Loading...
11.14.18 OSBT Meeting PacketOPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES November 14, 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 6:15 III. Matters from the Department A. Agricultural Resource Management Plan Implementation Update B. Trail Access Information and Difficulty 7:00 IV. Matters from the Board A. Input Regarding Council Priorities B. Public Notice of Public Participation Events 7:30 V. Adjourn to Study Session Written Information: A. 2017 Visitation Study, Supplemental Results B. Fourmile Canyon Creek at Palo Park Project C. HistoriCorps at McGilvery Cabin D. Boulder Creek Fish Habitat Improvement Project STUDY SESSION: Draft OSMP Master Plan Outcomes and Preliminary Strategies for the Ecosystem Health and Resilience Focus Area * *Members from the public are welcome to attend, but there will be no public participation. Open Space Board of Trustees TENTATIVE* Board Items Calendar (updated Nov. 7, 2018) December 12, 2018 January 16, 2019 February 13, 2019 Action Items: Matters from the Department: • Staff Presentation: Junior Ranger Naturalist and Junior Ranger presentation • Education and Outreach Update • Eldo to Walker Trail Study Update Matters from the Board: • Master Plan Process Committee Update Adjourn to Study Session Action Items: Matters from the Department: • Long-term Planning Approach Updates 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: • BOSC Update • Acquisition Update • Update on Soil Monitoring Matters from the Board: • Master Plan Process Committee Update March 13, 2019 April 10, 2019 May 8,2019 Action Items: Matters from the Department: • Master Plan Update • Wonderland ISP Update • Department Priorities • RMG – Boulder to Lyons Update Matters from the Board: • Master Plan Process Committee Update Action Items: Matters from the Department: • Undesignated Trail Monitoring results and Management • Master Plan Update • Gebhard ISP Update • Volunteer and Service Learning Update Matters from the Board: • Master Plan Process Committee Update Action Items: Matters from the Department: • Gunbarrel Hill ISP Upate Matters from the Board: • Master Plan Process Committee Update *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. Upcoming Public Participation Events: • Nov. 14 Wonderland Lake Integrated Site Project Open House • Nov. 15 Gebhard (Greenbelt Meadows) Integrated Site Project Open House • Dec. 3 – Master Plan Community Workshop AGENDA ITEM 1 PAGE 1 OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES Action Minutes Meeting Date October 10, 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 Kevin Bracy Knight Tom Isaacson Curt Brown Andria Bilich Karen Hollweg STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT Dan Burke Steve Armstead Mark Davison Brian Anacker Mark Gershman Lauren Kilcoyne John Potter Jim Reeder Chelsea Taylor Leah Case Alyssa Frideres Phil Yates Frances Boulding Jake Engelman Chad Brotherton Jarret Roberts Alison Ecklund GUESTS Rella Abernathy, Integrated Pest Management Coordinator CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m. AGENDA ITEM 1 – Approval of the Minutes (1:00) Curt Brown moved that the Open Space Board of Trustees approve the minutes from Sept. 12, 2018. Karen Hollweg seconded. This motion passed four to zero; Kevin Bracy Knight was absent at the September meeting. AGENDA ITEM 2 – Public Participation for Items not on the Agenda (1:24) Marcus Popetz, Boulder, expressed his support for continuing to move towards the Indian Peaks Traverse. Hans Preiss, Boulder, expressed his appreciation of an Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) volunteer trail project he worked on; it was a wonderful project with lots of participants who will now be able to claim a piece of Open Space. He said in regard to the Trail Summary Report, undesignated trails were left off; without measuring these it will be impossible to manage them. Mike Barrow, Boulder Mountainbike Alliance, said he is pleased to see Eldo Walker moving forward; he said he would favor the south route because it offers a better ride. He added that the Visitation Study was one of the most honest assessments he has seen come from OSMP. Additionally, he added his support for evaluating undesignated trails further. AGENDA ITEM 3 – Matters from the Department (10:42) Rella Abernathy, Integrated Pest Management Coordinator, gave a presentation on the City’s Mosquito Management Program. The Board expressed their general agreement towards staff’s recommendation and approach for revisions to the city mosquito management program. Jarret Roberts, Visitor Infrastructure Supervisor, and Chad Brotherton, Trails Stewardship Supervisor, gave an overview of the OSMP Trails Program. AGENDA ITEM 4 – Matters from the Board (2:54:00) Mark Gershman along with Curt Brown and Tom Isaacson gave an update on the OSMP Master Plan Process and the most recent Process Committee meeting. AGENDA ITEM 1 PAGE 2 Karen Hollweg and Curt Brown gave an update from the Environmental Advisory Board (EAB) Joint Board Meeting. The Board confirmed the upcoming Master Plan Community Workshop on Nov. 5 at the Boulder Jewish Community Center (JCC). ADJOURNMENT – The meeting adjourned at 9:35 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 Andy Pelster, Agricultural Stewardship Supervisor DATE: November 14, 2018 SUBJECT: Agricultural Resource Management Plan Implementation Update The Agricultural Resources Management Plan was approved in July 2017 after a multi-year, collaborative effort between Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) staff, the local agricultural community and interested citizens of the City of Boulder. This plan includes sections related to agricultural management, ecological integration, community and visitor integration, and property acquisitions. Staff has primarily focused on implementing important agricultural management items identified in the plan since last July. The plan included a best opportunity analysis to identify OSMP parcels where quality soils, season long water rights and agricultural structures were aligned to support diversified vegetable/pastured livestock farms. A total of nine sites were identified in addition to the four sites that had been converted prior to the passage of the plan. The first site was converted in 2011 to a diversified vegetable operation from a hay and winter pasture field on the OSMP Eccher property located just west of 75th St. on Valmont Road. OSMP currently leases over 600 acres to five separate operations marketing their products locally via community supported agriculture, farm-to-table, or other local marketing strategy. Most recently, staff has been focusing on the Manchester, Hunter Kolb and Hartnagle properties as the next ones in line. Establishing updated lease rates and formalizing an agricultural leasing stewardship model were important initiatives identified in the plan. Staff conducted four listening sessions with current agricultural tenants to discuss these topics and develop an implementation strategy that was acceptable to the agricultural community. A range of lease rates based on the intensity of agricultural uses was identified, and staff will begin using these lease rates in lease renewals and as new leases are awarded. There was also discussion regarding which stewardship items might impact agricultural leasing rates or should be included in formal stewardship plans for each lease area. Staff intends to have an individual stewardship plan for each lease when this initiative is fully implemented. Two long-term agricultural tenants have voluntarily indicated their intent not to renew their lease agreement over the past two years. Staff have been working to find new tenants for these properties and will continue this effort in early 2019. Earlier this year the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) heard concerns from participants in this process regarding the transparency and perceived fairness of OSMP’s process. Staff has completed a review of this process and has developed a comprehensive approach to improve transparency in announcing land availability and to share information regarding the submitted proposals and decision making. This includes criteria and scoring guidelines to ensure consistency in evaluating proposals and to provide better guidance for those submitting management proposals. Staff will be piloting this process and evaluating its effectiveness in our requests for proposals in 2019. The OSMP Master Plan will include an agricultural focus area. This planning effort will validate content from the Agricultural Resources Management Plan and identify gaps or opportunities that may have arisen since the passage of the plan. In November, OSMP staff will have the opportunity to provide input with regards to possible outcomes and strategies related to this focus area and there will be an opportunity AGENDA ITEM 3A PAGE 1 for community input in December. This planning effort will also help to inform a current analysis of staff capacity and streamlining of leasing procedures in the agricultural program. Staff has collaborated with the City Attorney’s Office and the City Manager’s Office to identify an acceptable procedure for negotiating five-year agricultural lease agreement terms which will increase security for our agricultural tenants and help staff with the administrative burden of renewing shorter-term leases. Staff is also currently evaluating if recent staff changes can help increase capacity to better address infrastructure maintenance, stewardship planning and prairie dog management. AGENDA ITEM 3A PAGE 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Open Space Board of Trustees FROM: Dan Burke, Interim Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks John Potter, Resources and Stewardship Manager Frances Boulding, Interim Recreation and Cultural Stewardship Supervisor Jake Engelman, Trail Research Technician DATE: November 14, 2018 SUBJECT: Trail Access Information and Difficulty Access to information about trail character and difficulty can help make the Open Space and Mountain Parks’ trail system more welcoming to people of all abilities and backgrounds. Providing information about trails can also help create enjoyable experiences by connecting people with the places that provide the best opportunities for their desired experiences. The trail condition assessments, conducted by staff in 2015-2017, used a survey methodology that allows the development of summaries of trail access information and difficulty ratings. Trail Access Information In 2013, section 1017.10 of the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) outlined that new or altered trailhead signs shall include the length of the trail, surface type, typical and minimum tread width, typical and maximum running slope, and typical and minimum cross slope. Providing this information will assist users of all abilities to identify where they can and want to go. The legal requirement does not include city open space lands because it only applies to facilities owned or operated by the federal government, but it establishes best practice for providing access and signage for all jurisdictions. Demographic trends highlight the importance of providing trail access information. Nearly one in five people in the U.S. (56.7 million) have a disability. That is the largest minority in the country and cuts across all ages, races and genders1. Additionally, disability often comes with aging. The Census Bureau predicts that by 2030 over 80 million people in the U.S. will be over 65. Today 1 of every 2 people over 65 has a disability, so the number of people with disabilities is expected to increase. The median age of visitors to city open space lands has also increased from 39 in 2005 to 48 in 2017 indicating that the visitor population is trending toward older adults. Trail access information will soon be available for visitors in an online map that includes summaries of segments between trail junctions with an elevation profile and photo of trail character (Appendix A). Included in each summary will be percent shade cover derived from LiDAR analysis. The information for each trail will be updated on a five-year rotation as trail condition assessments are completed. The first version of the online map will be relatively simple but additional functionality can be added in future versions such as: •Search the metrics (find the steepest trails or the shadiest trails…) •Build trip summaries for multiple segments •Identify benches, accessible parking, viewpoints, etc. •Use a 3D basemap 1 U.S. Census Bureau report, Americans with Disabilities: 2010 AGENDA ITEM 3B PAGE 1 Trail Difficulty Ratings Numbers such as grade and cross-slope can be difficult to understand without a previous frame of reference. A simpler way to provide trail information is with difficulty ratings. The challenge with difficulty ratings is subjectivity around individual skill, fitness, and mode of travel. There are also many existing and sometimes contradictory frameworks for establishing difficulty. One rating system uses the energy mile theory, which describes the amount of energy it takes to walk one mile with 1,000 feet of elevation change. Researchers found that on average one mile gaining 1,000 feet of elevation is equivalent to 1.6 energy miles2. The “ski slope” model is often applied to trail systems with green, blue, and black representing different difficulty metrics based on the agency-generated standards. The International Mountain Bike Association (IMBA) has standardized a ski slope difficulty rating system for bike trails. Jefferson County Open Space (Jeffco) has also developed difficulty ratings (Appendix B). In an effort to provide visitors consistent information across agencies within the region, the department has developed a similar framework to Jeffco. Jeffco Rating Formula: •Green (Least Difficult): grades under 6%, few obstacles, gentle elevation change •Blue (More Difficult): grades 6-10%, some obstacles, rolling elevation •Black (Most Difficult): grades over 10%, many obstacles, steep elevation change The difficulty ratings that staff would like to implement for city open space land would use similar metrics but also include the distance a trail segment is from an access point and the number of stairs on a trail (Appendix C). A (black) trail will be difficult in comparison to the rest of the trail system. A black trail on city open space land, however, may not feel so difficult when compared to Long’s Peak, and a (green) trail may still be challenging to some visitors. Proposed OSMP Rating Formula: •Green (Least Difficult): average grades generally below 6%, short distance, low maximum grades, few obstacles, no or few stairs, and close to access points. •Blue (More Difficult): average grades generally between 6 and 10%, varying distances, moderate maximum grades, some obstacles, some stairs, and varying distances from access points. •Black (Most Difficult): average grades over 10%, varying distance, steep maximum grades, many obstacles, stairs can be expected, longer distances from access points. In addition to the online map, staff is considering implementation of difficulty ratings and access information displayed on wayfinding signs. 2 McNeff Troy, M., & Phipps, M. L. (2010). The Validity of Petzoldt's Energy Mile Theory. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.7768/1948-5123.1042 AGENDA ITEM 3B PAGE 2 Appendix A: Sample trail access information for Lion’s Lair AGENDA ITEM 3B PAGE 3 Appendix B: Jeffco difficulty ratings at trail junctions Appendix C: Snapshot of OSMP Trail Difficulty Online Map AGENDA ITEM 3B PAGE 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Open Space Board of Trustees FROM: Dan Burke, Interim Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks DATE: November 14, 2018 SUBJECT: Boulder City Council 2018-19 Priorities The following memo is being brought before the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) as a “Matter from the Board.” At the end of each year, the Boulder City Council asks members of the city's Boards and Commissions to provide input regarding council priorities. This information helps inform council’s work plan discussion at the January City Council retreat. The letter sent to each board, including the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) is attached. AGENDA ITEM 4A PAGE 1 This page is intentionally left blank. AGENDA ITEM 4A PAGE 2 1777 Broadway, Boulder CO 80302     |       bouldercolorado.gov         |      O: 303‐441‐3002  City of Boulder  City Council  Mayor Suzanne Jones  Mayor Pro Tem Aaron Brockett   Council Members:  Cindy Carlisle, Jill Grano, Liza Morzel, Mirabai  Kuk Nagle, Sam Weaver, Bob Yates, Mary Young  October 12, 2018 Dear Boulder Board & Commission Members: At the end of each year, the Boulder City Council asks members of the city's boards and commissions to provide input regarding Council priorities. This information helps inform Council’s work plan discussion at the January City Council retreat. This year, we are in the middle of a Council term and are in the position of reviewing our current 2018-19 work plan rather than developing a new one. In order to maintain the momentum of our current efforts, and to keep from overloading and overwhelming the community, we have focused this year’s questions more narrowly. Attached is a list of Council’s 14 priorities for 2018 and 2019. We seek your input on whether there are other projects that you think our community might see as higher priorities in 2019. Please see the questions below. You need not limit your responses to the area of expertise of your board/commission. Your entire board/commission may provide a single set of responses or, if you prefer, each member can provide his or her own responses (if the latter, please submit all of the member responses in a single packet). So that Council may have the benefit of your views before its pre-retreat Study Session on January 8, please deliver your responses to your board secretary no later than the close of business on Friday, December 21. Thank you for your service to our community. Sincerely, Mary Young Bob Yates Council Retreat Committee 1.How well do you believe Council has done over the last two years in incorporating the priorities of your board/commission? 2.Taking into account the current work plan and your board/commission feedback from last year, what additional priorities do you think Council should focus on, over and above the 14 on the attached list? AGENDA ITEM 4A PAGE 3 1777 Broadway, Boulder CO 80302     |       bouldercolorado.gov         |      O: 303‐441‐3002  Boulder City Council 2018-19 Priorities Boulder Electric Utility  Broadband  Climate Commitment  Commercial Linkage Fees Community Benefit  Housing Advisory Board  Large Lots  Manufactured Housing Strategy North Central Boulder Subcommunity Plan & Alpine-Balsam Area Plan  Open Space Master Plan Shared Equity Middle Income Program  Transportation Master Plan Use Tables and Site Review Criteria Updates  Vision Zero   AGENDA ITEM 4A PAGE 4 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 Anna Kellogg, Human Dimensions Analyst DATE: November 14, 2018 SUBJECT: Written Information – 2017 Visitation Study, Supplemental Results Between June 2016 and May 2017, staff conducted a system-wide visitation study which consisted of two core components. The first component of the study (Visitation Estimate) evaluated visitation levels using automated trail counter equipment at locations where people access city-managed open space. The second component (Visitor Survey) was the 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. Highlights from this study were presented to the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) and the public on August 8th, 2018. During this meeting, staff received requests to conduct additional analysis on several topics and share these supplemental results with the OSBT. These topics included: •2017 Spatially Represented Visitation Distribution •2017 Spatially Represented Activity and Mode of Arrival Distributions •2016 Resident Survey and 2017 Visitor Survey Crosswalk •2017 Visitor Experience and Service Rating Variability Additional information can be found in the full reports which are available for download as PDFs on Open Space and Mountain Parks’ website: •2017 Visitation Estimate Report: https://bouldercolorado.gov/links/fetch/41126 •2017 Visitor Survey Report: https://bouldercolorado.gov/links/fetch/41125 Attachments: •Attachment A: Spatial Distribution of Visitation Levels •Attachment B: Primary Activity Distribution •Attachment C: Arrival Mode Distribution •Attachment D: 2016 Resident Survey and 2017 Visitor Survey Crosswalk Written Information - Item A - Page 1 2017 Visitation Study, Supplemental Results 2017 Spatially Represented Visitation Distribution The department is currently working on a Visitation Statistics Portal that will allow staff and the public to explore and visualize the visitation data collected during the 2016-2017 study. The dashboard shows an overview of the spatial distribution of use by visitation class (i.e. relative business) for all 167 locations sampled as part of the study. For the 45 primary locations that had trail counters installed for a full year, users can “drill through” to see the high-resolution temporal data for these locations. While the dashboard is still in beta, there are plans to have a working version available to the public in early 2019. A static map, showing the distribution of visitation levels is included in Attachment A. Figure 1. The initial view of the Visitation Portal shows the spatial distribution of sample location, symbolized by visitation class, and a list of locations on the right. Written Information - Item A - Page 2 Figure 2. For the 45 primary locations, users can interact with the higher resolution data to explore and visualize temporal patterns. 2017 Spatially Represented Activity and Mode of Arrival Distributions Reported primary activities and primary modes of arrival varied somewhat by region. Maps showing these distributions are provided in Attachment B for primary activity and Attachment C for primary mode of arrival. Distributions by Trail Study Area (TSA) are provided in Figure 3 and Figure 4 below. In general, hiking was the most common activity in the West, North, and South TSAs, and primary activities were the more evenly distributed between hiking, walking dog(s), running, and biking in the East TSA. Figure 3. Reported primary activity of respondent by Trail Study Area (n=1,992). 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 West East North SouthCount (n value)Trail Study Area Primary Activity by Trail Study Area Hiking Running Walking dog(s)Biking Other Written Information - Item A - Page 3 System-wide, 56% of respondents indicated that they arrived by car. By TSA, this proportion ranged from 84% in the South to 44% in the North. Figure 4. Reported primary mode of arrival by Trail Study Area (n=2,122). 2016 Resident Survey and 2017 Visitor Survey Crosswalk OSMP conducts two public surveys every five years to understand public opinions, demographics and various attributes of service ratings and visitation. The Resident Survey, most recently conducted in 2016, is administered to city and county residents and intended to capture broad level perceptions and opinions. This survey includes questions about perceptions and experiences over time and provides OSMP with generalized information. The Visitor Survey, most recently conducted in 2017, is administered to visitors as they exit OSMP-managed areas and intended to capture specific experiences that occur on-site. This survey includes questions about “today” (what visitors experienced on the day they participated in the survey) and provides OSMP with specific information about day to day activities and interactions on the trail. Results from these two surveys can be used to understand broad and specific public opinions and used to inform management decisions at these respective levels. Overall, we do not recommend directly comparing results from these two surveys. Each has different objectives, target population, sampling frame, mode of administration, data transformation, question wording and response scales. We can roughly compare some results for the most similar questions. A table representing these similarities and differences is included in Attachment D. Neither of these surveys is intended to measure the variability of opinions and experiences of any one individual. If this type of data is desired, OSMP and the OSBT could consider a new survey designed to monitor specific individuals over time. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 West East North SouthCount (n value)Trail Study Area Arrival Mode by Trail Study Area Car Walk Bike Run Other Written Information - Item A - Page 4 2017 Visitor Experience and Service Rating Variability The overall goal of the visitor survey was to quantify various dimensions of visitors to city-managed open space system-wide. Data regarding sub-areas of the system are limited to the number of surveys received in that area. Similarly, survey questions were broad in scope, and data based on sub-topics in the survey are limited. Data regarding areas of concern, such as user conflicts, difficulty finding parking, and crowding are particularly limited as most respondents indicated they had positive experiences during their visit. Despite this limitation, we did observe some trends. Conflict Of the 118 respondents (6% of the sample) who experienced conflict, over half (53%; 3% of total sample) indicated that the conflict was with dog walkers/dogs. Approximately a third (33%; 2% of total sample) experienced conflict with bikers, and a quarter (25%; 1.5% of total sample) experienced conflict with runners ( Table 1). Table 1. Activity groups that respondents experienced conflict with on the day of their visit. Percentages sum to more than 100% because respondents were asked to rate all activity types they encountered (n=118 respondents, n=157 interactions). n values for the number of responses are given in parentheses. The primary activity of respondents experiencing conflict were hikers/walkers (44%), followed by dog walkers (17%), runners (14%), and bikers (13%). This distribution is similar to the primary activity distribution for all respondents, indicating no activity group disproportionately experienced conflict. The largest proportional difference is with dog walkers, who were slightly less likely to report experiencing conflict (they represented 22% of respondents and 17% reported experiencing conflict). Although no one activity group disproportionally experienced conflict, there were some apparent differences in who the conflict was with. The table below shows the top four activity groups who experienced conflict, and the activities/groups they experienced conflict with. It represents approximately 4% of the total survey sample (those who reported experiencing conflict and provided a valid response for their primary activity). Hikers, runners, and bikers reported experiencing the most amount of conflict with dog walkers/dogs. Dog walkers reported experiencing the most amount of conflict with runners (Table 2). Primary Activity of Respondent Sources of Conflict Percent of those reporting conflict (count) Percent of total sample Dog walkers/dogs 53% (63) 3% Bikers 33% (39) 2% Runners 25% (29) 1.5% Hikers 12% (14) 1% Horseback riders 5% (6) <1% OSMP staff (excluding surveyors) 3% (4) <1% Other 2% (2) <1% Written Information - Item A - Page 5 Source of conflict Hiking/Walking (n=66) Running (n=20) Walking dog(s) (n=28) Biking (n=14) Bikers 23% (15) 25% (5) 29% (8) 7% (1) Dog walkers/dogs 42% (28) 45% (9) 29% (8) 64% (9) Hikers 14% (9) 10% (2) 4% (1) 0% (0) Horseback riders 3% (2) 0% (0) 4% (1) 7% (1) OSMP staff 2% (1) 5% (1) 0% (0) 7% (1) Runners 15% (10) 15% (3) 36% (10) 14% (2) Other 2% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) Table 2. The top four activity groups who experienced conflict on the day of their visit, and the activities/groups they experienced conflict with. Respondents could rate more than one activity/group (n=95 respondents, n=128 negative ratings). The most frequent source of conflict for each activity group is highlighted in red. There were no apparent trends for whether the respondent reported conflict by trail volume class, TSA, or management area designation, although there were some variances by individual location. Centennial Northwest stood out as a location that received a disproportionally high percentage of users reporting conflict at 29% (7 out of 24 respondents). Flagstaff Amphitheater was also relatively high at 21% (5 out of 24 respondents). On the other hand, some high-use sites had low levels of reported conflict. For example, out of the 139 surveys received at Sanitas Valley Trail, just four respondents (3%) reported conflict with another group. We also looked for spatial trends regarding overall OSMP ratings and the importance and quality of trails, but we did not find anything of significance. Parking One of the survey questions asked respondents how easy or difficult it was to find parking, and there were some variations by location. For example, 19% of respondents said it was difficult or very difficult to park at both Sanitas Valley Trail and Enchanted Mesa Trail (23 out of 120 and 5 out of 27, respectively). In other areas, such as East Boulder Trail Valmont, none of the respondents said they had difficulty finding parking (0 out of 73 respondents). A more detailed study of parking utilization in OSMP- managed parking lots is planned for 2019. There are some locations in which a higher proportion of respondents indicated that they parked in a neighborhood. For example, nearly all respondents who drove to Lehigh Connector North indicated that they parked on a neighborhood street (58 out of 60, or 97%). For those who drove to Sanitas (accessing either Mount Sanitas Trail or Sanitas Valley Trail), approximately 36% (59 out of 164 respondents) indicated that they parked on a neighborhood street. This is an area that could benefit from additional research, such as a neighborhood impact study done in collaboration with the Transportation Department. Areas no Longer Visited and Crowding Fourteen percent of respondents indicated that there is an OSMP area they no longer visit, and the most avoided areas are Chautauqua, Sanitas, and to a lesser extent Marshall Mesa. The most commonly Written Information - Item A - Page 6 reported reasons for no longer visiting were crowding, parking, dog restrictions, and dog presence. In general, respondents who have been visiting OSMP areas for longer were more likely to say that there is an area they no longer visit (Table 3). Of note, nearly a quarter (23%) of those who have been visiting for over 20 years indicated that there is an OSMP area they no longer visit. Years Visiting Is there an OSMP area you no longer visit? ≤ 1 year (n=319) >1-2 years (n=125) >2-5 years (n=265) >5-10 years (n=299) >10-20 years (n=439) >20 years (n=466) No 99% (315) 94% (118) 91% (242) 85% (255) 80% (352) 77% (361) Yes 1% (4) 6% (7) 9% (23) 15% (44) 20% (87) 23% (105) Table 3. Whether the respondent stated that there is an OSMP area they no longer visit by how many years they have been visiting (n=1,913). The primary activity of those who avoid an area due to crowding was similar to the primary activity distribution of all respondents (i.e., it does not appear that one activity group is disproportionally avoiding an area). Primary motivations for visiting were also similar. Overall, not enough data were collected on this topic to draw substantial conclusions, and a more targeted study is warranted. Written Information - Item A - Page 7 Attachment A: Spatial Distribution of Visitation Levels Figure 5. Visitation distribution for the 167 sample locations, symbolized by sample type and visitation class. Written Information - Item A - Page 8 Attachment B: Primary Activity Distribution Figure 6. Primary activity distribution system-wide at sites with at least 10 completed surveys. Written Information - Item A - Page 9 Figure 7. Primary activity distribution in the northwest area of the system at sites with at least 10 completed surveys. Written Information - Item A - Page 10 Figure 8. Primary activity distribution in the northeast area of the system at sites with at least 10 completed surveys. Written Information - Item A - Page 11 Figure 9. Primary activity distribution in the southwest area of the system at sites with at least 10 completed surveys. Written Information - Item A - Page 12 Figure 10. Primary activity distribution in the southeast area of the system at sites with at least 10 completed surveys. Written Information - Item A - Page 13 Attachment C: Arrival Mode Distribution Figure 11. Primary arrival mode distribution system-wide at sites with at least 10 completed surveys. Written Information - Item A - Page 14 Figure 12. Primary arrival mode distribution in the northwest area of the system at sites with at least 10 completed surveys. Written Information - Item A - Page 15 Figure 13. Primary arrival mode distribution in the northeast area of the system at sites with at least 10 completed surveys. Written Information - Item A - Page 16 Figure 14. Primary arrival mode distribution in the southwest area of the system at sites with at least 10 completed surveys. Written Information - Item A - Page 17 Figure 15. Primary arrival mode distribution in the southeast area of the system at sites with at least 10 completed surveys. Written Information - Item A - Page 18 Attachment D: 2016 Resident Survey and 2017 Visitor Survey Crosswalk Theme 2016 Resident Survey 2016 Resident Survey Results 2017 Visitor Survey 2017 Visitor Survey Results Interpretation Management Applications Overview City and county resident survey conducted every 5 years to understand public opinions and attributes. Population of interest includes all adult residents and sample area extends to BVCP area. The socioeconomic profile of survey respondents was compared to estimates provided by the U.S. Census for adults in the sampled areas. The variables used for weighting were respondent age, gender, ethnicity and area. Exit survey conducted on OSMP trails every 5 years to understand visitor opinions and attributes. Population of interest incudes all adult OSMP visitors and sample area extends to entire OSMP land base open for legal recreation access. Because this study used a simple random sample, results do not require weighting. Overall, we do not recommend directly comparing results from these two surveys. Each has different objectives, target population, sampling frame, mode of administration, data transformation, question wording and response scales. We can roughly compare some results by selecting responses from similar residency categories for the most similar questions. Survey data is used to understand "customers" and include their opinions in management decisions as well as to inform decision making, operations, planning, and adaptive management. The application of quantified information can also increase transparency and credibility. Demographics What year were you born? Half of respondents between 25-44, another quarter between 45-64, one tenth 18-24 and just over a tenth 65+. Median = 36 What YEAR were you born? Half of respondents between 20-49, another quarter each 50-59 and 60+. Median = 48 Older on-site; expected due to weighting for age in Resident Survey. Modify amenities, infrastructure, programs, etc. to serve aging visitor population. What range most closely represents your total (gross) annual household income? Half of respondents $75,000+, just under a third $35,000-$75,000, just under one fifth <$25,000-$35,000. What range most closely represents your total annual household income? Half of respondents $100,000+, a quarter each $50,000-$100,000 and <$25,000-$50,000. Visitor Survey a little bit higher; expected due to weighting for age in Resident Survey (younger people typically make less). BoCo census = $73k. Understand if income status is a barrier to visitation and if there is anything we can do to moderate or mitigate. What is your race? For purposes of this question, persons of Spanish/Hispanic/Latino Predominantly (94%) white, 7% Hispanic What is your race? For purposes of this question, persons of Spanish/Hispanic/Latino Predominantly (94%) white, 5% Hispanic Pretty similar BoCo census = 14%. Understand visitation preferences and if there is anything we can do to address under Written Information - Item A - Page 19 Theme 2016 Resident Survey 2016 Resident Survey Results 2017 Visitor Survey 2017 Visitor Survey Results Interpretation Management Applications origin may be of any race. origin may be of any race. representation among demographic subsets. What is the highest degree or level of education you have completed? Majority have bachelor's degree or more What is the highest degree or level of education you have completed? Majority have bachelor's degree or more Pretty similar Activity participation During the past 12 months, what activities have you personally taken part in on Open Space and Mountain Parks areas? Please check all that apply. Respective order: hiking/walking, observing nature/wildlife, running, biking, dog walking, picnicking What activities did you do TODAY? (PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) Respective order: Hiking, viewing scenery, walking dogs, running, viewing wildlife, biking, photography, contemplation/meditation Can't compare directly. Resident Survey is for 12 months, encompassing all activities engaged in but no information on frequently among activities selected. Visitor Survey asks only about activities “on that day” and provides comprehensive frequency of activity engagement for all visitation. Understand current activity participation in relation to provided services and infrastructure. What ONE activity do you most frequently participate in when visiting Open Space and Mountain Parks areas? Two-thirds hiking/walking, one- tenth each running, dog walking, biking Please CIRCLE the ONE activity from ABOVE that you consider your PRIMARY ACTIVITY today. Four-tenths hiking, one fifth walking dogs, one sixth running, one tenth biking Less hiking and more dog walking with Visitor Survey. Understand current activity participation in relation to provided services and infrastructure. Visitation duration and frequency How long have you been visiting Open Space and Mountain Parks areas? One quarter each: less than five years, 5-14 years, and 15-24 years, 25-30+, Median = 13 years How long have you been visiting City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks areas? Just under half of respondents have been visiting for over 10 years, and a little over a third have been visiting >1-10 years. Median = 10 years. Pretty similar Build demographic profile, understand motivations and expectations across range of visitation. Written Information - Item A - Page 20 Theme 2016 Resident Survey 2016 Resident Survey Results 2017 Visitor Survey 2017 Visitor Survey Results Interpretation Management Applications On average, how often do you visit Open Space and Mountain Parks areas? Majority visit between 2-3 times a month up to 2-3 times per week. Please estimate how many times per month, on average, you have visited City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks during the last 12 months. Majority visit >1-4 times per month up to >3-5 times per week Slightly higher with Visitor Survey. Build demographic profile, understand motivations and expectations across range of visitation. Service ratings When you visit Open Space and Mountain Parks areas, what is the overall quality of your experiences? Majority of respondents reported excellent or very good Please rate the overall quality of City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks services. Vast majority of respondents reported excellent or very good Can't compare. Resident Survey asks about quality of experiences and Visitor Survey asks about quality of services. Ratings were slightly higher for services. Trends from past survey data indicate that overall quality of experiences and services remains high. Please mark all visitor facilities and services you have used in 12 months (or as long as you have been visiting, if less than 12 months). For facilities and services you have used, please rate their IMPORTANCE and QUALITY from 1 to 5. Trails, directional (trail) signs, trash/recycling bins and trailhead information boards highest importance and quality. Bicycle racks and OSMP interactive web map least importance and quality. Please mark all visitor facilities and services that you or your group used during THIS visit ONLY. For facilities and services that were used TODAY, please rate their IMPORTANCE and QUALITY from 1 – 5. Trails, dog stations, vehicle parking, trash and recycle bins highest importance and quality. Restrooms, bicycle racks high importance, less interactive web map less importance, higher quality. Can't compare. Resident Survey is for 12 months and Visitor Survey is for one day. Review ratings and consider further inquiry into low rated items to understand the "why" behind the rating. Visitor interactions When you have interacted with other visitors on Open Space and Mountain Parks, would you say your experience has generally been pleasant or unpleasant with each of the types of visitors listed below? Respective "pleasantness" order: Hikers, OSMP staff, runners, dogs on leash, horseback riders, bikers, dogs off leash Please mark the other visitor groups/activities that you encountered during your visit TODAY and rate your experience. Respective "pleasantness" order: OSMP staff, hikers, dog walkers/dogs, runners, bikers, horseback riders. Respective "conflict" order: Horseback riders, bikers, dog walkers/dogs, runners, hikers, OSMP staff. Can't compare. Resident Survey is for all time and Visitor Survey is for one day. Additionally, scales have different response anchors. Review results and consider further inquiry into interactions that received low ratings to better understand the specifics and if there is anything we can do to moderate or mitigate. Relay positive results. Written Information - Item A - Page 21 Theme 2016 Resident Survey 2016 Resident Survey Results 2017 Visitor Survey 2017 Visitor Survey Results Interpretation Management Applications Displacement Is there a particular Open Space and Mountain Parks area you no longer visit? What area(s) do you no longer visit and WHY? 13%. Sanitas and Chautauqua respectively. Crowded/too many people, dogs, wildlife or other closure, parking, age/health/injury respectively. Is there a particular City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks area you no longer visit? IF YES, where? IF YES, what caused you to avoid that area? 14%. Chautauqua and Sanitas similar. Crowding, parking, dog restrictions, dog presence respectively. Pretty similar Review results and consider further inquiry into areas rated poorly; also consider a system- wide inquiry to better understand why areas are avoided and if there is anything we can do to moderate or mitigate. Written Information - Item A - Page 22 MEMORANDUM TO: Open Space Board of Trustees FROM: Dan Burke, Interim Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks John Potter, Resource and Stewardship Manager Don D’Amico, Ecological Stewardship Supervisor Marianne Giolitto, Wetland and Riparian Ecologist DATE: November 14, 2018 SUBJECT: Written Information – Fourmile Canyon Creek at Palo Park Project The City of Boulder’s Public Works department along with its partners, Boulder County Transportation and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, will be completing a flood risk reduction project along Fourmile Canyon Creek on Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) Palo Park Trail East property (Attachment A) in late fall of this year. OSMP staff members have worked closely with the project team to ensure OSMP charter purposes are supported as a part of the project. The primary goal of the Fourmile Canyon Creek at Palo Park project is to reduce future flood risk posed by flood-deposited sediment while preserving the ecological value of the corridor. Approximately 22,000 cubic yards of fine sediment was deposited in the project area during the 2013 flood. According to the project’s consulting engineer, this deposition “increases flood risk considerably for a number of homes along the creek.” The project goal will be achieved by removing flood-deposited material and improving Fourmile Canyon Creek’s flood and sediment conveyance capacity in the project area. The project will require re-construction of the creek channel through the project area. The project team directed the consulting engineering to develop a design that minimized the loss of trees while still achieving the project goal of reducing future flood risk. In the final design, an estimated 128 trees (i.e. >6 inches diameter), which represents approximately one-quarter to one-third of all the trees in the project area, will need to be removed because they lie within the new design channel or its immediate banks. Most of the trees to be removed (94) are non-native crack willows (Salix fragilis). Following earthwork, 70 native trees (plains cottonwoods (Populus deltoides) and peach-leaf willow (Salix amygdaloides) and 453 native riparian shrubs will be planted. While the removal of primarily non-native trees followed by the planting of native trees and riparian shrubs will result in a net ecological gain for the project area, some visitors and neighbors have expressed concern over the removal of these trees since the trees provide shade and screening benefits to visitors and neighbors. Boulder County has led several public outreach efforts for the project, including multiple mailings to Palo Park neighbors and a community open house. OSMP staff members have assisted with and participated in the public outreach events. Boulder County will serve as the lead for public communication through construction which is expected to start in mid-to-late November and last approximately two to three months. Attachments: •Attachment A: Fourmile Canyon Creek at Palo Park Written Information - Item B - Page 1 This page is intentionally left blank. Written Information - Item B - Page 2 Palo Pkwy Escuela CtDehesa CtCorrie n te D rCa mp oCt Abeyta CtAngelovic CtHauptman CtFredericks CtHowe CtB o s q u e Ct Arbol Ct30th0 400200Feet Palo Park Trail East Property ±Attachment A: Fourmile Canyon Creek at Palo Park Flood Risk Reduction Project User: gayla1 Date: 11/1/2018 Document Path: E:\MapFiles\Wetlands\FourmileatPalPark\FourMilePaloPark_AG_181101.mxd ProjectArea MEMORANDUM TO: Open Space Board of Trustees FROM: Dan Burke, Interim Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks John Potter, Resources and Stewardship Manager Frances Boulding, Interim Recreation and Cultural Stewardship Supervisor Julie Johnson, Cultural Resource Manager DATE: November 14, 2018 SUBJECT: Written Information – HistoriCorps at McGilvery Cabin The City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) Department and HistoriCorps, a 501(c)3 nonprofit, teamed up to repair and stabilize the historic McGilvery Cabin in October. The cabin is about a mile-and-half northwest from the South Mesa Trailhead along the Mesa Trail. The main house was built sometime around 1900 and an addition was made about 1917. Originally, the house was home to the McGilvery family who tried to run a cattle operation at the drainage. It turned out to be a bad spot for ranching, so the cabin became a summer haven for the family. Lilacs, roses and iris from the early days still grow on the grounds. Because of its location and type of construction, the tiny structure was a perfect project for HistoriCorps which specializes in preservation in remote places on public lands. HistoriCorps was founded in 2009 and filled the need for an organization that could conduct ‘step-on, step-off’ projects to save historic structures on public lands and provide resources including volunteers, expertise, tools and equipment. They are involved in projects nationwide. Volunteers come from all over the country to donate their time for what some call “working vacations.” HistoriCorps provided two paid crew, and OSMP volunteer services coordinated with them for volunteer recruitment. Because of their remote site locations, crews usually camp on-site. However, the crew and volunteers were housed at the Eisenberg House as camping is not allowed on OSMP lands. The project took three weeks and included foundation work, roof and log siding replacement. Logs harvested by the OSMP Forest Ecosystem Management Plan (FEMP) crew were used to replace rotted siding. Written Information - Item C - Page 1 The project was met with a lot of excitement by visitors passing by on the trail. Repair of the cabin will help retain the unique historic look and feel of the area, and visitors commented about how happy they were that the cabin was cared for and will be around for many years to come. The project has also sparked interest in creating interpretive opportunities which we can pursue in the coming months. Written Information - Item C - Page 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Open Space Board of Trustees FROM: Dan Burke, Interim Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks John Potter, Resource and Stewardship Manager Don D’Amico, Ecological Stewardship Supervisor DATE: November 14, 2018 SUBJECT: Written Information – Boulder Creek Fish Habitat Improvement Project Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP), Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and Boulder Flycasters (the local chapter of Trout Unlimited) will be undertaking a stream habitat improvement project on Boulder Creek north of Boulder Community Hospital this fall. The project will work on a section of Boulder Creek starting at Foothills Parkway and running east downstream to the railroad bridge, a distance of approximately 0.4 miles (Attachment A). The property in the project area north of the creek is owned by the City of Boulder while the property south of the creek is owned by Boulder Community Health, but subject to a City of Boulder Conservation Easement (CE). The primary goal of the project is to restore and improve in-stream aquatic habitat to benefit native and sport fishes and other aquatic organisms. The project will use heavy equipment to restore habitat connectivity by establishing a low-flow channel using boulder clusters and wing deflectors, stabilizing stream banks using large woody debris and boulders, and improving habitat by adding random boulders and large woody debris to the channel. All the proposed work is limited to within the stream channel and does not include bank grading or floodplain grading. Disturbance outside of the channel is limited to select bank stabilization areas and a temporary construction access corridor. Construction will begin on Nov. 12 and last approximately three weeks. Post construction planting and seeding will occur in spring 2019. ATTACHMENTS: •Attachment A: Boulder Creek Aquatic Habitat Improvement Project Written Information - Item D - Page 1 This page is intentionally left blank. Written Information - Item D - Page 2 Fo o t h ill s P k w y. Pe a rl Pkw y. Merr i t t Pl4 8 t h47thSt . Arapahoe Rd. PattonDrMacarthurDrWildernessPlBurr Ct Lee Cir Ei se n h o werDrCoolidge Pl PrairieAve HarrisonAveWalnut St Sterling Dr 3 8 t h ExpositionDrMckinleyD r48th Landis CtKennedy CtWilderne s sPlPearlEast Cir Wilderne ss P l Riverbend R d JohnsonCt33rdFrontier AveFrontierAve 48th CtM a c arthurLnP e a k Ave Range StIngersoll Pl P e a r l S t 48th CtArnol d Dr Fisher Dr P e a r l S t 49thWalnut St Marine St Commerce St0 1,900950Feet± Attachment A: Boulder Creek Aquatic Habitat Improvement Project User: DamiD1 Date: 11/2/2018 Document Path: C:\Users\damid1\Desktop\BFC map for OSBT.mxd ProjectArea Project Site Written Information - Item D - Page 3 STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM To: Open Space Board of Trustees From: Dan Burke, Interim Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks Mark Davison, Community Connections and Partnerships Manager Brian Anacker, Science Officer Heather Swanson, Senior Wildlife Ecologist Mark Gershman, Planning and Design Supervisor Juliet Bonnell, Associate Planner Date: November 14, 2018 Subject: Draft OSMP Master Plan Outcomes and Preliminary Strategies for the Ecosystem Health and Resilience Focus Area EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As part of the development of the Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) Master Plan the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) will meet after their regularly scheduled business meeting in a study session. This study session will be the first of three for the focus areas identified below: Master Plan Focus Area(s) OSBT Study Session Date Ecosystem Health and Resilience Nov 14, 2018 Responsible Recreation, Stewardship and Enjoyment Dec 12, 2018 Community Connection, Education and Inclusion & Agriculture Today and Tomorrow Jan 16, 2019 The study session agenda, including questions for the OSBT, is included in Attachment A. The goal of this study session is to clarify and refine the draft outcomes for the Ecosystem Health and Resilience (EHR) focus area. Staff also seeks feedback from OSBT on preliminary strategies to achieve these outcomes. Feedback from this and upcoming study sessions will be used to inform the refinement of draft outcomes and integration of the preliminary strategies into policies, plans and programs that will support the focus areas in preparation for a fourth community engagement window in 2019. The fourth engagement window will further refine draft outcomes and preliminary strategies through public engagement, a statistically valid survey, and the development of financial scenarios concluding with a joint OSBT and Council study session in late spring. The Focus Areas with their associated outcomes and strategies will be finalized in the fifth engagement window with the development of a draft OSMP Master Plan that will go to OSBT in August 2019 and be heard by Council for their approval in September 2019. Study Session Memo - Page 1 BACKGROUND AND MASTER PLAN PROCESS SUMMARY To date, OSMP staff have completed two engagement windows and are in the middle of the third window of community engagement for the Master Plan. Staff and consultants continue to work closely with the OSMP Master Plan Process Committee to design, implement and evaluate the approach for this third engagement window to identify the draft Master Plan outcomes and preliminary strategies. Members of the committee include Curt Brown (OSBT), Tom Isaacson (OSBT), Aaron Brockett (City Council) and Mary Young (City Council). The OSMP Master Plan is also a pilot project for implementing the city’s new Engagement Strategic Framework. With the goal of working directly with community members to ensure concerns and aspirations are reflected as draft outcomes and preliminary strategies, the third engagement window includes three rounds of staff and community workshops followed by study sessions with the OSBT (see figure below). In addition, the current engagement window provides opportunities for online engagement through general and focus area-specific questionnaires. The posters, topic snapshots and other background information developed for the workshops are also available online. To increase reach beyond the public workshops and encourage participation, staff and partners are also engaged in targeted micro-engagement with the Latino community, youth and people experiencing disabilities. This approach allows for emphasis on each of the four focus areas most tied to OSMP’s resource stewardship and community service delivery. Financial Sustainability, the fifth Master Plan focus area, will be addressed in community engagement window four, when financial scenarios are created for the recommended outcomes and strategies. ANALYSIS The goal of this study session is to clarify and refine the draft outcomes for the EHR focus area and seek feedback from OSBT on preliminary strategies to achieve these outcomes. Study Session Memo - Page 2 Outcomes are statements about the community’s aspirations for OSMP to support the Master Plan Focus Areas. They answer the question: What conditions, situations or experiences relevant to this Focus Area do we most want for our future? A useful outcome is clearly stated and provides broad guidance of what is desired. Outcomes emerged from the open space purposes in the City Charter, staff expertise, community feedback, current OSMP practices and research, and exploration of best practices of other public and private land managers. Strategies are broad courses of action, that if successfully completed, will achieve the Master Plan outcomes. For each strategy, the Master Plan will include the plans, policies and programs that OSMP will initiate, continue to implement or complete over the next ten years. Strategies answer the question, ‘What are the most effective ways to achieve the outcome?’ They can be broad or singularly focused and therefore can include multiple or single actions with associated short or long-term management results. Good strategies are feasible and show how the outcome will be achieved through policy direction, a planning action, or delivery via a program. To initiate the development of draft outcomes and preliminary strategies for the EHR focus area, a September staff workshop was followed by a community workshop held on October 1 in which approximately 40 people attended, and more than 100 comments were received. There were also almost 450 responses to the EHR online questionnaire and nearly 300 recommendations for refinements or new ideas for this focus area. Each of the comments provided either at the workshop or online were reviewed and compared to the draft outcomes and preliminary strategies described in the topic snapshots developed for the workshop. Based upon the comments received both online and at the workshop, there was general community affirmation for the draft EHR outcomes and strategies. Themes most often emerging from these comments included interest in volunteerism and citizen science, as well as more education and information sharing about OSMP ecosystems and suggestions on how to improve resource conditions by enhancing recreation stewardship. Based on community comment, staff revised and consolidated the original draft outcomes into three draft outcomes. Many ideas for possible strategies emerged as staff developed and the community reviewed the EHR outcomes. Staff consolidated these ideas and identified eight preliminary EHR strategies to achieve the draft outcomes. Attachment B lists these draft outcomes and preliminary strategies. Attachment B also contains examples of the types of plan, policy and program actions that could be taken as part of the preliminary strategies. Even though many specific ideas were rolled up into the eight preliminary strategies, some of the more detailed ideas were retained as possible examples of the plans, programs and policies that could be used to implement the preliminary strategies. So that one can track how draft outcomes and preliminary strategies were refined and consolidated following community engagement, Attachment C lists the original draft outcomes and preliminary strategies that were provided by staff at the beginning of EHR community engagement process. Study Session Memo - Page 3 NEXT STEPS As the draft outcomes are affirmed and refined, staff will continue to improve the preliminary strategies in preparation for engagement window four in 2019. Below are the upcoming dates in development of the Master Plan: Date Item Engagement Window Three Nov 28 Process Committee Meeting to Discuss/Decide Upon Engagement Window #4 Process: Strategy Refinement and Prioritization Dec 3 Community Connection, Education and Inclusion and Agriculture Today and Tomorrow community workshop Dec 12 OSBT study session on Responsible Recreation, Stewardship and Enjoyment Focus Area Jan 16 2019 OSBT study session on Community Connection, Education and Inclusion and Agriculture Today and Tomorrow Engagement Window Four Winter 2019 Additional community engagement, on-line questionnaire, statistically valid survey, and financial scenarios to refine and prioritize outcomes and strategies for each focus area Late Spring or Early Summer 2019 Joint City Council OSBT Study Session to Discuss Draft Outcomes and Strategies for each Focus Area (Tentative Date: May 28) Engagement Window Five Late Summer 2019 Draft Master Plan (Planning Board, OSBT, City Council) Fall 2019 Final Plan Hearings, Recommendations and Approvals (Planning Board, OSBT, City Council) Study Session Memo - Page 4 Attachments: • Attachment A: Study Session Agenda • Attachment B: Draft Outcomes and Strategies • Attachment C: Public Review EHR Outcomes and Strategies by Related Topic Diagram depicting general timeline for OSMP Master Plan Study Session Memo - Page 5 This page is intentionally left blank. Study Session Memo - Page 6 Attachment A: Study Session Agenda OSMP Attendees: Dan Burke – Interim Director, Steve Armstead, Interim Deputy Director, Mark Gershman – Acting Project Manager, Mark Davison – Project Sponsor, Juliet Bonnell – Deputy Project Manager Consultant Team Attendees: Amanda Jeter– Facilitator/Project Manager (Design Workshop) Meeting Purposes: • Review engagement findings and the Ecosystem Health and Resilience (EHR) draft strategies and preliminary outcomes that resulted from public and staff input. • Affirm draft outcomes, make any needed refinements and ask if any outcomes are missing to result in clarity about any needed refinements prior to use in crafting statistically valid survey and draft Master Plan document. • Review preliminary strategies and gather input on any needed refinements or anything that is missing prior to use in crafting statistically valid survey and draft Master Plan document. Framing Questions: 1. Are the draft outcomes and preliminary strategies on track to inform the statistically valid survey and draft Master Plan document? 2. Are there any refinements or is there anything missing in the draft outcomes that should be considered before OSBT affirm them for the Master Plan? 3. Are there any refinements or is there anything missing in the preliminary strategies to help guide OSMP management over the next 5 to 10 years, with an eye to the next 50 years? 4. Wrap-up question after study session discussion: Have we captured the integrity of your affirmations and refinements to the draft outcomes and preliminary strategies for Ecosystem Health and Resilience? Welcome & Introduction (20 min) Welcome and Orientation: Dan Burke & Mark Gershman Meeting Expectations and Framing Questions: Amanda Jeter EHRs 3 Outcomes and (6) Strategies Background & Development: Brian Anacker Deep Dive Discussion on EHR Outcomes and Strategies (1hr 25 min) Discussion: (3) Outcomes: Amanda Jeter Discussion: (8) Strategies: Amanda Jeter Conclusion and Next Steps (15 min) Review of key discussion points: Juliet Bonnell Summary and agreement on next steps: Amanda Jeter Closing remarks: Mark Davison Study Session Memo - Page 7 This page is intentionally left blank. Study Session Memo - Page 8 Ecosystem Health and Resilience (EHR) Draft Outcomes, Preliminary Strategies and Examples of a few Plan, Program and Policy Actions Draft outcomes are being presented for the OSBT to affirm and refine. The preliminary strategies are being introduced for the board’s review and input. A few examples of plans, programs and policy actions are being provided to help explain how the strategies may be implemented. These will all be further refined and consolidated as the master planning process advances in 2019. Draft Ecosystem Health and Resilience Outcomes Outcome 1: Open Space and Mountain Parks continues to support high levels of native biological diversity. Outcome 2: Degraded natural areas with high ecological potential are restored or improved and the impact of harmful invasive species is reduced. Outcome 3: The effects of climate change on ecological health are anticipated and mitigated. Outcome 4: Our community understands and cares for Open Space and Mountain Parks and this ethic of stewardship and appreciation for nature continues into the future. Preliminary Ecosystem Health and Resilience Strategies Strategy A: Enhance large habitat blocks by increasing their size and connectivity and improving their overall health, while also maintaining other smaller, valuable conservation areas. Strategy B: Lighten our footprint on native plants and animals by reducing human disturbances, especially where biological diversity is high, unique or made up of rare species. Strategy C: Use a management approach that considers all elements and processes of natural systems rather than the preservation of individual species. Strategy D: Prioritize management of non-native species that have a severe and widespread impact and are those most likely to be controlled. Strategy E: Incorporate climate resilience and adaptation tools into ongoing and future open space planning, management and operations. Strategy F: Foster ecological research and monitoring; and accelerate information sharing. ATTACHMENT B Study Session Memo - Page 9 Examples of Possible Ecosystem Health and Resilience Actions (not intended to be a comprehensive list of possible actions) Example Actions for Preliminary Strategy A Enhance large habitat blocks by increasing their size and connectivity and improving their overall health, while also maintaining other smaller, valuable conservation areas. PLAN Amend current ecosystem management plans with a module to establish and enhance habitat corridors connecting the forested foothills with the prairie grasslands through and around Boulder’s urban core. PROGRAM Working with partners (e.g., CDOT, Boulder County), develop a program to construct wildlife over- and underpasses in areas of high wildlife mortality. POLICY Emphasize acquisition of lands that increase the size of existing large habitat blocks or connect non- adjacent parcels. Example Actions for Preliminary Strategy B: Lighten our footprint on native plants and animals by reducing human disturbances, especially where biological diversity is high, unique or made up of rare species. PROGRAM Align resources across OSMP to reduce the number of miles of social trails, and their use, through closure, restoration, education and enforcement. POLICY Continue and improve seasonal wildlife protections to maintain highest quality nesting raptor, bear, grassland bird and bat habitat. Example Actions for Preliminary Strategy C: Use a management approach that considers all elements and processes of natural systems rather than the preservation of individual species. PLAN Amend current ecosystem management planning for forests to include consideration of: •management successes to date, •new climate forecasts, •next steps for ongoing maintenance of treated stands, •best practices at peer agencies •inclusion of additional goals and metrics for wildlife and riparian areas, and study of PROGRAMS Continue thinning forest stands that are treatable and accelerate efforts to use prescribed fire when ATTACHMENT B Study Session Memo - Page 10 possible to prevent catastrophic wildfires, add resilience to beetle outbreaks and benefit native plants and wildlife habitat, while minimizing risks to humans, wildlife, plants, soils and scenery. Use fish passage structures to maintain in-stream flows, and native vegetation to promote native fish, fish habitat and aquatic invertebrates. POLICY Emphasize restoration of riparian areas as they are one of the most degraded ecological systems. Example Actions for Preliminary Strategy D: Prioritize management of non-native species that have a severe and widespread impact and are those most likely to be controlled. PLAN Amend current ecosystem management planning to integrate prioritization of management of species not on Colorado’s Noxious Weed list that threatened ecosystem health. PROGRAM Form an invasive species task force to share information about the location and management of non-native species. Example Actions for Preliminary Strategy E: Incorporate climate resilience and adaptation tools into ongoing and future open space planning, management and operations. PLAN Invest in scenario planning and simulations, focusing on novel future conditions so that recommendations for land management and protection reflect the best available and most current science and potential range of impacts. PROGRAM Reduce greenhouse gas emissions related to departmental operations and visitor travel to access points. POLICY Prioritize protection of biodiversity hotspots and pathways that enable species to adjust to rapid environmental change, such as microrefugia. Example Actions for Preliminary Strategy F: Foster ecological research and monitoring; and accelerate information sharing. PROGRAM Develop an integrated program of natural resource inventories and monitoring to assess the location, extent and condition of resources and allow OSMP to share information about the diversity, conditions and trends and other results with the community. ATTACHMENT B Study Session Memo - Page 11 This page is intentionally left blank. Study Session Memo - Page 12 Protecting Biodiversity and Large Habitat Blocks Draft Outcomes and Strategies Outcome A: Large habitat blocks are maintained and enhanced to ensure high levels of native biodiversity Strategies to Achieve Outcome A: 1. Continue to strategically acquire land to increase areas of protected high-quality native habitat. 2. Work with adjacent landowners and other public land managers to increase effective habitat block size. 3.Reduce anthropogenic fragmentation of large habitat blocks through modifications to existing infrastructure, including closing undesignated trails, removing redundant trails and re-routing trails to the periphery of habitat blocks. 4. Incorporate large habitat block protection into future planning for human infrastructure development by locating new infrastructure in lower quality habitat or on the periphery of intact habitat blocks. 5. Use Grassland Plan Best Opportunity Areas for Conservation to prioritize areas for natural habitat conservation. 6.Restore habitat to improve habitat effectiveness for a variety of native plants and wildlife. 7. Reduce and mitigate human disturbance to intact, high quality habitats when managing and planning for activities that may impact the conservation of high- quality habitat. 8. Expand areas of OSMP designated for no-off trail use without a permit to include areas identified as high-quality habitat. 9. Explore opportunities to allow only daytime use in specific high-quality areas of OSMP to provide wildlife refugia to rest undisturbed during the night. 10.Use a cautious strategy in management and conservation of systems that are highly complex and poorly understood. 11. Consider using habitat block size as a criterion in resource allocation. 12.Improve the current systematic strategy for monitoring of biodiversity on OSMP. Outcome B: Animals move freely along contiguous, intact natural migration corridors. Strategies to Achieve Outcome B: 1. Continue to strategically acquire land to secure movement corridors through the landscape. 2. Work with adjacent landowners and other public land managers to enhance or maintain movement corridors on a landscape scale such as partnering with CDOT and adding bridges or tunnels in an areas of high wildlife mortality. Ecosystem Health and Resilience Outcomes and Strategies by Related Topics (This information was distributed to inform community engagement) ATTACHMENT C Study Session Memo - Page 13 Outcome C: Rare species persist and thrive. Strategies to Achieve Outcome C: 1.Maintain seasonal wildlife protections, including closures, for cliff and grassland nesting raptors, grassland nesting birds, bats, and other sensitive wildlife as needed. 2.Evaluate dog impacts and management policy. 3. Emphasize the need for avoiding disturbance when managing and planning activities in areas with high or unique biodiversity. 4. Continue to collaborate with local, State and Federal agencies to protect species of special concern and species receiving protection through state or federal regulations. 5.Protect additional areas through a variety of means, including acquisitions and closures to protect rare and declining species or areas of especially high biodiversity. 6. Collaborate with State and Federal agencies to coordinate species re-introductions proposed on OSMP. Outcome D: Threats to biodiversity are anticipated and prevented or mitigated. Strategies to Achieve Outcome D: 1. Support outside researchers examining threats to biodiversity and the identification of effective strategies to manage those threats. 2.Collaborate with partner agencies to explore landscape level initiatives to protect biodiversity on public and private land. 3. Collect, analyze and apply data related to understanding and managing threats to biodiversity on OSMP in a timely fashion. 4. Prevent energy development, such as fracking, on OSMP whenever possible. 5. Consider the total impact that oil and gas extraction might have on OSMP assets, service delivery, and operations. 6. Identify especially steep trails on erosive soils for restoration or closure. 7. Educate the community on importance of OSMP natural areas and the place of humans in nature. 8.Ensure adequate staff resources are available to manage threats. ATTACHMENT C Study Session Memo - Page 14 Climate Change Draft Outcomes and Approaches Outcome A: Diverse ecosystems modulate temperatures, slow water runoff and store carbon. Strategies to Achieve Outcome A: 1. Model the carbon balance of the dominant ecosystems and agroecosystems on OSMP lands. 2. Study carbon markets with regards to receiving credit for maintaining natural vegetation. 3. Approach ecosystem modifications to support climate stabilization (e.g. enhancing carbon storage) with understanding of uncertainty and caution (e.g. novel techniques such as soil microbe introduction may have unintended and not-yet understood consequences). 4.Prevent large, catastrophic fires, which have large greenhouse gas emissions. 5.Reduce the impact of large rainfall events. Outcome B: Climate change is considered in land management and operations. Strategies to Achieve Outcome B: 6. Integrate climate change into plan updates and existing natural resource management efforts, such as ongoing forest restoration and vegetation management. 7. Partner with city, regional and state agencies. Consider convening a multidisciplinary team that includes hydrologists, conservation planners, geographers and biologists. 8. Invest in scenario planning and simulations, focusing on novel future conditions so that recommendations for land management and protection reflect the best available and most current science and potential range of impacts. 9. Develop downscaled future climate information and use it to predict the return interval of extreme events. 10.Identify thresholds, plausible alternative states, pathways and triggers for climate- sensitive species and habitats. 11. Engage in stewardship and restoration activities and pursue acquisitions that enhance natural area resilience. 12. Manage landscapes to support ecosystem transitions. 13.Identify multiple biological indicators of climate change sensitivity and response; specifically, identify high risk/high value species and habitats for monitoring or intervention. 14. Improve and maintain connectivity among diverse habitats to support species diversity. 15. Restore the functional diversity and resilience of degraded systems. 16.Prioritize preservation of biodiversity hotspots and pathways that enable species to adjust to rapid environmental change. 17. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions related to departmental operations. 18.Model potential impacts to water supply caused by climate change. 19.Explore if climate-targeted options, such as using seeds from climatically diverse, non- ATTACHMENT C Study Session Memo - Page 15 local populations and actively assisting plants and animals to move, and other ideas under the “renovation” land management concept would benefit OSMP. Outcome C: There is heightened community awareness of concepts like novel ecosystems and species shifts. Strategies to Achieve Outcome C: 20.Develop a climate change curriculum as it relates to OSMP services to train community members to be future stewards and leaders 21. Study peer agencies to learn how to communicate about climate change with a diversity of stakeholders. 22. Coordinate with other city departments to implement parts of the City of Boulder’s Resilience Strategy—helping prepare all segments of the community for uncertainty and disruption. ATTACHMENT C Study Session Memo - Page 16 Ecosystem Maintenance and Restoration Draft Outcomes and Strategies Outcome A: High quality natural areas remain in good condition. Strategies to Achieve Outcome A: 1. Continue to use seasonal wildlife closures to maintain some of the highest quality cliff-nesting raptor, grassland bird and bat habitat. 2. Use the Grassland Plan’s best opportunity areas (BOAs) to guide conservation actions across multiple targets and to set priorities for where conservation actions are likely to have the greatest benefit. 3. Work with the community to instill a shared sense of land ownership and environmental stewardship. 4. Maintain agricultural lands that support native species and habitats in human altered landscapes. 5. In times of fiscal downturns, focus on taking care of what we have, rather than new initiatives. Outcome B: The conditions of degraded areas with high potential for restoration are much improved. Strategies to Achieve Outcome B: 1.Leverage partnerships, community engagement and volunteers. 2.Consider existing regional watershed plans as a source of partnerships for integrated restoration efforts. 3. Focus restoration on riparian areas as they are one of the most degraded ecological systems. 4.Use the Grassland Plan’s best opportunity areas (BOAs) to guide restoration actions across multiple targets and to set priorities for where restoration actions are likely to have the greatest benefit. 5. Promote research into ecological vulnerability and high leverage restoration techniques. 6. For restoration projects, use or develop locally sourced plant material. 7. Consider future climate scenarios when developing conceptual models for stewardship activities such as climate-suitable plantings, desired future conditions and assessing potential acquisitions. 8. Include restoration successes and lessons learned in community outreach and engagement 9. Partner successful undesignated trail closure with development/improvement of designated trails and restoration of habitats. Outcome C: Significant impacts of invasive plant species in high quality natural areas are prevented or reduced. Strategies to Achieve Outcome C: 1.Use prescriptive grazing to manage invasive species as an alternative to herbicides. 2.Prioritize management of state-listed noxious and invasive species. 3.Plan trails to minimize the risk of weed introduction and spread. ATTACHMENT C Study Session Memo - Page 17 4.Focus first on reducing abundance and occurrences of high-priority invasive non- native species present, then reduce the frequency and cover of low-priority non- native species, whenever possible. 5.Use early detection and eradication to prevent establishment or spread of invasive species that are new to OSMP. 6. Manage hydrologic regimes (increasing or reducing the amount of water entering wetlands) to help control invasive species and increase native plant cover. 7. Acquire lands adjacent to or within open space that are invasive “hotspots” in order to restore and mitigate impacts to the system. 8. Form an invasive species task force to share information about the location and management of non-native species. ATTACHMENT C Study Session Memo - Page 18 Ecological Disturbance: Fire, Flood and Drought Draft Outcomes and Strategies Outcome A: The risk of catastrophic wildfires is significantly reduced, and fire-prone ecosystems are healthy. Strategies to Achieve Outcome A: 1. Continue thinning stands that are treatable. 2.Continue and accelerate efforts to use prescribed fire in forests and grasslands, including the use of smaller burns closer to development when needed. 3. Focus prescribed fire planning to target timing that maximizes ecological benefits and minimizes risks to health and safety. 4.Explore new techniques to reduce forest fuels in stands that are otherwise untreatable using traditional techniques such as vehicles, chippers, and chainsaws 5. Continue to use livestock grazing as a surrogate for fire in grasslands. 6. Use an adaptive management framework to determine how the status of measured indicators can influence on-going forest treatments. 7.Update the Forest Ecosystem Management Plan with reference to management successes to date, new climate forecasts, next steps for ongoing maintenance of treated stands, and study of best practices at peer agencies. 8. Study the fire management techniques of indigenous people to learn best practices. Outcome B: In our high-quality natural areas, droughts continue to promote native biodiversity. Strategies to Achieve Outcome B: 1. Review rangeland decision making surveys to understand drought management practices with reference to rangeland/grassland health (see USDA ARS). 2. Advocate for National drought policy for rangelands with reference to rangeland/grassland health (see Kachergis, et al. 2014. Increasing flexibility in rangeland management during drought. Ecosphere.). 3.Enact adaptive river/creek management strategies (e.g., fish passage structures; in- stream flows). 4. Establish long-term water table monitoring program in floodplains. 5. Continue participating in Drought Net, the coordinated experimental network to understand differences in drought sensitivity in terrestrial ecosystems. Outcome C: Floods improve ecological health while natural areas continue to reduce harm to people and property by slowing down flood waters. Strategies to Achieve Outcome C: 1.Follow drainage and stream buffer standards in our plans. ATTACHMENT C Study Session Memo - Page 19 2.Strategically acquire land in floodplains and share our knowledge of floodplain importance with other municipalities. 3. Use flood-resistant materials for trails in floodplains. 4.Remove trails from riparian corridors. 5. Stabilize creek banks with native vegetation. 6. Explore techniques to mimic flood conditions that stimulate land regeneration. 7.Develop a strategy to safeguard cultural resources at risk of being damaged by disturbances. 8. Monitor the success of flood recovery projects. ATTACHMENT C Study Session Memo - Page 20 Research and Monitoring Draft Outcomes and Strategies Outcome A: Land management is based on science and adaptive management. Strategies to Achieve Outcome A: 1.Determine causes of ineffective resource management actions and problems. 2.Measure impacts of resource uses and related activities. 3. Develop and refine guidelines and/or tools to inform best practices in research and monitoring. 4. Provide staff with training related to study design, protocol development, project implementation, data analyses, and data management. 5. Identify priorities for resource inventories. 6. Support inter-workgroup collaboration for inventory, monitoring and research. 7. Identify and prioritize monitoring needs: What aren't we measuring but should be? What are we measuring that we don't need to? What should we continue monitoring, but with possible improvements? 8.Support evaluation of long-term trends (20+ years) 9.Use natural disturbances as research opportunities. 10.Develop easy-to-use software with tools for data entry, review, analysis, and export. 11. Provide enough capacity to support research and monitoring, including dedicating blocks of time in the workplan for data analysis and reporting. Outcome B: Collaborative research and discovery efforts are accelerated, highly valued and shared. Strategies to Achieve Outcome B: 1. Develop tools, like story boards and dashboards, to share scientific information and metrics. 2. Openly share research and monitoring data as part of the City of Boulder’s open data initiative; establish procedures for safeguarding sensitive data. 3. Integrate monitoring and research findings into public interpretive programs. 4. Compile and communicate OSMP's research and monitoring findings in a regular "state of knowledge" report. 5. Promote the publishing of research findings in refereed journals. 6.Encourage research by qualified area-experts through an active fund-granting outreach program. 7. Support community researchers by offering research and collection permits. 8. Offer regular community symposia to share research and monitoring results. 9. Partner to form a research institution to work on cross-departmental environmental issues. 10.Write research grant proposals. ATTACHMENT C Study Session Memo - Page 21