08.09.17 OSBT Packet
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Wednesday, August 9, 2017
Council Chambers, 1777 Broadway
MEETING AGENDA
(Please note that times are approximate.)
6:00 I. Junior Ranger Program Presentation
6:15 II Approval of Minutes
6:20 III. * Public Participation for Items Not Identified for Public Hearing
6:25 IV. Matters from the Department
• Arapahoe Road / CO State Highway 7: Planning & Environmental
Linkage (PEL) Study Update
6:40 V. Matters from the Board
• 50th Anniversary
6:55 VI. * Review of and recommendation regarding the 2018 Open Space and Mountain
Parks Department Operating Budget
7:30 XII. Adjournment
* Public Hearing
Open Space Board of Trustees
2017 TENTATIVE* Board Items Calendar
(updated July 28, 2017)
September 13 October 11 November 8
Action Items:
• IGA Amendment with
Boulder County for
Boulder Creek Path
Extension
• Confluence Area Trails
Matters from the Department:
• Prairie Dog Working
Group Update
• CAMP Update
• Enchanted Mesa Water
Tank
Matters from the Board:
• Master Plan Process
Committee
Action Items:
Matters from the Department:
• Prairie Dog Study
Session Update
• Portfolio for Master
Plan
• Bridgehouse and Right
to Work Program
Update
• North Foothills and
Wonderland Lake ISP
• Ranger Naturalist
Strategic Plan
Matters from the Board:
• 50th Anniversary
Action Items:
Matters from the Department:
• Update on Flood
Recovery
• CAMP Report on Pilot
• Update on Ag. Plan
Implementation
Matters from the Board:
• Master Plan Process
Committee
• 50th Anniversary Debrief
December 13 January 10, 2018 February 14, 2018
Action Items:
• Master Plan
Matters from the Department:
Matters from the Board:
• Consider input to
council retreat
Action Items:
Matters from the Department:
• Master Plan Process
Committee
Matters from the Board:
• Finalize input for
council retreat
Action Items:
Matters from the Department:
• Master Plan Check-in
Matters from the Board:
*All items are subject to change. A final version of the agenda is posted on the web during the week
prior to the OSBT meeting.
AGENDA ITEM 2 PAGE 1
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Action Minutes
Meeting Date July 12, 2017
Video recording of this meeting can be found on the City of Boulder's Channel 8 Website. (Video start
times are listed below next to each agenda item.)
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Molly Davis Kevin Bracy Knight Tom Isaacson Curt Brown
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Mark Davison Jim Reeder Abbie Poniatowski John Potter Dan Burke
Keri Konold Mark Gershman Bethany Collins Steve Armstead Chelsea Taylor
Cole Moffat Don D’Amico Phil Yates Brian Anacker Deryn Wagner
Alyssa Frideres Leah Case
GUESTS
Diane Murphy, Boulder Open Space Conservancy (BOSC)
Bob Koenig, Boulder Open Space Conservancy (BOSC)
Joel Koenig, Boulder Open Space Conservancy (BOSC)
Phil Kleisler, Planner II
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM 1 – Approval of the Minutes (16:55)
Curt Brown said under public comment, Alan Delamere’s statement should say, “. . . to consider
acquisition of the Open Space-Other area at 311 Mapleton.” Molly Davis said under Agenda Item 4, it
should say, “. . . as the greenways representative for OSBT, Andria Bilich attended the May GAC
meeting with Molly.”
Curt Brown moved that the Open Space Board of Trustees approve the minutes from June 14, 2017 as
amended. Kevin Bracy Knight seconded. This motion passed four to zero; Andria Bilich was not present.
AGENDA ITEM 2 – Public Participation for Items not on the Agenda (20:35)
Roger Koenig, Boulder, spoke regarding 311 Mapleton. He said he was surprised by the memo sent to
staff. This property has been ratified by the city and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)
maps are governing documents. He asked the Board to request a public hearing on this matter.
Russell Henriksen, Boulder, spoke regarding 311 Mapleton. Any changes to the plan must go through
Board review and allow for public comment; not doing so would be in violation of the code.
Alan Delamere, Boulder, spoke regarding 311 Mapleton. He said the Open Space Other (OS-O) area has
great public benefit and would like to see a public hearing before OS-O is deleted from the system.
AGENDA ITEM 3 – Matters from the Department (32:18)
Lauren Kilcoyne, Business Operations Supervisor, presented on the Draft 2018 Operating Budget.
Mark Davison, Community Connections and Partnerships Manager, along with Boulder Open Space
Conservancy (BOSC) members, Diane Murphy and Bob Koenig, presented Partnership Talks for a
Conservancy to Support Open Space and Mountain Parks.
AGENDA ITEM 2 PAGE 2
Deryn Wagner, Senior Planner, presented on the Master Plan Process Committee Formation.
Bethany Collins, Property Agent, and Phil Kleisler, Planner II, presented on the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Land Use Designation Correction for 311 Mapleton Avenue.
AGENDA ITEM 4 – Matters from the Board (2:21:13)
The Board asked that updates continue to take place regarding the Open Space Master Plan at upcoming
Board meetings so both they, and the public, can stay informed. Staff agreed, and added that information
can also be found on the OSMP Master Plan website: www.osmpmasterplan.org.
AGENDA ITEM 5 – South Boulder Creek Habitat Improvement Project and Proposed
Intergovernmental Agreement (2:27:00)
Don D’Amico, Ecological Stewardship Supervisor, presented this item.
Public Comment
None.
Motion
Curt Brown moved that the Open Space Board of Trustees recommend City Council authorize the
City Manager to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with Denver Water regarding Open
Space and Mountain Park’s South Boulder Creek Habitat Improvement Project. Kevin Bracy
Knight seconded. This motion passed four to zero; Andria Bilich was not present.
ADJOURNMENT – The meeting adjourned at 8:34 p.m.
These draft minutes were prepared by Leah Case.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Tracy Winfree, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
John Potter, Resource Stewardship Service Area Manager
Ericka Pilcher, Recreation and Cultural Stewardship Supervisor
Marc Ambrosi, Boulder County Long Range Planner
DATE: August 9, 2017
SUBJECT: Arapahoe Road / CO State Highway 7: Planning & Environmental Linkage (PEL) Study Update
Background:
Arapahoe Road/State Highway (SH) 7 is a critical east-west arterial in the regional transportation system serving
Boulder, Lafayette, unincorporated Boulder County, Erie, and the north Denver metropolitan area. The State
Highway 7 (75th Street to US 287) PEL Study is being conducted to continue the efforts of the Colorado
Department of Transportation’s original SH 7 PEL which looked at the corridor between Brighton and US 287. The
PEL is a component of a larger study to investigate bus rapid transit feasibility on the corridor between Boulder and
Brighton. The PEL seeks to understand how mobility currently functions on the corridor and makes
recommendations for multimodal improvements that will meet future mobility needs in order to:
•Enhance safety for all users;
•Meet growing demand for mobility within and along the corridor for all modes of transportation;
•Respect local values by preserving the rural, natural, and historic characteristics of the area; and
•Ensure the route remains a viable transportation corridor that anticipates regional population and
employment growth.
Map 1: Open Space and Mountain Parks Property (75th St to US 287)
Possible Future Improvements and Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP)
The initial conceptual study alternatives #2 and #3 include long-range planning options to include a separated
multiuse path that would overlay with OSMP property along the Arapahoe Road corridor (from 75th Street to US
287). A Draft Corridor Conditions Report has been completed outlining existing and projected traffic volumes,
safety components, and environmental, natural and cultural resources on the corridor (Attachment A). Next steps
for the Boulder County planning team include the following: select a preferred set of corridor improvements,
complete conceptual design for SH 7 from 75th Street to US 287, hold final Technical Advisory meetings, host Open
House #2, and finalize PEL study in 2017. In future phases of the long-range planning effort, consideration of the
Agenda Item 4 Page 1
potential impacts and opportunities related to the City Charter for Open Space purposes will be explored. Staff will
consider the potential impacts and opportunities when reviewing the future phases of this project and will bring
related matters to the Open Space Board of Trustees. The date is yet to be determined until the phasing schedule for
the project is developed (this could be in several years).
Attachments:
•Attachment A: Draft Corridor Conditions Assessment Report for State Highway 7
(https://www.bouldercounty.org/transportation/multi-modal/bus/sh7-brt-study/state-highway-7-planning-
environmental-linkages/)
Agenda Item 4 Page 2
CORRIDOR CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT REPORT
FOR
STATE HIGHWAY 7
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LINKAGES (PEL)
STUDY
DRAFT
Prepared for:
Boulder County
5201 St. Vrain Rd.
Boulder, CO 80503
Prepared by:
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600
Centennial, CO 80111
AUGUST 2016
FHU Reference No. 115138‐01
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 3
DRAFT i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................... iii
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. v
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Study Location and Description .......................................................................................... 1
1.2 Transportation Planning Context ........................................................................................ 1
1.3 Current Land Use ................................................................................................................ 3
1.4 Future Land Use .................................................................................................................. 3
2.0 Existing Transportation System .................................................................................... 8
2.1 Roadway Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Travel Operations ............................................................................................................. 10
3.0 Future Transportation Conditions .............................................................................. 16
3.1 No‐Action Alternative ....................................................................................................... 16
3.2 2040 No‐Action Conditions ............................................................................................... 16
4.0 Environmental Overview ............................................................................................ 19
4.1 Parks and Recreation Resources ....................................................................................... 19
4.2 Traffic Noise ...................................................................................................................... 23
4.3 Historic Resources ............................................................................................................. 26
4.4 Floodways and 100‐year Floodplains ............................................................................... 31
4.5 Wetlands and Waters of the US ....................................................................................... 31
4.6 Wildlife/Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................. 35
4.7 Hazardous Materials ......................................................................................................... 39
5.0 References ................................................................................................................. 45
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 4
DRAFT ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1.1 Existing Land Use...................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 1.2 Future Land Use ....................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 1.3 Future Land Use ....................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2.1 Typical Cross Section on SH 7 (N 75th St to US 287) ................................................................. 8
Figure 2.2 Existing Traffic Conditions and Access Categories ................................................................... 9
Figure 2.3 Safety Summary ..................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 2.4 Cumulative SPF Function for SH 7 .......................................................................................... 14
Figure 2.5 Existing Bus Routes and Missing Sidewalks ........................................................................... 15
Figure 3.1 2040 Traffic Conditions .......................................................................................................... 17
Figure 4.1 Parks, Open Space, and Trails ................................................................................................ 22
Figure 4.2 Previously Identified and Potential Historic Sites .................................................................. 27
Figure 4.3 Floodplains, Floodways, Wetlands, and Waters of the US .................................................... 34
Figure 4.4 Wildlife Corridors, Threatened and Endangered Species ...................................................... 37
Figure 4.5 Hazardous Materials – Sites with Recognized Potential Environmental Conditions ............. 43
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1 Intersection and Non‐Intersection Related Crashes by Location .......................................... 11
Table 3.1 Existing vs 2040 Intersection Delays ...................................................................................... 18
Table 4.1 Existing Park, Trail, and Open Space Resources ..................................................................... 20
Table 4.2 Future Master Planned Recreation Resources ...................................................................... 23
Table 4.3 CDOT Noise Abatement Criteria ............................................................................................ 24
Table 4.4 Noise Sensitive Areas ............................................................................................................. 25
Table 4.5 Previously Identified Historic Sites ......................................................................................... 26
Table 4.6 Previously Surveyed Properties ............................................................................................. 28
Table 4.7 Properties Greater Than Forty‐Five Years Old ....................................................................... 29
Table 4.8 Summary of Drainageways .................................................................................................... 31
Table 4.9 Summary of Study Area Wetlands ......................................................................................... 33
Table 4.10 Existing Wildlife Resources .................................................................................................... 35
Table 4.11 Sites with Recognized and Potential Environmental Conditions within 500 feet of SH 7
and 168th Avenue within the Study Area ............................................................................... 40
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 5
DRAFT iii
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ADT average daily traffic
AM morning
AST aboveground storage tank
AVC animal‐vehicle collision
BGPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
BRT bus rapid transit
CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation
CPW Colorado Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks and Wildlife
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CNHP Colorado Natural Heritage Program
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibels
DRCOG Denver Regional Council of Governments
EA Environmental Assessment
EDR Environmental Data Resources
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
ESA Endangered Species Act
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIRM FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map
FIS Flood Insurance Studies
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
GIS geographic information system
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
I‐25 Interstate 25
LF landfill
LOS level of service
LOSS level of service of safety
LUST leaking underground storage tank
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MP milepost
mph miles per hour
MVRTP DRCOG Metro Vision Regional Transportation Plan
NAC Noise Abatement Criteria
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NDIS Natural Diversity Information
NR‐A Non‐Rural Principal Highway
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 6
DRAFT iv
NR‐B Non‐Rural Arterial
NR‐C Non‐Rural Arterial
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NUPUD Non‐Urban Planned Unit Development
NWI National Wetland Inventory
OSP Outfall Systems Plans
PDO property damage only
PEC potential environmental contaminant
PEL Planning and Environmental Linkages
PEM palustrine emergent
PM evening
PSS palustrine scrub/shrub
R‐A Regional Highway
REC recognized environmental condition
ROD Record of Decision
RTD Regional Transportation District
SH 7 State Highway 7
SH 119 State Highway 119
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SPF safety performance function
SSS sideswipe (same direction) crash
SSO sideswipe (opposite direction) crash
TAZ transportation analysis zone
TWSC two‐way stop controlled intersection
US 36 US Highway 36
US 85 US Highway 85
US 287 US Highway 287
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USC United States Code
USDOT United States Department of Transportation
USFWS United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
UST underground storage tank
vpd vehicles per day
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 7
DRAFT v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Boulder County is conducting a Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) study, in coordination with
the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
along SH 7 from 75th Street in Boulder County to US 287 in the City of Lafayette. The SH 7 PEL (75th Street
to US 287) is being conducted to identify existing conditions, to identify anticipated problem areas, and
to develop/evaluate multimodal improvements that will reduce congestion, improve operations, and
enhance the safety of the roadway within the study corridor. The study area extends approximately
4 miles along SH 7 from the SH 7/75th Street intersection to SH 7 (Arapahoe Road)/US 287 intersection
(milepost [MP] 60.68).
This Corridor Conditions Assessment Report has been prepared to document current and anticipated
future conditions of the corridor in regard to land use, the transportation system, and environmental
resources. The information presented in this report will be the basis for developing and evaluating
possible transportation improvements in the corridor.
Land Use
Development of agricultural land to residential and employment uses has been occurring as the Denver
metropolitan area continues to grow. County, city, and town governments within the region along the
SH 7 corridor from the City of Boulder to the City of Brighton have been proactively planning for this
transition. Despite recent downturns in the economy, which have slowed development, long‐term
projections indicate that the communities along the SH 7 corridor will continue to grow and develop at a
rapid rate. This development will be tempered along SH 7 between 75th Street and US 287 by open
space and conservation easement ownership of much of the agricultural and open space land.
The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) travel demand model, which estimates the
location of existing and future land use to generate trips onto the regional road network, projects nearly
all of the expected growth along the study corridor to be residential. This growth is anticipated to be
moderate and primarily south and east of the corridor, while little to no employment growth is expected
adjacent to the corridor. Greater regional household and employment growth is expected further out
from the corridor, particularly to the south and east.
Existing Transportation System
Within the study limits of the SH 7 PEL (N 75th Street to US 287), the geometric characteristics of SH 7
are highly variable. SH 7 primarily consists of two‐lane cross‐sections with 64 feet of right‐of‐way.
Shoulder widths vary significantly on the roadway, primarily due to varying auxiliary lane configurations.
All shoulders are paved, but most are not curbed. Typical shoulder widths range between 1 and 12 feet.
Areas with shoulders less than 5 feet in width are typically found on segments of the highway with no
access drives or auxiliary lanes. Auxiliary lanes are frequently provided throughout the corridor at both
signalized and stop‐controlled public street intersections for deceleration and acceleration movements.
Most of the corridor has no median, but when present, median configurations vary significantly. Raised
medians exist at the SH 7/75th Street intersection, as well as for channelized right turn movements at
other intersections, such as the SH 7/US 287 intersection. Most median configurations are painted and
exist only near access drives and auxiliary lanes. Widths of painted medians range from 3 feet to 18 feet
but typically range between 4 and 13 feet.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 8
DRAFT vi
Access Categories
SH 7 from 75th Street to approximately Park Lake Drive is currently classified as a Regional Highway
(R‐A). The rest of the corridor is categorized as Non‐Rural Principal Highway (NR‐A). These categories are
similar in terms of their restrictions for allowable access and auxiliary lanes; however, NR‐A is reserved
for more urban/suburban settings.
Traffic Operations
Existing daily traffic volumes along SH 7 range from 17,600 vehicles per day (vpd) to 21,700 vpd.
Typically, a two‐lane principal arterial can accommodate 16,000 vpd, meaning the study corridor is
currently operating over capacity. During morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak hour operations, SH 7 is
a commuter corridor for users travelling toward Boulder to the west and Lafayette, Brighton, and
Denver to the east and south. The posted speed limits along SH 7 vary from 45 miles per hour (mph) to
50 mph along this corridor.
Storage lengths for auxiliary lanes at each of the three signalized intersections along the study corridor
(75th Street, 95th Street, and US 287) are too short to handle peak hour demands, resulting in turning
queues blocking through traffic. This results in increased congestion and corridor travel time for through
traffic, reducing the efficiency of the signals. During the AM and PM peak periods, the intersections of
SH 7 and N 95th Street and SH 7 and US 287 both operate at level of service (LOS) F. The intersection of
SH 7 and N 75th Street operates at LOS C during AM peak period and LOS D during PM peak period.
Crash Data Analysis
Safety performance functions indicate that the three major intersections along the study corridor have a
higher than expected number of rear end crashes, with the non‐intersection segments of the study area
experiencing a higher than expected number of both rear end and total fixed object type crashes. Many
of these rear end crashes that have occurred outside the intersections are likely a result of congestion
and queuing from nearby intersections. A review of the crash history indicated that over half of the
intersection rear end crashes occurred during the AM and PM commuter peak hours. This pattern is not
entirely unexpected as the occurrence of rear end crashes tends to coincide with peak traffic conditions.
Safety performance functions also indicated that most mainline sections of the study corridor
performed less than expected in terms of safety (LOSS III) when compared to other rural, flat, and rolling
2‐lane undivided highways within Colorado. A LOSS III indicates that there is a moderate to high
potential for crash reduction on these sections. The one section that had a better than expected safety
performance (LOSS II) was generally located between MP 57.5 and MP 58.75.
Transit Service and Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
RTD provides transit service along and across the corridor via two fixed bus routes. The JUMP provides
east‐west service between downtown Boulder, the University of Colorado in Boulder, and Lafayette/Erie
along SH 7 (Arapahoe Road). The L/LX provides regional local stop service between Longmont, Niwot,
Lafayette, and downtown Denver via US 36 and US 287 (LX runs as a supplement to L during peak
periods), with the nearest stop to the corridor located on US 287 just north of its intersection with SH 7.
Bike lanes exist for 50 to 60 feet east of N 75th Street; however, the corridor lacks consistently wide
enough shoulder widths to provide safe travel for bicyclists along the rest of the corridor. Pedestrian
facilities consist of sidewalks concentrated around the three signalized intersections, with other sporadic
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 9
DRAFT vii
sidewalk segments where residential and commercial land use is adjacent to the highway. However,
most of the corridor in the study area does not provide sidewalks.
Future Transportation Conditions
Traffic Operations
The DRCOG 2040 fiscally constrained regional travel demand model was used to develop 2040 traffic
forecasts. Using the DRCOG model to adjust and grow existing traffic volumes to the year 2040, it’s
projected that daily traffic volumes will increase from 10 to 20 percent to between 19,900 vpd and
24,600 vpd along the corridor, meaning the corridor will remain above capacity.
The DRCOG model was also used to grow turning movements at each signalized intersection to analyze
2040 traffic operations. During the AM and PM peak periods, the SH 7/95th Street and SH 7/US 287
intersections both operate at LOS F. The SH 7/75th Street operates at LOS E during AM peak period and
LOS F during PM peak period.
Transit Service and Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The Northwest Rail Line continues to be planned to cross SH 7 west of N 75th Street and is currently
funded for 2042. No station is planned near the study corridor. The 2014 SH 7 PEL, which was conducted
for SH 7 from US 287 in the City of Lafayette to US 85 in the City of Brighton, recommended transit
improvements along the SH 7 corridor. A BRT study along the entire SH 7 corridor between Boulder and
Brighton is currently being conducted in conjunction with this study. The 2014 SH 7 PEL also
recommended bicycle and pedestrian improvements along the SH 7 corridor between Lafayette and
Brighton.
Environmental Overview
The environmental resources studied were selected based on the characteristics of the study area and
on stakeholder input. The resources that were considered are generally consistent with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), its implementing regulations, and with Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and CDOT guidelines. The following resources are those that may require
avoidance or minimization of impacts, have separate laws and regulations protecting them, such as the
Endangered Species Act with separate regulatory drivers, such as the Endangered Species Act or Clean
Water Act, or are typically resources of concern for the general public, such as traffic noise.
Parks and Recreation Resources
Some park properties or open space present within the study area are publicly owned and are afforded
protection under Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act of 1966,
as defined in 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 774. A Section 4(f) resource is a property that
functions or is designated as a significant publicly owned park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl
refuge, or historic site. If one of these properties is impacted as part of the proposed action, a
Section 4(f) evaluation may be required for that particular resource. A variety of parks, trails, and open
space are located along SH 7 between US 287 and 75th St.
Traffic Noise
The potential for noise or vibration impacts from vehicles to the receptors (i.e., properties) near
transportation facilities is a general concern. State and federal transportation agencies have established
thresholds for determining noise impacts to guide these conclusions. When impacts are identified from
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 10
DRAFT viii
an improvement, mitigation actions for the impacted receptors are typically considered for the project
design. This is an important consideration for this project because noise may have an impact on many
properties along the study area. Several residential neighborhoods (Noise Abatement Criteria Category
B [NAC Category B]) can be found in the PEL study area between US 287 and 75th St. Likewise, a number
of Category C areas (parks, schools, churches, etc.) are also spread throughout the PEL study area.
Historic Resources
Historic resources are afforded consideration by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, as well as Section 4(f) of the US DOT Act of 1966. Historic resources are those that
are listed or may be eligible or potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP). Within the study area, 23 properties had been previously surveyed for eligibility, and 5 of those
properties are officially eligible or potentially eligible for the NRHP. In addition, 48 properties along the
corridor are greater than 45 years of age and would require a historic survey to determine their
eligibility for the NRHP.
Floodways and 100-year Floodplains
Two drainageways have Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated floodplains in the
study area: Bullhead Gulch and Dry Creek. Both drainageways are designated as Zone AE floodplains and
have 100‐year floodplains that overtop SH 7.
Wetlands and Waters of the US
Wetland resources are protected under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Executive Order 11990
Protection of Wetlands. CDOT has incorporated FHWA environmental guidance into its Environmental
Stewardship Guide (CDOT, 2005), which emphasizes efforts to avoid and minimize wetland impacts.
Most wetlands identified within the study area are small palustrine emergent (PEM), palustrine
scrub/shrub (PSS), and palustrine scrub/shrub‐emergent (Cowardin, 1979) mix wetlands with most
occurring along existing waterways and drainages and in roadside and agricultural ditches. Most of
these roadside and irrigation ditch wetlands were considered low quality wetlands due to their low
plant diversity. Wetlands associated with Dry Creek, Bullhead Gulch, and South Boulder Canyon Ditch,
however, provide a moderate quality wetland value when compared to higher quality wetlands in less
disturbed settings.
Wildlife/Threatened and Endangered Species
Various federal laws have been established to protect wildlife, including the Endangered Species Act
(ESA), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA).
Threatened and endangered species habitat that is present in the study area includes habitat for the
Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cuniculalria), the Colorado butterfly plant (Oenothera coloradensis), the
Ute ladies’‐tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis), the common shiner (Notropis cornutus), and the
Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei). The field survey identified Dry Creek as the
primary drainage containing suitable habitat for these species. The Colorado butterfly plant can also be
found along agricultural irrigation ditches. A field survey also noted Dry Creek, Bullhead Gulch, and
South Boulder Canyon Ditch as potential wildlife corridors that facilitate wildlife movement.
Hazardous Materials
For the hazardous materials assessment summary, sites within the study area identified as having
known (current and historic) soil or groundwater contamination are distinguished in this report as sites
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 11
DRAFT ix
with recognized environmental conditions. Sites with the potential for soil and groundwater
contamination were identified as sites with potential environmental conditions. A total of 16 sites with
recognized and potential environmental conditions were identified within 500 feet of the SH 7 study
area. Five of these sites were former auto shops or cleaners, and two sites contained leaking
underground storage tank (LUST) sites adjacent to the study area.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 12
DRAFT 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Boulder County is conducting a Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) study, in coordination with
the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
along SH 7 from 75th Street in Boulder County to US Highway 287 (US 287) in the City of Lafayette. The
SH 7 PEL (75th Street to US 287) is being conducted to identify existing conditions; to identify anticipated
problem areas; and to develop/evaluate multimodal improvements that will reduce congestion, improve
operations, and enhance the safety of the roadway within the study corridor. The study area extends
approximately 4 miles along SH 7 from the SH 7/75th Street intersection to SH 7 (Arapahoe Road)/US 287
intersection (MP 60.68)
This Corridor Conditions Assessment Report has been prepared to document current and anticipated
future conditions of the corridor in regard to land use, the transportation system, and environmental
resources. The information presented in this report will be the basis for developing and evaluating
possible transportation improvements in the corridor.
1.1 Study Location and Description
SH 7 is an east‐west principal arterial roadway that is under CDOT jurisdiction. SH 7 spans approximately
25 miles between US Highway 85 (US 85) to the east and US Highway 36 (US 36) to the west on the
north side of the Denver metropolitan area and provides access to a number of major north‐south
roadways, including US 85, Interstate 25 (I‐25), US 287, and US 36. The study area extends
approximately 4 miles along SH 7 from the intersection of SH 7/US 287 (MP 60.68) on the north side of
the city of Lafayette on the west, to the intersection of SH 7/N 75th St to the east (Figure 1.1).
1.2 Transportation Planning Context
The following transportation plans relating to the project corridor have been developed:
City of Boulder Transportation Master Plan (City of Boulder, 2014)
Boulder County Transportation Master Plan (Boulder County, 2012)
Northwest Area Mobility Study (RTD, 2014)
Arapahoe Transportation Plan (City of Boulder, 2016)
North I‐25 EIS (FHWA and CDOT, 2011)
2040 Fiscally Constrained Regional Transportation Plan (DRCOG, 2015)
SH 7 (Cherryvale Road to 75th Street) Project (FHWA and CDOT,
2008)
SH 7 PEL Study (CDOT, 2014)
City of Boulder Transportation Master Plan
Improvements to SH 7 from the City of Boulder to I‐25 are a high
priority for the City of Boulder to best meet future regional travel
demand. This master plan recommends several multimodal
improvements and demand‐side services, with the goal of increasing
person‐trip capacity on SH 7. Improvements within the master plan
include adding Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service on SH 7 from US 287 to
the City of Boulder.
The vision for the City of Boulder is to
“create and maintain a safe and
efficient transportation system
meeting the sustainability goals of the
community to accommodate increased
person trips by providing travel choices
and reducing the share of single
occupant auto trips”
–City of Boulder, 2014
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 13
DRAFT 2
Boulder County Transportation Master Plan
The Boulder County Transportation Master Plan emphasizes
safety, efficiency, and environmental sensitivity. The master plan
identifies SH 7 (Arapahoe/Baseline Road) as a key corridor, along
with State Highway 119 (SH 119) and US 36.
Northwest Area Mobility Study
The Northwest Area Mobility Study identified six corridors as
candidates for possible BRT. Two of these corridors are within the
study area: SH 7 (Boulder to Brighton) and US 287 (Longmont to
US 36). These corridors were selected based on the evaluation of ridership, associated capital
investment, potential operating plans, estimated capital and operations and maintenance costs, a high
level environmental evaluation, and input from RTD and Northwest Area stakeholders.
East Arapahoe Transportation Plan
The City of Boulder is currently developing the East Arapahoe Transportation Plan and will be evaluating
several types of transportation improvements between 75th Street and downtown Boulder on east
Arapahoe Road (SH 7) including this study area. The Complete Streets alternatives will be evaluated
based on potential effects to community safety, health, socialness, livability, accessibility, as well as
environmental and economic considerations. Initial findings from the planning process have indicated
support for multimodal transportation, including BRT, lowering vehicle speeds, and better protection for
bikers and pedestrians.
2040 Fiscally Constrained Regional Transportation Plan
The Denver Regional Council of Government’s (DRCOG) current long‐range regional plan, the 2040
Fiscally Constrained Regional Transportation Plan defines the vision for the region and the projects that
are included within the Fiscally Constrained Plan. The 2040 Fiscally Constrained Regional Transportation
Plan does not include any improvements for the study area.
SH 7 (Cherryvale Road to 75th Street) Project
The SH 7 (Cherryvale Road to 75th Street) Project includes improvements to reduce congestion, enhance
safety, and improve mobility for multiple transportation modes. FHWA and CDOT recently completed an
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project, which resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) (FHWA and CDOT, 2008a; FHWA and CDOT, 2008b). The Preferred Alternative for the project
includes two through lanes in each direction on the east and west ends of the project. The two through
lanes in each direction narrow to one through lane in each direction between Westview Drive and east
of the BNSF railway bridge. The Preferred Alternative includes right‐ and left‐turn lanes, improved
shoulders, and improved sight distance. It also includes a sidewalk on the south side of SH 7 from
63rd Street to Westview Drive and a multi‐use path on the north side for the entire length of the
alignments. Additionally, bicycle facilities are included with the use of the 10‐foot shoulder or 5‐foot
on‐street bicycle lanes. These improvements resulted in one general purpose through lane and one land
dedicated to transit.
The vision for Boulder County is to
“provide high quality, safe,
sustainable, and environmentally
responsible transportation
infrastructure and services across all
modes, to meet the mobility and
access needs of all users.”
– Boulder County, 2012
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 14
DRAFT 3
1.3 Current Land Use
Figure 1.1 shows the study area and the existing land use immediately surrounding the SH 7 corridor
from east of US 287 to west of 75th St. Traveling east from the City of Boulder, Arapahoe Road (SH 7) and
75th St contain several commercial retailers including KT’s BBQ and Heavenly Flour Bakery. Further east,
SH 7 crosses through rural properties, residential subdivisions, and isolated retailers. There is another
small residential center at 95th St, including a gas station, a 7‐eleven, and several restaurants. Between
95th St. and US 287, there are several rural properties and residential subdivisions. At US 287, there are
several commercial centers anchored by retailers including Safeway, Wal‐Mart, King Soopers, and
Walgreens, along with several other newer commercial establishments.
1.4 Future Land Use
Figure 1.2 depicts how communities along the SH 7 corridor are envisioned to build out with locations of
future land uses based on each community’s comprehensive plan. Each community has its own land use
categories. For purposes of this analysis, some categories have been combined to provide consistency
across communities. For example, regional and neighborhood commercial categories have been
combined into “Commercial.” Most communities have single family and multifamily residential
categories; these both have been included as “Residential.” The “Mixed Use” category often designates
areas near a future transit hub or town center area. While several communities have a specific
“Industrial” designation, many also have an “Employment” designation that covers retail, office, and
industrial land uses. Although both include an employment designation, the “Industrial” and
“Employment” categories were not combined.
The future land use map (Figure 1.2) shows that the communities along the SH 7 corridor will largely
remain the same, with the exception of the south side of SH 7 between N 95th St. and US 287, which is
forecast to fill in and build out significantly. Much of the area is already designated as “public land” or
“residential” and, therefore, is not expected to be subject to a change in land use.
West of N 95th St will not see many changes adjacent to SH 7. Neither will the north side of SH 7
between N 95th St and US 287.
East of N 95th St will see predominantly residential growth along the south side of SH 7, with the
exception of a block of public land on the western side of US 287.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 15
DRAFT 4 Figure 1.1 Existing Land Use Source: City of Boulder, GIS; Town of Erie, GIS; City of Lafayette Comprehensive Plan, 2013.Attachment AAgenda Item 4 Page 16
DRAFT 5 Figure 1.2 Future Land Use Source: City of Boulder, GIS; Town of Erie, GIS; City of Lafayette Comprehensive Plan, 2013.Attachment AAgenda Item 4 Page 17
DRAFT 6
Household and Employment Growth
DRCOG develops a travel demand model that is divided into Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs)
covering the entire metro region, including the study area. Each TAZ has existing (2015) and 2040
projected socioeconomic variables, including population, household, employment, and income to be
used for local and regional planning purposes. DRCOG incorporates a wide variety of variables in its
estimates and projections, including, but not limited to, overall regional growth, each jurisdiction’s
potential share of future growth, and current and long‐range development plans. However, the primary
concern within the travel demand model related to the growth in trips for an area is the growth in
households and employment.
Most TAZs adjacent to the corridor are projected to experience growth of around 50 to 200 households
by 2040, with additional growth projected southeast of SH 7 along US 287. When looking further from
the corridor, household growth is also primarily anticipated to be south and east within Lafayette. Little
to no employment growth is projected within the TAZs along the corridor or surrounding area by 2040.
TAZs with growth are again situated south and east of the corridor in Lafayette. The location and level of
growth projected by the travel demand model appear consistent with the local land use plans for areas
along the corridor. Figure 1.3 illustrates the projected DRCOG growth in households and employment
from 2015 to 2040 for TAZs within a mile of the study corridor.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 18
DRAFT 7 Figure 1.3 Future Land Use Source: DRCOG 2015 and 2040 models (Version: C2 2014)Attachment AAgenda Item 4 Page 19
DRAFT 8
2.0 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
2.1 Roadway Characteristics
Typical Cross Sections and Right-of-Way
Within the study limits of the SH 7 PEL (N 75th Street to US 287), the geometric characteristics of SH 7
are highly variable. SH 7 primarily consists of two‐lane cross sections with approximately 64 feet of
right‐of‐way. The surface type for the corridor is primarily asphalt, except for the intersection of SH 7
and US 287, which is concrete. Approaches from both directions on SH 7 at N 75th Street are configured
with two through lanes in each direction, but the remainder of the corridor consists of a single travel
lane in each direction. Typical cross sections are shown in Figure 2.1, along with corridor constraints and
deficiencies that have been identified.
Figure 2.1 Typical Cross Section on SH 7 (N 75th St to US 287)
Shoulder widths vary significantly on the roadway, primarily due to varying auxiliary lane configurations.
All shoulders are paved, but most are not curbed. Typical shoulder widths range between 1 and 12 feet.
Areas with shoulders less than 5 feet in width are typically found on segments of the highway with no
access drives or auxiliary lanes. Auxiliary lanes are frequently provided throughout the corridor at both
signalized and stop‐controlled public street intersections for deceleration and acceleration movements.
Most of the corridor has no median, but when present, median configurations vary significantly. Raised
medians exist at the intersection of SH 7 and N 75th Street, as well as for channelized right‐turn
movements at other intersections including SH 7 and US 287. However, most median configurations are
painted and exist only near access drives and auxiliary lanes. Widths of painted medians range from
3 feet to 18 feet but typically range between 4 and 13 feet.
Access Categories
CDOT has assigned access categories to all segments of each state highway in Colorado. These
categories pertain to the requirements and thresholds for access spacing and auxiliary lane
requirements as documented in the State Highway Access Code. Figure 2.2 shows current access
categories along the study area of SH 7 between N 75th street and US 287, as well as descriptions of each
category. The segment of SH 7 from N 75th Street to the point 200 feet east of Park Lake Drive is
currently classified as a Regional Highway (R‐A). The rest of the corridor is categorized as Non‐Rural
Principal Highway (NR‐A). These categories, defined on Figure 2.2, are similar in terms of their
restrictions for allowable access and auxiliary lanes; however, NR‐A is reserved for more
urban/suburban settings.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 20
DRAFT 9 Figure 2.2 Existing Traffic Conditions and Access Categories Source: CDOT Online Transportation Information System; DRCOG Regional Traffic Counts; CDOT State Highway Access Category Assignment Schedule (2 CCR 601‐1A), 2013; CDOT State Highway Access Code, 2012.Attachment AAgenda Item 4 Page 21
DRAFT 10
2.2 Travel Operations
Traffic Volumes and Speed Limits
Existing daily traffic volumes along SH 7 range from 17,600 vehicles per day (vpd) to 21,700 vpd as
shown in Figure 2.2. Typically, a two‐lane principal arterial can accommodate 16,000 vpd, meaning the
study corridor is currently operating over capacity. During peak hour operations, SH 7 is a commuter
corridor for users travelling toward Boulder to the west and Lafayette, Brighton, and Denver to the east
and south. AM and PM peak hour turning movements at each intersection in the study area are
displayed in Figure 2.2. The posted speed limits along SH 7 vary from 45 mph to 50 mph along this
corridor.
Intersection Geometry and Level of Service
To conduct the existing conditions analysis, a traffic model of the SH 7 corridor was built using Synchro 8
traffic analysis software. Recent satellite imagery was used to inventory roadway and intersection
geometry along the corridor and included in the modelling effort. Signal timing data were collected from
CDOT, and traffic volumes and turning movements were input into the model from counts completed
along the corridor.
Geometry
SH 7 is primarily a two‐lane highway with auxiliary lanes at major accesses and intersections; however,
many accesses have no auxiliary lanes. Storage lengths for auxiliary lanes at each of the three study
intersections are too short to handle peak hour demands, resulting in turning queues blocking through
traffic. This results in increased congestion and corridor travel time for through traffic, reducing the
efficiency of the signals. All three of the major study intersections are signalized.
Level of Service
Traffic operations for each of the three signalized intersections were analyzed using methods described
in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and reported from Synchro 8 output. According to the HCM,
overall performance of an intersection is determined by the amount of delay experienced by motorists
at the intersection. Depending on the level of delay experienced, each intersection can be scored on a
Level of Service (LOS) scale and given a letter grade from A to F. LOS A describes intersections with low
control delay, while LOS F is associated with high delays and is considered unacceptable to most drivers.
LOS F occurs most often with oversaturation, high congestion, poor signal progression, and/or long cycle
lengths.
As part of the existing conditions analysis, the LOS for the three signalized intersections was determined
for the AM and PM peak periods. Figure 2.2 shows lane configuration, intersection control, and existing
LOS for each intersection in the study area. During AM and PM, the intersections of SH 7 and N 95th
Street and SH 7 and US 287 both operate at LOS F. The intersection of SH 7 and N 75th Street operates at
LOS C during morning peak period and LOS D during evening peak period. LOS for each intersection is
determined by the worst LOS of its approaches; therefore, traffic from other legs may be flowing more
freely than the intersection LOS dictates.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 22
DRAFT 11
Crash Data Analysis
The crash summary is based on the comprehensive analysis of five years of crash history (1/1/10 to
12/312014), which was examined to locate crash clusters and identify collision causes. During this
period, a total of 282 crashes were reported along SH 7 within the study section, including both
intersection‐related and non‐intersection related crashes. The majority (about 70 percent) were
property damage only (PDO) crashes. In addition, there were 81 injury crashes and one fatal crash, with
116 persons injured and one person killed overall. The fatal crash (a head on crash to the east of
Arapahoe Road) occurred in June 2012. Figure 2.3 presents graphical representations of the crash types
and crash severity for this corridor. Rear end crashes (70 percent) were the predominant crash type,
followed by broadside (8 percent) and fixed object (8 percent) crash types.
A hot spot analysis was also conducted to determine the locations (primarily intersections) where a total
of 10 or more crashes occurred during the five‐year study period. Direct diagnostic analyses, which
compare the crash history at a given location to an expected average crash total for a similar type of
intersection or roadway facility, were also completed to determine the significant crash types along the
corridor. Table 2.1 summarizes the locations where most crashes along the corridor occurred and the
most significant crash types at the locations.
Table 2.1 Intersection and Non-Intersection Related Crashes by Location
Location Mile
Post
Crashes Significant Crash Types PDO Injury Fatal TOTAL
SH 7/N. 75th St 56.77 11 1 0 12 Rear end (9)
SH 7/SH 42 (N. 95th St) 59.29 44 15 0 59 Rear end (48)
SH 7/US 287 60.68 39 19 0 58 Rear end (41)
Intersection Sub Total 94 35 0 129
Other intersections (≤ 9 crashes each) 26 7 0 33
Total Intersection Crashes 120 42 0 162
Non‐Intersection Crashes 80 39 1 120 Rear end (77), Fixed object (16)
Overall Total 200 81 1 282
Source: CDOT crash data accessed via Vision Zero Suite (VZS) – Crash Summary Program by DiExSys, LLC, 2010‐2014.
Of the three intersections identified as having 10 or more crashes during the five‐year study period, all
three have a higher than expected number of rear end crashes, with the non‐intersection segments of
the study area experiencing a higher than expected number of both rear end and total fixed object type
crashes. Figure 2.3 shows the overall crash distribution at each of these three intersections.
Approximately 57 percent of the crashes occurring along the corridor happened at intersections. In
urban areas, CDOT categorizes crashes as intersection‐related if they occur within the intersection
influence area, which is defined as 0.02 miles (105 feet) on either side of the intersection, and have been
coded by the attending officer as “intersection” or “intersection‐related” on the crash form. For the non‐
intersection locations, most crashes (approximately 65 percent) are rear end type crashes. Many rear
end crashes that have occurred outside the intersection influence are likely a result of congestion and
queuing from nearby intersections because these crashes primarily occurred during the peak hours. The
other two most frequent non‐intersection crash types are fixed object (13 percent) and sideswipe (same
direction) (8 percent).
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 23
DRAFT 12 Figure 2.3 Safety Summary Source: CDOT crash data accessed via Vision Zero Suite (VZS) – Crash Summary Program by DiExSys, LLC, 2010‐2014. Attachment AAgenda Item 4 Page 24
DRAFT 13
Safety Performance Function
The safety performance function (SPF) reflects the complex relationship between traffic exposure,
measured in average daily traffic (ADT), and crash count for a unit of road section measured in crashes
per mile per year. The SPF models provide an estimate of the normal or expected crash frequency and
severity for a range of ADT among similar facilities. The SPF was plotted over the course of the study
segment. Two kinds of SPFs were calibrated. The first one addresses the total number of collisions, and
the second one looks only at collisions involving an injury or fatality. It allows us to assess the magnitude
of the safety problem from the frequency and severity standpoint.
Development of the SPF lends itself well to the conceptual formulation of the Level of Service of Safety
(LOSS). The concept of level of service uses qualitative measures that characterize safety of a roadway
segment in reference to its expected performance. If the level of safety predicted by the SPF will
represent a normal or expected number of crashes at a specific level of ADT, selected percentiles within
the frequency distribution can be stratified to represent specific levels of safety.
LOSS I – Below 20th Percentile
Indicates a low potential for crash reduction.
LOSS II – 20th Percentile to Mean
Indicates a low potential for crash reduction.
LOSS III – Mean to 80th Percentile
Indicates a moderate to high potential for crash reduction.
LOSS IV – Above 80th Percentile
Indicates a high potential for crash reductions.
LOSS reflects how the roadway segment is performing in regard to its expected crash frequency and
severity at a specific level of ADT. It only provides a crash frequency and severity comparison with the
expected norm. It does not, however, provide any information related to the nature of the safety
problem itself. If the safety problem is present, LOSS will only describe its magnitude from the frequency
and severity standpoint. The nature of the problem is determined through diagnostic analysis using
direct diagnostic and pattern recognition techniques.
Figure 2.4 shows the cumulative safety performance of the highway. As illustrated, most sections within
the study segment performed less than expected in terms of safety (LOSS III) when compared to other
rural, flat and rolling 2‐lane undivided highways within Colorado. The one section that had a better than
expected safety performance (LOSS II) was generally located between MP 57.5 and MP 58.75.
Summary of Observations
As mentioned, the frequency of rear end type crashes was higher than expected at many locations along
the corridor. A review of the crash history indicated that many crashes occurred during the afternoon
peak hour, as can be seen in the trends on Figure 2.3. In fact, 39 percent of all rear end crashes that
happened at intersections within the corridor occurred between the hours of 4:00 to 6:00 PM. Fifteen
percent of all rear end crashes that happened at intersections within the corridor occurred between the
hours of 7:00 to 9:00 AM, meaning that over half of rear end crashes at intersections occur during what
are typically considered the AM and PM commuter peak hours. This pattern is not entirely unexpected
because the occurrence of rear end crashes tends to coincide with peak traffic conditions.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 25
DRAFT 14
Figure 2.4 Cumulative SPF Function for SH 7
Source: CDOT; CDOT crash data accessed via Vision Zero Suite (VZS) – Crash Summary Program by DiExSys, LLC, 2010‐2014.
Transit
This section of SH 7 is served by RTD bus routes that provide service both along and across the highway.
The following bus routes currently serve this study area and are displayed in Figure 2.5:
JUMP – provides east‐west service between downtown Boulder and the Lafayette Park‐n‐Ride
along SH 7 (Arapahoe Road)
L/LX – provides regional local stop service between Longmont, Lafayette, and downtown Denver
via US 36 and US 287 (LX runs as a supplement to L during peak periods)
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities along this segment of SH 7 consist of sidewalks concentrated around the three
signalized intersections at N 75th Street, N 95th Street, and US 287. Sidewalks also exist in some places
along SH 7 where residential and commercial land use is adjacent to the highway. However, most of the
corridor in the study area lacks sidewalks. Figure 2.5 shows these missing sidewalk links.
Bicycle Facilities
There are no bicycle facilities along this section of SH 7, save for 50 to 60 feet east of N 75th Street where
bike lanes on north and south sides of SH 7 terminate. Narrow shoulder widths throughout the corridor
are not encouraging to bicyclists as they are forced to interact with high volumes of traffic, especially
during peak periods. These conditions create a highly uncomfortable environment for bicyclists.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 26
DRAFT 15 Figure 2.5 Existing Bus Routes and Missing Sidewalks Source: RTD, 2016 Attachment AAgenda Item 4 Page 27
DRAFT 16
3.0 FUTURE TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
3.1 No-Action Alternative
The No‐Action Alternative is the alternative that would be selected, if a build alternative is not selected
as the Proposed Action, and is used as a baseline comparison for alternative development and screening
and environmental analysis purposes. The No‐Action Alternative would leave SH 7 as it currently is and
would not provide any improvements beyond the existing transportation system; however, the No‐
Action Alternative would include safety and maintenance activities that are required to sustain an
operational transportation system.
For the purpose of travel demand forecasting and identifying resource impacts that are directly related
to traffic volume, such as noise, transportation projects currently planned are included, along with the
No‐Action Alternative. These other transportation projects have committed or identified funds for
construction and would be built regardless of any other improvements that are identified as part of the
SH 7 PEL study. Travel demand forecasting predicts traffic conditions that are expected to occur on the
transportation system in the design year (2040). However, no committed fiscally constrained regional
improvements that are included in the travel demand forecasting for the No‐Action Alternative are in
the vicinity of the study corridor. The nearest improvement is the widening to four lanes of Erie
Parkway/Isabelle Road between US 287 and N 119th Street. The extension of South Boulder Road from
120th Street to Sheridan Parkway was a committed project at the time of the SH 7 PEL east of US 287,
but has since been removed.
3.2 2040 No-Action Conditions
Traffic Operations
The DRCOG 2040 fiscally constrained regional travel demand model was used to develop 2040 daily and
hourly traffic forecasts. Figure 3.1 presents the projected 2040 No‐Action Alternative traffic conditions
for the study corridor, including estimated future intersection LOS and projected daily traffic volumes.
Existing daily traffic counts were grown to the year 2040 using the DRCOG model and the NCHRP 765
adjustment process, resulting in a growth of between 10 to 20 percent over existing volumes. The study
corridor is over capacity at existing daily traffic levels, and with daily volumes projected to increase to
between 19,900 vpd and 24,600 vpd in 2040, this condition will continue.
Existing turning movements were grown using the DRCOG model to projected future turning
movements in 2040 for the three major intersections along the corridor (N 75th Street, N 95th Street, and
US 287). Growth rates used mirror the growth rates for daily volumes – 10 to 20 percent. As was done at
each signalized intersection with existing turning movements, future traffic operations at each of these
intersections were analyzed using methods described in the HCM and reported from Synchro 8 output,
providing LOS for each signalized intersection for the AM and PM peak periods. Figure 3.1 shows the
future LOS for each signalized intersection in the study area.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 28
DRAFT 17 Figure 3.1 2040 Traffic Conditions Attachment AAgenda Item 4 Page 29
DRAFT 18
During the AM and PM peak periods, the intersections of SH 7 and N 95th Street and SH 7 and US 287 both
continue to operate at LOS F in 2040. The intersection of SH 7 and N 75th Street is projected to deteriorate
further during both peak periods, with the morning peak period LOS dropping from LOS C to LOS E and the
evening peak period LOS dropping from LOS D to LOS F. LOS for each intersection is determined by the
worst LOS of its approaches; therefore, traffic from other legs may be flowing more freely than the
intersection LOS dictates. To further compare existing versus 2040 conditions, Table 3.1 shows the delay
experienced at each intersection and the increase in delay between today and 2040.
Table 3.1 Existing vs 2040 Intersection Delays
Intersection AM Delay (min:sec)PM Delay (seconds)
Existing 2040 ∆Existing 2040 ∆
SH 7/N. 75th St 0:33 1:17 +0:44 0:47 1:27 +0:40
SH 7/SH 42 (N. 95th St) 3:26 4:26 +1:00 2:36 2:57 +0:21
SH 7/US 287 2:19 4:02 +1:43 2:14 4:03 +1:49
As traffic volumes continue to grow along the corridor as projected and if no safety improvements are
made to address noted crash patterns, it can be assumed that the LOSS along the corridor will continue at
the levels reported or even deteriorate further.
Transit
In addition to the existing RTD bus routes (JUMP along SH 7
and L/LX along US 287), the Northwest Rail Line is the only
FasTracks planned transit improvement near the corridor.
However, the Northwest Rail Line is currently funded for
2042. The line is planned to cross SH 7 just west of N 75th
Street, but no station is anticipated near the study corridor.
Bus route modifications are likely in support of the
Northwest Rail Line once it is built. However, because of the
uncertainly of that line, the feeder bus routing is undecided.
The 2014 SH 7 PEL recommended transit‐related improvements along the SH 7 corridor between US 287
to US 85. In addition, the Northwest Area Mobility Study identified six corridors as candidates for possible
BRT, including the SH 7 corridor from the City of Boulder to City of Brighton. A BRT feasibility study is
currently underway in cooperation with this PEL study to analyze the possibility of BRT service between
Boulder and Brighton along SH 7. However, BRT along SH 7 is not included in the DRCOG 2040 fiscally
constrained regional travel demand model.
Bicycle and Pedestrian
No projects are currently planned to add or improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities along the corridor.
Given that most of the corridor lacks bicycle and pedestrian facilities and future traffic growth will further
push the corridor over capacity, travel by walking or biking will continue to be difficult and uncomfortable
unless improved facilities are provided.
Baseline Road, a parallel road to SH 7 located approximately 1 mile to the south, is a bicycle route with
existing shoulders. Isabelle Road, a parallel road to SH 7 located approximately 1.5 miles to the north, is
scheduled to be improved with wider shoulders in approximately 2019/2020. In addition, Boulder County
is evaluating a multi‐use trail along a former UPRR corridor approximately 2 miles north of SH 7, which
would connect the Town of Erie with the City of Boulder.
An objective of the Boulder County
Comprehensive Plan is to “implement
a transportation system that moves
people safely and effectively
independent of an assumed mode of
travel.”
–Boulder County, 2009
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 30
DRAFT 19
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW
Chapter 4.0 summarizes the existing environmental conditions of the study area. The environmental
resources that were studied were selected based on the characteristics of the study area. The resources
that were considered are generally consistent with NEPA, with its implementing regulations, and with
FHWA and CDOT guidelines. The following resources are those that may require avoidance or
minimization of impacts, have separate laws and regulations protecting them, such as the Endangered
Species Act or Clean Water Act, or are typically resources of concern for the general public, such as
traffic noise:
Parks and Recreation Resources
Traffic Noise
Historic Resources
Floodways and 100‐year Floodplains
Wetlands and Waters of the US
Wildlife/Threatened and Endangered Species
Hazardous Materials
This chapter presents the results of the analysis for each resource topic. Each resource subsection
introduces the resource, the methodology, and existing conditions.
4.1 Parks and Recreation Resources
Parks and recreation resources are important community facilities that warrant consideration during
federally funded projects. These resources include parks, trails, and open space areas that offer
opportunities for recreation, including both passive and active activities. For purposes of this project,
park and recreation resources can be placed into one of the following categories:
Regional Park and Recreation Facility – Regional parks typically involve jurisdiction partnerships
that contribute to the development and maintenance of regional parks. These areas serve
residents throughout the Front Range and are regionally recognized. Privately and publicly
owned and managed golf courses in the study area qualify as regional resources.
Community Park – Community parks are typically smaller in size than regional facilities and serve
as an attraction for residents and communities within approximately 3 miles of the facility. One
entity typically manages and maintains community parks.
Neighborhood Park – Neighborhood parks typically serve residents and community members
within a half‐mile radius of the park. These parks, typically accessed by non‐motorized means,
are managed by one jurisdiction.
Open Space – Open space areas include land and water parcels that remain in a predominantly
natural or undeveloped state. The intention of open space acquisition varies from growth
management to habitat protection and/or passive recreation. However, it must be noted that not
all open space allows public access or use. Many areas defined as open space are protected by
conservation easements on agricultural lands and are not used as parks. They may, however, be
managed to protect wildlife habitat. Smaller open space parcels are often coordinated with
neighboring open space acquisitions to create buffers or corridors. Jurisdictional authority
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 31
DRAFT 20
belongs to either the county open space department or municipal parks and recreation
departments. In certain instances, management and ownership may span multiple jurisdictions.
Trails – Municipalities typically manage several miles of trails, including paved and non‐paved
trails. Trails often extend beyond one jurisdictional boundary into an adjacent boundary making
them regional trails. It is typical for trails to follow existing linear features such as ditches, rivers,
or railroads.
Existing Park, Trail, and Open Space Resources
Details and characteristics of existing parks and recreation resources along the study area were
identified through geographic information system (GIS) and then field verified. Additional inventory
details about the resources, such as ownership, size, and amenities, were obtained from accessing
individual municipalities’ websites in May 2016. Research focused on using the most current version of
information available online (Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1).
Table 4.1 Existing Park, Trail, and Open Space Resources
Resource
Name Size/Location Description & Location Resource
Type Managed by
Prince Lake Southeast quadrant
of the intersection
of SH 7/US 287
24.23 acres
Formerly Prince Reservoir, it has now
been filled in for development of
proposed Nine Mile Corner, a
commercial development project.
Commercial
Development
City of Erie
Prince Lake Southwest quadrant
of the intersection
of SH 7/US 287
3.50 acres
The City of Erie allowed this water
feature to drain. It is now a
marsh/wetland.
Park City of Erie
Outlot A
Windridge
NUPUD
10473 Arapahoe Rd,
Lafayette
30.45 acres
This is a conservation easement on
Windridge NUPUD (Non‐Urban Planned
Unit Development). Ownership is listed
as private.
Conservation
Easement
Private
Ownership
Bullhead
Gulch Open
Space
SH 7 & Spring Creek
Dr
3.31 acres
This small open space parcel follows a
ravine along Bullhead Gulch. This area
includes a biking trail, pet pickup station,
running path, trail (fitness), walking, and
waterway.
Open Space City of Lafayette
Unnamed
Trail
Adjacent to SH 7
3,150 feet
This unnamed trail goes from Bullhead
Gulch along the north side of SH 7 and
then crosses over SH 7 near N 95th St.
Trail City of Lafayette
Yarrow Park SH 7 & Spring Creek
Dr
6.32 acres
This park includes a basketball court,
benches, paved path, pet pickup station,
picnic shelter, picnic table, and
playground.
Local Park City of Lafayette
Forest Park SH 7 & N 95th St
4.5 acres
This small parcel of open space land
abuts SH 7 and a commercial
development.
Local Park City of Lafayette
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 32
DRAFT 21
Table 4.1 Existing Park, Trail, and Open Space Resources (Continued)
Resource
Name Size/Location Description & Location Resource
Type Managed by
Cross Ridge
Park
SH 7 & N 95th St
6.27 acres
This park includes benches, pet pickup
station, picnic shelter, picnic table, and
playground.
Local Park City of Lafayette
Paclamar
Farms
SH 7 & Marshallville
Ditch Rd
95.20 acres
W.R. “Dick” Brooks owned this farm,
which became a leader in dairy cattle
genetic advancement.
Open Space City of Boulder
Anderson
Central
SH 7 & White Rocks
Trail Rd
86.69 acres
Currently used for agricultural purposes. Open Space City of Boulder
Anderson
North
South of Teller Lake
Reservoir No. 1
33.60 acres
Currently used for agricultural purposes. Open Space City of Boulder
Bartlett SH 7 & White Rocks
Trail Rd
6.92 acres
Currently used for agricultural purposes. Conservation
Easement
Private
Autrey South of SH 7 and
White Rocks Trail
Rd
174.73 acres
Currently used for agricultural purposes. Open Space City of Boulder
Williamson
Moore
Holmes
SH 7 & White Rocks
Trail Rd
31.93 acres
Currently used for agricultural purposes. Open Space City of Boulder
Aweida I North of SH 7 &
Willow Creek Dr
60.23 acres
Currently used for agricultural purposes. Open Space City of Boulder
East Boulder
Trail
SH 7 & Willow
Creek Dr
19,309 feet
This informal trail goes along the south
side of SH 7 east from Dry Creek. At
Willow Creek Dr., the trail crosses SH 7
and makes its way northeast to connect
to the Teller Lake Reservoir trailhead.
Trail Boulder County
Woodley SH 7 & White Rocks
Trail
6.29 acres
This property is listed as both a
conservation easement and an open
space property. It is currently used for
agricultural purposes.
Open Space City of Boulder
Kolb Brothers SH 7 & White Rocks
Trail
37.76 acres
Currently used for agricultural purposes. Open Space City of Boulder
Hunter Kolb SH 7 & N 7th St
38.69 acres
Currently used for agricultural purposes. Open Space City of Boulder
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 33
DRAFT 22 Figure 4.1 Parks, Open Space, and Trails Source: Boulder County GIS Attachment AAgenda Item 4 Page 34
DRAFT 23
Future or Planned Recreation Resources
Given the developing nature of the corridor, it should be noted that many municipalities have
established master plans for future trails, parks, and open space areas within or adjacent to the study
area. Most of these resources span jurisdictional boundaries and follow linear features within the study
area. Table 4.2 lists those resources that have been identified for future implementation. This list should
not be considered exhaustive as master plans may be updated while this project is progressing.
However, efforts should be made to not preclude previous planning efforts made by local jurisdictions.
Table 4.2 Future Master Planned Recreation Resources
Name Description & Location Owner
Proposed Trail
around Prince Lake
development
Prince Lake 1 is in the process of being filled and converted to a
commercial property. A trail system that goes around the perimeter of
this subdivision will be put in to connect to Erie Lake, north of SH 7.
City of Erie
Potential Trail
Corridor
This trail corridor is just south of Bullhead Gulch, on the southern side
of SH 7. It will connect to areas north of Baseline Road. The City of
Lafayette identifies it as having visual quality and trail potential.
Boulder County Open Space identifies it as a potential corridor.
City of Lafayette,
Boulder County
Teller Lakes Corridor
Trail
City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks identified a
conceptual alignment for a trail in the area south of Teller Lakes. This
trail system would cross SH 7 from Teller Lakes and continue
southwest to connect to Baseline reservoir.
City of Boulder Open
Space Mountain Parks
Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Evaluation
Some of the park properties present within the study area are publicly owned and are afforded
protection under Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966, as defined in 23 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 774. A Section 4(f) resource is a property that functions or is designated as a
significant publicly owned park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or historic site. If one of
these properties is impacted as part of the proposed action, then a Section 4(f) evaluation may be
required for that particular resource. This study area contains no areas protected by Section 6 (f).
4.2 Traffic Noise
The potential for noise impacts from vehicles to receptors, that is, properties near transportation
facilities, is a general concern. State and federal transportation agencies such as CDOT or FHWA have
established thresholds for determining noise impacts to guide their projects. When impacts are
identified from an improvement, mitigation actions for impacted receptors are considered for the
project. Traffic noise is an important consideration for this project because many sensitive properties
exist along the study corridor and may be impacted by traffic noise.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 35
DRAFT 24
Existing Noise Sensitive Areas
Table 4.3 identifies CDOT Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC). Several residences (NAC Category B), places
of worship (NAC Category C), and sensitive commercial developments (NAC Category E) can be found in
the PEL study area between 75th Street and US 287. There are also agricultural properties (NAC Category
F), which are not considered to be noise sensitive. Table 4.4 summarizes noise sensitive areas.
Table 4.3 CDOT Noise Abatement Criteria
Land Use
Category
CDOT NAC
(Leq dB) Description of Land Use Category
A 56
Exterior
Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an
important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the
area is to continue to serve its intended purpose.
B 66
Exterior Residential
C 66
Exterior
Active sport areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds, cemeteries, day care
centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic areas, places of worship,
playgrounds, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio
studios, recording studios, recreational areas, Section 4(f) sites, schools, television
studios, trails, and trail crossings.
D 51
Interior
Auditoriums, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, places of
worship, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio
studios, recording studios, schools, and television studios.
E 71
Exterior
Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other developed lands, properties or
activities not included in A–D or F.
F Not
Applicable
Agriculture, airports, bus yards, emergency services, industrial, logging, maintenance
facilities, manufacturing, mining, rail yards, retail facilities, ship yards, utilities (water
resources, water treatment, electrical), and warehousing.
G Not
Applicable Undeveloped lands that are not permitted for development.
Source: CDOT, 2015
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 36
DRAFT 25
Table 4.4 Noise Sensitive Areas
Location Description Property Description CDOT Land
Use Category
North of SH 7 and East of US 287 Commercial E
North of SH 7 at Stonehenge Dr Residential B
South of SH 7 and West of Stonehenge Dr Residential B
South of SH 7 and Stonehenge Dr Residential B
North of SH 7 and Yarrow St Residential B
South of SH 7 and Forest Park Cir Commercial and Residential B/E
North of SH 7 and East of N 95th St Residential B
South of SH 7 and East of N 95th St Commercial E
South of SH 7 and West of N 95th St Commercial and Recreational Center C/E
North of SH 7 and West of N 95th St Residential B
SH 7 and Kilkenny St Residential B
North of SH 7 and East of Park Lake Dr Residential B
South of SH 7 and Park Lake Dr Place of Worship C
North of SH 7 at Park Lake Dr Residential B
South of SH 7 and West of Park Lake Dr Residential B
South of SH 7 at Marshallville Ditch Rd Residential B
SH 7 and White Rocks Tr Residential B
SH 7 and Willow Creek Dr Residential B
North of SH 7 and East of N 75th St Residential B
South of SH 7 and East of N 75th St Residential B
South of SH 7 and West of N 75th St Commercial C/E
North of SH 7 and West of N 75th St Place of Worship and Residential B/C
Note: These noise sensitive areas are generally within 500 feet of the study area.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 37
DRAFT 26
4.3 Historic Resources
This section includes information on previously historic resources and properties greater than 45 years
of age along the SH 7 corridor. Historic resources encompass man‐made features and physical remains
of past human activity, generally at least 45 years old (properties constructed in 1971 or earlier). Historic
resources include buildings, bridges, railroads, ditches, roads, and other structures.
Significant historic resources are afforded consideration by Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, as well as Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966. Significant
historic resources are those that are listed or may be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP). Sites qualifying for the NRHP must retain sufficient integrity (of location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association) and meet one or more of the eligibility criteria
specified in 36 CFR 60.4.
Important historic resources must be identified and considered during planning for federally assisted
transportation projects, in accordance with Section 106. This information was collected from a variety of
sources including the following:
Lists of properties on the NRHP
Lists of properties on the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties
Lists of Local Landmarks from communities and counties with local historic landmark programs
Boulder County Registered Historic Landmark Sites
City of Lafayette Historic Register
A file search at the Colorado Historical Society for all properties that had previously been
surveyed and officially designated as properties eligible for inclusion on the NRHP
A file search at the Colorado Historical Society for all properties that had previously been
surveyed and had been field assessed as properties eligible for inclusion on the NRHP
A field assessment to identify properties with architectural character and integrity that may be
potential historic resources
Previously Identified Historic Sites
For purposes of this study, only properties that are listed on the NRHP or officially eligible for the NRHP
are shown as previously identified historic sites. There is one existing historic property within the SH 7
corridor, including 5BL4488.2 Cottonwood Ditch #2. The ditch, originally recorded in 2002 and again in
2005, was determined officially eligible to the NRHP. Table 4.5 identifies this site. Figure 4.2 shows
previously identified historic sites in the corridor.
Table 4.5 Previously Identified Historic Sites
Site # Name Address Description Status
5BL4488.2 Cottonwood
Ditch #2
N.75th St,
approximately
500 feet north of SH 7
Irrigation ditch built in 1863 that derives its
water from South Boulder Creek via New
Dry Creek Carrier Ditch
Historic
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 38
DRAFT 27 Figure 4.2 Previously Identified and Potential Historic Sites Source: Boulder County GIS; OAHP Compass Database 2016.Attachment AAgenda Item 4 Page 39
DRAFT 28
Potential Historic Sites
Because not all historic sites within this large corridor have been identified or previously surveyed, it is
important to evaluate all properties along the corridor for NRHP‐eligibility. Potential historic sites
include:
Properties that have been previously surveyed and field assessed as eligible to the NRHP.
Properties that have been previously surveyed and that were determined not eligible to the
NRHP, but with the passage of time may now be potentially assessed as eligible to the NRHP
Local historic landmarks
Properties with buildings or structures more than 45 years of age that have not been previously
surveyed.
Table 4.6 lists 23 properties that have been previously surveyed for NRHP eligibility. This list includes
residences, commercial properties, farms, irrigation ditches, a railroad, a school, and a monument
structure. All of the properties in this list will need additional research and formal evaluations to
determine whether or not they are eligible for the NRHP.
Table 4.6 Previously Surveyed Properties
Name Address Description
Arapahoe
Elementary School
7483 E Arapahoe Rd Art Deco‐style school constructed in 1927 with irregular plan, flat roof,
2‐stories, and clad in brick, with Ex‐Religious Non Res Imps.
Kolb Farm 7715 E Arapahoe Rd Bungalow‐style single‐family dwelling built in 1910. Site includes
several outbuildings constructed between 1920 and 1936.
Woodley Property 7957 E Arapahoe Rd Late Victorian‐style dwelling built in 1870, with several farm
outbuildings.
Holmes Farm 8495 E Arapahoe Rd Bungalow‐style dwelling built in 1916. Site includes a well house and
granary.
Horn Property 9267 E Arapahoe Rd 1920‐era dwelling with several outbuildings, including a garage built in
the 1950s.
Healy Property 10167 E Arapahoe Rd Single‐family dwelling built in 1940 with several outbuildings and
Farm/Ranch Residential Improvements.
Road to
Remembrance
Gateway
On Arapahoe Rd (SH 7)
just west of US 287
Monument erected in 1928 to honor those who served in World War I.
Shirk Property 10538 E Arapahoe Rd Single‐family dwelling built in 1910.
Weems Property 10364 E Arapahoe Rd Ranch‐style single‐family dwelling.
Arapahoe Hill Farm 10282 E Arapahoe Rd Foursquare‐style dwelling built in 1900. Site includes several
outbuildings.
Young Property 8716 E Arapahoe Rd Foursquare‐style dwelling built in 1904. House was moved from
original location and has Single Family Improvements.
Patterson Property 8338 E Arapahoe Rd Hipped‐roof box‐style dwelling built in 1907. Several early‐20th century
outbuildings also located on site.
Autrey Property 8202 E Arapahoe Rd Late Victorian‐style dwelling built in 1900, including several
outbuildings built between 1900 and 1920.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 40
DRAFT 29
Table 4.6 Previously Surveyed Properties (Continued)
Name Address Description
Anderson Property 7912 E Arapahoe Rd Queen Anne‐style dwelling built in 1905. Site includes several
outbuildings built between 1905 and 1948.
Culvert D‐16‐BW Located 0.34 miles
east of SH7/N 75th St
intersection
2‐span concrete box culvert built in 1928. Non‐extant.
Eason Property 7648 E Arapahoe Rd Late Victorian‐style dwelling built in 1907. Site includes two barns built
in 1907 and 1940.
Abner Brown
Residence
7602–7620 E
Arapahoe Rd
Late Victorian‐style single‐family dwelling constructed in 1870. Site
includes several farm outbuildings
John Jacobs
Property
7464 Arapahoe Rd. 1‐story Bungalow‐style dwelling built in 1938, converted into a
restaurant.
Andrews‐Farwell
Ditch
Located 0.34 miles
east of SH7/N 75th St
intersection
Irrigation ditch built in 1864 that derives its water from South Boulder
Creek via New Dry Creek Carrier Ditch
Davidson Ditch Located 1 mile west of
SH 7/N 95th St
intersection
Irrigation ditch lateral flowing north along a section line, under SH 7
and feeding Burke Lake
McGinn Ditch Located 0.62 miles
west of SH 7/N 95th St
intersection
Irrigation ditch built in 1860 that derives its water from South Boulder
Creek.
South Boulder
Canyon Ditch
Vicinity of SH 7/
N 107th St intersection
The original recording of South Boulder Canyon Ditch in the vicinity of
the project area. Resource later resurveyed under resource number
5BL750.
Highline
Lateral/Goodhue
Ditch
Located 0.25 miles
west of SH 7/N 107th St
intersection
Irrigation ditch known as Highline Lateral/Goodhue Ditch, constructed
in 1873.
Table 4.7 lists 25 properties that are greater than 45 years old but have not been previously surveyed
for NRHP eligibility. This list includes residences and farms/ranches. All of the properties in this list will
need additional research and formal evaluations to determine whether or not they are eligible for the
NRHP.
Table 4.7 Properties Greater Than Forty-Five Years Old
Name Address Description
Farm/Ranch 8778 Arapahoe Rd Farm/ranch with several outbuildings.
Farm/Ranch 7878 Arapahoe Rd Farm/ranch residence.
Single Family
Residence
10535 Arapahoe Rd Single family residence.
Single Family
Residence
10611 Arapahoe Rd Single family residence.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 41
DRAFT 30
Table 4.7 Properties Greater Than Forty-Five Years Old (Continued)
Name Address Description
Single Family
Residence
10695 Arapahoe Rd Single family residence.
Single Family
Residence
10191 Arapahoe Rd Single family residence.
Single Family
Residence
9175 Arapahoe Rd Single family residence.
Single Family
Residence
9215 Kerry Rd Single family residence.
Farm/Ranch 9083 Arapahoe Rd Farm/ranch residence, with several farm outbuildings.
Single Family
Improvements
1724 Park Lake Dr Single family residence, with several farm outbuildings.
Single Family
Improvements
1688 Park Lake Dr Single Family Improvements.
Single Family
Improvements
8498 Arapahoe Rd Single residence with a farm outbuilding.
Farm/Ranch
Residential
Improvements
8556 Arapahoe Rd Farm/ranch residence with farm outbuildings.
Single Family
Residence
8912 Arapahoe Rd Single family residence with farm outbuildings.
Single Family
Residence
1592 Kilkenny St Single family residence.
Single Family
Residence
1574 Kilkenny St Single family residence.
Single Family
Residence
1556 Kilkenny St Single family residence.
Single Family
Residence
1542 Kilkenny St Single family residence.
Single Family
Residence
9292 Arapahoe Rd Single family residence.
Single Family
Residence
9278 Arapahoe Rd Single family residence.
Single Family
Residence
9260 Arapahoe Rd Single family residence.
Single Family
Residence
9233 Kerry Rd Single family residence.
Single Family
Residence
9257 Kerry Rd Single family residence.
Single Family
Residence
9271 Kerry Rd Single family residence.
Single Family
Residence
1559 Kilkenny St Single family residence.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 42
DRAFT 31
4.4 Floodways and 100-year Floodplains
This section summarizes major drainageways in the study area. Drainageways were identified by the
FEMA designated floodplain maps. FEMA designated floodplains are defined by Zones AE, A or X:
Zone AE is part of the FEMA 100‐year flood hazard area where base flood elevations have been
determined.
Zone A is part of the FEMA 100‐year flood hazard area where base flood elevations have not
been determined, but a shaded, generalized floodplain is shown on the FEMA Flood Insurance
Rate Maps (FIRM). The 100‐year flood is FEMA’s base flood.
Zone X is part of the FEMA 500‐year flood area, 100‐year flood area with average depths of less
than one foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile or an area of minimal flood
hazard. The study area surrounding SH 7 that is not designated as a FEMA Zone AE is identified as
Zone X.
Two drainageways have FEMA designated floodplains in the study area. Both are designated as Zone AE
floodplains. No Zone A floodplains were found in the study area. Table 4.8 identifies the drainageways
within the study area and their corresponding FEMA designation. Both the Bullhead Gulch and Dry Creek
100‐year floodplains cross SH 7.
Table 4.8 Summary of Drainageways
Drainageway FEMA Zone
Bull Head Gulch AE
Dry Creek AE
A floodway designation, in addition to the Zone AE floodplain delineation, means that an area of the
floodplain has been defined to be “reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively
increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height.” FEMA typically accomplishes this
by prohibiting placement of fill in the floodway. If fill is proposed in a floodway, floodplain modeling
must show that the fill placement will not adversely impact surrounding property.
The drainageways that have Zone AE floodplains and floodways delineated are the most sensitive to any
changes in the floodplain and will almost certainly require a Conditional Letter of Map Revision/Letter of
Map Revision process if any changes are proposed.
4.5 Wetlands and Waters of the US
Wetland resources are protected under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 US Code [USC]
1344). They can also be protected under Executive Order 11990 Protection of Wetlands (USEPA 1977)
when federal funding is used. The CWA requires coordination with the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), resource agencies such as the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and
the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) when impacts occur to wetlands. CDOT has incorporated
this and other FHWA environmental guidance into its Environmental Stewardship Guide (CDOT, 2005),
which emphasizes efforts to avoid and minimize wetland impacts.
The following wetland analysis describes the inventory of wetlands and other waters within the SH 7
corridor between US 287 and N 75th St. This analysis discusses the wetlands within the study area and
identifies current conditions.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 43
DRAFT 32
Wetland Analysis Methodology
Conducted in June 2016, a limited site reconnaissance of the study area examined previously identified
wetlands and potential wetland areas. The site visit noted dominant vegetation types and collected
limited hydrological data. No soils testing was conducted.
Before conducting the reconnaissance, a desktop review of available wetland mapping provided by the
Colorado Natural Heritage Program's (CNHP's) Colorado Wetland Inventory (CNHP 2016), the USFWS's
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) (USFWS 2016), and a review of aerial photography was conducted.
Checking the CNHP and NWI data identified several wetlands as documented in Table 4.9.
Wetland Analysis Findings
Most wetlands identified within the corridor are small palustrine emergent, palustrine scrub/shrub, and
palustrine scrub/shrub‐emergent mix wetlands with most occurring along existing waterways and
drainages and in roadside ditches. Most of these roadside and irrigation ditch wetlands were considered
low quality wetlands due to low vegetative diversity and predominance of invasive species. The
exception is wetlands associated with Dry Creek, Bullhead Gulch, and South Boulder Canyon Ditch,
which, depending on existing riparian conditions, provide a moderate quality wetland value due to
higher levels of vegetative diversity and predominance toward native plants.
Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetlands
Typical vegetation included sandbar willow (Salix interior), plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides), crack
willow (Salix fragilis), Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila), and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia). Sandbar
willow was the most dominant shrub in these wetlands, which provided the scrub‐shrub classification.
The locations containing these wetlands were found adjacent to waterways, in irrigation ditches, or in
roadside ditches, which receive periods of temporary flooding or stormwater flows that contribute to a
higher water table. Common hydrologic indicators found in the study area include drift lines, sediment
deposits, and drainage patterns in wetlands.
Palustrine Emergent Wetlands
Palustrine emergent wetlands found in the study area were located along irrigation and roadway
ditches, along edges of detention ponds, and adjacent to perennial and intermittent waterways. The
typical vegetation includes a predominance of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) and broad‐leaf
cattail (Typha latifolia), as well as smaller populations of rush (Juncus ssp.), and Canada thistle (Cirsium
arvense). The primary hydrology for these wetlands is surface runoff, groundwater flows, and adjacency
to intermittent and perennial waterways. Hydrologic indicators observed include sediment deposits,
areas of inundation, and drainage patterns in wetlands. Table 4.9 lists all wetlands identified in this field
review, as shown in Figure 4.3.
Wetland hydrology for the identified wetlands in the corridor study area was based on field
observations and was found to be a combination of irrigation ditches, groundwater, stormwater runoff,
and adjacency to water flows in Dry Creek and Bullhead Gulch.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 44
DRAFT 33
Table 4.9 Summary of Study Area Wetlands
Wetland Label Wetland Identification
Prince Lake No. 1 PUBGx: Palustrine, Unconsolidated Bottom, Intermittently Exposed, Excavated
Unnamed Pond (west of Prince
Lake No. 1)
PUBGx: Palustrine, Unconsolidated Bottom, Intermittently Exposed, Excavated
Unnamed Pond PUBFx: Palustrine, Unconsolidated Bottom, Semipermanently Flooded,
Excavated
Davidson Highline Lateral Ditch
(also known as South Boulder
Canyon Ditch)
R5UBFx: Riverine, Unknown Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom,
Semipermanently Flooded, Excavated
Bullhead Gulch Wetland PEM1C: Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded
Bullhead Gulch Ditch R4SBC: Riverine, Intermittent, Streambed, Seasonally Flooded
Unnamed Wetland (North of
Bullhead Gulch)
Rp1FO: Riparian, Forested
McGinn Ditch R5UBFx: Riverine, Unknown Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom,
Semipermanently
Unnamed Pond PUBF: Palustrine, Unconsolidated Bottom, Semipermanently Flooded
Burke Lake PUBF: Palustrine, Unconsolidated Bottom, Semipermanently Flooded
PEMC: Palustrine, Emergent/Herbaceous, Seasonally Flooded
Unnamed Ditch R4SBC: Riverine, Intermittent, Streambed, Seasonally Flooded
Rp1FO: Riparian, Forested
Unnamed Wetland System PEMA: Palustrine, Emergent
Unnamed Pond PUBF: Palustrine, Unconsolidated Bottom, Semipermanently Flooded
Unnamed Pond PUBF: Palustrine, Unconsolidated Bottom, Semipermanently Flooded
Unnamed Pond PUBF: Palustrine, Unconsolidated Bottom, Semipermanently Flooded
Unnamed Wetland System PEMC: Palustrine, Emergent/Herbaceous, Seasonally Flooded
Unnamed Wetland System PSSA: Palustrine, Shrub/Scrub, Temporarily Flooded
Unnamed Ditch R5UBFx: Riverine, Unknown Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Semi‐
permanently Flooded, Excavated
Dry Creek PEM1C: Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded
Source: Wetland Classification as identified from the USFWS National Wetland Inventory
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 45
DRAFT 34 Figure 4.3 Floodplains, Floodways, Wetlands, and Waters of the US Source: Boulder County GISAttachment AAgenda Item 4 Page 46
DRAFT 35
4.6 Wildlife/Threatened and Endangered Species
Wildlife is an important public resource that warrants consideration during federally funded projects
and is documented during the NEPA process. Various federal laws have been established to protect
wildlife, including the ESA, the MBTA, and the BGEPA.
Details and characteristics of wildlife resources in the study area were identified using existing GIS data
and field verified (June 2016) (see Table 4.10 and Figure 4.4). Additional inventory details about the
resources, such as protection status and presence of species, were obtained from accessing the
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) species profiles website, the CNHP website, and the USFWS website
in May 2016. Research used the most current version of information available online. Data from the
North I‐25 EIS was used because the two study areas generally overlap with the SH 7 study area (FHWA
and CDOT, 2011a).
Table 4.10 Existing Wildlife Resources
Resource
Name Protection Type Habitat Habitat Present? Observed in
Field?
Bald Eagle
(Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)
BGEPA, MBTA Reservoirs and rivers. In winter
may also occur locally in
semideserts and grasslands,
especially near prairie dog towns.
Yes, multiple areas
with cottonwoods
and creeks/rivers in
study area.
None was seen
during windshield
survey.
Western
Burrowing
Owl (Athene
cuniculalria)
State
Threatened
Species, MBTA
Lives in dry, open areas with short
grasses and no trees. Nests and
lives in underground burrows
created by prairie dogs, ground
squirrels, and badgers. Can be
found where suitable burrows
exist.
Yes, prairie dog
colonies exist in
several places along
the corridor.
None was seen
during windshield
survey.
Cliff Swallows
(Petrochelidon
pyrrhonota)
MBTA Streams and creeks with readily
available access to insects and
locations for building nests.
Yes, multiple
locations where
structures can be
used to build nests.
None was seen
during windshield
survey.
Colorado
butterfly plant
(Oenothera
coloradensis)
Federally
Threatened
Species ‐ ESA
An early successional plant
(although probably not a pioneer)
adapted to use meandering
stream channel sites that are
periodically disturbed. It occurs on
subirrigated, alluvial (stream
deposited) soils on level or slightly
sloping floodplains and drainage
bottoms. It does not occur in
Boulder County.
Yes, Dry Creek and
agricultural ditches.
No survey was
conducted.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 47
DRAFT 36
Table 4.10 Existing Wildlife Resources (Continued)
Resource
Name Protection Type Habitat Habitat Present? Observed in
Field?
Common shiner
(Notropis
cornutus)
State
Threatened
Species – ESA
Typically occurs in small and
medium‐sized streams with
clear, cool water and a
moderate current. Streams
usually with unvegetated gravel
to rubble bottom. Prefer pools
adjacent to rapids/cascades.
Yes, Dry Creek. No survey was
conducted.
Mexican
Spotted Owl
(Strix
occidentalis
lucida)
Federally
Threatened
Species – ESA
Resides in old‐growth or mature
forests that possess complex
structural components (uneven
aged stands, high canopy
closure, multi‐storied levels, and
high tree density).
No habitat in this study
area meets the species
requirements.
No survey was
conducted.
Black‐Tailed
prairie dog
(Cynomys
ludovicianus)
CPW Species of
Concern
Typically resides in areas below
6,000 feet, east of Colorado's
foothills. The largest areas of
active prairie dog colonies are
located along the Front Range
and in the south‐central/
southeastern portions of
Colorado.
Yes, multiple prairie
dog colonies occur in
the study area.
Yes
Preble’s
meadow
jumping mouse
(Zapus
hudsonius
preblei)
Federally
Threatened
Species – ESA
Inhabits riparian areas near
standing or running water in
lowland areas dominated by
forested wetlands, shrub
dominated wetlands, and
grass/forb dominated wetlands
between 4,000 and 8,000 feet in
elevation.
Yes, Dry Creek
*Note: A block
clearance zone for this
species exists just
outside the study area,
south of SH 7 and east
of US 287.
No survey was
conducted.
Ute ladies’‐
tresses orchid
(Spiranthes
diluvialis)
Federally
Threatened
Species – ESA
Occurs along riparian edges,
gravel bars, old oxbows, high
flow channels, and moist to wet
meadows along perennial
streams.
Yes, Dry Creek
*Note: A block
clearance zone for this
species exists outside
of the study area along
the South Platte River
south of SH 7.
No survey was
conducted.
Western prairie
fringed orchid
(Platanthera
praeclara)
Federally
Threatened
Species – ESA
Occurs most often in mesic to
wet unplowed tallgrass prairies
and meadows but has been
found in old fields and roadside
ditches.
No habitat is present. No survey was
conducted.
Sources: CPW, 2016; USFWS, 2016
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 48
DRAFT 37 Figure 4.4 Wildlife Corridors, Threatened and Endangered Species Source: Boulder County GISAttachment AAgenda Item 4 Page 49
DRAFT 38
The wildlife analysis identified state and federally listed endangered species, protected species, common
species, and potential wildlife corridors. State and federally listed threatened and endangered species
are listed or are candidates for listing on the ESA. Habitat and range maps were collected from the
above resources. Protected species were identified by sight or habitat that was readily visible in the field
at the time of the survey. They included species protected by the MBTA and BGEPA. Other species
present in the study area could be mule deer (Odocoileus hemoinus), whitetail deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), coyote (Canis latrans), and red fox (Vulpes vulpes). Wildlife
corridors are beneficial for wildlife to move through the landscape freely.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Field surveys identified locations where possible protected threatened and endangered species habitat
would be present as listed in Table 4.10. This includes habitat for plants such as the Colorado butterfly
plant and the Ute ladies’‐tresses orchid. Other species identified as having habitat present in the study
area include the common shiner and Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. While prairie dog habitat is
present, which can indicate Western Burrowing Owl habitat, Western Burrowing Owls usually prefer an
area with longer sightlines to spot predators approaching. A detailed survey of these drainages is
recommended for the listed species to identify their presence or absence in the study area.
Migratory Birds
During the field survey, no nests were identified within or readily visible from the study area. This
includes migratory birds, raptors, and eagle nests. However, suitable habitat exists within the study area
for Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), Bald Eagle, Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus), and Red‐
tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis). This habitat should be further studied to determine the presence of
any nests, as the CPW has recommended buffers for raptor nests to limit disturbance due to human
encroachment and vary based on the nesting species of raptor (CPW, 2008).
Thus, impacts to migratory birds (e.g., song birds, herons, other raptors, and eagles) may occur from
design alternatives if construction occurs during the normal nesting season of these species. The normal
nesting season can differ by species.
Wildlife Corridors
Wildlife is identified as a road safety hazard, causing billions of dollars annually in repairs and medical
costs due to animal‐vehicle collisions (AVCs) nationwide. These AVCs also result in a loss to wildlife
populations and wildlife diversity. Typically, the total number of AVCs is under‐reported and focuses
only on large wildlife species. Existing land use in the study area is primarily agricultural, but land is
being converted into residential and commercial development at a steady pace. Where wildlife had free
movement through fields and along drainages in the past, their movements are now becoming more
constricted and their habitat is more fragmented due to this development.
Currently, there are no parks or open space properties that included identified movement corridors for
wildlife between protected tracts of land within or adjacent to the study area. The field survey noted no
major wildlife corridors that facilitate wildlife movement. However, three corridors, including Dry Creek,
Bullhead Gulch, and South Boulder Canyon Ditch, serve as potential wildlife corridors. The construction
of wildlife‐friendly structures over or along these drainages will provide avenues for wildlife to move
through the study area while keeping the general public safe.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 50
DRAFT 39
4.7 Hazardous Materials
The methodology used to identify the presence of sites with known RECs (recognized environmental
contaminant) and PECs (potential environmental contaminant) within the study area included the
following steps:
1.Obtained an Environmental Data Resources (EDR) regulatory database search report of sites
listed in federal, state, and local environmental databases as defined by ASTM Standard E1527‐
13.The EDR report identifies regulated facilities with aboveground storage tanks (ASTs),
underground storage tanks (USTs); landfill (LF) sites; hazardous waste generation or treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities; leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites; and other sites
associated with potential soil and groundwater contamination in the search area up to one mile
from the study area.
2.Performed a limited site reconnaissance of properties within the study area for obvious
evidence of potential contamination sources visible from the public right‐of‐way.
For this hazardous materials assessment summary, sites within the study area were identified as having
known (current and historic) soil or groundwater contamination and are distinguished in this report as
sites with recognized environmental conditions. ASTM Standard E1527‐13 defines RECs as: “…the
presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under
conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any
hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground,
groundwater, or surface water of the property.” When potential regulated materials concerns, as
identified during the limited site reconnaissance, or review of agency databases or other relevant
resources could not be confirmed without additional inspection or investigation, the sites were
distinguished as sites with potential RECs.
Sites with the potential for soil and/or groundwater contamination that could not be confirmed without
additional inspection or investigation are distinguished as sites with potential environmental conditions.
The SH 7 PEL study area has a variety of land uses, including agricultural, oil/gas development,
residential, commercial, and light industrial. A total of 16 sites with recognized and potential
environmental conditions were identified within 500 feet of the SH 7 study area (Table 4.11 and
Figure 4.5).
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 51
DRAFT 40
Table 4.11 Sites with Recognized and Potential Environmental Conditions within 500 feet
of SH 7 and 168th Avenue within the Study Area
Site Address/Name Distance from
Study Area Site Description
SH 7
3332 Arapahoe Rd
Erie, CO 80516
Adjacent Database: AST, Historical Auto. PEC. This site previously
operated as a Great American Tire and Auto Service and is
now closed. Unknown material handling, storage, and
disposal practices. Given the potential presence of materials
including fuel, motor oils, hydraulic fluids, degreasers, paints,
and solvents, this site is a PEC.
3333 Arapahoe Rd, Erie
Historical Auto Stations
Adjacent Database: Historical Auto and Historical Cleaner. PEC. Two
auto stations were previously present at this site: Great
American Fast Lube closed in 2001, and Great American Tire
& Auto Service closed in 2002. Unknown material handling,
storage, and disposal practices. Potential materials include
fuel, motor oils, hydraulic fluids, degreasers, paints, and
solvents. Heritage Cleaners was also identified at this address
between 2004 and 2008. Currently this site is a strip mall
with a Safeway store. Given the historic uses of the property,
this site is considered a PEC, requiring additional analysis.
3334 Arapahoe Rd
Erie, CO 80516
Adjacent Database: UST. PEC. This site is an operating gasoline station
with three tanks currently in use with a 20,000 gallon
gasoline tank, a 12,000 gallon gasoline tanks, and a 10,000
gallon diesel tank. No incidents reports; however, given the
presence and use of petroleum products, this site is a PEC.
3335 Arapahoe Rd
Erie, CO 80516
Adjacent Database: Historical Cleaner. This site is a historical cleaner.
Given the historic uses of the property, this site is considered
a PEC, requiring additional analysis.
US 287 and Arapahoe Rd
Boulder County,
Shirk Borrow Pit
Adjacent Database: MINES. PEC. An 8.5 acre surface mine. Listed as
terminated use. A permit was issued 03/24/1983. Current
site is developed residential. Given the historic uses of the
property, this site is considered a PEC, requiring additional
analysis.
10473 Arapahoe Rd, Boulder Adjacent Database: CO ERNS. PEC. In 1996, heavy rains caused a 500‐
gallon diesel tank to overturn and spill into South Boulder
Canyon Ditch. Residual contamination could be present
making this site a PEC.
101000 Arapahoe Rd, Lafayette Adjacent Database: CO ERNS. PEC. In 1996 an unknown amount of
diesel spilled onto the driveway and drainage ditch along
SH 7. Residual contamination could be present making this
site a PEC.
9899 Arapahoe Rd, Boulder
Blum Jim Oldsmobile GMC
Adjacent Database: AIRS. PEC. Potential for emissions. Unknown
material handling, storage, and disposal practices. Potential
materials include fuel, motor oils, hydraulic fluids,
degreasers, paints, and solvents.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 52
DRAFT 41
Table 4.11 Sites with Recognized and Potential Environmental Conditions within 500 feet
of SH 7 and 168th Avenue within the Study Area (Continued)
Site Address/Name
Distance
from
Study
Area
Site Description
SH 7 (Continued)
1385 Forest Park Cir, Lafayette
Historical Cleaners
Adjacent Database: Historical Cleaners. PEC. Boulder Cleaners and Laundry
Inc. operated at this location until 2007. Unknown material
handling, storage, and disposal practices. Currently, this site is a
Guitar Hut. Given the historic uses of the property, this site is
considered a PEC, requiring additional analysis.
1414 Tipperary St, Boulder
Historical Auto Station
550 Feet N Database: Historical Auto. PEC. Global Off Road Engineering LLC
operated at this location until 2007. Unknown material handling,
storage, and disposal practices. Potential materials include fuel,
motor oils, hydraulic fluids, degreasers, paints, and solvents.
Currently, this site is a residence. Given the historic uses of the
property, this site is considered a PEC, requiring additional
analysis.
N 95th St & Arapahoe Rd
Boulder
Illegal Dump
Adjacent Database: SWF/LF. REC: Unknown details concerning dump;
residual contamination could be present. Site is currently
undeveloped. Given the unknown details on this site, it is a REC.
1446 95th St, Lafayette
7‐Eleven
Adjacent Database: LUST, UST. PEC: This site contained a RGA LUST from
2010 to 2012. This facility is an operating gas station with three
open underground storage tanks (one 15,000‐gallon and two
10,000‐gallon) with unleaded regular gasoline, mid‐grade
gasoline, and premium gasoline. Two LUST events have occurred
at the site due to overfilling with closure letters submitted (OPS,
2016).
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 53
DRAFT 42
Table 4.11 Sites with Recognized and Potential Environmental Conditions within 500 feet
of SH 7 and 168th Avenue within the Study Area (East to West) (Continued)
Site Address/Name Distance from
Study area Site Description
SH 7 – West of I‐25
2755 Dagny Way, Lafayette
Historical Auto Stations
Adjacent Database: Historical Auto. PEC. Meineke Car Care Center
operated at this location from 2006 to 2010. Currently,
this location is a Smashburger restaurant, a CrossFit Julia
gym, and an insurance office. Given the historic uses of
the property, this site is considered a PEC, requiring
additional analysis.
2770 Dagny Way, Lafayette
Historical Cleaners
Adjacent Database: Historical Cleaners. PEC. Scientific Cleaner Inc.
operated at this location from 2003 to 2005. Currently,
this location is an Espresso Vino coffee shop/bar, a Mew
Mew’s yarn shop, a 95th St Salon, and a Brewing Market
coffee shop.
8912 Arapahoe Rd, Boulder Adjacent Database UST. PEC. This location contains a permanently
closed UST in 1951 that held gasoline (size unknown).
Currently, this site is a residence. Given the unknown
presence of contamination, this site is considered a PEC,
requiring additional analysis.
7498 Arapahoe Rd, Boulder
Fairview Store
Adjacent Database: LUST. REC. This facility was in the LUST
database with a RGA LUST from 2001 to 2009. This
location contains three 10,000‐gallon open underground
storage tanks that hold mid‐grade gasoline, premium
gasoline, diesel, and waste oil. The facility also has two
permanently closed 2,000‐gallon USTs, but the removal of
these tanks is unknown according to OPS (2016). This site
is currently an operating Conoco gas station. Given the
unknown removal of the tanks, this site is a REC and
requires additional analysis.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 54
DRAFT 43 Figure 4.5 Hazardous Materials – Sites with Recognized Potential Environmental Conditions Source: EDR, 2016.Attachment AAgenda Item 4 Page 55
DRAFT 44
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
The Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Oil and Public Safety defines a LUST site
as closed/clean‐up complete when “the owner and/or operator has not necessarily removed all
contamination, but instead actions taken have met the criteria that the State uses for determining
adequate clean up.” As a result, residual surficial and subsurface soil contamination and/or groundwater
contamination may be present at closed sites and could be encountered on‐site or downgradient of
these closed sites during subsurface construction activities. There is one LUST site adjacent to the study
area from an overfill. A closure letter has been sent.
Oil and Gas Facilities
No oil and gas facilities were observed within or adjacent to the study area.
Farm Properties
Several farm properties are located adjacent to the SH 7 corridor. Historically, it was not uncommon for
these types of properties to have petroleum storage tanks and fuel equipment. During the site
reconnaissance, many small‐ and medium‐acreage farms were observed. Individual farm properties
were not investigated during the site visit; however, in general, these properties often contain multiple
structures, equipment storage, miscellaneous debris piles, 55‐gallon drums, ASTs, and propane tanks
and unknown hazardous materials handling, storage, or disposal practices. Old cisterns and septic
systems could also be present associated with the farm properties. The farm properties are identified as
sites of concern due to unknown historical disposal practices and use of petroleum and other hazardous
materials.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 56
DRAFT 45
5.0 REFERENCES
City of Boulder. 2014. City of Boulder Transportation Master Plan. Website accessed June 2016.
https://www‐static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/transportation‐master‐plan‐tmp‐2014‐1‐
201408271459.pdf
Boulder County. 2016. Regional Trail Map. Website accessed June 2016.
http://www.bouldercounty.org/find/maps/pages/parks.aspx
Carsey et al. 2003. Field Guide to the Wetland and Riparian Plant Associations of Colorado.
City of Boulder. 2010. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Website Accessed June 2016. https://www‐
static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/boulder‐valley‐comprehensive‐plan‐2010‐1‐201410091122.pdf
City of Boulder. 2016. Envision East Arapahoe. Retrieved June 2016.
https://bouldercolorado.gov/planning/envision‐east‐arapahoe‐transportation
City of Lafayette. Website accessed June 2016. http://www.cityoflafayette.com/160/Open‐Space
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2005. Environmental Stewardship Guide. Accessed
online June 2016. https://www.codot.gov/programs/environmental/resources/guidance‐
standards/esguide5‐12‐05prepress.pdf
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2008. Technical Memorandum, Wetlands and Other
Waters of the U.S. in North I‐25 Draft EIS. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Transit Administration and Colorado Department of Transportation.
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2011. Technical Memorandum Addendum, Wetlands
and Other Waters of the U.S. in Final North I‐25 EIS. United States Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration and Colorado Department of
Transportation.
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2015. CDOT Noise Analysis and Abatement Guidelines.
June.
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2016. College of Natural Resources, Colorado State
University. Fort Collins, CO.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). 2008. Colorado Division of Wildlife Raptor Guidelines. February.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). 2016. CPW Species Profiles. Website accessed May 2016
http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SpeciesProfiles.aspx
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. (FWS/OBS‐79/31) United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C.
Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). 2015. 2040 Metro Vision Fiscally Constrained
Regional Transportation Plan.
Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR). 2016. EDR DataMap Area Study. Inquiry Number: 4616319.5s.
May 13.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 57
DRAFT 46
Environmental Laboratory. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual: Great Plains Region. Technical Report ERDC/EL TR‐10‐1, United States Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2008a.
SH 7 (Cherryvale Rd. to 75th St.) Environmental Assessment and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation. May.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2008b.
SH 7 (Cherryvale Rd. to 75th St.) Finding of No Significant Impact and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation.
October.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2011a.
North I‐25 Final Environmental Impact Statement, Final Section 4(f) Evaluation. August.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2011b.
North I‐25 Record of Decision. December.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Regional Transportation District (RTD). 2011a. North Metro
Corridor Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation. January.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Regional Transportation District (RTD). 2011b. Record of
Decision North Metro Corridor Project. April.
Felsburg Holt and Ullevig (FHU). 2009. SH 7 Corridor Study, Revised Initial Evaluation of Alternative
Alignments Technical Memorandum. February 25.
Geocal, Inc. 2004. North I‐25 Front Range Environmental Impact Statement. Abandoned Mines Mapping,
Preliminary Report. October 14.
Jointly Owned Boulder County‐Lafayette Open Space Management Plan. 2004 amended 2010. Website
accessed June 2016. http://www.bouldercounty.org/doc/parks/jointlaflouismplan.pdf
Natural Diversity Information Source (NDIS). 2012. Website:
http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/conservationcnty.asp?cnty=031 .
Oil and Public Safety (OPS). 2016. http://costis.cdle.state.co.us/home.asp. Date retrieved: June 2016.
Regional Transportation District of Denver (RTD). 2014. FastTracks Northwest Area Mobility Study. Date
retrieved: June, 2016. http://www.rtd‐fastracks.com/nams_1
United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. Information, Planning, and Conservation System
(IPaC) internet mapping tool website: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/wizard/trustResourceList!prepare.action
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Clean Water Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.
(2002). Retrieved from http://epw.senate.gov/water.pdf
Town of Erie. 2008. Transportation Master Plan. January 8.
Town of Erie, City and County of Broomfield, and CDOT. 2002 (as amended). SH 7 Access Control Plan.
July.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 Page 58
C I T Y O F B O U L D E R
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
MEETING DATE: August 9, 2017
AGENDA TITLE: Review of and recommendation regarding the 2018 Open Space and
Mountain Parks Department Operating Budget.
PRESENTERS:
Tracy Winfree, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Abbie Poniatowski, Deputy Director
Lauren Kilcoyne, Business Services Supervisor
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is a request for the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) to:
Meet its Charter requirement to, “Review the City Manager's proposed budget as it relates to Open
Space matters and submit its recommendations concerning said budget to the City Council.”
OSBT will review, approve and recommend that the City Council approve the Open Space and
Mountain Parks (OSMP) Department’s 2018 Operating Budget of $26,039,016 to be allocated
from the Open Space Fund to cover the 2018 operating expenditures and transfers as outlined in
this memorandum and related attachments.
At the June business meeting, the OSBT unanimously approved and recommended the 2018 OSMP
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget of $9,080,000 from the Open Space Fund and $355,300
allocation from the Lottery Fund.
At the July business meeting, staff provided a briefing, information sharing and Q&A on the Draft
2018 Operating Budget. For additional information, the OSBT meeting packets are located here:
June 8 Agenda Item 5 Pages 8-18
July 27 Agenda Item 5D Pages 1-11
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests Open Space Board of Trustees’ consideration of this matter and action in the form of
the following motion:
Motion to approve, and recommend that City Council approve an appropriation of $26,039,016 in
2018 for the Open Space and Mountain Parks Operating Budget from the Open Space Fund as
outlined in this memorandum and related attachments.
THEMES AND ANALYSIS
Revenue Projections and Budget Request
Since the July business meeting, revenue projections have been adjusted. The department has
based its 2018 budget on revenue projections from the Budget Office. Projections are provided for
the six-year planning horizon presented in the Fund Financial and are adjusted annually based on
economic indicators (Attachment A). The 2018 OSMP operating budget is conservative,
considering revenue caution flags and recognizing that 2017 sales tax revenues have been lower
than initially projected. Funds available in the Open Space Fund are sufficient to cover the 2018
Agenda Item 6 Page 1
budget since the department has taken a conservative approach to developing the fund financial.
The city continues to fine-tune and adjust its approach to projecting revenues. As a result, OSMP
may re-evaluate its six-year outlook for the 2019 – 2024 budget horizon. The department is
confident that the recommended budget is in line with stewardship priorities expressed previously
by staff and the OSBT and that if future adjustments are made, the recommended initiatives would
continue.
The 2018 budget request addressing fixed-term staff outlined below received the full support of the
citywide Executive Budget Team in July, and the city manager will recommend approval of all
OSMP budget requests by City Council.
Anticipated Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Reimbursement
Beginning in 2017, the OSMP Fund Financial was adjusted to account for anticipated FEMA
reimbursement on completed projects. Working with the Budget Office and City of Boulder flood
recovery team, OSMP has analyzed its flood recovery work plan, considering needed time to
submit Requests for Reimbursement and receive reimbursements from FEMA, and estimated Fund
Financial revenues and reserves accordingly. Reserves are equal to 7 percent of FEMA
reimbursement revenues anticipated in the fund and will remain in place until after all audits are
completed.
Cost Allocation
Cost allocation for OSMP in 2018 is $1,960,444. This is an inflationary increase of 3 percent or
$57,100 over the 2017 cost allocation amount, consistent with inflationary increases across other
applicable City of Boulder funds (Attachment B). OSMP continues to pay 6.67 percent of
citywide allocated costs, as it did in 2017. The cost allocation model was updated in 2016 and is
intended to reflect the department’s utilization of services from other city departments that are not
paid for directly. The model is updated every 2-3 years to ensure accuracy. When the cost
allocation model was updated in 2016, OSMP received a 20.6 percent increase in allocated cost, a
result of rapid department growth and related use of services. These increases in OSMP and other
increases in external departments across the city required internal service departments to increase
their own budgets and standard full time equivalents (FTE) to accommodate the increased support
they provide.
During the process of updating the cost allocation plan, service providing departments are
interviewed to provide data on departments’ use of services. Before plan approval, OSMP reviews
data collected on the department for accuracy and to ensure there is no duplication of services.
Department feedback is incorporated and adjustments made before plan approval. The greatest
percentage increases in the 2016 cost allocation plan came from the City Manager’s Office,
Communications, Human Resources, Finance, and Information Technology. It is notable, though,
that although the growth in expenditures for these specific internal service departments averages 58
percent, the change in the OSMP share of their costs has increased on average only 0.6 percent.
Though this plan is updated every 2-3 years, there are opportunities for adjustments between
updates should there be significant changes in the needs and makeup of a department.
Changes in Staffing Levels
For 2018, OSMP is recommending a total of 126.18 FTE, which represents a decrease of 2.22 FTE
from 2017 (Attachment C). This stems from the 2018 OSMP budget request which addresses the
fixed-term positions in the department including expiration of four positions managing projects that
are now complete and/or were hired to train on the job for succession planning. While seven
positions were included in OSMP’s budget request, these positions previously existed in the
department and were conservatively included in the 2018 OSMP Fund Financial. Of the total
Agenda Item 6 Page 2
126.18 department FTEs, 125.91 are funded through the Open Space Fund. The remaining 0.27
FTE is funded by the General Fund to support the work that the Real Estate workgroup provides to
citywide real estate initiatives and transactions. Staff continues to utilize available funding for
seasonal and temporary support to address other service needs across the department. OSMP has
ensured these staff members are categorized consistent with Affordable Care Act (ACA), living
wage, and other guidelines.
2018 OPERATING BUDGET REQUEST
The OSMP 2018 budget request includes $77,144 in one-time costs with $498,801 in ongoing
budget impacts. The request is recommended to fund the conversion and/or extension of seven
fixed-term positions:
•Conversion of (3) Trails Program Leads initially scheduled to expire in December 2017 to
standard ongoing as recommended by organization assessment and trails condition
assessment and in line with the department shift to system stewardship to complete trail
construction and deferred and preventative maintenance;
•Conversion of the (1) Trails Contract Supervisor position initially scheduled to expire in
December 2017 to standard ongoing, slightly recast as Capital Trails Contract Coordinator
in line with job study results, to support department shift to system stewardship including
capital trails maintenance and enhancement;
•Conversion of the (1) Ecologist and (1) Cultural Resource Coordinator positions scheduled
to expire in December 2018 to standard ongoing to support increased permitting,
consultation, and monitoring needs related to system stewardship including ecological and
cultural maintenance and restoration;
•Extension for two years of the (1) Wildlife Coordinator fixed-term position initially
scheduled to expire in December 2017 and focused on non-FEMA ecological flood
recovery to support priority topics in particular, citywide prairie dog management,
relocation, planning, research and monitoring.
These positions support the goal to take care of what we have, with emphasis on maintaining
existing infrastructure and promoting system stewardship within the financial sustainability of the
Open Space Fund.
PUBLIC FEEDBACK
This item is being heard at this public meeting advertised in the Daily Camera on Aug. 6, 2017.
On July 20, 2017, the City Planning Board reviewed and approved the 2018-2023 CIP as
recommended by staff. On Aug. 8, 2017, the City Council held its CIP study session. With
regards to the 2018 operating budget, a City Council study session is scheduled on Sept. 12, 2017.
First and second readings of the 2018 budget and ordinances will be held on October 3 and 17,
respectively.
ATTACHMENTS:
•Attachment A: Open Space Fund Financial
•Attachment B: City of Boulder Cost Allocation Plan
•Attachment C: OSMP Department Detail Page
Agenda Item 6 Page 3
This page is intentionally left blank.
Agenda Item 6 Page 4
CITY OF BOULDER
2016-2023 PROPOSED BUDGET
OPEN SPACE FUND
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Actuals Revised Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Beginning Fund Balance 36,200,183$ 41,201,594$ 12,147,141$ 13,143,395$ 11,827,158$ 9,375,804$ 7,321,597$ 6,188,361$
Sources of Funds
Net Sales Tax Revenue 30,616,008$ 29,715,843$ 30,418,861$ 27,299,725$ 22,552,724$ 23,131,820$ 23,725,970$ 24,335,569$
Anticipated FEMA Flood Reimbursement - 2,250,000 3,031,329 - - - - -
Investment Income 323,577 330,048 335,362 340,761 346,248 351,822 357,487 363,242
Lease and Miscellaneous Revenue 1,163,736 1,032,911 1,063,898 1,095,815 1,128,690 1,162,550 1,197,427 1,233,350
Voice & Sight Tag Program Revenue 110,156 127,000 127,000 127,000 127,000 127,000 127,000 127,000
General Fund Transfer 1,166,175 1,209,590 1,138,820 1,172,985 - - - -
Grants 114,143 - - - - - - -
Total Sources of Funds 33,493,795$ 34,665,392$ 36,115,271$ 30,036,286$ 24,154,662$ 24,773,193$ 25,407,884$ 26,059,161$
Uses of Funds
General Operating Expenditures -$
Office of the Director 1,462,338 1,730,674 2,019,237 2,039,429 2,059,824 2,080,422 2,101,226 2,122,238
Central Services 2,458,323 3,279,028 2,959,798 2,789,396 2,817,290 2,845,463 2,873,917 2,902,656
Community Connections & Partnerships 4,118,393 4,559,034 4,669,251 4,715,944 4,763,103 4,810,734 4,858,842 4,907,430
Resources & Stewardship 3,791,632 3,990,067 4,438,798 4,383,186 4,327,018 4,370,288 4,413,991 4,458,130
Trails & Facilities 3,925,036 4,492,554 4,753,173 4,800,705 4,848,712 4,897,199 4,946,171 4,995,632
Carryover/ATB Operating - 28,771,317 - - - - - -
Cost Allocation 1,577,657 1,903,344 1,960,444 2,009,455 2,059,691 2,111,184 2,163,963 2,218,062
CIP- Capital Enhancement 1,813,335 2,190,000 430,000 590,000 440,000 440,000 390,000 390,000
CIP- Capital Maintenance 1,395,723 640,000 1,130,000 660,000 675,000 725,000 750,000 750,000
CIP- Capital Planning Studies 71,362 300,000 100,000 100,000 - - - -
CIP- Land Acquisition 1,778,834 6,400,000 7,420,000 5,920,000 3,300,000 3,300,000 2,800,000 1,800,000
CIP- New Facility/Infrastructure 13,619 ------
Transfer to BMPA 1,618,163 1,002,209 767,597 663,022 663,022 593,655 593,655 593,655
Debt Service - Bonds & Notes 4,467,969 4,461,618 4,470,719 2,681,388 652,356 653,456 649,356 649,006
Total Uses of Funds 28,492,384$ 63,719,845$ 35,119,016$ 31,352,524$ 26,606,015$ 26,827,400$ 26,541,120$ 25,786,811$
Ending Fund Balance Before Reserves 41,201,594$ 12,147,141$ 13,143,395$ 11,827,158$ 9,375,804$ 7,321,597$ 6,188,361$ 6,460,711$
Reserves
OSBT Contingency Reserve 2,341,951$ 5,083,706$ 5,207,803$ 4,816,505$ 4,438,203$ 4,025,232$ 4,068,202$ 4,112,426$
Pay Period 27 Reserve 291,119 411,119 531,119 547,053 563,464 580,368 597,779 615,712
Sick/Vacation/Bonus Reserve 490,000 490,000 490,000 490,000 490,000 490,000 490,000 490,000
Property and Casualty Reserve 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000
FEMA De-obligation Reserve 69,945 227,445 377,945 383,488 383,488 383,488 383,488 383,488
Total Reserves 3,593,015$ 6,612,270$ 7,006,867$ 6,637,045$ 6,275,155$ 5,879,088$ 5,939,469$ 6,001,626$
Ending Fund Balance After Reserves 37,608,579$ 5,534,872$ 6,136,528$ 5,190,112$ 3,100,649$ 1,442,509$ 248,892$ 459,084$
OPEN SPACE AND MOUNTAIN PARKS
Attachment A
Agenda Item 6 Page 5
.This page is intentionally left blank.Agenda Item 6 Page 6
Department Fund
2018 Cost Allocation
(based on full 2016 Full
Cost Allocation)
Planning, Housing & Sustainability CHAP (1150)121,715
Planning, Housing & Sustainability Planning & Development Review (2120)2,250,770
Planning, Housing & Sustainability Affordable Housing Fund (2140)92,962
Parks & Recreation .25 Sales Tax (2180)502,145
Planning, Housing & Sustainability Climate Action (2400)139,323
OSMP Open Space (2500)1,960,444
PW/Transportation Airport Fund (2700) *44,386
PW/Transportation Transportation Fund (2800)1,531,040
PW/Transportation Transportation Development Fund (2810)4,066
PW/Transportation Transit Pass (2820)318
Community Vitality BJAGID - TDM (2830)3,528
Planning, Housing & Sustainability CDBG (2910) *25,777
Planning, Housing & Sustainability HOME (2920) *12,271
Parks & Recreation Permanent Parks & Recreation Fund (3300)105,124
PW/Utilities Water Utility (6100)1,563,038
PW/Utilities Wastewater (6200)950,838
PW/Utilities Stormwater (6300)349,424
Community Vitality CAGID (6400)289,102
Community Vitality UHGID (6500)48,925
Community Vitality BJAGID - Parking (6800)26,267
IT Telecom (7100)28,923
Finance Work Comp (7120)45,794
Finance Compensated Absenses (SickVac) (7190)19,191
PW/DSS Fleet Fund (7210)321,554
IT Computer Replacement (7300)40,858
PW/DSS Equipment Replacement (7400)5,798
PW/DSS Facilties Renovation Fund (7500)29,115
Total $ 10,512,698
* Cost Allocation based on 2 CFR Part 200 Plan
For the 2018 budget, the cost allocation amounts are based on the cost allocation study developed by MGT America, version 053116, inflated by
3.0% over prior year
2018 COST ALLOCATION BY FUND
Attachment B
Agenda Item 6 Page 7
Department Fund 2018 Amount
CAO*General 548,032$
City Manager*General 363,276$
City Clerk*General 50,914$
CMO Communications*General 169,286$
HR*General 1,098,338$
Finance*General 866,722$
IT*General 1,684,176$
PW admin*General 429,955$
Muni Court General 352,333$
DUHMD General 365,868$
Police General 4,656,535$
Fire General 2,547,518$
Energy General 247,391$
Parks and Recreation General 1,145,296$
Arts General 57,001$
OSMP General 147,108$
Human Services General 1,081,583$
CP&S General 346,709$
Library Library 344,048$
Parks and Rec Rec Activity 2,371,881$
Police and Fire Pensions General 12,785$
Total 18,886,755$
*denotes internal service department
Internal Service Departments and other for PBB Costing Sheet
Attachment B
Agenda Item 6 Page 8
Year Cost Allocation
Annual Cost
Allocation Growth OSMP Budget Annual Growth
Cost Allocation as
% of OSMP Budget City Budget % YOY Growth
OSMP Budget
as % of total
city budget
2008 815,571$ 5.0%25,699,523$ 1.0%3.2%237,819,000$ 5.5%10.8%
2009 885,465$ 8.6%25,752,182$ 0.2%3.4%243,855,000$ 2.5%10.6%
2010 987,358$ 11.5%26,384,041$ 2.5%3.7%229,543,000$ -5.9%11.5%
2011 1,018,953$ 3.2%24,969,054$ -5.4%4.1%230,274,000$ 0.3%10.8%
2012 1,070,853$ 5.1%26,628,154$ 6.6%4.0%238,960,000$ 3.8%11.1%
2013 1,066,954$ -0.4%26,594,877$ -0.1%4.0%254,693,000$ 6.6%10.4%
2014 1,108,440$ 3.9%27,730,616$ 4.3%4.0%269,495,000$ 5.8%10.3%
2015 1,348,701$ 21.7%30,136,952$ 8.7%4.5%319,096,000$ 18.4%9.4%
2016 1,577,657$ 17.0%37,517,102$ 24.5%4.2%326,984,000$ 2.5%11.5%
2017 1,903,344$ 20.6%35,561,452$ -5.2%5.4%321,886,000$ -1.6%11.0%
'08-'17 Growth 143%
Human Resources Budget YOY Growth OSMP Staffing Counts FTE
% of total city
staff
Growth in
expenditures vs.
Change in
OSMP Share
2013 1,996,652$ 2013 91.6 7.3%87%1.0%
2014 2,277,516$ 14.1%2014 91.6 0.0%7.1%
2015 2,984,336$ 31.0%2015 102.35 11.7%7.5%
2016 3,870,389$ 29.7%2016 117.15 14.5%8.3%
2017 3,735,242$ -3.5%2017 128.4 9.6%8.9%
'13-'17 Growth 87% '13-'17 Growth 40%
Finance Budget YOY Growth OSMP Expenditues Expenditures
% of total city
budget
Growth in
expenditures vs.
Change in
OSMP Share
2013 6,218,784$ 2013 26,594,877$ 10.4%43%1.0%
2014 7,338,002$ 18.0%2014 27,730,616$ 4.3%10.3%
2015 7,619,418$ 3.8%2015 30,136,952$ 8.7%9.4%
2016 8,046,592$ 5.6%2016 37,517,102$ 24.5%11.5%
2017 8,896,151$ 10.6%2017 35,561,452$ -5.2%11.0%
'13-'17 Growth 43% '13-'17 Growth 34%
CMO/Communications/C
lerk Budget YOY Growth OSMP Staffing Counts FTE
% of total city
staff
Growth in
expenditures vs.
Change in
OSMP Share
2013 2,698,493$ 2013 91.6 7.3%96%1.0%
2014 2,610,111$ -3.3%loss of records 2014 91.6 0.0%7.1%
2015 3,024,546$ 15.9%2015 102.35 11.7%7.5%
2016 4,389,365$ 45.1%2016 117.15 14.5%8.3%
2017 5,287,141$ 20.5%2017 128.4 9.6%8.9%
'13-'17 Growth 96% '13-'17 Growth 40%
IT Budget YOY Growth OSMP Computer Counts % of overall
Growth in
expenditures vs.
Change in
OSMP Share
2013 8,275,248$ 2013 8%7%-0.5%
2014 7,130,718$ -13.8%2017 8%
2015 8,665,790$ 21.5%
2016 8,842,452$ 2.0%
2017 8,887,869$ 0.5%
'13-'17 Growth 7%
Key Statistics
OSMP Cost Allocation Cost Drivers
OSMP Historical Cost Allocation and Budget
Attachment B
Agenda Item 6 Page 9
.This page is intentionally left blank.Agenda Item 6 Page 10
Open Space and Mountain Parks Detail Page
Standard
FTE Amount
Standard
FTE Amount
Standard
FTE Amount
Standard
FTE Amount
Director's Team 5.00 1,050,725$ 5.00 1,263,915$ 6.00 1,422,031$ 1.00 158,116$
2.00 159,316 2.00 202,513 2.00 223,150 - 20,637
2.00 252,298 2.00 264,246 2.00 374,057 - 109,811
Subtotal 9.00 1,462,337.97 9.00 1,730,674.00 10.00 2,019,236.88 1.00 288,562.88
3.50 315,946 3.50 830,977 4.50 647,557 1.00 (183,420)
Customer Service 7.00 627,151$ 7.00 734,545$ 5.00 640,233$ (2.00) (94,312)$
Real Estate Services 5.06 558,062 5.48 614,371 4.48 524,377 (1.00) (89,994)
Real Estate Services to General Fund 1.27 33,450 0.27 31,131 0.27 26,997 - (4,134)
Resource Information Services 7.55 957,164 7.55 1,099,133 7.55 1,147,631 - 48,498
Subtotal 24.38 2,491,773.44 23.80 3,310,157.00 21.80 2,986,794.34 (2.00) (139,942.48)
Community Engagement 7.00 961,370$ 8.25 952,628$ 8.25 1,014,383$ - 61,755$
Junior Rangers 1.00 348,609 1.00 388,732 1.00 436,432 - 47,700
Outreach 2.00 360,121 2.00 373,936 2.00 378,717 - 4,781
Planning Services 4.00 553,697 5.00 640,592 5.00 611,630 - (28,962)
Ranger Services 21.72 1,894,596 21.05 2,075,987 21.83 2,228,089 0.78 152,102
Subtotal 35.72 4,118,393.31 37.30 4,431,875.00 38.08 4,669,251.33 0.78 237,376.33
Agricultural Management 3.00 316,155$ 3.00 337,992$ 3.00 366,493$ - 28,501$
Cultural Resources Program 2.00 179,459 2.00 204,788 2.00 227,421 - 22,633
Ecological Stewardship 3.05 424,280 3.05 588,479 3.05 373,973 - (214,506)
2.00 455,019 5.00 417,847 4.25 597,080 (0.75) 179,233
1.00 101,366 1.00 105,042 1.00 111,143 - 6,101
Recreation and Cultural Stewardship 4.00 462,259 4.00 484,204 4.75 578,439 0.75 94,235
1.00 281,915 1.00 132,671 1.75 349,711 0.75 217,040
Vegetation Management 2.00 609,264 4.25 567,825 3.50 726,074 (0.75) 158,249
Water Rights Administration 3.00 429,205 3.00 525,870 2.00 464,325 (1.00) (61,545)
1.00 101,566 1.00 101,621 1.00 119,084 - 17,463
4.00 431,144 3.00 523,728 3.00 525,055 - 1,327
Subtotal 26.05 3,791,631.66 30.30 3,990,067.00 29.30 4,438,797.68 (1.00) 448,730.68
Engineering Project Management 3.00 299,092 3.00 369,031 8.25 857,512 5.25 488,481
Equipment and Vehicles 1.00 815,712 1.00 906,318 1.00 838,253 - (68,065)
Facility Management 4.00 838,348$ 4.00 708,430$ 4.00 848,578$ - 140,148
Signs Graphics Display 2.00 221,915 2.00 247,459 2.00 245,213 - (2,246)
Trails Stewardship 9.00 1,270,043 14.25 1,743,388 9.00 1,484,643 (5.25) (258,745)
3.00 479,926 3.75 517,929 2.75 478,975 (1.00) (38,954)
Subtotal 22.00 3,925,035.98 28.00 4,492,555.00 27.00 4,753,172.78 (1.00) 260,617.78
Capital Improvement Program 5,366,841$ 10,238,953$ 9,435,300$ (803,653)$
Cost Allocation 1,577,657 1,903,344 1,960,444 57,100
Debt Service 6,086,131 5,463,827 5,238,316 (225,511)
Subtotal 13,030,629$ 17,606,124$ 16,634,060$ (972,064)$
Total 117.15 28,819,801 128.40 35,561,452 126.18 35,501,313 (2.22) 123,281.19
Personnel 12,308,730$ 13,378,194$ 14,334,934$ 956,740$
Operating 2,622,291 3,456,790 3,480,971 24,181
Interdepartmental Charges 858,152 1,120,344 1,051,348 (68,996)
Capital 5,366,841 10,238,953 9,435,300 (803,653)
Cost Allocation 1,577,657 1,903,344 1,960,444 57,100
Debt Service 6,086,131 5,463,827 5,238,316 (225,511)
Total 28,819,801$ 35,561,452$ 35,501,313$ (60,139)$
General 1.27 33,450$ 0.27 154,334$ 0.27 26,997$ - (127,337)$
Lottery - 293,967 - 355,300 - 355,300 - -
Open Space 115.88 28,492,385 128.13 35,051,818 125.91 35,119,016 (2.22) 67,198
Total 117.15 28,819,801$ 128.40 35,561,452$ 126.18 35,501,313$ (2.22) (60,139)$
Note:
Resources and Stewardship
2016 Actual
2017 Approved
Budget
2018 Recommended
Budget
Variance -
2017 Approved to 2018
Recommended
STAFFING AND EXPENDITURE BY PROGRAM
Office of the Director
Community Relations Office
Science Office
Central Services
Business Operations
Community and Partnerships
Forest Ecology
Plant Ecology
Restoration Plant Ecology
Wetland Ecology
Wildlife Ecology
Trails and Facilities
Trailhead Maintenance
Capital Improvement Program, Cost
Allocations and Debt Service
EXPENDITURE BY CATEGORY
STAFFING AND EXPENDITURE BY FUND
Attachment C
Agenda Item 6 Page 11