08.08.18 OSBT PacketOPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Wednesday, August 8, 2018
Council Chambers, 1777 Broadway
MEETING AGENDA
(Please note that times are approximate.)
6:00 I. Approval of Minutes
6:05 II. Public Comment for Items Not Identified for Public Hearing
6:10 III. Matters from the Department
A. Eldo to Walker Trail Study Update
B. 2017 Open Space and Mountain Parks Visitation Study
7:10 IV. * Prairie Dog Working Group Phase 2 Report and City Staff Analysis
8:00 V. * Review of and recommendation regarding the 2019 Open Space and Mountain
Parks Department Operating Budget
8:45 VI. Matters from the Board
A. Master Plan Process Committee Update
B. OSBT Board Representation at EAB-sponsored joint meeting on 9/19
9:05 VII. Adjournment
* Public Hearing
Written Information:
A. E-bikes Regional Coordination
Open Space Board of Trustees
TENTATIVE* Board Items Calendar
(updated Aug. 1, 2018)
September 12, 2018 October 10, 2018 November 14, 2018
Action Items:
Matters from the Department:
• Master Plan: Data and
Best Practices Research
• Funded Research
Program Update
• Update on Mule Deer
Study in Collaboration
with Colorado Parks and
Wildlife
• Rocky Mountain
Greenways
Matters from the Board:
• Master Plan Process
Committee Update
Action Items:
Matters from the Department:
• Education and
Outreach Update
• Ag. Plan
Implementation Update
• Trail Stewardship
Program Update
• Options to Update and
Improve Boulder’s
Mosquito Management
Program
Matters from the Board:
• Master Plan Process
Committee Update
Adjourn to Study Session
Action Items:
• Eldo to Walker Trail
Study Recommendation
Matters from the Department:
• Planning Services
Strategic Plan
Matters from the Board:
• Master Plan Process
Committee Update
Adjourn to Study Session
December 12, 2018 January 2019 February 2019
Action Items:
Matters from the Department:
Matters from the Board:
• Master Plan Process
Committee Update
Adjourn to Study Session
Action Items:
Matters from the Department:
Matters from the Board:
Action Items:
Matters from the Department:
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 1 PAGE 1
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Action Minutes
Meeting Date July 11, 2018
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
Tom Isaacson Curt Brown Andria Bilich Karen Hollweg
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Dan Burke Steve Armstead John Potter Mark Davison
Jim Reeder Mark Gershman Lauren Kilcoyne Chelsea Taylor
Phil Yates Leah Case Alyssa Frideres Juliet Bonnell
Deryn Wagner Don D’Amico Eric Collins Kent Coghill
Brian Anacker
GUESTS
Curt Bauer, Public Works Engineering Project Manager
Matt Wempe, Regional Trails Planner, Boulder County Transportation
Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Molly Scarborough, Public Works Senior Project Coordinator
Frances Draper, University of Colorado
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM 1 – Approval of the Minutes (1:00)
Karen Hollweg requested that a sentence be added under Agenda Item 4, “the Board requested that staff
cross reference CIP items so that they could be sorted by program area and large projects in addition to
staff responsibilities to make OSMP operations more transparent for the public.”
Curt Brown moved that the Open Space Board of Trustees approve the minutes from June 13, 2018 as
amended. Andria Bilich seconded. This motion passed four to zero; Kevin Bracy Knight was absent.
Curt Brown moved that the Open Space Board of Trustees approve the minutes from the joint
WRAB/OSBT meeting on June 25, 2018. Karen Hollweg seconded. This motion passed three to zero;
Kevin Bracy Knight was absent during the June 11 meeting and Andria Bilich was not present at the June
25 meeting.
AGENDA ITEM 2 – Public Participation for Items not on the Agenda (3:02)
Buzz Burrell, Boulder, said the process in regard to the Master Plan has gotten better. Suggested using a
science-based approach. Science is a common language; be rational and positive in that knowing you can
do something good.
AGENDA ITEM 3 – Matters from the Department (6:10)
Mark Gershman, Environmental Planner Supervisor, presented on Rocky Mountain Greenways: Soil
Sampling/Analysis Plan
Dan Burke, Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) Interim Director, gave an update on the raptor
closure on the 3rd Flatiron; late season nesting will require staff to extend closure for up to 14 extra days.
AGENDA ITEM 1 PAGE 2
AGENDA ITEM 4 – Longmont to Boulder Trail – Jay Road Connection (11:30)
Kacey French, Planner, and Matt Wempe, Regional Trails Planner, presented this item.
Public Comment
None.
Motion
Tom Isaacson moved the Open Space Board of Trustees to approve the use of a section of the
OSMP McKenzie property, to complete the LOBO Trail – Jay Road Connection. Curt Brown
seconded. This motion passed four to zero; Kevin Bracy Knight was absent.
AGENDA ITEM 5 – South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project Concept Evaluation (25:31)
Don D’Amico, Ecological Systems Supervisor and Curt Bauer, Public Works Engineering Project
Manager, presented this item.
Public Comment
Kay Forsythe, Boulder, said she appreciates the protection of Open Space; right now, however the people
who live and work at Frasier Meadows feel like the endangered species. People were lucky in 2013 that
no one lost their lives. She asked the Board to present to City Council a variety of options for flood
mitigation.
Don Cote, Boulder, showed a video from the flood in 2013 at Frasier Meadows. He said they would like
to have peace and security in their remaining years. Please consider a balance in protecting Open Space as
well as the security of human lives.
Crif Crawford, showed a video from the flood in 2013. He said this flood completely destroyed the entire
first floor of Frasier Meadows. Over 50 patients had to be moved either by wheelchair, walker, or by
being carried or led by staff or Frasier residents. Although no lives were lost during the flood, the trauma
of the event severely affected the lives of patients and staff.
Gordon McCurry, Boulder, said he has been studying the South Boulder Creek flood area for many years,
and showed a revised option for Variant 2. He asked the Board to consider this option and recommend it
to City Council.
Pat Billig, Boulder, said the Trustees role is to protect resources. She said she is concerned about the
terms in Attachment A as they are all dependent on CU South, which the City of Boulder does not own.
She said OSMP is not here to adapt to engineering concerns; it should be the other way around. Please
explore alternatives.
Ruth Wright, Boulder, said she hopes the Board will not retreat from 500-year flood criteria.
Why are the options shown proposing building on Open Space lands; please minimize or eliminate the
impact on these precious lands. She said she hopes the Board will send the city and consultants this
message and insist they do it right.
Jonathan Carroll, Boulder, showed a video from the 2013 flood. Urged the Board to consider any and all
options deemed acceptable and continue moving forward.
Jeff Rifkin, Boulder, said Variant 2, with the modifications proposed by Gordon, is the obvious choice.
This would eliminate the hazards to neighborhoods as well as protect maximum amount of Open Space
land.
AGENDA ITEM 1 PAGE 3
Steven Telleen, Boulder, said he supports Variant 2 with the modifications proposed by Gordon. Any
flood mitigation should be based on current best practice. High hazard dams and approaches have
regularly failed over the last hundred years. What works is using strategies to basically slow and divert
the flood waters; this relieves some of the pressure and puts water back. From an ecological perspective,
flooding is natural and healthy for natural riparian areas.
Ray Bridge, Boulder County Audubon Society, said thank you to staff for efforts on evaluating the actual
effects on Open Space. He urged the Board to recommend to City Council the modifications that Gordon
proposed for Variant 2. He noted that no data has been provided to evaluate any of the designs; need to
look at potential impacts on Open Space.
Kathie Joyner, Boulder, said the responsibility to preserve and protect Open Space lands that OSBT
holds, makes this Board an important piece of the South Boulder Creek flood mitigation project. After
years of study, confident that staff have provided several viable options. The more quickly we move to
the preliminary design phase, the better. She asked the Board to recommend as many options as possible
to council so they will have the maximum flexibility in their conversations.
Jim McMillan, Save South Boulder, said he supports the study of the upstream option that was sent to the
Board on behalf of their group. We should be exploiting natural features that exist there today while
maintaining wetlands. He noted that he has yet to hear about environmental change as part of these
conversations. He encouraged the Board to take a science-based decision and support continuing the
study. Do not make decisions without data.
Margaret LeCompte, Save South Boulder, said they stand for effective flood mitigation. Why would we
study mitigation options where there are critically protected lands; the options suggested are expensive
and expose risks to habitat as well as threaten the lives of South Boulder residents. She said she believes
that neither the Master Plan or proposed Variants have any chance of being implemented. The Board
needs to think outside of the box; please consider Gordon’s proposed plan.
Ken Beitel, Boulder, said there are amazing wetlands and wildlife in the proposed area; he urged the
Board to support Gordon’s proposed upstream option instead. This option allows for more area for flood
water retention as well as lessening the threat to those downstream. Having an independent contractor
may also be favored as the perception is city staff are trying to move the process along too quickly.
Edie Stevens, Friends of Boulder Open Space (FOBOS), said as members of the Open Space Board you
are entrusted with the preservation of endangered species. Citizens are ultimately responsible for the
preservation or the destructive of this area. Hope we will work together that will protect both people as
well as the biodiversity. Think globally, act locally.
Mike Chiropolos, Save South Boulder, said the goal should be for a maximum benefits approach; for
lives, for CU and for Open Space. You should only build where it is high, and it is dry, and it is
appropriate. Reclaim, restore, re-wild this corridor.
Catherine Sundvall, Boulder, said she learned how to create a living sponge which allowed her to turn her
property into a wetland-type area with rain gardens and habitat. Do not look at an option that would
increase water through dry ditch #2. Recommend looking into options using gravel puts and retention
ponds to create solutions.
AGENDA ITEM 1 PAGE 4
Ellen Franconi, Boulder, when CU purchased that land there was concern about what they would do;
could not believe they might build housing units. Didn’t understand the term for Variances. Curious if
one of those options limit building on this land.
Jacklyn Ramaley, Boulder, said she is concerned with Variant 2 and the potential devastating impacts to
Open Space. Open Space is committed to managing this property with the goal to preserve and protect.
Consider lasting environmental impacts and decisions being made today. She said to please consider all
upstream alternatives that could possible reduce downstream and potential damage. Natural eco systems
are very difficult to restore and expensive.
Rachel Friend, Boulder, said flash flooding in South Boulder Creek is an urgent health and safety issue.
Please move forward with as many options as possible, and no more modifications or delays.
Suzanne DeLucia, Boulder, said whatever decision is made needs to provide maximum protection for
residents. Decisions made in haste may cause more damage in the long run. No additional carrying
capacity in South Boulder Creek; she urged the board to consider gordon option.
Pete Ornstein, Boulder, expressed his support for Variant 2. Dry Creek Ditch 2 is incapable of handling
increased water, especially from a flash flood. He said he supports the 500-year variant on Variant 2; it
appears to be cost effective and a good way to address climate issues. He added he supports Gordon’s
option for upstream flood control.
Molly Davis, Boulder, said the 2013 flood caused severe damage to her land and property. That being
said, the role of the Trustees is to work for the common good and protection of Open Space. The job is to
protect the natural resources.
Ben Binder, Boulder, said city staff is minimizing the restrictions on the US36 underpass. Why not use
gravel pits for detention; tremendous amount of opportunity in this area. so many problems with
Alternative D. He expressed his support for Gordon’s proposed option.
Ted Ross, Boulder Water Keeper, said current options presented are not ideal. Voice of watershed is
saying step back, think about it, and maybe look at it again. The Charter is clear however, need to protect
Open Space.
Leonard May, Boulder, emphasized that both proposed variances would use a major area of Open Space
land. He said he believes that it is important to recommend to City Council that any further design work
must evaluate impacts on Open Space land. As Trustees’ your responsibility is to protect land purchased
with Open Space funds.
Amy Siemel, Boulder, said a designated state natural area is very special. Tall grass area contains
sensitive habitat and flood water on this meadow could be disastrous. Once precious land is gone, its
gone. Adopt variant 2 provided data proves this is the best option. Revisions: Take flood waters from
further upstream. Detain flood water on OS-O. take opportunity to reduce scope of high hazard dam.
Laura Tyler, Boulder, said the deadline on this project is the next flood. Move as many options forward as
fast as you can.
Harlin Savage, Save South Boulder, said Open Space is one of the things loved most about Boulder and
the strong conservation effort that most of us share. Please consider how the choice of a flood mitigation
concept will affect neighbors. She asked the Board to consider the upstream solution proposed which
would shift water to old gravel pit. Allow flood waters to move in a more natural way.
AGENDA ITEM 1 PAGE 5
Michael Tomlinson, Boulder Rights of Nature, Boulder Water Keeper, said the University behavior has
been an insult to the citizens and the university community. In 100 years, the way we are treating these
other species will be thought about how we thought about racism previously. Look at the upstream model
by Gordon and please use gravel puts.
Linda Jourgensen, Boulder, said she re-read the Open Space Charter recently and saw nothing in there
regarding flood control issues. There is a precedent that should not be set; to allow flood control on state
land that we promised to protect.
Lynn Segal, Boulder, said she is interested in Gordon’s upstream solution.
Motions
Karen Hollweg moved the Open Space Board of Trustees recommend that City Council advance
one or both of the following South Boulder Creek flood mitigation 100 or 500-year concepts to
preliminary design: 1) Variant 1 and/or 2) Variant 2. These recommendations are conditioned on
the terms shown in Attachment A, as revised. Curt Brown seconded. This motion passed four to
zero; Kevin Bracy Knight was absent.
Revised Attachment A
Attachment A: Recommended Concept Advancement Terms
Variant 1 and Variant 2 (100-Year or 500-Year Facility) Concepts
The following terms are recommended in order to advance all concepts.
1. Remove the CU levee and restore underlying land as part of project design at project cost.
2. OSMP and Public Works staff continue to work collaboratively to avoid and minimize city open
space impacts (e.g., flooding, structures, vegetative damage, introduction of potentially damaging
species) throughout preliminary design and construction.
3. OSMP and Public Works staff develop additional information through preliminary design, to
both staffs’ satisfaction, on projected sedimentation, groundwater flow, debris accumulation, and
required vegetative maintenance on city open space in order to identify and clarify additional
mitigation and compensation measures.
4. OSMP and Public Works staff conduct a review and assessment of 30%, 60%, and 90% design
plans to ensure that all open space concerns are getting addressed and return to OSBT for their
input at each stage before advancement through preliminary design to construction.
5. Criticality of Groundwater Conveyance: All proposed flood control variants include a
floodwall along US-36 with a foundation to bedrock, as required by the State Engineer. This wall,
however designed, has the potential to intercept the flow of ground water that supports critical wet
meadow ecosystems above and below the highway. These ecosystems provide habitat for two listed
species and are one of the rarest ecotypes in Boulder County and the state.
AGENDA ITEM 1 PAGE 6
Impacts to wet meadows from short-term, infrequent inundation can be compensated by
enhancement of adjacent lands. However, permanent degradation of the wet meadow ecosystem
due to disruption of the underlying groundwater regime cannot be compensated or offset by
anything other than additional mature wet meadows, which simply cannot be created using the
higher, mined lands of CU South. Creation of new wet meadow habitat, particularly in an arid
region, has proven so far to be impossible to accomplish at any price and over long time frames.
Compensation for this risk is simply not possible; hence, it must be avoided.
Therefore, just as the mechanical outlet works are essential to the functioning of this flood control
project, so also must the proposed groundwater conveyance system work fully for as long as the
floodwall is in place. As with the outlet works, it must be tested, operated, maintained and as
necessary replaced to ensure its full functioning continuously in perpetuity. The project plan, SOP,
and long-term budget must be developed to achieve this goal, based upon previous experience with
similar systems.
6. In order that the project results in clear net benefits for open space, acquire portions of CU
South OS-O property and water rights in Dry Creek Ditch #2 for permanent OSMP ownership and
management, as follows:
a. Convey approximately 40 acres of land to the west and north of the CU levee as part of
the project.
b. Provide project funding to restore three acres for each additional acre of OSMP land
subject to ponding under the 100-year storm event with the constructed project, not to
exceed $100,000 per acre. Based upon current project estimates:
Variant 1: 17.4 acres restored at approximately $1.74 million.
For Variant 2: 47 acres restored at approximately $4.7 million.
c. Incorporate realignment of the Dry Creek Ditch #2 west of the restoration area to the
extent practical and acceptable to the ditch board and CU and convey sufficient water
rights in Dry Creek Ditch #2 to support the restoration goals in 6b;
7. In order to consolidate management of the South Boulder Creek floodplain lands, acquire and
convey to OSMP the 44 acres of CU South lands between the existing CU levee and OSMP lands to
the east and south, with subsequent management and any restoration to be funded by OSMP.
8. Public Works Department supports OSMP efforts through annexation to convey and/or
permanently protect CU South’s remaining OS-O acreage to the west and north of the CU levee for
long-term protection and possible restoration (approximately 35 acres).
9. Develop and implement a Monitoring and Maintenance Agreement between OSMP and Public
Works to address long-term needs to keep the project functional and within design parameters.
Two additional mitigation elements would be implemented under Variant 2
AGENDA ITEM 1 PAGE 7
10. Modify or realign the city’s sanitary sewer that runs along South Boulder Creek to allow for
OSMP projects to open up the floodplain, as part of preliminary design and construction.
11. Provide for enhanced wildlife passage under US36 beyond current concepts as part of
preliminary design and construction.
Karen Hollweg moved that the Open Space Board of Trustees state that, while both variants have
impacts to Open Space, the preferred option is Variant 1 based on Open Space values. Variant 2 is
less desirable because it would impact Open Space and Mountain Parks resources of higher
significance and on a more frequent and long-term basis. Curt Brown seconded. This motion
passed four to zero; Kevin Bracy Knight was absent.
Karen Hollweg moved that the Open Space Board of Trustees recommend that City Council
request development of an upstream storage concept design that could work separately or in
concert with Variant 1 and/or 2. Principal objectives would include enabling the flood wall along
US 36 to be removed, reducing the sedimentation and inundation impacts on Open Space and
Mountain Parks lands, avoiding the need for a flow restriction at the US 36 bridge, minimizing
other impacts on Open Space and Mountain Parks lands, and taking account of the project’s
permit-ability. Curt Brown seconded. This motion passed four to zero; Kevin Bracy Knight was
absent.
Andria Bilich moved that the Open Space Board of Trustees state that, “the Open Space Board of
Trustees has a significant interest in the future of the OS-O portion of the CU South property and
how this area may impact existing city open space and how this acreage may further city open
space purposes and services. Therefore, OSBT requests that City Council seek OSBT input, at
such a time deemed appropriate during annexation negotiations with CU, regarding decisions
affecting the future of any of the land on CU South property with OS-O land use designation. Curt
Brown seconded. This motion passed four to zero; Kevin Bracy Knight was absent.
Curt Brown moved that the Open Space Board of Trustees make the following statement regarding
Groundwater Conveyance: Critical wet meadow habitat upstream and downstream of US-36
depends upon uninterrupted groundwater flow. Loss of this rare ecotype due to groundwater
disruption would not be acceptable under the OSMP Charter. To date, creation of new,
compensatory, wet meadow habitat, particularly in an arid region, has proven impossible to
accomplish at any price and over long time frames. Therefore, full and continuous functioning of a
robust groundwater conveyance system in perpetuity is a critical component of any flood control
variant, as detailed in Attachment A. We also judge that this clear commitment to successful
operation of the groundwater conveyance system in perpetuity will be critical to obtaining
environmental permitting for the project. Andria Bilich seconded. This motion passed four to zero;
Kevin Bracy Knight was absent.
Tom Isaacson moved that the Open Space Board of Trustees make the following statement, “The
proposed flood mitigation concepts raise important and potentially complex disposal issues under
section 177 of the City Charter, with respect to storage of flood waters on Open Space land, the
construction of flood detention facilities, or both. Those issues include (1) whether the concept
AGENDA ITEM 1 PAGE 8
would require a disposal, (2) whether a disposal should be approved, and (3) the detailed terms of
any such disposal. OSBT believes that the disposal issues are best addressed after the number of
concepts has been narrowed and the preferred concept(s) have been more fully designed and
specified. In the event that one or more concepts proceed to preliminary design, OSBT intends to
work with city staff to identify the point in the process at whi ch such concept(s) have been
sufficiently designed and specified such that OSBT can then make a fully-informed decision on any
disposal questions. Karen Hollweg seconded. This motion passed four to zero; Kevin Bracy Knight
was absent.
AGENDA ITEM 6 – Consideration of a motion to recommend five focus areas that will guide the
Open Space and Mountain Parks Master Plan (4:52:00)
Deryn Wagner, Senior Planner, presented this item.
Public Comment
None.
Motion
Andria Bilich moved the Open Space Board of Trustees to recommend to City Council to approve
the following five focus areas that will guide the development of the OSMP Master Plan: Ecosystem
Health and Resilience; Responsible Recreation and Enjoyment; Agriculture - Today and
Tomorrow; Community Connection, Education and Inclusion; and Financial Sustainability. Curt
Brown seconded. This motion passed four to zero; Kevin Bracy Knight was absent.
AGENDA ITEM 7 – Matters from the Board
None.
ADJOURNMENT – The business meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
These draft minutes were prepared by Leah Case.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Interim Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
John Potter, Resource and Stewardship Manager
Frances Boulding, Interim Recreation and Cultural Stewardship Supervisor
Deonne VanderWoude, Human Dimensions Supervisor
Colin Leslie, Human Dimensions Coordinator II
DATE: August 8, 2018
SUBJECT: 2017 Open Space and Mountain Parks Visitation Study
________________________________________________________________________
The City of Boulder’s Open Space and Mountain Parks land system fulfills multiple city charter purposes, including
the preservation and provision of outstanding natural, scenic, and recreational qualities which are enjoyed by
many local, regional, national, and international visitors each year. A quantitative understanding of how visitors
relate to the land, including levels and distribution of use, the types of recreational activities visitors are engaging
in, experiences they have, and other key visitation metrics are crucial fo r informing a wide array of department
operations, planning, and initiatives.
Between June 2016 and May 2017, staff conducted a system-wide visitation study which consisted of two core
components. The first component (Visitor Survey) was administration of an on-site survey where visitors were
asked to provide feedback regarding various dimensions of their visit as they left city-managed open space. The
second component of the study (Visitation Estimate) evaluated visitation levels using automated trail counter
equipment at locations where people access city-managed open space.
The 2017 Visitation Study updates 2005 visitation estimates and 2011 visitor survey results. The study area
included primarily OSMP-managed trails (designated trails) and OSMP properties acquired through early 2016
that were open to the public for recreation purposes and had OSMP management responsibility. Some
undesignated trails were also included in the study area as these represent a portion of recreational use and are
important to capture in a system-wide visitation data collection effort.
Results for the visitation survey and estimate components have been compiled as separate reports, with a paired
analysis of the two datasets planned. Summaries for each report have been included with this memo and provide
an overview of the major findings. Additional information can be found in the full reports which are available for
download as PDFs on Open Space and Mountain Parks’ website:
• 2017 Visitor Survey Report: https://bouldercolorado.gov/links/fetch/41125
• 2017 Visitation Estimate Report: https://bouldercolorado.gov/links/fetch/41126
AGENDA ITEM 3B PAGE 1
2017 Visitor Survey Report Summary
The City of Boulder’s Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) Department manages over 45,000 acres of open
space with 155 miles of managed, designated trails that are available to the public for passive recreation activities.
Tracking visitor use trends and visitor experience preferences on these lands helps managers better understand
and serve visitors and maintain opportunities for high quality visitor experiences – now and into the future. Visitor
use data provide important context for planning and operations, helping staff to design services that align with
visitor needs. This information is also important to visitors, empowering them to express their opinions while also
helping them to understand the perspectives of other visitors. Survey results, along with results from the visitation
estimate, can also support visitors in making informed decisions about when, where and how to visit to achieve
their desired experience on city-managed open space.
GOAL
The overall goal of the 2017 Visitor Survey was to develop a quantitative understanding of visitors to city-managed
open space to support the department and public in making informed decisions. Specific objectives included
gaining an unbiased understanding of visitor characteristics (i.e., demographics), trip characteristics (e.g., activities
participated in, time spent visiting), and visitor perceptions (e.g., ratings of OSMP facilities and services,
encounters with other activity groups) that could be generalized across city-managed open space. Staff also had
the objective to assess trends in visitor attributes that were measured during previous survey efforts, when
possible, and to evaluate potential seasonal effects on visitor attributes.
APPROACH
Staff conducted an on-site, self-administered survey to visitors age 16 or older at access locations estimated to
receive a minimum of 1,000 annual visits. Visitors were intercepted at the end of their trip to gather feedback
regarding their experiences during that specific visit. A total of 2,143 visitors completed the survey from June 2016
to May 2017 with a 65% response rate. Results calculated from the entire sample can be interpreted with a 95%
level of confidence ± 2% and are considered generalizable to the target population. This survey effort was part of
a larger visitation study in which the estimated visitation levels and patterns across the city-managed land system
were also assessed.
RESULTS
This study is the third in a series of system-wide intercept surveys (previously completed in 2005 and 2011). Where
applicable, trend information has been summarized over time. Findings include an overview of visitor
demographics, visitation frequency, visitor activities, trip lengths, transportation and arrival information, group
size and composition, motivations for visiting, service ratings, and areas no longer visited.
Overall trends (2005, 2011, 2017)
•Most visitors live in the City of Boulder or Boulder County
•The average visit lasts about an hour
•Most visitors have been visiting for at least five years and a quarter have been visiting >10–20 years
•The visitor demographic is gradually getting older
•Hiking, dog walking, running, and biking are the primary activities
AGENDA ITEM 3B PAGE 2
• Most visitors come at least once a week and one fifth visit more than 20 times per month
• More than half of visitors arrive by car and about one third arrive on foot and one in ten by bike
• About one third of visitor groups bring one or more dogs with them
• Most visitors rate the overall quality of OSMP services as “very good” or “excellent”
• Daily conflict rates have ranged between 5-7% and most visitors have positive experiences with others
Visitor characteristics
• Most visitors live in the City of Boulder (55%) or in Boulder County but outside city limits (27%), and these
proportions have remained steady since the 2005 survey.
• By 10-year age group, the greatest proportions of adult visitors are between 40-49 and 50-59 years old,
with a median age of 48. This is an increase from previous surveys with median ages of 39 and 42 in 2005
and 2011, respectively. Proportions in the 50-59, 60-69 and 70+ age groups have increased since the 2005
survey, indicating the visitor population is trending toward older adults. Respondents in the 20-29 age
group are trending down, despite remaining a constant percent of the population in Boulder County as a
whole.
• Survey respondents’ race was nearly entirely white (94%), with around 5% of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish
origin (of any race). Males and females responded in roughly equal proportio ns at 52% and 48%
respectively.
• Around half (51%) of respondents reported an annual household income of $100,000 or more, and a
majority had college degrees (88%).
• Sixty-seven percent of respondents indicated they visit more than four times per month (i.e., more than
once per week), and 12% visit 30 or more times per month (i.e., roughly daily or more than once a day).
These percentages have remained steady since 2005.
• Just under half (47%) of respondents have been visiting for longer than 10 years, and just under a quarter
(24%) visiting for longer than 20 years. The proportion in the longer than 20 years category, along with
the median number of years visiting, have increased since the 2005 survey (from 8 years in 2005 to 10 in
2017).
Trip characteristics
• Hiking is the number one primary activity (42%), followed by dog walking (22%), running (16%), and biking
(10%). All other activities were reported at 2% or less.
• Since the 2005 survey, a smaller proportion of people reported “viewing scenery” (from 52% to 37% in
2017) and “viewing wildlife” (from 24% to 16% in 2017) during their visit.
• Most visitors (60%) spend between a half hour to 89 minutes visiting, with a median trip length of 60
minutes. This is 10 minutes longer than in 2005 and the same as in 2011.
• When asked to identify the one primary motivation for visiting, “physical fitness (exercise)” (34%),
“enjoying nature” (18%), and “being with my dog” (14%) were the top three.
• When all motivations for visiting were rated, “enjoying nature” (65%), “physical fitness (exercise)” (57%),
and “having fun” (52%) were top rated as extremely important.
• Over half of respondents (56%) indicated they arrived by car, a third (34%) arrived on foot (i.e., walking
or running), and 9% arrived by bike. Less than 2% of respondents arrived by bus, horse, or ride share.
These percentages have remained constant since the 2005 survey.
AGENDA ITEM 3B PAGE 3
• Most respondents parked in an OSMP-managed parking lot (57%) or on a neighborhood street (23%).
• Of those who arrived by car, the majority (95%) were able to visit their first-choice destination. However,
less than half of respondents answered this question, so results should be interpreted conservatively.
• Of those who arrived by car, roughly half of respondents indicated that it was “very easy” and one third
indicated that it was “easy” to find a parking spot.
• Close to half of visitors (49%) visited by themselves, and of the groups that came, 78% had one other
person, 17% had three to four people, and 6% had five or more people. Of the groups that came, 68%
were with family, 30% with friends, and 2% were part of an organized group. Seven percent of groups had
one or more children (under 18 years old) with them.
• Around 37% of groups had at least one dog with them, and of these, close to three -quarters (74%) had
one dog and 26% had two or more dogs.
Service ratings
• Trails, dog stations, parking, trash and recycling bins, and restrooms were all rated as “very important”
services and facilities to provide by 60% or more of respondents. Of the services and facilities used, dog
stations, trails, trash and recycling bins, and vehicle parking received the highest marks for perceived
quality (60% or more “very good”).
• More than 90% of respondents gave OSMP overall quality ratings of “very good” or “excellent,” and no
respondents said the quality was “poor.”
Experience ratings
• While most respondents provided pleasant ratings with other groups encountered on the day of their
visit, 6% reported having a conflict with someone else. This is similar to the average daily conflict rate
from the 2011 survey (7%).
• Of the 6% that reported conflict, over half (53%) indicated that the conflict was with dog walkers or dogs,
a third (33%) experienced conflict with bikers, and a quarter (25%) experienced conflict with runners.
Areas no longer visited
• Fourteen percent of respondents indicated there is an area they no longer visit, and the most avoided
areas are Sanitas and Chautauqua. These two places were also the top two reported areas no longer
visited, or visited less frequently, in the 2011 survey. However, of those that report no longer visiting an
OSMP area, the proportion has increased from 5% to 23% for Chautauqua.
• Of the 14% that indicated there is an area they no longer visit, crowding (32%), parking problems (12%),
dog presence (12%) and dog restrictions (12%) were the top reported reasons for avoiding an area.
AGENDA ITEM 3B PAGE 4
2017 Visitation Estimate Report Summary
The City of Boulder’s Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) Department manages over 45,000 acres of open
space lands with around 155 miles of designated trails available for passive recreation activities. As of 2017, city-
managed open space receives an estimated 6.25 million annual visits (95% confidence interval (CI), 5.51 – 6.99
million). This is approximately a 34% increase from the 4.68 million annual visits (95% CI, 4.38 – 5.00 million)
estimated in the last system-wide study completed in 2005, equivalent to a mean annual growth rate of 2.4%.
Understanding the level and distribution of visitation is important for improving and developing initiatives,
services and policies that support high-quality visitor experiences and conservation of natural resources on city-
managed open space. In the decade since the last system-wide estimate was completed, regional population
growth, data from site-specific studies and a general sense of increasing visitation among both staff and the public
prompted the department to obtain updated system-wide visitation estimates. Quantitatively understanding
levels and patterns of visitation to city-managed open space helps the department more effectively and efficiently
deliver services to the public by evaluating the supply of department resources against the demands of
recreational use.
GOAL
The goal of this study – which was the largest visitation-related data collection effort that the department has
undertaken to date – is to develop a quantitative understanding of system-wide recreation visits1 to city-
managed open space2 that can support the department and the public in making informed decisions relating to
visitation.
Staff identified three primary objectives for the study:
• Estimate the total number of recreation visits to city-managed open space at a 95% confidence interval.
• Evaluate annual, seasonal, monthly, daily and hourly patterns of visitation.
• Determine how visitation levels are distributed across sample locations.
Three secondary objectives were:
• Evaluate changes in site-level visitation at a subset of locations that received repeat sampling between
the 2004-2005 and 2016-2017 data collection periods.
• Estimate the number of recreation visits to select interior trails, including annual visitation to several
popular destination areas.
• Estimate the number of annual dog visits to city-managed open space.
1 A small number of counts collected during this study were known to be generated by staff, volunteers, contractors, or other n on-
recreation visits. Staff consider these to contribute minimally to the overall visitation estimates.
2 Visitation data were only collected on trails or properties open to the public for recreational purposes.
AGENDA ITEM 3B PAGE 5
APPROACH
The Open Space and Mountain Parks system is geographically dispersed around the city, resulting in a highly
porous boundary with many access locations to trails. To estimate the number of visits, staff installed automated
trail counter equipment at strategic locations throughout the system. Counts of the number of people detected
passing the trail counters at each location were then analyzed to estimate total system-wide visitation.
Between June 1, 2016, and May 31, 2017, staff deployed trail counters at 189 locations that were expected to
receive at least 1,000 annual visits. Of the 189 locations, staff selected 45 locations as primary samples to receive
continuous data collection for a minimum of one full year3. Staff conducted short-term data collection at the
remaining 144 secondary sample locations for two to three weeks each to establish their visitation class. Staff
established primary and secondary samples because installing automated trail counters at all 189 locations for a
full year would have significantly exceeded project cost and personnel resources. During post -analysis, staff
determined that 23 of the 144 secondary sample locations fell below the established minimum threshold of 1,000
annual visits. For the final analysis, staff classified the 166 valid sample locations into one of five visitation classes,
ranging from "very low" to "very high." Visitation classes were based on ranges established during the 2005 study.
Thirty-three of the 45 primary sample locations were direct repeats of sample locations included in the 2005 study,
which allowed staff to evaluate trends for these locations directly. Additionally, staff installed 16 trail counters at
locations interior to the trail network system. These data were to help staff better evaluate where and to what
degree visitation levels measured at access locations (e.g. trailheads) is sustained across the interior of the trail
system.
The following results detail one of two core components of the 2017 Visitation Study conducted by the
department’s Human Dimensions Program. The other component consisted of an on-site visitor survey, which
collected input from visitors on the types of recreational activities they were engaging in, experiences they had,
and other key metrics designed to understand various dimensions of visitors to city -managed open space
(VanderWoude & Kellogg, 2018). Results for the survey component can be found in the 2017 Visitor Survey Report.
RESULTS
Staff were able to fully meet all the study objectives, and the department and public now have updated estimates
that will offer a quantitative understanding of visitation. Following are some of the key findings from the visitation
estimate study.
Annual Estimates
• City-managed open space received 6.25 million annual visits (95% CI, 5.51 – 6.99 million), an increase of
approximately 34% since the last visitation estimate of 4.68 million (95% CI, 4.38 – 5.00 million) conducted
in 2004-2005, equivalent to a mean annual growth rate of 2.4%.
• Chautauqua, Sanitas, Wonderland Lake, South Mesa, Bobolink, and Marshall Mesa areas were some of
the highest-visitation areas on city-managed open space, based on estimates from primary sample
location data.
3 Due to technical issues with some counter installations at the beginning of the study, 5 of the 45 primary locations continue d to receive
data collection beyond the one-year mark (May 31, 2017) to ensure a minimum of 365 days of continuous data collection.
AGENDA ITEM 3B PAGE 6
• Visitation to the Chautauqua Trail was the largest-measured increase in visitation since the 2005 study –
growing from an estimated 111,479 to 349,050 annual visits, an increase of 213%, equivalent to a 10%
mean annual growth rate.
• Visitation increased at 22 of the 33 repeated primary sample locations, with 11 of those locations
experiencing larger increases than the system-wide average of 34%.
Seasonal and Monthly Visitation Patterns
• Spring (1,658,202), summer (1,778,540) and fall (1,705,166) were the busiest seasons, with each season
receiving 27% to 29% of annual visitation. Winter (1,104,829) is the lowest season, receiving 18% of annual
visitation.
• March through November visitation was relatively consistent, with each mon th receiving between 8.5%
and 10.1% of total annual visitation. In absolute terms, this equates to between roughly 526,000 and
633,000 visits each month. Sustained levels of visitation from March to November mean that the “off-
season” is, at a minimum, much shorter on city-managed open space than comparative land agencies.
• June (632,744) and October (598,602) were the highest visitation months, accounting for 10.1% and 9.6%
of annual visitation, respectively.
• December (314,858) was the lowest visitation month, accounting for 5% of annual visitation.
Daily and Hourly Visitation Patterns
• Forty percent of total annual visits occurred on the weekend, which was the same weekend/weekday
proportion measured in 2004-2005.
• Sunday was the busiest day on average, accounting for 20.6% of total annual visitation.
• Tuesday was the least busy day on average, accounting for 11.3% of total annual visitation.
• Nearly all (98.8%) of visitation occurred between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m.
• Eleven to noon is the busiest hour on average, accounting for 10% of total annual visitation.
• Weekend visitation generally peaks around noon.
• Weekday visitation generally peaks two times during the day – first in the morning (between 9 a.m. and
noon) and again in the late afternoon (between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m.). The two-peak pattern on weekdays
was most pronounced during the summer and often absent during the winter.
Visitation at Interior Locations
• Chautauqua area interior locations received high levels of visitation, including the Chautauqua Upper Trail
(219,257), the 1st/2nd Flatiron Trail (131,009) and Royal Arch (105,245).
• Bear Peak (10,428) and South Boulder Peak (9,075), mountain-peak destinations, both receive around
10,000 annual visits.
Annual Dog Visits
• City-managed open space received 1.79 million annual dog visits (95% CI of 1.58 – 2.00 million).
AGENDA ITEM 3B PAGE 7
MEMORANDUM
To: Open Space Board of Trustees
From: Yvette Bowden, Director of Parks and Recreation (P&R)
Dan Burke, Interim Director of Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP)
Jim Robertson, Director of Planning, Housing and Sustainability (PH&S)
Steve Armstead, Interim Deputy Director, OSMP
Keri Konold, Community Relations Officer, OSMP
John Potter, Resource and Stewardship Manager, OSMP
Joy Master, Natural Lands Program Coordinator, P&R
Val Matheson, Urban Wildlife Coordinator, PH&S
Andy Pelster, Agricultural Stewardship Supervisor, OSMP
Heather Swanson, Senior Wildlife Ecologist, OSMP
Date: August 8, 2018
Subject: Prairie Dog Working Group Phase 2 Report and City Staff Analysis
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the City Manager with the Prairie Dog Working
Group’s (PDWG) Phase 2 Report and a city staff analysis of expected implementation impacts.
Phase 2 was a consideration of potential policy changes to the city’s prairie dog management
approach. This report includes consensus-based recommendations from the working group and a
cover letter with several critical points that the group would like to emphasize.
In Phase 2, the group identified methodologies under existing plans and policies that can be used
in 2018 and beyond and identified longer-term ideas that need further exploration; require
changes to city plans and policies; or, contemplate the implementation of new practices. The
process for achieving this outcome is fully explained in the Phase 2 Report.
The recommendations fall under three main goal categories: environmental, social and
economic; and are further broken down into four key themes: 1) large-block habitat, 2) plague
management, 3) conflict management and 4) funding. Each goal has associated objectives,
strategies and milestones to provide clear explanation of the intent of the PDWG. The PDWG
Phase 2 Analysis Table (Attachment A) provides additional, in-depth information on resource,
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 1
economic, ecological, social and other impacts of these objectives, strategies and milestones,
including which theme each falls within.
FISCAL IMPACT
Longer-term practice, plan and policy recommendations resulting from Phase 2 work, if fully
implemented, will have fiscal implications. Staff initially estimates implementation of the full
package of recommendations would cost between $680,000 and $4.25 million beyond current
budgets in a combination of operating and capital expenditures over a general period of four
years. In addition, estimated new personnel time required would be 2.2- 7.5 FTEs. These cost
and time figures were respectively calculated by totaling the estimated implementation cost
ranges in the Economic column and the time estimates in the Staff column in Attachment A,
using the keys at the bottom of the table.
The city currently allocates approximately 2.57 FTEs and $27,000- $300,000 annually toward
prairie dog management. If Phase 2 recommendations are fully implemented while maintaining
current staffing and budget for existing projects, the projected staffing needs would be 4.7 – 10
FTEs and $788,000 – $5.45 million (over 4 years) respectively. In determining the estimated
costs of implementation, staff noted that there are several variables causing the range in the
provided estimate that could increase actual costs. Examples of variables include: unknown
linear feet of prairie dog barriers needed (could increase costs substantially above $4.25 million);
fluctuating costs for site-specific relocation of prairie dogs; and, varied costs between in-house
efforts versus consultant services.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
•Economic: Full implementation of these recommendations would require an enhanced level
of resource allocation including staff time as well as operating and capital budgets. Prairie
dogs occupying irrigated lands may reduce agricultural lease revenues or reduce the value of
city water rights used to irrigate these lands. Prairie dogs encroaching upon state-mandated
areas such as detention ponds or assets such as ball fields could result in safety issues, fines,
or lost revenue.
•Environmental: Protection of prairie dogs and associated species is essential to maintaining
healthy, functioning grassland ecosystems on natural lands owned and managed by the city.
The PDWG recommendations include a variety of strategies designed to increase protection
of prairie dogs and prairie dog colony ecosystems. City plans and policies strive to strike a
balance between protecting and maintaining healthy, thriving prairie dog populations and
also protecting natural communities that do not thrive with prairie dog occupation. High
quality grassland communities include a mosaic of habitat types and species. Changes to
protection and management focused primarily on prairie dogs may reduce the ability to
protect and manage for other natural community types and species that do not thrive with
prairie dog occupation (e.g. tallgrass prairie, rare and imperiled butterflies and skippers,
tallgrass prairie birds, etc.). The magnitude of these challenges is heavily dependent on how
the recommendations are implemented, as many recommendations call for planning efforts
and plan creation. Meaning, the outcomes of these efforts are uncertain at this time.
•Social: Impacts to the community would include intentional inclusion of key stakeholders
when implementing prairie dog management practices and updating or revising related plans
and policies. Key stakeholders may include, but are not limited to, private land owners,
neighbors, agricultural operators, prairie dog advocates, people who are pesticide sensitive,
soil health experts, grassland ecosystem experts and advocates, prairie dog relocators, city
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 2
staff and departments and government agencies. This phase of the working group resulted in
recommended plan and ordinance changes that would require future work plan assignments
for OSMP, PH&S, P&R, the City Attorney’s Office and the Finance Department. These
recommendations are also intended to reduce the number of conflict areas related to prairie
dog populations including conflicts with maintaining irrigated agricultural land and impacts
to neighboring landowners.
Questions for the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT)
1. Does the OSBT generally support the direction of the recommendations?
2. Does the OSBT have overarching concerns on economic, environmental or social impacts
of the recommendations that they would like the city manager and city council to be
aware of?
3. Are there other concerns the city manager and city council should be made aware of?
Responses to these questions will be shared with City Council for consideration later in October.
BACKGROUND
The City of Boulder's current prairie dog management practices affect numerous stakeholders
who are concerned about a wide variety of impacts including those to prairie dogs, grassland
ecosystems, human health, and private and public lands. At the Aug. 16, 2016 City Council
meeting, council members suggested the city form a working group that could suggest, based on
a broad understanding of the full range of community perspectives, prairie dog management
practices to be implemented under existing policy, as well as possible longer-term policy
changes. The working group was to provide a forum for conversation. It was also to help
develop innovative ideas to best balance city goals, such as managing diverse grassland
ecosystems and agricultural management while providing for healthy, sustainable prairie dog
populations and addressing neighbor relations.
The City of Boulder sought participants for a working group to make adaptive management
practice recommendations to the city manager. Eighteen members were appointed in 2016 to the
Prairie Dog Working Group (PDWG), based on prospective participants' ability and willingness
to meet expectations including having demonstrated a willingness to be collaborative, innovative
and respectful, and to represent broad interests and community perspectives. The working group
consisted of twelve community members, including both Boulder residents and non-residents,
representing broad interests and perspectives: Aaron Cook, Amber Largent, Amy Masching,
Carse Pustmueller, Dan Brandemuehl, Deborah Jones, Elle Cushman, Eric Sims, Jr., Jeff Edson,
John Vickery, Lindsay Sterling-Krank, and Patrick Comer. Kristin Cannon from Colorado
Department of Parks and Wildlife also participated in the working group. Additionally, five City
of Boulder staff members served on the working group: Andy Pelster, OSMP Agricultural
Stewardship Supervisor; Heather Swanson, OSMP Senior Wildlife Ecologist; Joy Master, P&R
Natural Lands Program Coordinator; Keri Konold, OSMP Community Relations Officer; and
Val Matheson, PH&S Urban Wildlife Conservation Coordinator.
In this effort, the City of Boulder committed to consider and incorporate participant advice and
recommendations into staff management decisions to the greatest extent possible. The City of
Boulder also has expressed sincere gratitude to all participants for their dedication to the project.
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 3
Heather Bergman and Sam Haas from Peak Facilitation Group, a private contractor, facilitated
meetings of the working group. Meetings were open to the public with a portion of the meeting
reserved for public comment. Working group members were expected to:
•Understand the city's broad range of management goals and constraints for prairie dog
management.
•Develop holistic adaptive management recommendations that provide a community-wide
benefit rather than a singular benefit.
•Recommend pilot ideas and practices that can be implemented under the existing policy and
respect the context of the collective grassland ecosystem. (Phases 1 and 2)
•Recommend longer-term ideas that may need further exploration or more substantial
changes to policy. (Phase 2)
•Serve as a model for the city in terms of collaboration, innovation, and respect.
Phase 1 Outcomes:
During Phase 1, the following six consensus-based recommendations were made by the PDWG.
These can be implemented under existing plans and policies and are detailed in the attached
Information Item: Final Report on Phase 1 and Phase 2 Update from the Prairie Dog Working
Group provided by Peak Facilitation Group:
•Recommendation #1 – Create guidelines and criteria for prioritizing relocation/take sites
on both public and private land.
•Recommendation #2 – Create guidelines and criteria for prioritizing receiving sites on
public lands within existing plans and develop recommendations for making receiving
sites more feasible.
•Recommendation #3 – On approved receiving sites, ensure that the number of prairie
dogs to be relocated have adequate accommodations.
•Recommendation #4 – Define successful prairie dog relocation, including evaluation
criteria and processes.
•Recommendation #5 – Develop a research proposal for the use of the sylvatic plague
vaccine on the southern grasslands in 2018 and beyond.
•Recommendation #6 – Create a subgroup to work with staff to further develop the above
recommendations.
In 2017, staff priorities included addressing the following two prairie dog management related
projects: a) work on city manager-approved 2017 recommendations and b) relocate over 200
prairie dogs from private properties and approximately 40 prairie dogs from Foothills
Community Park onto public land managed by OSMP. This relocation process was successfully
conducted in a way that was consistent with the working group recommendations under existing
plans and policies, including the Administrative Rule for the Relocation of Prairie Dogs – 6-1-
37.A (02).
In 2018, staff is working on relocating approximately 400 prairie dogs from OSMP-managed
irrigated agricultural lands as well as prairie dogs that have recolonized the Foothills Community
Park and Armory Community (4750 N. Broadway) private property onto approximately 40 acres
of Grassland Preserve designated OSMP-managed lands in the Southern Grasslands.
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 4
During Phase 1 a number of ideas and thoughts generated could not be implemented in 2017 for
a variety of reasons (e.g., they would require changes to plans and/or policies or they could not
feasibly be implemented in 2017). The working group recognized that there was more work to be
done and committed to the work being continued during Phase 2.
To address the assigned Phase 1 tasks in 2017 and 2018, OSMP, PH&S, and P&R staff
prioritized work and allocated their time accordingly. As expected this naturally displaced some
time planned for other projects such as site planning for implementation of the North Trail Study
Area (TSA), integration of agricultural management with protection of federally protected
species (e.g. Bald Eagle nests), public outreach on potential prairie dog relocation sites, natural
lands planning and management for various park sites, and education and outreach for the
implementation of the Bear Protection Ordinance. Similarly, the P&R department has a robust
capital program planned through the 6-year CIP that includes investment priorities at
undeveloped park sites such as Valmont City Park.
Throughout the process, public information has been available and kept updated online at
https://bouldercolorado.gov/osmp/prairie-dog-working-group which includes background data,
meeting agendas and summary notes (including public comments), reference documents, and
other related materials. On several occasions members of the public attended meetings to either
provide comment or to learn about the work the group was performing. If any comments were
made, these were captured within the summary notes of meetings.
All meetings were open to the public. Meeting information and materials were online. An
explanation of the Phase 2 process is provided in the attachment to this memo.
ANALYSIS
A detailed analysis of the task-oriented outcomes from Phase 2 of the PDWG is found in the
PDWG Phase 2 Analysis Table (Attachment A). This staff analysis includes:
• Estimated scope impacts to staff, the public, boards and council;
• Economic, ecological and social impacts and assessments; and
• Estimated start dates, durations and department leads should the recommended package
from the PDWG be adopted and fully funded over the next several years.
The table also demonstrates how the ecological, social and economic pieces are inter-related
through a “Related Topics” column.
The recommendations from both phases of the working group would need to be carefully
considered for potential implications to budget, staffing resources, work plans, and planned
improvements that involve prairie dog management strategies. Staff continue to work
collaboratively to carry out the approved recommendations from Phase 1 of the working group.
Work planning and budgets for upcoming years will be structured so that priorities from the city
manager related to the working group can be addressed.
Current staff resource allocations:
Staff estimates that the current city-wide staffing allocation for prairie dog related management
is 2.57 FTE (this number was calculated by totaling the estimated time staff currently spends on
projects and tasks related to prairie dogs, described below).
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 5
Presently within the P&R Department, up to 0.25 FTE of the Natural Lands Program
Coordinator position and up to 0.40 FTE of the field crew staff time is dedicated to prairie dog-
related management including monitoring, counting, mapping, barrier maintenance, passive and
active relocation, planning, community engagement and conflict mitigation. Changes to the
current program such as implementation of the PDWG recommendations without increased
resources would result in less time and resources for other projects and programs such as state-
listed species of concern (e.g., northern harrier, northern leopard frog) monitoring and
management, state-mandated noxious weed control and habitat restoration, community
engagement and volunteer coordination on other topics and maintenance of natural area
infrastructure (e.g., trails, fencing, trash). This does not include time spent by other P&R staff
such as facility managers, GIS and community relations.
Within the PH&S Department approximately 0.20 FTE of the Urban Wildlife Conservation
Coordinator position is dedicated to prairie dog-related management including non-lethal
mitigation plan development, permit development and application review, education, providing
technical advice and assistance on conflict mitigation to private landowners and city
departments. Increasing the proportion of time spent of prairie dog protection and conflict
mitigation would result in less time for other projects that improve human–wildlife coexistence
with other species such as the implementation of the black bear and mountain lion components
of the Urban Wildlife Management Plan and developing urban ecosystem protection strategies.
Currently, four OSMP wildlife ecology staff spend approximately 20% of their time (0.8 FTE
total) dedicated to prairie dog related management including relocation, non-lethal mitigation
and project planning, mapping, monitoring, conflict management, education, and providing
technical advice to private landowners. Increasing the time spent on prairie dog protection and
management would result in less time available for other projects including those related to
protection of other wildlife on city open space lands (e.g., eagles and other raptors, Preble’s
meadow jumping mouse, grassland nesting birds, northern leopard frog); volunteer coordination
for wildlife projects; wildlife habitat restoration; OSMP wildlife consultation and support for
trails planning and design, strategic planning, agricultural integration; and monitoring and
research associated with implementation of OSMP plans including the Grassland Ecosystem
Management Plan, Forest Ecosystem Management Plan, Visitor Master Plan and Trail Study
Area Plans and the OSMP Master Plan (in production).
Three OSMP standard agricultural staff spend approximately 1% of their time and an 18-month
temporary employee hired in part to address prairie dog conflicts on agricultural properties
spends up to approximately 75% of time on prairie dog issues (0.78 FTE total). Additional
prairie dog-related tasks would result in less time invested by agricultural staff in agricultural
lease management and oversight and in coordination and support for agricultural plan
implementation.
Other OSMP workgroups currently spending time on prairie dog conservation and management
include OSMP Rangers, GIS, Signs, Public Outreach, Plant Ecology, Research and Monitoring,
Community Relations and others. The time spent across these workgroups currently is estimated
at 0.14 of an FTE. Implementation of additional prairie dog related work without additional
capacity would impact work plans across these workgroups. The total estimated current OSMP
staff commitment to prairie dog management is therefore 1.72 FTE
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 6
Current expenditures on prairie dog management
In addition to staff time allocations for current prairie dog-related activities, budgetary
expenditures are estimated $27,000- $300,000 annually across the city on prairie dog
management. Further detail follows.
The P&R department manages about 250 acres of grassland habitat that is fully occupied by
prairie dogs and about another 200 acres of current or future park development sites which have
prairie dogs that are identified for removal in the Urban Wildlife Management Plan. Non-
personnel budget implications of prairie dog management for these tasks range between $10,000
- $150,000 per year. This amount is largely dependent upon relocation projects and barrier
installations which vary year-to-year. P&R currently has nearly six miles of prairie dog barriers
to maintain with an estimated asset replacement value of over $825,000. The barriers have been
installed to minimize conflicts between existing prairie dog colonies and park assets or areas
identified in the Urban Wildlife Management Plan as removal areas. One example is the buffer
zone between the conservation areas and the Boulder Reservoir dams which are mandated by the
state to be kept free of burrowing animals. Many of these barriers will need refurbishment or
replacement in the coming years.
Budget expenditures for prairie dog management at OSMP range between $10,000- $150,000 per
year, with most expenditure related to relocation of prairie dogs and annual variation based on
whether relocations include prairie dogs from OSMP property, or other City or private property.
The PH&S department reviews all proposed development, construction, and public improvement
projects within, or near prairie dog colonies. For projects on city managed non-OSMP or non -
P&R properties, contractors are hired annually for non-lethal prairie dog mitigation in the form
of passive relocation that allows for temporary ground disturbance without harming prairie dogs.
An average of approximately $6,500 is spent annually on passive relocation, and urban
population survey contracts overseen by PH&S.
Projected staff resource allocation
Staff estimates that implementation of all of the PDWG Phase 2 recommendations would require
at a minimum, in addition to current staff time spent on prairie dog related management, between
2.2-7.5 FTEs (these figures are calculated by totaling the Staff Scope/Time Estimates ranges in
the PDWG Phase 2 Analysis Table- Attachment A). Similar to the fiscal impact analysis
estimate, this estimate of required staffing resources varies greatly due to variables would only
be known with increased confidence once implementation for specific tasks commences, and
could go even higher.
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 7
NEXT STEPS
Staff will present the recommendations of the PDWG and staff analysis to relevant boards and
city council throughout August and October 2018 (see process timeline below). Thoughts and
consideration from the boards, based on the three questions below will be provided to the city
manager and to council for determining a course of action.
Questions to be asked of boards include:
- Does the Board generally support the direction of the recommendations?
- Does the Board have overarching concerns on economic, environmental or social impacts
of the recommendations that they would like the city manager and City Council to be
aware of?
- What other concerns should the city manager and City Council be made aware of?
The presentations that will be made to boards and to council include a review of Phase 1
outcomes, a summary review of Phase 2 recommendations as well as a summation of the staff
analysis.
Process timeline:
• Solicit thoughts from relevant boards -
o Environmental Advisory Board, August 1
o Open Space Board of Trustees, August 8
o Parks & Recreation Advisory Board, August 27
• City Council scheduled for Oct.2, 2018
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment A: PDWG Phase 2 Analysis Table
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 8
PDWG Phase Two Recommendations Analysis Staff Public EngagementCouncil / BoardsEconomic
(e.g., estimated
implementation cost,
CIP or operating
expense)
Environmental
(e.g., natural
resources)
Social
(e.g., facilities, work plan,
existing plans & policies)
Staff Suggested
Timing
Approximate
Duration of Task
Department Lead(s)
OB 1
S1
M1
By 2019, pilot application of a habitat
quantification tool with parcels being
proposed for new acquisitions or
easements related to prairie dog
conservation.
M L L $
Requires time from real estate staff and
perhaps other staff (uncertain what
quantification tool will require) and may
require modifications to OSMP
acquisition plan
2020 3 months OSMP
S2
Recommendations by Goal Category
If 100% approved
Amend prairie dog-related components of the Grassland Management Plan by considering the entire grassland-dominated landscape in the Boulder Region, and implement the updated plan with an aim to increase the number of
receiving sites for prairie dogs.
Assessments & Impacts with funding to implement
H – high effort / time commitment
Scope / Time
Estimates
Legend:
L – low effort / time commitment
M – medium effort / time commitment
OB = Objective S - Strategy M - Milestone
ECOLOGICAL - Update and implement the City's prairie dog management plans to ensure the creation and maintenance of one or more large prairie dog-occupied ecosystem area that will secure viable plague-resistant prairie dog
populations and high-integrity grassland habitat.
In collaboration with county, federal, and private partners, secure one or more interconnected networks of high-integrity grasslands containing viable populations of plague-resistant prairie dog colonies naturally limited by native
predators.
Collaborate with county, federal, and private partners to prioritize acquisitions, easements, and management agreements to consolidate prairie dog grassland parcels, and as feasible, secure connectivity and linkages among colonies.Related ThemesAGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 9
PDWG Phase Two Recommendations Analysis Staff Public EngagementCouncil / BoardsEconomic
(e.g., estimated
implementation cost,
CIP or operating
expense)
Environmental
(e.g., natural
resources)
Social
(e.g., facilities, work plan,
existing plans & policies)
Staff Suggested
Timing
Approximate
Duration of Task
Department Lead(s)
Recommendations by Goal Category
If 100% approved
Assessments & Impacts with funding to implement
H – high effort / time commitment
Scope / Time
Estimates
Legend:
L – low effort / time commitment
M – medium effort / time commitment
OB = Objective S - Strategy M - Milestone
ECOLOGICAL - Update and implement the City's prairie dog management plans to ensure the creation and maintenance of one or more large prairie dog-occupied ecosystem area that will secure viable plague-resistant prairie dog
populations and high-integrity grassland habitat.Related ThemesM1
Will require update to many related
GMAP conservation targets that would
be impacted by shifts to goals and
viability targets for prairie dogs
Will require extensive staff time and
lead to other projects being given a
lower priority or being
delayed/removed from workplan (e.g.
integration of natural resources with
agricultural management, monitoring
and protecting rare and declining
wildlife species)
M2
By 2019, based on milestone 1, work
with local experts to update and
implement GMAP goals relevant to
prairie dogs along with receiving site
location criteria (I-1) to fully utilize
existing grassland receiving sites and to
allow additional qualified grassland
receiving sites.
M M L $
Moderate updates to
vegetation criteria- no
significant impact. Extensive
modifications leading to less
vegetation recovery time prior
to relocation for unoccupied
colonies, or identifying
additional relocation sites
beyond where prairie dogs
have previously been mapped
limit the ability to manage and
protect other non-paririe dog
communities and species (e.g.
rare plant communities and
imperiled butterfly/skipper
species)
Public process surrounding mofication
would require other workplan priorities
to be displaced or delayed (e.g.
ecological staff support for new trail
planning or trail
restoration/maintenance)
2021- needs to follow
completion of updated
suitability modeling
3 months+ 2 years to
monitor colonies for
vegetation conditions
with modified criteria
OSMP
Outcome may reduce ability to
manage for and protect non-
prairie dog community types
and species (e.g. xeric tallgrass
prairie, grasshopper sparrows,
rare skippers and butterflies)
2020- after completion
of OSMP Master Plan H M L $$ (consultant and experts),
operating
By 2019, work with local experts to
review modeling method and data
inputs to provide an updated prairie
dog habitat suitability model and
GMAP target viability criteria to map
current conditions for the mixed grass
prairie mosaic and prairie dog colonies
across the relevant grassland landscape
to serve as guidance for plan updates.
1 year OSMP
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 10
PDWG Phase Two Recommendations Analysis Staff Public EngagementCouncil / BoardsEconomic
(e.g., estimated
implementation cost,
CIP or operating
expense)
Environmental
(e.g., natural
resources)
Social
(e.g., facilities, work plan,
existing plans & policies)
Staff Suggested
Timing
Approximate
Duration of Task
Department Lead(s)
Recommendations by Goal Category
If 100% approved
Assessments & Impacts with funding to implement
H – high effort / time commitment
Scope / Time
Estimates
Legend:
L – low effort / time commitment
M – medium effort / time commitment
OB = Objective S - Strategy M - Milestone
ECOLOGICAL - Update and implement the City's prairie dog management plans to ensure the creation and maintenance of one or more large prairie dog-occupied ecosystem area that will secure viable plague-resistant prairie dog
populations and high-integrity grassland habitat.Related ThemesS3
OSMP for OSMP sites
PH&S for private sites
P&R for P&R sites2 months (vaccine order
time + waiting time
after vaccination for
animals immune
systems to respond
Minimal- requires 1-2 days of staff time
to deploy vaccineM1
Prior to implementing the plan under
Milestone 2, all translocated prairie
dogs will receive plague abatement.
L L
Manage prairie dog colonies for plague resistance.
L $2018- already planned
If restricted to sylvatic plague
vaccine (planned for 2018),
then believed to be limited. If
includes additional use of
broad specrum insecticide,
impacts to other aspects of the
ecosystem likely- evaluation
needed
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 11
PDWG Phase Two Recommendations Analysis Staff Public EngagementCouncil / BoardsEconomic
(e.g., estimated
implementation cost,
CIP or operating
expense)
Environmental
(e.g., natural
resources)
Social
(e.g., facilities, work plan,
existing plans & policies)
Staff Suggested
Timing
Approximate
Duration of Task
Department Lead(s)
Recommendations by Goal Category
If 100% approved
Assessments & Impacts with funding to implement
H – high effort / time commitment
Scope / Time
Estimates
Legend:
L – low effort / time commitment
M – medium effort / time commitment
OB = Objective S - Strategy M - Milestone
ECOLOGICAL - Update and implement the City's prairie dog management plans to ensure the creation and maintenance of one or more large prairie dog-occupied ecosystem area that will secure viable plague-resistant prairie dog
populations and high-integrity grassland habitat.Related Themes$ for development
Creation of plan would have moderate
workplan implications due to staff
detication and public process- other
projects would be impacted, delayed or
not completed (e.g. bear protection,
pollinator protection, ecosystem
services strategies, monitoring for
rare/declining species)
2019 for creation of
plan, 2020 to begin
implementation
9 months (including
public process) for plan
creation
OSMP, PH&S, P&R
$$ for implementation
Dependent on outcome of plan impacts
could include reduction over time of
relocation receiving sites due to
maintenance and continued expansion
of p.dog populations in conservation
areas, leading to reduced opportunities
to address conflict.
Ongoing for
implementation
Implementation (dependent on
contents of plan) could include
extensive staff time to provide plague
management and increase staff time
required to address conflicts with
adjacent landowners or agriculture,
reducing staff ability to implement
p.dog relocations
M3
By 2019, work with Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) to ensure
implementation of an acceptable policy
that may limit the use of insecticides
but allows such use on large prairie dog
ecosystem colonies as necessary.
M*M*M*$
The IPM policy guides the use
of the most environmentally
sound approaches to pest
management
*Revisions to the IPM
policy is already a
workplan item for IPM
Coordinator in 2018
*12 months PH&S
S4
M2
By 2019, complete and implement a
plague-management and monitoring
plan using proven-effective state-of-the-
art plague management techniques to
secure sustainable and plague-resistant
prairie dog colonies.
H
None for development of plan.
Dependent on outcome of
plan. Impacts could include
non-target impacts of
insecticides to other aspects of
ecosystem, increased conflicts
with adjacent landowners,
agriculture and non-p. dog
community types (e.g. xeric
tallgrass, grasshopper
sparrows) from long-term
expansion and maintenance of
p.dog populations
Complete and implement a plan for the reintroduction of the black-footed ferret into large prairie dog occupied areas as a key native predator.
M L
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 12
PDWG Phase Two Recommendations Analysis Staff Public EngagementCouncil / BoardsEconomic
(e.g., estimated
implementation cost,
CIP or operating
expense)
Environmental
(e.g., natural
resources)
Social
(e.g., facilities, work plan,
existing plans & policies)
Staff Suggested
Timing
Approximate
Duration of Task
Department Lead(s)
Recommendations by Goal Category
If 100% approved
Assessments & Impacts with funding to implement
H – high effort / time commitment
Scope / Time
Estimates
Legend:
L – low effort / time commitment
M – medium effort / time commitment
OB = Objective S - Strategy M - Milestone
ECOLOGICAL - Update and implement the City's prairie dog management plans to ensure the creation and maintenance of one or more large prairie dog-occupied ecosystem area that will secure viable plague-resistant prairie dog
populations and high-integrity grassland habitat.Related ThemesM1
By 2020, work with adjacent
landowners, including the County of
Boulder and adjacent counties, US Fish
& Wildlife Service, other federal
partners, and private landowners in the
Grassland Preserves to create and
implement a black-footed ferret
recovery plan for the southern Boulder
Region.
H M M $-$$ (may require consultants)
No impacts for plan creation.
Implementation: restoring
native extirpated predator that
will also contribute to
sustainable prairie dog
populations. Potential impacts
of management for ferrets
(including plague control,
sufficiently high prairie dog
populations, etc) to impact
conservation and management
of other natural resources
Creations of plan- no impacts.
Implementation: potential implications
for visitor use, agricultural lease
management, good educational
opportunity
2020 6 months OSMP
S5
M1
Based on identified prairie dog
occupied and relocation sites, update
inventory and monitoring data for at-
risk species associated with the Mixed
grass prairie mosaic and xeric tallgrass
prairie.
H L L
$$$- will require
contractor/researcher
assistance
Inventory data would be
beneficial to natural resource
management
Inventory and Monitoring, including
contractor identification and
management would displace other
wildlife monitoring priorities already in
the workplan including those likely to be
identified in the new OSMP Master Plan
2020
3 years- monitoring is
seasonal, variable year-
to-year and needs
repeated periodically
OSMP, P&R
M2
Document relative compatibilities of
relevant land use and management
options applicable to prairie dog
relocation sites and occupied colonies
(e.g., use of insecticides relative to rare
insect species, density of prairie dogs
relative to rare plant species).
M M L
$$$- will require
contractor/researcher
assistance
Beneficial to identify interface
between p.dog mgmt. actions
and impacts to sensitive
species to help in mitigating
negative impacts
Work with contractors, researchers will
take staff time otherwise allocated for
other wildlife management or IPM
projects (e.g. mosquito management,
monitoring of rare/sensitive species)
2022- wait for
preliminary data from
monitoring to inform
9 months OSMP, P&R, PH&S
Apply the mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimize, mitigate) regarding adverse impacts to at-risk species known to be vulnerable to habitat-altering land management practices associated with prairie dog conservation.
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 13
PDWG Phase Two Recommendations Analysis Staff Public EngagementCouncil / BoardsEconomic
(e.g., estimated
implementation cost,
CIP or operating
expense)
Environmental
(e.g., natural
resources)
Social
(e.g., facilities, work plan,
existing plans & policies)
Staff Suggested
Timing
Approximate
Duration of Task
Department Lead(s)
Recommendations by Goal Category
If 100% approved
Assessments & Impacts with funding to implement
H – high effort / time commitment
Scope / Time
Estimates
Legend:
L – low effort / time commitment
M – medium effort / time commitment
OB = Objective S - Strategy M - Milestone
ECOLOGICAL - Update and implement the City's prairie dog management plans to ensure the creation and maintenance of one or more large prairie dog-occupied ecosystem area that will secure viable plague-resistant prairie dog
populations and high-integrity grassland habitat.Related ThemesOB 2
S1
M1
In the near term, due to high
occupancy of conflict areas, there is an
increase in the number of successful
translocations across the Boulder
region.
H L L $$-$$$$ (depending on source
of p.dogs- City or private)
Requires installation of articial
nest boxes for most or all
p.dogs- impacts to invasive
species vulnerability,
disruption of intact native
plant communities
Work with contractors. Increased ability
to address conflict situations, limit lethal
control. Staff time required for
permitting, mitigation of neighbor
concerns, coordination of contractors.
During relocation season, displaces
other projects such as wildlife staff
support for habitat restoration, trail and
other infrastructure project planning,
support for volunteers and coordination
of protection for rare/sensitive species
2019- 2018 relocations
are already underway
1 year to begin to show
increase, continue
evaluation each year
after
OSMP, PHS, P&R depending
on sending and receiving
sites
S2
M1
Pilot by 2021 one property that has
prairie dog colonies with managed
buffer zones.
H M L $$$$
Barriers & their installation can
have negative impacts on
multiple species
May increase release site
potential/mitigate conflict. Every new
initiative/item means something else
must go.
2020
6 mo's to plan
12 months to
implement/evaluate
OSMP
S3
M1
Recruit researchers from USGS, CSU,
etc. to secure funding and implement a
research plan.
M L L $-$$$ (depending on funding
for research)
Potential impacts of field
research to non-target species
Potential to help advance tools for
mitigation of social conflicts with p.dogs.
Other workplan priorities dispaced
2019 ongoing TBD
OB 3
Secure and implement a suite of non-lethal methods for managing prairie dog populations in lands where their proximity to urban and agricultural land use, and other natural values, are in conflict. (The PDWG recognizes the similarities
between this objective and the social goal and would like to ensure that implementation of this objective should not detract from other ecological objectives.)
Invest in creating buffer zones on key prairie dog colonies in conflict.
Collaborate with the research community to advance testing of new and emerging tools for managing prairie dog population (such as oral contraception agents).
Amend as necessary and keep all existing prairie dog plans and policies (including but not limited to the Admin Rule, IPM, UWMP, GMP, Wildlife Protection Ordinance) current as needed to ensure they are mutually compatible with Goal
1 and its objectives and strategies.
Collaborate with county, federal, and private partners to implement non-lethal prairie dog relocations.
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 14
PDWG Phase Two Recommendations Analysis Staff Public EngagementCouncil / BoardsEconomic
(e.g., estimated
implementation cost,
CIP or operating
expense)
Environmental
(e.g., natural
resources)
Social
(e.g., facilities, work plan,
existing plans & policies)
Staff Suggested
Timing
Approximate
Duration of Task
Department Lead(s)
Recommendations by Goal Category
If 100% approved
Assessments & Impacts with funding to implement
H – high effort / time commitment
Scope / Time
Estimates
Legend:
L – low effort / time commitment
M – medium effort / time commitment
OB = Objective S - Strategy M - Milestone
ECOLOGICAL - Update and implement the City's prairie dog management plans to ensure the creation and maintenance of one or more large prairie dog-occupied ecosystem area that will secure viable plague-resistant prairie dog
populations and high-integrity grassland habitat.Related ThemesS1
M1
By 2020 complete policy review and
initiate processes for policy
amendments.
H M M $Impacts to other plan
initiatives and goals
Will require staff time from multiple
depts displacing other workplan
priorities
2020 9 months OSMP, PH&S, P&R
M1
By 2019 identify and map conflict areas
annually and make it easily available to
the public.
H L M $-$$Unknown
Beneficial to know conflict areas and
shows willingness to work with
neighbors. Strategy and method for
determining and mapping conflict will
need to be developed and implemented
requiring staff time including GIS staff,
wildlife staff, outreach staff and
agricultural staff from OSMP, PHS, PR
displacing other workplan priorities such
as monitoring of rare/sensitive species,
coordination of bear protection, non-
native species control,
2020- staff unavailable
until after completiong
of OSMP Master Plan
6 months- 1 year
depending on strategy OSMP, PHS, P&R
OB 2
▪Agriculture (leased/private): Encroachment of prairie dogs onto existing agricultural lands.▪Public and Private adjacent land owners: Encroachment of prairie dogs onto adjoining properties.
▪Land developers: Within City of Boulder, city process for prairie dog removal (time delays/costs).
▪Relocation demands exceed receiving sites: Delays in timely relocation of prairie dogs due to lack of
receiving sites.
▪Communication and protocols: Clarity and inclusiveness with community.
Review interdependency among policies and identify needed changes; establish a priority amongst current policies; and establish and implement a timeline for plans and policies that need to be updated.
Identify and implement innovative proactive non-lethal strategies to address conflicts in each defined category (Some categories the group has identified):
Identify and map areas of conflict that can be quantified and tracked annually. Note: Areas of conflict are not to be defined only by these categories and that the map should expand on other new areas of conflict as they arise and are
identified. o Conflict categories such as:
OB 1
SOCIAL COEXISTENCE - Support proactive and innovative non-lethal strategies to minimize conflicts associated with prairie dogs and competing land uses. Increase public awareness of the prairie dog's role in Boulder's Grassland and
Urban ecosystems through community outreach.
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 15
PDWG Phase Two Recommendations Analysis Staff Public EngagementCouncil / BoardsEconomic
(e.g., estimated
implementation cost,
CIP or operating
expense)
Environmental
(e.g., natural
resources)
Social
(e.g., facilities, work plan,
existing plans & policies)
Staff Suggested
Timing
Approximate
Duration of Task
Department Lead(s)
Recommendations by Goal Category
If 100% approved
Assessments & Impacts with funding to implement
H – high effort / time commitment
Scope / Time
Estimates
Legend:
L – low effort / time commitment
M – medium effort / time commitment
OB = Objective S - Strategy M - Milestone
ECOLOGICAL - Update and implement the City's prairie dog management plans to ensure the creation and maintenance of one or more large prairie dog-occupied ecosystem area that will secure viable plague-resistant prairie dog
populations and high-integrity grassland habitat.Related Themes▪ Agriculture (leased/private):
Evaluate/Provide barriers or other
exclusion/mitigation methods.
▪Private and adjacent land owners:
o Evaluate/Provide barriers on City of
Boulder land adjoining high-conflict areas.
o Add additional criteria to definition of
future PCAs in the Grassland Management
Plan to consider the level of conflict with
adjoining properties
▪Land Developers: Follow newly proposed
protocol for relocations.
▪Communication & Protocols:
o Have clear and consistent communication
among all agencies.
o Review protocols and update as necessary.
▪Relocation demands exceed Receiving
site:
o Explore additional opportunities for
relocations in Southern Grasslands by
evaluating current relocation criteria, in
conjunction with Goal 1 efforts, to alleviate
conflicts in other areas.
o Work towards the reintroduction of the
black-footed ferret (as stated in goal 1) using
connecting parcels from the public/private
sector to achieve this goal as a natural
strategy in PD management.
o Collaborate with community partners (ex:
Prairie Dog Coalition or Defenders of Wildlife)
to implement conflict prevention strategy
H M M $$$$-$$$$$Unknown
Effective barriers are expensive to
construct and maintain throughout their
intended life cycle. City owned
properties have many miles of shared
boundary with private property or
irrigated agricultural fields. A cursory
GIS analysis of OSMP prairie dog
colonies and irrigated agricultural fields
alone indicates that more than 100
irrigated fields currently intersect
occupied prairie dog colonies. Providing
effective barriers for neighboring
property owners who have recently
(within last 6 months) reported conflicts
would require an investment of more
than $1 million if each were selected for
barrier installation. Passive relocation
techniques would likely require
contracted services or the addition of
staffing resources. Changes to the
existing Grassland Management Plan
would require a public process and
board and council approvals.
Staff could begin or
continue to implement
barrier fencing
construction projects
on a limited basis in
2019, however,
significant
expenditures of staff
time or CIP funds
(>$10,000) would
require a reallocation
of departmental
resources and/or
proposed work plan.
Changes to the
Grassland Ecosystem
Management Plan
would likely need to be
developed after the
completion of the
OSMP Master Plan.
18-24 months for
priority barrier fencing
construction projects,
infrastructure
maintenance activities
and passive mitigation
techniques would be on-
going activies as long as
individual colonies are
occupied. Modifying
the Grassland
Ecosystem Management
Plan could take up to 24
months once the
process in initiated.
OSMP, P&R, PH&S
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 16
PDWG Phase Two Recommendations Analysis Staff Public EngagementCouncil / BoardsEconomic
(e.g., estimated
implementation cost,
CIP or operating
expense)
Environmental
(e.g., natural
resources)
Social
(e.g., facilities, work plan,
existing plans & policies)
Staff Suggested
Timing
Approximate
Duration of Task
Department Lead(s)
Recommendations by Goal Category
If 100% approved
Assessments & Impacts with funding to implement
H – high effort / time commitment
Scope / Time
Estimates
Legend:
L – low effort / time commitment
M – medium effort / time commitment
OB = Objective S - Strategy M - Milestone
ECOLOGICAL - Update and implement the City's prairie dog management plans to ensure the creation and maintenance of one or more large prairie dog-occupied ecosystem area that will secure viable plague-resistant prairie dog
populations and high-integrity grassland habitat.Related ThemesM1
By end of 2019, initiate a pilot program
to implement a conflict prevention
strategy in at least two adjoining
conflict locations (properties that are
next to or connected to each other).
M L L $-$$$ operating
Dependent on strategy- if
includes barriers potential for
impacts to other wildlife
movement, weed invastion
Community implications involved in
selecting properties- advantageous for
selected properties and shows
willingness to work with neighbors, but
potentially contentious for others not
selected. Selection process will need to
be developed. Conflict prevention will
require initial staff time and ongoing
staff time for maintenance of any
infrastructure involved
2019 1 year OSMP
M2 By 2022 proactively address 10% of
defined conflict areas annually.H L L $-$$$$$ operating
Dependent on strategy- if
includes barriers potential for
impacts to other wildlife
movement, weed invastion
Community implications involved in
selecting properties- advantageous for
selected properties and shows
willingness to work with neighbors, but
potentially contentious for others not
selected. Selection process will need to
be developed. Conflict prevention will
require initial staff time and ongoing
staff time for maintenance of any
infrastructure involved
2020 2 years for initial, then
ongoing OSMP, PH&S, PR
OB 3
OB 4
$
Review mechanisms for communication and update as required to ensure prairie dog management conflicts and concerns are addressed in an effective and timely manner.
N/A H:PHS 320 hours 2018 Completed PH&SS1
Establish who to call when conflicts
with illegal activity arise and when
animal control cannot be reached.
L
Develop a campaign to engage Boulder area residents to expand their appreciation of the role of prairie dogs in native grasslands in Boulder County and the complex nature of their management.
L L
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 17
PDWG Phase Two Recommendations Analysis Staff Public EngagementCouncil / BoardsEconomic
(e.g., estimated
implementation cost,
CIP or operating
expense)
Environmental
(e.g., natural
resources)
Social
(e.g., facilities, work plan,
existing plans & policies)
Staff Suggested
Timing
Approximate
Duration of Task
Department Lead(s)
Recommendations by Goal Category
If 100% approved
Assessments & Impacts with funding to implement
H – high effort / time commitment
Scope / Time
Estimates
Legend:
L – low effort / time commitment
M – medium effort / time commitment
OB = Objective S - Strategy M - Milestone
ECOLOGICAL - Update and implement the City's prairie dog management plans to ensure the creation and maintenance of one or more large prairie dog-occupied ecosystem area that will secure viable plague-resistant prairie dog
populations and high-integrity grassland habitat.Related Themes•Create surveys to gauge public
awareness and concerns based on
historical efforts.
•Campaign for more public
awareness, engage the public through
technology, Boulder newsletters and
community outreach programs.
Presentations at local libraries, schools,
Boy/Girl Scout troops and 4-H groups
are ways to reach out to the
community.
•Provide Boulder residents
opportunities to contribute to PD
conservation through assistance with
environmental monitoring and
outreach programs.
•Better educate public about plague
and update informational sites.
OB 5
OSMP
PH&S
P&R
Ob 6
S1
Lobby neighboring county
commissioners and state legislators to
advocate for these adjustments,
providing protocols and language for
legislation.
L L M $, lobbing Council would need to including this as a
priority for the 2019 Legislative Agenda.2019 6 months for Legislative
Agenda evaluation PH&S
-2020 On-going -
TBD
L L $, operating
Work plans need to allow timing for
staff to conduct this process of
reevalutation
H M L
$$, operating,
consultant/professional services
provider
-
Increased community engagement.
Campaign to engage Boulder area
residents to expand their appreciation
of the role of prairie dogs in native
grasslands in Boulder County and the
complex nature of their management;
conducting education programs requires
staff to redirect their current program
priorities/topics
S1 2020 12 months to launch,
then on-going
S1 Reevaluation of adaptive management
practices.L
Develop annual assessment feedback mechanisms.
Secure modifications to state regulations to facilitate the transfer of prairie dogs across county lines.
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 18
PDWG Phase Two Recommendations Analysis Staff Public EngagementCouncil / BoardsEconomic
(e.g., estimated
implementation cost,
CIP or operating
expense)
Environmental
(e.g., natural
resources)
Social
(e.g., facilities, work plan,
existing plans & policies)
Staff Suggested
Timing
Approximate
Duration of Task
Department Lead(s)
Recommendations by Goal Category
If 100% approved
Assessments & Impacts with funding to implement
H – high effort / time commitment
Scope / Time
Estimates
Legend:
L – low effort / time commitment
M – medium effort / time commitment
OB = Objective S - Strategy M - Milestone
ECOLOGICAL - Update and implement the City's prairie dog management plans to ensure the creation and maintenance of one or more large prairie dog-occupied ecosystem area that will secure viable plague-resistant prairie dog
populations and high-integrity grassland habitat.Related ThemesOB 1
S1
M1
By 2020, pilot the use of the adapted
habitat quantification tool developed
to determine Net Positive Impact in
one or more scenarios within the city.
M L L $$, opearting
there is no direct impact to
resources by using the tool
itself; any impacts may occur
from the results of using the
tool
staff will need to dedicate hours to
determine the right tool components
and to utilize the tool to score one or
more sites
2020 12 months to have a full
year of evaluation OSMP
OB 2
S1
M2
Work with Boulder’s philanthropic
community (e.g., Community
Foundation of Boulder County ) to
identify opportunities to provide
sustainable support to Prairie Dog
conservation in the Boulder region.
M M L $--2019 ongoing TBD
2019 12-18 months PH&S
ECONOMIC - Implement sustainable processes that provide resources and capacity to secure prairie dog conservation associated with the City of Boulder.
Apply principles of Net Positive Impact (avoid, minimize, mitigate, seek net positive gain) on prairie dog conservation activities, including relocation projects, associated with the City of Boulder.
Utilize habitat quantification tool to score sites (removal and receiving), to help offset on-site impact of development and to determine net-positive impact.
Establish a grassland conservation fund that augments operating budgets for meeting prairie dog management and is used for expenditures including but not limited to acquisition (fee title and/or easements), relocations and
stewardship
Establish inflow and outflows of monies into and out of the grassland conservation fund.
By 2019, create and implement a
required fee structure for private
landowners relocating prairie dogs to
city land.
HM1 M M $$
A fee structure would help
absorb associated costs of
environmental impacts
Requires an ordinance and will affect
Finance and City Attorney's Office staff
work plans
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 19
PDWG Phase Two Recommendations Analysis Staff Public EngagementCouncil / BoardsEconomic
(e.g., estimated
implementation cost,
CIP or operating
expense)
Environmental
(e.g., natural
resources)
Social
(e.g., facilities, work plan,
existing plans & policies)
Staff Suggested
Timing
Approximate
Duration of Task
Department Lead(s)
Recommendations by Goal Category
If 100% approved
Assessments & Impacts with funding to implement
H – high effort / time commitment
Scope / Time
Estimates
Legend:
L – low effort / time commitment
M – medium effort / time commitment
OB = Objective S - Strategy M - Milestone
ECOLOGICAL - Update and implement the City's prairie dog management plans to ensure the creation and maintenance of one or more large prairie dog-occupied ecosystem area that will secure viable plague-resistant prairie dog
populations and high-integrity grassland habitat.Related ThemesM3
By 2020, work with conservation
entities to identify conservation
practices, programs and funding
mechanisms that could support
grassland restoration and the
mitigation of conflicts on agricultural
land. (Example entities include Natural
Resource Conservation Service and
Great Outdoors Colorado. An example
of funding which could be explored
includes conservation leases.)
M L L $, operating
Time directed toward
administrative tasks rather
than implementation and field
tasks but may increase
capacity in the future.
Demonstrates city’s partnership
initiative; staff would need to adjust
work plans to allow for this
administrative work
2020 On-going TBD
S2
No less frequently than once, but no
more frequently than twice a year,
there will be a publicly-noticed meeting
that includes invitations to members of
the PDWG with an opportunity for the
members to discuss progress on the
ecological, social, and economic goals
and strategies and contribute to the
adaptive management process.
L M L $, operating
Time directed toward meeting
& preparation rather than
implementation and field tasks
Meetings support transparency and
build trust; may not be necessary long-
term but are important in the near-term
for demonstrating accountability and
effectiveness of approved actions .
Increased community engagement.
Maintain relationships built.
2019 On-going for the near-
term TBD
M1
By December 2019 staff will provide an
annual report on the inflows and
outflows.
L M L $, operating
Time directed toward meeting
& preparation rather than field
tasks
Financial staff needed to support report
development. Evaluation of progress
and recalibration.
2019 On-going TBD
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 20
PDWG Phase Two Recommendations Analysis Staff Public EngagementCouncil / BoardsEconomic
(e.g., estimated
implementation cost,
CIP or operating
expense)
Environmental
(e.g., natural
resources)
Social
(e.g., facilities, work plan,
existing plans & policies)
Staff Suggested
Timing
Approximate
Duration of Task
Department Lead(s)
Recommendations by Goal Category
If 100% approved
Assessments & Impacts with funding to implement
H – high effort / time commitment
Scope / Time
Estimates
Legend:
L – low effort / time commitment
M – medium effort / time commitment
OB = Objective S - Strategy M - Milestone
ECOLOGICAL - Update and implement the City's prairie dog management plans to ensure the creation and maintenance of one or more large prairie dog-occupied ecosystem area that will secure viable plague-resistant prairie dog
populations and high-integrity grassland habitat.Related ThemesOSMP
PH&S
P&R
OB 3
S1
OSMP
PH&S
P&R
OSMP
PH&S
P&R
S2
M1
By 2019, create a pilot project with at
least two outside organizations to help
fulfill the PDWG goals and objectives by
maximizing in-kind contributions (i.e.,
donation of nest boxes or fence/barrier
materials or installation).
M L L $$$ - operating or CIP (TBD)May offset the financial costs
of PDWG goal implementation.
Demonstrates ability to partner on
implementation of goals and objectives
and positive relationship development;
opportunity to storytell about the role
of prairie dogs in the ecosystem
2020 12 months
OSMP
P&HS
P&R
Maximize in-kind contributions to assist with addressing prairie dog management.
-M
2019 (for 2020)On-going
2019 (for 2020)On-going
M M $, operating
Time directed toward
reporting & preparation rather
than field tasks
Accountability. Working group members
are likely to be highly interested in
attending meetings where updates will
be provided; other members of the
public who expressed concerns during
the working group are also likely to
attend. Adaptive Management in
action.
2019 On-going
M $$$ - (varies by dept and year),
operating
Other management objectives
(i.e., protecting rare/sensitive
species) will receive a lower
priority or will not be
addressed
Directing funding to pdog mgmt, will
naturally alter a department’s ability to
address other services
-
L
$$$-$$$$$ - (varies by dept and
year), operating & CIP
Support sufficient budgets for city staff to fulfill their roles in achieving the approved PDWG goals, objectives, and strategies as well as recommended changes to plans, policies and practices.
Revisit and amend department budget allocations (including a line item for prairie dog management), and annual work plan objectives for staff to ensure they are compatible with, and can accomplish, the PDWG goals and objectives.
Other management objectives
(i.e., bear protection) will
receive a lower priority or will
not be addressed
Directing funding to pdog mgmt, will
naturally alter a department’s ability to
address other services
M2
Annually ensure each relevant
department has sufficient budgets,
staffing and/or consultants to meet the
prairie dog management goals and
objectives.
M
M1
Recommend departmental operating
budget line items for prairie dog
management in the 2020 budget.
L
M2
By 2019 staff will provide their
respective department board or
commission with annual updates on
the status of the goals and objectives
as well as a review of, and advisement
on, inflows and outflows of the
grasslands conservation fund.
L
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 21
PDWG Phase Two Recommendations Analysis Staff Public EngagementCouncil / BoardsEconomic
(e.g., estimated
implementation cost,
CIP or operating
expense)
Environmental
(e.g., natural
resources)
Social
(e.g., facilities, work plan,
existing plans & policies)
Staff Suggested
Timing
Approximate
Duration of Task
Department Lead(s)
Recommendations by Goal Category
If 100% approved
Assessments & Impacts with funding to implement
H – high effort / time commitment
Scope / Time
Estimates
Legend:
L – low effort / time commitment
M – medium effort / time commitment
OB = Objective S - Strategy M - Milestone
ECOLOGICAL - Update and implement the City's prairie dog management plans to ensure the creation and maintenance of one or more large prairie dog-occupied ecosystem area that will secure viable plague-resistant prairie dog
populations and high-integrity grassland habitat.Related ThemesM2
Track in-kind contributions on an
annual basis and make data available
for other funding opportunities.
L --$, operating -
Impact to finance divisional staff,
reported information would be available
online
2020 On-going PH&S
Key to Related Themes Key to Staff Scope (Estimated Hours)
= conflict managment L = 0-.05 FTE
= funding M = .05-0.1 FTE
= large-block habitat H = 0.1 -0.5 FTE
= plague management
Key to Estimated Implementation Costs
$ = less than $10,000
$$ = $10,000 - $49,999
$$$ = $50,000 - $99,999
$$$$ = $100,000 – $499,999
$$$$$ = $500,000+
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 22
C I T Y O F B O U L D E R
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
MEETING DATE: August 8, 2018
AGENDA TITLE: Review of and recommendation regarding the 2019 Open Space and
Mountain Parks Department Operating Budget.
PRESENTERS:
Dan Burke, Interim Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Steve Armstead, Interim Deputy Director
Lauren Kilcoyne, Central Services Manager
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 2019 Operating Budget of $24,232,763 to be allocated
from the Open Space Fund to cover the 2019 operating expenditures and transfers as outlined in
this memorandum and related attachments. The overall 2019 OSMP Operating Budget represents
an 8% decrease from 2018.
At the June business meeting, the OSBT unanimously approved and recommended the 2019 OSMP
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget of $4,980,000 from the Open Space Fund and $355,300
allocation from the Lottery Fund.
At the July business meeting, staff provided a memo under Written Information on the Draft 2019
Operating Budget. At the August 8 meeting, there will be a brief staff presentation and public
hearing on the proposed operating budget followed by OSBT recommendation. In addition to the
August 8 public hearing, the public will have an opportunity to comment during City Council’s
discussions and review of the 2019 recommended budget during future public hearings later this
fall.
AGENDA ITEM 5 PAGE
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 $24,232,763 in
2019 for the Open Space and Mountain Parks Operating Budget from the Open Space Fund as
outlined in this memorandum and related attachments.
BACKGROUND
As outlined in the July memo, the 2019 Open Space and Mountain Parks operating budget
allocates core service activities supporting the important work required to protect, maintain and
support an open space system of over 45,000 acres. Some core services of any municipal
department often can be invisible to its customers yet are important to manage and maintain the
valuable assets supported by the local community. The 2019 budget is similar to the 2018
operating budget in its structure. The department organizes its operating budget by the Office of
the Director and Service Area, with each of OSMP’s four Service Areas containing several
workgroups and programs consistent with the organizational chart. The goal of the operating
budget is to ensure that dollars support core service projects and programs that deliver high value
to the community and deliver on commitments. The 2019 operating budget is divided across
operating budget categories as follows:
$1,635,727 ,
7%
$2,717,786 ,
11%
$4,621,975 ,
19%
$4,320,622 ,
18%
$5,502,141 ,
23%
$2,090,102 ,
8%
$3,344,410 ,
14%
Office of the Director
Central Services
Community Connections
& Partnerships
Resources & Stewardship
Trails & Facilities
Cost Allocation Transfer
to General Fund
Debt Payment
Expenditures
AGENDA ITEM 5 PAGE
Since the July business meeting and the Written Memo OSBT received, OSMP has continued to
refine the operating budget as more information has become available. Refinements include:
2017 Actual Revenue and Expenditures
Early in the budget process, the Budget Office provided OSMP with an initial Open Space Fund
balance that included preliminary revenue and expenditure numbers from 2017. Since the July
business meeting, OSMP has received updated actual numbers, and revenues were approximately
$1.9M higher than initially projected. This change has to do with the timing of December
revenues and when the transactions are posted.
2019-2024 Revenue Projections
Since the July business meeting, revenue projections have been adjusted to incorporate sales tax
information from the first months of 2018. Revenue projections have increased slightly from a no
growth assumption to approximately 1% growth. This results in roughly $200,000 per year in
additional projected revenue from 2019-2024. 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 city continues to fine-tune and adjust its approach to projecting revenues,
and it is possible additional adjustments will be made over the coming months.
Calculation of General Fund Transfer
OSMP receives an annual transfer from the General Fund that relates to the merge of the Open
Space and Mountain Parks departments and includes a base operating subsidy (salary, benefits,
and non-personnel expenditures), less those revenues considered “Mountain Parks revenues”
(annual and daily parking fee revenues). This transfer will expire at the end of 2019. As part of a
conservative citywide 2019 budget approach, all departments receiving General Fund dollars
were asked to submit 5% and 10% reduction scenarios to the city’s Executive Budget Team (EBT).
OSMP submitted both scenarios and the EBT reduced the OSMP General Fund transfer by 10% or
approximately $114,000. This decision is consistent with decisions made regarding other General
Fund transfers citywide, and OSMP’s expenditures for 2019 remain well within 2019 projected
revenues.
Benefits Modeling and PERA Legislative Contingency
OSMP works with the Budget Office to model personnel costs several times over the course of the
budget process as new information becomes available on benefit rates and pay bands for
employees. The operating budget now assumes there will be no increase to benefits costs for
2019. Additionally, a contingency reserve of $10,816 has been added to the fund financial to
ensure funds are available if increases to the employer share of PERA withholdings go forward.
Executive Budget Team Input
The 2019 budget as outlined 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.
The 2019 OSMP operating budget (Office of the Director and service area budgets, cost allocation,
and debt payments) represents approximately 82% of the OSMP budget for 2019 with the 2019-
2024 Capital Improvements Program (CIP), unanimously recommended at the June business
meeting, accounting for the remainder. Total uses of funds in 2019, including both CIP and
operating, are allocated as follows:
AGENDA ITEM 5 PAGE
2019 OPERATING BUDGET REQUESTS/REDUCTIONS
Balanced budget reductions for 2019 were achieved across general operating, debt, and capital
expenditure types. OSMP submitted two budget reductions and one budget request to the
Budget Office for 2019 and was part of one additional citywide budget request. Reductions and
requests include:
Type Impact
Reduction 10% decrease to General Fund transfer, consistent with citywide General Fund
actions for 2019.
Reduction Expiration of 5 vacant positions (4.75 FTE) based on assessments and staffing
actions since 2015. Allowed OSMP to manage operating costs and FTE through
attrition, as outlined in the July memo. Includes:
•2 Process Specialists – These positions were requested before the 2015
organizational assessment to ensure the department had the ability and
flexibility to implement assessment results. The positions have
remained vacant for several years post-assessment and the department
has determined not to fill the positions.
•1 Trails Maintenance IV – This position has been vacant since 2016 while
OSMP awaited results of the Trails Condition Assessment. The
department has determined that current staffing level will accomplish
workgroup goals in the coming years.
•1 Partial-Year Schedule Crew Lead – With process improvements within
the Volunteer Services program, and with the addition of 1 FTE to Youth
Service Learning, this vacant position can be appropriately expired.
$18,798,251 ,
64%
$2,090,102 ,
7%
$3,344,410 ,
11%
$4,980,000 ,
17%
$355,300 , 1%Service Area Operating
Budgets
Cost Allocation Transfer
to General Fund
Debt Payment
Expenditures
Open Space Fund CIP
Lottery Fund CIP
AGENDA ITEM 5 PAGE
•1 Project Coordinator – The work of this position over the last two years
has focused on improving work planning and project management
efforts across the department. OSMP considers these efforts to be
operationalized, and the position can be appropriately expired.
Request Reallocation of dollars to support lease payments on interim Hub campus.
During the 2017 City Council study session, Council requested that once OSMP
identified the location and cost of the interim Hub campus, lease payment
expenditures be reallocated from the CIP to the operating budget. The 2019
budget request updates Council that this shift has been accomplished but does
not request additional budget dollars for the lease payment.
Request Software replacement funding for the Energov system (commercial and special
use permits). The city began using Energov in 2018 and will save for
replacement/updates over time. The OSMP share of replacement savings is
approximately $22,000 per year.
PUBLIC FEEDBACK
This item is being heard at this public meeting advertised in the Daily Camera on August 5, 2018.
On July 19, 2018, the City Planning Board reviewed and approved the 2019-2024 CIP as
recommended by staff. City Council will hold its study session on the CIP and operating budget on
September 11, 2018. First and second readings of the 2019 budget and ordinances will be held on
October 2 and 16, respectively.
ATTACHMENTS:
•Attachment A: Open Space Fund Financial
•Attachment B: OSMP Department Detail Page
AGENDA ITEM 5 PAGE
This page is intentionally left blank.
AGENDA ITEM 5 PAGE
CITY OF BOULDER
2016-2023 PROPOSED BUDGET
OPEN SPACE FUND
ATTACHMENT A
OPEN SPACE 2019 FUND FINANCIAL
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Actuals Approved Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Beginning Fund Balance 42,674,844$ 42,525,062$ 16,934,625$ 17,765,189$ 14,844,764$ 12,985,864$ 11,929,003$ 11,981,143$
Sources of Funds
Net Sales Tax Revenue 30,494,053$ 29,886,359$ 25,987,983$ 21,203,841$ 21,486,816$ 21,818,255$ 22,155,799$ 22,499,564$
Anticipated FEMA Flood Reimbursement 1,963,141 1,531,329 1,500,000 - - - - -
Investment Income 406,323 335,362 342,405 348,191 354,076 360,060 366,145 372,332
Lease and Miscellaneous Revenue 1,275,567 1,063,899 1,095,816 1,128,690 1,162,551 1,197,428 1,233,351 1,270,351
Voice & Sight Tag Program Revenue 121,288 127,000 127,000 127,000 127,000 127,000 127,000 127,000
General Fund Transfer 1,209,590 1,138,820 990,123 - - - - -
Grants 511,213 - - - - - - -
Total Sources of Funds 35,981,174$ 34,082,769$ 30,043,327$ 22,807,723$ 23,130,443$ 23,502,742$ 23,882,294$ 24,269,247$
Uses of Funds
Office of the Director 1,775,410$ 2,019,237$ 1,635,727$ 1,433,193$ 1,447,525$ 1,462,000$ 1,376,620$ 1,490,387$
Central Services 2,812,917 2,959,798 2,717,786 2,694,964 2,721,913 2,749,133 2,626,624 2,752,890
Community Connections & Partnerships 4,168,196 4,686,324 4,621,975 4,618,195 4,470,377 4,368,879 4,200,341 4,238,892
Resources & Stewardship 4,195,052 4,438,798 4,320,622 4,236,900 4,279,269 4,210,062 4,252,163 4,294,684
Trails & Facilities 4,564,736 4,703,173 5,502,141 5,507,162 4,847,234 4,895,706 4,944,663 4,994,110
Carryover/ATB Operating - 24,659,816 - - - - - -
Cost Allocation 1,903,344 1,960,444 2,090,102 2,142,355 2,195,913 2,250,811 2,307,082 2,422,436
CIP- Capital Enhancement 6,360,358 430,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000
CIP- Capital Maintenance 1,492,126 1,057,300 2,770,000 1,570,000 1,570,000 1,270,000 1,270,000 1,270,000
CIP- Capital Planning Studies 98,028 100,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000
CIP- Land Acquisition 3,296,111 7,420,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 1,800,000 1,300,000 1,300,000
Transfer to BMPA 1,002,209 767,597 663,022 663,022 593,655 593,655 593,655 -
Debt Service - Bonds & Notes 4,462,469 4,470,719 2,681,388 652,356 653,456 649,356 649,006 648,431
Total Uses of Funds 36,130,957$ 59,673,206$ 29,212,763$ 25,728,147$ 24,989,343$ 24,559,603$ 23,830,154$ 23,721,829$
Ending Fund Balance Before Reserves 42,525,062$ 16,934,625$ 17,765,189$ 14,844,764$ 12,985,864$ 11,929,003$ 11,981,143$ 12,528,561$
Reserves
OSBT Contingency Reserve 4,976,867$ 5,201,218$ 4,846,553$ 4,389,629$ 4,241,869$ 3,812,329$ 3,771,028$ 4,168,366$
OSMP Campus Vision 3,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 4,500,000
PERA Legislative Contingency - - 10,816 - - - - -
Pay Period 27 Reserve 330,119 354,440 378,762 403,083 427,404 451,726 476,047 500,368
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 227,445 377,945 383,488 383,488 383,488 383,488 383,488 383,488
Total Reserves 9,424,431$ 9,823,603$ 10,509,619$ 10,266,200$ 10,142,761$ 9,737,543$ 9,720,563$ 10,442,222$
Ending Fund Balance After Reserves 33,100,631$ 7,111,022$ 7,255,570$ 4,578,564$ 2,843,103$ 2,191,461$ 2,260,580$ 2,086,339$
Revenue projections 103.00%94.72%88.15%75.92%101.41%101.61%103.11%103.11%
AGENDA ITEM 5 PAGE
.This page is intentionally left blank.AGENDA ITEM 5 PAGE
ATTACHMENT B - Open Space and Mountain Parks Detail Page
Standard FTE Amount
Standard
FTE Amount
Standard
FTE Amount
Standard
FTE Amount
Director's Team 5.00 1,200,326$ 6.00 1,422,031$ 6.00 1,083,448$ - (338,582)$
2.00 275,470 2.00 223,150 2.00 200,173 - (22,977)
2.00 299,614 2.00 374,057 2.00 352,106 - (21,951)
Subtotal 9.00 1,775,410 10.00 2,019,237 - 10.00 1,635,727 - (383,509)
3.50 351,693 4.50 647,557 4.00 485,350 (0.50) (162,207)
Customer Service 7.00 647,684$ 5.00 640,233$ 4.00 386,769$ (1.00) (253,465)$
Real Estate Services 5.48 597,441 4.48 524,377 5.00 537,887 0.52 13,510
Real Estate Services to General Fund 0.27 28,199 0.27 26,997 - - (0.27) (26,997)
Resource Information Services 7.55 1,187,901 7.55 1,147,631 7.75 1,307,780 0.20 160,149
Subtotal 23.80 2,812,917 21.80 2,986,794 - 20.75 2,717,786 (1.05) (106,802)
Community Engagement 8.25 1,078,601$ 8.25 1,014,383$ 8.50 1,100,290$ 0.25 85,907$
Junior Rangers 1.00 357,336 1.00 436,432 1.00 440,601 - 4,168
Outreach 2.00 413,523 2.00 378,717 2.00 379,304 - 586
Planning Services 5.00 488,477 5.00 611,630 5.00 659,816 - 48,186
Ranger Services 21.05 1,830,258 21.05 2,116,828 19.05 2,041,965 (2.00) (74,863)
Subtotal 37.30 4,168,196 37.30 4,557,990 - 35.55 4,621,975 (1.75) 63,985
Agricultural Management 3.00 382,372$ 3.00 366,493$ 3.00 370,023$ - 3,530$
Cultural Resources Program 2.00 225,663 2.00 227,421 2.00 213,839 - (13,582)
Ecological Stewardship 3.05 360,190 3.05 373,973 3.05 363,259 - (10,714)
5.00 502,331 4.25 597,080 4.25 545,897 - (51,184)
1.00 107,680 1.00 111,143 1.00 114,224 - 3,081
Recreation and Cultural Stewardship 4.00 603,575 4.75 578,439 4.75 648,055 - 69,616
1.00 285,609 1.75 349,711 1.75 311,857 - (37,853)
Vegetation Management 4.25 632,080 3.50 726,074 3.50 661,138 - (64,936)
Water Rights Administration 3.00 508,346 2.00 464,325 2.00 489,811 - 25,486
1.00 101,157 1.00 119,084 1.00 123,920 - 4,836
3.00 486,048 3.00 525,055 3.00 478,597 - (46,458)
Subtotal 30.30 4,195,052 29.30 4,438,798 - 29.30 4,320,622 - (118,176)
Engineering Project Management 3.00 681,985 8.25 857,512 8.25 945,954 - 88,442
Equipment and Vehicles 1.00 1,070,323 1.00 838,253 1.00 1,025,087 - 186,834
Facility Management 4.00 884,480$ 4.00 848,578$ 4.00 1,536,572$ - 687,994
Signs Graphics Display 2.00 241,590 2.00 245,213 2.00 262,177 - 16,964
Trails Stewardship 14.25 1,131,429 9.00 1,434,643 8.00 1,218,233 (1.00) (216,410)
3.75 554,929 2.75 478,975 2.75 514,120 - 35,145
Subtotal 28.00 4,564,736 27.00 4,703,173 - 26.00 5,502,141 (1.00) 798,968
Capital Improvement Program 11,246,623$ 9,435,300$ 5,335,300$ (4,100,000)$
Cost Allocation 1,903,344 1,960,444 2,090,102 129,658
Debt Service 5,464,678 5,238,316 3,344,410 (1,893,906)
Subtotal 18,614,645$ 16,634,060$ 10,769,812$ (5,864,248)$
Total 128.40 36,130,957 125.40 35,340,052 - 121.60 29,568,063 (3.80) (5,609,782.07)
Personnel 13,457,022$ 14,173,673$ 14,038,215$ (135,459)$
Operating 2,968,225 3,480,971 3,632,273 151,302
Interdepartmental Charges 1,091,065 1,051,348 1,127,763 76,415
Capital 11,246,623 9,435,300 5,335,300 (4,100,000)
Cost Allocation 1,903,344 1,960,444 2,090,102 129,658
Debt Service 5,464,678 5,238,316 3,344,410 (1,893,906)
Total 36,130,957$ 35,340,052$ 29,568,063$ (5,771,989)$
Resources and Stewardship
2017 Actual
2018 Approved
Budget
2019 Recommended
Budget
Variance - 2018
Approved to 2019
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
AGENDA ITEM 5 PAGE
ATTACHMENT B - Open Space and Mountain Parks Detail Page
Standard FTE Amount
Standard
FTE Amount
Standard
FTE Amount
Standard
FTE Amount
2017 Actual
2018 Approved
Budget
2019 Recommended
Budget
Variance - 2018
Approved to 2019
Recommended
General 0.27 28,199$ 0.27 26,997$ -$ (0.27) (26,997)$
Lottery - 230,063 - 428,000 - 355,300 - (72,700)
Open Space 128.13 35,872,695 125.13 34,885,055 121.60 29,212,763 (3.53) (5,672,292)
Total 128.40 36,130,957$ 125.40 35,340,052$ -$ 121.60 29,568,063$ (3.80) (5,771,989)$
Note:
STAFFING AND EXPENDITURE BY FUND
AGENDA ITEM 5 PAGE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Interim Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Mark Davison, Community Connections and Partnerships Division Manager
Mark Gershman, Planning and Design Services Supervisor
Kacey French, Planner II
DATE: August 8, 2018
SUBJECT: E-bikes regional coordination. This written update provides information on
recent projects initiated by Boulder and Jefferson counties.
________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
In a presentation given at the February 2018 Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) meeting,
staff presented the board with information on Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) e-
bike policy and regional trends and policies.
OSMP E-bike policy
The City of Boulder visited the issue of e-bikes on trails and passed an ordinance regulating e-
bikes along city trails in 2014. The resulting regulations allow e-bikes on certain multi-use
pathways in the city but excludes/prohibits e-bikes on OSMP lands.1 The OSMP policy on
prohibition stems from the City Charter description of Open Space purposes which limits
recreational activities to passive recreational activities. A determination was made that e-
biking is a motorized activity and is not considered passive recreation or consistent with the
definition of passive recreation, which is defined as non-motorized. Subsequent to
determining where e-bikes were allowed or prohibited on city trails, OSMP staff, the OSBT,
and council underwent a process to dispose and transfer management responsibilities of
OSMP trail segments that were interspersed among the trails where e-biking was permitted to
the City Transportation Department and Greenways program.
Regional trends and policies
The landscape is changing as it pertains to e-bikes. Changes include an increase in the
popularity of e-bikes-which seems to be especially aligned with an ageing population,
advancing e-bike technologies, a shift in conversation from hard to soft surface trails, and
recent state regulatory changes. The recent state regulatory changes have in particular created
a need for agencies who had not already addressed e-bikes to do so as the regulation now
allows them on trails unless not allowed by local regulation.2
1 There is also an ADA rule allowing people experiencing disabilities to use Other Power=Driven Mobility
Devices (OPDMDs), including e-bikes, hand cycles, track chairs, etc. on OSMP trails.
2 Prior to 2017 E-bikes were not allowed unless allowed by local regulation.
Written Information - A - Page 1
STATUS
Boulder County Parks and Open Space (BCPOS) recently developed draft e-bike
recommendations for their trails. The recommendations are for a pilot period extending
through the end of 2019. The draft regulations allow e-bikes on all regional trails and most
trails on the plains where bikes are allowed. The draft regulations prohibit e-bikes on some
plains trails where they lead directly onto OSMP trails/lands with no way for the visitor to
take an alternate route or where there are underlying land use issues/complexities pertaining
to the terms or a conservation easement. The BCPOS recommendations includes allowing e-
bikes on the Longmont to Boulder (LOBO) trail. Although this trail is interconnected with
OSMP lands/trails there are alternative routes along the way e-bikers can take to avoid travel
on OSMP lands. E-bikes will continue to be prohibited on OSMP lands/the OSMP sections
of the LOBO trail. Although this creates regulatory inconsistencies for the trail as a whole,
city and county open space staff agreed upon this approach so that regional trails, including
the LOBO trail, could be included in the pilot.
Other regional efforts include a Jefferson County(Jeffco) pilot program allowing e-bikes on
all Jeffco Open Space managed trails that allows bikes. Currently no OSMP trails connect
directly into any Jeffco trails.
NEXT STEPS
OSMP is engaged in community conversation to develop the master plan which will last
through August of 2019. There is a concern that opening the e-bike/motorized conversation
during the process might be confusing to community members and/or disruptive or
distracting. Therefor, after conclusion of the master plan process, which may also provide
overarching guidance, OSMP will likely re-evaluate the e-bike policy in light of the evolving
landscape. This will likely occur close to the conclusion of the BCPOS pilot phase, allowing
OSMP to consider and incorporate any applicable lessons learned from the Boulder and
Jefferson County pilots.
Written Information - A - Page 2