07.14.21 OSBT PacketOpen Space Board of Trustees
July 14, 2021
MEETING AGENDA
(Please note that times are approximate.)
I. (6:00) Approval of Minutes
II. (6:05) Public Comment for Items not Identified for Public Hearing
III. (6:20) Matters from the Department
A. Management Response to Prevent Further Spread of New Zealand
Mudsnails
B. Update on Draft 2022 Operating Budget
C. Director Verbal Updates
IV. (8:15) * Request for a recommendation to approve the purchase of a Public Trail
Easement, including access rights for open space purposes, over a portion of the
property located at 6901 N. Foothills Highway from Raytheon Holdings, LLC for
$23,500 per acre, and with the purchase price of the easement not to exceed
$235,000
V. (9:15) Matters from the Board
A. Appointment of an OSBT Subcommittee to help prepare for a Fall
2021 OSBT Retreat
VI. (9:30) Adjourn
* Public Hearing
Written Information:
A. Doudy Draw Trailhead Equestrian Parking Improvements
B. Proposal to adjust the “No Parking” nighttime hours along Flagstaff Road
Open Space Board of
Trustees Members:
Hal Hallstein (2019-2022)
Karen Hollweg (2018-2023)
Dave Kuntz (2019-2024)
Caroline Miller (2020-2025)
Michelle Estrella (2021-2026)
Open Space Board of Trustees
*TENTATIVE Board Items Calendar
(updated June 29, 2021)
August 4, 2021 August 11, 2021 September 8, 2021
OSBT Field Trip (In-Person!):
Time: 5:00 pm – 8:00 pm
Location Area: Meet at The
People’s Crossing (formerly known
as Settler’s Park)
Featured Topics:
* Settler’s Park Name Change and
Next Steps
* Red Rocks Trail complex
improvements
* Anemone Trail: New trail design;
restoration of undesignated trails
* Fire Mitigation and Forest
Health project
NOTE: The Study Session to
discuss South Boulder Creek
Flood Mitigation topics originally
planned for this date will be
rescheduled for the fall.
Action Items:
• Recommendation of the
2022 Operating Budget
• Recommendation to Council
on changing Nighttime
Hours on Flagstaff Mountain
Matters from the Department:
• Junior Rangers Program
Update and Presentation
• Director Verbal Updates
Matters from the Board:
• Greenways Program Update
Action Items:
Matters from the Board:
• Wildlife Data and Trends
Update
• Equity initiatives:
Assessment, Connectors,
Signs & Website
• Funded Research Program
Update
• Possible: Climate
Initiatives Update
• Director Verbal Updates
Matters from the Board:
• Update from the OSBT
Retreat Subcommittee
*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.
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Action Minutes
Meeting Date June 9, 2021
Record of this meeting can be found here: https://bouldercolorado.gov/boards-commissions/upcoming-
osbt-meeting (video start times are listed below next to each agenda item).
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Hal Hallstein Karen Hollweg Dave Kuntz Caroline Miller Michelle Estrella
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Dan Burke Steve Armstead Mark Davison John Potter Lauren Kilcoyne
Alison Ecklund Leah Case Phil Yates Bethany Collins Kacey French
Burton Stoner Jarret Roberts Don D’Amico Frances Boulding Samantha McQueen
Janet Michels Jake Cassidy Cole Moffat Andy Pelster Megan Grunewald
Hilary Dees Deonne VanderWoude
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m .
AGENDA ITEM 1 – Approval of Minutes (5:39)
Karen Hollweg moved the Open Space Board of Trustees adopt the minutes from May 12, 2021 as
amended. Michelle Estrella seconded. This motion passed unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM 2 – Public Comment for Items not Identified for Public Hearing (10:48)
Jean Aschenbrenner spoke regarding overnight parking at Joder Ranch.
Ken Beitel spoke regarding the proposed Meadowlark Open Space at CU South.
Lynn Segal spoke regarding the integration of city boards.
AGENDA ITEM 3 – Review of and recommendation regarding the 2022 Open Space and Mountain
Parks Department Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget and a portion of the Lottery Fund
Capital Improvement Program Budget (21:20)
Lauren Kilcoyne, Central Services Manager and Samantha McQueen, Business Services Manager,
presented this item.
The Board asked clarifying questions regarding the timing for Board feedback on CIP budget priorities,
guiding principles for emerging concerns, bond issues and capacities, and historical General Fund
allocation. The Board also requested referencing the projects associated with the trail maintenance
backlog, and encouraged use of language to increase public understanding.
Public Comment (42:08)
Lynn Segal spoke regarding public understanding of itemized project costs in the CIP.
Return to the Board (48:53)
The Board drew attention to Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) soil health projects and
complimented OSMP staff on CIP budget process communication. The Board asked about economies of
scale for design of both the fish passage project construction and similar construction projects.
Agenda Item 1 Page 1
Motion
Karen Hollweg moved the Open Space Board of Trustees to make a motion to approve, and
recommend that Planning Board and City Council approve, an appropriation of $4,943,000 in 2022
from the Open Space Fund CIP as outlined in this memorandum; and recommend that $428,000 be
appropriated from the city’s Lottery Fund CIP in 2022. Michelle Estrella seconded. This motion
passed unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM 4 – Conveyance of a non-exclusive easement over a portion of the Burke I Open
Space Property, pursuant to the disposal procedures of Article XII, Section 177, of the Boulder City
Charter, to the East Boulder Ditch Company for the East Boulder Ditch Fish Passage Project (54:24)
Don D’Amico, Project Coordinator, and Bethany Collins, Real Estate Supervisor, presented this item.
The Board asked clarifying questions regarding vehicle access for the East Boulder Ditch Company,
funding and process for removal of the existing ditch headgate structure, use of steel plate protection
during construction, location of brown trout photo from presentation, requests from Xcel Energy related
to the project, automation of measurements, concrete colorant, and lateral concrete requirements for
McGinn Ditch.
Public Comment (1:19:32)
Lynn Segal related the project to South Boulder Creek flood mitigation and spoke in favor of the project.
Return to the Board (1:23:12)
Dave Kuntz clarified that sport fish as referred to in presentation are non-native fish, such as rainbow or
brown trout.
Motion
Dave Kuntz moved the Open Space Board of Trustees to make a motion to approve and
recommend that City Council approve the conveyance of a non-exclusive easement over a portion
of the Burke I Open Space Property, pursuant to the disposal procedures of Article XII, Sections
175 and 177, of the Boulder City Charter, to the East Boulder Ditch Company for the East Boulder
Ditch Fish Passage Project. Hal Hallstein seconded. This motion passed unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM 5 - Possible Transfer of Management Rights on a Portion of the Van Vleet – South
Property, Pursuant to the Disposal Procedures of Article XII, Section 177 of the Boulder City
Charter, to the City of Boulder Public Works Department for the South Boulder Creek Flood
Mitigation Project (1:25:30)
John Potter, Resource & Stewardship Manager, presented context on this item.
The Board provided a history of the Committee Draft Resolution and of the revision provided by Dave
Kuntz and Karen Hollweg. Hal Hallstein clarified that the two documents differ slightly in the mechanism
used to direct action of the Board, and that the Board determined public hearing was necessary on this
matter due to similarities of the language used to that of a land disposal.
Public Comment (1:53.08)
Brookie Gallagher spoke against disposal.
Margaret LeCompte spoke against disposal.
Debra Biasca spoke against disposal.
Agenda Item 1 Page 2
Mary Scott spoke about the importance of the heritage of the site.
Mike Marsh spoke against disposal.
Dorothy Cohen spoke against disposal.
Kimman Harmon spoke against disposal.
Raymond Bridge spoke against disposal.
Leslie Glustrom spoke against disposal.
Peter Mayer spoke against disposal.
Rosemary Hegarty spoke against disposal.
Brian Buma spoke against disposal.
Michael Browning spoke against disposal under the current terms and conditions.
Jan Trussel spoke against disposal.
Joy Rohde spoke against disposal.
Frances Hartogh spoke against disposal.
Jenny Primm spoke against disposal.
Richard Harris spoke against disposal.
Mike Chiropolos spoke against disposal.
Gwen Dooley spoke against disposal.
Kathie Joyner spoke in favor of the draft disposal.
Lynn Segal spoke against disposal.
Karen Goubleman spoke against disposal.
Return to the Board (2:47:45)
The Board discussed the use of an Inter-Departmental Memorandum of Understanding (IDMOU) for a
conditional land disposal. The Board reviewed and provided further revisions to the Revised Draft OSBT
Resolution on South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project Provided by Dave Kuntz and Karen
Hollweg.
Agenda Item 1 Page 3
Motion
Karen Hollweg moved that the Open Space Board of Trustees approve this resolution to City
Council, and authorize staff to clean, format and correct grammatical or spelling errors as needed
prior to forwarding to City Council. Dave Kuntz seconded. This motion passed four to one;
Michelle Estrella dissented.
OSBT RESOLUTION TO CITY COUNCIL
RE: CITY OF BOULDER SOUTH BOULDER CREEK FLOOD MITIGATION AND THE CU SOUTH
PROPERTY
6/9/21
WHEREAS in 2013 the City of Boulder (City) and parts of Boulder County experienced a major flood
event that destroyed over 300 residences, damaged many more, and resulted in four deaths in the county;
WHEREAS much of the flood-related damage was due to South Boulder Creek over-topping Highway
36;
WHEREAS the University of Colorado (CU) owns 308 acres of land in and adjacent to the South Boulder
Creek floodplain, and the City has determined that some of that acreage will be required to provide
mitigation of a 100-year flood;
WHEREAS CU has applied to the City for annexation of the 308 acres into the City, the City is engaged
in negotiations with CU regarding such annexation, and no other agreement regarding the use of some of
the 308 acres for flood mitigation by the City currently exists;
WHEREAS after lengthy studies and investigations, including review of upstream flood mitigation
opportunities, the City has determined that a floodwall (Floodwall) to be built on five (5) acres or less of
Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) property west of Highway 36 at the location depicted on
Exhibit A attached hereto (the Floodwall Acres) has been determined to be the only feasible option to
prevent overtopping of Highway 36 in the event of a 100-year flooding event of South Boulder Creek (the
floodwall and all related work are referred to in this Resolution as the Project);
WHEREAS the Floodwall Acres are part of a State Natural Area and contain wetlands and federally listed
threatened species, including the Ute-ladies'-tresses orchid and Preble's meadow jumping mouse, and are
protected under Sections 176 (a) and (b) of the City Charter, which states in part: ''Open space land shall
be acquired, maintained, preserved, retained, and used only for the following purposes: (a)
preservation...of natural areas characterized by or including flora, or fauna that are unusual, spectacular,
...scientifically valuable, or unique, or that represent outstanding or rare examples of native species; and
(b) Preservation of water resources in their natural or traditional state, ...wildlife habitats, or fragile
ecosystems;"
WHEREAS the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) anticipates that the Public Works-Utilities
Department will ask the OSBT to approve a disposal, under Section 177 of the City Charter, transferring
the Floodwall Acres from OSMP management to the City's Public Works-Utilities Department, so that the
Public Works-Utilities Department may construct, operate, and maintain the Floodwall and the
Groundwater Conveyance System;
Agenda Item 1 Page 4
WHEREAS the OSBT has previously determined the Floodwall is not one of the purposes for OSMP
land under Section 176 of the City Charter, and were it not for the unique circumstances that the City has
determined that the Floodwall is necessary in order to save lives and property and that no other feasible
option exists for flood mitigation, a disposal of OSMP land would not be approved by the OSBT because
the Floodwall Acres directly function in the "(a) Preservation of natural areas characterized by or
including flora, or fauna that are unusual, spectacular, ...scientifically valuable, or unique, or that
represent outstanding or rare examples of native species; and (b) Preservation of water resources in their
natural or traditional state, …wildlife habitats, or fragile ecosystems;"
WHEREAS there are no existing high-quality wetlands in the vicinity of the Project or in the South
Boulder Creek drainage that could be acquired to replace the high-quality wetlands and habitat that
currently exist on the Floodwall Acres. Successful mitigation of wetland losses requires creating new
replacement wetland habitat in the Project area or in the South Boulder Creek drainage. Any new
replacement property in the vicinity of the Project will be of lesser ecological quality and include old
gravel pits and highly disturbed plant and animal habitats dominated by non-native species and noxious
weeds, and will require significant modification and cost to improve or even partially compensate for the
destruction of the existing high-quality wetlands and habitats on the Floodwall Acres.
WHEREAS the Floodwall may also disrupt the natural movement of groundwater that nourishes and
sustains rare wet meadows and officially delineated wetlands that provide important habitats for a number
of rare animals, plants and high-quality native plant communities, including the movement of
groundwater through OSMP lands that are both downgradient of the Floodwall (the Down-Gradient
Wetlands), and upgradient of the Floodwall (the Up-Gradient Wetlands);
WHEREAS the OSBT is hereby specifying the terms and conditions that will need to be satisfied, both
individually and severally, before any of the Floodwall Acres will be disposed of, in order to give the City
time to satisfy such conditions before any formal Disposal Request will be considered in good faith by the
OSBT;
THEREFORE, it is hereby Resolved that the OSBT will not officially consider the approval and
recommendation of a disposal of any of the Floodwall Acres for construction of the Floodwall unless and
until all the following conditions have been first fulfilled or addressed to the satisfaction of the OSBT:
AND FURTHERMORE, to enable the specification of the conditions, timeframes and deadlines for
action and associated deliverables the City of Boulder OSMP and the City of Boulder Public Works-
Utilities Department may enter into a binding Interdepartmental Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
OSMP and Public Works-Utilities Department shall report periodically the completeness of all the
conditions in this Resolution to OSBT and Council to inform the consideration of a disposal decision
pursuant to Article XII, Section 177, of the City of Boulder Charter and to thereby enable the installation,
operation and maintenance of a Floodwall and Groundwater Conveyance System as part of the City
Council approved South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project (the Project).
1. Funding. The City has secured, without use of any money from OSMP or the Open Space Fund,
all funding necessary to (a) design and construct the Project and (b) satisfy all of the conditions
set forth below. The costs for the following items shall also not be directly or indirectly incurred
by OSMP or the Open Space Fund, except for necessary OSMP staff time: (1) the transfer and
dedication of land and water rights, (2) the planning and implementation of comprehensive
environmental mitigation, (3) regulatory consultation, permitting and compliance, and (4)
contracts for the restoration and monitoring work.
Agenda Item 1 Page 5
2. Escrow. The City has deposited into escrow the amount of money the OSMP reasonably projects
will be needed to pay for implementation of the Environmental Mitigation Plan set forth below
(the Escrowed Funds). The Escrowed Funds must be subject to terms in the Inter-Departmental
MOU. Such Escrowed Funds shall be used only to pay for implementation of the Environmental
Mitigation Plan and for no other purpose until the complete satisfaction of all of the
Environmental Mitigation Plan requirements as determined in the reasonable judgment of OSMP.
If the Escrowed Funds are not sufficient to pay for all of the Environmental Mitigation Plan
requirements, the City must replenish the Escrowed Funds as necessary from sources other than
the OSMP budget or Open Space Fund.
3. Permits. All required, necessary and appropriate permits and approvals related to the Project
have been obtained from all applicable federal, state, and local regulatory authorities, including,
but not limited to, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Colorado Department of Natural Resources-State
Engineer's Office, the Colorado Department of Transportation, and the City.
4. Studies. The City or a federal agency as part of their permitting process for the Project has
prepared an Environmental Impact Statement and a Site-Specific Biological Assessment for the
Project.
5. Floodwall. The Public Works-Utilities Department has conducted analyses and planning to
incorporate into and achieve a project design sufficient to support all permitting and to determine
levels of impacts and associated mitigation requirements for:
5.1 A minimal footprint for the Floodwall;
5.2 the most limited construction impact footprint of the Project;
5.3 A termination of the eastern end of the Floodwall that is as far away from South
Boulder Creek as possible;
5.4 The determination of a minimum of acreage of OSMP land needed for
maintaining the Floodwall and the Groundwater Conveyance System; and
5.5 A Groundwater Conveyance System through the Floodwall that maintains
existing groundwater conditions on the site.
6. Replacement Property -- 119 Acres. The City has acquired from CU, and dedicated to OSMP,
at no cost to OSMP and without use of the Open Space Fund, unencumbered fee simple title to
the entire 119 acres designated as Open Space-Other (OS-0) in the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan, which are part of the 168-acre Boulder County Tax Parcel
#1577090000024 (the Replacement Property), depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto. The transfer
of title to these 119 acres of land by CU to the City can offset some of the costs of restoring the
floodplain incurred by the City due to previous decisions by CU to construct and reinforce a
larger levee that separates the property from the South Boulder Creek floodplain, to drain and
dewater the lands behind the levee and to not restore the previously mined lands as originally
required by the permit from the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board.
7. Environmental Mitigation Plan. OSMP and the Public Works-Utilities Department will jointly
develop an Environmental Mitigation Plan approved by OSMP, OSBT and City Council (the
Agenda Item 1 Page 6
Environmental Mitigation Plan). The plan will include the following mitigation measures, and
shall be implemented and paid for from the Escrowed Funds:
7.1. Habitat Mitigation Area:
The development of new habitat having a wide diversity of high-quality plants and
associated native plant communities and habitats (collectively, the Habitat
Mitigation Area) within the Replacement Property will be defined in the
Environmental Mitigation Plan. The Environmental Mitigation Plan shall include a
provision authorizing OSMP to engage a qualified third-party wetland ecologist, a
qualified third-party groundwater hydrologist, and other necessary consultants (the
Third-Party Experts), all of whom shall be determined by OSMP. The OSMP shall
be the lead department within the City for the preparation and implementation of the
Environmental Mitigation Plan and shall consult with the Third-Party Experts in the
preparation of such Plan.
7.1.1 Acreage:
The Environmental Mitigation Plan shall address restoration of the entire 119 acres
of Replacement Property together with contingencies and adaptive management for
any effects of future flooding. Some portions of this restoration may be done as part
of regulatory compliance.
7.2. Monitoring:
The Environmental Mitigation Plan shall include success criteria and a detailed plan
to monitor (a) the quantity and quality of the Habitat Mitigation Areas to be created
under such Plan, and (b) the direct and indirect impacts of the Project on other
OSMP land, including the possible impacts on the Up-Gradient and Down-Gradient
Wetlands discussed below. The Third-Party Experts shall assist in the development
of such monitoring plan and shall monitor and assess the quantity and quality of the
Habitat Mitigation Areas on an ongoing basis and make recommendations as to any
actions needed to create or maintain the same, as directed by OSMP. Monitoring
results will inform the need for any corrective actions to achieve successful
restoration of Habitat Mitigation Areas and will be incorporated into the
Environmental Mitigation Plan, as will required monitoring timeframes and
standards for release. Such standards shall include an inventory of federally listed
species ten years following construction of the Project.
7.3. Down-Gradient and Up-Gradient Wetlands:
The Environmental Mitigation Plan must also include written plans for the
protection of both the Down-Gradient and Up-Gradient Wetlands, which plans shall
include (a) engineered features in the Floodwall to allow passage of sufficient
groundwater under or through the Floodwall to maintain the amount and quality of
both the Down-Gradient and Up-Gradient Wetlands, and (b) the monitoring plan
described in Paragraph 7.2 above. The Third-Party Experts shall assist in the
development of such plan, prepare a baseline study of the existing quantity and
quality of such wetlands, monitor and assess the ongoing quality and quantity of
both the Down-Gradient and Up-Gradient Wetlands, and identify corrective actions
that will be used to restore the quality and quantity of the Wetlands, as directed by
OSMP.
7.4. Removal of Levee:
The Environmental Mitigation Plan will include provisions for the removal of the
existing flood levee on the CU South Property and the revegetation of the land
under the levee or land damaged by the removal of such levee. The plan will include
all such revegetation measures deemed necessary by OSMP.
Agenda Item 1 Page 7
7.5. Water Rights:
The Environmental Mitigation Plan will require that the City obtain from CU the
ownership of all water rights appurtenant to or historically associated with the 308-
acre CU South property, including but not limited to shares in the Dry Creek Ditch
No. 2 Company, and dedicate the same to OSMP to allow for irrigation of the
Replacement Property in perpetuity. Any required realignment of the existing Dry
Creek Ditch No.2 or additional laterals or structures needed to allow delivery of
water to the Replacement Property will be included in the Environmental Mitigation
Plan.
7.6. Other Damage:
The Environmental Mitigation Plan must include provisions to ensure that any
damage that may be caused to Open Space Lands upgradient of the Floodwall Acres
due to the detention of water by the Floodwall will be repaired. The plan will
include provisions ensuring that the City will commit to fund and implement any
and all such corrective measures deemed necessary by OSMP.
7.7. Other Permits:
If any federal permit required for the Project requires environmental mitigation
measures that are stricter or more favorable to the environment than those required
under this Resolution, those shall be incorporated into the Environmental Mitigation
Plan. If any such federal permit contains requirements that are less strict or less
favorable to the environment than those required under this Resolution, as
determined by OSMP, the terms of this Resolution shall continue to apply.
7.8. Limited CU Use:
OSMP shall make available to CU some portion of acreage of the Replacement
Property, for the mitigation of impacts from CU's development of its property on
federal- and state-listed plant and animal species and wetlands. Such mitigation
efforts will be coordinated and managed by the City. CU will fund the mitigation
work for its required mitigation acreage in advance.
7.9. Other Environmental Impacts:
The Environmental Mitigation Plan must also address any and all environmental
impacts from the Project that are not addressed in this Resolution, such as (i) the
groundwater analysis referenced in plans for the OSBT August 2021 study session,
(ii) the design, construction, operation, and maintenance guidelines for the
Groundwater Conveyance System associated with the Floodwall, or (iii) the
Environmental Impact Statement and a Site-Specific Biological Assessment for the
Project, and (iv) any flood storage requirement from future flooding.
8. Community Benefits Provisions. The City will secure the following community benefits that
OSBT believes may best be obtained through the annexation agreement regarding the CU South
Property.
8.1 Land Transfer:
The transfer from CU to the City of the unencumbered fee title to the Replacement
Property (see # 6) to then be transferred and dedicated to OSMP.
8.2 Landscape Screening:
Because the removal of the levee, the trees along it, and non-native trees in the
floodplain restoration area will make the CU development much more visible from
the adjoining OSMP lands and from Highway 36, CU shall include landscaping and
plantings as part of the development of its property to screen structures and to protect
the existing viewshed.
Agenda Item 1 Page 8
8.3 Noise and Light:
The proposed CU development will be adjacent to OSMP property and has the
potential to degrade the habitat quality, wildlife use, and visitor experience on the
adjacent OSMP lands by introducing light and noise pollution that does not exist
today. Accordingly, CU and the City agree to conduct a baseline study to establish
current conditions and agree to specific provisions to ensure that use of the CU
property, initially or as it may change over time, will not result in light and noise
pollution impacts on the adjacent OSMP land, including but not limited to that from
nighttime sports lighting and amplified sound systems even if the same would
otherwise be allowed under City codes.
8.4 Water Rights:
The transfer from CU to the City of all Dry Creek Ditch No. 2 Company water rights
appurtenant to or associated with the 308-acre CU South Property, and all decreed or
permitted wells on the Replacement Property, to be transferred and dedicated to
OSMP.
9. Trails. The location of any trails on the Replacement Property and the regulations which apply to the
use of those trails will only occur and be determined through the normal OSMP public planning process.
10. No Other Use of OSMP Lands. Nothing in this Resolution authorizes the City to use or damage any
Open Space Lands outside of the boundaries of the Floodwall Acres for the Project. Any temporary use of
Open Space Lands outside of the Floodwall Acres needed for construction activities related to the Project
shall be made only after approval of such activities by the OSBT, and then subject to such terms and
conditions as may be reasonably required by the OSBT. To the maximum extent feasible all excavating,
staging, delivery of material, and other construction activities related to the Project, and all ongoing
access to the Floodwall and related monitoring systems, shall take place in the area between the
Floodwall and Highway 36 rather than upgradient of the Floodwall.
11. No Precedent. Nothing in this Resolution regarding disposal of the Floodwall Acres should be
interpreted or construed as setting any precedent for future disposals of OSMP lands.
12. Decommissioning and City Ownership. The Inter-Departmental MOU will include provisions that if
the Floodwall is ever decommissioned, no longer needed for flood protection, or abandoned by the City,
the City will (a) remove the Floodwall and associated features and facilities, (b) restore the Floodwall
Acres to a natural condition reasonably acceptable to OSMP, (c) re-establish the natural flow of
groundwater through the Floodwall Acres, and (d) transfer management of the Floodwall Acres back to
OSMP, all at no cost to OSMP and without use of the Open Space Fund. The City shall maintain
ownership of the Floodwall Acres and shall not sell or otherwise transfer ownership or management of
this land to any third party or support the taking of this land by a third party.
ADJOURNMENT – The meeting adjourned at 11:28 p.m.
These draft minutes were prepared by Megan Grunewald.
Agenda Item 1 Page 9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
John Potter, Resource and Stewardship Manager
Burton Stoner, Ranger Services Supervisor
Heather Swanson, Ecological Stewardship Supervisor
Marianne Giolitto, Wetland & Riparian Ecologist
Will Keeley, Senior Wildlife Ecologist
Don D’Amico, Senior Resource Project Manager
Megan Bowes, Restoration Plant Ecologist
Ryan Prioreschi, Wildlife Resource Coordinator
Lisa Goncalo, Recreation Coordinator
Curry Rosato, Education Supervisor
Bill Wildenberg, Signs & Graphics Coordinator
Hilary Dees, Trails Coordinator
Adam Gaylord, Recreation Ecologist Supervisor
DATE: July 14, 202 1
SUBJECT: Management Response to Prevent Further Spread of New Zealand Mudsnails
________________________________________________________________________
Executive Summary
New Zealand mudsnails (NZMS) are tiny, invasive, aquatic snails that form dense colonies that displace
native invertebrates, disrupt food webs, and harm fish. Since NZMS were first discovered on land
managed by City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) in 2004, OSMP has enacted
several year-round closures on Boulder Creek and Dry Creek to keep NZMS from becoming established
in other streams around the system. Upon discovery of NZMS populations in South Boulder Creek (SBC)
in 2020, staff convened a team of subject matter experts representing relevant OSMP workgroups to
develop measures for protecting uninfested portions of SBC, and to develop a long-term, systemwide
NZMS management strategy.
Interim measures, including an education and outreach campaign and a temporary closure of a portion of
SBC, were implemented in October 2020. Since then, staff have developed a comprehensive, long-term
NZMS management strategy. This strategy is based on closing access to certain high-quality, uninfested
stream reaches to prevent infestation by NZMS and closing some reaches with particularly high-density
of NZMS that pose a significant risk as a source of spread. Along with education and outreach efforts,
targeted enforcement, and ongoing compliance and ecological monitoring, this strategy affords OSMP the
best opportunity to prevent further spread of NZMS to ecologically sensitive areas while balancing other
City Charter purposes like passive recreation and agricultural activities.
Problem Statement
NZMS are an invasive species that represent a significant threat to aquatic ecology on OSMP and across
the Western US. Systemwide management is needed to protect high-quality aquatic habitat from further
NZMS spread. Developing management actions needs to include consideration of visitors that frequent
OSMP’s rivers and riparian areas, such as anglers. As spring approaches and weather warms, NZMS
densities will increase and more visitors will access creeks, increasing the risk of NZMS spread. As such,
there is urgency to implement management controls.
Agenda Item 3A Page 1
Background
The NZMS Team considered a variety of biological, social, and geographic factors when deliberating on
management strategies.
New Zealand Mudsnail Ecology
New Zealand mudsnail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum) is a tiny, aquatic snail native to New Zealand. Adult
mudsnails reach a maximum size of 6-7mm while immature snails are the size of sand grains (Photos 1
and 2). NZMS are nocturnal grazers, scraping organic detritus and algae off submerged rocks and logs. In
their native range, NZMS occasionally breed sexually, but in the US, they reproduce exclusively via
parthenogenesis, or cloning. In fact, every mudsnail in the Western US is a clone of a single female. Each
snail is born with 20-120 embryos already developing in the reproductive system, and a single female can
establish a colony of 40 million snails in a one-year period. Mudsnail colonies grow exceedingly dense, in
some places up to 800,000 snails per square meter, although densities on the Colorado Front Range do not
appear to exceed 300,000 snails per square meter.
Photos 1 & 2. New Zealand mudsnail shells as compared to a dime and an enlarged side view of a NZMS.
Dense NZMS colonies can result in displacement of native invertebrates including mayflies, caddisflies,
snails, and mussels—species that fish and other animals depend on for food. While fish such as rainbow
trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) will eat NZMS, studies have shown that approximately 90% of consumed
snails pass through the trout’s digestive tract undigested. Of those, more than half remain alive. As a
result, fish are of poorer condition because of the physiological expense of eating something without
nutrition, and fish movement also serves as a vector to spread the snails.
NZMS densities vary by location and time. For example, some locations in Boulder Creek used to
experience relatively high densities, some of the highest observed on OSMP, but now show lower
densities. Other locations, like Dry Creek near Dry Creek Trailhead, have had consistently high densities
since NZMS were first discovered there in 2010. NZMS density varies throughout the year, generally
increasing during the warmer months with peak densities in late summer and early fall, and lowest
densities in late winter. These variations in density appear to be driven, at least in part, by water
temperature, with snails preferring warmer water and some level of die-off occurring when water
temperatures are at or near freezing.
While the scientific literature indicates that NZMS tolerate and even thrive in a wide range of
environmental conditions, not all water bodies are at equal risk for NZMS infestation. Perennial streams
(those with year-round flow), like Boulder Creek and Dry Creek, appear to be at greatest risk. Intermittent
streams (those that stop flowing at some point during the year) appear to have some risk, depending on
Agenda Item 3A Page 2
duration of flow and presence of persistent pools that can support NZMS during dry periods. Ephemeral
streams (those that only flow after storm events) appear to be at low risk of infestation.
Flow regime is not the only factor that affects habitat suitability. Stream reaches with consistently high
flow velocity appear to be unsuitable. Also, snails seem to prefer consistently warmer water. Populations
in stream reaches that mostly or completely freeze for several days during the winter experience
significant, although not complete, die-off annually. These factors combine to make stream reaches at
higher elevations, and especially in canyons where flow velocity is high, relatively unsuitable.
Humans appear to be the main vector for dispersal. Because of their small size, anything that can
transport a grain of sand (waders, boots, swim trunks, dog fur, floaties, boats, etc.) can transport a
mudsnail. Because they possess a retractable operculum, a small piece of shell that covers the opening in
the main spiraled shell like a trap door, NZMS can survive for days out of water, especially on a wet
surface medium (e.g. damp waders).
Every visitor (human or animal) that accesses the creek however represents a potential vector to spread
NZMS. A single visitor represents a low risk but compounded by the high visitation at some locations, the
cumulative risk can become significant. While anglers appear to be the primary vector of NZMS spread
across the Western US, the locations on SBC where NZMS have recently been discovered are popular
gathering places for trail users (e.g. families, dogs, and school groups) and not anglers. Other potential
vectors include:
•Cattle – Given that cattle rely on creek access for water in many locations on OSMP lands, and
that some cattle herds move around the system as part of rotational grazing, there is a chance that
cattle could pick up NZMS in an infested waterbody (e.g. in mud stuck to their hoofs) and carry it
to an uninfested waterbody.
•Ditch Maintenance – Daily ditch operations pose a relatively low risk of spread, given that ditch
operators rarely enter the water and when they do, it is usually in the ditch and not the creek.
Annual spring maintenance, including hand removal of woody debris and trash from head gates
and mechanical removal of sediment from ditches, sometimes from multiple locations on multiple
streams during a single day, could pose at least a moderate risk.
•Fish – Studies have shown that approximately 90% of snails consumed by trout pass through
their digestive system undigested. Of those, more than half are alive. As brown trout move
upstream during their fall run in SBC, they may transport snails in their digestive tracts. This is
considered a relatively low risk.
•Wildlife – It is possible that wildlife that utilize OSMP’s creeks (e.g. racoons, deer, herons, etc.)
could transport NZMS in their feathers or fur. This is considered a relatively low risk.
In infested waters, NZMS can spread on their own. They float with the current to infest suitable habitat
downstream. Such infestation can be patchy within a reach since suitable habitat is also variable, but it is
reasonable, barring a barrier to spread (e.g. a significant change in stream water temperature), to consider
all reaches downstream from the most upstream point of infestation as infested. NZMS can also crawl
upstream. Unfacilitated by humans or other vectors, upstream spread occurs at a much slower rate (up to
240 meters/year).
New Zealand Mudsnail Management in the United States
Once NZMS establish in a stream, there is currently no practical way to get rid of them. Chemical control,
used in some isolated ponds or water treatment facilities, poses too great a risk of adverse impacts to the
immediate and downstream ecosystem. Physical control, such as desiccation or application of hot water,
Agenda Item 3A Page 3
is not feasible or desirable in a natural stream. In its native range, at least eleven species of parasitic
trematode keep mudsnail populations in check, but none have been approved for release in the US.
First discovered in the United States in Idaho’s Snake River in 1987, NZMS now occupy streams and
ponds across 23 states in the Western US and Great Lakes regions (Figure 1). Since their accidental
introduction, land managers around the country have been trying to prevent the spread of NZMS using a
variety of management tools including education and outreach, area closures, boat inspections, and
regulations related to the intentional or accidental transport of snails or materials that might contain snails,
such as ship ballast.
A cursory review of NZMS management around the country indicates most agencies rely heavily on signs
and education efforts. Area closures seem to be rare, with most restrictions temporary. Of those few
closures that are long-term, most seem to be at lakes or ponds. In Colorado, recent correspondence with
Colorado Parks and Wildlife confirmed that the City of Boulder is the only land management agency in
the state currently managing the spread of NZMS by restricting human access. This may be due to lack of
staffing to enforce closures at other land management agencies (e.g. US Forest Service). It is also worth
noting that OSMP has higher visitation than many other public land agencies in Colorado.
Figure 1. USGS map of watershed subbasins (in brown) with documented occurrences of New Zealand
mudsnails (last updated October 2020).
New Zealand Mudsnail Management on OSMP
Mudsnails were first detected in Colorado by an angler in the fall of 2004 who brought an unknown snail
he found in Boulder creek to a state fish pathologist. The presence of NZMS turned out to already be
extensive on OSMP west of 61st Street on Boulder Creek. At the time, the infestation appeared to be
limited to an area between the confluence of SBC and Boulder Creek east of 55th Street, and 75th street. At
the same time, an infestation was discovered in a trout hatchery located adjacent to Boulder Creek. Once
the infestation was detected, Colorado Department of Wildlife (now Colorado Parks and Wildlife, CPW)
enacted a 30-day closure of the entire creek to angling and made the closure permanent a few months
later. At the same time, the trout hatchery was drained and decontaminated. In concert with the CPW
action, OSMP closed this section of creek to all access and built fencing along the creek to encourage
compliance with the closure.
Agenda Item 3A Page 4
In response to this discovery and subsequent discoveries at other waterways in the state, CPW finalized a
State Management Plan for NZMS in December 2005. OSMP ecologists participated as part of the
planning team that drafted the plan. The statewide management plan prioritized slowing the spread of the
snail rather than removal or control (due to the lack of effective techniques available for removal or
control). In January 2006, the state rescinded the prohibition on fishing on Boulder Creek, but OSMP
maintained the closure on Boulder Creek to address the management priority of containment and slowing
spread of the species.
Despite OSMP’s efforts, NZMS were detected in Dry Creek near the Dry Creek trailhead in 2010. In
response to this new infestation, OSMP enacted a closure for this stretch of creek and erected fencing to
direct dog access to water outside of the stream channel. At the same time, OSMP enacted a substantial
education campaign including signage, press releases, and onsite outreach staff to interact with visitors.
Since 2010, OSMP has maintained a robust
monitoring program to track the extent of
NZMS infestation. Monitoring is conducted in
late summer and early fall, since that is when
NZMS densities are highest, making the tiny
snails easier to detect. Although changes in
density of snails or extent of infestation within
stream reaches have been observed, newly
infested areas had not been detected until
August 2020, when OSMP staff discovered
NZMS in SBC between Baseline Road and
South Boulder Road, just upstream (south)
and downstream (north) of the East Boulder
Community Center bridge (Figure 2).
Subsequent surveys did not detect NZMS in
SBC upstream of this location (i.e. from South
Boulder Road to South Mesa trailhead).
Around that same time, a city mosquito
contractor reported NZMS in a number of
non-OSMP managed stream reaches within
the City of Boulder. Based on 2020 data,
NZMS are found in Boulder Creek
downstream of 28th Street, parts of Fourmile
Canyon Creek, Wonderland Creek, and Dry
Creek, as well as several other creeks in the
city not managed by OSMP (Figure 3).
Recognizing the need for a review of NZMS management, staff formed a team composed of
representatives from the Ranger/Naturalist, Education & Outreach, Ecological Stewardship, Visitor
Infrastructure, Vegetation Stewardship, and Recreation & Cultural Stewardship work groups. The goal of
this NZMS Team was twofold:
1. Develop interim management actions to mitigate the immediate risk of spread of NZMS in South
Boulder Creek
2. Develop systemwide management options and long-term management strategies
Figure 2. Locations where New Zealand mudsnails
have been documented in South Boulder Creek
Agenda Item 3A Page 5
Agenda Item 3A Page 6
OSMP implemented the interim management plan for SBC in October 2020 which included:
• Enacting an emergency closure of access to SBC from South Boulder Road upstream to Marshall
Road including targeted enforcement by OSMP rangers
• Instituting a comprehensive educational program from Baseline Road to South Boulder Road
and upstream of Marshall Road to the end of OSMP’s land system including educational signs,
targeted education, and outreach
• Conducting outreach including a press release, updates to the OSMP website, an educational
mailer sent to landowners adjacent to SBC, educational outreach materials distributed to the local
Trout Unlimited chapter, and coordination with commercial use permittees
• A written update to OSBT in the packet for the November 2020 public meeting
Systemwide Long-Term NZMS Management
With an interim management strategy in place, the NZMS Team moved onto consideration and review of
long-term, systemwide management of this invasive species. The Team drafted management strategies
based on the following goal:
Protect aquatic resources while considering other charter purposes including passive recreation.
Based on this goal and the background described above, the Team developed the following management
premises:
• A defensive approach to protect uninfested, high-quality stream reaches from NZMS infestation
is desirable for preventing further spread to important resource areas.
• Preventing NZMS introduction in upstream reaches is crucial to preventing infestation of
downstream reaches.
• Infested reaches with low NZMS densities pose a lower probability of being a source for spread
than those with higher densities.
• High visitation increases the risk of spread but can be challenging for efficacy of actions to
restrict or channel visitor use.
The NZMS team reviewed several alternatives, considering ecological risk, visitor experience, likelihood
of success, and opportunities for ecological improvement.
Building upon these premises, the Team developed a management framework based on the professional
opinion of OSMP ecologists with regards to the ecological quality of a stream reach, whether the reach is
infested with NZMS, the relative density of the infestation, and the visitor use in the area. Using this
framework, the Team developed the following general management strategies:
1. Close access to certain high-quality, uninfested stream reaches to prevent infestation by
NZMS.
2. Close some reaches with particularly high-density of NZMS that pose a significant risk as
a source of spread.
Closures will include portions of SBC, Fourmile Canyon Creek, and Dry Creek (Figure 4).
Implementation will begin in 2021 and will be phased in over the following several years (Table 1).
Agenda Item 3A Page 7
Table 1. Schedule of Closure Implementation
Phase Location Actions
Phase 1 (2021)
South Mesa Trailhead
Implement fencing, a regulatory closure (8-
3-3), and ecological restoration at South
Mesa Trailhead
Dry Creek south of Baseline Road Repair and replace damaged fencing within
the existing closure
South Boulder Creek between
South Boulder Road and Marshall
Road
Install additional fencing immediately south
of South Boulder Road (between the bridge
and pedestrian gate) and assess other
fencing needs
South Boulder Creek between
Marshall Road and South Mesa
Trailhead
Assess fencing needs and install if
necessary
Phase 2 (2022)
South Boulder Creek between
South Boulder Road and Marshall
Road
Asses fencing needs and install if necessary
South Boulder Creek between
Marshall Road and South Mesa
Trailhead
Install additional fencing (if necessary)
Implement 8-3-3 (where appropriate)
4-mile Creek on either side of
Diagonal Assess fencing needs
Dry Creek north of Baseline Road Assess fencing needs
Phase 3 (2023)
Dry Creek north of Baseline Road Install additional fencing (if necessary)
4-Mile Creek on either side of
Diagonal Install additional fencing (if necessary)
4-Mile Creek north of Old Kiln and
Old Kiln Spur Trails
Assess fencing needs and appropriateness
of 8-3-3
4-Mile Creek north of Old Kiln and
Old Kiln Spur Trails
Install additional fencing and implement 8-
3-3 (if necessary and appropriate)
Upon completion of
proposed Gebhard
bridge
South Boulder Creek between
South Boulder Road and the
proposed Gebhard Crossing
Install additional fencing and implement 8-
3-3
Upon completion of
proposed 4-Mile
bridge
4-Mile Creek at Foothills South
Trail crossing and east
Install additional fencing and implement 8-
3-3
Agenda Item 3A Page 8
Agenda Item 3A Page 9
In conjunction with these closures, OSMP will:
• Explore and implement opportunities for passive/active restoration of riparian habitat.
• Continue to analyze water access opportunities on a systemwide basis including where it is
appropriate and what infrastructure is needed to support that desired use.
• Conduct outreach to:
o Neighboring landowners to inform about NZMS management strategies and reasoning
and to provide education on how to prevent spread if they or others access the creek on
private property;
o Visitors, particularly those intending or likely to access the creek;
o Pertinent stakeholder groups such as the local Trout Unlimited chapter and FIDOS;
o Other city departments to look for opportunities to align NZMS management with the
goal of decreasing the chance of spread; and
o Neighboring land management agencies to look for opportunities to align NZMS
management with the goal of decreasing the chance of spread (e.g. Eldorado Canyon
State Park).
• Initiate targeted enforcement efforts to support closures.
Concurrent with closure implementation, OSMP will implement or continue visitor use and ecological
monitoring and research to improve understanding of NZMS ecology and assess the progress of
management actions. This monitoring will inform management and allow OSMP to develop a learning
laboratory approach to conservation (a Master Plan Tier 2 strategy). Monitoring and research that has
been discussed includes:
• NZMS density monitoring in infested areas to better understand how density changes seasonally
and over time.
• Continued presence/absence monitoring to better understand NZMS distribution and take
appropriate management actions.
• Increased monitoring of NZMS occupancy in creeks, ditches, and ephemeral streams to better
understand what risk NZMS pose to waters with different flow regimes.
• Working with contractors to sample native aquatic invertebrates to better understand effects of
NZMS on stream ecology.
• Assessing closure effectiveness by tracking the frequency and cost of infrastructure (fencing),
repair needs, and monitoring changes in riparian habitat (e.g. establishing photo points).
• Tracking the level of public interest through CRMs and public comments/emails to OSBT and
Council that require staff response.
Tracking the number of citations, warnings, and educational contacts to understand trends over
time.
Tracking new visitor access patterns to determine if new areas of creek use develop outside of the
established closure areas to adjust management accordingly.
To adjust management based on changing conditions and information obtained from monitoring or new
scientific literature, OSMP will use an adaptive approach to NZMS management. Staff will review
systemwide NZMS management at a minimum of every three years or more frequently as new data
become available. Because of their importance for NZMS management, the NZMS Team identified the
following triggers to prompt review of management in affected locations:
• Discovery of NZMS in a formerly uninfested reach
• High maintenance costs (e.g. replacing damaged fencing/signs)
• Changes to visitor behavior entering new stretches of the creek beyond a closure boundary
Agenda Item 3A Page 10
Review of management based on these triggers could lead to changes in management strategies including
but not limited to:
• Installation of additional infrastructure (e.g. fencing)
• Increasing education and outreach efforts
• Modifying or lifting a closure
• Implementing a new closure
While the primary focus of NZMS management is to protect important aquatic resources from a
potentially harmful invasive species, these actions also align with OSMP Master Plan Strategies
including:
• EHR.1) Preserve and restore important habitat blocks and corridors (Tier 1)
• EHR.4) Reduce undesignated trails (Tier 2)
• EHR.6) Control invasive species (Tier 2)
• EHR 7) Develop a learning laboratory approach to conservation (Tier 3)
Focus Area: South Mesa Trailhead
As stated above, NZMS float downstream of wherever they are introduced. In other words, everything
downstream of the most upstream point of introduction will become infested. Located along the most
upstream stretch of SBC on OSMP managed land, South Mesa Trailhead could be considered the “line in
the sand” for SBC. If NZMS are introduced there, all of SBC on OSMP land will be infested and one of
the most important aquatic resources on the Front Range will be irreversibly impacted. Also, given the
high levels of visitation detailed above, and well-established use patterns that include unrestricted creek
access, South Mesa Trailhead represents a relatively high-risk location for introduction of NZMS. The
importance of the location relative to the aquatic resource coupled with the challenges imposed by high
visitor use made South Mesa Trailhead a point of particular focus for the NZMS Team.
Visitor Use at South Mesa Trailhead
SBC is one of the most popular riparian corridors on the OSMP system, with regular creek access by
anglers, dogs, families, and school groups. Although OSMP does not have data on how many or what
proportion of visitors and their companion animals enter the creek, South Mesa Trailhead has even higher
visitation, being the 6th most visited location on OSMP with an average of 333 daily visits from June
2016-May 2017 (over 120,000/year). Also, approximately 13% of visitors to South Mesa Trailhead are
accompanied by at least one dog.
Ecology of South Boulder Creek
SBC is one of, if not the, most ecologically intact riverine resources on land managed by the city. The
aquatic invertebrate community inhabiting SBC is considered a reference community for the State of
Colorado because of its high diversity, species richness, abundance of sensitive species, an appropriately
balanced community based on its feeding guild, and a low abundance of tolerant species. SBC also
supports a relatively diverse native fish community. Further, the riparian corridor around SBC has been
designated by the State as a State Natural Area and by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as Critical
Habitat for the Threatened Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudonius preblei). It supports several
rare plants, including the Threatened Ute’s ladies-tresses orchid, and several rare plant communities. The
Boulder County Comprehensive Plan also recognizes SBC as Critical Wildlife Habitat. However, high
visitor use coupled with off trail use around the creek has severely impacted riparian habitat around South
Mesa Trailhead. With its denuded banks and numerous undesignated trails, South Mesa Trailhead is one
of OSMP’s more impacted areas along SBC.
Agenda Item 3A Page 11
NZMS Management and Ecological Restoration
To decrease the risk of spread of NZMS and protect important aquatic resources, OSMP will close direct
access to SBC at South Mesa Trailhead. The closure will include installation of fencing (Figure 5),
implementation of an 8-3-3, educational and regulatory signage, targeted visitor outreach, and increased
enforcement. Closing access to SBC will also allow for ecological restoration of the riparian area
including:
• Restoration of up to 985 linear feet of undesignated trails (fencing, seeding, planting)
• Removal of non-native crack willow (Salix fragilis)
• Treating other non-native invasive vegetation
• Planting native riparian shrubs
• Seeding with appropriate native grass and forb species
Figure 5. Fencing plan for South Mesa Trailhead with existing designated trails in red and new fencing in
blue.
This restoration will improve habitat designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as critical for the
survival of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
This restoration also aligns with OSMP Master Plan Strategies:
• EHR.1) Preserve and restore important habitat blocks and corridors (Tier 1)
• EHR.4) Reduce undesignated trails (Tier 2)
• EHR.6) Control invasive species (Tier 2)
In addition, this work is generally consistent with the West Trail Study Area Plan which identified closure
and restoration of undesignated trails (fencing, planting, etc) and management of recreational access to
Agenda Item 3A Page 12
the creek among recommendations for the South Mesa Trailhead area. Access to the creek will not be
provided under the implementation of this NZMS management response.
Conclusion
The management actions outlined in this memo are the result of extensive conversation and collaboration
among subject matter experts from across the department. While OSMP recognizes that limiting creek
access will impact visitor use, the department believes that deliberate action is necessary to protect
OSMP’s unique and valuable aquatic resources. As discussed, the department will continue its effort to
look at water access opportunities on a systemwide basis including where it is appropriate and what
infrastructure is needed to support that desired use.
Agenda Item 3A Page 13
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Lauren Kilcoyne, Central Services Manager
Samantha McQueen, Business Services Manager
DATE: July 14, 2021
SUBJECT: Update on Draft 2022 Operating Budget
________________________________________________________________________
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to share the preliminary 2022 Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) operating
budget and provide the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) with an overview of the operating budget
development process. The OSBT will have an opportunity to ask questions to ensure the OSBT is prepared to
review and recommend that City Council approve the Open Space and Mountain Parks Department’s 2022
operating expenditures at the August business meeting.
This series of agenda items is twofold. This month will include a presentation, information sharing, and Q&A.
Community members can comment on the information in this memo during general public comment. In
response to the July discussion, staff will prepare a recommended 2022 operating budget for OSBT action on
the August agenda, including a public hearing. The public will also have an opportunity to comment during
City Council’s discussions and review of the 2022 recommended budget during future public hearings later
this fall.
BACKGROUND
The draft 2022 Open Space and Mountain Parks operating budget allocates core service activities supporting
the important work required to protect, maintain, and support the Open Space system. Projects and
programs supported through OSMP’s operating budget, and are a part of, the department’s core mission
include ecosystem monitoring, maintenance and restoration; agricultural lands management; safety and
enforcement; ongoing strategic property acquisitions; conservation easement compliance; day-to-day
maintenance of trailheads and trails; strategic and resource planning; community engagement and visitor
outreach, education and events; human dimensions research and monitoring; providing media services, web-
based information and social media; permitting and fees management; administrative, financial and technical
support for the department; providing support for the OSBT; etc. 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.
This memo and related attachments will provide background information around the operating budget
development process, explain how operating budget expenditures support core service activities, and share
the department budget requests for 2022.
2022 OPERATING BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
The OSBT unanimously recommended the department’s 2022 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) at the June
business meeting after review at the April and May business meetings. In July and August, the OSBT will
review the operating budget. The process to develop the annual operating budget is significantly different
than the process to develop the CIP. The CIP supports discrete projects that cost a minimum of $50,000 and
meet city definitions around capital maintenance, enhancement, planning, and acquisition. The operating
Agenda Item 3B Page 1
budget supports recurring or ongoing core service projects and programs, as well as the staffing and other
resources needed to carry out the work of the department. Unlike the CIP, the next year operating budget is
developed from a current year “base budget”. During the operating budget development process, it is
generally assumed that base budget will continue to be funded (budget reduction cycles excepted). Any
“increases to base” necessitate submission of a budget request to the city’s internal Executive Budget Team
(EBT). The EBT is made of representatives from the City Manager’s Office, the Finance Department, and a
rotating subset of department directors who ensure a consistent city budget approach and responsible fund
stewardship. If department budget requests are approved by EBT, they become part of the City Manager’s
Recommended Budget, which is reviewed by City Council in the fall. The OSBT review of the operating
budget is concurrent with EBT review, and the budget requests included in this memo are consistent with
what was submitted to EBT. OSMP presented the draft 2022 operating and CIP budgets to EBT on June 23
and awaits EBT recommendation. If EBT denies any budget requests, the budget request will be removed
from OSBT consideration in advance of the operating budget recommendation at the August business
meeting.
To understand the specifics of the 2022 OSMP operating budget, it is important to first understand the major
categories of operating expenditures within the city’s budget structure and how these apply to the OSMP
budget. Foundational knowledge around personnel and non-personnel expenditures, cost allocation, and
debt service allows for a deeper dive in to the 2022 operating budget.
Personnel Expenditures
Salary and benefit costs make up 63% of the draft 2022 operating budget. Within the category of personnel
expenditures, OSMP supports standard full-time equivalent (FTE) employees, temporary employees, and
seasonal employees. A standard FTE is assumed to be an ongoing part of the department’s staff capacity and
base budget, and a 1.0 FTE is modeled at 2080 hours per year in the department’s work plan. Not all
standard positions are modeled at 1.0 FTE, and position modeling depends on business need (e.g., 0.50 FTE
for 1040 hours per year, 0.75 FTE for 1560 hours per year). Temporary and seasonal positions are hired each
year, and term length and hours per week vary by position. The dollars in the budget supporting temporary
and seasonal hiring are considered an ongoing part of base budget, but there is no assumption by the
Finance Department that a specific list of positions will be hired each year. It is relatively uncommon in the
city for departments to utilize a large temporary and seasonal workforce, but these positions in OSMP are
important to the stewardship and maintenance of the land system. Positions are designed to meet
functional needs and vary widely across the department. For example, a Junior Ranger may work 40 hours
per week for one month, a Bilingual Outreach Coordinator for 20 hours per week for nine months, and a Trail
Crew Member 40-hours per week for six months. Benefit types and budgeted benefit rates vary across
employment categories. OSMP relies on each employment category to ensure appropriate staffing resources
are available to execute the department work plan.
Once OSMP understands its staffing approach for the coming year, staff works with the Finance Department
to model personnel expenditures for budget development. The Finance Department provides budget
guidelines around staff salary and health benefit costs. In 2022, it is likely that there will be a restoration of
annual merit salary increases for employees after a freeze on merit increases in 2021 during COVID-19
revenue shortfalls. Salary increases are based on citywide pay bands as well as requirements in the Boulder
Municipal Employee Association (BMEA) union contract. Increases to benefit costs are based on city
negotiations and contracts with the health insurance providers. To date, the city has completed two of four
2022 personnel expenditure projections, and this memo and attachments reflect the most up to date
personnel cost estimates from that modeling. As subsequent modeling is completed, personnel expenditures
and assumptions are subject to change. OSMP will update the OSBT around any significant changes at the
August business meeting.
Agenda Item 3B Page 2
Non-Personnel Expenditures
Non-personnel expenditures (NPE) make up 22% of the draft 2022 operating budget. Non-personnel dollars
support recurring or ongoing projects and programs and ensure that staff have the resources to effectively
do their job. Expenditure types vary widely within the category of NPE, from purchase of equipment,
materials, and supplies, to procurement of architectural, engineering, and consultant services, and more.
This part of the budget supports funded research, and any other operational contracting with outside
vendors. Within NPE, there is a subset of expenditures referred to as interdepartmental charges.
Interdepartmental charges refer to a savings mechanism to support major purchases. Examples include the
computer replacement fund and the vehicle repair and replacement fund. As part of the annual work
planning process, staff works collaboratively to set priorities and allocate NPE dollars.
Cost Allocation
Cost allocation is a municipal finance best practice and a methodology to identify and distribute indirect
costs. Indirect costs are found in departments that provide services to other city departments, whereas
direct costs are found in departments that provide services to the public. The cost allocation model is
intended to reflect the department’s utilization of services from other city departments that are not paid for
directly. As discussed in the June business meeting, due to COVID-19 there will be no cost allocation increase
for 2022 and the cost allocation amount represents a $70,008 decrease from the 2021 amount. The planned
2020 update to the cost allocation plan has been postponed until 2022 while Finance staff focuses on
pandemic response and recovery and understanding short- and long-term financial impacts to the City of
Boulder from COVID-19. Typically, the cost allocation plan for the City of Boulder is updated every 2-3 years.
Cost allocation in 2022 is budgeted at $2,051,446 and makes up 8% of the operating budget.
Debt Service
The budget for debt service captures repayment of the 2014 general obligation bond, as well as annual
Boulder Municipal Property Authority (BMPA) payments supporting the Ertl (2013) and Lippincott (2018)
property acquisitions. The final BMPA payment for Ertl will be in 2023. Like the 2021 budget, the 2022 budget
for Lippincott captures both the debt expenditure and the revenue from Jefferson County accounting for 50%
of this expense. Debt service has decreased by $4,100 for 2022 and represents 7% of the operating budget,
which reflects a decrease in annual interest on the 2014 general obligation bond.
RECOMMENDED 2022 OPERATING BUDGET
As discussed in the June business meeting, revenue projections for 2022 have improved significantly over
projections during COVID-19 response and recovery. At the May and June meetings, the department
expressed a goal of restoring COVID-19 budget cuts while beginning to program dollars from the 2019 sales
tax extension of the 0.15 percent increment now that the conservation easement at Long’s Gardens has been
acquired and paid for. The draft 2022 operating budget represents a return to pre-COVID-19 department
budget. Restoration of budget is captured in the Fund Financial (Attachment A) and the 2022 Department
Detail Page (Attachment B). Based on OSBT feedback during the fall 2020 retreat and during the spring
business meetings focused on the CIP, this memo seeks to provide clarity around how information flows from
these attachments into additional detail included in this memo.
The 2022 budget is like the 2021 operating budget in its structure. The department organizes most of its
operating budget by Service Area/Office of the Director, 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 provide high value to the
community and deliver on commitments. The draft operating budget is divided across operating budget
categories as follows:
Agenda Item 3B Page 3
Chart 1: Total 2022 OSMP Operating Uses of Funds, $25,506,044
During the fall 2020 retreat the OSBT asked questions about these budget allocations. In particular, the OSBT
sought to understand how different service areas could have the same percentage of operating budget when
they are made up of different work groups and programs. This question is a great opportunity to explore
how information flows across the Fund Financial and Department Detail Page.
At the highest level, the chart above communicates to the public how the department plans to allocate
operating dollars. It is accurate to say that Community Connections and Partnerships, Resources and
Stewardship, and Trails and Facilities will each receive ~21% of the operating budget in 2022, even though
they are not funded at the same dollar amount. Within an almost $26M operating budget, the slight
difference in funded amounts per service area does not result in an overall percentage difference. Within
these percentages and funded amounts, though, each service area has different allocation of standard FTE,
temporary and seasonal employees, and non-personnel budget. A useful next step in moving from this high-
level chart to more detail is to explore the Fund Financial. The Fund Financial provides us with a “next level
down” and focuses on numbers instead of percentages. Here, the draft 2022 operating expenditures are
presented with added context, providing 2020 “actual expenditures” and 2021 “revised budget”. This gives a
sense of whether the department is reducing or adding budget in 2022, and whether there are any significant
or structural shifts in allocation of dollars to note during the budget review process. A review of the 2022
Fund Financial indicates that OSMP will be making additions to the operating budget in 2022 over 2021
levels, but that budget structure and allocation is generally consistent with previous years. There are
hundreds of accounting entries making up each line in the fund financial, and it is the goal of staff during
OSBT review of the operating budget to highlight those items that are significant at a more policy level. In
2022, budget increases are generally attributable to restoration of COVID-19 reductions, reinstatement of
annual merit increases for staff, and extension of the 0.15 percent sales tax increment allowing the
7%, $1,829,130
15%, $3,727,535
21%, $5,240,902
21%, $5,454,649
21%, $5,468,602
8%, $2,051,446
7%, $1,733,780
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
CENTRAL SERVICES
COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS &
PARTNERSHIPS
RESOURCES & STEWARDSHIP
TRAILS & FACILITIES
COST ALLOCATION TRANSFER TO GENERAL
FUND
DEBT PAYMENT EXPENDITURES
$0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000
Agenda Item 3B Page 4
department to program dollars that were reduced in preparation for what we thought was going to be the
expiration of that tax increment.
Table 1: Total Open Space Fund Expenses on 2022 Fund Financial (Excerpt from Attachment A)
The Fund Financial serves as a financial statement supporting the city’s Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report (CAFR). This document is not meant to represent the work groups, programs, and staffing allocations
that make up the draft operating budget for each service area. To provide that next level of detail, the city
utilizes the Department Detail Page. Like the Fund Financial, the Department Detail Page provides
information from 2020 to 2021 as context for 2022 budget development. The form then further breaks down
the lines on the fund financial to show budget allocation by program and FTE. The department must be
relatively consistent in its list of work groups and programs from year to year. In 2013, OSMP participated in
a citywide Priority Based Budgeting (PBB) project wherein the department defined its programs and services
and assigned them relative priority to support decision-making during budget increases and reduction cycles.
When OSMP completed its organizational assessment in 2015, staff worked with the Finance Department to
better align PBB with the new organizational structure that emerged. Now, the Department Detail Page
generally aligns with the organizational chart, with added program-level detail for those programs that PBB
determined to require additional tracking. For example, below, the Department Detail Page shows that there
are three workgroups within Central Services and lists the FTE and budget allocation for each work group.
The total 2022 Recommended Budget on the Department Detail Page ties to the Central Services line on the
Fund Financial, above.
Table 2: Example of Workgroup Expenses on 2022 Department Detail Page (Excerpt from Attachment B)
At the fall 2020 OSBT retreat and during CIP meetings this spring, the OSBT expressed that there are
limitations in using the Department Detail Page to understand the OSMP budget. In particular, the OSBT
expressed an interest in understanding how temporary and seasonal positions are reflected in the budget,
and how budget allocations are further broken down into personnel and non-personnel expenditure types.
Agenda Item 3B Page 5
To first address allocation of temporary and seasonal positions, it is important to note that the Department
Detail Page provides only the standard FTE allocation for each department. This is a useful indication of how
staffing resources support department outcomes. However, the Department Detail Page does not allow for
representation of temporary or seasonal employees. The table below provides additional insight into draft
staffing allocations in the 2022 operating budget, which are subject to change as the department finalizes the
2022 work plan. Please note that while 1.0 FTE correlates to 2080 hours, this is not true for temporary and
seasonal employee numbers. Temporary and seasonal employee numbers as presented are strictly an
accounting of how many employees are expected to be hired by the department, as term length and hours
per week vary widely by position.
Table 3: 2022 Projected OSMP Staffing Allocation by Service Area and Workgroup/Program
Service Area Workgroup/Program 2022 Standard Full-
Time Equivalent
(FTE) Employees
Projected 2022
Seasonal and
Temporary
Employees
Office of the
Director (OD)
Director’s Team 6.00 0.00
Community Relations Office 2.00 0.00
Science Office 2.00 0.00
OD Total Projected 2022 Employees 10.00 0.00
Central
Services (CS)
Business Services 7.25 1.00
Real Estate Services 4.00 0.00
Resource Information Services 7.75 2.00
CS Total Projected 2022 Employees 19.00 3.00
Community
Connections &
Partnerships
(CC&P)
Education 6.00 4.00
Volunteer Service Learning & Partnerships 3.00 3.00
Junior Rangers 1.00 115.00
Outreach 2.00 10.00
Planning Services 5.50 2.00
Ranger Services 19.00 4.00
CCP Total Projected 2022 Employees 36.50 138.00
Resource &
Stewardship
(R&S)
Agricultural Management 6.00 6.00
Cultural Resources Program 2.00 1.00
Ecological Stewardship 4.10 0.00
Forest Ecology 4.00 8.00
Human Dimensions 3.00 4.00
Recreation & Cultural Stewardship/Rec
Ecology
4.00 0.00
Restoration Plant Ecology 2.00 4.00
Vegetation Management 4.00 13.00
Water Resource Administration 2.00 2.00
Wildlife Ecology 4.00 3.00
R&S Total Projected 2022 Employees 35.10 41.00
Trails &
Facilities (T&F)
Equipment and Vehicles 1.00 0.00
Facility Management 5.00 0.00
Signs Graphics Display 2.00 2.00
Trails Stewardship 14.75 23.00
Trailhead Maintenance 3.00 4.00
Agenda Item 3B Page 6
Service Area Workgroup/Program 2022 Standard Full-
Time Equivalent
(FTE) Employees
Projected 2022
Seasonal and
Temporary
Employees
T&F Total Projected 2022 Employees 25.75 27.00
OSMP Total Projected 2022 Employees 126.35 209.00
The allocation of staffing resources in 2022 is consistent with the allocation in 2021. During 2020 COVID-19
response and recovery, OSMP participated in a citywide hiring freeze to manage projected revenue shortfalls
and to minimize safety risks in having crews congregate to work. During the hiring freeze, 134 temporary
and seasonal positions were held vacant for the year. In 2021, OSMP prioritized full hiring of temporary and
seasonal positions before restoring other COVID-19 budget reductions, recognizing the important role these
positions have in supporting system maintenance and stewardship. The department expects that similar
staffing levels in 2022 will enable accomplishment of the department work plan.
To address the OSBT request for more information around the expenditures that make up the lines in the
Fund Financial and Department Detail Page, the table below shows how personnel and non-personnel dollars
are allocated across service areas. Standard personnel, temporary and seasonal personnel, and non-
personnel budgets are summed into total budget, reflected in terms of dollars and as percent of operating
budget.
Table 4: 2022 OSMP Operating Budget Breakdown
Operating Budget
Category
Standard
Personnel
Budget
Temporary
and Seasonal
Personnel
Budget
Non-
Personnel
Budget
Total
Operating
Budget ($)
Total
Operating
Budget (%)
Office of the Director $1,543,542 $0 $285,588 $1,829,130 7.17%
Central Services $2,108,715 $110,000 $1,508,820 $3,727,535 14.61%
Community
Connections &
Partnerships
$3,811,300 $784,565 $645,037 $5,240,902 20.55%
Resources &
Stewardship
$3,458,029 $977,500 $1,019,120 $5,454,649 21.39%
Trails & Facilities $2,449,164 $844,690 $2,174,748 $5,468,602 21.44%
Cost Allocation N/A N/A N/A $2,051,446 8.04%
Debt Service N/A N/A N/A $1,733,780 6.80%
Totals $13,370,750 $2,716,755 $5,633,313 $25,506,044 100.00%
This information allows staff and OSBT to gain additional insight into the department operating budget. For
example, one can see that Community Connections and Partnerships has the largest personnel budget, which
is largely attributable to the Ranger program. Resources and Stewardship has the largest temporary and
seasonal staff budget, as it is more common to hire staff to do this work in-house and less common to
contract the work. Trails and Facilities has the largest non-personnel budget, as this service area supports
vehicle repair and replacement, hiring contracted crews, and purchasing the equipment and personal
protective equipment that staff use to do their jobs. These expenditures come together to support the
operations of the department.
In total, the 2022 OSMP operating budget represents approximately 83% of the overall OSMP budget for
2022, with the 2022-2027 Open Space Fund and Lottery Fund CIP unanimously recommended at the June
Agenda Item 3B Page 7
business meeting accounting for the remainder. The recommended 2022 operating budget for the Open
Space and Lottery Funds, including personnel and non-personnel expenditures, interdepartmental charges,
cost allocation, and debt service is $25,506,044. Total uses of funds in 2022, including both CIP and
operating, are allocated as follows:
Chart 2: Total 2022 OSMP Operating and CIP Uses of Funds, $30,877,044
2022 Budget Requests
As stated earlier in the memo, any “increases to base” necessitate submission of a budget request to the
city’s internal Executive Budget Team (EBT) for review. EBT is currently reviewing three budget requests from
OSMP. The first budget request would restore $321,000 in personnel budget and $980,000 in non-personnel
budget reductions made in 2021 as a result of COVID-19. Of the $980,000 in non-personnel budget, $458,000
will be programmed back to service areas to align with pre-COVID-19 operating budgets. The remaining
$522,000 will be used to further Tier 1 Master Plan priorities. OSMP feels confident that additional revenues
can sustain these restored expenditures over many years. As discussed at previous OSBT meetings, we have
the opportunity to program funds from the approved 0.15 percent sales tax in 2022. In addition, revenue
projections from Central Finance were better than initially forecasted in early spring. OSMP will move
forward with a portion of this request in 2021 with a plan to hire into positions held vacant before the end of
the year, as savings from these vacancies will be realized by quarter three.
The second budget request requires no additional funds and would remove the end dates from three fixed-
term positions to implement guidance from the adopted Preferred Alternative Approach to Irrigable
Agricultural Fields Occupied by Prairie Dogs and Showing Signs of Soil Loss, Ecological Impact, and Loss of
Agricultural Viability. Prior to adoption, Council supported the addition of two, three-year positions that
focused on soil health and prairie dog management. The positions were funded temporarily by General Fund
before the 0.15 percent sales tax extension ballot measure was passed. OSMP matched the added capacity
70%, $21,720,818
7%, $2,051,446
6%, $1,733,780
16%, $4,943,000
1%, $428,000
SERVICE AREA OPERATING BUDGETS
COST ALLOCATION TRANSFER TO GENERAL
FUND
DEBT PAYMENT EXPENDITURES
OPEN SPACE FUND CIP
LOTTERY FUND CIP
$0 $10,000,000 $20,000,000
Agenda Item 3B Page 8
with the extension of one, three-year fixed-term Ecologist position that had been set to expire with the end
of flood recovery. The Open Space Fund took on the cost of all three, three-year fixed-term positions after
the 0.15 percent sales tax extension ballot measure passed. Converting these positions to ongoing with no
set end date will advance the outcomes of both the Agriculture Today and Tomorrow and Ecosystem Health
and Resilience focus areas of the department Master Plan. The positions primarily support the following
strategies: ATT.2) Increase soil health and resiliency, ATT.3) Address conflicts between agriculture and prairie
dogs, and EHR.3) Address the global climate crisis here and now. The three positions and the $200k in NPE
annually are already included in the department’s base budget. There is no added budget required to
support this request.
The third and final budget request is also budget neutral and reallocates existing funds to convert two
temporary positions to standard to implement guidance from the Resource Information Services (RIS)
Strategic Operating Plan, presented to the OSBT in 2019, and citywide Design the Future plan approved by
the City Manager earlier this year. In 2017, OSMP added one temporary Human Dimensions data
management position and one temporary Geographic Information System (GIS) position. OSMP has since
partnered with other departments across the city to determine technology needs through the Design the
Future strategic planning process. Consistent with the approved RIS Strategic Operating Plan, Design the
Future found an ongoing and full-time need for one Human Dimensions data management position and one
GIS position in OSMP. These positions provide critical mapping and data resources to the public. OSMP does
not request any increase to base budget to support the conversion of these two positions. Through staff
transitions in 2021, it is anticipated that the department will repurpose funds to pay for the two ongoing
positions. The FTE count from the vacated position will also be used to support one of these conversions. This
request will result in a 1.0 FTE increase to the department. This increase is not reflected in the Department
Detail Page, because it has not yet been approved by the EBT. Staff will update the OSBT around EBT
decisions at the August business meeting.
Funding Overview and Financial Planning Considerations
As a reminder, as part of the annual budget process the Finance Department provided preliminary tax
projections for 2022 budget development. Out years have also been adjusted for financial planning purposes.
See the Open Space Fund Financial. Staff anticipated the trends and prepared a draft operating budget that is
relatively conservative.
The department is funded from two sources, the Open Space Fund and the Lottery Fund:
Open Space Fund - The Open Space Fund accounts for the acquisition and maintenance of land, with
financing provided by sales taxes and the issuance of long-term bonds and notes payable. There are three
sales tax increments that support the Open Space Fund. The department has been approved to issue up to
$33M in general obligation bonds, $10M of which was issued in 2014. This is the first year that there is no
General Fund allocation to OSMP. The two, three-year fixed-term positions in OSMP that support prairie dog
management and soil health have shifted to the Open Space Fund as agreed upon at the time of the
November 2019 ballot measure, which extended the 0.15 percent sales tax increment to the Open Space
Fund through 2039.
Lottery Fund - OSMP also expends Lottery Funds on CIP projects. The Lottery Fund derives its revenue from
the Colorado Conservation Trust Fund. Lottery Funds can be used for acquisition, development and
maintenance of new conservation sites and capital improvements and maintenance of public sties.
Next Steps
Additional adjustments to the recommended budget are anticipated prior to the August OSBT meeting and
City Council budget review this fall, as the Finance Department continues to finalize payroll projections,
Agenda Item 3B Page 9
contingency estimates, and other cross-departmental expenses. Staff will make guided refinements and
incorporate results of the Executive Budget Team budget decision-making and return on August 11 with an
updated 2022 recommended operating budget. The item is scheduled for public hearing and OSBT approval
to recommend the proposed operating budget for City Council approval.
Operating and Capital Budget Development Processes
Key dates for the budget development processes are included below:
Table 5: 2022 Budget Planning Milestones
Milestone Date
OSBT Written Information (1st Touch) April 14
Budget and Revenue Update to City Council April 27
OSBT Draft 2022 OSMP CIP Discussion Item (2nd Touch) May 12
1st Draft City CIP to Planning May 28
OSBT 2022 OSMP CIP Public Hearing, Discussion and Recommendation
(3rd Touch)
June 9
Executive Budget Meeting with OSMP June 23
OSBT Draft 2022 Operating Budget Information Item (1st Touch) July 14
OSBT 2022 Operating Budget Public Hearing, Discussion and
Recommendation
August 11
Planning Board City CIP Hearing August 19
City Council Budget Study Session September 14
City Council Budget Consideration (1st & 2nd Readings) October 5 & 19
ATTACHMENTS
• Attachment A: Open Space Fund Financial
• Attachment B: 2022 Department Detail Page
Agenda Item 3B Page 10
CITY OF BOULDER
2020-2027 PROPOSED BUDGET
OPEN SPACE FUND
OPEN SPACE 2022 FUND FINANCIAL
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Actual Revised Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Beginning Fund Balance 26,506,903$ 23,226,132$ 8,535,422$ 9,317,246$ 7,650,044$ 8,389,356$ 9,442,833$ 10,860,057$
Sources of Funds
Net Sales Tax Revenue 26,761,654$ 25,874,992$ 29,773,148$ 31,005,976$ 32,042,789$ 33,107,402$ 34,253,583$ 35,271,164$
Agricultural and Caretaker Leases 454,368 463,455 468,090 472,771 477,499 482,274 487,096 491,967
Investment Income 449,019 372,954 375,639 379,395 383,189 387,021 390,891 394,800
Miscellaneous Revenue 70,444 71,148 71,860 72,578 73,304 74,037 74,778 75,525
Real Estate Sales and Pass Through 1,991,250 245,384 245,384 245,384 245,384 245,384 245,384 245,384
Special Activity Charges, Permits, Fees 367,261 293,809 296,747 299,714 302,711 305,738 308,796 311,884
Grants 28,000 - - - - - - -$
Total Sources of Funds 30,121,996$ 27,321,742$ 31,230,868$ 32,475,819$ 33,524,877$ 34,601,857$ 35,987,529$ 37,017,725$
Uses of Funds
Office of the Director 1,601,989$ 1,723,031$ 1,829,130$ 1,920,587$ 1,978,204$ 2,037,550$ 2,119,052$ 2,203,814$
Central Services 2,948,479 3,364,391 3,727,535 3,913,912 4,031,329 4,152,269 4,318,360 4,491,094
Community Connections & Partnerships 4,583,419 5,042,895 5,240,902 5,502,947 5,668,036 5,838,077 6,071,600 6,314,464
Resources & Stewardship 4,599,735 5,366,620 5,454,649 5,727,381 5,899,203 6,076,179 6,319,226 6,571,995
Trails & Facilities 4,859,711 5,226,473 5,468,602 5,742,032 5,914,293 6,091,722 6,335,391 6,588,806
Carryover/ATB Operating - 13,391,004 - - - - - -
Cost Allocation 2,121,454 2,121,454 2,051,446 2,102,732 2,155,300 2,209,183 2,264,413 2,321,023
Capital Improvement Program 10,881,504 4,038,705 4,943,000 7,500,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000
Transfer to BMPA 1,153,790 1,084,424 1,084,424 1,084,424 490,769 490,769 490,769 490,769
Debt Service - Bonds & Notes 652,686 653,456 649,356 649,006 648,431 652,631 651,494 654,500
Total Uses of Funds 33,402,767$ 42,012,453$ 30,449,044$ 34,143,021$ 32,785,565$ 33,548,380$ 34,570,304$ 35,636,465$
Ending Fund Balance Before Reserves 23,226,132$ 8,535,422$ 9,317,246$ 7,650,044$ 8,389,356$ 9,442,833$ 10,860,057$ 12,241,317$
Reserves
OSMP Contingency Reserve 4,504,253$ 4,916,549$ 5,101,209$ 5,062,174$ 5,089,257$ 5,509,676$ 5,714,061$ 5,927,293$
OSMP High Priority Investments 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 2,500,000
PERA Legislative Contingency - - - - - - - -
Pay Period 27 Reserve 330,119 377,063 429,152 481,242 533,331 52,090 104,179 156,269
Sick/Vacation/Bonus Reserve 48,542 44,891 46,238 47,625 49,054 50,526 52,041 57,962
FEMA De-obligation Reserve 383,488 383,488 383,488 383,488 383,488 383,488 383,488 383,488
Total Reserves 5,266,402$ 5,721,991$ 6,960,087$ 6,974,529$ 7,555,130$ 7,995,780$ 8,753,769$ 9,425,012$
Ending Fund Balance After Reserves 17,959,730$ 2,813,431$ 2,357,159$ 675,515$ 834,225$ 1,447,053$ 2,106,289$ 2,816,305$
Attachment A: Open Space Fund Financial
Agenda Item 3B Page 11
FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount
Director's Team 6.00 1,128,409$ 6.00 1,176,361$ 6.00 1,230,692 0.00 54,330$
2.00 204,633 2.00 222,301 2.00 239,640 0.00 17,339
2.00 268,946 2.00 324,368 2.00 358,798 0.00 34,430
Subtotal 10.00 1,601,989 10.00 1,723,031$ 10.00 1,829,130$ 0.00 106,099$
8.00 1,221,522$ 8.00 1,367,390$ 7.25 1,493,020$ (0.75)125,630$
Real Estate Services 4.00 412,050 4.00 443,459 4.00 480,675 0.00 37,216
Resource Information Services 7.75 1,314,907 7.75 1,553,542 7.75 1,753,840 0.00 200,298
Subtotal 19.75 2,948,479 19.75 3,364,391$ 19.00 3,727,535$ (0.75)363,144$
Education 6.00 660,970$ 6.00 787,866$ 6.00 698,083$ 0.00 (89,783)$
Volunteer Service Learning & Partnerships 3.00 468,460 3.00 560,134 3.00 574,623 0.00 14,489
Junior Rangers 1.00 111,564 1.00 432,621 1.00 455,896 0.00 23,275
Outreach 2.00 381,559 2.00 385,183 2.00 474,464 0.00 89,280
Planning Services 5.50 629,199 5.50 720,090 5.50 760,938 0.00 40,848
Ranger Services 19.05 2,331,668 19.00 2,157,000 19.00 2,276,898 0.00 119,898
Subtotal 36.55 4,583,419$ 36.50 5,042,895$ 36.50 5,240,902$ 0.00 198,007$
Agricultural Management 5.00 591,607$ 6.00 693,815$ 6.00 741,283$ 0.00 47,468$
Cultural Resources Program 2.00 269,449 2.00 233,851 2.00 255,272 0.00 21,421
Ecological Services from General Fund 2.00 241,691 - - - - 0.00 -
Ecological Stewardship 4.05 762,485 4.10 821,331 4.10 723,150 0.00 (98,181)
3.50 368,247 3.50 671,708 4.00 632,863 0.50 (38,846)
Recreation and Cultural Stewardship/Rec Ecology 3.00 364,019 4.00 427,403 4.00 462,138 0.00 34,735
Human Dimensions 3.00 432,011 3.00 414,186 3.00 443,682 0.00 29,496
2.00 310,065 2.00 339,847 2.00 370,281 0.00 30,434
Vegetation Management 4.00 506,154 4.00 642,578 4.00 658,943 0.00 16,365
Water Resource Administration 2.00 560,357 2.00 527,093 2.00 559,179 0.00 32,086
3.00 435,342 4.00 594,808 4.00 607,858 0.00 13,050
Subtotal 33.55 4,841,427$ 34.60 5,366,620$ 35.10 5,454,649$ 0.50 88,029$
Equipment and Vehicles 1.00 959,902 1.00 1,054,436 1.00 1,120,418 0.00 65,982$
Facility Management 4.75 1,033,916 4.75 1,162,608 5.00 1,240,404 0.25 77,796
Signs Graphics Display 2.00 366,450 2.00 314,091 2.00 355,593 0.00 41,503
Trails Stewardship 14.75 1,823,420 14.75 1,972,847 14.75 2,027,248 0.00 54,401
3.00 676,022 3.00 722,491 3.00 724,939 0.00 2,448
Subtotal 25.50 4,859,711 25.50 5,226,473$ 25.75 5,468,602$ 0.25 242,129$
Capital Improvement Program - 11,604,499$ - 4,466,705$ - 5,371,000$ 0.00 904,295$
Cost Allocation - 2,121,454 - 2,121,454 - 2,051,446 0.00 (70,008)
Debt Service - 1,806,476 - 1,737,880 - 1,733,780 0.00 (4,100)
Subtotal - 15,532,429$ - 8,326,039$ - 9,156,226$ 0.00 830,187$
Total 125.35 34,367,453 126.35 29,049,449 126.35 30,877,044 0.00 1,827,595$
Personnel 14,350,479$ 15,382,748$ 16,087,505$ 704,757$
Operating 3,361,550 4,217,667 4,360,338 142,671
Interdepartmental Charges 1,122,995 1,122,995 1,272,975 149,980
Capital 11,604,499 4,466,705 5,371,000 904,295
Cost Allocation 2,121,454 2,121,454 2,051,446 (70,008)
Debt Service 1,806,476 1,737,880 1,733,780 (4,100)
Total 34,367,453$ 29,049,449$ 30,877,044$ 1,827,595$
General - 241,691$ 2.00 -$ - -$ (2.00)-$
Lottery - 722,995 - 428,000 - 428,000 0.00 -
Open Space 125.35 33,402,767 124.35 28,621,449 126.35 30,449,044 2.00 1,827,595
Total 125.35 34,367,453$ 126.35 29,049,449$ 126.35 30,877,044$ 0.00 1,827,595$
Resources and Stewardship
Forest Ecology
Restoration Plant Ecology
Wildlife Ecology
Trails and Facilities
Trailhead Maintenance
Capital Improvement Program, Cost Allocations, and
Debt Service
EXPENDITURE BY CATEGORY
STAFFING AND EXPENDITURE BY FUND
Community and Partnerships
2020 Actual 2021 Approved
Budget
Variance
2021 to 2022
STAFFING AND EXPENDITURE BY PROGRAM
Office of the Director
Community Relations Office
Science Office
Central Services
Business Services
2022 Recommended
Budget
Attachment B: 2022 Department Detail Page
Agenda Item 3B Page 12
CITY OF BOULDER
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: July 14, 2021
AGENDA TITLE
Request for a recommendation to approve the purchase of a Public Trail Easement,
including access rights for open space purposes, over a portion of the property located
at 6901 N. Foothills Highway from Raytheon Holdings, LLC for $23,500 per acre,
and with the purchase price of the easement not to exceed $235,000.
MASTER PLAN STRATEGIES
EHR.1) PRESERVED AND RESTORE IMPORTANT HABITAT BLOCKS AND CORRIDORS
EHR.4) REDUCE UNDESIGNATED TRAILS
EHR.5) EXTEND ON-TRAIL REQUIREMENTS
RRSE.1) ASSESS AND MANAGE INCREASING VISITATION.
RRSE.7) BUILD NEW TRAILS AS GUIDED BY PAST AND FUTURE PLANS.
PRESENTER/S
Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Steve Armstead, Deputy Director and Interim Trails and Facilities Manager
John Potter, Resource and Stewardship Manager
Bethany Collins, Real Estate Supervisor
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In support of actions called for in the 2016 City Council approved North Trail Study Area
(NTSA) Plan and the 2019 Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) Master Plan, the City of
Boulder’s OSMP Department is recommending that the City acquire a public trail easement,
including access rights over a portion of a 38.69-acre parcel owned by Raytheon Holdings, LLC
located off of N. Foothills Highway. The proposed trail easement area borders city and county
open space protected property to the north, south and west (see Attachments A and B). The
purchase price of the easement would be $23,500 per acre and subject to final surveyed area but
would not exceed $235,000 total.
The trail easement area would host a stretch of, and allow a significant beneficial adjustment to,
the alignment of the planned North Sky Trail (See Attachment C). The NTSA Plan includes
guidance that seek to:
-Minimize the footprint of the North Sky Trail and find an alignment that minimizes
natural resource impacts.
Agenda Item 4 Page 1
-Use best efforts to locate connector trail through the [Foothills Business Park]
conservation easement.
-Use existing infrastructure and trails including parts of the abandoned railroad grade.
-Design drainage crossings to minimize wetland impacts and associated required
mitigation.
Moving the alignment of a segment of the North Sky Trail out of a Habitat Conservation Area
(HCA) and a Boulder County Critical Wildlife Habitat Area into the easement area on the
Raytheon property will significantly lessen the resource disturbance and footprint of the North
Sky Trail. By locating the trail in an area of comparably lower habitat value and less steep
terrain than adjacent open space, OSMP would be able to reduce potential impacts to wetland
and riparian areas along several Dry Creek tributaries and occurrences of xeric tallgrass prairie
and its dependent lepidoptera including both the Ottoe skipper and Arogos skipper, as well as
areas of highly suitable habitat for avian species such as lark sparrow and lazuli bunting. It will
also decrease the trail infrastructure needed and thereby lessen the wetland disturbance. This
easement works in conjunction with the 2017 acquisition of the trail easement on the adjacent
Foothills Business Park property to substantially reduce the length of trail (~5,000’) to be
constructed in an HCA. Terms of the Raytheon Holdings easement would provide OSMP access
to the trail for maintenance and enforcement activities, and OSMP would also have the right to
carry out habitat restoration and weed control activities within the entire trail easement area,
potentially limiting the spread of undesirable species associated with the trail into the HCA.
The acquisition of the trail easement meets the following City of Boulder Charter purposes and
OSMP Master Plan strategies:
•Preservation of land for passive recreational use, such as hiking, photography or nature
studies, and, if specifically designated, bicycling, horseback riding, or fishing.
o The trail easement area will host a key segment of the planned North Sky Trail; a
trail that will connect OSMP’s Foothills Trail to the south with the Joder Ranch
Trail to the north. The North Sky Trail concept was approved by Council in 2016
as part of the North Trail Study Area Plan.
•Preservation of water resources in their natural or traditional state, scenic areas or
vistas, wildlife habitats, or fragile ecosystems.
o Because the terms of the trail easement will provide OSMP with the right to
perform noxious weed control and habitat restoration within the trail easement
area, this acquisition enhances OSMP’s opportunity to conserve and restore native
grassland and riparian habitat located in the trail easement area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests the Open Space Board of Trustees to make a motion to recommend that the
Boulder City Council approve the purchase of a Public Trail Easement, including access
rights for open space purposes, over property located at 6901 N. Foothills Highway from
Raytheon Holdings, LLC for $23,500 per acre, and with the purchase price of the
easement not to exceed $235,000, subject to OSMP and CAO review and acceptance of
due diligence and easement documents.
Agenda Item 4 Page 2
OTHER IMPACTS
• Fiscal – The purchase price for the easement will not exceed $235,000, payable at the
time of closing. There are sufficient funds in the Open Space Fund within the Real Estate
budget appropriation for this acquisition. The easement acquisition will likely include
agreement to relocate or install a new fence around Raytheon Holdings, LLC’s secure site
(locate trail easement area outside the fence). This will require additional funds from the
Real Estate Acquisition CIP or Immediate Needs CIP.
• Staff time - This acquisition is part of the normal 2021 work plan for the OSMP Real
Estate Workgroup.
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS
This item is being heard as part of this public meeting advertised in the Daily Camera on
Sunday, July 11, 2021.
ANALYSIS
Guidance from the North Trail Study Area Plan and recommendations from Council members at
the time the Plan was approved, as well as the acquisition of an adjacent trail easement over the
Foothills Business Park Conservation Easement property serve as the impetus to pursue the trail
easement and access rights on an approximately 7-acre portion of the Raytheon Holdings, LLC
property. Specific Council-accepted plan guidance pertaining to the recommended trail
easement include:
• Minimize the footprint of the North Sky Trail and find an alignment that minimizes
natural resource impacts.
• Use best efforts to locate connector trail through the [Foothills Business Park]
conservation easement.
• Use existing infrastructure and trails including part of the railroad grade and abandoned
roads and bridges.
• Design drainage crossings to minimize wetland impacts and associated required
mitigation.
Aligning the neighboring section of the North Sky Trail within the proposed trail easement area
will contribute significantly to these objectives by locating this segment outside of the North
Foothills HCA and lessening resource impacts. The habitat to the west in the HCA where the
initial North Sky Trail conceptual alignments were developed has hillside seeps with small
wetland patches, steep, rocky terrain – and along with the small canyons, forms good interior
HCA bird and other wildlife habitat. The added flexibility of being able to move the trail into the
proposed trail easement area will for instance allow larger areas of choke cherry shrubland
communities along several tributaries in the HCA to remain intact, furthering wildlife species
that depend on this vegetation type for nesting habitat including lazuli bunting, yellow-breasted
chat, and blue-gray gnatcatcher. The lazuli bunting is a focal species for the 1,600-acre North
Foothills HCA because of its relatively high abundance relative to the rest of the open space
system and the state in general. Protection of larger shrubland patches along riparian corridors
away from the impact of trails allows lazuli bunting populations greater nesting success and
ability to move into highly suitable habitat.
Big bluestem-yellow Indiangrass herbaceous grassland, mountain-mahogany shrubland, and
other rare plant communities also occur adjacent to the easement area in the HCA. The proposed
Agenda Item 4 Page 3
trail easement area has been influenced by past nearby commercial development and has lower
quality grassland and riparian/wetland habitats as evidenced by the prevalence of invasive
species such as myrtle spurge, yellow toadflax, alyssum, and bindweed. Management and
conservation of HCA resource areas will benefit from the ability to move the planned trail
development farther away onto the proposed trail easement. It is vital to protect the rare plant
communities to the west from disturbance and the spread of invasive species which can displace
both desirable native plant species and the wildlife that depend on them. For example, the loss of
key species such as big bluestem, little bluestem, and sideoats grama can reduce populations of
crossline and dusted skippers that lay eggs on and depend on these plants for larval food sources.
Acquiring the trail easement will also enable and improve the opportunity to utilize the extension
of the North Sky Trail more fully on the trail easement area located to the south on the Foothills
Business Park Conservation Easement. The NTSA specifically encouraged locating the North
Sky Trail on that property so that it could remain on the old railroad grade and existing social
trail for a longer extent. In addition, because the terrain within the proposed trail easement area is
significantly less steep and the width of drainages are reduced compared to open space lands to
the west, placing segments of the North Sky Trail within the trail easement area allows for less
trail infrastructure needs and fewer drainage crossings with less impact to wetlands and riparian
corridors.
All these factors and considerations combined make for an overall more ecologically and
physically sustainable trail design if the trail easement area on the Raytheon Holdings, LLC
property were to be utilized in the alignment, design and management of the North Sky Trail.
More sustainable trail design reduces construction costs and long-term maintenance costs by
minimizing the need for expensive additional infrastructure such as bridges and trail features
such as stone paving that may have been needed to stabilize steep sections of trail tread. Steeper
trail grades that commonly result in less sustainable trail surfaces are typically the highest
concern for erosion impacting drainages and maintenance budget and can significantly impact
visitor experience, as well. Utilizing the proposed easement for aligning the North Sky Trail will
improve the ability for the trail to remain at grades more suitable for improved physical
sustainability.
In addition to benefitting trail design and reducing natural resource impacts, the trail easement
would support OSMP’s land management and restoration efforts in this area. Specific terms
would be included in the trail easement providing OSMP the opportunity to remove noxious
weeds and to carry out habitat restoration activities within the trail easement area. The easement
will also include access rights over the Raytheon Holdings, LLC property to facilitate and ensure
ongoing maintenance and enforcement access to the trail easement area.
OSMP staff recommends that the acquisition of the trail easement is important for accomplishing
the objectives of the North Trail Study Area Plan and is therefore a priority for OSMP and the
city and worth the investment of up to $235,000.
NEXT STEPS
Staff will bring OSBT’s recommendation to City Council for consideration of approval of the trail
easement acquisition. Staff and CAO will work with Raytheon Holdings, LLC representatives to
Agenda Item 4 Page 4
execute purchase and trail easement agreements and perform remaining acquisition due diligence
work including surveying.
ATTACHMENTS:
•Attachment A: Vicinity Map
•Attachment B: Location Map
•Attachment C: Conceptual Trail Alignment Map
•Attachment D: Sustainability and Resilience Framework Scorecard
Agenda Item 4 Page 5
Agenda Item 4 Page 6
Agenda Item 4 Page 7
"S
£¤36
¬«7
ââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââNorthSkyTrail¯
User: PhilC2 Date: 7/6/2021 Path: E:\MapFiles\Property\Raytheon Trail Easement\RaytheonConceptualAlignment2021SmallerExtent.mxd
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Miles
Trail changes are depicted conceptually. Actual trail alignments will differ.
OSMP Easement or Jointly Owned, County-Managed Land
North Foothills Subarea Recommendations
OSMP Fee & ManagedProperty in the North TSAClose Undesignated Trail Designate an undesignated trail!(!(!(
Conceptual Trail Alignment Utilizing Trail Easement Areasââ ââ ââCreate a New Connectionââ ââ ââ
Attachment C
Agenda Item 4 Page 8
Attachment D: Sustainability and Resilience Framework Scorecard
Framework Goal Project Impact
•Positive
•Neutral
•Negative
Description
•If impact is positive, describe how
this effort furthers achievement of
this goal
•If impact is neutral, put NA.
•If impact is negative, describe how
potential negative impacts will be
mitigated.
SAFE: A welcoming and inclusive community that
fosters personal and community safety and ensures
that all residents are secure and cared for during
emergencies and natural disasters.
Neutral NA
HEALTHY & SOCIALLY THRIVING: All
Boulder residents enjoy high levels of physical and
mental well-being and abundant recreational,
cultural, and educational opportunities in an
environment where all human rights are respected.
Positive Because OSMP lands, facilities and
programs are equally accessible to
all members of the community,
they help to support the city's
community sustainability goal
because all residents "who live in
Boulder can feel a part of and thrive
in" this aspect of their community. LIVABLE: High-performing, safe, well-
maintained and attractive buildings and
infrastructure that accommodate a diverse set of
community needs for working, playing and living.
Neutral NA
ACCESSIBLE & CONNECTED: A safe,
accessible and sustainable multi -modal
transportation system that connects people with
each other and where they want to go. Innovation,
inclusivity and open access to information fosters
connectivity and promotes community engagement.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE: A
sustainable, thriving and equitable community that
benefits from and supports clean energy; preserves
and responsibly uses the earth’s resources; and
cares for ecosystems.
Positive OSMP is a significant community-
supported program that is
recognized worldwide as a leader in
preservation of open space lands
contributing to the environmental
sustainability goal of the City
Council. The city’s acquisition of
this trail easement, and its
integration into OSMPs land and
resource management and visitor
service programs, help preserve,
protect and enhance the values of
the city’s open space system.
RESPONSIBLY GOVERNED: A local
government that provides an excellent customer
experience, responsibly manages the city’s assets
Neutral NA
Agenda Item 4 Page 9
and makes data-driven decisions informed by
community engagement.
ECONOMICALLY VITAL: All residents and
businesses can access and benefit from a healthy
and sustainable economy that is innovative, diverse
and collaborative.
Positive OSMP contributes to the economic
vitality goal of the city as it
provides the context for the diverse
and vibrant economic system that
sustains services for residents.
Acquiring the rights to build and
maintain a public trail supports the
city’s quality of life which attracts
visitors and helps businesses recruit
and retain quality employees.
Agenda Item 4 Page 10
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Steve Armstead, Deputy Director/Interim Trails and Facilities Manager
Jarret Roberts, Visitor Infrastructure Supervisor
Ben Verrill, Trailhead Supervisor
Maki Boyle, Landscape Architect
DATE: July 14, 2021
SUBJECT: Written Information: Doudy Draw Trailhead Equestrian Parking Improvements
________________________________________________________________________
Background: While many Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) trailheads and access points
allow equestrian use, Doudy Draw is one of four OSMP trailheads with a separate area to manage
horse trailer parking. These designated spaces are of high importance to visitors seeking to recreate
with horses on OSMP lands as it can take significant time to prepare, pack and trailer horses. When
visitors trailering horses arrive to find trailer spaces and pull-throughs blocked by other vehicles they
often must wait to see if a designated space will free up or turn around and seek out an alternative
location or return home. In late 2019, representatives from OSMP’s Trails and Facilities Service Area
met with representatives from the equestrian community from Boulder County Horse Association
(BCHA) to discuss equestrian use on OSMP. Members of BCHA provided feedback that designated
equestrian parking spaces at Doudy Draw and Flatirons Vista were often filled with vehicles that were
not there for equestrian use. Rangers have also witnessed and confirmed this situation. As o ne of
BCHA’s top concerns, they requested OSMP investigate and consider ways to significantly reduce
illegal parking in these spaces.
Approach: OSMP staff determined and prioritized a list of potential options for reducing illegal
parking in designated equestrian spaces. Doudy Draw was selected as the pilot site to implement
potential solutions. First, signage was updated to better communicate the designated equestrian
parking. This update was coupled with additional enforcement and had little effect. Staff then added a
chain with additional signage to create a physical barrier between equestrian parking and parking for
other visitors. Again, this had little effect as the chain was often found lying on the ground. As a third
potential solution, OSMP staff installed folding bollards with extra signage. The folding bollards did
have a slight effect, but visitors often drove up on curbs around them or backed in front of them to
park illegally. Additionally, in a four-week period, three bollards were hit by vehicles requiring staff to
divert time from other tasks and spend time resetting the bollards.
Solution: With lower cost management actions providing little change in visitor behavior or
improvement in the situation and significant staff time to manage, staff analyzed the site layout to see
if the site could be redesigned to alleviate the issue of illegal parking. When compared to United States
Forest Service and Boulder County best practices, Doudy Draw was lacking one major component in
the design of the site that was likely contributing to the parking issue. A commonly applied best
practice is physically separating parking areas for equestrian visitors and visitors in other vehicles.
With this best practice in mind, OSMP reached back out to BCHA to discuss a potential change to the
site layout that more clearly separates the parking. BCHA requested that the current number of horse
trailer spaces be maintained and suggested parallel parking with trailers should be avoided if possible.
The proposed parking layout changes will stay within the current trailhead footprint. Additionally, the
reconfigured parking will maintain three equestrian parking spaces and maintain spaces for other
Written Information - Item A - Page 1
visitors near current levels. With a parking layout for the site that will better sperate equestrian
parking, maintain spaces near current parking levels, improve vehicle flow and safety, enhance visitor
orientation and remain within the current trailhead footprint, work to make changes to the trailhead
will likely take place later this year.
MASTER PLAN STRATEGIES
RRSE.1) ASSESS AND MANAGE INCREASING VISITATION.
RRSE.6) SUPPORT A RANGE OF PASSIVE RECREATION EXPERIENCES
RREE. 8) PROVIDE WELCOMING AND INSPRIING VISITOR FACILIITES AND SERVICES
Additional guidance can be found in General recommendation A.1 from the OSMP Eldorado
Mountain/Doudy Draw Trail Study area: “Implement major maintenance projects for trails and
trailheads to improve physical and environmental sustainability and the visitor experience” and B.1:
Improve the functioning of the Doudy Draw Trailhead and the pedestrian crossing of S.H. 170
between the Doudy Draw and South Mesa trailheads.
Current Doudy Draw Trailhead:
Written Information - Item A - Page 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Mark Davison, Community Connections & Partnerships Division Manager
Burton Stoner, Ranger/Naturalist Manager
Gretchen Bolivar, Lead Ranger
Lisa Goncalo, Recreation Coordinator II
DATE: July 14, 2021
SUBJECT: Written Information: Proposal to adjust the “No Parking” nighttime hours along
Flagstaff Road
________________________________________________________________________
Context:
Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) properties border Flagstaff Road, located just west of
Boulder. Along the first five miles of Flagstaff Road, there are OSMP trailheads, designated trails, and
scenic lookouts. These trails have become a destination for local hikers as well as visitors from all
along the Front Range and out of state tourists. Flagstaff Road has seen increased visitation and
changing visitation patterns throughout the COVID epidemic, which has also led to rangers
responding to more public safety issues and observing encroachment in high value natural resource
areas. These COVID use patterns ended up putting a greater lens on this activity that Rangers noticed
and have been confronting these uses for some time with limited success in mitigating them.
To manage the issues occurring along Flagstaff Road, Rangers have been on proactive night patrol and
have observed nighttime uses along Flagstaff Road that are of concern, specifically at OSMP
trailheads and access points, and related bouldering and viewpoint areas. A number of Ranger contacts
at night have been for public safety related issues such as Driving Under the Influence, Minors in
Possession of alcohol and marijuana, as well as injured hikers who were intoxicated. Many contacts
are also related to resources impacts including littering, discarded glass containers and fires. Other
issues observed include graffiti, broken glass and damage to infrastructure that has occurred during the
nighttime hours. In addition, more serious crimes have also occurred on OSMP property during the
nighttime hours and have been documented by Boulder County Sheriff’s Office.
Approach:
Currently, all OSMP trailheads and access points along Flagstaff Road are “No Parking” from 11pm-
5am, except for the Halfway House and Panorama Point Trailhead which are “No Parking” from
Midnight-5am. This is one of the least restrictive nighttime parking limits along the front range.
Comparatively, Boulder County Parks and Open Space close their entire parks (including parking)
from sunset to sunrise.
Previous plans have called for managing increased visitation with adaptive management approaches,
including the West TSA, Visitor Master Plan and the OSMP Master Plan (see supporting MP
strategies in Appendix A)
Action:
In order to balance public safety and natural resource protection while providing access to OSMP
property, OSMP Ranger staff will be presenting at the August 11 Open Space Board of Trustees
Written Information - Item B - Page 1
(OSBT) meeting a staff recommendation to adjust the “No Parking” hours at OSMP trailheads and
access points along Flagstaff Road. Staff is asking OSBT recommend City Council approve “No
Parking 1 hour after sunset to 1 hour before sunrise along Flagstaff Road at OSMP trailheads, parking
areas, and viewpoints.” This allows for continued sunrise and sunset viewing, and all legal activities
when there is still light in the sky. Trails will continue to remain open with no time restrictions, as is
the current practice. In August, we will be asking the OSBT to affirm the staff recommendation to the
Boulder City Council for their approval to change the Boulder Revised Code to reflect these new “No
Parking” hours at Flagstaff.
Pending approval by City Council, OSMP staff will be replacing the old signs with the updated “No
Parking” hours, providing public outreach of the new regulation change, and increasing/adjusting
Ranger’s schedules to allow for more proactive patrol of Flagstaff at night, to increase education and
enforcement.
Next steps:
•August: A more detailed staff memo provided to OSBT to support a recommendation to City
Council
•September/October: City Council review and consider approving recommendation
•Fall: Pending approval implement new code through ranger patrols and replacement of
signage
Written Information - Item B - Page 2
Appendix A
OSMP Master Plan supporting strategies for staff recommendation
1 EHR.3) ADDRESS THE GLOBAL CLIMATE CRISIS HERE AND NOW For the benefit of
natural ecosystems and future generations, exhibit environmental leadership by taking immediate,
targeted and unified action in response to ecosystem changes that the global climate crisis will bring
about.
2 EHR.4) REDUCE UNDESIGNATED TRAILS Guided by best practices or area-specific plans,
mitigate resource impacts by restoring, designating, re-routing or recategorizing undesignated trails,
especially in sensitive habitat areas, while considering appropriate routes to serve desired destinations
for visitors.
3 EHR.8) REDUCE IMPACTS FROM NOISE, LIGHT AND NEARBY LAND USES Mitigate
impacts to wildlife, sensitive habitat areas, scenic character or natural soundscapes from noise
pollution, light pollution and adjacent land uses.
3 EHR.9) REDUCE AND OFFSET OSMP GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Support the citywide
climate commitment by reducing and offsetting greenhouse gas emissions related to departmental
operations.
1 RRSE.1) ASSESS AND MANAGE INCREASING VISITATION Continue implementing measures
from approved plans to mitigate impacts of increasing visitation in specific locations, while also
updating the systemwide visitor use management plan to generate and implement ideas for
understanding and addressing visitation growth throughout the system and to nurture stewardship and
enjoyable visitor experiences.
3 RRSE.8) PROVIDE WELCOMING AND INSPIRING VISITOR FACILITIES AND SERVICES
For a range of visitor demographics, continue to provide and improve welcoming, sustainable and
accessible trailheads and facilities that lay lightly on the land and inspire understanding of the
surrounding landscape, such as the Ranger Cottage, Flagstaff Nature Center, Panorama Point, and
other gathering areas or viewpoints.
FS.4) TAKE CARE OF WHAT WE HAVE Focus capital investments on retaining the health of
ecosystems on OSMP properties, as well as maintenance of existing trails, amenities and agricultural
infrastructure.
Written Information - Item B - Page 3