Loading...
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