01.11.23 OSBT PacketOpen Space Board of Trustees
January 11, 2023
MEETING AGENDA
(Please note that times are approximate.)
I. (6:05) Approval of the Minutes
Update on the rescheduling of OSBT’s “Consideration of a recommendation to
Council regarding e-biking on OSMP lands”: This item has been moved to the
Feb. 8, 2023 OSBT Business Meeting
II. (6:15) Public Comment for Items not Identified for Public Hearing
III. (6:30) Matters from the Board
A. Comments/Questions from Trustees on Written Information memos or
public comment
IV. (6:50) Matters from the Department
A. 2022 Annual Prairie Dog Management Update and 2023 Management
Plans (45 minutes)
B. South Boulder Creek Environmental Mitigation and Floodplain
Restoration (75 min)
C. Director Verbal Updates (10 min)
V. (9:00) Adjourn
Written Information
A. 4th of July Trailhead Parking Management Update
B. Gebhard Integrated Site Plan Implementation Status
Open Space Board of
Trustees Members:
Karen Hollweg (2018-2023)
Dave Kuntz (2019-2024)
Caroline Miller (2020-2025)
Michelle Estrella (2021-2026)
Jon Carroll (2022 – 2027)
Open Space Board of Trustees
*TENTATIVE Board Items Calendar
(Updated January 4, 2023)
February 8, 2023 February 22, 2023 March 8, 2023
Action Items:
• Continuation: OSBT
discussion of Staff
Recommendation
concerning E-Bikes on
Open Space and
deliberations and
consideration of a
recommendation to
council (120 minutes) - No
more public testimony
Matters from the Department:
• Equity Initiatives for Board
and Commissions (45
minutes)
• Director Verbal Update (5
minutes)
Matters from the Board:
• Trustee questions on
Written Memo items or
public comment (10
minutes)
STUDY SESSION:
Science and Climate Resilience--Part
1: Update on OSMP’s Climate Action
and Wildland Fire Programs (90
minutes)
Action Items:
• Recommendation to enter
into the articles of
designation for the
expansion of two State
Natural Areas (SNA) on
OSMP and the
establishment of a new
SNA at OSMP’s Jewell Mt
property (40 minutes)
• Recommendation and
approval to execute and
convey a Boulder Valley
Farm Water Line
Easement (45 minutes)
Matters from the Department:
• Tribal Relations Update
(30 minutes)
• Science and Climate
Resilience Update--Part 2:
Adaptive Management,
funded research &
publications (75 minutes)
• Director Verbal Update (5
minutes)
Matters from the Board:
• Trustee questions on
Written Memo items or
public comment (10
minutes)
• Proclamation for Outgoing
Chair (5 minutes)
*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 December 14, 2022
Record of this meeting can be found here: https://bouldercolorado.gov/government/watch-board-
meetings (video start times are listed below next to each agenda item).
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Karen Hollweg Dave Kuntz Caroline Miller Jon Carroll
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Dan Burke Jeff Haley Jennelle Freeston Burton Stoner Leah Case
Alison Ecklund Phil Yates Brian Anacker Kacey French Marni Ratzel
Colin Leslie
GUESTS
Janet Michels, Senior Attorney
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM 1 – Approval of the Minutes (00:50)
Dave Kuntz moved the Open Space Board of Trustees to adopt the minutes from November 9, 2022.
Karen Hollweg seconded. This motion passed three to zero; Michelle Estrella was not present at this
meeting, and Caroline Miller abstained as she was not present at the last meeting.
AGENDA ITEM 2 – Public Participation for Items not Identified for Public Hearing (3:50)
Jeff Curry spoke in favor of e-bikes Alternative A on open space.
Catharine Harris said the timing for important business around the holidays is not ideal and does not
promote community input.
Lynn Segal expressed her displeasure regarding current public involvement at boards and commissions
meetings.
AGENDA ITEM 3 – Matters from the Board (12:53)
Under the item, “Comments/Questions from Trustees on Written Information memos or public
comment”, the Board asked several questions on the BERT memo including on the natural values
associated with the railroad grade, access along 75th and Valmont, as well as management designations.
The Board asked about meeting locations moving forward and if we will continue in the same hybrid
meeting space along with inviting the public back. Staff responded that at this point there is no change but
will keep everyone apprised.
AGENDA ITEM 4 - Consideration of a recommendation to Council regarding e-biking on OSMP
lands (36:40)
Marni Ratzel, Principal Planner, Kacey French, Planning Supervisor, and Colin Leslie, Human
Dimensions Senior Analyst, presented this item.
Agenda Item 1 Page 1
The Board asked questions related to this topic including about a “normal” trail approval/designation
process and how this differs with the city manager approval, current and proposed enforcement,
determination on e-bikes being passive recreation, staff evaluation for e-bikes to be permitted on open
space, how the desired outcomes relate to the Master Plan, and the Spring Brook Loop assessment in
relation to conflict.
Public Comment (2:02:15)
David Brode spoke in favor of e-bikes Alternative A on open space.
Jean Aschenbrenner spoke against all bikes on open space.
Gary McClelland spoke in favor of e-bikes Alternative B, with modifications, on open space.
Wendy Sweet, on behalf of BMA board of directors, spoke in favor of e-bikes on open space.
Rachel Fussell spoke in favor of e-bikes Alternative B on open space.
Marki LeCompte spoke against e-bikes on open space and would prefer alternative C.
Joe Hair along with his two sons spoke in favor of e-bikes on open space.
Peter Wessel spoke in favor of e-bikes on open space.
Sallie Greenwood spoke against e-bikes on open space.
Chuck Sanson spoke in favor of e-bikes on open space.
Andrew Bernstein spoke in favor of e-bikes on open space.
Kathleen Ashworth spoke against e-bikes on open space.
Richard Harris spoke against e-bikes on open space.
Marcus Popetz spoke in favor of e-bikes Alternative A on open space.
Brad Fountain spoke in favor of e-bikes on open space.
Catharine Harris spoke against e-bikes on open space.
Alan Dale spoke against e-bikes on open space.
Suzanne Webel spoke in favor of e-bikes but only on wide trails that allow for multiple uses and not
allowed on single track trails.
Lynn Segal spoke against e-bikes on open space.
Evan Ravitz spoke in favor of e-bikes on open space.
AGENDA ITEM 5 – Matters from the Department (3:06:30)
Chris Wanner presented the Vegetation Stewardship Program Update. The Board discussed several areas
including native seed collection and weed management.
Agenda Item 1 Page 2
Dan Burke gave one update from “Director Verbal Updates” regarding John Potter’s, Resource and
Stewardship Deputy Director, departure from the department.
ADJOURNMENT – The meeting adjourned at 9:56 p.m.
These draft minutes were prepared by Leah Case
Agenda Item 1 Page 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Andy Pelster, Agriculture and Water Stewardship Sr. Manager
Heather Swanson, Ecological Stewardship Sr. Manager
Victoria Poulton, Prairie Dog Conservation and Management Ecologist
DATE: January 11, 2023
SUBJECT: 2022 Annual Prairie Dog Management Update and 2023 Management Plans
________________________________________________________________________
Background: Open Space an Mountain Parks (OSMP) staff held a virtual public meeting on
Dec. 13, 2022, to provide updates to the community on OSMP prairie dog management
including implementation of the prairie dog working group recommendations, prairie dog
relocations and removals, restoration, monitoring of soil health, agricultural sustainability,
and plans for 2023. Prior to the virtual meeting, presentations on each of these topics were
released for public viewing as videos (https://bouldercolorado.gov/prairie-dog-meeting-
materials). At the meeting, OSMP staff gave summaries and updates for the online
presentations and answered questions that were submitted by the community during the
meeting. OSMP staff continued to collect comments and questions from the community on
2022 management of prairie dogs and 2023 management plans until Dec. 20, 2022. All items
related to the meeting, and questions received and answered can be viewed at:
https://bouldercolorado.gov/prairie-dog-meeting-materials
Accomplishments in 2022: Prairie dog management and agricultural land restoration
accomplishments in 2022 included:
•distribution of two rounds of plague vaccine in the Southern Grasslands;
•donation from the Humane Society of the US of expertise, labor, and materials in
support of approximately 40 acres of prairie dog relocations from the Oasis property to
Southern Grasslands;
•removal using lethal control of approximately 124 acres of prairie dog colonies from
irrigated agricultural properties including Johnson Boulder Reservoir North and South,
Axelson, Brewbaker, and Campbell;
•over 24,600 feet of barrier construction at relocation and removal sites;
•use of passive relocation techniques by staff and contractors for small (< 1 acre)
conflict areas along trail projects and where prairie dog barriers were installed;
•restoration work on over 360 acres of relocation and removal sites from 2018-2022
•completion of a Plague Management Plan;
•soil health sampling at removal sites to determine baseline conditions;
•supporting a collaborative learning project investigating ways to grow crops and graze
livestock on an OSMP parcel that is inhabited by prairie dogs; and
Agenda Item 4A Page 1
•interacting with agencies, researchers, tenants, and the public to communicate about
prairie dog management.
OSMP staff completed annual system-wide prairie dog colony mapping that has taken place
since 1996. Prairie dog acres increased 16.6% from 2021 to 2022, and the number of irrigated
agricultural acres in conflict with prairie dogs in the northern project area is now 828 (668
after 2022 removal efforts are finished), down from 967 acres in 2020. The Southern
Grasslands achieved 10% occupancy, which is within the occupancy goals set in the
Grassland Management Plan (10-26% occupancy). The Grassland Management Plan states
that relocations to the Southern Grasslands will be discontinued when occupancy is 10% or
higher, since this information has come to light late in the planning process, plans for 2023
relocations will proceed, staff will further evaluate options for completing relocation in 2023.
Further details are available in the recorded presentations about prairie dog management and
population monitoring, prairie dog removal, agricultural land restoration, and the soil health
program referenced above.
Implementation Plans for 2023: Staff evaluated irrigated agricultural sites within the project
area in the northern portions of the OSMP system to determine the highest priority for
management in 2023. The criteria to establish priority as presented in the council-approved
preferred alternative are:
•areas designated as removal and transition areas
•areas where the likelihood of effective removal, exclusion, and restoration are most
likely to be successful
•areas leased by tenants that are most affected by prairie dog occupation
•areas that are currently unleased but can be restored to production
•areas where successful management will increase OSMP lease revenue
•areas where removal will have least impact to associated species
•areas with the highest degree of neighbor conflict
•areas that provide some degree of relief to the greatest number of tenants
In evaluating priorities for 2023 and upcoming years, it became clear to staff that the
remaining colonies on transition and removal areas in the northern project area present a
variety of challenges for prairie dog removal. These circumstances include:
- surrounding prairie dog occupancy is high, making exclusion after removal
problematic and expensive
-water availability, water infrastructure or degraded conditions make agricultural
restoration difficult, very expensive or unlikely to be successful
- ecological values of the property and prairie dog colony including use by species of
conservation focus on OSMP such as concentrated use by a variety of raptors,
presence of badger, etc.
- changes in conditions on colonies from when plans were originally discussed with
City Council in 2020 (e.g. new nest of Golden Eagle adjacent to colony, with resulting
conservation concerns and federal regulation)
Agenda Item 4A Page 2
Due to these challenges, the 2023 plans for removal include colonies that are in transition and
removal areas, but also colonies in irrigated fields that are designated as Grassland Preserve.
Although the 2010 Grassland Plan allows for removal in irrigated fields within Grassland
Preserves to protect water rights and agriculture, Transition and Removal Areas were
identified as the highest priorities in discussions with OSBT and City Council in 2019 and
2020. These colonies are irrigated agricultural fields, but due to high occupancy of the
surrounding Grassland Preserve areas, will require substantial barriers to reduce prairie dog
recolonization after removal. As a result, future year removal priorities will need to be
carefully considered to ensure that resources invested in prairie dog removal and agricultural
restoration are best focused on areas with the highest benefit while avoiding substantial
impacts to important wildlife communities.
Plans for 2023 Implementation presented to the community in December 2022 included the
following:
•Continued implementation of priority Prairie Dog Working Group
recommendations
o continued work on the prairie dog habitat suitability model to include
updated vegetation descriptions, updated mapping, and new parameters
o roll-out of a cost-sharing program with neighbors for prairie dog barriers
o distribution of sylvatic plague vaccine at sites in the Southern Grassland
Preserve and at planned take sites
o start a discussion about the feasibility of black-footed ferret reintroduction
on city land
•Removal by relocation of approximately 22 acres of prairie dogs from the
Brewbaker and Stratton properties (irrigated agriculture). Use of the Superior
Associates West property as a receiving site in the Southern Grasslands Preserve,
assuming permitting through Colorado Parks and Wildlife is successful. This plan
is being further evaluated based on Grassland Preserve occupancy data. Use of
other receiving sites outside of the OSMP system will also be explored
•Removal by lethal control of approximately 94 acres of prairie dogs from the
Axelson, Lore, and Ellison properties (irrigated agriculture). Installation of barriers
where necessary to prevent recolonization of properties following removal
•Restoration of agricultural properties after removal to encourage enhanced
agricultural sustainability and soil health
•Collection of baseline soil information prior to and after removal of prairie dogs to
study the changes associated with prairie dog removal and restoration
•Annual fall mapping of prairie dog occupation across OSMP properties
During and after the meeting, questions were submitted by the community. Several questions
were answered verbally during the meeting, but all questions received a written response,
included in Appendix A and posted on the meeting webpage
https://bouldercolorado.gov/prairie-dog-meeting-materials
In addition to collecting comments and questions at the Dec. 13, 2022, meeting, staff received
additional feedback and suggestions via email for implementation of prairie dog management
through Dec. 20, 2022. All comments received are included in Appendix B. Staff evaluated
Agenda Item 4A Page 3
all comments received and looked for opportunities to modify 2023 plans to include
community feedback. Some common themes from the comments include:
- Concerns from neighboring property owners with concerns about prairie dogs moving
from OSMP land onto their private property and the resulting impacts
-Concerns over prairie dog impacts to OSMP land, especially at the Brewbaker and
Stratton Property (weeds, lack of agricultural production, etc.)
-Concerns over degree to which nesting eagles are influencing the management plans
on Brewbaker and Stratton
- Concern over the use of lethal control in prairie dog management on OSMP
- Comments related to the benefit of delta dust in managing plague in prairie dogs
- Support for continued implementation of the Prairie dog working group
recommendations
-Requests for Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan Update (to reduce lethal control
and increase implementation of Prairie dog working group recommendations)
Although not all issues raised by community members can be addressed with management in
2023, staff are including the following modifications to 2023 management plans based on the
comments received:
1. Remove an additional ~8.5 acres of prairie dogs from the Brewbaker/Stratton
Properties. Removal of this portion of the colony will require additional barrier
installation. Funds are being identified to cover this additional expense in 2023
(estimated at $40,000). Although this colony exists adjacent to a nesting golden eagle
pair and their hunting territory, staff believe that this section of colony lies at sufficient
distance from and maintains a sufficient area of prairie dog occupancy adjacent to the
nest and hunting area to support the nesting Golden Eagles on adjacent property.
2. Change the planned management technique from relocation to lethal control on the
Brewbaker and Stratton properties. This removal technique will be more likely to be
completed in a timely manner, allowing staff to avoid a timeframe that might disturb
the nesting eagles. This also addresses some of the concern over delta dust use on the
properties as part of relocation and the concerns related to delta dust moving off the
property in ground or surface water.
3. Use relocation rather than lethal control on the Axelson property. This presents a
better opportunity for delta dust application to be managed in a way to avoid contact
with ground or surface water due to drainage patterns on the property
4. Comprehensive evaluation of remaining irrigated properties with prairie dogs for
needs related to irrigation, irrigation infrastructure or restoration to determine which
properties can realistically and feasibly be restored to agricultural use if prairie dogs
are removed and work to identify resources to undertake identified needs
Agenda Item 4A Page 4
Next Steps: Following presentation to the board at the Jan. 11, 2023 meeting, staff will
prepare an information item for City Council detailing the 2023 Implementation Plans. Staff
will be evaluating options for alternative receiving sites on or off OSMP in the next several
months since the Southern Grasslands have hit the 10% occupation target. Permitting for the
wild-to-wild relocation permit from the state will proceed while other options are explored,
since it is likely to be a lengthy process. Staff will finalize details of removal plans and
contract for installation of barriers, relocation, and lethal control by spring. Lethal control will
begin on planned sites once barriers are completed outside of the March 1 – May 30 prairie
dog pupping season. Exact timing will be determined in collaboration with lessees on the
property and contractors performing the work. Relocation will begin later in the summer.
Staff is hopeful that permitting, contractor selection, and barriers can be completed by late
July or early August to allow trapping to begin late summer and continue into the fall as
needed. Restoration, agricultural infrastructure improvements and soil health treatments on
properties will occur this year for properties where prairie dogs were removed in 2022, and
some follow-up prairie dog removal may also be required on properties where prairie dogs
were removed in 2020 and 2021.
To address the challenges discussed above for determining future year removal priorities, staff
will begin in-depth analysis of all remaining irrigated agricultural fields in the northern
project area. This will inform recommendations for how to proceed with removals in future
years. Staff will return to the OSBT in the spring or early summer to discuss this analysis and
recommendations.
Later in 2023, staff will once again hold an update meeting to provide the community with
information on progress in 2023 as well as preliminary plans for 2024.
Agenda Item 4A Page 5
Appendix A
Questions and Answers from Annual Public Prairie dog Management Update Meeting- Posted
online Dec. 27, 2022
Vaccination
How do you give a prairie dog a vaccine?
The sylvatic plague vaccine is given to the prairie dogs in bait pellets. The baits look like
blue pieces of dog food and are peanut butter flavor. The baits include a liquid vaccine and
the prairie dogs seem to find them very yummy. Staff place the baits near the entrance to
prairie dog holes in the colonies we are planning to vaccinate. The blue dye allows us to look
for blue droppings to ensure that the baits are being eaten at the level we are expecting.
Prairie Dog Removal
I had heard that you were going to clear Bennet in 2023. Is that now off the table? Why?
Staff evaluate all colonies on irrigated agricultural land within the northern project area for
inclusion in management plans each year. Colonies are selected for removal based on several
factors including size of the colony, likelihood of success in removal, likelihood in success of
excluding prairie dogs after removal (and scale of barriers required), likelihood of success in
restoration of the property after prairie dog removal, impacts to other wildlife communities of
removal and others. In 2023, Bennett did not present the best opportunity for prairie dog
removal and agricultural restoration. Some reasons it was not included in management plans
were: current status as an unleased property, scale of the removal necessary, extent of prairie
dog occupancy in the surrounding landscape, difficulty in excluding prairie dogs after
removal, difficulty and scale of restoration required after removal to return to agricultural
productivity, and impacts to other wildlife (particularly raptors and elk) of removal and
barriers.
Properties planned for management in 2024 will be evaluated later in 2023. During 2023, staff
will be evaluating the current removal program (as discussed with City Council after 3rd year
of management) to determine how to best focus management in coming years to ensure
efficient and effective use of resources. The outcomes of this evaluation will be considered
when determining 2024 priorities.
Relocation
Regarding the 10-26% occupancy goals, can you please repeat when relocations are no longer
considered?
The Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan outlines criteria for use of relocation receiving
sites in Grassland Preserves. One of these criteria is that the Grassland Preserve must be
below 10% occupancy. We are evaluating the current situation in the Southern Grasslands
with the higher than expected growth rate resulting in current occupancy of 10.3% to
determine how to approach relocations in 2023.
Agenda Item 4A Page 6
I've noticed the expanse of prairie dog colonies in the last year or two. It's reassuring to hear
that your data shows that expansion. However, I'm very concerned about the impact of the
large pop expansion on the intact native prairie vegetation in the Southern Grasslands. I've
walked the Wanake site and am very concerned about what appears to be damage to the
native grasses. 2 questions:
What are you doing to avoid damage to native grasslands and to rare plant communities? and
how do you know those strategies are being successful?
A number of strategies are employed to help protect important plant communities during
relocation. The first is that within the Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan, relocation
criteria were established for moving prairie dogs to Grassland Preserves. These criteria
include things like only relocating prairie dogs into areas that have previously been occupied
by prairie dogs, vegetation criteria to ensure communities are sufficiently robust to support
prairie dogs, and habitat suitability evaluations to ensure prairie dogs are placed in the most
suitable habitats. In addition to these evaluation criteria, once a receiving site meets the
relocation criteria and is selected for use, the location of artificial nest box installation is
carefully considered to avoid areas of rare plant communities. Where these structures are
installed, efforts are made to use the smallest equipment feasible and to create the smallest
disturbance footprint possible. Plant ecology staff evaluate the areas for seeding needs and
determine what other restoration might be necessary. During relocation, travel into the site is
minimized to the degree possible and in 2022, relocators were required to use ATVs to access
the site whenever possible, resulting in less compaction and vegetation damage from access
routes.
Success is evaluated by plant ecology staff and each year modifications are made for the next
year to address issues that may have arisen. Prairie dog occupancy and relocation have
impacts to native vegetation, some natural from prairie dog occupancy, and some related to
infrastructure and operations needed for relocation. Staff work to minimize the unnatural
impacts to the extent possible while still balancing the need to remove prairie dogs from
irrigated agricultural land and prioritizing non-lethal means to the degree possible as desired
by the community and City Council.
Why are you proceeding in 2023 with the use of the receiving site near Superior since you
know that you are at 10% in Southern Grasslands, know that there are many rare plant
communities are in that Superior site, and also know that the Superior site was impacted by
the Marshall Fire?
Previous evaluations of the Superior West site suggest that it has recovered well from the
Marshall Fire, and the vegetation is sufficiently robust to support a relocation (as determined
by vegetation criteria from the Grassland Plan). Staff have identified rare plant communities
and as with all other relocations, these areas would be avoided in installation of artificial nest
boxes and access routes.
The unexpected level of growth during 2021-2022 in Southern Grasslands led to higher than
expected occupancy levels. Since staff only had the data to see this occupancy levels within 1
Agenda Item 4A Page 7
week of the public meeting, options for 2023 relocations are still being discussed. Alternate
receiving sites are being evaluated, both on and off OSMP. If staff can identify a site outside
of Southern Grasslands, that will be the priority. If other feasible sites are not identified, staff
will work to determine what the best options are to allow the planned removal to occur from
irrigated agricultural lands.
Tory indicated that the Southern Grasslands have reached 10% occupancy. In a previous
annual meeting, OSMP staff made two interesting statements in responding to a couple of
different questions about the Southern Grasslands - …"Southern Grasslands and other
grassland preserves also protect some of the last remaining untilled prairies in the area
including globally rare plant communities like xeric tallgrass prairie that do not tolerate
prairie dog grazing at high levels.” "We have a goal of 10-26% occupancy of Grassland
Preserves, and to support this goal, we will relocate prairie dogs into Grassland Preserves
until they reach 10% occupancy giving room for growth of colonies without reaching
unsustainable levels of occupation.” The Southern Grasslands have reached 10% occupancy
in 2022. Why is OSMP going against the plan of discontinuing relocations at 10%? Is OSMP
sure this is the correct action, especially considering the colony growth for the last several
years?
Please see above.
You have said that you have reached your goal of 10% occupancy at the Southern Grasslands,
which is the % occupancy where relocations are supposed to stop. However, you are not
stopping relocations to the Southern Grasslands. What is the percentage occupancy of the
Southern Grasslands, where you will stop relocating there?
Please see above.
What is the Superior West designation?
Grassland Preserve.
How long has traps been out at oasis? when will you stop doing relocations at Oasis and start
doing lethal control with remaining prairie dogs?
Trapping at Oasis began 14 September 2022. Trapping is scheduled to be completed by Dec
31, when the state relocation permit term expires. Lethal control will begin as soon as
contractors are available to complete the work and is expected to be completed by February
28, 2023.
Are you monitoring vegetation and native bee populations on receiving areas? What will
prevent PDs from destroying our remnant prairies?
Vegetation is monitoring across the OSMP land system annually. Relocation site specific
monitoring is done to evaluate the readiness of a site to receive prairie dogs and plant
ecologist evaluate recovery of the area following relocation to ensure any restoration, weed
Agenda Item 4A Page 8
control or seeding needs are addressed. OSMP does not currently monitor native bees, but do
have plans to contract bee and other invertebrate surveys on prairie dog colonies in the future.
This project was recommended by the Prairie Dog Working Group and will be implemented
when resources are available to do so. Prairie dog occupancy often encourages forb growth,
resulting in additional resources for pollinators such as native bees.
Prairie dogs are a native prairie wildlife species that serve as a keystone species, supporting a
large suite of other wildlife dependent on them for food, shelter and habitat maintenance.
Balancing protection of prairie dogs and their associated species with grassland communities
not occupied by prairie dogs is an ongoing challenge in a fragmented landscape such as
OSMP. The Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan contains a variety of strategies to ensure
this balance occurs over the long-term, especially in areas where prairie dogs are being
relocated into native prairies. The Grassland Plan can be viewed on the OSMP website.
Lethal Control
Council originally directed OSMP to clear 100-200 acres of prairie dogs (PD’s) with lethal
control each year in the Northern Project area. I have heard that OSMP was only able to clear
94 acres this year using lethal control, due to difficulty finding contractors willing to do the
work. What consideration have you given to bringing lethal control “in-house” and funding
an OSMP lethal control team with OSMP-owned PERC machines? What are the pros and
cons of such a team? Would it decrease costs and allow you to clear more acres of OSMP
lands?
OSMP will have used lethal control on 167 acres in 2022 based on our most recent mapping
efforts. This number was reported to be 124 acres at the 2021 annual meeting. The 94 acres
you refer to is what is being proposed for 2023. Barrier costs for 2023 sites is limiting the
number of acres where prairie dogs can be removed and the land restored. We have
considered in-house crews but have elected to use PERC contractors up to this point. Given
the difficulty in scheduling contractors in 2022, we will certainly evaluate the option of an in-
house crew and better understand the costs and pro and cons of such a team. One major con is
that we would need to make significant investments in equipment that may not be needed
long-term as lethal control efforts will likely only be required for follow-up control.
Delta Dust
Delta Dust and water do not mix. How do you keep Delta dust, which is active for up to 8
months and more persistent in clay soils, from moving to neighboring properties through
irrigation ditches and hay fields and even worse into the neighboring lake with fish, which is
one of the natural tracks for the irrigation water.
Delta Dust is applied only by licensed applicators. OSMP developed a checklist for Delta
Dust applicators that essentially reinforces the label requirements, including avoidance of use
during windy conditions or precipitation, or when precipitation is forecast within 24 hours;
avoidance of application in or near water bodies, or where there is potential for runoff to
waterbodies; no application when irrigation water is running; no contact with plants/crops that
will be used for commercial sale, seed production, or research purposes; avoidance of contact
with any plants, including weeds and non-crop plants near the burrows; no use at burrows
Agenda Item 4A Page 9
used by burrowing owls. In addition, Delta Dust is applied in burrow per label requirements.
Burrow flattening and closing burrow entrances greatly reduces the risk of Delta Dust leaving
the property via wind or surface water as it is likely incorporated into the soil by this soil
disturbance.
Sorry, I missed the part about the use of Delta Dust. How is it being used? Have you just
decided to sacrifice all the native bees, ants, and other insects? Are you consulting
DriftWatch and notifying beekeepers before applications?
Delta dust is used exclusively as part of relocation efforts. State requirements for relocation
of prairie dogs include the use of plague abatement on the sending site where the prairie dogs
are trapped. Delta dust is used for this purpose. To reduce the likelihood of impacts to bees
and other pollinators, delta dust is applied inside the burrows, not on surrounding vegetation.
Furthermore, it is used later in the year, after the flowering season for many plants. All label
requirements are followed including avoiding use during windy conditions or precipitation, or
when precipitation is forecast within 24 hours. In addition, other applications of delta dust are
not done on OSMP (including for plague management in native prairies). Use of delta dust is
restricted to those applications required by state permitting. Because application is done in a
way to avoid exposure to bees or risk of delta dust blowing off of OSMP, staff have not
previously notified beekeepers in the area.
Ag Land Restoration
What crops are grown on or planned for the restored ag land?
The irrigated land where prairie dogs are being removed has been irrigated and used for
growing various crops for likely over 100 years. Most sites have been used to grow hay and
pasture grasses in the most recent past. Post-removal, the goal is to re-establish a vibrant
perennial community and incorporate these properties back into agricultural production.
Productivity, as well as other site-specific characteristics will determine whether these lands
will be used for haying, grazing or a combination of the two.
Do you have a list of your revegetation seed mix?
Staff develop site specific seed mixes in coordination with each properties agricultural tenant.
Each site’s seed list is kept, along with spatial information on the areas that were seeded. In
addition, details and associated spatial data for all reclamation treatments are kept in OSMP’s
GIS agricultural land reclamation dataset.
When you have used lots of irrigation water to push PD’s out of areas with passive relocation
techniques, how much extra water is that? How much more water does it require to push
PD’s out of areas? Do other fields get shorted of water as a result? Where does the extra
water come from?
Each agricultural lease area is assigned water shares based on the number of shares the city
owns in a particular ditch and how much land is being served by that ditch system. The water
used on these fields as part of ag land restoration and passive removal techniques is not extra,
Agenda Item 4A Page 10
or above, this set allocation of ditch shares. It is more likely that the fields occupied by prairie
dogs are “shorted” as they are difficult to irrigate, yields are greatly reduced because of prairie
dog foraging and clipping, and the tenants will generally focus their management efforts on
more productive land included in the lease. To actively irrigate fields in the presence of
prairie dogs requires more diligent monitoring of the water to ensure even delivery and
minimize erosion. To the extent that any other fields get less water is only due to less water
being in the irrigation ditch from exercising the department’s full water rights for irrigation,
not by taking anyone else’s water.
Soil Health Monitoring
Do the control sites have different levels of pdog occupancy and historic land uses?
The control sites for the soil health monitoring study are all irrigated pastures or hayfields
containing introduced cool-season grasses that are currently and have been occupied by
prairie dogs. The sites have different durations of continuous prairie dog occupation. The
level of prairie dog occupancy is not a factor that is being considered as part of this
monitoring effort.
What historic land use occurred on the control and removal sites?
Historically, the control and removal sites were used for livestock grazing and hay production.
Several fields on the Axelson / Johnson complex were also historically used to grow annual
grain crops including wheat and corn.
I am concerned about the City’s direction to address soil health through the removal of prairie
dogs. The actions and associated study seem set to blame prairie dog presence for historical
land uses (including agriculture practices) effects on soil health and land degradation. Both
native prairie dogs and agriculture are necessary for biodiversity and food production, yet the
City’s actions and research are singularly focused on prairie dog removal relating to soil
health. How will the City ensure this native keystone species in peril will not be singularly
blamed for land degradation and therefore removed from public lands based on the results of
their research on degraded ag lands?
The city has acknowledged that the agricultural history and often modified or non-native
vegetative community of these converted agricultural fields contributes to lack of resilience in
the presence of prairie dogs. We have observed, on our lands, and lands around the county,
that converted fields with prairie dog colonies lose perennial vegetation and lose topsoil. The
focus on soil health monitoring as part of removal was a directive from Boulder’s City
Council when lethal removal was approved for the Northern Project Area. Vegetative cover
and composition are also being monitored. The outcome of this monitoring is useful data that
will be used to inform discussions and policy related to irrigated agricultural lands, which is a
small subset of the department’s overall land holdings. The findings related to the soil health
monitoring will be responsibly interpreted, taking into account the inherent complexity of
these properties including varied land use histories, varied levels and duration of prairie dog
occupancy and impacts of restoration techniques following prairie dog removal. As a result,
findings will not be attributed solely to prairie dogs, but the combination of variables
Agenda Item 4A Page 11
contributing to changes in soil health. The findings will still be helpful in planning restoration
efforts in the future both in the presence of, and without prairie dogs. The City of Boulder
and the department have affirmed their commitment to prairie dog conservation through
guiding documents like the Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan and Plague Management
Plan, as well as through the formal designation of more than 500 acres of OSMP land as
prairie dog conservation areas and the goal of 10-26% occupancy in Grassland Preserves.
Barriers and P.dog exclusion
After PD removal on the Oasis property, how do you plan to mitigate the growth of new
colonies?
At Oasis and other OSMP properties where prairie dogs are removed, barriers are erected to
discourage recolonization. Vegetation restoration also is expected to discourage prairie dogs
due to taller and thicker vegetation growth. Since no prairie dog barrier is 100% effective,
OSMP usually uses lethal control to remove any remaining or recolonizing prairie dogs.
How well are the barriers working? Are there any fields that have had barriers installed after
removals, where prairie dogs have NOT come back in?
Barriers are effective, but not 100% of the time and not in perpetuity. The removal site on the
Nu West property along 51st Street has remained prairie dog-free for about three years. Other
sites have remained unoccupied on shorter timeframes or with very low occupation relative to
conditions prior to removal. Prairie dogs have reoccupied 11.7 acres of the 199 acres of
prairie dogs removed from irrigated agricultural land between 2018 and 2021 (5.9%). We
believe barriers have helped keep this number lower than if we had not installed barriers.
The cost sharing program for neighbors has been put off for 2-3 years now. Is good neighbor
relations no longer a priority for OSMP?
Neighbor relations have always and will continue to be a priority for OSMP. However, many
priorities around prairie dog management exist, and the staff that are working to implement a
barrier cost share program are the same staff working to follow City Council direction to
remove prairie dogs from irrigated agricultural land, manage prairie dogs across OSMP,
implement plague management of prairie dogs, and work to restore irrigated agricultural
lands. In 2022, the same staff were responsible for large portions of the Marshall Fire
response, damage assessment and restoration. As a result, a neighbor cost-share barrier
program has been delayed as staff are fully occupied with urgent and emergent needs. Staff
continue to work to support neighbors with technical information and advice to help them to
manage prairie dogs on their private property.
Can you tell us what the time frame is for the prairie dog fencing program?
Staff had hoped to implement the program in 2022. Although budget was identified, other
prairie dog related work including relocations, removals and restoration of irrigated
agricultural lands along with response to the Marshall Fire on OSMP lands took staff time
away from getting the program fully set up this year. Currently staff are working with the city
attorney’s office to design the program in a way that follows City Council direction and
Agenda Item 4A Page 12
regulations around use of open space funding. Staff are hopeful that the program can be
rolled out in the second half of 2023.
Our community borders OSMPs Gallucci property and was all but destroyed in the Marshall
Fire. Since the fire the prairie dog colonies on the Gallucci property have expanded
dramatically, including onto our properties, where they are doing significant damage to access
roads, septic systems and the landscape. We are performing lethal control on our properties,
however this is somewhat futile given the very large colony to our south. Would it be
possible to prioritize cost share on barrier fencing with Marshal fire impacted properties?
This is not something our struggling neighborhood currently has the resources to handle on
our own.
OSMP is trying to develop a cost-sharing program that follows legal requirements for sharing
funds with the community, and is equitable and accessible for OSMP neighbors who have
concerns about prairie dogs expanding onto their property.
Since barriers are only working about 50% of the time so far to keep PD’s out of cleared
OSMP lands, and since barriers are such a very large part of the budget, are you reevaluating
your use of barriers? What other strategies are you considering to keep PD’s out of cleared
fields, since barriers are not working all that well?
Staff continuously evaluate the success or failure of management actions in an effort to use
adaptive management strategies. This includes the use of barriers and which type of barriers
to construct. We have modified our barrier strategy each year based on our previous years’
experiences. Although not 100% effective, OSMP believes that barriers are an important
management tool and help OSMP minimize lethal control as much as possible and we will
continue to use them in a fiscally responsible manner. We will certainly stop using them if we
believe they are not effective in helping us achieve the goals of this project. As presented in
the meeting, prairie dogs have reoccupied 11.7 acres of the 199 acres of prairie dogs removed
irrigated agricultural land between 2018 and 2021 (5.9%). We believe barriers have helped
keep this number lower than if we had not installed barriers. We are also working to get
vegetation communities restored as quickly as possible as this also helps prevent reoccupation
of land where we have implemented removal.
Agenda Item 4A Page 13
Prairie Dog Occupancy
Please breakdown the PD increase in the Grassland preserves between Southern and
Northern? Specifically would like to know increase in Northern Grassland preserve.
Agenda Item 4A Page 14
At the annual meeting, I asked about prairie dog occupancy on the Northern Grasslands but
did not see my question answered. Can you please provide an answer now?
We were not able to answer all questions live at the meeting. Our intention was to answer as
many as we could at the meeting, and then provide answers online to all questions shortly
afterward. Please see above.
There is visible degradation on the Northern Grasslands and I am concerned that the Northern
Grasslands is well above the acceptable 26% occupancy. If the Northern Grassland Preserve
is above 26% occupancy, how will OSMP manage that situation and slow down damage to
the Grassland ecosystem? I realize that prairie dog conservation is a priority but that must be
balanced with the critically important health of the Grassland Preserves.
Balancing the conservation of prairie dogs in Grassland Preserves and the other ecological
values in these areas is indeed a challenge. Prairie dogs in the Northern Grassland support a
wide variety of wildlife including many species of raptors. However, these large levels of
occupancy do have impacts to native vegetation where prolonged high occupation combined
with land use history, drought, and other factors can lead to degradation of native vegetation
communities. The Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan provides for the possibility of
prairie dog removal in Grassland Preserves if occupancy is above 26%, and vegetation
degradation is occurring. Although removal is an option, direction from City Council in 2020
was clear that removal efforts should be focused on irrigated agricultural lands. In 2023, staff
plan to remove prairie dogs from irrigated fields that are within the Northern Grassland
Preserve. While this action will reduce occupancy percentage within the grassland preserve, it
will not change occupancy levels within non-irrigated, native grassland areas. For now, the
full focus on irrigated agricultural lands for removal does not provide staff with options to
Agenda Item 4A Page 15
address other issues within Grassland Preserves through removal. As a result, in the Northern
Grassland Preserve, OSMP staff are looking at a variety of options including shifting intensity
of grazing by cattle.
Has anyone talked about the annual colony acre doubling time (ie if 1 acre colony at time 0,
how long until colony is 2 acres?), or perhaps just a yearly growth rate (ie size of colony in
2022 minus colony size in 2021 divided by colony size in 2021?) (limited to areas that have
been left alone)?
Prairie dog colony expansion and contraction are influence by a wide variety of
environmental and human-caused factors, so we do not find it useful to discuss doubling
times. We do look at year-to-year change. Over the last 20 years, average colony change has
been roughly +7% (low = -48%, high = +68%). We see both expansion and contraction on
colonies where there are no focused removal efforts; colony contraction can happen due to
events like plague epizootics, flooding, or high vegetation growth.
Are the health of the HCA sites monitored? What actions are taken when an HCA goes above
26% occupancy?
OSMP does not have a prairie dog management designation HCA (perhaps this is related to
County Open Space management designations?) However, we do have PCAs (Prairie Dog
Conservation Areas). Health of all grasslands is monitored through a system-wide set of
vegetation monitoring transects. For the most part, however, PCAs are largely comprised of
non-native or low-quality vegetation, and thus are not included in the monitoring framework
for native grasslands. Systematic weed monitoring and other efforts will often collect
information on PCAs, though there is not a specific, PCA centered monitoring program in
place, unless relocation is being considered for a site, in which case more robust monitoring
of condition would be done. There are not defined occupancy goals for PCAs. The 26%
occupancy goals are applied to Grassland Preserves. Please see above discussion of
occupancy in Grassland Preserves.
It would be helpful if the occupancy rates on each property were available to the stakeholders
for the annual meeting. The mapping system has not been updated and it is hard to ask
specific parcel questions when the numbers are not available. It is important to be able to see
how each property occupancy has changed. Since the mapping program is not updated, can
OSMP please make available a document with all the parcel names and prairie dog occupancy
rates for the last couple of years?
Prairie dog occupancy data is always available on the City of Boulder Open Data Page. There
was an issue with one of the GIS servers updating in a timely manner ahead of the public
meeting, so we apologize that this year up-to-date information was not available ahead of
time. It is, however, now updated with the most recent 2022 data. If you search for “prairie
dogs” at https://open-data.bouldercolorado.gov and click on the “OSMP Prairie Dog
Colonies- All Years” you will be able to see the map of prairie dog occupancy and choose
which year you would like to view by dragging the timeline at the bottom. In addition, if you
Agenda Item 4A Page 16
click on the button on the right hand side that looks like a spreadsheet or table, it will open a
document that lists all properties with occupancy by year.
Budget
What is the annual budget for all prairie dog related work? How does this compare to the
budget for other wildlife? (separately for each species?)
Prairie dog management is unique in that it is the only species that OSMP directly manages.
Other budget for wildlife is focused on monitoring, habitat management and research.
Budgeting is not done on a species-by-species basis as most of the work is done at the
community or habitat-type level. Overall expenditures on prairie dog management in 2022
were $150,000 from the wildlife budget and just over $330,000 from the agricultural land
restoration capital budget. The non-staff wildlife budget, excluding prairie dog expenditures
was $71,000 in 2022.
Agenda Item 4A Page 17
Appendix B
Comments received from the community regarding prairie dog management
1.It has come to my attention that there is a serious issue regarding the conservation of
wild prairie dogs in Colorado. I would like it to be known that I support the city
OSMP implementing conflict resolution and coexistence with the prairie dog
ecosystem on public lands. I also ask that you would please work to continue to reduce
lethal wildlife management on public lands using taxpayer dollars. I understand these
things can be difficult to accomplish but I believe when it comes to conserving and
protecting life on this planet that we should spare no expense. I hope whoever is
reading this understands, if you do kit already, that the most valuable thing that we and
any other living thing has in this world is the lives of those around us. Given this, we
should stop at nothing to protect the wildlife that surrounds use as we depend on it for
our survival and livelihood. Thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope you
have a great Holiday season.
2. Last week I listened to the presentation and comments provided by the public
regarding conflicts with prairie dogs on agricultural properties. Several citizens stated
that the chemical use of DeltaDust to kill fleas in prairie dog towns also kills bees, fish
and other wildlife species.
Since DeltaDust is a product with wide applications it is necessary to review research
relevant to use in wildlife populations rather than make assumptions that the product is
generally bad overall. For example dosage applications in prairie dog towns is 150
times lower than uses of the same product in homes or agriculture. Studies published
by wildlife agencies conclude that the low dose application of DeltaDust in prairie dog
towns was not harmful to bees, or fish and did not bioaccumulate in wild animal
tissues. Additionally, DeltaDust is a non-systemic compound that is not taken up by
plants due to its tendency to bind to soils.
DeltaDust is a good conservation tool that protects prairie dogs and other wildlife
species from plague, an exotic disease introduced into North America in the early
1900’s. To this day, plague is still not fully understood and appears to manifests itself
in fleas; a difficult insect to control. When fleas enter the pupa stage of their lifecycle,
insecticides are impenetrable; therefore it is essential to use controls that are longer
lasting into the adult life cycle of the flea. DeltaDust, a waterproof product that can
remain effective for 6 to 10 months provides an effective tool in combating plague
over other insecticides used to kill fleas.
Delta Dust (0.05%), is a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide initially used on agricultural
crops. The insecticide is also used for food storage and manufacturing facilities, public
facilities (hospitals, grocery stores, parks, golf courses, lawns, indoor and outdoor
treatment in buildings), homes and on pet collars. The product is a General Use
Pesticide considered safe and can be purchased by anyone for private use.
Agenda Item 4A Page 18
While rodents may be considered as primary flea hosts, fleas can also infect other
species. In North America, over 70 wildlife species have been infected with plague
which is now considered endemic and a serious concern to many wildlife species
lacking immunity to the disease. Since prairie dogs rapidly die from plague, they are
not reservoir hosts for the disease. DeltaDust is an ally in the fight against wildlife
diseases and should remain in the conservation toolbox.
3. I have been living out on the Brewbaker/Sorenson/Stratton (BSS) land for over 30
years. I have been here when the Brewbaker property was cutting hay and irrigating
their land. I have been here when Al's Drywall managed Martha Strattons property.
Al and his partner irrigated and cut hay for many years. I actually purchased the hay
bailer from Al. Coyotes, eagles, hawks, raccoons, foxes and bob-cats make their home
here.
What changed. Everything changed when the BSS properties were sold to Open
Space. Why did you all purchase these properties? What was your plan? At one
time, all the properties were a diverse ecosystem of plants and animals.
With the invasion of the prairie dogs, you have created a new ecosystem on the
properties. Your new ecosystem out here consists of prairie dogs and dirt (dust
storms) and some wonderful new plants, which I believe you consider noxious weeds.
They include tistle. thistle, bindweed and cheatgrass (to name a few). Gone are the
wonderful native grassses that at one time were cut for hay. It's funny, I see your
people spraying for weeds in the open space by the reservoir and open space along
Foothills highway between Broadway and Neva Road. I have never seen anyone do
weed management on the BSS properties.
I have mentioned this many times, the collateral damage the prairie dogs have brought
is extensive. I cannot keep up on trying to manage them, on my property and the
Brewbakers (I am the caretaker for their property).
You talk about cost sharing with barrier controls (chicken wire). I believe this is a
slap in the face to all of the homeowners who are fighting to keep your mismanaged
prairie dogs off our properties. Why are we having to pay for a barrier due to your
mismanagement? Did you know that prairie dogs are burrowing animals? Yes they
are. Do you know what they do when you put up the chicken wire? They burrow
under the wire and come into your property. Why do they come into your property,
because the grass is greener on the other side.
I believe we have got to the point where open space needs a budget line item to assist
all the homeowners with the collateral damage brought on by the prairie dogs. I can
use myself as an example and would love to see you all pay for the following:
Agenda Item 4A Page 19
My fence line is bent over due to the cows pushing through the barbed wire looking
for better grass. They have no grass on the open space next to my property. What is
the cost of a new fence?
My septic field has prairie dog holes in it. What will be the cost to have that redone?
I don't cut hay anymore on my front field and back field due to the prairie dogs eating
down the grass. I also cut hay at the Brewbakers (not anymore). What's the cost to
reseed? Brewbakers property, same problem.
I have 20-25 holes in my yard (active) with prairie dogs living in them. What's the cost
to remove them and reseed? Brewbaker property, same problem
I can't run horses on my property or the Brewbakers do to holes here, there and
everywhere. Will someone fill the holes?
Lastly, I have a wonderful weed ecosystem of tistle, thistle, bindweed and cheatgrass
(to name a few) on my property too. Will someone spray as you are on your other
open space properties?
Do you not understand the economic impact the prairie dogs are having on my
property and the Brewbakers. And though I don't manage the Strattons property, it has
the same issues. The southern portion of the Stratton property is a disgrace!
Lastly, I have heard the new eagles (not bald eagles) are a concern and we cannot
move or remove the prairie dogs because this is their food source. Come on. Another
excuse. Did you know the bald eagles and the red tail hawk were here when there were
no prairie dogs? The bald eagles still come back every year and the red tails are
everywhere. Did you also know that eagles and hawks can fly? If the prairie dogs are
removed from the irrigated lands of the BSS properties (which they are not suppose to
be here per the charter), all they have to do is flap their wings a dozen times and head
north to Table Mountain, or flap their wings the same and head south to the Beach
open space and they will find lots of prairie dogs. They have even moved onto Left
Hand waters open space off of Neva and 39th.
It's unfortunate to have neighbors who don't care about their own property and the
ones they surround. Maybe you should work with Boulder County Open Space and
see what they are doing. They are making a difference.
4. After attending the annual prairie dog meeting, I would like to thank you for the
prairie dog conservation work being done. As a volunteer on the Oasis-Waneka prairie
dog translocation project this year, I have experienced firsthand the immense value of
these efforts. I support and greatly appreciate prairie dogs being translocated back into
suitable habitat on Boulder OSMP, including the Southern Grasslands. I was heartened
during the meeting to hear from those who clearly understand the necessity of prairie
dogs to prairie ecosystems as well as the scientific imperative for habitat protection.
Our local landscape continues to pay the price of human greed and ignorance, and
Agenda Item 4A Page 20
shortsightedly removing native elements such as prairie dogs (in favor of non-native
elements) has a profound impact.
5. OSMP has my full support for implementing conflict resolution and coexistence with
the prairie dog ecosystem on public lands and for non-lethal prairie dog management.
Please work to continue to reduce lethal wildlife management on public lands using
taxpayer dollars. It continues to shock to drive by or access public lands and know that
so many prairie dogs have been killed on the taxpayer's dime. What an awful feeling
on so many levels. You have my support to continue to implement the Prairie Dog
Working Group’s recommendations for non-lethal prairie dog management.
On another note, I did see that the Grassland Management Plan update had been
pushed out and is overdue. I would like to see that update be incorporated into OSMP
staff’s work plan as soon as possible.
6. Thank you for implementing non-lethal prairie dog management.
I support and appreciate prairie dogs being translocated into suitable habitat on
Boulder OSMP including the Southern Grasslands.
I support the City OSMP implementing conflict resolution and coexistence with the
prairie dog ecosystem on these public lands.
Please work to continue to reduce lethal wildlife management on public lands using
taxpayer dollars.
The Grassland Management Plan update is overdue and I would like to see that plan’s
update be worked into the staff’s work plan ASAP.
You have my support to continue to implement the Prairie Dog Working Group’s
recommendations for non-lethal prairie dog management.
7. We've been fighting you for years about your decisions to slaughter prairie dogs in
favor of agricultural development. Remember when the public comments went till
nearly midnight? Did you even listen to a word advocates said? Based on your current
decisions to continue lethal management, I suspect you didn't.
Boulder is supposed to be a progressive city, with a compassionate heart. How about
showing it and allowing relocations to continue?
The Grassland Management Plan update is overdue and I would like to see that plan's
update be worked into the staff's work plan ASAP.
Relocating or killing prairie dogs is not an action driven by care for wildlife or the
environment. It is an unnecessary consolation to the extremely environmentally
Agenda Item 4A Page 21
destructive industries of animal agriculture and luxury housing. Prioritize the open
space and mountain parks not corporate profits.
As a City of Boulder resident, I strongly support and endorse with my taxpayer's
dollars the city's use of non-lethal measures for wildlife management, especially in the
case of prairie dog management.
8. I am writing to express my support of non-lethal prairie dog management by the
Prairie Dog Coalition and other groups working to protect these animals and move
them to suitable habitats.
9. The number one source of conflict with prairie dogs is ranching. Ranching is also
known to be one of the worst things we do to the environment, as it's a major cause of
emissions, deforestation, improper land use, extreme water overuse, and air and water
pollution. Ranching is directly contributing to the climate crisis and to water
shortages, and to animal cruelty when the animals are sent to slaughter at a fraction of
their natural lifespans.
Research has shown that moving to a plant-based food system would use a quarter of
our existing farmland, reduce emissions, and allow us to rewild 75% of our existing
farmland back to carbon-sequestering forest and grassland while drastically reducing
water use and pollution and eliminating animal cruelty.
As a city that prides itself on its commitment to sustainability, Boulder should be
working on long-term plans to reduce (and eventually eliminate) ranching in this area,
rewild farmland as we need less of it, and expand protections for our beautiful
landscapes and wildlife. Boulder should not be killing prairie dogs to prioritize
ranchers, especially when coexistence between ranchers and prairie dogs is so simple.
Please continue funding non-lethal prairie dog management efforts and look at
expanding conservation efforts of the lands they naturally occupy. I would also like to
see a higher commitment to the Grassland Management Plan, which is overdue.
10. I have walked on the trails in the Southern Grasslands and LOVE seeing the prairie
dogs chirping against the background of the flatirons. It defines why people have
come to this area to live out their lives.
As a result, it truly is imperative that we update the Grassland Management Plan,
incorporate it promptly into the staff's work plan and COEXIST with the prairie dog
ecosystem on these public lands.
Please continue to work with the Prairie Dog Working Group’s recommendations for
non-lethal prairie dog management.
Agenda Item 4A Page 22
11. First of all, I want to thank OSMP for your work to build a mutually respectful
relationship with our animal neighbors that is not based on lethal management.
12. Prairie dogs are an essential part of front range ecosystems. I strongly support
translocating prairie dogs back OSMP lands including the Southern Grasslands.
13. I hope that an update to the Grassland Management Plan can be placed on the work
plan for 2023 and that it will feature:
• reduction of lethal management paid for by my tax dollars
• coexistence with the prairie dog ecosystem that thrives on these lands
• furthering implementation of the PDWG's recommendations for non-lethal
prairie dog management.
Agenda Item 4A Page 23
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Don D’Amico, Senior Resource Project Manager, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Joe Taddeucci, Director of Public Works
Brandon Coleman, Engineering Manager Storm/Flood Utility
DATE: January 11, 2023
SUBJECT: South Boulder Creek Environmental Mitigation and Floodplain Restoration
________________________________________________________________________
The purpose of this memo is to update the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) on the South
Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project. Specifically, staff will provide information related to recent
work by the city’s consultants on mitigation concepts designed to offset environmental impacts from
the flood project to natural resources located on city Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP)
property. Staff last presented information on the project to the OSBT at the June 8, 2022 public
meeting.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project (Flood Project) includes regional detention
upstream of US36. The project is estimated to provide flood mitigation for approximately 2,400
residents and remove 260 structures from the 100-yr (1% percent) floodplain. The project includes a
spillway/floodwall to be located on OSMP property adjacent to the US36 Right-of-Way. The
environmental impacts to OSMP resources from the project are proposed to be mitigated on the nearby
CU South property in 119 acres identified as Open Space-Other (OS-O); property the city intends to
acquire through terms outlined in the CU South annexation agreement. The Environmental Restoration
Concept Design (Restoration Project) for the OS-O area considers potential restoration and
enhancement for the entire area. The Restoration Project includes increased floodplain and habitat
connectivity, wetland and upland habitat creation, protection of existing wetlands and threatened and
endangered species, and creation and/or enhancement of Ute ladies’- tresses Orchid (Spiranthes
diluvialis, ULTO) and Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei, PMJM) habitats.
The Restoration Project will be designed to meet federal and local agency mitigation requirements but
will go beyond those requirements to also further address OSBT and OSMP staff recommendations
and feedback for how to help offset the expected ecological impacts on OSMP property from the
Flood Project.
BACKGROUND
The purpose of the Flood Project is to provide critical life safety in the event of a flood from South
Boulder Creek. The Flood Project will provide flood protection for approximately 2,400 residents and
remove 260 structures from the 100-yr (1% annual chance) flood event. The Flood Project includes a
regional detention facility upstream of US36 with an earthen embankment, detention excavation area,
outlet works, and floodwall/spillway. A plan of the proposed Flood Project is shown in Figure 1.
Agenda Item 4B Page 1
Figure 1. South Boulder Creek Regional Detention Facility Plan
The construction of the Flood Project will have unavoidable environmental impacts to ecologically
significant resources located in the South Boulder Creek floodplain. Construction of Flood Project-
related facilities on OSMP property can proceed provided that the OSBT and City Council approve the
disposal of the OSMP-managed land intended to be permanently used for Flood Project purposes. The
Agenda Item 4B Page 2
estimated OSMP impacts are associated with the Flood Project’s floodwall/spillway and would occur
on the OSMP Van Vleet properties show in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Estimated Area of Impacts on Existing Open Space and Mountain Parks Property.
OSMP resources potentially impacted include wetlands, mesic tallgrass native grasslands, emergent
marshes, and willow shrublands. These resources provide habitat for ULTO and PMJM which are
protected under the federal Endangered Species Act. The area is also habitat for the Northern Leopard
Frog (Rana pipiens), a species of concern in Colorado. The impacted area is located within the South
Boulder Creek State Natural Area; an area recognized as having high-quality natural features of state-
wide significance through the Colorado Natural Areas Program. A summary of the environmental
impacts to the OSMP property are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Estimate Impacts on Existing OSMP Property
Regulated Resources
Project Total OSMP
Temporary
Impacts
(acres)
Permanent
Impacts
(acres)
Temporary
Impacts
(acres)
Permanent
Impacts
(acres)
Wetlands 6.8 6.4 1.0 2.2
Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse 1.9 3.8 1.6 3.5
Ute ladies’-tresses Orchid 2.3 4.5 0.9 2.7
Estimated Total Impact Area 46.1 77.8 1.6 3.5
These environmental impacts are required to be mitigated by federal and local agencies that oversee
protection of these resources and compliance with federal and local laws. The lead federal agency for
the Flood Project will be the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) who oversees compliance with
the Clean Water Act. Through this process the USACE consults with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Agenda Item 4B Page 3
Service (USFWS) for impacts to federally designated threatened and endangered species. The City of
Boulder will also be responsible for compliance with the Boulder Revised Code wetland ordinance.
The Flood Project is proposing the Restoration Project not only meets mitigation requirements of
federal and local agencies but goes beyond these requirements to further address recommendations
received from the OSBT to account for potential impacts to existing OSMP property.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
The area identified to best mitigate the environmental impacts from the Flood Project is the Open
Space – Other (OS-O) designated land on the CU-South property. The 119 acres that comprise the
OS-O are planned to be acquired by the city through the terms outlined in the CU-South Annexation
Agreement. The annexation agreement would also convey Dry Creek Ditch No. 2 water rights
associated with the CU-South property to the city. Acquiring the OS-O provides the city with an
opportunity to protect and restore a historic area of the South Boulder Creek Floodplain significantly
impacted by past mining operations and fragmented by a levee constructed through the site. The area
designated as OS-O on the CU-South property is shown in Figure 3.
Agenda Item 4B Page 4
Figure 3. Proposed Restoration Project Area
Agenda Item 4B Page 5
The Restoration Project design for the OS-O area of the CU-South property focuses on wetland and
mesic tallgrass creation, threatened and endangered species habitat creation and enhancement,
threatened and endangered species protection, and floodplain/habitat connectivity.
Utilities and OSMP staff have been working with the support of RJH Consultants, Westervelt
Ecological Services and Headwaters Corporation to develop a conceptual design for environmental
mitigation and restoration of the OS-O area.
Existing Conditions
The OS-O designated land on the CU-South property is located in the southeastern third of the
University’s property. The site was mined for gravel at various times from approximately 1956 to
1999 which left the area ten to fifteen feet below the original ground surface. The site has a FEMA
certified levee along the eastern edge of the CU-South property. The levee has disconnected the area
inside the levee from the 100-yr floodplain and fragments habitat between the CU-South property and
adjacent OSMP land.
Several decades of gravel mining on the CU-South property significantly altered the ecological
conditions of the site and impacted the larger floodplain of South Boulder Creek. Mining removed
most of the alluvial sand and gravel from the impacted property. These alluvial soils developed over
millennia from outwash from the foothills to the west into a complex stratification of sand and gravel,
lenses of silt and clay, and nutrient rich topsoil. These soils, along with the local alluvial groundwater
system helped create a diverse mosaic of vegetation and habitat types that support many of the species
seen today on the unmined OSMP properties in the South Boulder Creek floodplain.
The existing conditions and habitats of the proposed 119-acre restoration area are shown in Figure 4.
Agenda Item 4B Page 6
Figure 4. Restoration Project Area Existing Habitats
Existing groundwater conditions in the Restoration Project area include a combination of areas
impacted by the historic mining operations and areas with a more natural hydrologic system where
Agenda Item 4B Page 7
native alluvial soils and vegetation occur. These areas can generally be delineated by the existing
levee with areas west of the levee (dry side) having been historically altered by mining and areas east
of the levee (wet side) representing a more natural groundwater system, with the exception of the
ponds south of the levee. These southern ponds were also formed as part of the historic mining
operations.
The groundwater is dynamic and shows responses to seasonal changes in groundwater recharge,
irrigation ditch flows, South Boulder Creek water levels, precipitation, and evapotranspiration. Major
features that have been found to influence groundwater in the area include South Boulder Creek, Dry
Creek Ditch No. 2, and general flood irrigation practices on OSMP land outside the levee. The
proposed excavation surface for the restoration would create saturated soils at or near the ground
surface for at least 14 days during the growing season. This hydrologic regime would allow the target
habitat types, including wetlands, to develop in the restoration site. The existing groundwater
conditions have been studied as part of the Flood Project and existing monitoring wells in the
Restoration Project Area are shown on Figure 5.
Agenda Item 4B Page 8
Figure 5. Existing Groundwater Wells in the Restoration Project Area
Agenda Item 4B Page 9
Proposed Restoration
Two main goals of the Restoration Project are to meet the regulatory mitigation requirements of the
Flood Project and to also further address recommendations and feedback of the Open Space Board of
Trustees and OSMP staff. The Flood Project has prioritized avoidance and minimization of impacts to
important ecological resources, both regulated and unregulated. However, there will be unavoidable
impacts to wetlands and other ecologically important resources as part of the Flood Project. Including
impacts to federally designated threatened and endangered species and their habitat. As such, it is
appropriate to mitigate these impacts and develop a Restoration Project design that will create habitat
similar to what is being impacted. The Restoration Project provides an opportunity to restore an area
of the historic South Boulder Creek floodplain that was previously gravel mined and disconnected
from the surrounding area with a levee and currently has low ecological function. While the Flood
Project is expected to impact approximately 5 acres of OSMP, the Restoration Project aims to restore
and/or enhance 119 acres. These 119 acres will ultimately be owned by the city to be managed as city
Open Space.
The following criteria were used to help guide development of the restoration design alternatives:
•Maximize ecological restoration across the site in both wetlands and uplands.
•Minimize impacts to existing ULTO, PMJM, wetlands and wetland buffer zone.
•Increase ecological and floodplain connectivity between the restoration area and South
Boulder Creek.
•Meet or exceed assumed mitigation requirements associated with Flood Project impacts.
•Address hydrology and ensure long-term sustainability of wetlands and uplands.
•Incorporate restoration into surrounding landscape.
•Maintain existing irrigation systems in the area.
The conceptual Restoration Project design is shown in Figure 6.
Agenda Item 4B Page 10
Figure 6. South Boulder Creek Conceptual Environmental Restoration Design
A significant feature of the Restoration Project is the removal of the existing levee and the restoration
of the area now underlying the levee. Removal of the levee will provide greater hydrologic and
Agenda Item 4B Page 11
habitat connectivity to the existing South Boulder Creek floodplain and adjacent South Boulder Creek
State Natural Area.
The concept restoration design on the west of the levee (dry side) is intended to resemble a remnant
overflow area that was likely historically present in the SBC floodplain prior to mining. These features
may see formative overland flow during extreme flood events, with hydrology primarily supported by
groundwater and precipitation in most years. The grading target elevations in the wetland areas are
derived from a hydrologic target elevation. Wet meadow wetlands will be graded to this target
elevation, while seasonally inundated wetland/palustrine emergent marsh (PEM) swale areas will be
graded approximately 0.5 feet below this target elevation. Native grassland and scrub-shrub/palustrine
scrub-shrub (PSS) wetlands will be graded approximately 0.5 feet above the target elevation.
Bedrock is shallow in the mined area and is composed of extremely weathered Pierre Shale. These
shallow bedrock depths may require excavation of some bedrock from portions of the graded area.
Bedrock will be excavated and removed to a depth of at least two feet below the desired design
elevations and backfilled with suitable soil substrate (i.e., topsoil). The concept design will include the
possible use of existing Dry Creek Ditch No. 2 irrigation water during site establishment and/or for
future adaptive management of the site and to support prescribed grazing in the vicinity. Grading plans
will connect with elevations of Dry Creek Ditch No. 2 and will incorporate stoplog or turnout
structures to divert water if necessary.
The graded areas will be seeded with native wetland and upland seed mixes. Pollinator seed will be
incorporated with the upland mix to increase pollinator habitat on the project site. Shrub planting to
create and enhance habitat for PMJM and other species will also be incorporated into the design.
Targeted restoration and enhancement of upland buffer throughout the ecological project area will
increase and expand ecological connectivity with existing ULTO and PMJM habitats inside and
outside the levee.
Additional environmental studies are currently underway for the three southernmost ponds located in
the OS-O to maximize ecological restoration there. This area is currently dominated by monocultures
of cattail (Typha species) in low lying gravel mined basins separated by earthen berms. Habitat quality
and ecological function is low in these cattail marshes and on the berms. Based on known occurrences
of ULTO in similar habitat near this area, this species may be present in scattered locations. Careful
consideration must be given to restoration design in this area to avoid impacts to existing ULTO while
enhancing habitat for this and other species.
The mitigation ratios and mitigation acreage requirements for the Flood Project impacts will be
determined through the permitting process in accordance with requirements from the USACE,
USFWS and the City of Boulder. The Flood Project is currently in the permitting process with the
USACE and USFWS and final ratios will be determined through issuance of the permit. The estimated
minimum mitigation ratios and proposed ratios from the restoration project are summarized in Table
3.
Agenda Item 4B Page 12
Table 3. South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project Environmental Mitigation Estimated Needs
Regulated
Resource
Temporary
Impact
Ratio
(acres)
Permanent
Impact
Ratio
(acres)
Estimated
Mitigation
Requirements
(acres)
Concept
Design
Restoration
Area (acres)
Estimated
Mitigation
Ratio
(acres)
USACE
Wetlands
N/A 2:1 1.6 36.5 45:1
City of Boulder
Regulated
Wetlands
N/A 2:1 10.8 36.5 6:1
City of Boulder
Wetland Buffer
N/A 1:1 32.8 34.1 1:1
Preble’s Meadow
Jumping Mouse
Habitat
3:1 4:1 18.3 82.8 16:1
Preble’s Meadow
Jumping Mouse
Federally
Designated
Critical Habitat
4:1 7:1 4.3 4.3 6:1*
Ute ladies’-
tresses Orchid
1.5:1 2:1 12.5 33.2 5:1
*Ratio accounts for 0.2 acres of temporary impacts and 0.5 acres of permanent impacts.
The Restoration Project will involve restoration and enhancement of 119 acres of environmental
resources and habitat compared to 5.1 acres of OSMP-managed acres impacted by the flood project,
and the ratios of restored to impacted habitat go well beyond regulatory requirements. Some
environmental resources are more difficult to fully replicate than others, including wet meadow
wetlands, ULTO and PMJM habitats. Successful restoration or enhancement of these resources are
less certain and could take longer meet the mitigation goals.
Additionally, the Open Space Board of Trustees has provided the project team information about what
is desired prior to consideration of a disposal of Open Space property. This information was provided
at the July 11, 2018 and June 9, 2021 OSBT meetings.
The Restoration Project will exceed the mitigation requirements set by federal and local agencies. The
Restoration Project may also benefit resources not subject to regulatory mitigation. Northern leopard
frog habitat, mesic tallgrass communities, grassland and wetland dependent bird habitat, and aquatic
and terrestrial invertebrate habitat will all be restored or enhanced as part of the Project. Habitat in the
South Boulder Creek floodplain currently fragmented by the levee will also be reconnected by
removing the levee.
NEXT STEPS
The Flood Project is currently in the 60% Design phase, including hydraulic modeling, civil design
layout, geotechnical investigations, site survey and subsurface utility engineering, environmental
permitting and floodplain permitting. The current project schedule is shown in Figure 7.
Agenda Item 4B Page 13
Figure 7. South Boulder Creek Regional Detention Project Schedule
Agenda Item 4B Page 14
Next steps for the OSBT include an information update on the 60% in the summer of 2023. Staff is
currently working on a more refined timeline for additional steps with OSBT and City Council in the
coming months.
Agenda Item 4B Page 15
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Jennelle Freeston, Interim Deputy Director, Community Connections and Partnerships
Bethany Collins, Real Estate Senior Manager
Burton Stoner, Ranger Senior Manager
Lisa Goncalo, Recreation Management Coordinator
DATE: January 11, 2023
SUBJECT: Written Information: 4th of July Trailhead Parking Management Update
________________________________________________________________________
The City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) department is working with Boulder
County Parks and Open Space (BCPOS), Sheriff and Transportation departments to allow for Boulder
County (BOCO) to implement a timed, parking reservation system at the 4th of July and Hessie
Trailheads. This will provide a more positive and consistent visitor experience, minimize impacts to
natural and cultural resources, reduce staff and associated costs required to effectively manage the
area, and shift visitation to off peak times and days to reduce trail crowding.
The City of Boulder owns and manages the 4th of July Trailhead and five primitive tent camping sites
located at 4800 4th of July Road, Nederland, CO 80466. This trailhead is unique as it is located
approximately 20 miles west of the next closest OSMP trailhead and is the only OSMP property that
allows camping. This trailhead sees a daily average of 200 visits during non-winter months and has no
associated fees for parking or camping. In order to arrive at the 4th of July trailhead, a visitor must first
pass Nederland High School and the BOCO-managed Hessie Trailhead near the intersection of 4th of
July Road and Eldora Road.
In 2012, Boulder County began operating a shuttle service to the Hessie Trailhead, which has
alternately run from either the Nederland High School or the Nederland RTD Park-n-Ride.
In 2020, BOCO requested OSMP Ranger presence at the 4th of July Trailhead to help manage parking,
overcrowding and congestion. Due to the remote location of the trailhead from other OSMP
properties, it is not feasible or time effective for full-time Ranger staff, who are responsible for
responding to emergency calls for service in and around the city, to proactively patrol this area.
Therefore, OSMP dedicated two temporary rangers to be responsible for enforcement and patrol of the
parking lot and road, Saturdays and Sundays, from 0700 to 1330, from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
Together with the BOCO Sheriff’s Office, BCPOS implemented a traffic checkpoint on CR 130 at
Nederland High School on weekends and holidays from Memorial Day to Labor Day. In 2021, this
checkpoint turned around an average of 409 cars per day. Cars were turned back once available
trailhead and roadside parking was full at and near the Hessie Trailhead. OSMP temporary Rangers
coordinated their efforts near the 4th of July Trailhead with BOCO staff managing the checkpoint at
the high school and the Hessie Trailhead.
Beginning in 2023, to further improve the parking experience in this area, BOCO has proposed a
timed entry parking permit system for the 133 parking spaces at the 4th of July and Hessie Trailheads
(76 spaces at 4th of July and 57 at Hessie). Parking permits would be administered online, in 2-hour
time blocks to enter and park, for a $5 fee. The permit system would only apply from Memorial Day
through Labor Day, 7 days a week. OSMP agrees that this effort will further improve the current
Written Information - Item A - Page 1
parking situation and is working with BOCO to explore an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) that
would allow for implementation of this parking and permitting system and associated enforcement at
the 4th of July Trailhead. OSMP also expects that this IGA will lessen the need for OSMP Ranger
presence up at and adjacent to the 4th of July Trailhead. This IGA does not include or impact any of the
County’s operations related to the shuttle service to the Hessie Trailhead and there are no plans to
expand that service to the 4th of July Trailhead. This winter, OSMP and BOCO staff will continue their
collaborative efforts at drafting an IGA with intentions of having it executed and in place for the start
of the 2023 summer season at Hessie and 4th of July.
Written Information - Item A - Page 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Interim Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Jeff Haley, Deputy Director, Trails and Facilities
Ilene Flax, Senior Landscape Architect
DATE: January 11, 2023
SUBJECT: Written Information: Gebhard Integrated Site Plan Implementation Status
________________________________________________________________________
Introduction
The OSMP-managed Gebhard property alongside South Boulder Creek is within a Colorado
State Natural Area, a designation that emphasizes the state-wide ecological importance of
habitat conservation and restoration in this area. This high-value habitat supports riparian
nesting birds, federally listed species and rare plant communities, and serves as an important
movement corridor for other species. For many years, neighboring community members have
also enjoyed using this space to walk along and access South Boulder Creek.
Staff has managed access to the creek and habitat improvements through native plantings,
erosion control, signage, and fencing. These approaches have sought to improve habitat quality
and improve visitor awareness of the importance of riparian natural resources while still
meeting community desires for creek access. Despite these efforts, undesignated trails along
the west side of South Boulder Creek impact habitat for Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, a
federally listed species. Another federally listed species – the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid is
known to occur within the area. In addition, a globally rare mesic tallgrass community is
impacted by patterns of use, as are wetlands and a population of the Northern leopard frog, a
Colorado Tier 1 Species of Greatest Conservation Need.
Based on existing guidance in the 2010 Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan and the 1998
South Boulder Creek Area Management Plan, the current Gebhard Integrated Site Project
updates and confirms a sustainable management approach for the future. Staff has worked
closely with community members to develop alternative approaches for managing this area and
to select a preferred alternative that best meets project goal and objectives. Please visit the
website to remind or familiarize yourself with the
project. https://bouldercolorado.gov/projects/gebhard-integrated-site-project
Overview
Goals for the project include: 1) Restoration of riparian habitat along the west side of the creek
between East Boulder Recreation Center and South Boulder Road as part of the ongoing larger
restoration project along all South Boulder Creek and 2) Providing access to the existing
Written Information - Item B - Page 1
designated trail system on the east side of the creek in a way that aligns with the
neighborhood’s interests and values.
Gebhard Implementation
Implementation of the Gebhard Integrated Site Project preferred alternative paused when New
Zealand Mudsnails were discovered in South Boulder Creek and a management response plan
to the snail’s presence was developed and reviewed by the OSBT. Open Space and Mountain
Parks is now back at work on implementing the Gebhard project.
Implementation plans will detail the design described in the preferred alternative and final
management guidance provided by the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) in January 2020.
•The designer for the bridge that will link the west side trail to the east side trail system
has identified a precise location that minimizes grading and impacts to the area so that
bridge construction does not impact the floodplain. Design detailing will be like the
bridge near the East Boulder Community Center.
•Trail design will connect the Greenbelt Meadows neighborhood to the new bridge along
the route of a portion of the existing social trail through that area.
•Conversations with the Howard Ditch company on developing a new accessible crossing
are underway.
•Access to the creek at the existing bend will include bank stabilization to support diverse
vegetation and allow people to access the creek without harming the riparian zone.
Interpretive features around living with New Zealand Mudsnails will help make this a
place to linger.
•Restoration efforts will remove invasive species like crack willows and teasel, and add
new cottonwood trees and other plantings that support the wetland and riparian
systems.
•Volunteer projects that engage community members in active stewardship of the area
may include seed collection, invasive species removal, and volunteer ranger activities.
•The fish passage design is moving forward. This new structure will replace the existing
concrete dam with a series of boulder steps that will allow fish to move freely through
South Boulder Creek.
•Assessing the feasibility of all aspects of the Final Management Guidance. We are
working to provide community access in ways that support and protect the very things
that make the place so beloved.
There are some new staff members at work on this project, including Ilene Flax, Senior
Landscape Architect as project manager. We look forward to sharing our plans with you early in
2023, with construction anticipated to begin in Fall 2023.
Opportunities for Public Information:
OSMP plans to continue meeting with the Greenbelt Meadows HOA board as needed
throughout the project to build a stronger relationship and to continue to provide clear and
transparent goals for the project during the implementation phase. Project updates will
Written Information - Item B - Page 2
continue to be provided in many forms such as the Field Notes, social media updates and OSBT
memos as necessary when project milestones are reached and a more comprehensive project
update to the OSBT is planned for Q2 of 2023.
Written Information - Item B - Page 3