg access ~ pomts Estabhsh Iocaiized boater access to limit bank erosion near Jose Muldoon's • Clean up trash Water quality WQ-33 • Prowde a boat ramp at Jose Muidoons to decrease erosion • improve aquatic habitat quality through bank re-vegetation ~ Stream Boulder Creek ~ Reach: 4 (BC 42, 39, 37) LocaUon: Arepahoe Rd to 30th St ~ Habitat conditions: Vegetation structure Natrve plant habitat Bird habdat Aquatic habdat Pnmary (streambed) Secondary (channel morphology) Tertiary (bank stabdily) Vegetatrve bank stability Very good Very poor Poor to very good Poor to very good Good (with one fa~r reach (BC42) Good (with one fav reach (BC42) Fair Good Other conditions: • Trad exists • Lots of bank erosion and trampling from access Cobble deposit under the 30th St bndge and downstream Rock walls, concrete rubble, trash, constructed drops, debris in the creek • Sump pump for dewatering the path is discharging rusty water to the creek Non-native speaes should be selected for removal over natrve species • Vegetation along this reach is dominated by exotics The overstory is entirely crack willow with almost no shrub canopy 12'7 r Opportunities Trans portatio n/Recreation • Provide connection to CU famdy housing on the east side Flood management • Mitigate flood hazard and drainage ~ssues according to CDUMP • Maintain flood conveyance capaaty through a combination of sediment removal and seledrve debris removal and vegetatrve thimm~g within the conveyance zone Non-natwe species should be selected for removal over native species • Acqwre properties m the high hazard zone according to the citys preflood acqws~tion program Habitat protect~on P&R-46 + weeds • Work with CU to protect and enhance native plant and bird habitat quality at the CU Research Park • Control weeds and exotics • Close soc~al trads in npanan area and revegetate • Remove trash and concrete rubble Waterquality WQ-29,30,31,32 • Protect and enhance complex channei structure • Reduce erosion through biostabilization • Fix tratl drainage issue under Arapahoe Ave (see cond~tions above) • Work wtth CU to implement BMPs at the CU Research Park • Work vnth CU to mstall BMP at 30"' Street storm sewer outfall to treat mall runoff Stream. Boulder Creek Reaeh 5 (BC 34, 32, 30) Location 30th St to Folsom St ' Stream Boulder Creek Reach 5 (BC 34, 32, 30) LocaUon 30th St to Folsom St HabiWt conditions Vegetation structure Good Native plant habitat Very poor to poor Bird habitat Very poor to good Aquatic habrtat Fair Primary (streambed) Fair to good Secondary (channel morphology) Good Tertiary (bank stabdity) Fair Vegetatrve bank stabdity Fair to good ~ f , r A ~ e ~~. ~~ 128 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Other conditions • Trail exists • The creek is very confined near the hotel tennis courts and the Gold Run condos The buildmgs are bwlt into the creek banks The drop structure in this location is being undercut The access for cleaning the head gate is very eroded • Lots of trash, concrete rubble, curb stops, and constructed drops • Stream bottom is fully grouted under the 28th St bridge • Lots of erosion and trampling from soaal access points • Sedimentation under the 30th St bndge • The vegetat~on is pnmarily exotic, and is limited to a narcow band of trees Opportumties Transportation/Recreation • Improve trail connection between Boulder Creek trail, the Village shopping Center, and Crossroads Mall along 28th St Flood management: • Mitigate flood hazard and drainage issues accordmg to CDUMP • Maintain flood conveyance capaaty through a combination of sediment removal and selective debris removal and vegetahve thinning withm the conveyance zone Non-native speaes should be selected for removal over native species • Acqwre properties in the high hazard zone according to the c~ty's preflood acquisition program Habitat protection weeds • Use homeowner education to Control weeds (Canada thistle), limit mowmg in buffer areas, introduce native plantings in buffer areas, and limit access point to the creek to preserve bank stability • Enhance natrve vegetation • Soften rock structures and drops m the creek to enhance aquatic habitat • Limit further impacts to streambanks and riparian area through the hotel site • Close and recla~m soGal trail along the creek bank Water Quality WQ-66, 67 • Implement BMPs at the 30th St and 28th St outfalis • Improve instream cover between 28th St and 30th St • Remove drops which act as barners to fish movement • Prowde a swale as a BMP along the west edge of Scott Carpenter Park • Pave headgate maintenance access road to reduce sedimentaUon 129 ~ Cultural resources 58L8820 - City Dump - Scott Carpenter Park is on top of a aty dump dating to 1895 The dump is an archaeologicalsde 5BL8819 - Weliman D~tch - The Weliman Ditch diverts water from Boulder Creek at 28th St Stream Bou~der Creek ~ Reach 6 (BC 28, 26, 22) Location Folsom St to 17th St Habitat condiUons. Vegetation structure Poor to very good Native plant habitat Very poor to good Bird habdat Very poor to poor Aquatic habdat Good to fair Primary (streambed) Good Secondary (channel morphology) Good Tertary (bank stabihry) Fair to good Vegetative bank stability Good to fav Other condi6ons• • Trail exists • High use of the area has resulted in numerous uncontrolled access pomts to the creek and soaal trads Severe erosion in places from bank trampling and loss of nparian vegetation • Lots of trash and dead animals, camps~tes, patios, mowed lawns • Vertical rock retaining walis along much of the south bank Concrete rubble m some locations • Very hmded natrve vegetat~on Opportumties Flood management. • Mitigate flood hazard and drainage issues accordmg to CDUMP • Ma~ntain flood conveyance capacRy through a combination of sediment removal and seledive debris removal and vegetative thinnmg Hnthin the conveyance zone Non-native speaes should be selecled for removal over native speaes • Acquire properties in the high hazard zone according to the city's pre-flood acqwsition program ~ ~ , : r ~~ F , r ~ 130 , Habitat protection P-45 + weeds, R-35 + weeds ~ • Enhance quahty of native plant and bird habdat Revegetate impacted areas wdh nahve ~ plantings Replace dead cottonwoods with new p~antings 9 • Control access to stream and revegetate impacted stream banks ~ • Manage weeds and exotics • Remove campsites and trash ~ • Work with CU to protect and enhance nparian area and to consolidate bridges ~ Water Quafity WQ-26, 28 ~~ • Work wrth CU to explore redesgn of parkmg lot at CU housing complex and to relocate the ' recycling faciiity at Folsom St - pave access road for ditch maintenance and trad access ~~ • Improve vegetative bank stabddy ;'~ • Protect good quahty aqua4c habdat belween 15'" & 21" Streets ~~ !~ Culturel Resources 5BL8821 - Crvdian Conservation Corps Stonework - Stonework done by the CCC in the 1930s is present along Boulder Creek in three places below Folsom Field, at the end of 19th St , and by Boulder High School 56L3742 - residence, 1213 17th St 5BL5929 - Watts Residence, 120 17th St 5BL593B - residence, 1230 17th St 5BL3762 - Sutherland Residence, 1601 Hills~de 5BL3763 - Shattuck Residence, 1605 Hdlside 5BL6167 - ParcelRonshooUPollard Residence, 1707 Hdlside SBL6169 - Pollardlfisone Residence, t709 Hillside 5BL4675 - Boulder High School, bwlt in 1937 Stream: Boulder Creek Reach 7 (BC 19, 17, 15, 12, 9, 6, 4, 3) LowUon: 77th St to mouth of Boulder Canyon Habitat conditions Vegetation structure Good to very good Native plant habitat Poor to very good Bird habitat Very poor to good Aquatic habitat Fair to good Primary (streambed) Good, (BC15, 17, 19 fair) Secondary (channel morphology) Good, (BC12 excellent) Tertiary (bank stability) Fair to good Vegetatrve bank stability Variable 131 ~ Other condrtons • Trail ex~sts • This reach of the creek has been devoted to recreatio~al uses with resultant impacts to habitat, and ` possibty water quahty A kayak course is constructed m the western porton of the creek The south ' bank in Eben Fme Park is entirely artifiGai, with quarned rock and a concrete path at the water's edge ~ The north bank is relatively natural • Numerous access points and soaal trails along both sides of the ent~re reach have caused severe impacts to the banks and riparian area The hanging of racing gates has caused erosion and slope ~ stability problems Picnic tables are nght on the creek banks, people and pet access ~s unlimited, ! causing severe trampling, vegetation loss, and erosion , • Several stormwater oufali pipes drain diredly into the creek with no vegetatrve buffering ~ • Regeneration of native plants is minimal Grven current trends, there will be little canopy cover along the ' creek in the future unless restoration efforts are made ° Opportumties Trensportation/Recreation. • Establ~sh access po~nts/steps for hanging raGng gates to protect streambank from erosion • Formalize access points and trads to reduce amount of trampling and erosion from creek access Flood management. • Mitigate flood hazard and drainage issues accarding to CDUMP • Repair fading drop strudures Increase vanabdity of drops when they get rebwltlmaintamed (Do not impede fish passage) • Mamtain flood conveyance capaaty through a combination of sediment removal and seledive debns removai and vegetative thinning within the conveyance zone Non-native speaes should be selected for removal over natrve species • Acquue propertes m the high hazard zone according to the city's preflood acqwsdion program Habrtat protect~on P&R-23 + weeds, P-24 + weeds • Enhance quality of native plant and bird habitat Protect north side of creek along kayak course from disturbance and construction Replant native woody vegeiation to enhance understory and overstory and widen nparian areas along entire reach Enhance buffer area near kayak course Soften strudural treatments such as the south bank along the kayak course Begin a tree replacement pro~ect Revegetate south bank through Eben Fine Park Work with homeowners to manage creek through ~ative replantings and weed control, and limitmg access to creek from pnvate residences Remove pnvate patios and decks from the creek banks 132 • Close and replant undesignated access points and soaal trails • Control weeds and exotics 7 Water Quaiity WQ-23, 24, 25, 27, 47, 48, 64, 65 • Imp~ement BMPs at Broadway m con~unction wrth the Broadway bndge reconstruction pro~ect Construct BMPS at 9th St and oiher ma~or outfalls where feasibie ~ • Proted good quality aquatic habitat which exists upstream of 9'" St 1 • Improve water qualiry of k~d's fishmg pond lhrough active treatment and update educahonal a signs ~ • Improve vegetative bank stability and channel conditions to enhance water quality throughout reach, espeaally at Eben Fine Park and kayak course ~ • Work with the high school to address mamtenance issues and education about creek care ~ • Improve aquatic habitat at kayak course Use upstream section of Boulder Creek as design ~ gwde Prowde more water for better quality habitat Cuitural resaurces SBL5990 - Field Ticket Booth, Boulder High, bwlt in 1948 5BL5997 - Field Restroom, 1948 SBL5992 - Field Concession Stand, 1948 SBL5993 - F~eld Grandstand/Press Box, 1948 5BL5994 - Field House, 1948 NOTE - There is an aerial crossing of Boulder Creek by a sewer pipe, between the Field House and High School 56L8827 - Crvtlian Conserva6on Corps Stonework - Stonework done by the CCC along Boulder Creek near Boulder High School eMends into this reach 5BL1129 - Yowm Bwlding, 1724 Broadway SBL6063 - Central Park 56L5680 - Bandshell in Central Park - The Bandshell is outside the study area, but is a ma~or feature of Central Park 5BL606 - Tram in Central Park 58L5820 - Headgate for Boulder & Left Hand Ditch 56L6062 - Bridge over Boulder Creek at Broadway SBL364 - Highland School - The Highland School buildmg is outside the study area, but a bndge leading to the school parking area crosses Gregory Creek on the south side of Boulder Creek, west of 9'" Street 56L8822 - Sand Pits - former sand pits along Boulder Creek are now the Kids Fishing Ponds The diversion and headgate used to channel creek water into the sand pits are still used for the fishing ponds 56L358 -"Switzerland Trad" - Colorado & Northwestern Railroad ashlar masonry bridge abutment foundation is present along the south bank of the creek, across from the Boyd Smelter rwns 5BL7094 - Boyd Smelter - The rums of the Boyd Smelter are west of the Justice Center, on the north 133 ,~ 56L6017 - Eben Fine Park SBL6015 - Shelter at Eben Fine Park 56L6016 - Restroom at Eben Fine Park NOTE - Historic residences south of the creek, fronting on Arapahoe Ave , are present from Eben Fine Park to 9th Street The house's back yards are ad~acent to the creek, but the bwldings are not particularly visible from the creek and have not been listed here Stream. Skunk Creek ~ Reach 1 (SC 19, 18) ~ Location Arapahoe Rd to soufh end of weUands complex I Habitat condrtions r Vegetation structure Poor ' Natwe plant habitat Poor to excellent ` Bud habitat Very good to excellent ! Aquatic fiabitat Fair „ Pnmary (streambed) Poor ` ~ Secondary (channel morphology) Poor ~ Tertiary (bank stabdity) Good ~ ~ Vegetatrve bank stabdity Fair ! Other cond~tions • Trad departs from Skunk Creek and connects to the Boulder Creek trail • Most of the reach is located on University of Colorado property • The channel is constrained belween vertical rock wails along portions of the creek • The creek is very dry m the upper portion of the reach due to water diversion to the ponds Opportumties Flood management • Mdigate flood hazard and drainage issues according to CDUMP • Maintam flood conveyance capaaty through a combination of sediment removal and selective debris removal and vegetative thinning within the conveyance zone Non-natrve species should be selected for removai over native speaes • Acqwre properties m the high hazard zone accordmg to the city's preflood acqwsition program Habitat protection P-25 • Preserve wetlands and buffer area between development and wetlands complex • Conhnue water diversion through wetlands • Explore secunng base flow from upstream • Remove constructed channel and revegetate stream banks and riparian area 134 1 Water Quahty • Explore lowering the channel bottom to mtercept some groundwater ~ • Improve epifaunal substrate and nffle frequency 5 i ~ SVeam Skunk Creek ~ ~ ~ Reach. 2 (SC 18, 16) ) . Locat~on• South end of wetlands complex to Wellman Canal j ~ ~__ i ~ Habitat conditions: ' Vegetation structure Poor to good ~ Natrve plant habitat Very good to excellent ,~ Bird habdat Good to very good = Aquatic habitat Fau to good I ("~ I Pnmary (streambed) Fair ~~~~~ ~ Secondary (channel morphology) Poor to fair ~ ~ ~ Tertiary (bank stability) Fair _ (i'~ Vegetatrve bank stabAity Poor to good ~ Other cond~tions • Constructed trail exists • Creek has little base flow upstream of the pond outlet • North of Wellman, the creek is a wetland mitigation site, then is underground in a pipe Large grouted rock drops are above the pipe - these are eroded and undercut Opportunit~es. Trensportat~on/RecreaU on • Construct bndges over Wellman Canal to conned to trad • Work v~nth CU to prowde public restrooms and water fountains in the CU Research Park Flood management: • Mitigate flood hazard and drainage issues according to CDUMP • Maintain flood conveyance capaaty through a combination of sediment removal and seledive debris removal and vegetatrve thinning v~nthin the conveyance zone Non-native species should be selected for removal over nahve speaes • Acquire propert~es m the high hazard zone according to the aty's preflood acquisition program 135 ~ Habitat protection. P-34 • Protect and enhance the wetland mitigation site at Colorado Ave Water Quality • Improve nffle frequency in creek channel • Remove structured rock m CU Research Park Cultural resources 5BL8819 - Wellman Ditch - The Wellman Ditch flows west to east, but curves to the south where it intersects Skunk Creek, ~ust south of Colorado Ave Stream Skunk Creek I ~ Reach: 3 (SC 14, 12, 10, 08) LocaUon. Wellman Canal to Baselme Rd ~ Habitat condi6ons Vegetation structure Good to very good Native plant habitat Very poor to good B~rd habitat Very poor to good Aqua6c habitat Fair Primary (streambed) Fair Secondary (channel morphology) Fa~r Tertiary (bank stability) Fa~r Vegetative bank stability Poor to good Other conditions • Lots of erosion, debns, and rubbie in the creek • The pond under the bwlding on 29th St is h~ghly eutrophic • Downstream of 29th St , the divers~on of water at the Canyon Creek Apts has taken water from the channel Mowing along the creek in this area is severe • Severely oversteep banks m park Severe erosion from too much access Trash and debris in creek • Day care faGlity on 30th should be monitored for erosion problems • Beer bottles, concrete rubble, and a trench draming antifreeze to the creek • Debns and trash dams near Weflman are causing stagnaM conddions • Flood issues at 30th St ~ i . 136 Opportunities Trans portation/Recreati on J ) ~~ ~) ~~ ~ '~' ~ ~V,~ ~, J ~~' ,~~ i~ I~, • Construct a new bike and pedestnan bridge over Wellman Canal m con~unction ~nnth flow separat~on and trail connechon to Madison • Construd trad connechon from E Aurora to Baseline Rd with a connection to Arrowwood Park • Construct trail underpass under 30th St • Open end of the US 36 cuivert and provide an additional underpass at the access ramp Flaod management • Mitigate flood hazard and drainage issues accordmg to CDUMP • Maintain flood conveyance capaaty through a combination of sediment removai and selective debris removal and vegetative thinning within the conveyance zones Non-natwe speaes should be selected for removal over native species • Acqwre properties m the high hazard zone according to the city's preflood acqwsition program Habitat protecUOn R-54 + weeds • Restore npanan buffer and improve habdat quahty • Use homeowner education to manage weeds and control debns in the creek • Install aeration devices in pond near 29th and Baseline or restore it as a wetland • Work with apartment owners to minimize mowing along creek banks • Address flow separation at Wellman Canal • Protect constructed wetlands Water Quality: WQ-43, 44, 45, 46 • Improve reach with poor streambed and channel morphology charadenstics (SC08) • Use bioengineering approaches to improve vegetatwe bank stability where possible • Regrade side slopes and stabdize banks behind Canyon Creek Apts and in park • Replace rubble bottoms with wetlands behveen 30th and Baseline • Consider combining two channels behmd apartments to concentrate limited base flows • Provide BMPs for parking lots and outfalls throughout reach - especially at the Canyon Creek Apts complex and the city park site 137 ~ I SVeam Skunk Creek , Reach 4 (SC 07, 06) ~ Location Baseline Rd. to west of Broadway HabiWt conditions• Vegetation structure Good to very good Native plant habitat Very poor to poor ~ B~rd habdat Poor ' Aquatic habitat Fair , Pnmary (streambed) Poor to fav . Secondary (channel morphology) Poor to fair ' Tertary (bank stabihty) Fair to good ~ Vegetative bank stability Good ; Other conditions ~ ~ • Creek is underground below Baselme, then in gabions between car wash and liquor store " • There are several large drops that are very structural Channel ~s vegetated and thalweg has developed •~ m places ~ ~~~ • After the box under Moorhead, the gabions are gone and the channel and npanan area are better ` developed However, creek is very confined between the apartment bldgs and the road ~". i Opportunities ~ TrensporfaU on/RecreaGon • Construct trad between Broadway and US 36 • Construct trad underpasses under 27th Way and Moorhead Flood management: • Mitigate flood hazard and drainage issues according to CDUMP • Maintain flood conveyance capacity through a combination of sediment removal and seledrve debris removal and vegetative thimm~g ~nnthin the conveyance zone Non-native species should be selected for removal over natrve speaes • Acquire propertes in the high hazard zone acwrding to the city's preflood acqwsdion program Hab~tat protect~on: R-55 • Enhance creek through trash removal, weed control, and native plantings Water 4uality WQ-76, 77 • Morntor stream changes resulting fram new Broadway underpass • Improve epifaunal substrate and riffle frequency • Widen buffer zone where possibie • Prowde BMP's along proposed trad ad~acent to large paved areas • MiUgatioNrestoretion pro~ect to include renovating gabions and mamtaming vegetative bank stabdity 138 SVeam Skunk Creek j Reach: 5 (SC 04, 03, 02, 01) ` Location. West of Broadway to aty hmits ) Habitat conditions Vegetation structure Nat~ve plant habitat Bud habitat Aquatic habitat Pnmary (streambed) Secondary (channel morphology) Tertiary (bank stability) Poor to very good Very poor to excellent Poor to excellent (near aty limits) Fair Fair Good to excellent Mostly excellent, some poor i ) ~ au~ Other condit~ons • Creek is seasonally dry • Upstream of Hollyberry the creek is left wdd, although there is some trash Thick poison ivy probably keeps most people out • Creek is culverted and fenced under Hollyberry Lots of irash, concrete rubble, metal, fort, construct~on materials • Creek is getting some water from Kohler Reservo~r leak Human impacts in this reach are relatively low, except for the footpath crossings and the concrete dam and bndge/spolway • There are many concrete pads and concrete benches • In Green Mountain Cemetery, mowing occurs up to creek bank and rock walls have been constructed in some places Some erosion and headcuttmg are occurting downstream of the cemetery OppoRunrties• Flood management: • Remove soaal trad bndges along creek • Mitigate flood hazard and drainage issues according to CDUMP • Maintain flood conveyance capaary through a combination of sediment removal and selective debns removal and vegetative thinning within the conveyance zone Non-native speaes should be selected for removal over native species • Acquire propert~es in the high hazard zone accordmg to the city's preflood acquisition program Habitat protect~on P-48 • Proted and enhance high quahty habrtat • Remove fences above culvert at Hollyberry • Remove fenang, footbndges, retaining walls, lights and other structures within the creek • Use homeowner education to help control weeds and debris • Concentrate creek crossings at one location 139 ~ Water Quality WQ-68, 69, 70 • 6cplore possibdity of protecting cemetery plots from creek • Remove concrete flume and vegetate the residenhal lot downstream of cemetery • Improve epifaunal substrate and riifle frequency • Prowde BMPs along proposed trad to treat runoff from NOAA parking lots • Explore secunng a base flow from Kohler Reservoir (Note that the reservoir conta~ns treated drinking water, therefore chlonne levels may exceed stream standards ) • Momtor stream response to new underpass under Broadway Culturalresources SBL3935 - Anderson Ditch - The Anderson Ditch, flowmg north to southeast, intersects Sku~k Creek at the northeast corner of the Green Mountain Cemetery 58L5954 - Green Mountain Cemetery - Skunk Creek flows north-northeast through the cemetery The creek banks through the cemetery are lined with dry-laid stone walls, capped v,nth concrete The stonework ~s on both banks in places, and oniy on the west bank in places 58L6823 - Abandoned Irrigahon Feature - A concrete dam and diversion into an 8" pipe is present along Skunk Creek, south of the Green Mountain Cemetery NOTE - On the southeast side of Skunk Creek are severai concrete pads which used to hold cucular benches, which are now gone or broken Apparently a picrnc area for NIST, this is a recent manifestation NOTE - Kohler Reservoir, enclosed, is near Skunk Creek near Holly Berry Lane Bwlt in 1954, rt is yet too young to be considered a cultural resource Stream Bear Creek Reach• 1 (BRC 32, 30) - ~ Loca6on Boulder Creek to Foothdls Pkwy = Habitat conditions: Vegetation structure Good Native plant habrtat Poor Bird habitat Very poor to good Aquatic habitat Fair Pnmary (streambed) Fair Secondary (channel morphology) Fair Tertiary (bank stabdity) Fair Vegetative bank slabdity Fair to poor ~~ n ~~ ~~ n 140 Other conditions • Trail exists • The Open Space property is wooded and relatively wild Trash, debns, erosion, and recent floodmg are ewdent OppoRumties- Tre nspartat~on/Recreat~on • Provide underpass at Arapahoe for transportation and flood ~ ~ .~ ~ i~ ~ i~ F ~ r~ ~` i~ ~~~ a :;~~ ~ ~~ +~ur~ .~ e , ,~ iN N ~w~ ~IM~ ~ :i V ~r ,/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.. „ ~ Flood management. • Evaluate possibilily of improwng berm or constructmg a floodwall along Harnson Rd to prevent spills to neighborhood • Protect existing high hazard flood zone on property north of Arapahoe Rd • Mdigate flood hazard and drainage issues acwrding to CDUMP • Maintain flood conveyance capaaly through a combmation of sediment removal and seledive debris removal and vegetative thinrnng within the conveyance zone Non-native speaes shoulc be selected for removal over native species • Acqwre properties in the high hazard zone according to the city's preflood acqwsition program • Construct a sediment collection and removal area upstream of Arapahoe Hab~tat protection• P&R-21 +weeds • Improve vegetation structure and natrve plant habitat in Open Space properties ~ Weed control and trash removal to improve habitat • Protect and enhance wet meadow wetland habitat on property north of Arapahoe Rd • Mondor for potential Ute ladies' tresses orchid habdat • Protect Plains topminnow habitat in wetland-bottom channel upstream of Arapahoe Water Quality WQ-21, 22 • Improve bank stabdity wrth vegetation enhancement • Prowde BMPs at outfalls along Foothills Pkwy • Preserve existing water quality functions of wetland south of Arapahoe Rd CulWrel resources 58L8819 - Wellman Ditch - The Weliman Ditch, flowing west to east, intersects Bear Canyon Creek where it flows under the Foothdls Parkway, which is the boundary of Reach 1 and Reach 2 On the east side of the Foothills Parkway, north of the wrrent Wellman Ditch, are lwo abandoned concrete imgation features where water was apparently diverted from the ditch to irngate the field to the north 141 Stream Bear Creek Reach: 2 (BRC 29, 27, 25, 24) Locat~on• Foothdls Pkwy. to Baseline Rd. Habitat conditions: Vegetatwn structure Good Native plant habitat Very poor to good Bird habrtat Very poor to poor Aquatic habdat Fair Pnmary (streambed) Fair Secondary (channel morphology) Fau Tertiary (bank stabdity) Fair, some good Vegetatrve bank stabdity Fair to poor Otherconditions • Trail exists • Creek has some flow There is ewdence of recent high water • The path is wider than the creek in some places and is constraining the stream corndor • Drop structures in places are leaky and undercut • Upstream of Wellman, the creek is relatively wild, although the large trapezoidal shape is still predommant • Potential Preble's meadow~umping mouse habitat Opportunities Flood management • Mdigate flood hazard and dramage issues accordmg to CDUMP • Maintain flood conveyance capacily through a combination of sediment removal and seledive debris removal and vegetatrve thinning within the conveyance zone Non-native speaes should be selected for removal over native speaes • Acquire propert~es in the high hazard zone according to the aty's preflood acqwsition program Habitat protecUon P-19 + weeds, R-20 + weeds • Reduce movnng m buffer area through homeowner educatwn to provide wider npanan area Install fenang to discourage mowmg • Replant natrve plants and control exotics through homeowner education • Survey for Prebie's meadow ~umping mouse Protect mouse habitat by encouragmg natrve piant regeneration • increase plant diversity downstream of Wellman and at Foothills Parkway ~ f ~ , k 142 +s Water Quality WQ-19, 20 ~ • Improve vegetative bank stabdity m poor reaches + • Provide water qualdy BMPs at ouHalls ~ ~ Culturel resources SBL8819 - Wellman Ditch - The Wellman Ditch, flowing west to east, intersects Bear Canyon Creek ~ where it flows under the Foothdis Parkway, which is the boundary of Reach 1 and Reach 2 On the east ) side of the Foothills Parkway, north of the current Wellman Drtch, are two abandoned concrete irtigation ~ features where water was apparentiy diverted from the ditch to ircigate the field to the north ) Stream Bear Creek ~ ~ Reach: 3 (BRC 22, 20, 18) ~ ~ Loca4on• Baseline Rd to Hwy. 36 i ) Hab~tat conditions i~ Vegetation structure Very good Native plant habdat Poor to good '~ Bird habdat Very poor to good ~ ~ Aquat~c habdat Fair ~ ~ Pnmary (streambed) Fa~r ~ ~ Secondary (channel morphology) Fair Tertiary (bank stabdity) Poor to good j~ Vegetative bank stabdRy Fair to poor a~i ~ al ~~ 1~~ ~i~ Q u~ ,h ~~~ wi ~ . m~ ,~ k ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w'"~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ Othercondi6ons • Trail exists • South side of the creek is relatively urnmpacted IYs antiGpated that the stream wdl suffer much more impact w~th the mcreased density of use planned for this area by the University • 100 year floodplain through CU property proposed to be developed for student housing • Mowmg is too close to the stream bank on the north side of the creek and near the church Downstream of church dnveway, the creek is very narrowly confined • Lots of weeds throughout the reach OppoRurnties. Transportation/RecreaUon: • Improve connections to Greenways system as part of Wdliam's Vdlage Master Plan Flood management • Mitigate flood hazard and drainage issues accordmg to CDUMP • Maintain flood conveyance capaaty through a combinahon of sediment removai and selective debns removal and vegetative thinning within the conveyance zone iJon-natrve species should be seleded for removal over natrve species • Acquire properties in the high hazard zone accordmg to the aty's preflood acquisdion program 143 ~ Habitat protection/Water quality P-18, WQ-15, 16, 17, 18 • Improve vegetat~on structure and bank stabdity in assoaation with CU development • Work with CU to protect wide buffer area and develop structural access points along the stream banks (Opportunily for passive flood management in conJunchon with William's Village Master Plan) • Work v~nth the church and CU to reduce mowing along the stream banks and restore nparian areas Provide BMPs at ouKalls and near Baseline Rd Stream• BearCreek Reach: 4 (BRC 15, 14, 12) Lacation. Hwy. 36 to Broadway u~derpass Habitat conditions Vegetation strudure Native plant habdat Bird habdat Aquatic habitat Primary (streambed) Secondary (channel morphology) Tertiary (bank stabdity) Vegetat~ve bank stabdAy r ~ ! r ~ f r R Good < Poor to good ,~ Very poor to poor ~ ~ Fau - Fair to good ; Mostly good, some fair ~ Fair to good ~, Poor to good (~mprovements made after study was ` completed) W Other conditions • Trail exists • Beg~nning of reach (upstream) is constructed ~nnth large stacked boulders (plunge pool) with no vertical diversity in the channel structure • Portions of the reach were not adequately revegetated after the recent channel pro~ect Lots of washed out rock walis and constructed drops Drop structures are detenorating in the upstream reaches • Downstream port~on of the reach, the creek ~s in a flume b~dt from vertcaf grouted rock watls Trees have concrete poured on the base of the trunks and are dying There is not much room for the ueek and the path through the residenhal neighborhood The creek has been severely channelized and confined between vertical rock walls with little vegetation • Relatrvely little cover m portions of the reach Vegetation is predominately exotic with almost no native cover Extent of the npanan area ~s hmded by concrete and mowmg Opportunities Fload management • Mitigate flood hazard and drainage issues according to CDUMP • Evaluate need for drop structure replacement before they are repaired 144 Maintam flood conveyance capaaty through a combination of sediment removal and se~edive debns removal and vegetative thinning within the conveyance zone Non-native speaes should be seleded for removal over natrve speaes Acquire properties in the h~gh hazard zone according to the city's preflood acqwsition program ~ Habitat protection R-17 + weeds ~J • Improve habitat quabty through vegetation enhancement ) • Increase mstream habdat diversdy by leavmg stable blown-out drop structures ~ • Manage weeds Reduce mowing through park and school grounds to prowde wider ripanan area ~ ' : Expbre fenang ta discourage tramphng and excessive mowmg i~ • Prowde homeowner education to improve creek care r~ • Remove concrete from around tree trunks to prevent loss of trees Water quality • Revegetate unstable banks • Protect and maintain pool/nffle sequence in channel • Prowde BMP near Moorhead Stream Bear Creek ~ Reach. 5 (BRC 11, 9, 7, 6) ~ I LocaUon: Broadway underpass to Lehigh St I Habitat condit~ons: Vegetation structure Poor Na6ve plant habitat Poor Bird habdat Poor to good Aquatic habitai Fair Water quahty Fair Pnmary (streambed) Fair Secondary (channel morphology) Fair Tertiary (bank stability) Fair, some good Vegetative bank stability Poor, some good Other condrtions • No trail exists • Creek passes between lanes of Table Mesa Dr • Many grouted rock drop structures have been constructed, but the grouted part is buned and vegetated • At the bridges, the creek gets very wide and deposits sand • Lots of trash • Weedy plants dominate the roadside portion of the floodplain Exotics and garden escapees are also present 145 A* Opportunities Trans portati on/Recreati on • Construct a bike trail along Table Mesa Dr • Provide an underpass ~ust west of Broadway to cross Table Mesa Dr Flood management • Mdigate Flood hazard and dramage issues accordmg to CDUMP • Maintain flood conveyance capacity through a combmahon of sediment removal and selechve debris removal and vegetative thinning within the conveyance zone Non-natrve speaes should be selected for removal over native species • Acquire properties in the high hazard zone accordmg to the aty's preflood acquisition program Hab~tat protection. ~ Enhance wetland with natrve plantings Ptant native tree and shrub plantmgs to improve cover value • Soften drops by burying rock structures and revegetating • Reduce mow+ng along the streambanks Waterquality WQ-9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 • Improve water quality by controlling runoff from Table Mesa Dr Construd BMPs downstream of road crossing between lanes of Table Mesa Dr and at outfalls • Revegetate unstable banks Stream. Bear Creek Reach 6 (BRC 03, 01) ~ Location: Lehigh St to city iimits ' Habitat condit~ons: Vegetation structure Good to very good Natrve plant habitat Very good to excellent Bird habdat Good Aquatic habitat Fair to good Pnmary (streambed) Good Secondary (channel morphology) Fair to good TeA~ary (bank stabihty) Good Vegetative bank stability Good r~ ~ r~ ~ F~ ~ ~~ , a,,, 146 Other conditions. • Reach is situated in an unconstrained flood plain at the base of the foothills with a relatrvely wide riparian area • Creek is relatively wdd Vegetation ~s dominated by native species in the canopy and exot~cs in the herbaceous understory • Some trash, concrete rubble, cable N wire across the stream • Lots of mowing withm nparian area - espeaally along the church and school ~ Some erosion, vertical banks, ewdence of recent high water • Many social trails Opportumties ~ Flood management • Mitigate flood hazard and dremage issues according to CDUMP ~.~ • Maintam flood conveyance capauty through a combmahon of sediment removal and selective ;;, ~ debns removal and vegetative thinning wdhm the conveyance zone Non-native speaes should ~ y be selected for removal over natrve speaes Habitat protection/Water quality P-16 • Protect and enhance this sedion of the creek for habitat qualiry • Remove riprap and concrete rubble and stabilize with vegetation • Use homeowner education to reduce extent of mo~nnng in the buffer areas, control weeds (Canada thistle and Bouncang Bet) and to enhance native vegetation ~ Improve base flow and aquatic habitat Stream. South Boulder Creek ~ Reach 1 (SBC 4 1, 3 1) ~ ~ Location: KOA Lake I Hab~tat cond~tions Vegetation structure Good Native plant habitat Very good to excellent Bird habdat Very good Aquat~c habdat Fau Pnmary (streambed) Fair Secondary (channel morphology) Poor Tertiary (bank stabilily) Excellent Ofher cond~4ons • Trad e~nsts 147 Opportunities Flood management • Mitigate flood hazard and drainage issues according to the South Boulder Creek Floodplain Master Plan • Maintain flood conveyance capaaty through a combmatian of sediment removal and selectrve debns removal and vegetative thinning within the conveyance zone Non-native species should be selected for removal over nat~ve species • Acqwre propertes m the high hazard zone according to the city's preflood acqwsdion program Habitat Protection P-49 & 50 Preserve and enhance nparian, wetland, and aquatic habitat of South Boulder Creek Avoid disturbance to Spiranthes diluwalis habitat along Boulder Creek at 61st St Follow management guidelines as speafied in the South Boulder Creek Area Management Plan Water qual~ty WQ-2, 3, 7, 8 • Treat runoff from ad~acent parkmg lots through BMPs Stream• South Boulder Creek Reach: 2 (SBC 79, 2 1, 1 7) Location: South end of KOA Lake to Arapahoe Rd Habitat conditions• Vegetation structure Nahve plant habdat Bird habdat Aquatic habitat Primary (streambed) Secondary (channel morphology) Terhary (bank stabdity) Other conditions Poor to very good Good Good to very good Fair Poor to good (predommantly poor) Poor Excellent • Trad exists • 4WD access to creek • Leggitt Ditch head gate takes nearly all the water from the creek • Channel is large, trapezoidai and straight 148 Opportunities Transportati on/Recreation • Formalize bike connections to the Fla6rons Industrial Park '~ Flood management: f~ • Mdigate flood hazard and dramage issues acwrdmg to the South Boulder Creek Floodplam ', ) Master Plan ~ • Maintain flood conveyance capacrty through a combma4on of sediment removal and selectrve debns removal and vegetatrve thimm~g withm the conveyance zone Non-native speaes should ;~ be selected for removal over natrve species ~~ • Acqwre propertes m the h~gh hazard zone according to the aty's preflood acqwsdwn program ~*~ • Manage sediment and debns under the RR crossmg Habitat protection• P&R-t, 2+ weeds • Maintain high quality of bird habitat by preserving and enhancing vegetation structure • Enhance and maintam npanan area and buffer area • Continue aggressive weed management program to control purple loosestrife • Follow management gwdelines as speafied in the South Boulder Creek Area Management Plan water Quafity wQ-1 • Develop BMPs m con~unction with any new development at Arapahoe • Close off 4WD roads at the top of the bank • Negotiate for more flow downstream of dRch divers~on • Increase the physical diversity of sections of the channel by creating pools, meanders, etc • Remove or redesign drop structure along business park and at bike path bndge to allow fish passage • Ciean up abandoned cars near Arapahoe and the Leggitt Ditch Cultural resources: SBL400 - Colorado 8 Southern Railroad - The railroad crosses South Boulder Creek, going east-west, north of Arapahoe Ave SBL799 - Valmont Power Plant, Leggett Inlet - A large diversion from South Boulder Creek known as the Leggett Inlet Canal, aka Hillcrest Feeder Ditch, takes water to the Leggett Reservoir, part of the Valmont Power Plant complex The diversion is ~ust north of Arapahoe Ave The headgate at this diversion is shared by the Jones and Donnelly Ditch The Jones and Donnelly Ditch splrts from the Leggett Inlet to the east, out of the study area 56L799 - Valmont Power Plant, Leggett Outlet - A ditch carries water from Leggett Reservoir to South Boulder Creek, where it flows into Boulder Creek, and is then dwerted into the Leggett Ditch by White Rocks, east of 75th St The ditch enters South Boulder Creek where the treil which runs south along the west edge of the Stazio Bailfields crosses to the west side of 149 ~ ~ SUeam South Boulder Creek ' Reach 3 (SBC 18-09) i ~ Locatian• Arepahoe Rd. to Baselme Rd. Habitat conditions f Vegetation strudure Good ` Native plant hab~tat Very poor to very good ~ Bird habitat Poor to very good i . Aquatic habitat Excellent ,, Pnmary (streambed) Excellent to good ` Secondary (channel morphology) Good ~ Tertiary (bank stability) Good ' Otherconditions • Off-street trail exists for some portion of the reach, and an an-road connedion for the remainder • Stream's character changes drastically from upstream conditions • Lots of homeowner impacts including dams, dirt piles and horse access Opportunities Tra nsporfation/Recreati on • The need for an off street trail wdl be reevaluated considenng the impacts to wetiand, npanan and wildlife habitat Current habitat information supports not putting a trail west of the creek Flood management • Mitigate flood hazard and drainage issues according to the South Boulder Creek Floodplain Master Plan • Mamtam flood conveyance capaaty through a combination of sediment removal and selectrve debns removal and vegetatrve thinning within the conveyance zone Non-native speues should be seleded for removal over native speGes • Acqwre properties in the high hazard zone according to the cdy's preflood acqwsition program Hab~tat protection P3, 4 • Improve natrve p~ant habrtat through homeowner educatron • Continue to obtain conservation easements through annexations and other opportunit~es • Acquve propert~es east and west of the creek to protect ripanan habitat • Follow management gwdelines as specfied m the South Boulder Creek Area Management Plan Water Quality • Protect aquatic habitat quality through conservation easements and homeowner education • Revegetate banks at Dimmit and redesign diversion at Dimmit to allow fish passage 150 Culturel resources 56L8619 - Wellman Ditch - The Wellman D~tch flows from the west into South Boulder Creek, ~ust south of the south end of Old Tale Road ~ ,~ .~ d ~/ , .~ B ~ ~i ~ .~ +i ~ ai MI ~I I~ ~C~ ~k~ ~G'~ ~~ n~~~, wwI ~i~~' ~«~+, ~ ~ .M.. ~ , ~a wr .r a Y~ r+~ / .~ w ~ ~ ~ ++w +r ~w +Y.r ..r ,./ ~ .~.. ~. -„, Stream South Boulder Creek Reach 4 (SBC 08-00) ~ LocaUon. South of Baselme Rd Hab~Wt conditions• Vegetation structure Good to very good Native plant habitat Very good to excellent Bud hab~tat Very good to excellent Aqua6c habitat Water quality Pnmary (streambed) Secondary (channel morphology) TeRiary (bank stabdity) Other condit~ons • Trail exists A portion of the trad is soft-surface Opportunit~es: Flood management. • Mdigate flood hazard and dramage issues accordmg to the South Boulder Creek Floodplain Master Plan Habitat protection: P-5, 6+ weeds • Follow management gwdelines as speafied in the South Boulder Creek Area Management Plan Water 4ualiry• • Proted and enhance excellent aquatic habitat value • Make enclosed ddches fully closed • Remove barner to fish passage south af E Boulder Rec Center • Create better conditions for fish passage when drversion south of Arapahoe is repaired 151 TABLE VII-2 '_xisting Tred (LF) ~roposed Trail (LF) =xisting Underpasses ~roposed Underpasses °_xisting Bndges =xisting Drinking Fountains ~roposed Drinking Fountains 2estoration (sq R ) ~reservaUon (sq ft ) 4estoration/Preservation (sq ft ) _xisting Water Quahty BMPs Proposed Water Quahty BMPs i EXISTING AND PROPOSED GREENWAYS PROJECTS OPPORTUNITIES BoulderCreek ~Fourmile ~Wonderland ~Goose ~Skunk 26,662 8,812 9,921 14,230 7,912 9,049 10,163 6,736 2,451 4,278 14 5 3 5 10 0 5 4 6 3 11 0 0 1 2 7 1 0 1 0 1 3 4 0 2 44,684 159,542 202,884 936,342 201,161 809,185 530,655 616,867 101,576 1,181,323 5,063,852 526,747 200,989 337,770 0 24 4 = Best Management Prachce ~ ~ 9I 9 Bear ISouth Boulder 13,352 12,013 3, 322 1, 215 7 7 2 0 6 4 1 1 2 1 242,012 0 847,885 3,417,497 494,018 1,003,961 2 14 5 iers Total 0 92,902 4,417 41,631 0 51 4 24 0 11 0 13 154, 316 1, 940, 941 0 7,504,988 0 7,627,337 2 6 77 8126/2001, mdes 152 ~ [~' 3# ~ ~ 53 (~ ~ 4~ ~~ ~ {] }11 B~ !~ (1 f3 !! f~4 /l r! !3 r f tA ~• e' se „ . ~r . ,w . ._ .~ __ .~ _ ' _ ~ t;t~f~~143ft~l~t3f~f5~ttitit)E3tt#~~t~f3f;E~t~+~,€,~,cs~,:vv~~z,::~..~,.e: v ~ ~ Threats Across Systems home development aalhndustrial development ¢ation of nvers or streams or utdit~es ational Use s, dikes, drainage or diversion Control ~e/alien species Invasion Sewer System (Outfalls) nt Loadmg ! Status for Tar~ets and Site giea Across Systema Education t Restoration r~ay Design Guidelmes t Preservation ahon & Buffer Enbancement rva6on Easemenl ate Ddch Capture Management iral BMP Implementation n Control BMP's at Construction Sites TABLE VII-3: SUM~ ASSIMILATION AESTHETICS CAPACIN High Low High Low High - Medium Medium Very High - Medium Low High - Very Hiqh ASSIMILATION CAPACIN High High Low High Medium High High Medium Low Low Low Low Medium AARY TAI AQUATIC HABITAT Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High I Very Hi~h I AQUATIC HABITAT Very H~gh Very High Very High Very High Very High Medium Medium 3LE FROA IN CHANNEL RECREATION Low Medwm Low High Low Medium IN CHANNEL RECREATION Low High Low 7 STRES, WILDLIFE HABITAT Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High High High Very Hiqh WILDLIFE HABRAT Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High High 3 ANALY: NATIVE VEGETATION Very High Very H~gh Very High Very H~gh High Very High Very Hiqh NATNE VEGETATION Very High Very High Very High High Very High Very High Very High iIS Overoll Threat' Total Score Rank - - a,~ ~„y~. Ve H~ h 6 52 - Ve H~ h 6 50 - Ve H~ h 6 30 - Ve Hi h 6 00 - Hi h 4 13 - Hi h 400 - Hi h 300 - H~ h 3 00 - Medium 100 - Low 0 03 - Low 0 03 - Low 0 03 - - 0 00 - VerY Hi~qh I Strategy BenefltRank I Total Score - vCr n~ n v .ia - Ve Hi h 6 50 - Ve Hi h 6 02 - Ve Hi h 5 50 - Ve H~ n 4 60 - Ve Hi h 4 50 - Hi h 400 - Hi h 350 - Medium 140 - Medium 0 43 0 00 153 ~Table VII-3, cont 3enefits Strategies ition & Buffer Enhancement rvation Easement ate Ditch CaQture n Control BMP's at Construction Srtes NaY Design Gwdelines t Preservation t Restoration Education iral BMP Implementation Manaaement Overall Benefts Very High Very High Hiyh Medium Very High Very High VerY Hiqh Very High Medwm Very Hign Feasibdity Cost Overall Overell Lead Ease ot Overall Overell SUategy Benefls User Indrvidual/ Implementad Overall Cost Feasibihry Rank Ovemde Instltution on Medwm Medium Medtum Very high H~gh Medium Low Low High Medium Low Low Low Very high Low Very High High High Low High High Medwm Medwm Medwm Very High Very High High High Low Very High High Medium Medium High HiBh High High High Medwm Very High Medium Medwm Medwm Low Hi h High High Hiyh Very high High I I 154 ( ~ f!t"Ut11~1l1(~~Il~l~~#141~+t1~~~•~f?~fc}~?c~+~~~~a~...r~-f~.~,•,,,.,,,, _.. _ _ _ ._ _ ~ k Adrve Threat . Abatement i Rank Very High Very High Hi~h Low Very High VerY Hiqh Very High Very Hi~h Medium Persistent Stress Reduchon Rank Leverage I Medium H~gh High High Very High Medium Medwm Very high Medwm Very High I ~;t>tbc~t~(3(J+~f~(3+t~~~t3~3Ci~;~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~,. ~ ~ ._ _~ _~ TABLE VII-4: SUMMARY TABLE FROM RANHING METHOD PROJECT DESCRIPTION Overla SCORES Preser Resto BMP D~liqh Proie Reac ve re s t Bonus ct h Reach FC1 x 2 25 50 FC1 x 2 25 50 FC2 x x 6 37 37 FC3 x x 12 33 79 FC3 x x 13 46 79 FC4 x x x 13 49 49 FC5 x 11 29 29 WC1 x x 9 22 22 C2 x x 3 34 34 WC3 x x -6 15 45 WC3 x 2 7 45 WC3 x 2 7 45 WC3 x x x -7 16 45 C4 x 7 20 20 C5 x x 2 15 15 WC6 x x x 4 30 30 WC7 x 1 1 1 WC8 x 1 16 16 GC1 x 7 20 40 GC1 x 7 20 40 GC2 x x x 3 41 55 GC2 x 1 14 55 GC3 x x x -6 30 30 GC4 x 5 23 23 GC5 x ~ ~ ~ GC6 x x 3 24 48 GC6 x x x 3 24 48 ETC1 x 10 20 64 ETC1 x 10 10 64 ETC1 x x 11 34 64 gC1 x 1 1 1 BC2 x x x -16 9 70 6('r2 x 2 16 7Q PROJECT DESCRIPTION Overla SCORES Preser Restor BMP Davliqh Proie Reac ve e s t Bonus ct h Reac h BC2 x x x -16 30 70 g~2 x 1 16 70 BC3 x 1 1 1 BC4 x x x -16 25 25 BC5 x 3 16 16 BC6 x x -7 9 25 BC6 x 2 15 25 BC6 x 1 1 25 BC7 x x -19 12 79 BC7 x x 1 44 79 BC7 x 0 23 79 SC1 x 1 6 6 SC2 x 1 6 6 SC3 x x 3 19 30 SC3 x 1 11 30 SC4 x x 5 20 20 SC5 x x 2 17 18 SC5 x 1 1 1 S BCC1 x x x -6 35 35 BCC2 x x 3 21 40 BCC2 x x -7 19 40 BCC3 x x 2 22 23 BCC3 x 1 1 23 BCC4 x 2 23 23 BCC5 x 1 36 36 BCC6 x 1 6 6 SBC1 x x 2 27 27 SBC2 x x -7 24 54 SBC2 x x x -6 30 54 SBC3 x 2 ~1 Zz SBC3 x z ~1 22 SBC4 x 2 25 50 $BC4 x z ~5 5Q 155 VIII. Maintenance Plan As a part of the Master Plan update, the Greenways Coordmation Team reviewed the current mamtenance practices wrtkun the Greenways system to develop standazds and provide clarificahon for routine maintenance and penodic improvements of the Greenways system. Specific implementahon guidelines and restorauon techniques will be developed as a sepazate document m con~unchon wrth an update of the Greenways Design Guidehnes ~ City staffrepresenting the different work groups that mauitam the Greenways System, ~denrified and ~ evaluated vanous maintenance issues m order to estabhsh the followmg mazntenance objechves ' • clearly defined mazntenance responsibilrties, ul3 • consistent mamtenance standazds, , w;) • appropriate resources for the overall system mamtenance mcludmg tree mazntenance and ~ weed control, u o~~ p~ ,' • a formal review procedure for capital projects, and, '"~' • a cleaz understandmg of landowners' responsibil~hes ~, IbW~ ~~~ A. Maintenance Responsibilities ~ The Greenways System is currently mamtained by several mamtenance work groups within the ciTy. r,, Tasks are divided by geographical locahon, as well as function The responsibility of each work ~ group is descnbed m Sechon II. In an effort to clanfy existmg responsibilities and establish a,"W consistent levels of service a matrix of current prachces was developed (Table VIII-1). The table ~~^~ idenhfies the tasks and frequency performed by each work group A GIS map was also developed ~ to clanfy mamtenance responsibilrties by geograptuc locat~on This map is contamed in Appendix "'" VIII-1. AM~ ~ ",,,~ In an effort to reduce confusion regazding maintenance responsibilities, a procedwe for reporting, ~ tacking and conecting mamtenance problems was established All Greenways maintenance ~ problems can be reported to the Street and Bikeway Ma~ntenance hothne at 303-413-7177. The Street Mamtenance staffwill follow up on the problems that aze within their jurisdiction and forward ~+ the other items to the appropnate work group. A database of reported maintenance problems is kept ;; by Street Maintenance, and other groups have access to ttus mformaUon ~. ~ B. Consistent Maintenance Standards Using the Current Pracuces matrix, maintenance prachces between the different work groups were ~ compazed Both Pazks Mamtenance and Sueet and Bikeway Maintenance aze responsible for the ~ mulU-use paths along the Ctteenways in different locations. While the Pazks staff does not currendy ~ provide 24-hour snow removal, Street and Bikeway Maintenance cleazs the paths of snow at less ~ frequent mtervals. It also mspects the path system and removes trash less &equently than the Pazks staff ~ .r „; Staff discussed estabhslung a maintenance standard for snow removal. Wkule the group felt that the ,r, Greenways paths provide a recreaUon and transportahon component, the group consensus was the "r standard should be set to meet the transportation objective Pazks Maintenance staff therefore agreed +~ to provide 24-hour coverage for snow removal, and Streets and Bikeways will increase the frequency ~ .. ~, .. 157 ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ that the paths aze plowed to twice each 12-hour sluft This mcreased level of service is shown in the matrix of Enhanced Pracrices (Table VIII-2) The Enhanced Practices matnx also mcludes more frequent mspection of the path system and an mcrease in trash collection from once per week to tvnce per week for the Street Mazntenance work gcoup C. Weed Control and Habitat Maintenance Weed control and habitat mamtenance were important topics of discussion dunng the Master Plan update process The Greenways system is currently mamtained for transportahon, recreahon, and stormwater conveyance Wlule the focus of maintenance efforts has been on the trail system and stream stabihty for flood control, rt is also important to mamtam the Greenways for habrtat and water qualrty. Specific achvihes considered for mamtenance to a"habrtaY' standazd aze hsted below Changes in current maintenance prachces that would enhance habitat and water qualrty with mmimal budgetary impacts aze identified with a"*" Weed control and planring of natives *Mowing at the nght rime and to the right height *Preserving an unmowed vegetative buffer Improvmg tree caze *Accelerated tnmmmg of branches *Managmg social trails Fencing sensrtive areas Repainng, replacmg, and updating educational signs Increasing volunteer cleanup events Addmg more pet cleanup stations Re-vegetaung trampled banks Improvmg ground cover and structure of buffer vegetation Increasing sweeping and removing swept matenals Diverting wash water away from creek Mauitaimng water quality BMPs and controlling sediment *Using bio-engmeered methods for flood control mazntenance Removing dead animals from the dratnageways Based on meetings wrth the Greenways staff group includmg discussions about fundmg, the recommendation for habitat maintenance is to modify current maintenance prachces to meet environmental ob~ ectives and to begin addressing weeds along the Greenways trail comdors Table VIII-3 shows a Cost Summary for Weed Control that identifies the associated costs It was determmed that additional funding required to pursue all of the maintenance activrties above would be difficult to secure at tlus time The recommendation for the 2002-2007 CIP is to d~vert 1/3 ofthe Greenways budget from caprtal pro~ects mto a weed control effort. Ttus would be splrt evenly between the cunent fundmg sources for Greenways. To focus efforts on weed patches wrth the mtent of improving habrtat quality, the staff recommendahon is to direct mitial weed control efforts on lands owned and managed by the city 158 The highest pnonty for weed control would be m areas of h~gh qualrty habitat except for the presence of weeds Educahonal programs, pamphlets, and environmental enforcement are available from other agencies and other city workgroups to encourage compliance wrth weed ordmances on private lands. A homeowner educarion program sponsored by Greenways would also be useful for reducmg the spread of weeds and ornamentals from privately owned land. Specific tasks related to weed control along the Greenways trail system mclude. Retaming a weed consultant and summer crew „ Purchasmg eqmpment '„+ Control and removal of noxious weeds ~ a± Planting of natrves to discourage re-estabhshment of weeds ~ D. Forestry Maintenance Trees along all Greenways paths aze pruned to provide 7 feet of clearance above the path surface ~+~ When idennfied as potenhal safety issues, dead trees and broken, cracked, hanging, or dead branches t;~ are removed to prevent them from falhng onto the path or mjunng trail users "These mamtenance ~ ~~ achvit~es are performed by different work groups dependmg upon the location. Streets Maintenance , 3 staff prunes trees along the entue Greenways and bikeway system except azeas within city Pazks or ' ~ along Boulder Creek Wrthin pazk sites and along the Boulder Creek path, Pazks staff performs + ~ cleazance and safeTy prunmg The Forestry Division has a sepazate program for maintenance of trees k; m turf areas of parks and for street trees. „ ~~+ ~~ Except for a 7-year Tree Safety Inspection Survey of the Boulder Creek path between 9`" Street and 14`~ Street and u-formal scans of the trees along the rest of the Boulder Creek path, Forestry staff ~~ does not proactively monitor pubhc or private trees that overhang Greenways paths. Instead, the ~'`, maintenance work groups only respond to complaints or requests regarding trees that overhang the ~ paths and jeopardize pubhc safety Only publicly owned trees posing a potent~al safety concern to ~ the bike path receive mamtenance When necessary, private property owners aze noUfied of theu "" respons~bihty to provide the necessary corrective achon for privately owned trees. Trees in natural ~ areas that aze faz enough away from the bike path do not receive mamtenance and aze left in their , r1 natural state. When trees aze pruned generally only the path side is pruned, and anything over- ,~ hanging the creek is generally not included Flood Control staffresponds to tree and debns removal ~ when they fa11 mto the creek and restrict water flow, or on a complaznt driven basis Increases in serv~ce level for tree maintenance have been considered The recommended opUon ~ mcludes a one-time initial cleanup, scanning of pnvate trees, and formal tree safety inspecUons of ~ public trees along the entare Greenways system The standard for prumng would be improved from ~ 3" diameter or larger to 1" diameter In addrtion, a coordinated, pro-active effort wrth Flood Control ~ staff would be estabhshed to identify and remove uees and branches before they fall into the creek The imtial cost associated wrththis mcreased level of service is estimated at $124,910, with on-going ~i annuai non-personnel costs of $35,754 plus one addrtional FTE (annual cost of $36,200 including ,~ benefits) Further mcreases m service level includmg maintazning for the health of the tree and .., estabhstung a replanUng program were considered, but were cost-prohibitive .. ,. ~.. ~ ~.. v: 159 ,~ w ~ yr ~ ~ E. Streets and Bikeway Maintenance Wrthm the city of Boulder there are currently 47 total miles multi-use paths, 17 miles of which aze Greenways paths The Parks and Recreation Department maintams the Boulder Creek path, which is approximately 5 5 miles long The Umversity of Colorado, Boulder County, and pnvate entities maintam approximately 13 miles of the system, and the Streets and Bikeways Maintenance work group mamtatns the remazmng 28.5 nules, wluch includes both Greenways and non-Greenways paths The Streets and Bikeways Maintenance budget for maintazmng these 28.5 miles of multi-use paths is currently $267,388 per year includmg personnel expenses A one-hme allocation of $30,000 for a truck was also received m 2001 In addihon, the Transportarion Division's current budget for ma~or mamtenance of bikeways is $175,oQ~ This is uhlized to replace bndges and sigmficant sections of paths F. Landowners' Responsibilities ` Accordmg to state and local ordinances, property owners aze responsible for controllmg the weeds ,, on their land The Greenways Program does not own property, although some land traversed by ~ Greenways trails include crty nghts-of-way, Parks Department property and Open Space property ~ The Greenways comdors pass through vanous public and pnvate lands, with non-standazdized E' easement language or agreements about maintenance Therefore, the responsibility for weed control ~~R is a comphcated issue In orderto negohate easements and facihtate development of the trail system, ,,,, the crty typically offers to maintaui the trail and six-foot shoulders on each side. When the ` . disturbance from the trail and the mowmg operahons lead to a localized weed infestarion, weed ^ v control m the trail buffer should be performed by the city. However, if the weed infestaUon is lazge 'l,,,,"~ and the source is beyond the trail impact azea, controlling weeds m the six-foot buffers will not be ~ effecrive Weed control is an example of an azea where city-sponsored public educarion programs ~ could make a sigcuficant difference in Greenways condmon ~ ~ .~ ~ 160 fst~f~~31~~+~A~€~~~:~~~~. ~~~v~~~~~ ~ ~ v ti- ~ ~ _ - - - - FTE's Inspections Clean/ Trash 1 FTE Fortnal 2/year Tresh cans plus 2 Some docu- emphed da~ty seasonals mentauon Litter dady & volun- InPormal da0y Volunteer teers programs 28%of I FTE's nme Formal Troe Survey every 7 years only m area of Creek Fesnvai Informal Requests 6om park staffor c~hzens as concems anse N/A PATHWAYS M Sweep Snow Removal 1/week 4 am - 6 pm w¢h or PD request mech 3 passes/shift broom """"""""_" P~ckup tmck wrth plow Liqwd de~cer N/A N/A I FTE Formal 2/year 1/week Pa[M1 as plus 1 Documented needed seasonal Informal 1/wk Under- passes 1/wk 0 FTE 24 hr sh~fts 2-12 hrsh~Rs 1 pass/12 hrs Plow, hqwd deicer, trachon when needed N/A Tns[.E VIII-1 iTENANCE - CURRENT . Trees Pmne 1/yrand as-needed or by complemt Slandard clearance safety (only branches under 7') Prrvate prop Pmne Safety prune & removal on complamt bavs Pnvate property owners not~fied of thev responsibd~ty for necessary actlon Prune Ityr & as needed, complamt Safety & clearance std ~s 7' high and hmbs back to tree Prrvate property notify, prune Prune or remove as needed as pert of routme trad mam[enance Mowmg Irngared turf 1/week 6 ft off pa[h Non-~rr 1/modunng summer 72" Tom mower N/A S[d < 18" high, 6 ft erther s~de of path Irngated turf 1/week Non-iv as needed, 1/mo (3 to 4 nmes per season) 1/yr as needed Encroach- ments Same as for mowing Noedgmg N/A Complamts 24 hr response Ume ASAP on huards Non emergency response w¢hm 3-5 work days ASAP on hazards As needed 24 hr response time Std ~f more ASAP on hazards than 1 ft mro path or ~f safety hazard, remove No edging FIOOdiRg/ Underpasses As needed After hrs or PD reques[ cbse gates Make every attempt to keep underpasses open Remove sediment and veRetatwn N/A As needed Keep open, or dose wrth gates Open gates ASAP Idenhfy h~gh pnonty routes ro focus efforts N/A 24 hr response nme N/A ASAP on hazards Uhhhes 0 5 TTE Fofmal 1/yr 1/year and N/A N/A Money to forestry to keep I/mo (4 nmes per N/A Next workmg day Stab~hze banks as No doc upon reques[ downed hmbs and branches seazon) (24 hr) needed Bank [o Informal Tasks Trash out of [he creek Grass-hned ASAP on hazards bank On request or m creek and Not an annual allocation dramageways and after storms sed~ment above the bank removal, Tree/debns Mower wrth mmoval when articulated mowmg restncnng ~" flow or on complamt basis ~ Weed control ~s done through mechamcal means or wrth herbw~de apphcanon by all work groups ~ Bndge Mamtenance As needed Forma~ program mvolves flippmg boards every 10 years and replacmg all boards every 20 yeazs ~ Ma~or Mamtenance - annual fundmg of 5175,OOQ work ~s pnorrtized by Transportat~on Pro~ect Management and mcludes concrete remove and replace, redesign or grade changes to handle ]oodmg, etc 161 Formal Uyr Informal 2/month by ran~ers N/A N/A TABLE VIII-2 P ATiiWAYS MAINTENANCE -ENHANCED WITHIN EXIS T[NG BUDGET (7/31/ 2001~ FTE's Inspect~ons Clean/ Sweep Snow Trees Mowmg Encroach- Complamts Trash Removal ments 1 FTE Formal 2/year Trash cans 1/week (4-em-bpm] Prune I/yr and Ungared wrf Uweek Same as for 24 hr response nme plus 2 Some docu- empt~ed daity wrth Incrtase to as-needed or by complamt 6 ft off path mowing ASAP on hazards seasonals mentadon L~tter daily mech 24-hour coverage S[andard clearance safe[y Non-vr 1/mo dunng No edgmg & volum [nformal daily Volunteer broom (only branches under 7') summer teers programs Pnvate prop Pmne Mow af nght hme Accelerated trim (by and height Preserve "Rreen" time) unmowed bu[fer 2 8%of Formal Tree N/A N/A N/A Safety prune & removal on N/A N/A Non emergency I FTE's Survey every [4 complamt bas~s Prrvare response wrthm 3-5 [ime yeera] year property owners no[ified of work days onty m area of thev responsibdity for ASAP on huards Creek Fesdval necessary acnon Accelera[ed [nm (by Informal "gretn" M1me) Requests from park s[atTor anzens as concems ense 1 FTE Formal 2/year [thveck) Path as 24 hr shifls Prune 1/yr & as needed, 5[d < 18" h~gh, As needed 24 hr response time plus 1 Documented Increase ro needed 2-12 hr shifts complamt 6 ft either side of path Std ~f more ASAP on hazards seasonai [Mfertneh 2/week Underv [~FpmaH~hra] Safety & clearance s[d is 7' Irngared [urf 1/week than t ft mro }{wk] passes Increese [o h~gh and hmbs back [o [ree Non-irr as needed, path or if safety Add 1 Incrtase 1/wk 2 passes/l2 hrs Pnva[e property no[ify, 1/mo (3 [0 4 tlmes per hazard, remove FTE mPormal [o Plow, liqmd prune season) No edgmg (2001 2/week deicer, trac[wn Accelerated tnm (by Mow xf ngh[ time budget) when needed "green" t~me) and haghf Preserve unmowed buf(er 0 FTE Fortnal Vyr N/A N/A N/A Prune or remove as needed Vyr as needed N/A 24 hr response t~me Informal az part of roudne trail ASAP on hazards 2/month by mamrenance ranRers 0 5 FTE Fonnal I/yr 1/year and N/A N/A Money ro forestry to keep Umo (4 qmes per N/A Nex[ workmg day No dw upon request downed I~mbs and branches season) (24 hr) Informal Tazks Trash out of the creek Grass-hned ASAP on hazards On request or m creek and [Net-mrmmmnF~eHeeehert] dramageways and after storms sediment Annuel allocahon above che bank mmoval, Mow at nght time Tree/debns and haght Preserve removel when unmowed buITer restricdng flow or on complem[ bas~s itrol ~s done pnmardy [hroug h mechamcal an d manual m eans Addrt ~onal Programs [amtenance Increase formal p rogram to il~pp mg boards e very 7 years and replacmg all boards every 14 years 1 T REES (see Maste r Plan text) ted tnm - more e~cient tree tnmmmg to be done earl~er m the season (by [he t~me trees bloom) 2 P RESERVATION FOR HABITAT 3 P RAIRIE DOG PO LICY 4 S PECIES OF SPEC IAL CONCERN Floodmg/ Underpasses As needed After hrs or PD request close ga[es Make every attempt to keep underpasses open Remove sediment and veRetahon N/A As needed Keep open, or close wrth gates Check every 24 hrs and open gates ASAP Iden[ity high pnonty routes to focus ellorts N/A Use b~oengmeered methods to stabJ¢e banks as needed 162 ~~ E Z ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 ~ ~ ~ Z f ~ ' ~ A~ i"~ E'~ ! 3 e ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ +~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E w F ~ , a _ . . , . ~. . .. ~, _ _' ' - - - .~ 3 ~ » TABLE VIII~: COST SUMMARY FOR WEED CONTROL I Proposedlncrease ~ beyond ExisUng Budget 1st year ~ Location Personnel Costs ~ Weed control along paths 25 FTE ~~ ~~~~ HABITAT TOT = ToWI / yr rf spread over 5 rs• b154,000 WQ TOT = Total / yr if spread over 5 rs 54,600 $5,000 $25,000 $16,000 $32,000 $2,000 $85,000 $25,000 $30,000 $50,000 $5,000 $2,000 3 000 Ongomg Costs $2,500 $0 $16,000 $32,000 $2,000 $0 $10,000 $30,000 $25,000 $2,500 $2,000 500 Func4on Habitat Coordinate mowing Develop weed control plan Weed speualist Seasonal weed crew Incidentals for crew Large eqwpment Small eqwpment Spray Native piants / seed Water plants Monitor, report, map weeds Commumty ed / fliers Water Quali Stake and plant mow edge $280,000 $122,500 15 000 $2.000 $15,000 $2,000 163 IX. Organizational Structure and Finance A. Greenways Program Organization The Greenways Coordinator will be part of the Utihties organizahonal structure, reportmg to the Uhhhes Proj ect Coordmator The Greenways Coordinator will work wrth an interdepartmental staff review group (the Greenways CoordinaUon Team) representmg the various objectives of the Program. The Greenways Coordmarion Team will be responsible for coordmating informahon about the Program with their boazd members and other ctty staff from their departments ' B. Long Term Funding Plan 3 Cost est~mates for the projects and oppomuuties identified in Sechon VII aze contained m Appendix ) VII-2 Tlus mformahon has been summazized m Table IX-1. These costs do not take mto account ,~ the cost of design, flood studies, property acqmsmon or other engineering evaluations After ~ removmg proposed improvements which would be considered under the CIPs for other departments such as Transportahon and Flood Control, potenhal Greenways pro~ects idenhfied in th~s master plan ~~ update have an associated totai construction cost of almost $16 milhon At the current annual ~ j fundmg of $450,000 per yeaz, vv~th $150,000 bemg dedicated to habitat matntenance and addrtional ;~ costs associated with design, property acqmsition and studies, proposed improvements could be ~ completed over a 53-yeaz penod, assumuig all of these improvements aze funded solely through the Greenways budget 1~ w~ In order to maxumze the overlap of ob~ectives wrthin the Greenways Program and to coordinate ~ projects along the Greenways, identificahon of projects for the 2002-2007 Greenways CIP was done ~ as a team effort combimng input from Public Works (Utilities and Transportation groups), Pazks and Recreahon, Water Quahty and Envuonmental Services, and Open Space and Mountain Pazks. ~ ~ w, ~ .~, w ~+. ~ ~ m. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ., ~ ~ ~ ., W .~. .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, w Transportation and flood control pro~ects were identified from the Transportation lvfaster Plan, the Comprehensive Drainage Uhlity Master Plan, and mtra-deparhnental meehngs to determine project pnonties and timing. Environmental projects were idenufied dunng the Master Plan update process and were pnontized based on recent environmental studies, the overlap with other projects, and the feasibihty and efFecriveness of the pro~ect m meeting environmental goals. Mazntenance of the Greenways system has been under review as part of the Master Plan update process To address the identified deficiencies in habitat mamtenance and weed control, the 2002-2007 Greenways CIP is specifying $150,000 to be dedicated for this purpose. Crreenways projects have been historically funded from the Transportat~on Fund, Flood Control Fund, and the Lottery Fund, as follows. TransportaUon - $150,000 Flood Control - $150,000 Lottery Fund - $150,000 165 P Increases to program fundmg levels were evaluated as part of the Master Plan update process, but due to city-vv~de budgetary constramts, no changes to the existmg funding levels were made Connnued fundmg of the Greenways Program at $45Q000 per yeaz is anticipated C. Other Funding Mechanisms Supplementary fundmg for Greenways pro~ects may be avatlable from a vanery of sources Grants may be available to accomplish stand-alone env~ronmental pro~ects which aze currently considered under the Greenways CIP Histonc preservahon grants may be available to aclueve some of the management goals for culturai resources Funding may be available from the U.S Army Corps of Engmeers for stream restorat~on and watershed assessments Grant appl~cat~ons will be coordinated through the Crty Manager's Oftice. ~ r v ~ r+ r~ ~~ 166 ttt)t~t3()~~C1tliE~~l~~~f3~~i3+~'s~~;~;~:~:~~~~~v~~r:=: ~. TABLE IX-1 GREENWAYS SYSTEM PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Creek IFourmfle IWonderland Proposed Trail (LF) Proposed Underpasses' Proposed Drinking Fountains Proposed Flood Improvements 2 Restorahon (sq ft ) Restorahon/Preservation (sq ft ) BMP Grand Total Proposed Trad(LF) Restoration (sq ft ) Restoration/Preservation (sq ft ) Total 9,049 10,163 6,736 0 5 4 1 3 4 00,000 $12,100,000 $2,250,000 44,684 159,542 202,884 63,852 526,747 200,989 24 4 6 2,451 4,278 3,322 6 3 2 0 2 2 500,000 $500,000 $500,000 936,342 201,161 242,012 337,770 0 494,018 9 9 14 Boulder Elmers 1,215 4,4 0 1,003, 961 $2,000, 154, 41,631 $4,163,1 24 $24,OOO,C 13 $195,C $22,850,C 1,940,941 $2,673,4 7,627,337 $5,252,c 77 $3,850,C >roposed Improvements without Underpasses, Drinking Fountains, Flood Improvements ioulder Creek Fourmde Wonderland Goose Skunk Bear South Boulder Elmers Total Cost 9,049 10,163 6,736 2,451 4,278 3,322 1,215 4,417 41,631 $4,163,100 44,684 159,542 202884 936,342 201,161 242,012 0 154,316 1,940,941 $2,673,472 5,063,852 526,747 200,989 337,770 0 494,018 1,003,961 0 7,627,337 $5,252,987 24 4 6 9 9 14 5 6 77 $3,850,000 $15,939,559 :ost Calculations ~includes construction cost, does not include cost of design, property acquisition, flood studies etc.) -rads = $100/LF~ ~ Jnderpasses = $1,000,000 each )rinking Fountams = $15,000 each testoration = $60,OOOlacre ~ testoration/Preservation = $30,000/acre 3MP (Water Quality Best Management Practice) _$50,000 each ~ ~ ~ ~ These pro~ects wdl be funded primarily through the Transportation Diwsion These pro~ects wtll be funded primarily through the Flood Utility ~ ~ ~ ~ B126/2001. mdes 167 X. APPENDICES Appendix I-1 Greenways Master Plan Map Appendix II-1 Greenways Master Plan Update Survey Execuhve Summary ' Appendix II-2 Commmuty and Environmental Assessment Process (August 2001) ; Appendix II-3 List of Tnbutaries to Boulder Creek ~ Appendix III-1. Sununary of Cultural Resources Appendix IV-1 Pazks and Open Space Managed Land Along Greenways ~ Appendix V-1 Tributary Greenways Guidehnes for Open Space and Pazk Lands ~ 1 Appendix VII-1 List of Transportahon Changes from the May 1998 Greenways Map ) Appendix VII-2 Cost Est~mates for Proposed Improvements by Reach 3 Appendix VII-3 Descnphon of Envuonmental Pro~ect ~ Appendix VIII-1 Mamtenance Map 1 a'~3 f'~,~ ~~ 169 ~ ~ a ~ a ~ a w .'~A., F Z ~ a ~ ~ ~ 3 z w ~ ~ - _ ~ .~ __ a P. ~. ~.,~,.,~.~~~=~`'?~~`.~€3tl~f~O~atl~lt)~)tlE)t)4)~)f) City of Boulder Greenways Master Plan Map ~ .. , ~ y . ~ ~ + . !_'..~. `i ~' i~ 6~.'' i . f ~ ~~~ ` ~`K ~: ~, ~' ~:, -~ ~ ~ - r.< ~~ ' ~ ~ ~ `~ -- _ . ;~~ ~ ~~ ...,.. 1 . ~- _._. _ __- __. ~ . ~~r~ ... - . .. ~ ~ ~~` ~ ~} ~ ~ ~ , ~~ `~ ' ~ i~ ~'`,. ~`~ ' `" ~ -,-f.; :~ --~: ~' ' t ~ ~ ° ~.,--- ' . - . _ _ -- • ,`~Y_~ 1 ~''•_ ~ ; _ , ~f ,'`,v ~.~ ' - ~ ,r - _ ~ ~ -' ~ ~ ~ .' t ~, , . ..,, " ; ~ ' . _- . - . l ~ . . . :. . :' _..... ...._. '`"Z~FCS •-- '. .. `~.=. . .. . • /;'r :' ,,~ ,ti,_ .,~t , ~~ ~ ~ . \ ` " 7 , ~'~ __. Fca `' ~ i: • 'r .i~r " ',.r' y:.i • ~ ~ _. =V t' '. ~ / • ' . ... -.,... 5.6~~. .:~' F "' , '.rf.-~i " , . `~. ~ ~ ~.... ~.~ r- , ._~" ~ t _~ ~... . ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ' ~ ` ~ i "P . ~.• '' JW~i.3 ~ ~ „ ~~ ..~ J~' ~ ~p ' ._~ ' ' . i ~ .._ _ ..~ ~ ~ u~,~// M .A1 ~: ' _ wcs ~,~ ~ i'`~r R ~'~ek . _ ` . 5~ r,~ _' " , . ~i t y~ ... , ~ - ' `~ ~`. ,a~' .. . ' ~ FC'I __. .__ _ . . . . . _ ~~`s ~ ° ! .-,` ;.. S "~t~` <. _ ~~,. ~ ~~, , f6a ~. _ `~`_ ~ _~ t~? ~ ! ~'~ ~ ' / ~ ..-- ..~ `~"}~ ~K . ' : -- yy~`,. / . ~~ ~.! ' ~~ ~j,i -~'~..~~./'~ '`~' "`_r^.• - ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~'( i , ~°~. , . ,_ _ , , ~ ~ - ~ ~• ~ 1 ~ ' ~ • . j \ ~~ ' ~ ~,. ~~,. , ! • -. i _ . ~ /., --'! . ~ .. ~.. ~ . ._° _~ . Z ~ I ' ~`p f / ~ ':#"s ~ ~ ' \ r ~ i h ,s ~.~.. ~ ~: ~ rr -~'~a~,~, ' ~ _ _ r ` .` . f , - ~ ~-~..-,~ .~,~ .vi '` , ~ ,. ~J - ' :i a,~ ;- ~ '~ .,~ ~,;~,. ~ - }. ,~..•~~ ~ ~ / ~ ''` •-~ ~`~C, C3,a~+ ,~~ _ ~~ ~., : I ~ i , ,~' _ ~ , ~ .' l ~~ . - r~9'f' - I'.` ~~ _ M a.. r~~ 1~; .~ ~ .,.~~- _ •`~ ~ + ~ ~ ETGi ~.~'' ~ ~~ ~ ~ - ~ . e ~. .~ ~. ~ '+ ~ j ~ ~ ,7~ .~~~ ~~`Y Y~ 3-y~` ~ ~N-Rk 1 -- _ ~.~ _~ ~ " ~.. . ''i^t,- 1. t^ . ' -e i' . T ,. , ~~~- ~ ' ~ ._ ~ ~ ,. .. _ H ~~' ~.sa$ ~ . ~ ~\\~ ~~ ~ • . 7~j, ~ ~ ~v ~^- ~ ~ ~ ;.~~ ti.~~i~~ .;f; ` ` . , ~ ~zN°;`~ ~ •%~. ~ ~ ~ ~! i , ~~"~x~.`:~i~: ~ tia ~ ; .~ .-~ 'i , :~w~i ,.. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~, ~ ~ i 1r~ ~'~' -'~ ~ ~ . ~ . ~ ^' GCS~ ~ 1-zipS@ C!'eEa/~ i ~ ~ '1 . ~Gi j ~ ~'~~: ~ _ - ,+ C ~ - 3 ` GC4... % GC7 ~ <~~ ~ . ~ , k- - . ' J ~~,.~ ~~~ ~ 6G3 ~ ] ` ~~ x '~` ~...r.~` ~._ ~~'y ~ ~ _:- - _ _. ~ - . - I F~~~,~, . . ` .- t .'- -` ,, `~ `~ '-'~"1 ~~ SBC2 ~ i , . ~ r~- ~i~-` , '_ 1 • ~~ 1 ~ ~ GC2 ~ i I ~ 1.~`, ~ ' ._, . . ~t ~ - ~~'~ ` ~~ r ~ • . ~. ~ , _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • - ' -~, . - - , ~ ~ , ~ y „ r ~ ~ :,. ._ -_ .:~_ ~~~~ •'~.._~Yi . ~.. . ~ . .. ~ _ , ~ . ' ~ , -- '~~ 3 ~ _ ' re 4'E f.~-,°~ ~: - ' i ~i ~ ~ ~ . ~ ,'t f ~ . , .. ~ j._-, .. ~~~ ~ .. ~J &G2 _ _ ~ ~ ~~ . ~ .~y . , , : ,''. ` _ . ' _ _ ~_ l ~ ~ :~j'w' ~ 1, , ~! , 1 ~ ~` ~ ~ ~ ' ` ~,0~7'''-~ ~f'B ~~"'t~ `_ `~ ' " ' ~ . ~ ~ ~r 1 -+ I - CJ - ~-%'~' s- Q'er • . , `. ~. ~ ' ; ~:q _ ~ de~ ~reek ~,d` _ Cr~e B' i ~~ , ~oul ~_.._ ~~'~~~ _. ee s o •5 -BGa , • __~l ~ , .'~ Jl ~~ . : ' Z _, , , .t ._. ' A y ~~ ~~~ •.F. ~. ~ ~` ~-- scci t ~i ... _ ~ , ° ~ ~- . ~~~~ ~ - , ~ ~ ' . . r ~r . I ~. . ,, _ _ ~.. ~. _ ~. _. , ~~: . _ , ~ : . ~ ~ ... ~: ~ .... ~ -- ._. Y _ . cz r ~ r ~ ~; .+ F si~3 ~ ~ - - - . -- _ . . , s. . - - -- - -- , . ,r~ ~~ . , . -T~-- - . ~~~ 1: , ~- g~ ~ tY ecc ~,: rf , . . ~ , - . ~'/i ~ , . ~te s~~ ,,~ , w \ ` ~ ~, ~ • . ~ ~.~ ,~-,~ ~ ' ' '~, •i'~ ~ ~ ' 4.'. ; - .. y ~ ,!~r~,~~r~'~''-'''~- ' , , _ ~ ~ f~y~- ~.~ !~ ' iii- ~ > . ~ ` ~ :° ~-, ~,5~ . ~ ~ . ~ • ~ ~ , '- _. „ ~'`• r t ° '" _ • .~_ . , ~ ~ ~ ti~ ; ~oc ~ ";,_~ ~ ~N t ~ eC , t ~ __ . ~ , ~ c, , ~~~,~---~ ~~V _ ' ~. .. ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ , .. ~ . ~' ~ a r --_ , ,~ - --~ , ~ ~ . ~ :'~ r ~ ~ , ; ~ , ' _ _. 3 ~~ ~ :~.~ '~, _ , • '~ . . , ~ , ,- . )O , ' ' ; ~ ~ SB~, ~~ ~ . scs r~ ~ ; , +r .\ ' I. ~ I .._ `~ ~ , i ~ r • l~ , ~ ~., ,. ~ i . ~ '; ~ / BC#A l / r ' ~ ~~. i •. ( . , ~~_ ~ . . ~ , ~ ~,~~ ,~ ~ ~ •~', ~r.- . ,~v~~s~ ~i. ~~ ~ ~,~ ~. i ~, s ~r,,~.. .' ., ~_ : } ~ ~ J ~eg' ~ ` 1. . • - f'` ~ _ y _~"~ ~ ap - - f •: /~~ ~~ . . y ~II~ f ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ \ ~ ~".: a~ r' sccs ~ -- ~ t' ~ ~ 1 ,~' -' ~ . ~ - ~ ' ;.. ~ ~. ~ ~~j/ ~,`;, J •` . '' : - _~ ~ ~' ~> BcC~g\\~ .. , _ , ` . ~ ~ ~ ~~ ` ~ . ' ~ t • . * ~ i~ : j" i' , i ~ ~ I r~ - I ~ ~ ~ •~4w, ~'=. ~ ~ .. ^ ~ - 1 ~"~ ` ~ \' ~ f` ~(,,. - w~ ~ ~- ~~'. .' .:._ ' ~ , . t j 4.;; ^ . _ , ~ ~ y~ .~ . , ~ ~ J ~ = ~--~ . _ . . . - ~ . , ' .. _. - L~' ' , A_ ~ ' __~'!S. ~q ~~ ~ . !~,' - '~~' `~ ~, ~ ~~` _ ~ `fb a..w ^ - . f ~~/ I si. 1yr +'~r-. ~ n~~_ ) 1: -r ~ i' •-~~';, j' -i I ; ' . ~ ~ . - ,y t ~ ~ ' eir•~' g ~ _ . ; i ~ ~ ~~~:' ~~; ~ ~ - -- ~ ~ ~~~ r r I ~ '~~~ ~ \ J ~~ ~ .. ._ . .. __ . /T l G' ~ • ~ - Exlsting Greenway Trail (Transportation Master Plan) -~-~~~~~- Proposad Greenway Trail (shown coneaptually) (Transporlation Master Plan) For mor~ d~Nll•d inlorn+.tion on uch naeh r~fir te fh~ 6n~nwry~ , u`~"0 Exiating Non-Greenway Trall (6.V.C.P. Trsils Map) City of Bouldar Parks M~~t~r Ylan UpAat~ R~ae~ Inv~ntory. ~ Proposed Hon-Greenway Trail (ahown conceptuallyJ (B.V.C.P. Tralis Map) City o} Boulder Open Space and Mountaln Parks On-Street Connection Bike LanelRoute (200'I Blcycle Systems Map) publlc Schools o o~2s c~°sm~~a9 EnvironmentalRestorationorPreaervatlonAreas Other PublialSeml-Publie Land ~ D~Inking Fountain l d D l ki F t ~~°I Reach Dellneatlon Llnes 8 Reaeh Humbars ~j~ ~~ . .1 - . ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ a~ Propose r n ng oun a n • Rest Area ~ 100 Year FIooA Plaln (Gity of Bouldar Flood Data) ~ ~ ~ \ ~ _ '., .~uM.. .rYa'..uWq N Reatroom Creak ~ - . ~e=.~ • Proposed Rast Area ------ Proposed Greek (Oayllght Opportunity) ~ ~ • c ~ Proposed Underpass Area ot MaJor Flood Mitf9ation ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ro ~ ~~ ~ ~ Existfng Underpaaa • Proposed Water Qualfty Best Managamant Practlce Areas ~P P~~b M' ~~ ~ b o ~ ~ ~~ ~ -, ry w ,,, „,q,,,,.,,,,,~,,. • Exiating Water Quality Beat Managemen! PraeNee Areas ~"~O^^° O^ fO1~~' ~ Bridge Pl~nning ~nA Dw~lopm~nt S~MC~~ rs.rya V.,`-n ei. ~`.e~....."..n &4JM001. APPENDIX II-1 GREENWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE SURVEY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY , ~ ~ , r ~ ,~ ~ ,' j .) ~~ ~ .~ ~~ ,~ Vi J s~ mi ~i ~~ 4 y~ Appendix II-1 Greenways Master Plan Update Survey Executive Sumntary Methods • The Greenways Master Plan Update Survey was admmistered by phone to a representative sample of 400 city of Boulder residents in May, 1997 The mazgm of error, based on the sample size of 400, is no greater than + or -5% around any percentage and 2 6 pomts around any mean converted to the 100 pomt scale t ~ Results S ~ ,,~ Knowledge of the Greenways Program ~ • About 37 %o of survey respondents were fanuliar with the Greenways Program, the ~~J other 63 °lo had not heard of the program Greenways Master Plan Goals • The four ma~or goals of the Greenways Master Plan were rated m terms of importance. Although all of the goals were seen as important, environmental preservation, on average, was rated the most unportant (88 on a 100 pomt scale). Protecrion from flood hazard (83), alternate transportation (82) and recrearion opportumties (80) followed m ranngs • Respondents were asked to rate how well each of the Greenways Mater Plan's goals are bemg met All of the goals received favorable ratings. The provision of recreation opportumties was ~udged to be the best met goal Protecuon from flood hazard was perceived as the least met goal Use of the Greenways Trml System • Almost half of the surveyed households reported usmg the trail system 26 or more tunes in the last 12 months. Only 10% of the households did not use the Greenways paths last year. • The most common activities performed on the trails were biking and walkmg User Ratings of the Greenways Tratl System • Almost 50% of respondents rated the number of people using the system as "about right", 28% felt there were too few people using the system, and 16°lo felt there were too many users ~ • Residents felt relatively safe on the paths from hazassment and crime There was t a greater concern about collisions ~ • Users rated the connectivtty of the system to ma~or household desunanons. The trails were felt to have the best connecnons to recreation centers and the workplace ~ or school of adult household members ~ ~ ~ When asked what could be done to mcrease the use of the Greenways trails, the ~ most common response was to mcrease the number of tra~ls, access points and , connecnons ' • The most frequently encountered problems on the Greenways system were ;' congest~on on the uails and reckless bicyclists and roller bladers However, about ! 45 % of system users reported no problems on the paths. , Expansion of the Greenways Tratls System The advantages and disadvantages of expandmg and acceleranng the Greenways uail system were explained to respondents for theu opuuons on how the city should proceed • The construction of new paths and trails was supported by about 60% of those surveyed, 23 % opposed the construction of new paths while 17 % had no opm~on • The current tune frame of 15 to 20 years to complete the Gteenways system was rated "about right" by 46% of the respondents, while 42% felt it was "too slow" and 4% felt it was "too fasY' When asked if they would like the plan to be accelerated, 46~ opposed it, 40~ supported it and 14% were mdifferent. • A ma~or expansion of the current plan wtuch calls for connecting every major school, park, ma~or employment center and neighborhood was supported by about half of those surveyed One quarter opposed the idea and one quarter of respondents were undecided Construction of Btke Lanes and Paths ~ Survey respondents overwhelmmgly (79%) prefened off-street paths to on-street bike lanes After hearing information on the advantages and disadvantages of each, about 64 % suggested that the city pursue off-street bike paths as compared to their on-street counterparts. APPENDIX II-2 CEAP INFORMATION ihe Cammuniqi and Emfnaro~msl llssessmoot Pncess au~sr 2001 The Commumty and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) is a formal review process to ' 1 consider the impacts of pubhc development pro~ects The CEAP was mst~tuted by City Council ,~ m 1987 and is refened to in the Boulder Revised Code (B R C Sechon 2-1, Appendix IX, ,I; Procedure m Handhng Ma~or Capital Improvement Pro~ects) '~ CEAP review consists of a pro~ect description, a discussion of the BVCP and master plan goals ~',;~ that the pro~ect will address; a review of the impacts of the pro~ect m checklist form, and a ~~~ descnphon of the proposed impact mingahon measures and their associated costs. ~"'~ The emphasis of the CEAP analysis at tlus stage is a general scopmg of impacts and assoc~ated ~~~~~ impact avoidance/mitigation strategies, m order to allow compazative impact assessment of ~~'~ selected ma~or alternatrves The CEAP also provides the opportunity to balance multiple ~,i~~ commumty goals through a public pro~ect by looking at a pro~ect wrthm the context of the BVCP and master plans The CEAP allows fatal flaws mherent in the concept design of a project to #~ be discovered, thereby suggestmg ehmination of certa~n alternatives Several outcomes of the ~""~) CEAP impacts and mingahon analysis aze possible li~ ~,,,~ • No social or environmental impacts aze idenhfied, • Mmor social or environmental impacts aze identafied that can easily be rcutrgated; '"' • Ma~or social or envuonmental impacts are identified that can easily be mit~gated; 3r"~ • Major social or environmental impacts aze idenhfied that require more detailed mvest~gahon ;~ of impacts and possible mitigahon strategies, or ~ • Environmental impacts are idenhfied that cannot be reasonably mrtigated ~ ~ ~ 6~als ~f tde CEAP "~` Achieve Mulhple C:ry Goals ~ ~ Implementarion of Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and Departmental Master ~ Plans. ~ a~ Recogution and mtegration of mulhple community goals and interests m smgle „~ pro~ects ~' n Mimmizahon of environmental, social, and fiscal impacts of projects. .': ri Idenuficahon of opportunities to improve capital pro~ects through project ~ plannmg and review process . ~ Assure mterna] compliance wrth crty policies, goals, and regulations y+ ~ Ach:eve Servrce Effcrency '",,," ~ Minimizatron of impacts to other serv~ce dehvery goals and master plans. :~ ~ Efficiency m planning and spendmg for caprtal improvements. ~ ri Freedom and flexibihry for pro~ect managers m the planning and implementation ~ ~ ,., ~ ~ of pro~ects Mamta:n Effective Publzc Involvement ~ Effective management of boazd, Council, and publtc input in pro~ect plamung and implementahon G~ideliees fer ldemifying Prol~cts Reqafring CFAPs For a pro~ect to go through the CEAP, rt should meet at least one of the following cntena These cntena aze intended to guide the select~on of pro~ects for CEAPs dunng the annual CIP budgering process A pro~ect or a potential altemative could have a sigmficant impact on a environmental, social, or cultural resource 2. The pro~ect is ant~cipated to generate neighborhood or commumty controversy There is more than one possible conceptual alternative that will requ~re staff or communrty mput in the selecrion 4. The pro~ect requires external review on the county (1041), state, or federal level (NEPA), then an mternal city CEAP should be performed prior to submittmg to the extemal agency. eE~P Reriaw and Aaarova~ The project manager develops prelunmary concept plans for pro~ect alternatives (pro~ect types, locations and funchon designs) 2 The project manager prepazes the CEAP documentahon of a concept plan or concepts for major alternatives (if applicable) The CEAP documentation is submitted to Planning and Development Services for development review The pro~ect manager mcludes a hst of people, groups or organizations that should be notified of the pro~ect 4 The Planning Director assigns the pro~ect to a Planning Department case manager. If a srte review or subdivision is required for the pro~ect, the appropnate apphcahons aze subm~tted concurrently with the CEAP (This does not mclude permrts such as wetlands, floodplaui, or biuldmg permrts which aze obtained at a later phase ) 6 The Plannmg Department gives pubhc norification of the CEAP apphcation by maihng notice to all landowners w~thin a 600 ft radius of the pro~ect boundanes, any organizarion or members of the public that have expressed a desire to review ~ the matenal, and, any addihonal stakeholders as identified by the department ~ pro~ect manager Notice of the CEAP apphcahon will also be posted at the pro~ect srte. In addrtion, a copy of the matenal will be available at the pubhc '~ library. The case manager will also circulate the package to other city ~ 1 departments and other concemed agencies, such as County Health. Comments ~ from the public will be mcorporated mto the Development Review Committee's comments c) al ) 7 The Development Review Comnuttee (DRC) reviews the CEAP and makes ~'~ ~ comments on the assessment Several outcomes aze possible: no environmental ~i ~ impacts aze identified, minor environmental impacts aze identified that the relevant departrnent can mitigate, major environmental impacts are identified that ~I~~~ requue major redesign of the project; or environmental impacts are identified and ~„~ cannot reasonably be mitigated. Although questions of clanfication may be asked ~~~~ of the pro~ect manager, no revisions to the CEAP aze requested u"~ 8 The Planning Department sends a cover memo and comments to the project C"~' manager for their considerahon ~~~ wu fli~ 9 The project manager may choose to redesign elements of the pro~ect to address ~ DRC comments and re-submrt the CEAP for review or take the pro~ect and the city and pubhc review comments to the relevant review board for their ~ considerahon ~ 10. The recommendarion is forwarded to select boards for comment if pro~ect has goals relevant to other master plans ~ ~ 11. A public heanng is held with the pnmary advisory boazd. The boazd reviews the ~ CEAP findings including DRC and other boazd comments. If the advisory boazd ,^ approves the recommended concept plan and CEAP findings, the pro~ect +r recommendahon and CEAP aze forwazded to City Council and subject to City ~ Council call-up ~ W ,,, 12 If the concept plan and CEAP findings aze not accepted by the advisory boazd, ' pro~ect staff may be directed to redesign the project or to provide more detailed ~ analysis of certam impacts and mrtigation strategies. ~ ~ ~ 13. If sigmficant pro~ect modifications aze made, the CEAP is revised and ~ resubmitted to Plannmg and Development Serv~ces for development review. The same process is conhnued until the project is accepted in concept by the advisory ~ ~ ~ .. v.r board 14 The advisory boazd findmgs aze sub~ect to Crty Council call-up If the CEAP is called up, Council holds a public hearing and makes a pro~ect approval decision If Council does not call up the pro~ect approval and certificahon, then the advisory board pro~ect approval is final 15 Once both the advisory boazd and Crty Council approve pro~ect recommendat~ons and the CEAP, the pro~ect is ready for the final design and engineering phase CFAP Re~iew R~les Department/Pro~ect management team 1) Facilitates plamm~g and design of pro~ect. 2) Develops and selects proposed pro~ect altematives 3) Completes CEAP evaluahon and submits to Plamm~g and Development Services for development review 4) Submrts CEAP mcludmg staff and pubhc mput to the advisory board for approval Planntng Department staff 1) Provides techmcal assistance to pro~ect managers as needed 2) Manages Development Review Committee (DRC) review and comment on CEAP apphcation 3) Makes a recommendauon on pro~ect alternatives and CEAP findmgs through the DRC review Development Revtew Committee 1) Reviews CEAP for consistency wrth city policies, master plans, and Boulder Revised Code. Advisory Board 1) Selects preferred pro~ect type, locahon, funcrion design 2) Approves pro~ect and CEAP findmgs Planrang Board 1) Reviews and approves only those projects from programs wrth no advisory boazd Ctry Council 1) Call-up option on advisory boazd or Plamm~g Board decision CEAP Re~iew aad Appnual Precesses bY Deparunen Transportation funded proiects 1 CEAP documentation submrtted to DRC for comment 2 Non-agenda memo sent to other relevant boazds for comment 3 Transportation Advisory Board public hearing and approval 4 City Council call-up ophon '" Parks and Recreation funded proiects ~~ 1 CEAP documentation submitted to DRC for comment ;;~ 2 Non-agenda memo sent to other relevant boazds for comment q~ ~y 3 Pazks and Recreahon Advisory Board public heanng and approval 4 City Council call-up option ~~ ~~ G;~) Utilities funded proiects ~;~ 1 CEAP documentation submmed to DRC for comment ~~ 2 Non-agenda memo sent to other relevant boards for comment 3 Water Resoarces Advisory Board pubhc heanng and approval ~ 4 City Council call-up option CI;~ y~ Greenways funded nrojects „ 1 CEAP documentation submitted to DRC for comment 2 Non-agenda memo sent to other relevant boazds for comment ~ 3 Greenways Advisory Committee public heanng and approval ~ 4 City Council call-up opUon ~ Pro~ects wrtlun a desiQnated Greenwav that are funded by other departments (non-Greenways ~ projects ~ 1 CEAP documentahon submitted to DRC for comment ~ 2 Non-agenda memo sent to Greenways Advisory Committee and other relevant boazds for ~ comment 3 Public heanng and advisory board approval ~ 4 City Council ca11-up option ~ ~ On en Space and Mountain Parks pro~ects 1. CEAP documentation submitted to DRC for comment ~ 2 Non-agenda memo sent to other relevant boazds for comment '~' 3 Open Space Boazd of Trustees public heanng and approval ~* 4 City Council call-up option w. ~ "' Librarv, Fire, Pohce, Facilrties and Assets Management, Downtown and Umversiri H~ll ~ Management, all other departments ~ 1. CEAP documentation submitted to DRC for comment ~ 2 Non-agenda memo sent to other relevant boards for comment ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ t t e 3 Plannmg Boazd pubhc hearing and approval ~ 4 City Council call-up option 1 Pro~ects with multiple boazd mterests (mcludes public works pro~ects on Parks or Open Space t lands) 1 CEAP documentarion submitted to DRC for comment t 2 Public heanng and approval by relevant boazds in a~omt boazd hearing. ~, 3 City Council call-up oprion , CITY OF BOULDER COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS -COVER SHEET- 1. Description and location of the project: 2. Background, purpose aud need for the project: ~~ 3. DescripNon of project alternatives and summary of major issues: +I~3 ~~~ 4. Preferred project alternative: '' D 5. Public input to date: ~ ~~ ,, y~~~ 6. Staff project manager: "'~ 7. Other consultants or relevant contacts: ~;~~ Goals Assessment: 1. Using the BVCP, describe the primary city goals that the project will help to achieve: General Commututy Design Facilrties and Services Envuonment Economy Transportation Housmg Social Concems and Human Sernces 2. What are the trade-offs in terms of city policies and goals? 3. Is this project referenced in a master plan? If so, what is the context in terms of goals, objectives, larger system plans, etc.? If not, why not? 4. How will the project exceed city, state, or federal standards and regulations? ~ ~ Impact Assessment ~ 1 Usmg the attached checklist, identify the potential impacts of the proposed groject or (if ~ apphcable) the project alternatives: C f ~~ . ~ . ~ Community and Environmental Assessment Process -Checklist Questions- Note The following questions are a supplement to the CEAP checkl:st Only those questtons znd:cated on the checkl:st are to be answered m full A. Natural Areas , , ~ 1. Describe the potential for disturbance to or loss of sigtuficant. specses, plant ~ commumhes, wildhfe habitats, or ecosystems via any of the achvities hsted below. (Sigmficant species include any species listed ar proposed to be listed as rare, ~ threatened or endangered on federal, state, county lists ) ,~ , ~ a Construction activities , ~ b Vegetahon removal c Human or domesric uiimal encroachment i'1 d. Chenucal pollutants (includmg fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides) {~ e. Behavioral displacement of wildlife species (due to noise from use actrnhes) f Introducrion of non-naUve plant species m the srte landscaping i"~ g. Hydrologic alterarion (groundwater, surface runof~ ~"~ h Increased sedimentation m any body of water If potenUal impacts have been idenhfied, please provide the following • A descnption of how the proposed project would avoid, muumize, or mrtigate identrfied unpacts • A habitat assessment of the site, mcluding: 1 a hst of plant and anunal species and plant communities of special concern found on the s~te; 2. a wildhfe habitat evaluahon of the site • Maps of the site showing the locahon of any Boulder Valley Natural Ecosystem, Boulder County Environmental Conservation Area, or crihcal wildlife habuat. B. Riparian areas and Floodptains 1. Describe the extent to which the pro~ect will encroach upon the 100-yeaz, conveyance or high hazard flood zones 2. Descnbe the extent to which the project will encroach upon, disturb, or fragment a npanan corridor. If potenual impacts have been idenhfied, please provide the following: • A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or miugate !~ t f idenhfied unpacts. ~ f • A map showing the location of any streams, ditches and other water bodies on ~ or near the project srte l' • A map showmg the location of the 100-year flood, conveyance, and }ugh t hazazd flood zones relative to the project site. ( C. Wetlands f r . 1. Descnbe any disturbance to or loss of a wetland on srte that will result from the ~, pro~ect r . If potenrial impacts have been identified, please provide the following ~ • A descnption of how the proposed pro~ect would avoid, mimmize, or mrtigate idenhfied impacts • A map showing the location of any wetlands on or near the site Identify both those weflands which are junsdichonal under city code (on the wetlands map m our ordinance) and other wetlands pursuant to federal critena (defimt~onal). D. Geology and soils 1 Describe any a Impacts to unique geologic or physical features b. Geologic development constrauits or effects to earth condiuons or landslide, erosion, or subsidence c Substanhal changes in topography that will result from the project. If potenrial impacts have been ident~fied, please provide the follov~nng: • A descnption of how the proposed pro~ect would avoid, muumize, or mrtigate idenhfied impacts • A map showing the location of any utuque geologic or physical features, or hazazdous soil or geologic condiUons on the srte. E. Water Quality 1. Descnbe potential impacts to groundwater or stormwater qualrty that may resuk from the pro~ect 2. Descnbe potenhal mcreases m stormwater dischazges that may result from the pro~ect. 3. Descnbe potenhal water quality impacts to streams, ditches and other water bod~es from the pro~ect. 4. Is there a likehhood of groundwater contaminarion from past history on the site or an ad~acent site? ~ If potential impacts have been identified, please provide the following: '~ • A descnprion of how the proposed project would avoid, muumize, or mitigate , , ~D idenhfied impacts `"~ , a,~ • Information from city water quality files on sites w~th soil and groundwater impacts ' wrthm 1/4 mile radius of project or site. ~"9 ~„') • If impacts to srte are possible, either from past activities at site or from adjacent srtes, s ~+~ perform a Phase I Environmental Impact Assessment •u ~^a '" F. Air Quality M+ ~N/ ~ 1 Describe potenrial impacts to azr quality resulhng from this pro~ect Distinguish S~ between impacts from mobile sources (VMT/tnps) and stationary sources (APEN, HAPS). .,~ ~ G. Resource Conservation ~ 1. Descnbe potent~al changes in water use that will result from the pro~ect. ~ ~ a EsUmate the indoor, outdoor (imgation) and total daily water use for the facilrty. ~ b. Describe plans for muumizuig water use on the site (Xeriscape landscaping, ~ efficient imgation system) ~ 2. Describe potential increases in energy use that may result from the project ~ a. Descnbe plans for mimmizing energy use on the pro~ect or how energy conservation measures will be incorporated mto the building design. Refer to the ~ 2000 International Energy Conservation Code??? ~ 3 Describe the potent~al for excess waste generation resulting from the project. Descnbe plans for recychng and waste mimmization (deconstruction, reuse, '~w recycling, green points) "~ ~ H. Cultural/Historic Resources ~1 ~ ~ ~.. r. 1 Describe any impacts to a A prelustonc or }ustoric archaeological srte. b. A building or structure over fifty yeazs of age. c A lustonc feature of the site such as an urigahon ditch. d Sigmficant agricultural lands that will result from the project. If potential impacts have been idenhfied, please provide the following• • A descnptron of how the proposed pro~ect would avoid, minimize, or mrtigate idenhfied impacts I. Visual Quality 1 Descnbe any effects on: a Scemc vistas or v~ews open to the public. b The aesthetics of a srte open to public view c View comdors from the srte to umque geologic or phys~cal features. that will result from the pro~ect J Safety 1 Descnbe any addihonal health hazards, odors, or exposure of people to radon that may result from the project 2 Descnbe any addihonal srte hazazds that may result from the pro~ect. (Including risk of explosion or the release of hazazdous substances such as oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiatron) If potenhal impacts have been idenhfied, please provide the following: A descnption of how the proposed pro~ect would avoid, mimmize, or mitigate idenUfied impacts K. Physiological Well-being I Describe the potential for exposure of people to excessive noise caused by any phase of the project. 2 Describe any excessive light or glaze that may result from the project. 3 Describe any mcrease m vibrahons that may result from the pro~ect. If potentral impacts have been identified, please provide the following ~) ~ ~~ ~ :~~ R~~r ~ ~*~ ~ ~ 63 .~ .., .r «~ .. ,. .. ~ .r «. ~ .. .r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~..a A description of how the proposed project would avoid, mmimize, or mingate identified impacts. L. Services 1. Descnbe any addittonal need for the followmg services as a result of the pro~ect: a. Health care/social services b Water or sanitary sewer services c. Pohce sernces d Fire protechon e Recreation or pazks facilrties £ Libranes g. Transportahon improvements/traffic mrtigation h Parkmg i Affordable housmg j Open space/urban open land k. Power or energy use 1. Telecommunications 2. Describe any unpacts to any of the above existing or planned crty sernces or department master plans as a result of this project. (e.g. budget, avazlable pazking, planned use of the site, pubhc access, automobile/pedestrian conflicts, views) M. Special Populations 1 Describe any effects the pro~ect may have on the followmg special populations a Persons v~nth disabilrties b Senior population c Cluldren d. Restncted income persons If potential impacts have been identi£ed, please provide the following A descnption of how the proposed project would avoid, mmimize, or mrtigate idenhfied impacts ~ k ~refer Altern Altem f red ative ative ~ \Itern 1 2 ative ~ c; A. Natural Areas 1 Disturbance to speaes, communities, habitat, ecosystems~ 1 Encroachment upon the 100-year, conveyance or high hazard flood zones~ 2 Disturbance to or fragmentation of a riparian corndor~ C. Wetlands 1 Disturbance to or loss of a wetland on site~ D. Geoloav and Soils 1 a Impacts to unique geologic or physical features~ b Geologic development constraints~ c Substantial changes m topography~ E. Water Qi 1 Impacts to groundwater or stormwater qu 2 Discharges to the stormwater or sanitary sewer sy<_ 3 Potential impacts to streams, ditches, or other water bo 4 Groundwater contam~natio~ on F. Air Quality 1 Impacts to air quality~ G. Resource Conservation 1 Changes in water use~ 2 Increases in energy use~ 3 Generation of excess waste~ H. Culturel/Historic Resources 1 a Impacts to a prehistonc or archaeological site~ b Impacts to a bwlding or structure over fifty years of age~ c Impacts to a historic feature of the sde~ d Impacts to sigmficant agnculturel land~ K. Physiological Well-being 1 Exposure to excessive noise~ 2 Excessive light or glare~ 3 Increase in vibrations~ 1 Additional need for a health care/soaal services~ b sanitary sewer services~ c police services~ d fire protection? e recreation or parks facddies~ f libraries~ g transportation improvements/traffic mitigation~ h parkmg~ i affordable housmg~ ~ open space/urban open land~ k power or energy use~ I telecommunications~ M. Special Populationf 1 Effects on a persons wdh disabddies ~ b senior population ~ c d restncted mcome APPENDIX II-3 LIST OF TRIBUTARIES TO BOULDER CREEK ';) ,~) ;1 4J ,~ . ,1 .n o ,~ APPENDIX II-3 LIST OF TRIBUTARIES TO BOULDER CREEK" ; Withm the city hmrts there aze 13 mam tnbutaries to Boulder Creek and several ~ smaller, mosdy unnamed dramages Drainage basm size for each of these creeks is shown m Table 1 Dramage lengths wrthm the city limrts aze shown m Table 2. ~~ ~~ "~~ ~ ~; J TABLE 1: Drainage Basin Size and Drainage Length for Tributaries Which Flow Within Boulder City Limits Creek/Dramage Name Acres Square Mdes South Boulder Creek 79,815 124 7 Dry Creek 18,889 29 5 Fourmile Canyon Creek 6,200 9 7 Bear Canyo~ Creek 3,371 5 3 Goose Creek 1,701 2 7 Wonderland Creek 1,348 2 1 Twomile Canyon Creek 1,295 2 0 Sunshme Canyon Creek 1,192 1 9 Gregory Canyon Creek 1,191 1 9 Skunk Creek 1,165 1 8 Viele Channel 791 1 2 Bluebell Canyon Creek 454 0 7 Elmer's Twomde Creek 423 0 7 Kmgs Gulch 230 0 4 ` Source: Rrpar:an Habatat Assessment Procedure [Need complete reference.] ~ ~ ~ ~ TABLE 2: r Name and Extent of Drainages Within the City of Boulder, CO. C Name Feet Mdes Meters Kdometers ~ ~Bear Canyon Creek 33,155 7 6 3 10,106 0 10 1 ~ t t Bluebell Canyon Creek ]0,084 4 1 9 3,073 8 3 1 r *Boulder Creek 39,888 4 7 6 12,158 1 12 2 ~ Dry Creek No 2 21,868 5 4 1 6,665 6 6 7 ~ Dry Creek No 2 Drtch 13,713 0 2 6 4,179 8 4 2 ~ ~Elmers Twomile Creek 5,123 6 1 0 1,561 7 1 6 ~ *Fourmile Canyon Creek 31,343 3 5 9 9,553 5 9 6 ~ • ~ *Goose Creek 15,857 7 3 0 4,833 5 4 8 ~~ ` Gregory Canyon Creek 9,469 1 1 8 2,886 2 2 9 ~~ Kmgs Gulch 6,107 0 1 2 1,861 4 1 9 ~~ ~kSkunk Creek 23,547 2 4 5 7,177 3 7 2 ~' . *South Boulder Creek 19,693 9 3 7 6,002 8 6 0 :. ~ Sunshme Creek 15,278 9 2 9 4,657 1 4 7 ` r~ , Twomile Canyon Creek 15,226 8 2 9 4,641 2 4 6 ~ Viele Channel 1Q575 0 2 0 3,223 3 3 2 . ,~, ~ ~Wonderland Creek 22,894 6 4 3 6,978 4 ~ 0 ~ TOTAL 277,145 1 52 5 84,474 8 84 5 ~ TOTAL WITHIN THE ~ GREENWAYS SYSTEM 191 504 4 36 3 371 3 58 58 4 ~ , , .. ~ ` w~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .w~ r ~` ~ V ~ r ~ ~ ~ APPENDIX III-1 GREENWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES ' ~ ~ ~ ~~ '~ ~ ,~ R~~ J 'I"~ ~, .~ ,~, ~ ~ ., ~ ~, ~ ~, .. ~ .1 ~ ~ w. ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ APPENDIX III-1 GREENWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES~ ,~ , ,i'~ r~ 4 a~ ~ ;l~ ~~ s'~ ~ ~" ~ ,~ +~ ~ ~ .r Q ~ w. wr ~ vr :J ~ v'~. ~ w ~ ~. ,.. ~ ~, .. +., vr i~., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ., ,r PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC BACKGROUND OF THE GREENWAYS SYSTEM Aboriginal Historv Abongmal groups aze known to have occupied northeastern Colorado smce at least 11,500 yeazs ago. A number of Stages and Penods have been defined to describe prehistonc culture lustory Occupation of the Front Range during the Plano Period (ca 10,000-7500 BP) has been demonstrated, but earher occupation is evidenced only by isolated Clovis and Folsom projectile pomts Human use and occupation of the plvns/foothills transihon zone, mcludmg Boulder Valley, dunng subsequent penods was not contmuous but was substanhal over the last 5000 yeazs, particulazly dunng the last 2000 years The Comanche and Ute occupied Colorado durmg the 18th century, wrth the Comanche controlhng the plams, and the Ute m the foothills and mountams. By the early 19th century the Cheyenne and Arapaho began to occupy most of the plvns of eastern Colorado (Buckles 1968) Both of these tnbes were semi-nomadic, dependuig primanly on the hunting of bison and other large game azumals The Arapaho also uhhzed the Front Range, and the Boulder Valley was a winter campsrte In the Treaty of Fort Laramie (1851) a vast azea of land was assigned to the Cheyenne and Arapaho as a reservation, mcluding all of Colorado east of the Conrinental Divide and north of the Arkansas River Ten years later, however, the Treaty of Fort Wise was signed, requinng their removal from all lands m the eazher treaty except for a small reservatton in east-central Colorado (Berthrong 1963) This left Boulder County open for European settlement Historic Settlement and Development In 1858 gold was d~scovered at the confluence of Cherry Creek and the South Platte River. News of the gold strike m the "Pike's Peak" region quickly spread, and a gold rush began (Hafen 1941; Wolle 1949) Precious metal mmmg became a dommant enterprise in the Colorado Rockies, with penodic mming booms occurrmg mto the first decades of the 20th century The first pioneers to settle m Boulder arrived inNovember,1858 (Meier 1993) Prospecting for gold m the mountams began soon after, and several mimng districts were defined, and mintng camps and ` Summary extracted from A Cultural Resoruce Inventory of the Boulder Greemvays, by Peter J. Gleichman, Nahve Cultural Services, Boulder, Colorado. February 2001 III-1-1 ~ towns developed Cycles of boom and bust mmmg occuned m Boulder County for the next 60+ yeazs The mrtial gold rush and subsequent muung booms attracted more people to the azea then could be supported by mming Those who did not find theu fortune m gold or tungsten sought rt elsewhere or through other means The mmmg booms created the need for other mdustry, part~culazly agncultural endeavors to supply meat and produce Many who could not afford agncultural land elsewhere would take advantage of the passage of the Homestead Act of 1862 and later, the Timber Culture Law of 1873 Settlement of the Boulder Valley and ad~acent footlulls ensued rapidly, by people engaged m farmmg or ranchmg. Development of water resources also occurred to provide water for agncultural pursuits The local creeks flowing out of the mountams were tapped by imgat~on ditches, startmg soon after settlement of the Boulder Valley Transportation to and from the minmg distncts and between commumties on the plains was provided by wagon and stagecoach The railroad reached Boulder m 1873. In the 1880s and 1890s the "Swrtzerland Trail" railroad was constructed and served the mountaui communities The Denver & Interurban camed passengers between Denver and Boulder unhl the late 1920s The railroads greatly spurred the growth of Boulder, and facilitated mming and extractive mdustnes, both hazdrock ores from the mountains and coal and oil from the Boulder Valley The first schoolhouse m Colorado Temtory was built m Boulder m 1860 (Dyru 1991). Public schools were conrinually estabhshed as the populat~on of Boulder grew Construction of the Umversity of Colorado was underway by 1875, and the Umversity has been and conhnues to be a major feature of Boulder Chautauqua was established m 1898, and tounsm and recreahon became important aspects of Boulder, and remam so Themes which are relevant to the Greenways study area aze thus Aborigmal History, ca. 10,000 B C. to A.D. 1880 Mining and Extractive Industries, ca. 1858 to present Agriculture, ca 1859 to present Urban Residential Neighborhoods, ca 1858 to present Water Resources, ca 1859 to present Transportation, ca 1859 to present Educahon, ca. 1860 to present Recreat~on & Sports, ca 1859 to present III-1-2 ( t ~ . ~ The Boulder Creek Corridor +1i1 W ~ ,~ ~ , . il~ S.I'~ ~~~ MII~/ #~~~`~ #~~~;~ ~I,> .,., n~r +~"~~+ q~! YIyY ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ wr ~ ~ #~ ~ ~ The ma~onty of the cultural propemes along the Greenways are along Boulder Creek m Reach 6 and 7. Reach 7, extendmg from Eben Fme Pazk to ~ust east of Boulder High School has a particulazly mterestmg history The railroad played a ma~or role in development of Boulder Creek. Central Pazk was known as Razlroad Pazk dunng the 19th century, and was owned by railroads The raikoad up Boulder Canyon brought ore to town from the muies to the west A switch spur came off Canyon Blvd (then Water Sueet) in the azea of the current "Butterfly Garden" west of 6th St (see photo in Schoolland 1967.213), and railroad workers lived m a house there A number of mills and smelters were present along Boulder Creek from 9th St west, mcludmg the Boyd Smelter (built 1874), Delano Chlonnation Mill, later called the Atlas Mill; the Preston Mill west of 9th St. at the current Chazles A Haerthng Sculpture Pazk, the Mazshall Mill, and the Yount Flour Mill (pertammg to agriculture, not mmmg) Industnal use was not l~mrted to the 19th century In 1909 the Colorado V anadmm Company rented the old Preston Mill to extract vanadmm from roscoelrte In 1918 the Vanadmm Alloys Steel Co. of Pennsylvania rebuilt the Boyd Smelter Around World War I Warren Bleecker began using the Preston Mill for his Tungsten Products Co , but then bought the Lucky Two Mill at Peazl and Canyon and used rt to concentrate tungsten. After the collapse of the tungsten mdustry, Bleecker formed the Radmm Company of Colorado to process vanadmm and radium. In 1921 Bleecker formed a new company and bought a vacant tungsten refinery on the south bank of Boulder Creek at 3rd and Arapahoe The laboratory manufactured lummous pamt (using radium) and rime-bombs for use in oil wells to fracture oil beazmg rock The Bleecker "bomb factory" as it was locally known, burned down on June 26, 1925. Bleecker rebuilt tus lab, but m 1928 he became a politician (Meier 1994) A standazd gauge rail crossed Boulder Creek west of Broadway, near the current pedestrian bridge To the west, all razl crossmgs were narrow gauge. The Earnest Grill Lumber yazd was on the south side of the creek, west of 12th St , between the creek and Arapahoe. The McAlister Lumber yazd, abandoned m the 1920s, was north of the tracks near 6th st Sand Prts were present on both sides of the creek, from the mouth of Boulder Canyon to at least 9th St., to capture sediment from Boulder Creek. A Conoco gas bulk plant was at the end of 3rd St., west of the current Jusnce Center. The current Justice Center was a flat meadow where Gypsies camped with horses and wagons dunng the 1920s. Later, dunng the early 1930s, the Civilian Conservahon Corps camp SP-2-C was there. Hobos camped along the creek. A softball park was present to the east of 6th St The free auto camp where Eben Fine Pazk is now located opened m 1921 III-1-3 ~ The azea between the current mumcipal buildmg and hbrary was known as "Bugtown" or The Jungle". It was a shanTy town which housed Boulder's red light distnct, low mcome and unemployed residents dunng the first three decades of the 20th century In March 1927 the city announced rt would cleaz the area and "improve" it m Ime wrth the Olmsted Plan for Boulder Creek People were ordered to vacate the azea (see photo m Meier 1994 188) SIGNIFICANCE OF CULTURAL SITES The sigmficance of histonc and azchaeological sites is assessed through determmmg theu ehgibihty for mclusion under one or more classifications or des~gnations National Register of Histonc Places (NRHP) ehgibihty is ~udged accordmg the cntena set forth m 36CFR 60 4 below "Nahonal Register Crrtena" means the followmg cntena estabhshed by the Secretary of the Intenor for the use in evaluahng and determmmg the ehgibihty of properties for hstmg m the Nat~onal Register: The quahty of sigmficance m Amencan history, azchitecture, azchaeology, engmeenng and culture is present m districts, srtes, buildmgs, structures, and ob~ects that possess mtegnty of locarion, design, sethng, matenals, workmansh~p, feeling and association and. (A) That are associated wrth events that have made a s~gmficant contribution to the broad patterns of our lustory, or (B) That aze associated wrth the lrves of persons sigmficant m our past; or (C) That embody the dishnctrve chazactenshcs of a type, penod or method of construction, or that represent the wark of a master, or that possess tugh artishc values, or that represent a siguficant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack mdividual distinction, or (D) That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, mformahon important m prehistory of history The State Register of Histonc Properties (SRHP) uses essentially the same cntena as above, wrth the addition of a fifth cnterion, that bemg "geographical importance". All propemes ehgible to the NRHP aze ehgible to the SRHP. Cultural properties which aze not eligible to the NRHP or SRHP may be ehgible for local landmazkmg under city ofBoulder regulahons Boulder enacted an Histonc Preservahon Ordmance m 1974, for the purpose of "protechng, enhancing, and perpetuahng bmldmgs, srtes, and azeas ofthe city remimscent of past eras, events, and persons important m local, state and nahonal history or providmg significant examples of azchrtectural styles of the past " For management purposes, cultural sites that aze ehgible for any h~storic designation should usually receive additional attention pnor to modification, disturbance or demohtron. Mitigahon programs aze srte-specific and may include, among other thmgs, thorough documentation, excavation, or preservat~on III-1-4 Specific management strategies that have been recommended for Boulder Greenways srtes mclude Sigmficant cultural properties should be act~vely preserved and maintained, whether or not they have been hsted on the NRHP or Landmazked. Cultural properties which are owned by the ciTy, such as Eben Fme and Central Pazks, should have preservation of their histoncal mtegnty as a prionty The azchaeological sites such as the Boyd Smelter, and City Dump at Scott Carpenter Pazk should be protected from lootmg. Any new trazl construction or alteration, or any earth disturbtng achvity neaz these sites should be momtored by an azchaeologist to msure remams are not destroyed `"~ While drtches and railroads have their own legally protected nghts-of-way, the owners should be rw ~ encouraged to maintazn the propemes in their historical condrtion whenever possible. ,~ '; "a ~~ ~ The Boulder Valley School Distnct and the Umversity of Colorado should be encouraged to ~~ maintain the field buildings at the High School (several of wh~ch aze not currendy used) and the CCC stonework neaz the High School and on CU properry Some of the stone walls and terraces at '~ ~ CU are m need of repair ~"~ ~~ Interprehve signs and/or brochures discussmg specific cultural resources and general histoncal data ~ can be useful and mformative to the pubha Interpretive signs can be placed anywhere a cultural ''~ property is encountered along a Greenway ~ y'~ However, the most appropnate locahon for historical interpretation is along Boulder Creek, Reach ~~ 7- from Eben Fme Pazk to 9th Street or to Broadway. The considerable and fascmating history of ~ tlus azea has been suminanzed m the Discussion chapter, above While some of the history does not have extant cultural manifestahons, rt can shll be readily demonstrated with historical photos. Tlus ~~ would also provide some contmwty vv~th the mterpretive signs done by Boulder County for the ~ Pioneer Trail, which extends west up Boulder Canyon from Eben Fme Pazk ~ w. "' CULTURAL SITES LOCATED WITHIN THE GREENWAYS SYSTEM ~ 1~ Stream Reach• Foutmile Canyon Creek 3 ~ Site Number SBL6632 - Farmers D~tch ~ Background: Site SBL6632 is the Farmers Ditch Its headgate is on the north side of Boulder ~ Creek, near Pearl Street The ditch flows north through the Mapleton Hill azea, then northeast through the Boulder Valley Ranch before ending at SSth street and dispersing any remaming water '""~ to the Boulder Reservoir basm The bndges and tunnel of that ditch section through the city of ~ Boulder aze fairly weil documented m the Carnegie Branch Library for Local History m Boulder ~ i" The Farmers Drtch was built cuca 1862 at a cost of $5500 (Tourtellote & Thomas 1862b). Its +~ prioriry number is 14, with a date of fee appropnation of October 1, 1862 for 3000 acre feet of water ~ ~ III-1-5 ~ ,~ ,~. ~ (Dym 1989) Onginally, dunng the drtch's mcephon, Jonathan A. Tourtellote and Jerome Thomas were the Farmers Ditch Company duectors (Tourtellote & Thomas 1862a), the former also bemg the treasurer and the latter the secretary (Tourtellote & T'homas I 862b) Jonathan A Tourtellote, the prunary signer of the Farmers Ditch Company Documents to the Boulder County Boazd of Commissioners, was a Boulder merchant Amvmg to Boulder in 1860, he and his brother-in-law bought a log buildmg at 1 Ith and Peazl Streets, founding "Tourtellote & Squires," a general store, hotel and boazdmg house. Tourtellote and company operated this business until 1865, also buying real state Tourtellote and Squues soon resumed shop, dealmg m the lumber, mercanule and mimng businesses, m wh~ch Tourtellote stayed unhl lus death m 1871 His son carried the business on Histoncally the ditch was one of those owned by James P. Maxwell, and in 1873 lus Boulder Aqueduct Company was allowed by the city to run a wooden-pipe waterworks along primary streets (Smith 1986) It powered the Yount-McKenzie Flour Mill The drtch also fed Wolffs orchazd or "Rattlesnake Ranch" on the east side of Broadway and, dunng World War I, the Mapleton School children's victory gazden, before reaching the North Boulder Valley Notes: 4 aenal crossmgs of the creek by pipes carrymg water from SBL3813, The Silver Lake Drtch These are feeders from a lateral of the ditch, and while the Silver Lake Drtch is significant, feeder drtches are not considered sigmficant elemenu of the ditch These are between 19th and 26th streets A vanety o£ creek bank treatments aze present between 19th and 26th streets, including stacked cobbles, stones m cement, and concrete These bank treatments aze only in a few places, and none appear to be very old. Significance: Unaltered segments ofthe Fanners Ditch aze ehgible for nommahon to the NRHP for their associahon with the development of Water Storage and Irngation. Stream Reach Fourmile Canyon Creek 5 Site Number SBL3813 - Silver Lake Drtch Background. Site SBL3813 is the Silver Lake Ditch The headgate for the drtch is on the north side of Boulder Creek, shghtly west of the rock formation known as Lover's Leap. The drtch flows down the side of the canyon m a metal flume wkuch replaced an original wooden flume The ditch then routes north of Settlers Pazk and azound the mouth of Sunslune Canyon It flows north along the Dakota Ridge to Wonderland Lake, and northeast to Mesa Reservou The drtch was constructed by J P. Maacwell and George Ohver, and has an appropnat~on date of February 28,1888, wrth an appropriation of 20 c f.s from Boulder Creek. The drtch was constructed to irrigate 1000 acres, and to provide storage of water m Mesa Reservoir Mesa Reservoir has a decree date of 1893 The drtch also was used to supply water to Mesa Pazk Reservoir (Wonderland Lake), constructed somewhat later, azound 1905 Other features of tlus water transport and storage system are Silver Lake Reservoir and Island Lake Reservoir, built m the high country to supply water to the drtch These two reservoirs were sold to the city m 1906 The drtch was sold by Ma~cwell and Ohver in 1907, and has an ad~udication date of March 13, 1907. There have been other III-1-6 appropnahons and abandonments of water for the drtch between 1900 and 1988 Significance: Unaltered segments ofthe Silver Lake Drtch are eligible for nommahon to the NRHP for their association with the development of Water Storage and Imgahon Stream Reach Wonderland Creek 4/5 . Site Number. SBL6632- Farmers Ditch ~ Background: See Fourmile Canyon Creek Reach 3 ' SigniScance: See Fourmile Canyon Creek Reach 3 +) ,',) Stream Reach: Wonderland Creek 8 ,, ~ Site Number: SBL3814 - Wonderland Lake, 5 BL3815 - Degge Fish Rearing Complex Background: Wonderland Lake was originally known as Mesa Pazk Reservoir, and accordmg to ~'~ Everett Long was constructed by J P. Ma~cwell and C M Tyler azound 1905 The first ad~udicahon _~~ on file at the Water Records, State Engmeers Office, was April 10, 1905, with W.R Rathbon as the ~;) claimant. The lake was sold to Dudly A Degge in 1907, wtth an appropriatton date of February 7, #~~ 1907, and an adjudication date of November 3,1909 the decreed amount is 1219.42 acre feet. The , reservoir has been colloquially known as West Degge Lake or Little Degge Lake, and Mesa ~') Reservoir was known as East Degge Lake or Big Degge Lake Drumm's Pocket Map of Boulder ~~~ County for 1925 still has it as Mesa Park Reservou, and that is the name used m the State Water ~',~ Records Degge reportedly wanted the lake and vicmity for land development, to attract housmg to ~+~ the vicmity, but housmg development azound the lake did not occur until many yeazs later ~ Informants recall sneakmg into the lake to swim, a challenging adventure because Dudley Degge used to srt in his caz pazked near the lake and guazd the lake. Informants also recall the lake freezing ~'~ hazd enough in wmter to sail ice boats on The lake currently covers about 25 acres When the lake ~;~ was acqmred by Open Space, the dam was found to be unsafe and extensively rebuilt ~~ ~i~ The Degge Fish Rearing Complex. Several h~stonc features were found to the east of Wonderland Lake These consisted of two small dams and a fish hatchery, and concrete pads appazently from ~~ small structures All of these features were probably constructed by Dudley A Degge, the owner ~,;, of the lake The dams were probably related to ponds that Degge built for reazmg black bass. The ~ venture was at least partially commercial, as he fiuzushed bass to stock lakes in the Hygiene azea. ,,,~ The fish reanng operahon was constructed pnor to the 1920's, perhaps before World Waz 1(W W `"" Degge Jr , personal commumcation to D M Teegarden) ,., ~w. ;; Significance: Sites which aze not individually eligible to the NRHP may be eligible as elements of ~ districts They are also eligible to the SRHP or for City Landmazking This would include , ~ Wonderland Lake (SBL3814). ,. + Stream Reach: Goose Creek 3 ~ Site Number SBL5820 - Boulder and Left Hand Drtch, SBL6879 - North Boulder Fazmers Drtch ~ Background: SBL5820 is the Boulder and Left Hand Ditch It shares a headgate on Boulder ~ Creek m Central Pazk wrth the ad~acent North Boulder Farmers Ditch (SBL6879), and Boulder and ~ III 1 7 ~ ~ .~ Y.. r Wlute Rock Ditch (SBL859) The Boulder and Left Hand Ditch has a decree date of December 1, 1873 for 82 8 cfs, vv~th a prionry number of 36 for water from Boulder Creek. It was enlarged Apnl 1, 1876, wrth an appropriation of another 81 cfs and an ad~udication date of May 2, 1882 It has a physical capacity of 35 cfs It is a bermed, U-shaped drtch, four meters wide and two to three meters deep In places rt has been altered to flow though a modem concrete channel. SBL6879 is the North Boulder Farmers Ditc6. The drtch shares the headgate on Boulder Creek m Central Park with the Boulder Whrte Rock Drtch (SBL859) and the Boulder Left Hand Drtch (SBL5820) It is roughly pazallel and south of the ad~acent Boulder and Left Hand Drtch It is a bermed, U-shaped ditch, four meters wide and two to three meters deep In places rt has been altered to flow though a modern concrete channel The North Boulder Fazmers Ditch has a date of decree of 1862, wrth a pnority number of 11 for water from Boulder Creek, wrth an appropnarion of 10 78 cfs of water It was first enlazged in 1863 for 65 25 cfs, wrth both appropnarions ad~udicated on June 2, 1882 The physical capacity of the drtch is 48 cfs. Significance: Unaltered sections ofthe Boulder and Left Hand Drtch and the North Boulder Fanners Drtch aze eligible for nomination to the NRHP for their association wrth the development of Water Storage and Imgation Stream Reach: Goose Creek 4 Site Number SBL400 - Colorado & Southern Razlroad Background: SBL400 is the Colorado & Southern Railroad Razl services amved m southeastern Boulder County during the penod of eazly settlement. In 1872-1873, the Colorado Central Railroad lazd tracks to Longmont and then to a connechon with the Umon Pacific near Greeley Dunng the late 1880s, the Colorado Central merged mto the Union Pacific system Later, after UP recervership, the old Colorado Central became the core of the newly created Colorado & Southern Railroad. The Colorado & Southern then became a subsidiary of the Chicago, Burlmgton & Qumcy unhl the eazly 1970s when the Burhngton Northern was created Significance: The C&S Railroad is eligible for nominarion to the NRHP for its histonc association with the development of Transportation Stream Reach: Goose Creek 5 Site Number SBL859 - Boulder & Whrte Rock Drtch Background: SBL859 is the Boulder & White Rock Ditch The Boulder and Whrte Rock Ditch shazes a headgate on Boulder Creek m Central Pazk wrth the North Boulder Farmers Drtch (5BL6879) and the Boulder Lefr Hand Drtch (SBL5820) The Boulder & Wlute Rock Drtch Co was mcorporated January, 1871 by Alpheus Wnght, Granville Berkley and his two sons -Granville Jr. and Jucuus, Samuel Hayden and Thomas Graham The drtch was constructed in 1872 to provide imgahon to fanns north of Boulder It has an appropnation date of November 1, 1873 for 135 cfs, with an adjudication date of June 2, 1882 An appropnat~on of 26 cfs from Goose Creek on December 1, 1873 was adjudicated May 5, 1892 The State Engmeer lists the physical capacity of ~ f ~ , r . . ~ .~ . < III-1-8 the drtch at 100 cfs The ditch averages 20 feet m width and reaches 15 to 20 feet in depth Significance Unaltered portions of the Boulder & White Rock Ditch aze ehgible for nommation to the NRHP for their associat~on with the development of Water Storage and Imgation Stream Reach: Boulder Creek 2 Site Number: SBL400 - Colorado & Southem Railroad Background: See Goose Creek 4 Significance: The C&S Railroad is ehgible for nommahon to the NRHP for its associahon with the development of Transportahon ) Stream Reach: Boulder Creek 5 ~ Site Numbers: SBL8820 - Crty Dump, SBL8819 - Wellman Drtch ,~ Background: SBL8820 is the City Dump which is under Scott Carpenter Park The former city dump still exists under the sod at the park Shazds of glass and ceramics aze visible ~ along the path neaz the creek, and complete bottles were recovered dunng construcrion of the current 3 path The honzontal and venc~al extent of the dump deposrts aze unknown „~ In 1895 the city raised 25,000 to buy land at the eastern city hmrts and estabhsh a dump and sewage settlmg basm. A sewer mam brought waste matenal to the basm where rt sat until being expelled ~+ into Boulder Creek Addmonal sewer hnes were added over hme, and by 1920 much of the city was ,;;~ serviced by sewers A sewage disposal plant was constructed over the setthng basm m 1933, and A~~' the adjacent dump was closed (Smrth 1981 190-191) ~ .~,^ ""'' SBL8819 is the Wellman Ditch, aka Wellman Feeder Drtch, aka Empson Drtch The Wellman •+~ Drtch diverts water from Boulder Creek at 28th Street, and dehvers it to South Boulder Creek. The ~ water then flows north in South Boulder Creek, and is diverted at Arapahoe Avenue mto a canal that - feeds the Leggett Reservoir, part of the Valmont Power Plant complex The Wellman Ditch has a ,~„ date of Fee Appropnauon of May 1, 1878, for 1200 acre/ft It has pnonty number 39 from Boulder `'"'' Creek ~, ~ ~ Significance: The Crty Dutnp (SBL8820) is eligible for nomination to the NRHP as an ~ azchaeological srte, as it is hkely to yield mformation important to history. Unaltered portions of the ~ Wellman Feeder Drtch aze ehgible for nomination to the NRHP for their association with the development of Water Storage and Irrigarion ~ ,9I~ Stream Reach: Boulder Creek 6 ~ Site Numbers: SBL3742- residence at 1213 17"' Street, SBL3762- Sutherland Residence at 1601 ~ H~llside; SBL3763-Shattuck Residence at 1605 Hillside; SBL4675-Boulder High School, SBL5929- Watts Residence at 120 17`" Street, SBL5930-residence at 1230 17`~ Street, SBL6167- % Pazce/Ronshoot/Pollazd Residence; 5 BL6169-Pollazd/Tisone Residence at 1709 Hillside ~ Background: SBL3742 is a residence at 1213 17th Street. It is a one-story house of cut stone ~ masonry, m the modern style, built m 1938 SBL3762 is the Sutherland Residence at 1601 ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ .~. III-1-9 r~ Hillside It is a two-story house wrth sh~ngled walls atop a stone foundahon, a vernaculaz bungalow ~ built m 1910 In 1926 Blanche Sutherland, an instructor at C U bought the house and hved there C unhl the 1940s SBL3763 is the Shattuck Residence at 1605 Hillside It is a two-story house m the Tudor Revival style, built m 1905 by Herbert Shattuck, developer of the Hillside Pazk ~ subdrvision E SBL4675 is Boulder High School The Art Modeme style building is asymmetncal, composed of narrow layers of narive sandstone The main entrance bay is 3 stones and mcludes fixed pane ~I wmdows grouped m four, and glazed doors wrth transoms; eastern wing pro~ects shghtly forwazd f and has 2-story section with curved wall topped by wmdows m concrete band; behmd this is a 4- o story tower with clock and glass block Westem wmg has bands of multi-hght wmdows with metal ,, sash on second and third stortes; 3-light windows on first story, and a one-story northern pro~ecUon ~ Reaz of buildmg has a 3-story pro~ecUon with mtersecUng wing Construchon began m 1935, and ` the school was dedicated in November 1937 Arctutects were Frank W Frewen, Earl C Morns, and ~ Glen H Huntmgton. The PWA (Publtc Works Admmistration) provided 45%ofthe cost, which was ! m excess of $500,000. The YMCA provided a gift of $10,000. The buildmg replaced the State ~ Prepazatory School A field house was built m 1948, and in 1956 an addition extended the shop and ~ cafetena, added a tlurd floor to the east wmg and a g~rl's gymnas~um ~ SBL5929 is the Watts Residence at 122017th Street. It is a 1'h story house m the English/Norman Cottage style, built in 1925. Kate and Fred Watts resided there The Watts came to Boulder in 1920, and founded the Watts Da~ry, which became the Watts-Hardy Dairy, bought by Sinton foods m 1983 The Watts died in 1985 SBL5930 is a residence at 1230 17th Street It is a 1'h story vemaculaz house wrth bungalow style details, such as shmgled walls, overhanging eaves and exposed rafters, and multi-light wmdows. It was bmlt m 1906 SBL6167 is the Parce/Ronshoot/Pollard Residence at 1707 Hillside It is a 1'/z story house wrth rock rubble walls, in the Craftsman sryle, built in 1905 W W Parce was a landscape azchrtect who designed the ground of Chautauqua, C U, and the courthouse square He was an associate of Fredenck Law Olmsted SBL6169 is the Pollard/Tisone Residence at 1709 Hillside. It is a 2-story house in the English/Norman Cottage style, built m 1938 Edith N Pollazd hved there. She was a member of the Boazd of D'uectors of the Boulder Pubhc Library, and President of the Boulder Historical Society. A.F Tisone lived there subsequent to Pollazd. He was pres~dent of Watts-Hazdy Da~ry for 32 years Significance Boulder High School, the Watts Residence, the Pazce/Ronshoot/Pollazd Residence and the Pollard/Trine Residence have been evaluated as ehgible for nominahon to the NRHP. The remainmg srtes have not been evaluated m terms of sigmficance The three residences may also be ehgible for nominahon to the NRHP as components of a potenhal Hillside Road Histonc Distnct Stream Reach: Boulder Creek - 7 Site Numbers: SBL358 - Switzerland Trail; SBL364 - Highland School; SBL606 - Train at Central Pazk; SBLI 129 - Yocum Builduig,1724 Broadway; SBL5680-Bandshell at Central Pazk; SBL582Q - Headgate, Boulder & Lefthand Drtch, SBL5990, 5991, 5992, 5993, 5994 - Athletic field facihties at Boulder High, including the ticket booth, restroom, concession stand and grandstand/pressbox, respechvely; SBL6017 - Eben Fme Pazk, which surrounds SBL6015 and SBL6016, the shelter and III-1-10 restroom at Eben Fme Park, respectively, SBL6062- the bndge at Broadway, SBL6063 - Central Park, SBL7094 - Boyd Smelter; SBL8821 - CCC Stonework, SBL8822- Sand Prts Background: SBL358 is the Switzerland Trail, the railroad which was known vanously as the Greeley, Salt Lake & Pacific RR, the Colorado & Northwestem RR, and the Denver, Boulder & Western RR The railroad bed shll exists, and pazallels Boulder Creek from the mouth of the canyon, west That ,,~ port~on of ttte road bed is currently used as the Boulder Creek Pioneer Trail Several ashlaz bndge abutments from the railroad shll exist in the creek. East of Eben Fme Pazk, a few ashlaz stones ~~ ~ forming the foundation to a bridge abutment aze on the south side of the creek. ~~ The first railways reached the city of Boulder in 1873 The first railway from Boulder mto the mountains was constructed by the Union Pacific, and was called the Greeley, Salt Lake & Pacific "'? Railroad. It ran through Four Mile Canyon to reach the townsite of Sunset m 1883 This first ~~~~ mountun advance was lrterally washed out m 1894 by flooding In 1895, Boulder Inter-mountain ~'; Ra~lway was mcorporated to build a new hne, but notlung came of this unhl a one-time engmeer, ~ L M. Leach, took over and had a new Four Mile Canyon route surveyed (Crossen 1992) a.~ ~ Leach's success came in sellmg the idea to investors in New York and Pennsylvania With new ~~ mvestors, the Colorado & Northwestern Railway Company was formed, and by 1898 a new, narrow- ~~ gauge railway was constructed to Wazd, via Four Mile Canyon and Sunset ~r~ ~~ T'he railway was built on the premise that the mines could provide enough ore for shipment to make the line profitable The railroad company also mtended to take advantage of tourist and passenger ~r trade opportunities provided by their scemc mountain route hence the evocative moniker of +,j~ "Switzerland Trail." ~ However, the quantity of ore stupped did not lrve up to hopes, nor was the tounst trade brisk enough to offset the costs of maantazmng a mountam road through snowy winters. In 1909 the railroad was ~/ sold and became the Denver, Boulder, & Western The only yeazs the railroad showed a profit were ~; 1909 and 1910, hauhng freight for the construction of Barker Reservoir at Nederland; and finally in ~ 1916 wrth the tungsten boom (Holder 1981) ~ The Denver, Boulder & Western Railroad ceased operation, and the ties and rails were removed m +~ 1919 and 1920 ~ ~ SBL364 ts the Highland School, at 885 Arapahoe Ave The 2'/z story brick and sandstone school ~ was built m 1891-92 It was designed by Denver azchitects E P Varian and Fredenck Stemer m ttte Richardsonian Romanesque Revival style It is built of red bnck wrth sandstone smng coursing, ~ lintels, sills & azches above the 2nd floor wmdows, a projechng entrance wrth an ogee azch, gabled '^,, dormers with arched wmdows and turrets The bndge off 9th Street over Gregory Creek (aka .. Mariposa Creek) to the southeast pazkmg lot is m the study azea The bndge is bnck and sandstone ~ ashlaz, with a well-done wet-laid coursed cobble foundahon. The foundation has a concrete culvert ~ ~ III-1-11 ~ ~ ~ ~ to allow Gregory Creek to flow to its confluence wrth Boulder Creek An iron gnll gate is present Tlus was Boulder's fourth permanent school From 1893-95 rt was the location of the Unrversity's Preparatory Dept It was last used as an elementary school m 1970, and now is an office buildmg SBL606 is the Colorado & Northwestern RR Train m Central Park The train is compnsed of four iuuts - Locomohve #30, the tender (C&NW RR #30), a passenger caz (D&RGW#280), and a caboose (D&RG W#04990) Locomotive #30 operated on the Switzerland Trail between Boulder, Eldora, and Wazd from 1898 to 1919, and on the Denver, South Pazk & Pacific RR and the Rio Grande Southern RR until 1952. In 1953 the trazn was placed m Central Park, formerly known as "Railroad Park" until 1933 SBL1129 is Yocom Studio, at 1724 Broadway This buildmg in 19th Century Commercial style, was built m 1907 as a photo studio by LLoyd E Nelson, photographer. In 1932 Daniel Lee Yocom opened his photo studio m the buildmg Yocom lived and worked m the buildmg for 40 years, rehnng m 1972 The building is currently used as a restaurant (La Estrellita) SBL5680 is the Bandshell in Central Park The Bandshell was designed by azchitect Glenn Huntmgton, and erected by the Lions Club m 1938 at a cost of $3,825 The Bandshell is an elhptical amphitheater of wood. It has been extensively restored recently The Bandshell is a city of Boulder Landmazk. SBL5820 is the Boulder and Left Hand Ditch. It shazes a headgate on Boulder Creek m Cenh~al Pazk with the ad~acent North Boulder Farmers Ditch (SBL6879), and Boulder and White Rock Ditch (SBL859). The Boulder and Left Hand Drtch has a decree date of December 1, 1873 for 82.8 cfs, wrth a pnonty nutnber of 36 for water from Boulder Creek It was enlazged Apnl 1, 1876, wrth an appropnation of another 81 cfs and an ad~udicahon date of May 2, 1882 It has a physical capacrty of 35 cfs It is a bermed, U-shaped ditch, four meters wide and two to three meters deep In places rt has been altered to flow though a modern concrete channel SBL5990 is the Boulder High Field Ticket Booth The booth is a one-story building with walls of narrow layers of sandstone of varying ttuckness, a lupped roof, a concrete foundation and water table, and a concrete apron m front of the hcket windows The wmdows, with wooden sills, aze boazded up The booth was built m 1948 with a contnbution of $1100 from W. H. McKenna, a rehred tungsten mmer who contributed to several schools and umversitres T'he stonework is m the style of CU buildings SBL5991 is the Boulder High Field Restroom The restroom ~s a one-story building with walls of narrow layers of sandstone of varying thickness, a lupped roof with shghtly overhanging eaves, a concrete foundatton, slab doors, and covered wmdows wrth concrete sills The restroom was built m 1948 as part of the expansion of the high school athlehc field and facilities The stonework is in the style of CU buildmgs III-1-12 SBL5992 is the Boulder High Field Concession Stand The concession stand ts a one-story buildmg with walls of narrow layers of sandstone of varymg thickness, a hipped roof wrth overhanging eaves and exposed rafters, a concrete foundation, slab door, and plate glass wmdow. The concession stand was built m 1948 as part of the expansion of the high school athleric field and facilrties The stonework is in the style of CU buildmgs ~,D .~a ~~ ~~ ~~~ , ~~, + ~r '1aY ~ MW` ..q M„ ~~. ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '"~ ~ .. w ~ ~ "~ ~9 ~ ~ ~ SBL5993 is the Boulder High Field Grandstand/Press Box. The grandstands are composed of concrete hered bases currently topped by metal seats (ongmally cement and wooden seats) Capacity is 5000 spectators The press box is behind and elevated above the grandstand, and is composed of walls of layered sandstone wrth a hipped roof The buildmg has shed roofed frame porch with exposed rafters The west end has a tower with a second story open towazds the field (north) The center section of the grandstand was built m 1948, donated by the Boulder Elk's club, and was ongmally flanked by temporary stands A combmation press box and ticket booth was erected at the back of the stands SBL5994 is the Boulder High Fieldhouse. The fieldhouse is a side-gabled 1 Yz story building The lower story has shed roofed addrtions on the east and west of layered sandstone of varying tluckness The end walls of the lower story aze brick, the foundation ~s concrete. The upper story is frame construction with asbestos siding A bnck chimney is at the rear. The fieldhouse was part of the expansion and improvement of athle6c facilmes at Boulder High which took place m 1948 An older bmldmg was remodeled and expanded. SBL6015 is the Shelter House at Eben Fine Park The shelter house is a one-story picnic shelter built of rock rubble walls, with a Craftsman style hipped roof with overhangmg eaves and exposed rafters The bmldmg has a concrete floor, center entrance, and rectangular window openings between stone piers supportmg the roof The shelter was built m 1921, and provided cooking facilrties at the auto camp wluch is now Eben Fine Pazk (see SBL6017) SBL6016 is the Restroom at Eben Fine Park. The restroom is one-story, with rock rubble walls and a hipped roof wrth overhangmg eaves and exposed rafters, small vented gables and metal roofing It has off-center slab doors and a paneled center door, double-hung, 2/2light windows wrth concrete sills and lintels The restroom was built m 1921 for the auto camp which is now Eben Fme Pazk (see SBL6017) SBL6017 is Eben Fine Park. The pazk is ca 3.5 acres, located along the south bank of Boulder Creek, between the creek and Arapahoe Ave., from 3rd St west to the city limrts The pazk was ongmally a free pubhc auto camp, opening in June, 1921. It was developed and given to the city by the Auto Trades Associahon, the Commercial Association, the Lions Club, and the Rotary Club The auto camp with ~ts stone shelter (SBL615) wrth cooking facihhes, and restroom (SBL616) was built to attract tounsts to Boulder. In 1923 6,662 visitors from 42 states used the camp As motels were developed the camp was converted to provide facilrties for travel trailers. In 1960 the srte was dedicated as a pubhc pazk, named after Eben G Fme, a pharmacist and booster of the city who was active m the Boulder Parks system III-1-13 SBL6062 is the Broadway Bridge, spannmg Boulder Creek at Broadway The bndge, a two-span steel girder remforced concrete deck uch highway bndge, was built azound 1921. Concrete abutments aze at the north and south ends wrth a concrete pier m the middle. Both sides have concrete railing, divided mto 5 segments per span by short concrete piers wrth clathn m between It is 102 fr long in two 49 foot spans, and 78 ft wide SBL6063 is Central Park The pazk, approximately 4 acres, was onginally owned by rulroads and known as "Railroad Pazk" The city began buymg rt m 1906, with further parcels bought in 1915 The final tracts were acquired m 1933, after wh~ch it was called Central Pazk. In 1938 the Lions Club donated and erected the Bandshell (SBL5680), designed by architect Glenn Huntington In 1953 the tram (SBL606) from the Switzerland Trail (Colorado & Northwestern RR) was placed in Central Park SBL7094 ~s the remnants of the Boyd Smelter Foundat~on walls and scattered artifacts aze present A head gate and diversion wall built to provtde water to the smelter aze also present Stone abutments which supported an aenal crossmg of the creek by a water Ime aze present on both sides of the creek T'he smelter was built by J.H Boyd ui 1874 to process ores from the hazdrock mmes west of Boulder The smelter was a success, though Boyd sold it in 1882 due to poor health In 1885 Messers Lord & Co purchased the smelter and built a reverberatmg fumace 40 feet long, six feet wide and eight feet high 5BL8821 ~s Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) Stonework along Boulder Creek, most or all done by the CCC m the 1930s There are three azeas which contain stonewark 1) Below Folsom Field: South of the creek is a terraced hillside below the stadium. The eight tenaces aze created by rubble walls, mostly dry-laid, but with some cement mortar in places The wa11s are up to 5 ft high The lowest wall, at the floodplam, curves around the base of the tull for ca 330 ft. H~gher walls are progressively shorter Accoxdmg to Bill Deno, Universrty Architect, the stadmm at that rime was a simple bowl, and there was an oval track for the 100 yd dash, wrth one end of the oval extendmg out to the hill, so that the terraces were needed to support the track at the top of the hill The stone abutments and piers for the pedestnan bndge here aze CCC work, and the concrete auto bndge is also reportedly CCC work. 2) By 19th St , where the steam pipe makes an aenal crossmg of the creek from the campus to Family Housing: The abutments for the pedestrian bndge are CCC stonework, as aze the stone walls along the creek banks and terraces going up the hill to the campus The walls along the creek aze dry-laid rubble, capped with cement. The walls extend east from the pedestrian bndge, with the wall on the north side running along the creek bank and then curvmg away from the current bank. It is about 365 ft long, and 2-4 ft tugh. The wall along the south side of the creek stays along the creek bank, is about 300 ft long, and up to 5 ft high There aze also dry-la~d walls fornung 4 tenaces gomg up the hill to the campus, appazently providing stabilizahon for the path that goes up the hill III-1-14 ,~ ~r t u1 ~~' ~~ n~ u ,~ t;;~ ''~~ ,. ~ ,w, ~ ~'~ p~ .,~,~ IC;"~" i~~ ~~3 ~~"J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ +. <~r ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ J Also present m tkus area is the rum of a wazmmg hut or shelter, which may not be CCC work Rubble walls m concrete mortar are present just east of the path to the campus, built up against the hillside The wall built agamst the lull is ca 75 ft long, and 9-12 ft high It contains a fireplace and chimney in the center of the wall. S~de walls extend north from the back wall for 15 ft The warmmg hut may not have been totally enclosed, but a shelter wrth a shed roof and partial side walls The hut served the C U. ice nnk, which was ad~acent m the 1930s, and possibly in the 1920s. After World War II the ice nnk was replaced wrth tenms courts The tenms courts were demohshed m the 1970s, and the azea restored into wetlands (Bill Deno, personal communication) 3)By Boulder High School: From the pedestnan bndge wluch is ~ust east of the Arapahoe Avenue bndge, a stone wall extends east along the south bank of the creek for about 825 feet, with a few gaps The wall is dry-laid rubble about 3 ft kugh, wrth a concrete cap in places, and sandstone slab cap m places There aze some concrete slabs used as stones m the wall, and m some places tabular sandstone is used as opposed to cobbles SBL8822 are the Sand Pits along Boulder Creek Sand pits had been excavated along Boulder Creek, from the area of the current Eben Fme Pazk, east to 9th St. The pits were on both sides of the creek, and the creek was diverted to flow through the sand prts m the spnng when it had a heavy sediment load The sediment would be deposrted m the prts, and the sand was later quamed and used The date of the sand pits is m~known, but they were shll m use m the 1920s and 1930s The current Kids Fishmg Ponds are former sand prts, and the drvers~on headgate next to the western pond was built to divert water into the pits Other vestiges of rubble/cobble walls aze present on both sides of the creek neaz 9th St., which aze from the prts. A sand pit was present under the 9th St bndge, and a dam was formerly present there A 25 foot long concrete and rubble wali is still standmg on the south side of the creek, west of 9th St , which formerly supported a headgate for divertmg water mto a prt along the south bank. Significance: The Highland School (SBL364), the Bandshell at Central Pazk (SBL5680), and the Boyd Smelter (SBL7094) are City Landmazks. The Switzerland Trail (SBL358) is listed on the NRHP The Colorado and Northwestem Train at Central Park (SBL606) is ehgible for nomination to the NRHP for its association with the histonc theme of Transportation Unaltered portions of the Boulder & Left Hand Drtch (SBL5820) aze eligible for nominahon to the NRHP for their associahon w~th the development of Water Storage and Imgarion Boulder High School (SBL46'75) is eligible to the NRHP as a type of construction and for rts associahon wrth significant persons and events (Educahon) The Civihan Conservahon Corps stonework (SBL8821) is eligible as a type of construcrion and for its association ~nth Education and wrth the CCC and the Great Depression Sites wluch aze not mdividually ehgible to the NRHP may be ehgible as elements of distncts They aze also eligible to the SRHP or for C~ty Landmazkmg This would include Eben Fine Pazk and the shelter and restroom (SBL6015-6017), and Central Pazk (SBL6063); the field buildmgs at Boulder High (SBL5990-59994), the Broadway Bndge (SBL6062), and Yocom Studio (SBL1129) Stream Reach: Skunk Creek - 2 III-1-15 Site Number SBL8819 - Wellman Ditch Background: See Boulder Creek Reach 5 Significance: See Boulder Creek Reach 5 Stream Reach: Skunk Creek - 5 Site Numbers: SBL3935 - Anderson Drtch, 5BL5954 - Green Mountam Cemetary, SBL8823 - Concrete dam, diversion and pipe Background: Site SBL3935 is the Anderson Ditch The headgate for the drtch is on the south side of the creek, at the mouth of Boulder Canyon The drtch extends south and southeast through Columbia Cemetery and the Umversiry Hill azea, and flows through Green Mountain Cemetery to Table Mesa Dnve It then continues east along Table Mesa Drive to South Boulder Road which rt follows to South Boulder Creek and Basehne Reservoir The drtch is still active The Anderson Ditch was built by the Anderson Drtch Company and dates to October 1, 1860 w~th an appropnation of 80 acres from Boulder Creek (Dym 1989, Smrth 1986) This ditch was the fourth drtch built off of Boulder Creek (Dym 1989) The Anderson Drtch Co was incorporated m 1871 by Jonas Anderson, Mannus G. Smith, and George A. Andrews In 1874, Anderson donated ten shares in the ditch to the planned University of Colorado That water has imgated the Universiry smce. The ditch was extended m 1875 In 1891 the company was reorgacuzed as the "New Anderson Drtch Co" SBL5954 is the Green Mountain Cemetery. The cemetery was estabhshed in 1904 by the Boulder Cemetery Association, to replace the older Pioneer (Columbia) Cemetery The leader of the Boulder Cemetery Association was David E Dobbms, a real estate developer Approximately 36 acres were acquired from the "reaz portion of the 170 acre Old Poor Farm". When the Green Mt. Cemetery opened, 91 bodies were moved from Columbia Cemetery and remterred The Green Mt Cemetery followed the trends of the time, with a rural, pazk-hke settmg w~th curvmg roads providmg access to graves SBL8823 is an abandoned irrigation feature at NIST The feature is along Skunk Creek,~ust south of the Green Mt Cemetery A diversion is present, consisting of a concrete dam spanning the creek, ca 21 5 ft long, 10 mches wide, with a 3'6" gate m the m~ddle to allow the creek through A small 16" wide gate on the south side of the creek allows water mto an 8" pipe The pipe extends east along the south bank of the creek for about 50 ft The ptpe is on the surface, set m concrete blocks periodically along its length It appazently allowed water to irngate the fields south of the cemetery, east of the creek Significance: Unaltered segments of the Anderson Drtch (SBL3935) aze ehgible for nommahon to the NRHP for their association with the development of Water Storage and Irrigation The Green Mountain Cemetary (SBL5954) is eligible for nomination to the NRI~P for its associahon wrth Community Development and as a type of construction. The abandoned imgatron feature recorded as SBL8823 is probably not eligible for nommation to the NRHP or SRHP or as a City Landmazk III-1-16 Stream Reach: Beaz Creek - 1/ 2 ,:1 ; ;% ~~ ri~ ,~~ ~~ S~ n ;~ ~~ t~ 4 ~~ ~~ , ~~ ~ M~ v `~~/ ¢~M s,r "A ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Site Number: SBL8819 - Wellman Drtch Background: See Boulder Creek Reach 5 Significance: See Boulder Creek Reach 5 Stream Reach: South Boulder Creek - 2 Site Numbers: SBI,400-Colorado and Southern Razlroad; SBL799- Valmont Steam Generatmg Plant, Leggett Inlet, Leggett Outlet; SBL469-Union Pacific Railroad Spur Background: Colorado & Southern Railroad - see Goose Creek Reach 4 SBL469 is the Union Pacific Railroad. In 1870 a group mcludmg John Evans, Walter Cheeseman, Wilham Turner, and William Byers orgamzed the Denver & Boulder Valley Railroad Company wrth caprtal of $825,000. Track was laid from Bnghton to the Ene coal fields By 1873 the rails had reached the east side of Bouider In 1873 the D&BV RR was leased to the Denver Pacific RR, wluch was owned by many of the same people The DP RR went mto receivership m Apnl 1878, was purchased by Jay Gould, and then sold to the Umon Pacific The Umon Pacific extended the tracks to the west side of Boulder m 1881 to access mountam railways being constructed to serve the mimng communihes. SBL799 is the Valmont Steam Electric Generating Plant, which mcludes Leggett Reservoir, the Leggett Inlet & Outlet The V almont power plant was built m I 923 Pnor to 1900 there were two lakes at the srte - PancosYs Lake and Cove's Lake. Pancost Lake or reservoir was built about 1863 About 1911 the "Pancost Reservoir EnlazgemenY' became Leggett Reservoir, as the enlazgement decree was held by the Leggett Ditch Co Hillcrest Reservoir, an ad~ acent lake, was developed about 1917 Both the Hillcrest and Leggett reservoirs were mundated by the Valmont Reservoir, essentrally formmg one lake. By 1920 Pubhc Service Co owned 7/9 of Hillcrest Reservoir, and had an agreement with the Leggett ditch Co to store water m the lake Water is delivered from Boulder Creek to South Boulder Creek via the Wellman drtch (SBL8819), and then taken from South Boulder Creek via the Leggett Inlet Drtch, aka Hillcrest Feeder Drtch, to the lake. Water is retumed to South Boulder Creek via the Leggett Outlet Drtch, where it flows mto Boulder Creek and is diverted into the Leggett Drtch (SBL860) for imgahon purposes The reservoir system was enlazged to rts current configuration m 1962. Significance: The Colorado & Southern Railroad and the Union Pacific Railroad aze eligible for nominahon to the NRHP for their associahon with transportation The Valmont Power Plant and associated features are eligible for nominahon to the NRHP for their associat~on with energy development Stream Reach: South Boulder Creek 3 Site Number: SBL8819 - Wellman Ditch Background: See Boulder Creek Reach 5 Significance: See Boulder Creek Reach 5 III-1-17 TABLE 1 CULTURAL RESOURCES SUMMARY STREAM REACH SITE NO./NAME NRHP Ehgible Ehgible Ehgible Ehg~ble SIGNIFIC SRHP Eligible Ehgible ELgible Eligible Fourmile Canyon Creek 3 Fourmile Canyon Creek 5 Wonderland Creek 4/5 Wonderland Creek 8 Goose Creek 3 Goose Creek 4 Goose Creek 5 Boulder Creek 2 SBL6632-Farmers Ditch SBL3813-Silver Lake Ditch SBL6632-Farmers Ditch SBL3814-Wonderland Lake SBL3815-Degge Ftsh Rearmg Complex SBL5820-Boulder & Left Hand Drtch SBL6879-North Boulder Farmers Drtch SBL400-Colorado & Southern Railroad SBL859-Boulder & White Rock Ditch SBL400-Colorado & Southern Railroad El~gible ELgible Eligible Eligible Ehgible Eligible Eligible Ehgble III-1-18 ~ Ehgible Eligible ANCE LANDMARK Eligible COMMENTS Unaltered portions Unaltered portions Unaltered portions May be ehgible as a component of an historic district, but not mdividually ehgible. I Unaltered portions Unaltered portions Unaltered portions ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 43 ~ f~ f1 (~ ~~ (~ [~ f1l (1 (1 (i (1 A f' (1 i~ r~ .~ ,~ %.i ~ r+a .. .~ ~ ... ~ -~ -• .-. --• ~ - - •~ V V W• e~~l ~ V i~ V V~ ti3 \3 'i3 3~ tad' i% V V a~ v v V v.~ v~'~ v ~ _- __ _ __ STREAM REACH Boulder Creek 5 Boulder Creek 6 SITE NO./NAME SBL8820-Crty Dump SBL8819-Wellman Ditch SBL3742- 1213 17`" Street SBL3762-Sutherland Residence 1601 Hillside SBL3763-Shattuck Residence 1605 Hillside SBL4675- Boulder High SBL5929-Watts Residence 120~ 17'" Street SBL5930- 1230 17`h Street SBL6167- Parce/Ronshoot/ Pollard Residence- 1707 Hillside SBL6169- Pollard/Tisone Residence - 1709 Hillside SIGNIFICANCE NRHP ISRHP LANDMARK El~g~ble Eligible Eligible Ehgible ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Eligibie Eligtble El~gible Eligible ~ ~ ~ El~gible Ehgible Eligible Ehgible III-1-19 COMMENTS Site should be protected from loohng and disturbance should be monitored by an archaeologist Unaltered pomons Possibly eligible as component of an histonc neighborhood district Possibly eligible as component of an histonc ne~ghborhood district Possibly ehgible as component of an histonc neighborhood distnct Eligible mdrvidually or as component of an histonc neighborhood district Poss~bly eligible as component of an histonc neighborhood distxict Ehgible mdrndually or as component of an historic neighborhood district Ehgible mdividually or as component of an historic neighborhood district STREAM REACH Boulder Creek 7 SITE NO./NAME SBL358 - Sw~tzerland Trail SBL364 - Highland School SBL606- Tram at Central Park SBL1729-Yocum Building SBL5680-Bandshell at Central Park SBL5820- Boulder & Left Hand Ditch SBL5990, 5991, 5992, 5993, 5994-Field buildings at Boulder High SBL6015, 6016, 6017 - Eben Fine Park and Buildings SBL6062 - Boulder Creek Bridge at Broadway SBL6063-Central Park SBL7094-Boyd Smelter SBL8821-CCC Stonework NRHP Listed SIGNIFICANCE SRHP LANDMARK Listed Listed Eligible Eligible Ehgible Ehg~ble L~sted Eligible Eligible Ehgible Ehgible Ehg~ble Ehg~ble Eligible Eligible Ehgble Ehgible Listed Eligible Ehgible III-1-20 COMMENTS Poss~bly ehgible as component of an histonc neighborhood distnct Unaltered portions Possibly eligible as component of an histonc d~stnct Possibly eligible as component of an historic district Poss~bly eligible as component of an historic district Possibly eLgible as component of an historic district ~~1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(11~(~!l#~~~~~!)ear~s~e~~3.wF~r~....e.~~~,~_~_~e_~ ~-, z - - ~ r!m-~a~y $} a a a~ ~~§ r~ ~m ~ t 4 t as~f s°, ~=~ cx s a cn ra t z x L~ ~ V V ~ F / ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~.f' Tt~ ~J ~ ~ ~ ~ V \ • \ i V Rl \/ \f 1 ) ~~ Y V as V c~ ' - _ I STREAM REACH SITE NO./NAME SIGNIFIC ANCE I NRHP SRHP LANDMARK SBL8822- Sand Prts Skunk Creek 2 SBL8819-Wellman Ditch Eligible Eligtble Skunk Creek 5 SBL3935-Anderson Ditch Eligible Eligible SBL5954- Green Mountam Ehgible El~gible Cemetery SBL8823- Concrete dam, diversion, p~pe Beaz Creek'/z SBL8819-Wellman Ditch Eligible Eligible South Boulder Creek 2 SBL400-Colorado & Southern Ehgible Eligible I Railroad SBL799 - Valmont Plant and Eligible El~gible Associated Features SBL469- Union Pacific Ehgible Ehgible Railroad South Boulder Creek 3 SBL8819- Wellman Ditch Ehgtble Eligible COMMENTS Unaltered port~ons Unaltered portions Unaltered portions Unaltered portions III-1-21 ~ REFERENCES CITED t Berthrong, Donald J (, 1963 The Southern Cheyenne Unrversity of Oklahoma Press, Norman ~ Buckles, Wilham G !' 1968 Archaeology m Colorado: Histonc Tnbes Southwestern Lore 34(3)~53-67. ~ Crossen, Forest 1992 The Sw:tzerland Trarl ofAmer:ca Robinson Press, lnc , Fort Collins, Colorado Dym, Anne 1989 Paoneer Vorces of the Boulder Yalley - An Ora[ History Boulder County Pazks and Open Space Department 1991 Back To the Basecs - The Front:er Schools of Boulder Counry, Colorado, 1860-1960 The Book Lode, Boulder Fetter, Richazd 1983 Frontter Boulder Johnson Books, Boulder Fnedman, Paul D 1989 Boulder H~storrc Context Pro~ect Dames & Moore Report prepared for the city of Boulder Department of Plannmg and Commumty Development, and the Landmazks Preservation Boazd, and on file at the Colorado Histoncal Society, Denver, Colorado Gilmore, Kevm P, Mazcia Tate, Mazk L. Chenault, Bonme Clark, Terri McBride, and Mazgazet Wood 1999 Colorado Prehastory AContext for the Platte Rrver Bas:n. Colorado Counctl of Professional Archaeologists Hafen, LeRoy R. 1941 P:kes's Peak Gold Rush Gu:debooks of 1859 The Southwest Histoncal Senes Vol. 9 Arthur H. Clazk Company, Glendale. Mehls, Steven F 1984a Colorado Mountarns Htstor:c Context State Historical Society of Colorado. 1984b The New Emp~re ojthe Rocktes A History of Northeast Colorado Bureau of Land Management, Colorado, Cultural Resource Senes No 16. III-1-22 Meier, Thomas J 1993 "ItAtn't Necessarily So"- The Early Settlement ofBoulder Boulder Creek Press, Boulder. 1994 Ed Tangen, The Pictureman Boulder Creek Press, Boulder 1994 T~me Bombs and Rad:ation - West Arapahoe and West Pearl Boulder Museum of History ~~~ ~ Schoolland, John B ~' 1967 Boulder Then and Now Revised Edmon Johnson, Boulder ~~~) 1980 Boulder In Perspectrve - From Search For Gold to the Gold of Research Johnson 'j Publiskung, Boulder ~~~ Simmons, R Laurie and Thomas H Simmons ~~ 1995 Boulder Survey of Histor:c Places, 1995 - Scattered Resources Report on file, City of ;'~ Boulder Plamm~g Department and Carnegie Branch, Boulder Public Library ,.~ A ~~ F~ Smrth, Phylhs ~~ 1981 A Look at Boulder From Settlement to Ciry Pruett, Boulder ~~~ °~3 Tourtellote, Jonathan A and Jerome Thomas ~3 1862a Request to the Boulder County Boazd of Commissioners Concernmg the Farmers Ditch. ,~ In the Collect~on of the Carnegie Library, Boulder Colorado ~ 1862b Statement to the Boulder County Boazd of Commissioners Estimating Btuldmg Cost In ",r~ the Collechon of the Carnegie Library, Boulder Colorado ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .r ... ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~,. ~ Weiss, Manuel 1981 Boulder County Histoncal Site Survey. Carnegie Branch Library Wolle, Muriel S 1949 Stampede To T~mberlme Boulder, Co. Forms on file, Colorado Histoncal Soc~ety and III-1-23 APPENDIX IV-1 ~ ~ : ~i ,1 ;1 ., .~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~',9 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE MANAGED LAND ALONG GREENWAYS APPENDIX IV-1 List of Park Sites Along Greenways by Reach Fourmile Canyon Creek ~ Foothills Commumty Pazk (FC 5) , ~ 19th & Violet (Boulder Valley Meadows) (FC4) ~ Elks Pazk Srte (FC3) " East Palo Park (2 sites) (FC2) '~~ ~ Pleasant View Soccer Fields (FCl) T,~ ;~ ~ Wonderland Creek ~r ~ Wonderland Lake Pazk (WC8) Howazd Heuston Pazk (WC3) ~~ ~ Chnstensen Pazk (WC2) n;',~ Valmont Crty Pazk (WC1, GC1) ;i'~ ,~I~ Goose Creek Pazkside Park (ETC1) ~~~ Elmers Twomile Pazk (ETC1) S;',"~ Mapleton Ballfield Complex (GC4) Boulder Creek Eben Fme Park (BC7) ICids Fishmg Pond (BC7) Sculpture Pazk (BC7) Murucipal Complex & Library (BC7) Central Park (BC7) 17th Street Pocket Pazk (BC6) Scott Carpenter Pazk (BCS) Skunk Creek Arrowwood Pazk (SC3) Bear Canyon Creek Bear Creek Pazk (BCC6) Marnn Pazk (BCC4) Pazk East Park (BCC2) South Boulder Creek East Boulder Commwuty Center (SBC4) Keewayden (SBC4) Stazio Ballfield (SBC1, SBC2) Flarirons Golf Course (SBC3) List of Open Space Managed Properties along Greenways by Reach Fourmile Canyon Creek Mary Moore I& II (FC 5) Palo Pazk Tratl East (FC2) Elgrove (FC1) McKenzie (FCl) Wonderland Creek Anna Dunn (WC8) Noble Pazk (WC2) Plum Creek - North (WC2) Boulder Creek Fox (BC7) Z-Folsom (BCS) East Park #2 (BC3) Sandy Arnold (BC3) Wilham Arnold (BC2) Cottonwood Grove (BC2) Peazl Street Industnal Pazk (BC2) Colorado Open Land II-Sec 28 (BC2) Colorado open Land II-Sec (BC1) Umon Pacific Razlroad (BC1) Colorado Open Land III-Sec 22 (BC1) Skunk Creek N.I S T. (SCS) Bear Canyon Creek Southem Hills Umted Church (BCC6) Hatch-Quinby-Phipps (BCC1) South Boulder Creek Burke I (SBC4) Gebhard (SBC4) Burke II (SBC3) Flahrons Industrial Pazk (SBC2) Copper poor (SBC2) Valmont mdustrial Park (SBC1) Colorado Open Land III-Sec 27 KOA Lake (SBC1) r* t Q ( Q f F r r ,~ M t APPENDIX V-1 TRIBUTARY GREENWAYS GUIDELINES FOR OPEN SPACE AND PARK LANDS y ~. ~~ ~ ,P r;, ~ ~- APPENDIX V-1 ~ r ~ TRIBUTARY GREENWAY GUIDELINES -- < FOR OPEN SPACE AND PARK LANDS ~ c c t ~ ~ A~vnroval5 April 20,1993 James C Crain, Director, City of Boulder Open S~ace/Real Estate Department ChriS Dropin5ki, Director City cf Boulder Parks and Recreation Department David RhodeS, Directcr, City of Boulder Public Works Department = Summer,1993 5tephen T. Hcney, City Manager, City of Boulder February 9,1994 Open 5pace Board of Trustee5 ~ I March 29,1994 _ Parks and Recreation Adviscry Board Nlarch 29, 1994 TRIBUT.~RY GREE.'V~1'AYS GtiIDELINES FOR OPE.'V SPACE r~'VD PARK LAND The Ciry of Boulder has several missions, chief among them are providing services to the public and maintaining a healthy en~ironment. Boulder is held out as a model ,? community because of iu commitment to preser~ation of the natural environment and ~ qualiry of life Few accomplishmenu illustrate this commitment better than the Open ~ Space and vlountain Parks s}'stems and the Boulder Creek path. ., ;) ~~ ~~ The goals of these pro~rams are fundamentally those of the Ciry; however each `~' implementing department, in order to procide senlces to the public must focus its ~~ ~~ resources on a set of specific goals and objecti~es For the Ciry to function optimally these ii.~ departmental goals and objecuves must be mutually agreed to and carefully coordinated. .~ ~ „W G~ »,. ~, CJ ~"~'+ pa* Vd p/ .~,, rr n~ N ~, ~r ~. ~ ~ ~r ~ wr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ,.. +~+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The Tributary Greenways Program is char~ed, in part, with providing recreation and transportadon facilities as well as water qualiry, flood control and environmental enhancement in an emironmentally responsible manner. The Open Space/Real Estate Department and the Parks and Recreation Department are mandated by policy, ordinance and the City Charter to, among other things, preserve the environment and natural features present on Open Space and vlountain Park lands and to provide passive recreation opportunities where appropriate Ciry Council through endorsement of the Boulder Val]ey Comprehensive Plan and goals of the Wetland Protection Program has espressed a strong interest in protecting other sensitive narural areas on City-0wned lands and elsewhere in the Ciry. These a idelines have been drafted to provide staff level guidance for the planning, design and consuuction of Tributary Greenway projecu with the overall goal of fostering interdeparunental team~vork and insuring that these projects are intearated kith City goals and objectives as well as the City charter requirements. • Establ~sh a staff-levei perspective which intea ates the goals and objectives of the Tributary Green~vays, Parks and Recreation and [he Open Space PIOQI'aR1S. ~ • Pro~zde a mechanism to complement the esisting public process by which staff members can recognize and ~veigh the communiry and environmental impacts and benefiu as well as fiscal costs of each pro~ect. • Pro~ide a routine meihod of addressina planning, consuuction and management issues of proposed Tributary Greenways improvemenu on open space, and park lands in a way that is beneficial to the public and which addresses the goals of the City Charter. • Develop a time line and process for project review, public hearing and final appro~zl for Tnbutary Greenway projecu prior to construcuon on open space and park lands. Esecutive Summaiv Part I of the a idelines proposes broader staff involvement at the concepcual design phase of the Tributary Green~+~ays Program. This step is proposed to increase the availabiliry of experdse present among the City staff in order to aclueve Tributary Greenway and departmental program goals of environmental and habitat preservation, restoration, flood control, recreanon, transportation and other goals. Parts II and III pro~zde specific guidance to streamline the process, cvhile providing adequate involvement of the public and staff. Scone These guidelines are applicable to components of the Tributary Greenways program and those projecu shown ori the Tributary Greem~•ays masterplan proposed to be consuucted wzth City funds or as part of a City project. The focus is upon Tributary Greenways projecu proposed to be constructed on open space and park land and could be used as a model for other trail or related projecu. These guidelines are not intended to preclude the requirements of other City, State or Federal requirements. Whenever portions of these guidelines can be accomplished through other City processes, the interested parties from the affected departmencs shall work together to avoid adding unnecessary process. _ ~ f; A ~ c; ~~ ~ , ,. . ~ ~> ; ,o :„ ~ ~, ~ / iw • ,~ „ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~"° ~' i~ .F ~+ ~ .„ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,.. 4 ~ ~r ~ ~ ~ `yr ~ Part I-Conce~tual Desien A long range approach ~,nll foster an understanding of common goals and ob~ectives, and w~ll result in a better product born of staffs collective ~7sion, esperuse, and teamwork. :'~n mterdisciplinary staff team drawn from invoh•ed City departmenu should propose and re~aew conceptual designs for consistency wzth adopted City goals and ob~ectives. Such long-range planning should consider cumulacive impacu and benefits of the Tributary Greemvay s}stem. These plans should be presented in the context of the system-wide plan, and its potendal benefits and impacts. Tributary Greenwa}~s staff' can expect "up front" assistance w~th o thering :~9 ~'~ ;~~ A~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~NI ~~ °~3 ~, '"~ ,~ '~~ ,~ f~l ~~ '11 .~~, ww+ ,n~~ NI/ !l~11 •.~ ;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ «. a~r ~ ..~ au +r ~ w ~ ~ ~ .. information about such issues as wetlands, ~+~ater quality, wildiife and rare plant habitat. in order to preserve these sens~tive features and develop the least damaging alternative desijn. A no build alternauve ~rill be proposed in cases where pro~ecu canno[ be des~~ned wzrhout s~gmficant adverse environmental impact This approach cvill increase efficiency and comprehensiveness of the project review and wzil provide opporrunities for broad staff parucipadon ~n construcung a qualiry Tributary Greenway system. Broad involvement by Ciry staff' wiil not only foster teamwork, but wiil also provide ass~stance to the Tributary Green~vay staff m meedng the stated program goals and objectives. Among other goals, the Tributary Greenway master plan calls for: • Conducting emzronmental and cuitural assessmenu along stream comdors singly and cumuladvely to determine the overall biological effects of greenway consuuction. • Determining appropriate buffer wzdths between a eenways and natural areas. • Consideration of restoradon and improvement of wildlife habitat • The preparation of restoration plans to mitigate disrurbances caused by past management pracuces. • The implementadon of a re-veaetation and planting program for each stream corridor preserving existing nacive vegeta[ion to extent possible. • Presen~ng and creating wedands for ~vater qualiry, wildlife habitat and passive recreauon. •~faintaining or improving the flood carrying capacity of the Tributary creeks. ~ Acquiring land for achieving these goals. Responsib~lity for these issues is a City-wide concern. Meeting these goals requires teamwork and a great deal of preplanning and investijation. The in[erdisciplinary staff 3 team by worl:ing rogether can integrate City and Departmental goals, induding appiicab]e Charter requiremencs, thereby sa~~na money and dme. The end result will be a model spstem that is planned and constructed k~th the a eatest possible ecological sensitivity. Part II Planning of Treil/Greenwav Segments The planning process for construction of a eenway segmenu will include a designated team of city staff inembers. :1s a startin~ point the team may consist of inembers from Public ~1'orks, Open Space and Parl:s and Recreation depending on the nature and location of the pro~ect. This suucrure ~nnll facilitate development of a draft plan supported by all departments involved. As part of the planning process the departmental representadve will assist the Tributary Greenway coordinator by. • act~ng as a centi-al contact person with the "host"' department • idenufyin~ potendal user or use conflicu (agriculture, other uail uses, public safety, etc) and develop soludons to [hese conflicu through consultarion and re«ew with staff: • coordination with Tnbutary Greenway staff and pro~iding appropriate assistance to obtain the appropriate advisory board recommendations, permits and authorizations • assisring wzth documentauon on the sigmficance and location of any sensitive em2ronmental or cultural areas and finding ways to preserve, avoid or mitio te. • identifyzn~ maintenance and safety concerns and other fiscal impacts to and £rom the host department. • determimng maintenance responsibilities. • pro~idinj standards for reclamation/midgation. 'in cases where land managed by more than one department ~s involved m a project, each department will host the poruon oE pro~ecc occumng on the land which they manage. 4 Once the staff team has analyzed the appropriate opdons and evaluated the project in light of all City goals and ob~ecti~~es, it will draft a project design recommendauon to be revie~ved by any interested department. For prcjecu where a Community Emzronmental .-lssessment (CE~P) is caI]ed for, the Development Re~~ew process will serve this purpose. In cases where no CE.~P is required, the hcst department w~ll, as a minunum, review the project at staff le~~el Board and Council re~~e~v and approval of proposed projecu will be sought as appropriate and necessary. } _~ 1 Prooosed Process for Re~~e:v bv Host Devartment (when no CE~P is required I„) 1. Pro~zde timely notice to the departrnent and provide project design (description and ~ ~~1 ~~~)• 4'y'~~ (This can be done throu~h the department's representative on the planning team.) ,~~ ~u ~w~ 2. ~thin one week conduct a field ~ip. C, ~ a~~~ 3. Coordinate with depaztmental representarive for presentation to Trails Committee. ,.~. 4. Allow up to three weeks for comments on projezt design, and provide for an analysis of any real estate acquisiuon that should be necessary. 5. Modify project design according to depariznental program recommendations and or Federal, state or local requirements. 6. Depaztrnent re~zew of revised design within one week. 7. If requ'ued, and/or appropriate coordinate with deparnnental representative for presentadon to ad~isory board. Presentation wiIl normally be within one month of fmal project design. Part III Construcfion Even with the greates[ foresight and planning, the actual construcdon of a project presents opportunides for poor co~munication and potential for adcerse emironmental impact. To avoid such conflicu, coordination and communicadon should continue throughout the construcuon of the project. 5 ~ A copy of the fina] design plans w~ll be pro~~ded to the host department for review prior to consrrucuon. The host deparvnent should be a ven at least a week to review the plans and pro~~de comments. Af'ter staff review, an on-site pare-construction meedng will be held. This meeting should include the Tr.butary Greenway Coordinator, the departmental representadve, project manager if any, project inspector and the contractors. Topics that should be addressed indude: • establishing the authonty of host department personnel to direct the contractors in emergencies. • establishing a~delines for the storage of materials and equipment • determining the worlang days and hours of the contractors where conflicu with visitor use are anticipated (e g. weekends). • a schedule for field checking temporary fencina, flaga ng and protecrive measures to occur prior to the onset of construcdon. • establishinj site condidons for the puzpose of establishing standards for reclamation. • establishing a specific contact for the Tributary Green~vay pr aQrarn on site, and who should be contacted if problems arise. • discuss acquisition needs and dme line for ne~otiation and purchase within a dme frame that allows for the acquisidon of property prior to construcrion . • determining maintenance responsibilities. In order for construcdon to proceed, written approval must be issued by the department head or designed. Such appro~al should be provided within 5 workin~ days after the pre- consuuction meedng pro~zding that all the other conditions and requirements of these a ideIines have been met. The host department must be notified of any substanave changes to the p]ans, either prior to construction or during consuuction iuelf, they then must be available by telephone or radio to respond to the construction site if necessary. A post-consuuction meeting of the host deparvnent, and the contractor should be scheduled by the Tributary Green~tiay coordinator to establish the site condiuons for the purposes of reclamation and to insure that final site clean-up meets wich the approval of the host department. • ( t ! f ( ( ~ . ~ ~ . ~~ . . 6 APPENDIX VII-1 LIST OF TRANSPORTATION CHANGES FROM THE MAY 1998 GREENWAYS MAP APPENDIX VII-1 Transportation Changes from the May 1998 Greenways Map Current Projects and Opportunities Fourmile Canyon Creek FC3 • Added "reevaluate multmse path from 19`~ St to Gamet Lane and between Garnet Land and ~ 26`~ St " m the text of the Reach Inventory ~.J ,) The North Boulder SubcommuniTy Plan shows the path between 19'h St. and Garnet Lane as a tl ;I~ Pedestnan only path with no off street path shown between Garnet Lane and 26`h St The Reach Inventory recommends that these azeas be reevaluated for mclusion of a mulhuse path as a separate 'y~ ~~~~ process from the Greenways Master Plan update. These changes would require an amendment to :,;ID the North Boulder Subcommumry Plan Wonderland Creek WC3 • Added underpasses at Ins and 34`" St Goose Creek GC2 • Added an underpass crossmg Peazl Pazkway east of Foothills Highway Elmers Twomile ETC • Added an underpass at 26`" St Boulder Creek BC2 • Added a connect~on to 48`h St This connechon is shown in the Transportation Master Plan. Bear Canyon Creek BCC1 • Added an underpass at Arapahoe APPENDIX VII-2 COST ESTIMATES FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS BY REACH , ~~ I;1 ',? , ~Y 'J ~J ~~e~e~esd~•~n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3~ APPENDIX VII-2 PROPOSEDIMPROVEMENTS BY REACH Transportation/Recreation LFlood _ __IHabitat ~ Trail Und erpasses Fou ntains Restoration Restore/PrE - - -- - - -- - - -- LF --- - - Cost -- - - - # - - -- - Cost - -- - - --- # - ---- Cost - - --- - Cost - - ----- - SF - __ - Cost -- -- 1 SF Fourmfle --- - --- - - ---- - ------- --- ---- ------ - - - - - - ---- - - - FCi - 1124 ~ $112,400 --- 1 --- $t,000,D00 --- 0 - $0 ------ $500,000 ------- -- ---- $0 -- -- ---- - --- -- --- FC2 - -- $0 0 $0 -- 1 -- $75,000 ------- $600,000 -- 159542 - - $219,755 -- - - ---- ---- FC3 ---- 3705 -- --- --- $370,500 -- -- -- 2 ------ $2,000,000 - -- 7 --- $15,000 ---- - $6,000,000 -- - - - -- _ - $0 - - _ _ 340471 -- -- - FC4 2589 $258,900 2 $2,000,000 ------- 7 - $15,000 - -- - - - $2,000,000 -- - - - - _ __ - _ $0 -- 186276 - - -- FCS -- --- 2745 - $274,500 - 0 $0 0 $0 53,000,000 $0 _ Total 70783 51,016,300 5 56,000,000 3 - 545,000 - 572,700,000 - - -- -- 759542 - - - - - - 5z79,755 ___ 526747 - -- Wonderland - -- - - - ---- ------- -------- - - ----- - - -- -- --- - WC1 - 0 $0 0 - SO -- 0 - - $0 -- - - - $0 - - - -- - 0 - - --- $0 - - --- __ - - WC2 -- -- 0 -- -- $0 0 50 1 $15,000 $0 _ 91304 _$125,763 _ WC3 3761 5376,100 4 $4,000,000 2 -- $30,000 -- $2,000,000 --- 33278 $45,837 _ 110253 WC4 -- - -- 219 --- $21,900 0 ------ SO ------ -- 1 - -- $15,000 -- --- $250,000 ---- --- 78302 ~ - - $107,854 - - --. - - - ---- WCS ---- 1462 - ----- y146,200 - 0 $0 ----- 0 -- $0 - - - - $0 - - - - - - -- -- $0 -- --- - _ WC6 -- -- -- 1294 5129,400 0 $~ 0 ---- S~ ---- -- SO - - ----- - --- S~ - - -- --90736 - ---- -- wc~ -- - __ __ ao -- o - ao - --- -~ o __ _ so ~ _ so - - -- so - - -- - - -- wcs -- ao o ao ---- --- o -- ao --- ao ------ ----- - --- ao - -- -- -- --- -- Tofal ----- --- - - 8738 --- ------ 5673,800 --- ---- 4 - 54,000,000 ---- --- 4 --- _560,000 -- - 52,250,000 -- - _ 202884 - - 5279,455 200989 Goose - - - -- - -- - ---- ----- -- - - --- - - ____ _ -- GCi - -- 0 - - - SO 1 $1,000,000 0 $0 EO 369944 $509,565 _ GC2 1598 $159,800 4 $4,000,000 -- -- 0 - SO $0 284719 $392,175 _ _ GC3 193 $19,300 -- 0 $0 _ _ 0 - 80 - --- $0 - -- _- - - $0 _--- 222787 _ _ _ GC4 __ 0 --- 50 0 $0 0 30 SO _ _ _ __ _ __ $0 _ GCS 660 $66,000 1 $1,000,000 ------ 0 --- SO ----- 53,500,000 -- -- ------- $0 -- --- -- -- - - - -- ----- GC6 - - ---- $0 - 0 $0 0 - $0 ----- $0 - - - -- 281679 ---- $387,988 - - - 114983 -- ----- - Total -- - -- - ----- 2457 --- Sz45,100 - - - - 6 - ------- E6,000,000 - - - 0 -- SO -- - - - 53,500,000 936342 ---- - - 57,289,727 - -- 337770 Elmer's -- - - - -- - - --- --- - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - -------- ETC1 ---- 44t7 ---- - - $447,700 --- 4 $4,000,000 - -- -- 0 $0 - ---- -- $2,000,000 - - - - - --- 154316 ----- - $212,556 - - -- - - -- -- --- - - ToWI -- - - 4417 - -- - - ~ E447,700 - 4 54,000,000 0 SO 52,000,000 154316 5212,556 _ 0 - - - - --- --- -- Cost Calcu -- latio -- ns (includes con struction ----- cost, does n ---- -- ot include c ---- - ost of desig -- -- - n, property -- - --- -- - - -- Trails - $10 - 0/LF - r r --- - Restoration = $60,000/a - -- cre ---- -------- - --- Underpasse s = $ -- 1,000,000 ea - ch -- - - - -- Restoration/ preservation = $30,OOOl. Dnnking Fo untai ns =$15,000 _ each BMP =$50, 000 each_ r _ _ --- - -- -- - ~ ~--- -~~ 08/23/2001, mtles xls Water Quality Total -- - _ serve - Cost BMPs Cost - --- -$0 $0 --- -- -- $234,484 ----- 0 2 -- - 0 ----- - $0 $100,000 - ---- - - $0 $1,612,400 $934,755 -- - -- $8,679,984 - - $128,289 1 $50,000 $4,452,189 $0 1 $50,000 $3,324,500 E362,773 4 5200,000 E78,943,828 -- -- --$0 - 0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $140,763 $75,932 4 $200,000 $6,727,869 - - $0 $0 - -- - 0 0 -- - $0 $0 $394.754 $146,200 $62,490 1 $50,000 $241,890 $0 -- --$o 1 - o $50,000 - $o $50,000 ----so 5136,422 6 5300,000 57,701,477 $0 0 $0 $1,509,565 $0 $153,435 SO 4 1 i $200,000 $50,000 $50,000 $4,751,975 5222,735 $50,000 $0 1 $50,000 $4,616,000 $79,189 E232,824 - -- -$~ $0 EO 2 9 -- 6 8 $100,000 E450,000 -- --- $300,000 E300,000 $567,177 E11,717,451 ------- $6,954,256 E6,954,256 acquisition, flood s tudies etc.) __ cre -- - - -- --- - - APPENDIX VII-2 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS BY REACH cz - C3 - - - C4 - - CS Cs C7 ~Ci ~cz ~C3 ~C4 IC5 oGl Vear ICC 1 ICC2 ICC3 ~CC4 ~CC5 ~CC6 oWl ~outh ~BCi BC2 BC3 BC4 oWl irend ToWI_ '~~ ~ Transp ortation/Rec reat ion Fiood Habitat ~ Water Quality Total --- - Trail Und erpasses -- - Fo ------ untains -- -- Restoratfon - - - - --- Restore/Pr ___ - eserve _ LF Cost # Cost # Cost Cost SF Cost SF Cost BMPs _ Cost __ --- -- - aooo ---- aeoo,ooo - o so - 0 - - - 3o - - - - so - - -- - -- -- - So -- - - - -- - - Sa -- ~ Seo,ooo saso,ooo - -- 406 ------ $40,600 0 -------- $0 -- 1 ---- $15,000 - - ------ $0 - ---- - $0 -- -- 4424000 -- $3,046,832 _ -- 6 ---- $300,000 - $3,402,432 - - ----- - ---- $0 - - 0 - -- ---- $0 -- 0 ----- $0 - - --- - SO - - _ _ -- $0 _ --- - - - $0 - - 1 -- - $50,000 - $50,000 --- - - --- 643 ---- $64,300 --- 0 ----- $0 - 0 ---- - $0 - ------ $0 --- -- ------- $0 -- --- 488879 ------- $336,694 --- 4 $200,000 $600,994 --- --- --- $o - o ---- -- so -- o ----- So -- -- ---- So - ----- --- so ------- _ - So z --- -- s~oo,aoo - 5~00,000 - -- - ----- $0 - 0 ----- $0 - 0 --- $0 - - - $2,000,000 -- - 44684 -- -- $61,548 - -- ------- $0 -- - 2 _ $100,000 -- $2,161,548 $0 0 $0 0 $0 50 SO 150973 $103,976 8 $400,000 5503,976 9049 5904,900 0 SO 1 515,000 52,000,000 M684 561,548 5063852 53,487,501 24 51,200,000 57,668,850 __ _ -- ---- - - --- ----- 748 - - so - --- $74,800 --- o 0 ---- ao - --- $0 -- o - 7 - ----- so - - -- 515,000 - -- -- so - EO ------ - - ---- - - so - $0 - - --- - --- ___ so $0 -- o -- -- 0 -- ___ so -- $0 so - ----- $89,800 2178 $217,800 1 31,000,000 1 515,000 $0 716622 $160,636 _ _ __ ____ _ $0 4 - _ $200,000 - - $1,593,436 - - - - ----- 1352 ---- $135,200 SO -- 2 0 - -- 52,000,000 SO -- 0 0 --- -- 50 $0 ------ $500,000 $0 -- ------ 84539 - - -- $116,445 $0 __ _ -- - _ - _ $0 $0 _ _ 2 3 _ $100,000 $150,000 $2,851,645 $150,000 4278 5427,800 3 53,000,000 2 130,000 E500,000 201161 5277,081 0 EO 9 5450,000 54,684,881 _ _ _ _ _ __ __ --- - -- - - $0 --- 1 - - -- $1,000,000 -- 1 -- - $15,000 - - --- ---- $0 ------- - - $0 -- -- 494018 ---- $340,233 - 2 -- $100,000 ----- -- $1,455,233 - -- - -- - - $0 - - 0 ------- $0 -- 0 - -- -- $0 - - - - $500,000 - - - -- 96798 - - - $133,331 - - --- $0 - - 2 - --- $100,000 $733,337 - - -- ---- $0 - 0 - ---- $0 -- 1 - --- 515,000 ---- $0 -- - --- -- ----- $0 - - -- -- $0 - 4 - $200,000 - $215,000 ----- - -- -- - ------ $0 -- 0 $0 - - 0 -- $0 -- - --- $0 -- -- 145214 ---- -- $200,019 -- --- - --- - -- $0 -- 0 --- - - $0 $200,019 --- -- - --- 3322 - - - $332,200 - 1 $1,000,000 -- 0 ---- $0 ----- - $0 -- -- $0 --- - - -- - -- - $0 6 $300,000 $1,632,200 - - - - --- 3322 ----- $0 --- - 5332,200 -- 0 -- 2 -- - $0 -- E2,000,000 -- D - 2 ---- - - $0 E30,000 - ------ $0 -- -- - 5500,000 -- -- --- - 242072 - ---- - - $0 - - -- E333,350 -- - - --- - ---- 494018 -- -- $0 - ----- E340,233 --- 0 - 14 $0 -- 5700,000 $0 ------ _$4,235,783 __ _ _ _ - ---- ---- ----$0 --0 -- - -$0 7 $15,000 - --$0 - - --- - -- $0 -- --- -- ----- -$0 4 $200,000 $215,000 - - --- ---- $0 -- 0 ---- $0 --- 0 ----- SO --- - $0 --- ---- -- - - - $0 - ---- 1003961 ----- $691,433 1 - ---- $50,000 - - ---- $741,433 - - - 1215 -- - --- 1215 ---- 41,631 --- $121~500 ------ ao - - - $121,500 -- ----- _ E4,163,100 0 -- o - 0 -- 24 --- ---- $p --- --- so - $0 ------ _. 524,000,000 - ~ - o 7 --- 13 --- $~ - - - --- so - - $15,000 --- -- _ 5195_000 - -- - $~ - - - -- ao - - - --- SO - ------ 522,850,000 ------- - - -- - - -- 0 ------ 7,940,941 - -- -$p - - so - - $0 ------ E2,673,472 - - - - - 1003961 --- -- - __ 7,627,337I - -$0 ------ -- so - -- -- $691,433 -- -_55,252,967 ~ -~ -- - - o -- 5 ----- __ 77 $0 -- -- so -- $250,000 _ E3,850,000 $121~500 -- -- so --- 51,077,933 ----- __562,984,559 - - - Cost Calcu latio ns (Includes - con struction - cost, does no t include c ost of desig n, property acquisition, flood s tudies etc.) I --- Trails = $100/LF Z Restoration - $60,000/acre - - -- - - -- Underpasses = $1,OOO,Q00 each - - --- - --- - Restoratwnlpreservatwn = $30,OOOlacre _ _ __ -- , Dn ki F unt ins =$ 5,0 0 each n~i-~gr? ~ ~'.-r -.--•°' ~ - __ BMP =$50,000 each T ~~ -~?-,~'?~-~3-'~'?--~~--.>-.-r~-~- _ ~ - ~ APPENDIX VII-3 DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS APPENDIX VII-3 Greenways Environmental Projects Top 10 List - Ranked by Project Scores 3/10/2001 Costs based on $60,000/acre for restoration , ~; $30,000/acre for restorarion/preservation , $1,000/acre for preservation ' ' ~ $50,000 per BMP , ,o ;;) 1 FC4 - Stream comdor enhancement and BMP at Violet Pazk r~~ Preservatron (#27) 186276 8Z or 4 28 acres ,,,~ Restorahon (#27)• 186276 ftZ or 4 28 acres "' (4 28 P/R acres @ $30,000/acre) ~ a% Water Qualiry BMPs (#40) (@ $50,000 each) ;;} Cost $180,000 ""`~ 2 FC3 - Stream comdor enhancement 26~' to 2g`n ~~% Preservation (#31) 164693 ft2 or 3.78 acres ;„;; Restorahon (#31) 164693 ftZ or 3 78 acres fiM (3 78 P/R acres @ $30,000/acre) ,~~, Cost $115,000 ~r "r""r+ 3. BC7 - Improve water quality of kid's fishing pond, implement BMPs and revegetate ~ banks through Eben Fme Pazk ,~ Preservation (#24). 472549 ftZ or 10.85 acres (@ $1,000 per acre) Preservahon (#23)• 150973 ftz or 3.47 acres ~ Restoration (#23) 150973 ftZ or 3.47 acres ; (3 47 P/R acres @ $30,000/acre) *~+ Water Quality BMPs (#47, 48, 64, 65) (@ $50,000 each) ~ Cost $315,000 ~ s~ 4 GC2 - Lower Goose Creek stream enhancement ,~ Preservation (#40)• 101576 ftZ or 2 33 acres (@ $1,000 per acre) ~ Restoration (#41) 150405 ftZ or 3 45 acres (@ $60,000 per acre) Restoration (#42): 134314 ftZ or 3 08 acres (@ $60,000 per acre) ~ Water Qual~ty BMPs (#55, 56, 75) (@ $50,000 each) E'~' Cost: $545,000 ~ ' 5 FC2 - Stream enhancement and sediment control downstream of 28th Z "" Restoration (#43). 159542 ft or 3 66 acres (@ $60,000 per acre) ~: Water Quality BMPs (#41, 42) (@ $50,000 each) ~ Cost- $320,000 ~ 6 BCCS - Water quality BMPs along Table Mesa dnve ~ ~ ~ ~.a ~ Water Qualrty BMPs (#9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14) (@ $50,000 each) Cost $300,000 7 BCC1 - Protect and enhance stream corridor and wetland south of Arapahoe Preservarion (#21) 494018 ftZ or 11.34 acres Restoration (#21)~ 494018 ft2 or 1134 acres (ll 34 P/R acres @ $30,000/acre) Water Qualrty BMPs (#21, 22) (@ $50,000 each) Cost $440,000 8 WC2 - Preserve and widen stream corridor at Chnstiansen pazk and restore pond Preservarion (#7) 84516 ft2 or 1 94 acres (@ $1,000 per acre) Restoration (#8) 91304 frZ or 2 10 acres (@ $60,000 per acre) Cost $130,000 9 ETC1 - Water quahty BMPs and stream enhancements at Elmer's Park Restorahon (#44) 154316 ftZ or 3 54 acres (@ $60,000 per acre) - BY OTHERS Water Quahty BMPs (#73, 54) (@ $50,000 each) -1 ~s BY OTHERS Cost $50,000 10 FC3 - Stream comdor protechon and enhancement upstream of 26th Preservation (#28, 29, 30) 175778 ftZ or 4 04 acres Restoration (#28, 29, 30)• 175778 ftZ or 4 04 acres (4 04 P/R acres @ $30,000/acre) Cost $125,000 2 r f ~ ~ E APPENDIX VIII-1 MAINTENANCE MAP ,, Yii/ a ~~ 841/ r y I~ ~~ 4u A~h r.r ..r ,.,, rw ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~V +i- ar ~ r~ ~ +r VI: ~ ~ ~ ~ City of Boulder Multi-Use Path Maintenance Management Map ; ~ ~ ; /~~~i ~ j j ~ ----~ ~~~ . ~---~ ~_ ~ ~ 1 ~, I _. ~~ ( ~ f ,I _ _ _ ,---~, _ , j ,. 1~ ~~ lI ' ' • ~ ~~~~~ ~~ > ~ ~ ~ J ~ , - -- ~; ~' ~ ~~ ~~~~, - - -s; ~ ~` , ( `~~~/ _ ._ ____ ~. _ ~~ ~ ~i ~~~:_ -,~,~ ~ ~-~- ! ~, .- i ,/,~ ;~, ~. ; i , ~ ~ i ,, ; i>~~-~r~- ~ ~ _ ,~y ` . ~,~~., . `~ ., ~ ~ , i ~ I ~~,~r/, ~~-"` / ~ ~- ~, I ~, , /~~ v _ ~ ~ i i` /~."~ l ~ .~.. ~.~': ,~r~~ 1 ~ ~ L~ i ~~ ~ / . ~.-.1-y--ti~y`~ ~~ ~ /' /~ r~` ~~~ ~ - ~' ~ ~ _:_ _ i ~~ ._j l ~~~`- ~ ~ ~~_~tm~° ~ s~, ~ ~~o~,.a~ j f ~~ ~*~~, . '~---'~`-`~~ -....,~. _..~_ / ~. ; ~ ~=r -- ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ,. ,_F. . ~!~_ _---- ~ ~ , i _ _ __~~~1 E ~' I ~...., . _ _ _ _ , ~~ -_ ~ I -_ ~~ ~ ~~ w~~ ~~i `:_ PiJ = - ' ~--J~ ~ II ~ 1'~ ~ ' ~ `- ~~ ~' _ r f „ ~ <~ , ~, \ ~? ~ »~t i ~ ~ -~-.... _ ~\ ~s - ~/ ~ ~~ ~ ~, -. . ~ ~ \ .~-- ~ , ~~ Y .~ . ""~~ .~.~ p ,r 9~ ~~ ~~ ~,`.~~ ~ ~ ~r t \ ~ ~ ~~`\ - - ,"' ~ ``~'~ ~~ -~. r:. _~r,~.wbo `~..~'~-' ,' f~. 1, "c,,,h _..; `4',~ L ~\ . - ~ ~ ~ P ~, `_{ ~ ` ~ ~~~ ~, ~ I~~IT ~~' - "/~ ~ i -t'~. ~ I ;~ _~ ~ ~~ ~~°~~ ~ I ` k I 4 ; ~ -~ r , i j`"} R ~"-~ ti~ ; - - ~ -- - - - - - . ~l ~ ~ I ~ / `~„f r- ~ \\ _ i u ~ i sa ~ ( ~. ~~ 1 r ~ - _- ' ~„-~ `_ ' ~ ~ ~_ ~F~, ~ I ~ % ~ ~ ~ ~~; ~~1 ; ~ ,; ~~~ ~, ~ ~ . - ; ~ ,;. , ~ ,; ; , , ~; ., ~ ~ _ , ; . ,, , , J , o l , ; _, ~ ~ ~ - ~ ,~ _ Managed by City of Boulder Transportatlon Maintenance Oepartment 303 41S•7177 Monitored Sites with expiration year ~Managed by University of Coloratlo at 8oultler 303 492-5524 ~ / ~Managed 6y City of Boulder Parks Department 303 441•4408 City af Boulder Parks ~ j 1 - "anaged 6y Private Party City of Boultler Opan Space 8 Mountafn Parks /~ ~ ~.7anaged by Boulder County Opan Space 720 622-0113 Public Schools '/'~'~~~ \'~ ~ Managad by Boulder County Transportation 303 441•5225 Other Publie/3ami-Public Land ~ •-~ Managed by Urban Drainage & Flood Control Distriet for debris and mowing Boulder County Open Spaee ~ Managad by Ur6an Drainage & Flood Control Dlatdct for tlebds 303 455~8277 Lakes or Reservoirs ~ s o.~ s t Mues Managed by School Distriet 303 44~-5143 -Creek r.v c.oa~~w br ~he mer ~i mma« ----- Proposed Groanway Trail (shown conceptually) (Transportation Master Plan) ~ propoaed Underpasa vi a~o~a oe~ .~iop .~~n.Nme. Existing Non-Greenway Trail (B.V.C.P. 7rails Map) _ Existing Underpass .~, . „~ ersorzao~ `T"°"1B9G.~'°°"."°•'oP "„"" - Proposed Non-Greenway Trail (shown conceptuslly) (B.V.C.P. Trails Map) . -- - -~ .-=b.,~. , ~~•.....,..MV~,.. On-Street Connection Bike Lane~Route (1998 Bieycle Systema Inventory) Existing Bridge ~~,H. ~,~_ . ~ - Clry ~lootl UUllll~c 303 413~T100 - m~lntalnc bank to banh forlloed carryine ~+p~lty. # R@St {~f@8 poalgn antl meJw melntan e handlsd byTranaporfetteninglnearing. RBSt ROOI~I - .~,~o.. ~~a~ Q.M~~ Gly ewnetl untlerpauaa ane brlEpac aiM Bn11~t1 romoval malnfalmtl by ~bea4 OepartmenL r~ Water Pountain "°""" Formtry malnl~ins trws wlang OreanwaYn adlacent to p~~k proparty. • Proposed Water Fountain .. ~.,..~,,....TK., ~~ ~.~ ~.~. ~ Adjacent propsrty own~r r~sponslbla 1er vagel~Ilen m~tntenance nutsltle p~M easement. nea ~o~ ocne. ~,.e en ~ ~ mwu a i s +w Propased Rest Area ciry oP.~ sP,~a aoa aai-aase ~ m.i~ams ~mn: i~ oPen . ... ~o .P« y ee . wc. e