03.08.23 OSBT PacketOpen Space Board of Trustees
March 8, 2023
MEETING AGENDA
(Please note that times are approximate.)
I. (6:05) Approval of the Minutes
II. (6:10) Public Comment for Items not Identified for Public Hearing
III. (6:20) Matters from the Board
A. Comments/Questions from Trustees on Written Information memos or
public comment
B. Proclamation for Karen
IV. (6:45) *Colorado Tallgrass Prairie Natural Area and White Rocks Natural Area Updates
and Amendments; Proposed Coal Creek Tallgrass Prairie Natural Area
V. (7:20) * Consideration of a request from Craig and Nicole Harrison and Real investments,
LLC for a permanent, nonexclusive water service line easement for the installation
and maintenance of four Left Hand Water District meters and water lines across
Boulder Valley Farm Open Space consistent with the disposal procedures of Article
XII, Section 177, of the City of Boulder Charter
VI. (8:00) Matters from the Department
A. Science and Climate Resilience Update part 2: Adaptive Management,
funded research & publications (60 minutes)
B. Tribal Nation Consultation and Engagement Update (20 minutes)
C. Director Verbal Updates (5 minutes)
VII. (9:30) Adjourn
*Public hearing
Written Information
A. Update on revenues from codified special activities, permits, and fees
B. Boulder Open Space Conservancy (BOSC) 2022 Annual Report
C. Fort Chambers / Poor Farm Site Management Plan Update
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 February 23, 2023)
April 12, 2023 May 10, 2023 June 14, 2023
Action Items:
Matters from the Department:
• Volunteer, Service
Learning and Partnerships
Program Update and
National Volunteer Week
Recognition (40 min)
• 2024 Budget: 1st of 4
touches with OSBT (40
min)
• RMHPA MOU Update
• Director Verbal Update (5
minutes)
Matters from the Board:
• Oath of Office for new
OSBT Member (5 min)
• OSBT Elections (Chair, Vice
Chair and Secretary) (10
min)
• Ice Breaker Activity (10
min)
• Trustee questions on
Written Memo items or
public comment (10
minutes)
Action Items:
Matters from the Department:
• Annual Master Plan
Update/Report (50 min)
• Budget: 2nd of 4 touches
(50 min)
• CAMP Analysis Update (45
min)
• Fourth of July Trailhead and
Parking Management
Update (20 min)
• Director Verbal Update (5
minutes)
Matters from the Board:
• Trustee questions on
Written Memo items or
public comment (10
minutes)
Action Items:
Matters from the Department:
• Budget 3rd or 4 touches
(75 min)
• Prairie Dog Management:
Operational Adjustments
(90 min)
• Director Verbal Update (5
minutes)
Matters from the Board:
• Trustee questions on
Written Memo items or
public comment (10
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 February 8, 2023
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 Michelle Estrella Jon Carroll
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Dan Burke Jeff Haley Jennelle Freeston Lauren Kilcoyne Leah Case
Heather Swanson Brian Anacker Bethany Collins Colin Leslie Ben Verrill
Frances Boulding Marni Ratzel Kacey French
GUESTS
Janet Michels, Senior Attorney
Brenda Ritenour, Community Engagement Manager
CALL TO ORDER (00:30)
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM 1 – Approval of the Minutes (04:05)
Jon Carroll moved the Open Space Board of Trustees to adopt the minutes from January 11, 2023 as
amended. Dave Kuntz seconded. This motion passed unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM 2 – Public Participation for Items not Identified for Public Hearing (11:30)
Paula Shuler spoke in support of prairie dog management on irrigated lands being brought in-house.
Elizabeth Black spoke in support of bringing prairie dog management in-house.
Larry MacDonnell spoke against changing the City Charter to address passive recreation.
Sandra Laursen spoke in regard to e-bikes on open space trails and her opposition to e-bikes on South
Boulder Creek Trail and White Rocks Trail.
Richard Harris spoke on behalf of PLAN-Boulder County and rejects e-bikes on open space as passive
recreation.
Bob Whorley spoke in regard to e-bikes and his support for opening trails to the use of e-bikes.
Brad Fountain spoke in regard to e-bikes and that they are classified as a bicycle and not a motorized
vehicle.
AGENDA ITEM 3 – Matters from the Board (39:35)
Under the item, “Comments/Questions from Trustees on Written Information memos or public
comment”, the Board asked several questions on the Chautauqua Access Management Program (CAMP)
memo including if a price increase would be considered and specifics on carrying capacity. On the
Trailheads Update memo, Dave suggested that in regard to trailhead planting, the focus should be on
restoring native landscapes. On the Boulder Valley Farm (BVF) Water Service Line memo, the Board
asked about the water line installation mechanism as well as acquisition and easement specifics.
Agenda Item 1 Page 1
Brenda Ritenour, Community Engagement Manager, presented the “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Initiative for Boards and Commissions” item. The Board asked about equity resources for Boards
including on support for language barriers and childcare options. The Board asked if offers for support
can be centralized across boards so that members can turn down offerings vs. having to ask for help. The
Board asked if staff is looking at the number of meetings and times/length of current meetings as part of
this process.
AGENDA ITEM 4 – Consideration of a staff recommendation to the Open Space Board of Trustees
on allowing e-biking as a passive recreational use on open space trails (1:30:00)
Kacey French, Planning Supervisor, and Marni Ratzel, Principal Planner, presented this item.
The Board reviewed previous year’s motions made by OSBT regarding e-bikes on open space, discussed
the City Charter, and if e-bikes are passive recreation.
Motions:
(2:22:00)
Jon Carroll moved the Open Space Board of Trustees to recommend the Boulder City Council to
allow class 1 and class 2 e-biking as a passive recreational activity permissible on open space on
trails where designated by the City Manager. Michelle Estrella seconded. This motion did not pass;
Caroline Miller, Dave Kuntz and Karen Hollweg dissented.
Caroline, Dave and Karen summarized their reasoning for dissent, including:
• Passive recreation is allowed in the City Charter and is defined in the Visitor Master Plan (VMP)
as non-motorized and reiterated in the 2019 master plan.
• Not enough grounds for legislative finding to make the change in the Charter language.
• The term “Passive recreation” is not a policy decision that is up to council to determine.
Michelle and Jon summarized their support for the motion, including:
• Passive recreative is defined in the VMP and not in the Charter.
• The VMP is now outdated and overdue an update.
• At the time of writing e-bikes were not considered.
• Passive recreation is a policy decision that is up to council to determine.
(2:38:00)
Michelle Estrella moved the Open Space Board of Trustees to recommend that the OSMP
Department proceed with the staff preferred alternative to implement this policy by designating
and managing the trails in Alternative B - Plains trails located east of Broadway that allow biking,
and the Boulder Canyon Trail for e-biking – with the addition of Chapman Drive Trail and
Foothills South Trail. Jon Carroll seconded. This motion did not pass; Caroline Miller, Dave Kuntz
and Karen Hollweg dissented.
Caroline, Dave and Karen summarized their reasoning for dissent, including:
• Hiking is enjoyed by 85 percent of OSMP users.
• There are trails that have up to 40-60 percent of bike users (on county trails), and hikers to enjoy
those trails is not an option; that level of bike use can provide dangerous conditions for
pedestrians and be hazardous for other open space users. At some point the percentage of bikes
on trails becomes so high that hikers are displaced.
Agenda Item 1 Page 2
• City needs to make transportation corridors safe for bicycles. If it is too dangerous for bicycles,
that is a transportation issue. Open Space should not be seen as an alternative for bicycles.
• Transportation and commuting are not open space purposes in Charter.
• A public vote is necessary to change the allowed uses of open space in the Charter.
• 50 percent of intercept survey respondents said class 2 e-bikes should not be allowed.
• Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge only allows class 1 e-bikes.
• 80 percent were concerned about rider speeds, 56 percent were concerned about e-bikes
displacing other visitors.
Michelle and Jon summarized their reasoning for being in favor of the motion, including:
• Overwhelming community support for option A
• Option B seems like a good compromise to try this out on some trails.
• Good balance of allowing commuting on select trails.
• Wonderland Lake trails are an important north south bike route to allow bikers to stay off
dangerous streets.
• Chapman Drive is perfect place for e-bikes to allow great loop from city into wilderness.
• Provides community equitable access to open space.
• About to launch e-bike rebate program and hypocritical to not allow on open space trails.
• Need to connect to regional trail systems such as Rocky Mountain Greenway.
• Can’t allow fear of unknown to prevent us from progressing.
• Meets climate goals as it allows folks to access and use our trailheads without a car.
• Have to take into account community surveys; no survey is perfect but can’t discount those who
can’t afford to live in expensive city limits.
• Should consider difference between actual and perceived conflicts when we take e-biking into
account.
• Consider doing a pilot of trails west of 36 (in response to support for Alternative A).
• This proposal would allow for consistency of user experience with neighboring land managers
and be easier for users to understand and comply with.
(3:18:00)
Dave Kuntz moved the Open Space Board of Trustees to recommend to City Council that language
in the current code B.R.C. 7-5-25, titled No Electric Assisted Bicycles on Open Space – “no person
shall activate the motor of an electric assisted bicycle on any recreational path or trail on open
space land as defined in the City Charter Section 170 except where the path or trail has been
transferred to a city department pursuant to Charter Section 177, “Disposal of Open Space Land
or section 8-8-11 “Transfer of Open Space Lands, B.R.C. 1981. Ordinance Nos. 7941 (2013); 7965
(2014); 8007 (2014); 8447 (2021)” – be repealed and removed from all applicable city ordinances.
Karen seconded. Passed three to two. Jon Carroll and Michelle Estrella dissented.
(3:27:00)
Dave Kuntz moved the Open Space Board of Trustees to recommend that the following language be
inserted into B.R.C. 7-5-25, titled “No Electric Assisted Bicycles on open space”:
Electric assisted bicycles are prohibited on Open Space lands as defined in City Charter
section 170. Operation of an electric assisted bicycle is not defined as a passive recreational
use in Article 12, Sec. 176 (c) of the City Charter.
Caroline Miller seconded. This motion passed three to two; Jon Carroll and Michelle Estrella
dissented.
Agenda Item 1 Page 3
(4:42:00)
Dave Kuntz moved the Open Space Board of Trustees to recommend to City Council revised
language for section 8-3-6. of the BRC - Vehicle Regulation:
a. No person, other than persons authorized by the city manager, shall:
(7) operate an electric assisted bicycle or other mechanized power assisted vehicle on any Open
Space lands as defined in City Charter section 170, except where a multijurisdictional regional trail
requiring access to a segment of open space trail to enable connectivity and contiguity and where
special designation and enforcement requirements are posted and have been determined necessary
to meet land protection, natural resource and visitor management goals.
Caroline Miller seconded. This motion passed three to two; Jon Carroll and Michelle Estrella
dissented.
Michelle and Jon summarized their reasoning for dissent, including:
• A need to make it clear to the community that we support e-bikes.
• This exception approach is complicated and will make implementation, compliance, and
enforcement impossible.
• Need to let neighboring land managers know that we support consistent connectivity; this motion
does not do that.
Dave and Karen summarized reasoning for being in favor of the motion, including:
• Support e-bikes; just don’t support e-bikes everywhere on open space trails.
• Support consistent connectivity and intent of the motion is to contribute to that.
• OSBT cannot agree with neighboring land agencies because of the principles established in the
City Charter.
• Without a vote of the public, cannot change the Charter.
Michelle asked whether there is an opportunity for board members to speak to City Council regarding the
reasoning for their dissent on motions made. Dan referenced the Rules of Procedure and advised that the
Board may delegate members to assist in presenting the Board recommendation which should also include
a brief synopsis of any dissent. Janet Michels clarified that the Guiding Principles for Interactions among
Council’s Boards, Commissions and Staff says board members can address council, though should identify
themselves as board members and clarify whether they are speaking from a personal position or on behalf
of the majority or minority position that the board has taken.
The Board asked about the involvement of OSMP and agency partners in regional trail planning processes.
AGENDA ITEM 5 – Matters from the Department (5:07:00)
Dan Burke gave an update welcoming Heather Swanson in her interim role as a deputy director.
ADJOURNMENT – The meeting adjourned at 11:23 p.m.
These draft minutes were prepared by Leah Case
Agenda Item 1 Page 4
CITY OF BOULDER
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: March 8, 2023
AGENDA TITLE
Colorado Tallgrass Prairie Natural Area and White Rocks Natural Area Updates and
Amendments; Proposed Coal Creek Tallgrass Prairie Natural Area
MASTER PLAN STRATEGIES
EHR.1) PRESERVE AND RESTORE IMPORTANT HABITAT BLOCKS AND
CORRIDORS.
PRESENTER/S
Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Heather Swanson, Interim Deputy Director, Resource and Stewardship; Ecological
Stewardship Supervisor
Lynn Riedel, Plant Ecologist
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this memo is to provide the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) with
background information and to request a recommendation to the City Council regarding updates
and amendments proposed for two state natural areas on Open Space and Mountain Parks
(OSMP) land, and the designation of Coal Creek Tallgrass Prairie Natural Area. Through a
partnership over the last several decades, the Colorado Natural Areas Program (CNAP) and City
of Boulder have designated four of the 95 designated natural areas across the state on OSMP
land. This memo includes draft Articles of Designation (AOD) which encompass updated and
amended AOD language and boundaries for the Colorado Tallgrass Prairie (Attachment A) and
White Rocks Natural Areas (Attachment B), as well as the draft AOD and proposed designation
of the Coal Creek Tallgrass Prairie Natural Area (Attachment C). Staff provided an update on
the amendments and proposed new natural area at the February 2022 OSBT meeting. The
proposed natural area boundaries have not changed since the 2022 update.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests the Open Space Board of Trustees make a motion to recommend to City Council
to 1) enter into the amended and restated articles of designation (AODs) including boundary
changes for the White Rocks and Colorado Tallgrass Prairie state natural areas, and 2) approve
the articles of designation establishing a new state natural area, Coal Creek Tallgrass Prairie, at
the OSMP-managed Jewel Mountain and Van Vleet-JeffCo properties, and
3) authorize the City Manager to sign the three articles of designation.
Agenda Item 4 Page 1
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
• Economic - OSMP contributes to the economic vitality goal of the city as it provides the
context for the diverse and vibrant economic system that sustains services for residents.
Highlighting the natural values of the OSMP properties included in the state natural areas
through the partnership with the Colorado Natural Areas program, supports the city’s
quality of life which attracts visitors and helps businesses recruit and retain quality
employees.
• Environmental - OSMP is a significant community-supported program that is recognized
worldwide as a leader in preservation of open space lands contributing to the
environmental sustainability goal of the City Council. The city and state’s collaborative
recognition of the ecological, geologic and paleontologic importance of the state natural
areas, and their integration into OSMP’s resource management, research and community
education, help preserve, protect and enhance the values of the city’s Open Space system.
• Social – Because OSMP lands, facilities and programs are equally accessible to all
members of the community, they help to support the city's community sustainability goal
through the opportunity for all residents "who live in Boulder [to] feel a part of and thrive
in" this aspect of their community.
OTHER IMPACTS
• Fiscal – The designation of the new state natural area and the revisions and amendments
for the two existing state natural areas involve land currently owned by the city and will
not incur new OSMP operations, maintenance or resource management costs.
• Staff time – The state natural area revisions and amendments and new designation are
part of the normal 2023 work plan for the Ecological Stewardship work group, the
Director, and the City Attorney’s Office.
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS
This item is being heard as part of this public meeting advertised in the Daily Camera on
March 5, 2023.
ANALYSIS
The Colorado Natural Areas Program (Colorado Parks & Wildlife - Colorado Natural Areas Program -
CNAP (state.co.us)) is within the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division of the Department of
Natural Resources and operates under the Colorado Natural Areas Act of 1977 (C.R.S. §§ 33-33-
104 through 113 (2012)). The Program mission is, “to identify, evaluate, and support the
protection of specific examples of natural features and phenomena as enduring resources for
present and future generations, through a statewide system of Designated Natural Areas.” In
1979, Ricky Weiser worked with CNAP to designate the White Rocks Natural Area, which was
in her ownership at the time and was acquired by the City in 2011. City of Boulder OSMP led the
city’s designation process for three additional natural areas: Colorado Tallgrass Prairie (1984),
South Boulder Creek (1999), and Boulder Mountain Park (2009) (Attachment D). Natural area
designation is voluntary, and the landowner has full responsibility for and jurisdiction over
management. Articles of Designation serve as the formal agreement between the landowner and
the state. Key benefits of natural area designation include:
• Recognition of a landowner's outstanding environmental stewardship
• Recognition and documentation of natural value in the overall context of the state of
Colorado
• Enhanced awareness of conservation value to land use decision-makers and public land
users
Agenda Item 4 Page 2
• Long-term institutional memory through documentation of baseline conditions and
changes over time
• Assistance in monitoring sensitive areas by staff and volunteer stewards
• Opportunities for expert scientific review and research of significant features
• Access to the Program's network of partners and knowledge of resources to support
conservation and stewardship
• May help to avoid listing of species under the Endangered Species Act, prevent species
extinction, and support species recovery
OSMP and CNAP staff have collaborated to amend and update the Articles of Designation
(AOD) including boundary adjustments for the two oldest designated areas, Colorado Tallgrass
Prairie and White Rocks (Attachments A and B). Since these original designations, land has
been added to the OSMP system that can provide appropriate additions to the original natural
areas. This includes high quality tallgrass prairie communities, portions of the White Rocks cliffs
that were acquired with the Ertl property and other important natural elements and habitat. The
proposed boundary changes have been designed to improve conservation value by increasing the
size of the natural areas. The expansions include additional biological diversity, landscape
continuity, and buffering from surrounding developed areas. AOD updates for both natural areas
will bring the documents into better alignment with current OSMP and CNAP conservation
approaches.
The Jewel Mountain and Van Vleet-JeffCo properties, which occur in Jefferson County, have
been registered by the Colorado Natural Areas Council (CNAC) as a potential new state natural
area due to the globally rare tallgrass prairie community that occurs there in a unique geologic
setting on the Rocky Flats Mesa (Attachment D). CNAP and OSMP staff have developed the
draft AOD to designate Coal Creek Tallgrass Prairie state natural area (Attachment C). The in-
progress process will involve the OSBT consideration at today’s meeting, City Council, the City
Manager, and notice to the Jefferson County Commissioners with an opportunity for a public
hearing. CNAP staff will continue to facilitate the state’s approval process including
consideration by the Parks and Wildlife Commission.
The draft AOD amendments and updates for the two existing natural areas, and the draft AOD for
the new natural area have been reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office, OSMP staff and the state
Attorney General’s office.
NEXT STEPS
At this March 8, 2023 meeting, the OSBT will review and consider a recommendation to the City
Council regarding the draft AODs. If the OSBT recommends approval of the AODs, staff will
bring the amendments and updates and new designation to City Council seeking a Resolution
authorizing the City Manager to sign the amended and restated AODs and the Coal Creek
Tallgrass Prairie AOD.
In December 2022, the Colorado Natural Areas Council recommended that the Colorado Parks
and Wildlife Commission consider approval of the draft AODs. The Parks and Wildlife
Commission will address the CNAC’s recommendation at a regular meeting in May or June of
this year.
Both the Boulder County and Jefferson County Commissions have been notified by CNAP about
the respective proposals to amend existing natural areas (Boulder County) and to designate the
Coal Creek Tallgrass Prairie Natural Area (Jefferson County). In addition to a letter of notice,
Agenda Item 4 Page 3
information about CNAP and the proposals was provided to each Commission (Attachment E,
Jefferson Co). The Commissions have a 90-day period to respond with questions and/or the
decision to hold a public hearing for review of the proposed amendments/designation. CNAP
staff anticipate responses by sometime in March 2023.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment A: Colorado Tallgrass Prairie Draft Articles of Designation (amended,
restated)
• Attachment B: White Rocks Draft Articles of Designation (amended, restated)
• Attachment C: Coal Creek Tallgrass Prairie Draft Articles of Designation
• Attachment D: Map of City of Boulder OSMP Natural Areas, Proposed Amended
Boundaries, and the Proposed Coal Creek Tallgrass Prairie Natural Area
• Attachment E: Coal Creek Tallgrass Prairie Natural Area: CNAP Designation
Information for Jefferson County Commissioners
Agenda Item 4 Page 4
COLORADO NATURAL AREAS PROGRAM
STATE OF COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF PARKS AND WILDLIFE
COLORADO TALLGRASS PRAIRIE NATURAL AREA
ARTICLES OF DESIGNATION
(Amended and Restated)
These Articles of Designation (“Articles”) made this ___ day of __________, 20__ by and between
the State of Colorado acting by and through the Department of Natural Resources, Colorado
Division of Parks and Wildlife (the “Division”), located at 6060 Broadway, Denver, Colorado
80216, and the City of Boulder, a Colorado home rule city, through its Open Space and Mountain
Parks Department (the “City”), located at 1777 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80302, (the Division
and the City are collectively referred to as the “Parties”).
WHEREAS the Colorado Natural Areas Act as set forth at C.R.S. § 33-33-101, et seq. (the “Act”)
established a statewide Colorado Natural Areas Program (the “Program”) to provide a means by
which specific examples of Colorado’s natural features and ecological phenomena can be
identified, evaluated, and protected through a statewide system of designated natural areas; and
WHEREAS the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission (the “Commission”) is authorized to
conduct and administer the provisions of the Act; and
WHEREAS the Act established a Colorado Natural Areas Council (the “Council”) which advises
the Commission on administration of the Program, and which recommends the designation of
Natural Areas by the Commission; and
WHEREAS the Act shall be administered through the Division with the advice of the Council, and
WHEREAS the City owns and manages certain lands totaling approximately 1,347 acres situated
in Boulder County, Colorado, as described in Exhibit A and shown for illustrative purposes only in
Exhibit B. A portion of this acreage, 268.48 acres, is known as the Colorado Tallgrass Prairie
Natural Area, which was originally designated as a Natural Area on November 20, 1984; and
WHEREAS the Parties are modifying the boundary of the existing Colorado Tallgrass Prairie
Natural Area by adding 1,078 acres to include additional examples of high-quality tallgrass prairie,
which area is further described and illustrated in Exhibits A and B (the existing Colorado Tallgrass
Prairie Natural Area and the additional acreage, for a total of 1346.48 acres, are referred to herein
as the “Property”); and
WHEREAS as a result of the attributes of the Property, the Property provides one or more of the
benefits described in the Act at C.R.S. § 33-33-104 (2); and DRAFTATTACHMENT A
Agenda Item 4 Page 5
WHEREAS the Colorado Tallgrass Prairie Natural Area Articles of Designation can be amended
as declared in paragraph eight of the Colorado Tallgrass Prairie Articles of Designation dated
November 20, 1984.
WHEREAS the original Colorado Tallgrass Prairie Natural Area was first designated in 1979,
prior to the enactment of C.R.S. § 33-33-105(1)(j). However, the Division notified the Board of
County Commissioners of Boulder County of the proposed amendments to the designation of the
Colorado Tallgrass Prairie Natural Area on ____________.
WHEREAS at its meeting dated ____________, the Commission has determined, pursuant to its
criteria, that the additional acreage is a Natural Area and that it would be desirable to include the
additional acreage within the Colorado Natural Areas System, such that the Property will be
designated as one Colorado Natural Area; and
WHEREAS the City agrees that the Property should be preserved and protected as a Natural Area.
NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed that:
1.Designation of Property as a Natural Area. Upon filing of these Articles with, and the
acceptance of same by the Commission, with the advice and recommendation of the
Council, the Property shall become a designated Natural Area and part of the Colorado
Natural Areas System. Said designated Natural Area, including the additional acreage, shall
be known as the Colorado Tallgrass Prairie Natural Area.
2.Management Agreement. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 33-33-108(2)(a), these Articles shall
constitute a management agreement for the Property and may be supplemented by other
management agreements developed for the Property and mutually agreed to in writing by
the Parties.
3.Purpose of Designation. This designation evidences the desire of the Commission that the
Property be protected from impacts adversely affecting the attributes for which the Property
is designated, and that the Property shall be maintained as a Natural Area for scientific,
education, and other purposes pursuant to C.R.S. § 33-33-108(2)(b). The Commission has
determined, upon recommendation by the Council, that the Property qualifies as a Natural
Area to be included in the Colorado Natural Areas System due to the following:
A.The Property contains high-quality examples of globally imperiled mesic and xeric
tallgrass prairie community remnants. See Exhibit C for a complete list of tracked
plant communities known to occur on the Property.
B.The Property contains numerous rare plant species including Ute ladies’-tresses
(Spiranthes diluvialis, federally threatened), prairie violet (Viola pedatifida), slimleaf
milkweed (Asclepias stenophylla), and dwarf leadplant (Amorpha nana). See Exhibit
C for a complete list of rare plants known to occur on the Property.DRAFTATTACHMENT A
Agenda Item 4 Page 6
C.The Property contains numerous wildlife species of greatest conservation need
associated with the tallgrass prairie communities and other associated habitat
including: golden eagle, prairie falcon, grasshopper sparrow, bobolink, burrowing
owl, Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, and northern leopard frog. See Exhibit C for a
complete list of wildlife species of greatest conservation need known to occur on the
Property.
D.The Property contains numerous rare butterfly species associated with the tallgrass
prairie communities including: Ottoe skipper, regal fritillary, and two-spotted
skipper. See Exhibit C for a complete list of rare insects known to occur on the
Property.
E.As a result of these attributes, the Property provides the following benefits, among
others:
i.It serves as an example of the native condition in studies related to plant
communities, soil quality, and habitat productivity and can serve as a baseline for
re-establishing or restoring native condition.
ii.It serves as a resource from which new knowledge may be derived and as a
reservoir of genetic material which has present and future value to scientific
inquiry; and
iii. It provides habitat for species of greatest conservation need; and
iv.It serves as an outdoor classroom and laboratory for scientific research and study
in the geological, biological, and ecological sciences.
4.Rights and Duties of the Division.
A.The Division shall list the Property as a designated Natural Area of the Colorado
Natural Areas System, provide the City with a signed Certificate of Designation and
a signed copy of the Articles of Designation indicating said designation, and record
the Articles of Designation with the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder.
B.The Division has no authority to grant access to the Property without the consent of
the City.
C. The Division may visit the Property at any time to evaluate current uses and
conditions for consistency with these Articles. Prior to visiting, the Division will
give advance notice to the City. Following the visit, the Division will consult with
and provide any resulting reports to the City.
D. The Division shall cooperate with the City to assist in any inventory, mapping,
monitoring, and protection of the significant features on the Property in which the
City may engage.DRAFTATTACHMENT A
Agenda Item 4 Page 7
E. The Division shall produce a periodic report on the condition of the Property and
the status of the significant features on the Property. The periodic report shall be
written in cooperation with and reviewed by the City.
5.Rights and Duties of the City. The management of the Property shall be the responsibility
of the City, which agrees to maintain the Property as a Natural Area, for scientific and
educational purposes. Management of the Property shall be consistent with all applicable
federal and state laws and City planning documents and ordinances and any future
amendments and revisions thereto.
A.User access to the Property will be the responsibility of the City. The City may
approve access to the site and the undertaking of scientific research by qualified
persons if said research is deemed important and is compatible with the preservation
of the natural qualities within the boundaries of the Property.
B.The City may prohibit motorized access. The City may determine that no
motorized vehicles, other than those necessary for maintenance, emergencies, or
safety, may be permitted on trails, open space or parks located on this property and
no right-of-way for new roadways or utility corridors shall be assumed.
C.The City will manage the Property to maintain and protect its biological diversity,
natural hydrological regimes, scenic qualities, and prehistoric and cultural resources.
D.The City will cooperate with the Division to assist in inventorying and monitoring
significant features on the Property.
E.The City will cooperate with the Division in producing a periodic report on the
condition and use of the site.
F.The City shall notify the Division of plans for and/or actions on the Property prior to
their implementation and a copy of any documents affecting the Property executed by
the City shall be submitted to the Division.
6.Binding Effect. These Articles shall run with the Property and be binding upon the parties
hereto and upon any successors in interest to the Property. Any sale or transfer of the
Property by the City, whether by gift, device, operation of law or otherwise, shall be subject
to these Articles which shall be attached to any document of purchase or transfer and
incorporated therein by reference. The purchaser or transferee shall assume the City’s rights
and duties hereunder.
7.Violation. If either party reasonably believes that the other party has violated any of its
obligations under these Articles, it shall give the other party written notice. Within 30 days
of receipt of notice, the parties shall confer and make a good faith effort to correct the
alleged violations and to resolve any difference of opinion, which may exist as to the
respective rights and duties under these Articles. In the event that alleged violations are not
cured, notice of alleged violations shall constitute notice for purposes of termination.DRAFTATTACHMENT A
Agenda Item 4 Page 8
Violations of these Articles by the City may result in the removal of the Property from the
Colorado Natural Areas System.
8.Termination. If either party desires to terminate these Articles, it shall so notify the other
party and give said other party an opportunity to confer regarding the reasons for
termination. No less than 90 days after said initial notice, the notifying party may terminate
these Articles by an additional notice to said other party.
9.Notice. All notices to be given pursuant to these Articles shall be in writing and shall be by
electronic mail or registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the address listed
above or to such other person or address as the party to be notified may have designated by
written notice to the other party. Any notice so mailed shall be effective upon receipt.
10.Amendments. These Articles may be amended in writing by the parties hereto with
approval of the Commission and Council pursuant to C.R.S. § 33-33-108(3).
11.Counterparts. These Articles may be executed in multiple identical and original
counterparts, all of which shall constitute one agreement.
12.Entire Understanding. These Articles amend, restate, and replace in their entirety the
original articles of designation for the Colorado Tallgrass Prairie Natural Area, dated
November 29, 1984. These Articles represent the entire agreement and understanding of the
parties hereto and supersede the prior articles of designation and any other prior
agreements, representations, and understandings related to the Colorado Tallgrass Prairie
Natural Area.DRAFTATTACHMENT A
Agenda Item 4 Page 9
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executed these Articles as of the first day
written above.
STATE OF COLORADO
acting by and through the
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Wildlife
_______________________________ _________
XXXXXXX Date
Director
CITY OF BOULDER,
a Colorado home rule City
By: ______________
Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Date
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
City Attorney’s Office
Reviewed and recommended by the Colorado Natural Areas Council in its advisory capacity:
COLORADO NATURAL AREAS COUNCIL
__________________________________ ________________
Name of signatory Date
Chair DRAFTATTACHMENT A
Agenda Item 4 Page 10
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
COLORADO TALLGRASS PRAIRIE NATURAL AREA
Township 1S, Range 70W, 6th Prime Meridian
Section 10: 10: Portion of the SE ¼ of SE ¼; Portion of the 62.76 acres
NE1/4 of SE 1/4; Portion of the SW ¼ of SE ¼;
Portion of the SW ¼ of SW 1/4; Portion of the
SE ¼ of SW ¼
Section 11: Portion of the SW ¼ of the SW ¼; Portion of the 92.11 acres
NW ¼ of the SW ¼; Portion of the SE ¼ of the
SW ¼; Portion of the NE ¼ of the SW ¼
Section 14: Portion of the NE ¼ of the NW ¼; Portion of the 115.38 acres
SE ¼ of the NW ¼; Portion of the NW ¼ of the
NW ¼; Portion of the SW ¼ of the NW ¼
Section 15: NE ¼; Portion of the NW ¼ of the NW ¼; 289.99 acres
Portion of the NE ¼ of the NW ¼; Portion of the
SW ¼ of the NW ¼; Portion of the NW ¼ of the
SE ¼; Portion of the SW ¼ of the SE ¼; Portion
of the NE ¼ of the SE ¼
Section 16: Portion of the NW ¼ of the NW ¼; Portion of the 124.81 acres
SW ¼ of the NW ¼; Portion of the NW ¼ of the
SW ¼; Portion of the SW ¼ of the SW ¼; Portion
of the SE ¼ of the SW ¼
Section 17: Portion of the NE ¼ of the NE ¼; SE ¼ of the NE ¼; 250.83 acres
Portion of the SW ¼ of the NE ¼; Portion of the
NW ¼ of the NE ¼; Portion of the NW ¼ of the
SE ¼; SW ¼ of the SE ¼; Portion of the SE ¼ of
the SE ¼; Portion of the NE ¼ of the SW ¼; Portion
of the SE ¼ of the SW ¼; Portion of the SW ¼ of the
SW 1/4
Section 20: NE ¼ of the NE ¼; NW ¼ of the NE ¼; SW ¼ of the 355.65 acres
NE ¼; Portion of the SE ¼ of the NE ¼; Portion of the
NW ¼ of the SE ¼; Portion of the NE of the SE ¼;
NE ¼ of the NW ¼; SE ¼ of the NW ¼; Portion of the
NW ¼ of the NW ¼; Portion of the SW ¼ of the NW ¼; DRAFTATTACHMENT A
Agenda Item 4 Page 11
Portion of the NE ¼ of the SW ¼; Portion of the SE ¼ of
the SW ¼; Portion of the NW ¼ of the SW ¼; Portion
of the SW ¼ of the SW ¼
Section 21: Portion of the NE ¼ of the NW ¼; Portion of the 55.31 acres
SE ¼ of the NW ¼; Portion of the SW ¼ of the NW ¼;
SE ¼ of the NW ¼
County of Boulder
State of Colorado
Contains 1346.84 acres DRAFTATTACHMENT A
Agenda Item 4 Page 12
EXHIBIT B
COLORADO TALLGRASS PRAIRIE NATURAL AREA BOUNDARY MAP DRAFTATTACHMENT A
Agenda Item 4 Page 13
EXHIBIT C
NATURAL FEATURES KNOWN TO OCCUR AT COLORADO TALLGRASS
PRAIRIE NATURAL AREA
(as of 2022)
Natural Feature/Element
Scientific Name
Natural Feature/Element
Common name
CNHP/
NatureServe
Rank
State Wildlife
Action Plan
(SWAP)
Rank
Federal ESA
Listing
Rare/Sensitive Plant Species
Amorpha nana Dwarf leadplant G5/S2
Apios americana American groundnut
G5/S1
(potential
occurrence)
Aristida basiramea
Forked three-awn grass
G5/S2
(potential
occurrence)
Asclepias stenophylla Slimleaf Milkweed G4/G5 S2
Carex crawei Craw sedge G5/S1
Spiranthes diluvialis Ute ladies’-tresses G2G3/S2 Tier 1 Threatened
Viola pedatifida Prairie Violet G5/S2
Rare/Sensitive Wildlife Species
Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink G5/S3B Tier 2
Zapus hudsonius preblei
Preble's meadow jumping
mouse G5T2/S1 Tier 1 Threatened
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle G5/S1B, S3N Tier 2
Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle G5/S3S4B,S4N Tier 1
Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl G4/S4B Tier 1
Falco mexicanus Prairie falcon G5/S4B,S4N Tier 2
Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon G4/S2 Tier 2
Circus cyaneus Northern harrier G5/S3 Tier 2
Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper sparrow G4/S4 Tier 2
Fundulus sciadicus Plains topminnow G4/SH Tier 1
Lithobates pipiens Northern leopard frog G5/S3 Tier 1
Cynomys ludovicianus Black-tailed prairie dog G4/S3 Tier 2
Rare/Sensitive Insect Species
Hesperia ottoe Ottoe Skipper G3G4/S2 Tier 2
Euphyes bimacula Two-spotted skipper G4/S2 n/a
Speyeria idalia Regal fritillary G3/S1 n/a
Hesperia leonardus pawnee Leonard's Pawnee skipper G5/S1 n/a
Polites origenes Crossline skipper G5/S3 n/a
Rare/Sensitive Plant
Communities DRAFTATTACHMENT A
Agenda Item 4 Page 14
Andropogon gerardii -
Sorghastrum nutans Western Great
Plains Herbaceous Vegetation Mesic Tallgrass Prairie G2/S2
Andropogon gerardii -
Schizachyrium scoparium Western
Great Plains Herbaceous
Vegetation Xeric Tallgrass Prairie G2?/S2
Andropogon gerardii - Sporobolus
heterolepis Western Foothills
Grassland Xeric Tallgrass Prairie G2/S1
Pascopyrum smithii - Nassella
viridula Grassland
Western wheatgrass-green
needlegrass Great Plains
Mixed Grass Prairie G3G4/S1
Carex pellita Wet Meadow
Wooly sedge Montane Wet
Meadows G3/S2
Carex praegracilis Wet Meadow Clustered Sedge Wetland G3G4/S2
Schoenoplectus pungens Marsh
Common Threesquare
Marsh G3G4/S3
Spartina pectinata Western Wet
Meadow Prairie Slough Grass G3?/S2
Prunus virginiana – (Prunus
Americana) shrubland
Foothills Riparian
Shrubland G4Q/S1
Populus deltoides - (Salix
amygdaloides) / Salix (exigua,
interior) Floodplain Woodland
Plains Cottonwood
Riparian Woodland G3G4/S3
Populus angustifolia / Salix
irrorata Riparian Woodland
Foothills Riparian
Woodland G2/S2 DRAFTATTACHMENT A
Agenda Item 4 Page 15
COLORADO NATURAL AREAS PROGRAM
STATE OF COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF PARKS AND WILDLIFE
WHITE ROCKS NATURAL AREA
ARTICLES OF DESIGNATION
(Amended and Restated)
These Articles of Designation (“Articles”) made this ___ day of __________, 20__ by and between
the State of Colorado acting by and through the Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Parks and Wildlife (the “Division”), located at 6060 Broadway, Denver, Colorado 80216, and the
City of Boulder, a Colorado home rule city, through its Open Space and Mountain Parks
Department (the “City”), located at 1777 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80302, (the Division and
the City are collectively referred to as the “Parties”).
WHEREAS the Colorado Natural Areas Act as set forth at C.R.S. § 33-33-101, et seq. (the “Act”)
established a statewide Colorado Natural Areas Program (the “Program”) to provide a means by
which specific examples of Colorado’s natural features and ecological phenomena can be
identified, evaluated, and protected through a statewide system of designated natural areas; and
WHEREAS the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission (the “Commission”) is authorized to
conduct and administer the provisions of the Act; and
WHEREAS the Act established a Colorado Natural Areas Council (the “Council”) which advises
the Commission on administration of the Program, and which recommends the designation of
Natural Areas by the Commission; and
WHEREAS the Act shall be administered through the Division with the advice of the Council, and
WHEREAS the City owns and manages certain lands totaling approximately 1,477 acres situated
in Boulder County, Colorado, as described in Exhibit A and shown for illustrative purposes only in
Exhibit B. A portion of this acreage, 104.62 acres, is known as the White Rocks Natural Area,
which was originally designated as a Natural Area on June 26, 1979; and
WHEREAS the Parties are modifying the boundary of the existing White Rocks Natural Area by
adding 1,372 acres to include additional geologic formations and other natural features, which area
is further described and illustrated in Exhibits A and B (the existing White Rocks Natural Area and
the additional acreage, for a total of 1476.62 acres, are referred to herein as the “Property”); and
WHEREAS as a result of the attributes of the Property, the Property provides one or more of the
benefits described in the Act at C.R.S. § 33-33-104 (2); and
WHEREAS the original White Rocks Natural Area Articles of Designation can be amended as
declared in paragraph nine of the White Rocks Articles of Designation dated June 26, 1979. DRAFTATTACHMENT B
Agenda Item 4 Page 16
WHEREAS the original White Rocks Natural Area was designated in 1979 prior to the enactment
of C.R.S. § 33-33-105(1)(j). However, the Division notified the Board of County Commissioners of
Boulder County of the proposed amendments to the designation of the White Rocks Natural Area
on .
WHEREAS at its meeting dated ____________, the Commission has determined, pursuant to its
criteria, that the additional acreage is a Natural Area and that it would be desirable to include the
additional acreage within the Colorado Natural Areas System, such that the Property will be
designated as one Colorado Natural Area; and
WHEREAS the City agrees that the Property should be preserved and protected as a Natural Area.
NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed that:
1.Designation of Property as a Natural Area. Upon filing of these Articles with, and the
acceptance of same by the Commission, with the advice and recommendation of the
Council, the Property shall become a designated Natural Area and part of the Colorado
Natural Areas System. Said designated Natural Area, including the amended acreage, shall
be known as the White Rocks Natural Area.
2.Management Agreement. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 33-33-108(2)(a), these Articles shall
constitute a management agreement for the Property and may be supplemented by other
management agreements developed for the Property and mutually agreed to in writing by
the Parties.
3.Purpose of Designation. This designation evidences the desire of the Commission that the
Property be protected from impacts adversely affecting the attributes for which the Property
is designated, and that the Property shall be maintained as a Natural Area, for scientific,
education, and other purposes pursuant to C.R.S. § 33-33-108(2)(b). The Commission has
determined, upon recommendation by the Council, that the Property qualifies as a Natural
Area to be included in the Colorado Natural Areas System due to the following:
A.The Property contains an outstanding geologic feature known as the White Rocks, a
large outcropping of Fox Hills Sandstone originating from the late Cretaceous period;
exhibits especially well manifested polygonal jointing, and unusual topographic
characteristic known as “turtlebacks”; and fossilized burrows of marine shrimp dated
from the late Cretaceous period.
B.The Property contains four state rare plant species including: black spleenwort
(Asplenium adiantum-nigrum), forked three-awn grass (Aristida basiramea),
American groundnut (Apios americana), and smooth hornwort (Phaeceros laevis).
The federally threatened Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) also occurs on the
Property. See Exhibit C for a complete list of rare plant species known to occur on
the Property.DRAFTATTACHMENT B
Agenda Item 4 Page 17
C.The Property contains numerous wildlife species of greatest conservation need and
their habitat, including: bald eagle, northern harrier, prairie falcon, grasshopper
sparrow, northern leopard frog, and plains topminnow. See Exhibit C for a complete
list of known wildlife species of greatest conservation need known to occur on the
Property.
D.The Property contains a unique assemblage of plant communities, many of which are
tracked plant communities, including: Carex pellita Wet meadow, Spartina pectinata
Western wet meadow, and Hesperostipa comata Colorado Front Range grassland.
See Exhibit C for a complete list of tracked plant communities known to occur on the
Property.
E.As a result of these attributes, the Property provides the following benefits, among
others:
i.It serves as a resource from which new knowledge may be derived and as a
reservoir of genetic material which has present and future value to scientific
inquiry; and
ii. It provides habitat for species of greatest conservation need; and
iii.It serves as an area having outstanding geologic formations and features
illustrating geological processes; and
iv.It serves as an outdoor classroom and laboratory for scientific research and study
in the geological, biological, and ecological sciences.
4.Rights and Duties of the Division.
A.The Division shall list the Property as a designated Natural Area of the Colorado
Natural Areas System, provide the City with a signed Certificate of Designation and
a signed copy of the Articles of Designation indicating said designation, and record
the Articles of Designation with the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder.
B.The Division has no authority to grant access to the Property without the consent of
the City.
C.The Division may visit the Property at any time to evaluate current uses and
conditions for consistency with these Articles. Prior to visiting, the Division will
give advance notice to the City. Following the visit, the Division will consult with,
and provide any resulting reports to the City.
D. The Division shall cooperate with the City to assist in any inventory, mapping,
monitoring, and protection of the significant features on the Property in which the
City may engage.DRAFTATTACHMENT B
Agenda Item 4 Page 18
E.The Division shall produce a periodic report on the condition of the Property and
the status of the significant features on the Property. The periodic report shall be
written in cooperation with and reviewed by the City.
5.Rights and Duties of the City. The management of the Property shall be the responsibility
of the City, which agrees to maintain the Property as a Natural Area, for scientific and
educational purposes. Management of the Property shall be consistent with all applicable
federal and state laws and City planning documents and ordinances and any future
amendments and revisions thereto.
A.User access to the Property will be the responsibility of the City. The City may
approve access to the site and the undertaking of scientific research by qualified
persons, if said research is deemed important and is compatible with the preservation
of the natural qualities within the boundaries of the Property.
B.The City may prohibit motorized access. The City may determine that no motorized
vehicles, other than those necessary for maintenance, emergencies, or safety, may be
permitted on trails, open space or parks located on this property and no right-of-way
for new roadways or utility corridors shall be assumed.
C.The City will manage the Property to maintain and protect its biological diversity,
natural hydrological regimes, scenic qualities, and prehistoric and cultural resources.
D.The City will cooperate with the Division to assist in inventorying and monitoring
significant features on the Property.
E. The City will cooperate with the Division in producing a periodic report on the
condition and use of the site.
F. The City shall notify the Division of plans for and/or actions on the Property prior to
their implementation and a copy of any documents affecting the Property executed by
the City shall be submitted to the Division.
6.Binding Effect. These Articles shall run with the Property and be binding upon the parties
hereto and upon any successors in interest to the Property. Any sale or transfer of the
Property by the City, whether by gift, device, operation of law or otherwise, shall be subject
to these Articles which shall be attached to any document of purchase or transfer and
incorporated therein by reference. The purchaser or transferee shall assume the City’s
rights and duties hereunder.
7.Violation. If either party reasonably believes that the other party has violated any of its
obligations under these Articles, it shall give the other party written notice. Within 30 days
of receipt of notice, the parties shall confer and make a good faith effort to correct the
alleged violations and to resolve any difference of opinion, which may exist as to the
respective rights and duties under these Articles. In the event that alleged violations are not
cured, notice of alleged violations shall constitute notice for purposes of termination.DRAFTATTACHMENT B
Agenda Item 4 Page 19
Violations of these Articles by the City may result in the removal of the Property from the
Colorado Natural Areas System.
8.Termination. If either party desires to terminate these Articles, it shall so notify the other
party and give said other party an opportunity to confer regarding the reasons for
termination. No less than 90 days after said initial notice, the notifying party may terminate
these Articles by an additional notice to said other party.
9.Notice. All notices to be given pursuant to these Articles shall be in writing and shall be by
electronic mail or registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the address listed
above or to such other person or address as the party to be notified may have designated by
written notice to the other party. Any notice so mailed shall be effective upon receipt.
10.Amendments. These Articles may be amended in writing by the parties hereto with
approval of the Commission and Council pursuant to C.R.S. § 33-33-108(3).
11.Counterparts. These Articles may be executed in multiple identical and original
counterparts, all of which shall constitute one agreement.
12.Entire Understanding. These Articles amend, restate, and replace in their entirety the
original articles of designation for the White Rocks Natural Area, dated June 26, 1979.
These Articles represent the entire agreement and understanding of the parties hereto and
supersede the prior articles of designation and any other prior agreements, representations,
and understandings related to the White Rocks Natural Area.DRAFTATTACHMENT B
Agenda Item 4 Page 20
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executed these Articles as of the first day
written above.
STATE OF COLORADO
acting through the
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Wildlife
_______________________________ ______________
XXXXXXX Date
Director
CITY OF BOULDER,
a Colorado home rule City
By: ______________
Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Date
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
______________________________
City Attorney’s Office
Reviewed and recommended by the Colorado Natural Areas Council in its advisory capacity:
COLORADO NATURAL AREAS COUNCIL
________________
Name of signatory Date
Chair DRAFTATTACHMENT B
Agenda Item 4 Page 21
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
WHITE ROCKS NATURAL AREA
Township 14S, Range 70W, 6th Prime Meridian
Section 13: SE ¼; SE ¼ of the NE ¼; Portion of the NE ¼ of the 258.10 acres
NE ¼; Portion of the SW ¼ of the NE ¼; Portion of
the NW ¼ of the NE ¼
Section 17: 17: N ½ of the SE ¼; S ½ of the NE ¼; NW ¼ of the 537.20 acres
NE ¼; Portion of the NE ¼ of the NE ¼; S ½ of the
NW ¼; NE ¼ of the NW ¼; Portion of the NW ¼ of
the NW ¼; N ½ of the SW ¼; Portion of the SE ¼ of
the SW 1/4 ; Portion of the SW ¼ of the SW ¼
Section 18: N ½ of Section 18; N ½ of the SE ¼; Portion of 637.21 acres
SW ¼ of the SE ¼; Portion of the SE ¼ of the
SE ¼; N ½ of the SW ¼; SW ¼ of the SW ¼;
Portion of the SE ¼ of the SW ¼
Section 19: Portion of the NW ¼ of the NW ¼; Portion of the 4.98 acres
NE ¼ of the NW ¼
Section 24: Portion of the NW ¼ of the NE ¼; Portion of the 39.25 acres
NE ¼ of the NE ¼
County of Boulder
State of Colorado
Contains 1476.62 acres DRAFTATTACHMENT B
Agenda Item 4 Page 22
EXHIBIT B
WHITE ROCKS NATURAL AREA BOUNDARY MAP DRAFTATTACHMENT B
Agenda Item 4 Page 23
EXHIBIT C
NATURAL FEATURES KNOWN TO OCCUR AT WHITE ROCKS NATURAL AREA
(as of 2022)
Natural Feature/Element
Scientific Name
Natural Feature/Element
Common name
CNHP/
NatureServe
Rank
State Wildlife
Action Plan
(SWAP) Rank
Federal
ESA Rank
Rare/Sensitive Plant Species
Asplenium adiantum-nigrum Black spleenwort G5/S1
Aristida basiramea Forked three-awn grass G5/S1
Apios americana American groundnut G5/S1
Spiranthes diluvialis Ute ladies’-tresses G2G3/S2 Tier 1 Threatened
Eustoma grandiflorum Showy prairie gentian G5T5/S3S4;
Watchlisted
only
Phaeoceros laevis Smooth hornwort GNR/S1S3
Rare/Sensitive Wildlife Species
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle G5/S1B,S3N Tier 2
Circus cyaneus Northern harrier G5/S3 Tier 2
Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper sparrow G4/S4 Tier 2
Falco mexicanus Prairie falcon G5/S4B,S4N Tier 2
Cynomys ludovicianus Black-tailed prairie dog G4/S3 Tier 2
Lithobates pipiens Northern leopard frog G5/S3 Tier 1
Fundulus sciadicus Plains topminnow G4/SH Tier 1
Rare and Sensitive Plant
Communities
Carex emoryi Herbaceous
Vegetation
Emory Sedge Herbaceous
Vegetation
G4G5/SU
Carex pellita Wet Meadow Woolly Sedge Herbaceous
Vegetation
G3/S2
Carex praegracilis Wet Meadow Clustered Field Sedge
Herbaceous Vegetation
G3G4/S2
Spartina pectinata Western Wet
Meadow
Prairie Cordgrass Herbaceous
Vegetation
G3?/S2
Schoenoplectus pungens Marsh Threesquare Wet Meadow
Herbaceous Vegetation
G3G4/S3
Prunus virginiana – (Prunus
Americana) shrubland
Foothills Riparian shrubland G4Q/S1
Populus deltoides - (Salix
amygdaloides) / Salix (exigua,
interior) Floodplain Woodland
Eastern Cottonwood - (Peachleaf
Willow) / (Coyote Willow,
Sandbar Willow) Woodland
G3G4/S3
Andropogon gerardii -
Schizachyrium scoparium
Western Great Plains
Herbaceous Vegetation
Big Bluestem - Little Bluestem
Western Great Plains Herbaceous
Vegetation
G2?/S2 DRAFTATTACHMENT B
Agenda Item 4 Page 24
Hesperostipa comata Colorado
Front Range Grassland
Needle-and-Thread Colorado
Front Range Herbaceous
Vegetation
G1G2/S2
Rare/Sensitive Insect Species
Aphaenogaster huachucana G2
Significant Geologic/Paleontological Features
Outcropping of Fox Hills
Sandstone
Description: Large Foxhill sandstone outcrop from late Cretaceous period (about
65 MYA); fossilized burrows of marine shrimp (60-65 MYA); two smaller
outcrops of Pierre shale; large tubular rocks thought to be created from
groundwater channels where harder minerals were deposited from the water;
humps of rocks with polygonal joints (turtlebacks) DRAFTATTACHMENT B
Agenda Item 4 Page 25
COLORADO NATURAL AREAS PROGRAM
STATE OF COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF PARKS AND WILDLIFE
COAL CREEK TALLGRASS PRAIRIE NATURAL AREA
ARTICLES OF DESIGNATION
These Articles of Designation (“Articles”) made this ___ day of __________, 20_ by and between
the State of Colorado acting by and through the Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Parks and Wildlife (the “Division”), located at 6060 Broadway, Denver, Colorado 80216, and the
City of Boulder, a Colorado home rule city, through its Open Space and Mountain Parks
Department (the “City”), located at 1777 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80302, (the Division and
the City are collectively referred to as the “Parties”).
WHEREAS the Colorado Natural Areas Act as set forth at C.R.S. § 33-33-101, et seq. (the “Act”)
established a statewide Colorado Natural Areas Program (the “Program”) to provide a means by
which specific examples of Colorado’s natural features and ecological phenomena can be
identified, evaluated, and protected through a statewide system of designated natural areas; and
WHEREAS the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission (the “Commission”) is authorized to
conduct and administer the provisions of the Act; and
WHEREAS the Act established a Colorado Natural Areas Council (the “Council”) which advises
the Commission on administration of the Program, and which recommends the designation of
Natural Areas by the Commission; and
WHEREAS the Act shall be administered through the Division with the advice of the Council, and
WHEREAS the City owns and manages certain lands totaling approximately 1,470 acres situated
in Jefferson County, Colorado, as described in Exhibit A and shown for illustrative purposes only
in Exhibit B (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS as a result of the attributes of the Property, the Property provides one or more of the
benefits described in the Act at C.R.S. § 33-33-104(2); and
WHEREAS at its meeting dated ____________, the Commission has determined, pursuant to its
criteria, that the Property is a Natural Area and that it would be desirable to include the Property
within the Colorado Natural Areas System as a designated Colorado Natural Area; and
WHEREAS pursuant to the Act at C.R.S. § 33-33-105(1)(j), the Board of County Commissioners
of Jefferson County was notified of the proposed designation of the Property. The Board of County
Commissioners of Jefferson County may request a local public hearing for the purpose of
evaluating any local concerns regarding the proposed designation. DRAFTATTACHMENT C
Agenda Item 4 Page 26
STRIKE ONE: (1) The Board of County Commissioners of Jefferson County did request such
hearing which was held at _______ on ______________ 20__, and a motion was passed in support
of the designation; or (2) The Board of County Commissioners of Jefferson County did not request
such hearing; and
WHEREAS the City agrees that the Property should be preserved and protected as a Natural Area.
NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed that:
1.Designation of Property as a Natural Area. Upon filing of these Articles with, and the
acceptance of same by the Commission, with the advice and recommendation of the
Council, the Property shall become a designated Natural Area and part of the Colorado
Natural Areas System. Said designated Natural Area shall be known as the Coal Creek
Tallgrass Prairie Natural Area.
2.Management Agreement. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 33-33-108(2)(a), these Articles shall
constitute a management agreement for the Property and may be supplemented by other
management agreements developed for the Property and mutually agreed to in writing by
the Parties.
3.Purpose of Designation. This designation evidences the desire of the Commission that the
Property be protected from impacts adversely affecting the attributes for which the Property
is designated and that the Property shall be maintained as a Natural Area, for scientific,
education, and other purposes pursuant to C.R.S. § 33-33-108(2)(b). The Commission has
determined, upon recommendation by the Council, that the Property qualifies as a Natural
Area to be included in the Colorado Natural Areas System due to the following:
A.The Property contains a high-quality remnant of a once-extensive area of tallgrass
prairie on the glacial outwash surfaces that dot portions of the Front Range. The
tallgrass prairie remnant contains a unique and distinctive blend of Great Plains and
Southern Rocky Mountain montane plant communities. See Exhibit C for a complete
list of tracked plant communities known to occur on the Property.
B.The Property contains rare plant species including grassy slope sedge (Carex
oreocharis) and slimleaf milkweed (Asclepias stenophylla). See Exhibit C for a
complete list of rare plants known to occur on the Property.
C.The Property contains numerous wildlife species of greatest conservation need
associated with the tallgrass prairie community and other habitats, including: golden
eagle, prairie falcon, grasshopper sparrow, lazuli bunting, and northern leopard frog.
See Exhibit C for a complete list of wildlife species of greatest conservation need
known to occur on the Property.
D.The Property contains numerous rare butterfly species associated with the tallgrass
prairie communities, including: Ottoe skipper, regal fritillary, and two-spottedDRAFTATTACHMENT C
Agenda Item 4 Page 27
skipper. See Exhibit C for a complete list of rare insects known to occur on the
Property.
E.As a result of these attributes, the Property provides the following benefits, among
others:
i.It serves as an example of the native condition in studies related to plant
communities, soil quality, and habitat productivity and can serve as a baseline for
re-establishing or restoring native condition.
ii.It serves as a resource from which new knowledge may be derived and as a
reservoir of genetic material which has present and future value to scientific
inquiry; and
iii. It provides habitat for species of greatest conservation need; and
iv.It serves as an outdoor classroom and laboratory for scientific research and study
in the geological, biological, and ecological sciences.
4.Rights and Duties of the Division.
A.The Division shall list the Property as a designated Natural Area of the Colorado
Natural Areas System, provide the City with a signed Certificate of Designation and
a signed copy of the Articles of Designation indicating said designation, and record
the Articles of Designation with the Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder.
B.The Division has no authority to grant access to the Property without the consent of
the City.
C.The Division may visit the Property at any time to evaluate current uses and
conditions for consistency with these Articles. Prior to visiting, the Division will
give advance notice to the City. Following the visit, the Division will consult with,
and provide any resulting reports to the City.
D.The Division shall cooperate with the City to assist in any inventory, mapping,
monitoring, and protection of the significant features on the Property in which the
City may engage.
E.The Division shall produce a periodic report on the condition of the Property and the
status of the significant features on the Property. The periodic report shall be written
in cooperation with and reviewed by the City.
5.Rights and Duties of the City. The management of the Property shall be the responsibility
of the City, which agrees to maintain the Property as a Natural Area, for scientific and
educational purposes. Management of the Property shall be consistent with all applicableDRAFTATTACHMENT C
Agenda Item 4 Page 28
federal and state laws and City planning documents and ordinances, and any future
amendments and revisions thereto.
A.User access to the Property will be the responsibility of the City. The City may
approve access to the site and the undertaking of scientific research by qualified
persons, if said research is deemed important and is compatible with the
preservation of the natural qualities within the boundaries of the Property.
B.The City may prohibit motorized access. The City may determine that no
motorized vehicles, other than those necessary for maintenance, emergencies, or
safety, may be permitted on trails, open space or parks located on this property and
no right-of-way for new roadways or utility corridors shall be assumed.
C.The City will manage the Property to maintain and protect its biological diversity,
natural hydrological regimes, scenic qualities, and prehistoric and cultural resources.
D.The City will cooperate with the Division to assist in inventorying and monitoring
significant features on the Property.
E.The City will cooperate with the Division in producing a periodic report on the
condition and use of the site.
F.The City shall notify the Division of plans for and/or actions on the Property prior to
their implementation and a copy of any documents affecting the Property executed by
the City shall be submitted to the Division.
6.Binding Effect. These Articles shall run with the Property and be binding upon the parties
hereto and upon any successors in interest to the Property. Any sale or transfer of the
Property by the City, whether by gift, device, operation of law or otherwise, shall be subject
to these Articles which shall be attached to any document of purchase or transfer and
incorporated therein by reference. The purchaser or transferee shall assume the City’s
rights and duties hereunder.
7.Violation. If either party reasonably believes that the other party has violated any of its
obligations under these Articles, it shall give the other party written notice. Within 30 days
of receipt of notice, the parties shall confer and make a good faith effort to correct the
alleged violations and to resolve any difference of opinion, which may exist as to the
respective rights and duties under these Articles. In the event that alleged violations are not
cured, notice of alleged violations shall constitute notice for purposes of termination.
Violations of these Articles by the City may result in the removal of the Property from the
Colorado Natural Areas System.
8.Termination. If either party desires to terminate these Articles, it shall so notify the other
party and give said other party an opportunity to confer regarding the reasons for
termination. No less than 90 days after said initial notice, the notifying party may terminate
these Articles by an additional notice to said other party.DRAFTATTACHMENT C
Agenda Item 4 Page 29
9.Notice. All notices to be given pursuant to these Articles shall be in writing and shall be by
registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the address listed above or to such
other person or address as the party to be notified may have designated by written notice to
the other party. Any notice so mailed shall be effective upon receipt.
10.Amendments. These Articles may be amended in writing by the parties hereto with
approval of the Commission and Council pursuant to C.R.S. § 33-33-108(3).
11.Counterparts. These Articles may be executed in multiple identical and original
counterparts, all of which shall constitute one agreement.DRAFTATTACHMENT C
Agenda Item 4 Page 30
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executed these Articles as of the first day
written above.
STATE OF COLORADO
acting through the
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Wildlife
XXXXXXX Date
Director
CITY OF BOULDER,
a Colorado home rule City
By: ______________
Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Date
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
City Attorney’s Office
COLORADO NATURAL AREAS COUNCIL
______________
Name of signatory Date
Chair DRAFTATTACHMENT C
Agenda Item 4 Page 31
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
COAL CREEK TALLGRASS PRAIRIE NATURAL AREA
Township 2S, Range 70W, 6th Prime Meridian
Section 5: SW ¼ of the SW ¼; Portion of the SE ¼ of the SW ¼; 119.96 acres
Portion of the NW ¼ of the SW ¼; Portion of the NE ¼
of the SW ¼; Portion of the SE ¼ of the NW ¼; Portion
of the SW ¼ of the NW ¼; Portion of the SW ¼ of the
SE ¼
Section 8: NE ¼; SE ¼; E ½ of the NW ¼; Portion of the NE ¼ of 454.85 acres
the SW ¼; Portion of the SE ¼ of the SW ¼; Portion of
the SW ¼ of the SW ¼
Section 17: NE ¼; SE ¼; SW ¼: E ½ of the NW ¼; Portion of the 592.61 acres
SW ¼ of the NW ¼; Portion of the NW ¼ of the NW ¼
Section 18: SE ¼ of the NE ¼; Portion of the SW ¼ of the NE ¼; 167.85 acres
NE ¼ of the SE ¼; Portion of the SE ¼ of the SE ¼;
Portion of the SW ¼ of the SE ¼; Portion of the NW ¼
of the SE ¼; Portion of the SE ¼ of the NW ¼
Section 20: N ½ of the NE ¼; Portion of the SE ¼ of the NE ¼; 134.79 acres
Portion of the SW ¼ of the NE ¼; Portion of the NE ¼
of the NW ¼; Portion of the NW ¼ of the NW ¼
County of Jefferson
State of Colorado
Contains 1470.06 acres DRAFTATTACHMENT C
Agenda Item 4 Page 32
EXHIBIT B
COAL CREEK TALLGRASS PRAIRIE NATURAL AREA BOUNDARY MAP DRAFTATTACHMENT C
Agenda Item 4 Page 33
EXHIBIT C
NATURAL FEATURES KNOWN TO OCCUR ON COAL CREEK TALLGRASS PRAIRIE
NATURAL AREA (AS OF 2022)
Natural Feature/Element Scientific Name
Natural Feature/Element
Common Name
CNHP/
NatureServe
Rank
State Wildlife
Action Plan
(SWAP) Rank
Rare and Sensitive Plant Species
Asclepias stenophylla Slimleaf Milkweed G4/G5 S2
Carex oreocharis Grassy slope sedge G3/S2
Rare and Sensitive Wildlife Species
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle G5/S1B, S3N Tier 2
Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle G5/S3S4B,S4N Tier 1
Falco mexicanus Prairie falcon G5/S4B,S4N Tier 2
Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon G4S2 Tier 2
Circus cyaneus Northern harrier G5S3 Tier 2
Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper sparrow G4S4 Tier 2
Passerina amoena Lazuli bunting G5S5 Tier 2
Lithobates pipiens Northern leopard frog G5S3 Tier 1
Cynomys ludovicianus Black-tailed prairie dog G4S3 Tier 2
Rare/Sensitive Insect Species
Hesperia ottoe Ottoe Skipper G3G4/S2 Tier 2
Euphyes bimacula Two-spotted skipper S2G4 Tier 2
Speyeria idalia Regal fritillary G3S1 Tier 2
Hesperia leonardus pawnee Leonard's Pawnee skipper G5S1
Polites origenes Crossline skipper G5S3
Rare/Sensitive Plant Communities
Andropogon gerardii - Sorghastrum nutans
Western Great Plains Herbaceous
Vegetation Mesic Tallgrass Prairie G2S2
Andropogon gerardii - Schizachyrium
scoparium Western Great Plains Herbaceous
Vegetation Xeric Tallgrass Prairie G2?S2
Andropogon gerardii - Sporobolus
heterolepis Western Foothills Grassland Xeric Tallgrass Prairie G2S1
Pascopyrum smithii - Nassella viridula
Grassland
Western wheatgrass-green
needlegrass Great Plains
Mixed Grass Prairie G3G4/S1
Pascopyrum smithii - Bouteloua gracilis
Grassland
Western wheatgrass-blue
grama Mixed Grass Prairie
G5S5 (partial
tracking)
Prunus virginiana – (Prunus Americana)
shrubland
Foothills Riparian
Shrubland G4QS1
Symphoricarpos occidentalis Shrubland Snowberry Shrubland
G4G5/S4 (partial
tracking) DRAFTATTACHMENT C
Agenda Item 4 Page 34
Populus deltoides - (Salix amygdaloides)/
Salix (exigua, interior) Floodplain
Woodland
Plains Cottonwood
Riparian Woodland G3G4S3
Populus angustifolia / Salix irrorata
Riparian Woodland
Foothills Riparian
Woodland G2S2 DRAFTATTACHMENT C
Agenda Item 4 Page 35
036B
007C
093A119B072A
036E
170A 042A157A119A470N
007B 287C128A
¯
0 2 41Miles
Current and ProposedCity of Boulder OSMP Natural Area Boundaries
Proposed New Boundaries
Colorado Tallgrass Prairie
White Rocks
Coal Creek Tallgrass Prairie
Current Designated Natural AreaBoundaries
Boulder Mountain Park (BOMO)
Colorado Tallgrass Prairie
(COTA)
South Boulder Creek (SOBO)
White Rocks (WHRO)
interstates
highways
County Boundary
Map created by Savanna Smith
Colorado Natural Areas Program
August 16, 2021
NAD83 UTM Zone 13N
BOMO: 7401 acres
SOBO: 1170 acres
WHRO
Designated: 111 acres
Proposed: 1477 acres
COTA
Designated: 267 acres
Proposed: 1347 acres
Coal Creek Tallgrass Prairie
Proposed: 1458 acres
ATTACHMENT D
Agenda Item 4 Page 36
Coal Creek Tallgrass Prairie Natural
Area: CNAP Designation Information
What is the Colorado Natural Areas Program?
The Colorado Natural Areas Program (CNAP) is a statewide conservation program created in 1977 by the
Colorado Natural Areas Act (C.R.S. 33-33-101 -- 113). The Program is housed within Colorado Parks and
Wildlife (CPW) and is advised by the Colorado Natural Areas Council (CNAC), a seven member Governor
appointed board. CNAP’s statewide system of natural areas highlights and supports the protection of
Colorado’s most rare and unique natural features. State Natural Area designations are accomplished
through voluntary conservation agreements with landowners. In addition, CNAP serves as Colorado state
government’s lead in rare plant conservation.
Where is Coal Creek Tallgrass Prairie Natural Area located?
Coal Creek Tallgrass Prairie Natural Area includes 1,470 acres and is located in Jefferson County. It is
directly to the west of Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge with Highway 93 as the eastern border and
Highway 72 as the south border. Coal Creek runs adjacent to the west. The property is owned and
managed by the City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP).
Why is Coal Creek Tallgrass Prairie being considered for State Natural Area designation?
Coal Creek Tallgrass Prairie contains multiple natural features that are considered significant in Colorado.
The property contains a high-quality remnant of a once-extensive area of tallgrass prairie on the glacial
outwash surfaces that dot portions of the Front Range. The tallgrass prairie remnant contains a unique
and distinctive blend of Great Plains and Southern Rocky Mountain montane plant communities. The
property also contains numerous rare plant species, wildlife species of greatest conservation need, and
rare butterfly species associated with the tallgrass prairie plant community.
What would designation as a State Natural Area mean for Coal Creek Tallgrass Prairie?
State Natural Area designation would add Coal Creek Tallgrass Prairie to the statewide Natural Areas
System and recognize the site for its significant natural features and value in Colorado’s rich natural
heritage. The Colorado Natural Areas Program and the City of Boulder OSMP would enter into a
voluntary conservation agreement through Articles of Designation stating that the parties would work
together to collaboratively monitor and report on the site’s natural features. The City of Boulder OSMP
retains all ownership and management authority. All management, including access to the property, is
entirely the responsibility of the City of Boulder OSMP. Through the Articles of Designation, the City of
Boulder OSMP agrees to manage the property to conserve and protect the natural features for which the
property is designated for.
What are the next steps in the designation process?
Coal Creek Tallgrass Prairie is currently a Registered State Natural Area, meaning that the City of Boulder
OSMP and the Colorado Natural Areas Program (CNAP) have agreed that the property meets the criteria
ATTACHMENT E
Agenda Item 4 Page 37
to become a designated State Natural Area. CNAP and the City of Boulder OSMP are currently pursuing
designation of the property. The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners are notified at least 90 days
prior to final designation approval. The Articles of Designation will then need to be approved by the
Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission, which is anticipated to take place at the either the May or June
2023 meeting, where public input may be given. After approval by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Commission, the Articles of Designation will be signed by both parties, a Certificate of Designation will
be signed by both the Governor of Colorado and Executive Director of the Colorado Department of
Natural Resources, and a Notice of Designation will be filed with the Jefferson County Clerk and
Recorder.
Are there other State Natural Areas in Jefferson County?
Yes! One of the more recent State Natural Area designations also occurs in Jefferson County, within
Staunton State Park (owned by Colorado Parks and Wildlife). Others include Dakota Hogback State
Natural Area, owned by Jefferson County, and Ken-Caryl Ranch State Natural Area, owned by the
Ken-Caryl Ranch Foundation and Master Association. You can learn more about these State Natural
Areas by viewing CNAP’s storymap called “Colorado Natural Areas and Significant Natural Features”.
Where can I find more information on the Colorado Natural Areas Program?
Additional information about CNAP and State Natural Areas can found on CNAP’s website
(https://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/CNAP.aspx). Helpful resources within the website include:
storymaps to introduce you to CNAP,explore State Natural Areas,latest triennial report, learn about
sites open to visitation,benefits of designation,volunteer monitoring program, and the seven member
Governor-appointed Colorado Natural Areas Council.
ATTACHMENT E
Agenda Item 4 Page 38
CITY OF BOULDER
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: March 8, 2023
AGENDA TITLE
Consideration of a request from Craig and Nicole Harrison and Real investments, LLC for a
permanent, nonexclusive water service line easement for the installation and maintenance of
four Left Hand Water District meters and water lines across Boulder Valley Farm Open Space
consistent with the disposal procedures of Article XII, Section 177, of the City of Boulder
Charter
PRESENTER/S
Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Lauren Kilcoyne, Deputy Director of Central Services
Bethany Collins, Senior Real Estate Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This agenda item is for consideration of a request by Craig and Nicole Harrison and Real
Investments, LLC (“Lot Owners”) for a water service line easement to install four water lines
across the city-owned Boulder Valley Farm Open Space (the “OSMP Property,” shown on
Attachments A and B), which is managed by the Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP)
department, to obtain and provide domestic water from Left Hand Water District (LHWD)
for four privately-owned lots located in Block 3. The proposed easement, as generally
depicted on Attachments B and C, would parallel existing underground electric, gas and
telecommunications utilities on the OSMP Property and would be 10’-wide except for an
area adjacent to the 95th Street right-of-way where it would be 15-feet to accommodate the
meter pits. The water lines would be installed within a 2’-wide-by-5’-deep trench via open
cutting. Open cutting would minimize the impacts and future maintenance need versus
directional boring at this particular location.
The OSMP Property is a portion of the 962-acre Farm in Boulder Valley Non-Urban Planned
Unit Development (NUPUD) previously owned by Don and Rosalee Culver (“the Culvers”)
which was platted in 1992 and included six clustered subdivision blocks with 56 planned or
existing residential lots. The county subdivision and LHWD service agreements at the time
included 54 water taps (two existing units already had LHWD water service).
From 1992-2018, the City of Boulder acquired more than 850 acres of the Farm in Boulder
Valley, including 34 of the residential lots (two of which are developed and served by
LHWD water service at the farm headquarters and the others remain undeveloped). After
acquiring the 618-acre Property in 2018, however, it was discovered that no clear easements
for the LHWD service lines were in place to serve the four privately-owned lots in Block 3
Agenda Item 5 Page 1
(LHWD and the City disagree on interpretation of some of the plat language). The Lot
Owners each own two lots in Block 3 and are surrounded by the OSMP Property. Two of the
lots have existing residences and domestic wells, however the Lot Owners have been advised
by the State Division of Water Resources that additional wells (or expansion of the current
wells) are not possible without an augmentation agreement due to their location above the
Leggett Ditch, and the Lot Owners have not been successful in locating an augmentation
opportunity.
While OSMP staff would have preferred this issue to have been resolved as a private matter
prior to acquisition of the OSMP Property by the city, staff does acknowledge there was
intent by the Culvers to have all these residential lots connected to LHWD service.
Additionally, because LHWD holds other easements on the OSMP Property and is a Title 32
Special District organized under state statute, LHWD is asserting condemnation authority to
construct a water main to connect the four lots to domestic water if the proposed service lines
could not be installed. Defending or litigating a condemnation or other legal action would be
costly and if OSMP were unsuccessful, installation of a large water main would be more
impactful to the OSMP Property than the proposed service lines. Instead, working with the
Lot Owners and LHWD to select a location preferred by OSMP (co-located with other
utilities) and mitigate disturbance is preferrable. The water service has been approved by the
LHWD Board of Directors.
The proposed easement location is dryland agricultural land along a fence line, with very
limited, short-term disturbance to natural resources. OSMP program staff have not expressed
concern with the request and have not identified any sensitive or rare resources in area of the
proposed alignment and no impacts to the agricultural operation or open space uses of the
OSMP property are expected. OSMP cultural resource staff will perform an assessment prior
to finalizing the easement location and an invasive Russian olive tree would likely be
removed during construction. The Lot Owners will also pay OSMP $1,000, for the water line
easement interest in the OSMP Property (0.16-acre easement x $12,500/acre fee value x 50%
of fee).
Article XII, Section 177 of the Boulder City Charter requires an OSBT approval and
recommendation to City Council to dispose of any open space land interests, including the
conveyance of a permanent easement, under Section 177 of the Boulder City Charter. If
recommended and approved by OSBT and approved by City Council, OSMP staff will work with
the City Attorney’s Office to finalize the water service line easement and will monitor and
enforce its terms which will include provisions related to construction/reconstruction disturbance,
restoration (including revegetation and weed control), and ongoing maintenance access.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
OSMP staff recommends that the Open Space Board of Trustees approve and recommend that
City Council approve the conveyance of a permanent, nonexclusive water service line
easement to Craig and Nicole Harrison and Real investments, LLC for the installation and
maintenance of four Left Hand Water District water lines across that area of Boulder Valley
Farm Open Space as generally depicted on Attachment B consistent with the disposal
procedures of Article XII, Section 177, of the City of Boulder Charter
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
• Economic – As proposed OSMP will still be able to protect open space values while
considering the domestic water needs of these individuals and the Lot Owners will bear
Agenda Item 5 Page 2
the costs rather than the greater LHWD community. OSMP will also avoid costs
associated with potential legal action.
• Environmental – As proposed, there will be minimal impacts to OSMP resources or
community environmental concerns.
• Social – Approval of this request would permit equitable access to LHWD water service
for the Lot Owners.
OTHER IMPACTS
• Fiscal - The Lot Owners will pay OSMP $1,000, for the water service line easement
interest in the OSMP Property (0.16-acre easement x $12,500/acre fee value x 50%
of fee) and will pay all costs associated with the installation and ongoing
maintenance of the water service lines, as well as the restoration of the area disturbed
during the installation.
• Staff time - Sufficient funding for staff time is available to perform the work necessary to
complete this transaction.
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS
This item is being heard as part of this public meeting advertised in the Daily Camera on
March 5, 2023. A Notice of Disposal of Open Space Lands was published in the Daily Camera on
Feb. 24, 2023 and Feb. 25, 2023 pursuant to Section 177 of the Boulder City Charter.
ANALYSIS
In June 2022, OSMP Real Estate staff received an initial inquiry from LHWD and the Lot
Owners related to provision of domestic water service to Lots 1-4, Block 3 within the OSMP
Property shown on Attachment A. At that time, LHWD counsel and staff from OSMP and
the City Attorney’s Office maintained different legal interpretation of the NUPUD plat notes
and easement rights, and the City does not believe there are any clear easements in place
across the OSMP Property for LHWD service lines to serve Lots 1-4. Additionally, because
LHWD holds other easements on the OSMP Property and is a water district organized under
state statute, LHWD is asserting condemnation authority to construct a water main to connect
the four lots to domestic water. Defending or litigating a condemnation or other legal action
would be costly and if OSMP were unsuccessful, installation of a large water main would be
more impactful to the OSMP Property than the proposed service lines. Instead, working with
the Lot Owners and LHWD to select a location preferred by OSMP (co-located with other
utilities) for the four service lines and mitigate disturbance is preferrable.
The OSMP Property is a portion of the 962-acre Farm in Boulder Valley NUPUD and is
entirely located within the LHWD service area. The NUPUD was platted in 1992 and
included six clustered subdivision blocks with 56 planned or existing residential lots. The
county subdivision and LHWD service agreements at the time included 54 water taps (two
existing residences already had LHWD water service) and the LHWD water delivery
infrastructure was sized to accommodate them. However, from 1992-2018, the City of
Boulder acquired more than 850 acres of the Farm in Boulder Valley, including 34 of the
residential lots (two of which are developed and served by LHWD water service at the farm
headquarters and the others remain undeveloped).
The Lot Owners each own two lots in Block 3 and are surrounded by the OSMP Property.
Two of the lots have existing residences and domestic wells, however the Lot Owners have
been advised by the State Division of Water Resources that additional wells (or expansion of
the current wells) are not possible without an augmentation agreement due to their location
Agenda Item 5 Page 3
above the Leggett Ditch, and the Lot Owners have not been successful in locating an
augmentation opportunity. The reliability and quality of LHWD service, together with the
ability to upgrade fire protection systems, are also appealing to the Lot Owners. While OSMP
Real Estate staff would have preferred this matter to have been resolved as a private matter
prior to acquisition of the OSMP Property by the city, staff does acknowledge there was
intent by the Culvers to have all these residential lots connected to LHWD service and have
worked with the Lot Owners and LHWD staff to identify a preferred location and mitigate
impacts to the OSMP Property. The water service has been approved by the LHWD Board of
Directors.
As proposed, the easement, as generally depicted on Attachments B and C, would parallel
existing underground electric, gas and telecommunications utilities and would be 10’-wide
except for an area adjacent to the 95th Street right-of-way where it would be 15-feet to
accommodate the meter pit. The ¾” water lines and meter pit would be installed within a 2’-
wide-by-5’-deep trench via open cutting. Open cutting would minimize the impacts and
future maintenance need versus directional boring at this particular location because all four
service lines can be installed in a common trench and the equipment needed for installation
can remain within the easement width. This method also provides for a shorter installation
time and allows the use of a poly pipe in long spools which eliminates the need for extra
couplings that can fail over time.
Alternatively, directionally boring the private service lines in the same alignment could
require up to four bore and receiver pits and three couplings and would also require larger
and deeper holes for installation, maintenance and reconstruction. Geotechnical report and
soil boring would also be required to determine boring feasibility and the larger equipment
required for this work would require additional temporary or permanent easement area and
more extensive surface impact.
Also, if litigation or condemnation action by LHWD were successful, the result would be a
looped water service main with hydrants (rather than small private service lines) and require
an easement more than twice the length and width proposed in this request.
The proposed easement location is dryland agricultural land along a fence line, with very
limited, shorter-term disturbance to natural resources. OSMP program staff have not
expressed concern with the request and have not identified any sensitive or rare resources in
area of the proposed alignment and no impacts to the agricultural operation or open space
uses of the OSMP property are expected. OSMP cultural resource staff will perform an
assessment prior to finalizing the easement location and an invasive Russian olive tree would
likely be removed during construction. The Lot Owners will also pay OSMP $1,000, for the
water service line easement interest in the OSMP Property (0.16-acre easement x
$12,500/acre fee value x 50% of fee) and all costs associated with restoration of the easement
area disturbed by the installation of the water lines and meters.
Article XII, Section 177 of the Boulder City Charter requires an OSBT approval and
recommendation to City Council to dispose of any open space land interests, including the
execution of a permanent easement, under Section 177 of the Boulder City Charter. If
recommended and approved by OSBT and approved by City Council, OSMP staff will work with
CAO to finalize the water service line easement and will monitor and enforce its terms which will
include provisions related to construction/reconstruction disturbance, restoration (including
revegetation and weed control), and ongoing maintenance access.
Agenda Item 5 Page 4
CONCLUSION
Due to the following factors and after considering the impacts and alternatives of the proposed
request consistent with OSMP’s Guidance for License and Disposal Requests Involving Open
Space Lands, OSMP staff supports a recommendation and approval of a permanent, nonexclusive
water service line easement for installation and maintenance of four water service lines to the Lot
Owners over a portion of the OSMP Property:
- OSMP favors working with the Lot Owners and LHWD to identify a preferred easement
location co-located with other utilities and avoiding potential condemnation or other legal
proceedings that are more costly and time-consuming.
- The area of the OSMP Property proposed for installation of the water lines does not
contain rare or sensitive resources and can be restored to the current condition at the
expense of the Lot Owners.
- OSMP will be paid the fair market value of the easement interest in the OSMP Property,
and the easement will have strict terms related to construction/reconstruction disturbance,
restoration and ongoing maintenance access.
NEXT STEPS
If the easement is recommended and approved by OSBT, OSMP staff will bring the
recommendation before City Council for consideration, and if approved, OSMP staff will work
with the City Attorney’s Office to draft the easement.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment A: Vicinity Map
• Attachment B: Location Map
• Attachment C: Map of Proposed Easement
Agenda Item 5 Page 5
TableMesa Dr
S
Br
o
a
d
w
a
y KenPratt BlvdArapahoe Rd
BaselineRd US 287W Baseline Rd E 168th AveS Main StCtesy RdN 95th StE SouthBoulder RdFoothillsPkwy
S 96th StS Foo
th
i
l
lsHwy
E Baseline Rd
US 3
6
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
L
n
W South Boulder Rd
Empire Rd N 107th StState Hwy 52
Marshall Rd
S Boulder Rd
Arapahoe Ave
McCaslin BlvdDenv
e
r
B
o
u
l
d
e
r
T
u
r
n
p
i
k
e
Mineral Rd
Northwest
Pk
wyLongmont Diagonal HwyUser: cassidyj Date: 2/27/2023 Document Path: E:\MapFiles\Property\Boulder Valley Farm\Vicinity_BVF_Waterline_022723.mxd
Legend
ATTACHMENT A: Vicinity MapBoulder Valley Farm Waterline Easement
Approximate property boundaries from Boulder County Assessor'sdata.
City of Boulder OSMP
Subject Property
Highway
Roads
I
0 0.55 1.1 1.65 2.2 2.75Miles
SU
B
J
E
C
T
Boulder City Limits
Agenda Item 5 Page 6
Culver
Boulder Valley Farm
Sudan CE
Ertl II
Marble
Martinson
Dexter - Life Estate
Warner I - Open Space
Warner I - CE
Kennedy CE
Teller Lake (1/3 Hartnagle)
Ertl III - North East
N 107th St£¤287
£¤287N 95th StIsabelle Rd
Valmont Rd
Jasper RdLeggettDitch
B o u l der Cre e kLow e r Bou l d e r D itc h
L e yn e r C ottonw oodC onsolidate d Ditch
Bo
u
l
d
erand
W
hite
Rock
Ditch
User: cassidyj Date: 1/30/2023 Document Path: E:\MapFiles\Property\Boulder Valley Farm\Location_BVF.mxd
Location MapBoulder Valley Farm
I
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4Miles
Legend
OSMP Ownership
OSMP Joint Easement
OSMP Easement
Boulder Valley Farm
Approximate Waterline Easement
Parcels - Boulder County
Waterline Easement
Block 3
ATTACHMENT B
Agenda Item 5 Page 7
Attachment CAgenda Item 5 Page 8
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Brian Anacker, Science and Climate Resilience Sr. Manager
Heather Swanson, Interim Deputy Director of Resource and Stewardship
Ann Lezberg, Sr. Ecologist (Science Policy and Research)
Jennelle Freeston, Interim Deputy Director of Community Connections and
Partnerships
Lauren Kilcoyne, Deputy Director of Central Service
DATE: March 8, 2023
SUBJECT: Science and Climate Resilience Update part 2: Adaptive Management, funded
research & publications
___________________________________________________________________
Executive Summary
In this memo, Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) staff from the Science and Climate
Resilience workgroup and the Resource Stewardship service area provide on update on three
topics:
(1)a description of OSMP’s approach to adaptive management,
(2) a brief description of the Funded Research Program and grants awarded for the 2023
field season, and
(3)a brief description of publications from research conducted on OSMP property (2019-
2023).
For adaptive management, staff will present a new set of Guidelines for Adaptive Management
at OSMP (Guidelines). The Guidelines are included in Attachment A of this memo. These
Guidelines are the result of discussions with Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) in late 2021
and spring of 2022 as well as ongoing staff discussions. At the March 8, 2023, OSBT meeting,
staff will update the OSBT on the Guidelines and invite any questions or feedback. Staff will
consider OSBT feedback and additional engagement with staff and will refine these Guidelines
as needed.
For the Funded Research program, the program goals are described and a table of the 2023 grant
recipients is presented. Staff will provide a brief update on this program at the March business
meeting.
Agenda Item 6A Page 1
For publications, a listing of recent peer-reviewed scientific publications is provided, with
annotations to indicate publications about wildlife (as requested by OSBT in a previous meeting)
and annotations to indicate OSMP staff authors.
Item 1. Adaptive Management
At the OSBT Retreat on Oct. 20, 2021, Adaptive Management was on the agenda from 11:10 am
– 1:00 pm and included staff presentations and discussions among the Board and Staff (slides are
included here as Attachment D; and the video of the retreat is available at
https://bouldercolorado.gov/government/watch-board-meetings). At the retreat, staff shared the
policy context for adaptive management at OSMP, provided definitions, presented several
examples of successful adaptive management, and listed additional case studies. Some examples
of adaptive management at OSMP that were described included cattle grazing for tall oatgrass
control, prairie dog management, the Voice and Sight program, trail management at Red Rocks,
cliff nesting raptor closures, Flagstaff night parking regulations, and New Zealand mudsnail
management.
Following the retreat, OSBT created a document titled “OSBT Recommendations on Adaptive
Management” (Attachment B of this memo) and presented the document to OSMP staff at the
December 2021 OSBT meeting. Staff evaluated this feedback and returned to OSBT with a
written memo at the April 2022 business meeting (Attachment C). Since the April 2022 memo,
staff continued to evaluate the recommendations that were provided by the board as well as other
existing policy guidance and related implementation practices.
In this memo, staff present a new document titled: City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain
Parks Department Guidelines for Adaptive Management (Attachment A). These guidelines are
intended to introduce some of the terminology, processes, and requirements associated with
adaptive management, but are not to be an all-encompassing procedural checklist or policy
document.
The titles of the 10 guidelines are:
AM.1) Use an adaptive management approach to decision making.
AM.2) Use sliding scale criteria.
AM.3) Address site-specific problems while tracking cumulative impacts.
AM.4) Reduce lags between data collection and decision making.
AM.5) Include adaptive management planning as part of project initiation.
AM.6) Establish pre-identified thresholds.
AM.7) Increase staff understanding of adaptive management through training.
AM.8) Create a template for adaptive management at OSMP.
AM.9) Evaluate cost and tradeoffs.
AM.10) Practice continuous improvement.
Attachment A, section VI lists these guidelines and provides an explanatory narrative for each
one.
Agenda Item 6A Page 2
In preparing the Guidelines, staff made sure to address every point of feedback received from
OSBT after the 2021 retreat. In Table 1 below, we have cross walked the feedback received from
OSBT to relevant section in the Guidelines.
Table 1. Crosswalk of OSBT feedback and the Adaptive Management
Guidelines
OSBT Comment Relevant Adaptive Management Guidelines
1. Adaptive Management is initiated to address a
problem or issue on the OSMP system and find
answers to specific questions regarding management
actions that need to be addressed.
Specifically, to initiate Adaptive Management, the
staff with the support of the board will- develop
community understanding of the problem,
- define clear goals and desired conditions,
-explicitly state objectives and desired outcomes,
- propose standards and management actions to meet
the objectives,
-define monitoring and data collection frequency,
and
-propose specific adjustments or remedial actions to
be taken if standards and objectives are not met
-re-evaluate adjustments in the future if desired
outcomes are or not achieved
AM.1) Use an adaptive management approach for decision
making.
AM.2) Use sliding scale criteria.
AM.5) Include adaptive management planning as part of
project initiation.
AM.6) Establish pre-identified thresholds.
2. Adaptive management requires monitoring so that
evidence can be collected to enable learning from the
implementation of management actions and inform
next-step decisions.
AM.1) Use an adaptive management approach for decision
making.
AM.2) Use sliding scale criteria.
AM.5) Include adaptive management planning as part of
project initiation.
AM.6) Establish pre-identified thresholds.
3. User fees could be used to provide resources to do
the monitoring, when cost recovery is desirable.
AM.9) Evaluate cost and tradeoffs.
Agenda Item 6A Page 3
4. In some cases, a focus on specific location(s) or
time of year is useful to address a specific problem
on the system. Systemwide impacts also need to be
considered.
AM.3) Address site-specific problems while tracking
cumulative impacts.
5. Implementing results based on monitoring data in a
timely way is important. For example, each round of
the “smaller wheel” (implement, monitor, evaluate,
adjust) for any management objective should roll out
without long lags.
AM.4) Reduce lags between data collection and decision
making
6. It would be helpful for staff to define a template
describing adaptive management for OSMP use. This
could be developed as part of the upcoming visitor
use and recreation planning process, if not before
that.
AM.7) Increase staff understanding of adaptive management
through training.
AM.8) Create a template for adaptive management at OSMP.
AM.9) Evaluate cost and tradeoffs.
AM.10) Continuous improvement.
Staff have identified four possible uses for the Guidelines at OSMP:
1.Use the Guidelines as part of training for both new staff and existing staff.
2.Incorporate the Guidelines into the project review process as part of annual work
planning.
3.Use the Guidelines to inform planning projects, ensuring adaptive management is
considered and included from planning project initiation, and to help to identify when
monitoring and data collection capacity are needed and warranted.
4.Use the Guidelines to implement management actions to reach desired conditions.
5.Use the Guidelines through time to review areas where thresholds are not met to identify
the need for additional adaptive management or changes to plan guidance.
Next steps for the Guidelines include:
•Receive and consider feedback on the Guidelines from OSBT on 3/8/23.
•Conduct additional staff engagement on the Guidelines and revise as appropriate (AM.7).
•Continue evaluating how best to implement the Guidelines into OSMP operations
(AM.10).
•Periodically evaluate and revise the Guidelines as needed (AM.10).
Agenda Item 6A Page 4
Item 2. Funded Research Program
The OSMP Funded Research Program is a small grants program (each award is approx. $10,000)
that runs on an annual cycle. The main goal of the program is to work with the science
community to address both short- and long-term management needs of the department.
The Funded Research program is directly related to the OSMP Master Plan strategy EHR.7:
Develop a Learning Laboratory Approach to Conservation as well as RRSE.9: Develop a
Learning Laboratory Approach to Recreation, and indirectly linked to another 17 strategies (not
listed here).
In 2023, we received 15 proposals requesting $142,073 of funding. Staff reviewed the proposals
for merit (proposal organization, management merit, intellectual merit, methods, personnel
qualifications, schedule, and resources) and selected 11 projects for funding (Table 2). One
project (Henn) was jointly funded with Boulder County Parks and Open Space, Jefferson County
Open Space, and the City of Longmont.
Table 2. These 11 proposals were selected for funding. Field work will take place in 2023.
PI Name Affiliation Title of Proposal
Hedstrom, Zachary Boulder Mushroom
Implementation of a baseline macrofungal inventory
to identify species and their relative abundance in
various vegetation types and land use histories on
OSMP properties
Henn, Jonathan CU Boulder
Understanding spatial variation in grassland fuels to
inform wildfire risk mitigation strategies in the Front
Range*
Johnson, Pieter CU Boulder
Investigating an outbreak of limb malformations in
leopard frogs (Rana pipiens): Implications and links
to parasite infection
McKnight, Diane CU Boulder Assessing sources of nutrients contributing to algal
blooms in Wonderland Lake
McKnight, Diane CU Boulder Assessing Hyporheic Processes in the Upper
Coal Creek Ecosystem
Merchant, Tom CU Boulder
Winners and losers under future weather conditions:
Understanding plant vulnerabilities to dry spell
patterns at the species and community levels
Agenda Item 6A Page 5
Preston, Dan CSU
Stream macroinvertebrate community structure
following New Zealand mud snail invasion in South
Boulder Creek, Colorado
Smith, Garret Pointer Consulting
Using existing agency visitation data, explore
statistical methods for classification of
locations (trailheads, access points, etc.) into factor
groups. (RRSE.9)
Steven-
Rumann, Camille CSU Assessing forest treatment effectiveness in increasing
ecosystem resilience and resistance
Taylor, Scott CU Boulder Impacts of Anthropogenic Noise on Songbirds on
Boulder OSMP Land
Manzitto-Tripp, Erin CU Boulder
Habitat and substrate types on Front Range OS lands
shape the functional diversity of lichens:
a photosynthetic symbiosis essential for primary
succession and soil formation
Front Range Open Space Research Symposium
OSMP is hosting the 2023 Front Range Open Space Research Symposium in partnership with
Boulder County Parks and Open Space, City of Longmont, and Jefferson County Open Space.
As with previous years, the intent of the symposium is to help inspire and increase coordination,
collaboration, and partnership among scientists, staff, and the community. During this event,
attendees will hear presentations by scientists who have conducted research across the Jefferson
County, Boulder County, and City of Boulder open space systems on important land
management topics.
The Symposium will be held on April 14, 2023, 8:30-12:30, at the CU SEEC building, 4001
Discovery Drive, 608 UCB, Boulder CO. Registration will be required to attend for everyone.
Eventbrite details to register will be linked here when they become available. The conference
will be in-person only. A detailed schedule for the day will be shared closer to the date.
More information on the symposium, including registration instructions and the schedule, when
ready, can be found here: https://bouldercolorado.gov/services/osmp-funded-research-program
Item 3. Peer-Reviewed Publications from Research on OSMP
This is a list of 47 peer-reviewed journal publications or book chapters from 2019 to 2023
(through Feb 15, 2023) that resulted from research on Open Space and Mountain Parks land.
An * indicates wildlife-related publications.
Yellow highlights indicate OSMP staff authors.
Agenda Item 6A Page 6
*Adams, R.A., 2021. Do black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) colonies attract
foraging bats? Journal of Zoology 315, 156–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12911
*Adams, R.A., Hayes, M.A., 2021. The Importance of Water Availability to Bats: Climate
Warming and Increasing Global Aridity, in: Lim, B.K., Fenton, M.B., Brigham, R.M.,
Mistry, S., Kurta, A., Gillam, E.H., Russell, A., Ortega, J. (Eds.), 50 Years of Bat Research:
Foundations and New Frontiers, Fascinating Life Sciences. Springer International
Publishing, Cham, pp. 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54727-1_7
*Alldredge, M.W., Buderman, F.E., Blecha, K.A., 2019. Human–Cougar interactions in the
wildland–urban interface of Colorado’s front range. Ecology and Evolution 9, 10415–
10431. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5559
Anacker, B.L., Seastedt, T.R., Halward, T.M., Lezberg, A.L., 2021. Soil carbon and plant
richness relationships differ among grassland types, disturbance history and plant functional
groups. Oecologia 196, 1153–1166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-021-04992-x
Blanchard, M., Bowers, M.D., 2020. Critical Phenological Events Affect Chemical Defense of
Plant Tissues: Iridoid Glycosides in a Woody Shrub. J Chem Ecol 46, 206–216.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-019-01135-8
*Buckley, L.B., Graham, S.I., Nufio, C.R., 2021. Grasshopper species’ seasonal timing underlies
shifts in phenological overlap in response to climate gradients, variability and change.
Journal of Animal Ecology 90, 1252–1263. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13451
Bukoski, I.S., Murphy, S.F., Birch, A.L., Barnard, H.R., 2021. Summer runoff generation in
foothill catchments of the Colorado Front Range. Journal of Hydrology 595, 125672.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125672
Bushey, J.A., Hoffman, A.M., Gleason, S.M., Smith, M.D., Ocheltree, T.W., 2023. Water
limitation reveals local adaptation and plasticity in the drought tolerance strategies of
Bouteloua gracilis. Ecosphere 14, e4335. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.4335
*Chace, J.F., Cruz, A., Marvil, R.E., 2021. 14. Reproductive Interactions between and
Plumbeous vireos in Colorado, in: Ecology and Management of Cowbirds and Their Hosts.
University of Texas Press, pp. 128–134.
*Colman, R.E., Brinkerhoff, R.J., Busch, J.D., Ray, C., Doyle, A., Sahl, J.W., Keim, P., Collinge,
S.K., Wagner, D.M., 2021. No evidence for enzootic plague within black-tailed prairie dog
(Cynomys ludovicianus) populations. Integrative Zoology 16, 834–851.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1749-4877.12546
*Covy, N., Benedict, L., Keeley, W.H., 2019. Rock climbing activity and physical habitat
attributes impact avian community diversity in cliff environments. PLOS ONE 14,
e0209557. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209557
*Covy, N., Keeley, W.H., Benedict, L., 2020. Cliff-Dwelling Bird Species Show Variable
Behavioral Responses to Rock Climbing. Natural Areas Journal 40.
https://doi.org/10.3375/043.040.0321
Delgado-Baquerizo, M., Reich, P.B., Bardgett, R.D., Eldridge, D.J., Lambers, H., Wardle, D.A.,
Reed, S.C., Plaza, C., Png, G.K., Neuhauser, S., Berhe, A.A., Hart, S.C., Hu, H.-W., He, J.-
Z., Bastida, F., Abades, S., Alfaro, F.D., Cutler, N.A., Gallardo, A., García-Velázquez, L.,
Hayes, P.E., Hseu, Z.-Y., Pérez, C.A., Santos, F., Siebe, C., Trivedi, P., Sullivan, B.W.,
Weber-Grullon, L., Williams, M.A., Fierer, N., 2020. The influence of soil age on
ecosystem structure and function across biomes. Nat Commun 11, 4721.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18451-3
Agenda Item 6A Page 7
Felix, J.D., Berner, A., Wetherbee, G.A., Murphy, S.F., Heindel, R.C., 2023. Nitrogen isotopes
indicate vehicle emissions and biomass burning dominate ambient ammonia across
Colorado’s Front Range urban corridor. Environmental Pollution 316, 120537.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120537
*Ferraro, D.M., Miller, Z.D., Ferguson, L.A., Taff, B.D., Barber, J.R., Newman, P., Francis,
C.D., 2020. The phantom chorus: birdsong boosts human well-being in protected areas.
Proceedings of the Royal Society-B.
*Fisher, M.C., Prioreschi, R.A., Wolfe, L.L., Runge, J.P., Griffin, K.A., Swanson, H.M., Miller,
M.W., 2022. Apparent stability masks underlying change in a mule deer herd with
unmanaged chronic wasting disease. Commun Biol 5, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-
021-02951-z
*Gelles, R.V., Davis, T.S., Stevens-Rumann, C.S., 2022. Wildfire and forest thinning shift floral
resources and nesting substrates to impact native bee biodiversity in ponderosa pine forests
of the Colorado Front Range. Forest Ecology and Management 510, 120087.
Gray, J.E., Komatsu, K.J., Smith, M.D., 2021. Defining codominance in plant communities. New
Phytologist 230, 1716–1730. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.17253
Gray, J.E., Smith, M.D., 2022. Contrasting intra-annual population dynamics of two codominant
species are consistent across spatial and temporal scales. Journal of Ecology n/a.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.14055
*Haworth, M.R., Bestgen, K.R., Kluender, E.R., Keeley, W.H., D’Amico, D.R., Wright, F.B.,
2020. Native Fish Loss in a Transition-Zone Stream Following Century-Long Habitat
Alterations and Nonnative Species Introductions. wnan 80, 462–475.
https://doi.org/10.3398/064.080.0403
Heindel, R.C., Murphy, S.F., Repert, D.A., Wetherbee, G.A., Liethen, A.E., Clow, D.W.,
Halamka, T.A., 2022. Elevated Nitrogen Deposition to Fire-Prone Forests Adjacent to
Urban and Agricultural Areas, Colorado Front Range, USA. Earth’s Future 10,
e2021EF002373. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EF002373
Heindel, R.C., Putman, A.L., Murphy, S.F., Repert, D.A., Hinckley, E.-L.S., 2020. Atmospheric
Dust Deposition Varies by Season and Elevation in the Colorado Front Range, USA.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 125, e2019JF005436.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JF005436
Hinckley, E.-L.S., Miller, H.R., Lezberg, A., Anacker, B., 2022. Interactions between tall
oatgrass invasion and soil nitrogen cycling. Oecologia 199, 419–426.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-022-05192-x
Hirschfeld, S., Simmons, B., 2021. The non-dinosaur tracks at the Late Cretaceous Cherryvale
tracksite, Colorado. Fossil Record 7, 121–140.
Hoffman, A.M., Bushey, J.A., Ocheltree, T.W., Smith, M.D., 2020. Genetic and functional
variation across regional and local scales is associated with climate in a foundational prairie
grass. New Phytologist.
Hogan, T., 2019. A floristic survey of the Boulder Mountain Park: with notes on its conservation
and management (Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.). J. Bot. Res. Inst. Texas 13, 279–314.
https://doi.org/10.17348/jbrit.v13.i1.852
Innes, P., Gossweiler, A., Jensen, S., Tilley, D., St. John, L., Jones, T., Kitchen, S., Hulke, B.S.,
2022. Assessment of biogeographic variation in traits of Lewis flax (Linum lewisii) for use
in restoration and agriculture. AoB PLANTS 14, plac005.
https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plac005
Agenda Item 6A Page 8
Larson, J.E., Suding, K.N., 2022. Seed bank bias: Differential tracking of functional traits in the
seed bank and vegetation across a gradient. Ecology 103, e3651.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3651
*Lewis, J.S., Spaulding, S., Swanson, H., Keeley, W., Gramza, A.R., VandeWoude, S., Crooks,
K.R., 2021. Human activity influences wildlife populations and activity patterns:
implications for spatial and temporal refuges. Ecosphere 12, e03487.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3487
Mateer, T.J., Rice, W.L., Taff, B.D., Lawhon, B., Reigner, N., Newman, P., 2021. Psychosocial
factors influencing outdoor recreation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in
Sustainable Cities 3.
Plaza, C., García-Palacios, P., Berhe, A.A., Barquero, J., Bastida, F., Png, G.K., Rey, A.,
Bardgett, R.D., Delgado-Baquerizo, M., 2022. Ecosystem productivity has a stronger
influence than soil age on surface soil carbon storage across global biomes. Commun Earth
Environ 3, 233. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00567-7
*Prinster, A.J., Resasco, J., Nufio, C.R., 2020. Weather variation affects the dispersal of
grasshoppers beyond their elevational ranges. Ecology and Evolution 10, 14411–14422.
Rice, W., Mueller, J., Graefe, A., Taff, D., 2019. Detailing an Approach for Cost-Effective
Visitor-Use Monitoring Using Crowdsourced Activity Data. The Journal of Park and
Recreation Administration. https://doi.org/10.18666/JPRA-2019-8998
Rodman, K.C., Veblen, T.T., Saraceni, S., Chapman, T.B., 2019. Wildfire activity and land use
drove 20th-century changes in forest cover in the Colorado front range. Ecosphere 10,
e02594. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2594
Romo, A.B., Taff, B.D., Lawhon, B., VanderWoude, D., Newman, P., Graefe, A., Schwartz, F.,
2019. Dog owners’ perceptions and behaviors related to the disposal of pet waste in City of
Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration.
Schneider, I.E., Budruk, M., Shinew, K., Wynveen, C.J., Stein, T., VanderWoude, D., Hendricks,
W.W., Gibson, H. 2021, COVID-19 compliance among urban trail users: Behavioral
insights and environmental implications. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism.
Schneider, I.E., Lindsey, G., Petesch, M., Wynveen, C.J., Budruk, M., Hendricks, B., Gibson, H.,
Shinew, K., Stein, T., VanderWoude, D. 2021. Predicting physical distancing on
recreational trails during COVID-19. Journal of Transport and Health.
*Schorr, R.A., Matthews, M.D., Hoover, B.A., Finding bat roosts along cliffs: using rock
climbing surveys to identify roosting habitat of bats. Acta Chiropterologica 24.1 (2022):
167-176.
Seastedt, T.R., Knochel, D.G., 2021. A 20-year evaluation of successes with biological control of
spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe) in Colorado. Biological Control 159, 104631.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2021.104631
Settina, N., Marion, J.L., Schwartz, F., 2020. Leave No Trace communication: Effectiveness
based on assessments of resource conditions. Journal of Interpretation Research 25, 5–25.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1092587220963523
*Smith, J.M., Telemeco, R.S., Briones Ortiz, B.A., Nufio, C.R., Buckley, L.B., 2021. High-
elevation populations of montane grasshoppers exhibit greater developmental plasticity in
response to seasonal cues. Frontiers in Physiology 12.
Sterne, E.J., 2020. Structure and genesis of the Boulder-Weld allochthon, Denver Basin,
Colorado - Gravity slide or Laramide thrust sheet? MT GEOL 57, 271–304.
https://doi.org/10.31582/rmag.mg.57.3.271
Agenda Item 6A Page 9
*Thapa-Magar, K.B., Davis, T.S., Kondratieff, B., 2020. Livestock grazing is associated with
seasonal reduction in pollinator biodiversity and functional dispersion but cheatgrass
invasion is not: Variation in bee assemblages in a multi-use shortgrass prairie. PLOS ONE
15, e0237484. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237484
Tripp, E.A., Morse, C.A., Keepers, K.G., Stewart, C.A., Pogoda, C.S., White, K.H., Hoffman,
J.R., Kane, N.C., McCain, C.M., 2019. Evidence of substrate endemism of lichens on Fox
Hills Sandstone: Discovery and description of Lecanora lendemeri as new to science. The
Bryologist 122, 246–259.
Wilkins, E.J., Van Berkel, D., Zhang, H., Dorning, M.A., Beck, S.M., Smith, J.W., 2022.
Promises and pitfalls of using computer vision to make inferences about landscape
preferences: Evidence from an urban-proximate park system. Landscape and Urban
Planning 219, 104315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104315
*Windell, R., Lewis, J., Gramza, A., Crooks, K., 2019. Carnivore carrying behavior as
documented with wildlife camera traps. Western North American Naturalist 79, 471–480.
https://doi.org/10.3398/064.079.0401
Wynveen, C.J., Schneider, I., VanderWoude, D., Stein, T., Gibson, H., Shinew, K., Hendricks,
W., Budruk, M., 2022. Implications of COVID-19 Mitigation Policies on Recreational Trail
Users: Exploring Antecedents to Physical Distancing on Trails Across the Rural-Urban
Continuum. Journal of Rural Social Sciences.
Attachments:
•Attachment A: Guidelines for Adaptive Management at OSMP.
•Attachment B: OSBT Recommendations on Adaptive Management from October 2021.
•Attachment C: April 2022 OSBT Memo “Written Information: Update on Adaptive
Management
•Attachment D: OSMP staff slides from Oct. 20, 2021, OSBT retreat.
Agenda Item 6A Page 10
Attachment A. Guidelines for Adaptive Management at OSMP
CITY OF BOULDER OPEN SPACE AND MOUNTAIN PARKS DEPARTMENT
GUIDELINES FOR ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
I.DOCUMENT HISTORY
This document was created by OSMP staff in 2022-2023 and presented to the OSBT at their
March 8, 2023 business meeting. Please see the 3/8/23 meeting packet for a description of the
timeline and initial motivation for creating these Guidelines. Briefly, in 2021, OSBT asked staff
to describe their approach to adaptive management; staff did so at a retreat with OSBT in Oct.
2021; OSBT then presented a set of recommendations to staff; staff responded with a memo in
April 2022, another memo was presented in March 2023 which included these guidelines as an
attachment, and a staff presentation in March 2023.
II. DOCUMENT GOALS
The goals of this document are to
1.Create a consistent understanding of adaptive management for new and existing staff.
2.Reinforce and institutionalize adaptive management as a part of OSMP culture.
3. Set expectations for how staff evaluate the scale of adaptive management needed for
important projects and decisions, including those that rise to the level of OSBT or public
involvement as well as those that undergo adaptive management at the staff/department
level.
4. Improve the integration of adaptive management into OSMP planning processes and
project management.
III. EXISTING GUIDANCE AND DEFINITIONS
The Department of the Interior (DOI) refers to adaptive management as “a systematic approach
for improving resource management by learning from management outcomes.” In the 2009
Adaptive Management Technical Guide, the DOI notes that the idea of adaptive management
as a strategy for natural resource management can be traced back to the early 1900s. For our
purposes, the DOI’s operational definition of adaptive from 2009 is foundational:
“An adaptive approach involves exploring alternative ways to meet management
objectives, predicting the outcomes of alternatives based on the current state
of knowledge, implementing one or more of these alternatives, monitoring to
learn about the impacts of management actions, and then using the results to
update knowledge and adjust management actions."
In nearly all modern depictions, the steps of adaptive management are depicted by a circular
process diagram with 4 – 7 steps. This process is to be stepped through by managers and their
stakeholders. In general terms, the steps proceed as follows: Identify purpose and need, collect
foundational data, evaluate alternatives, implement a decision, monitor the results, adjust and
reassess. In some cases (e.g, Interagency Visitor Use Management Council [IVUMC] 2016), a
Agenda Item 6A Page 11
nested circular process is also represented, where monitoring and adjustments are made
continuously by managers without, and/or ahead of, the need for additional stakeholder
engagement.
In addition to the DOI and IVUMC’s work on adaptive management, OSMP can draw guidance
for adaptive management from local planning documents that OSMP staff have written or
contributed to: The Visitor Master Plan (2005), the OSMP Master Plan (2019), the Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) (2021), and others.
The following extracts from the Visitor Master Plan illustrate how adaptive management is to
be employed in the context of visitor management:
“A Word About Adaptive Management. Given the context of uncertainty, managing
visitor use and natural resources is often experimental, many times the most effective
strategies must be discovered through objective monitoring and modification, an
approach called adaptive management. An adaptive and cautious approach considers
changing circumstances, creates opportunities to incorporate new information and
evaluate unanticipated activities, and minimizes the likelihood of irreversible
environmental impacts.”
“Follow an adaptive management approach that involves monitoring the results of
management programs and allows adjustments when necessary.”
“Flexible, Adaptive Management. Implement an adaptive management approach that:
monitors visitor experience, visitor infrastructure, and resource conditions, assesses the
effectiveness of management actions, and revises them based on new information gained
from research and experience.”
The Master Plan generalized these remarks, saying that
“[p]lanning for all charter purposes should also involve an adaptive management process
that encourages responsive, information-driven land management practices. This type of
approach is critical to meet short-term needs and still provides a long-term vision that
guides on-the-ground decisions.”
Finally, the BVCP (2021) encourages city staff to use an adaptive management approach:
“The city and county will employ an adaptive management approach to resource
protection and enhancement.
a.Establishing objectives
b. Conducting ongoing monitoring of resource conditions
c. Assessing the effectiveness of management actions
d. Revising management actions based on new information from research
e.Learning from experience what works and what does not”
Agenda Item 6A Page 12
IV.FORMAL VS. INFORMAL ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT: A KEY DISTINCTION
In this document, we use the process diagram from the OSMP Master Plan as our basis for
depicting the adaptive management process (Fig. 1). We’ve modified the Master Plan diagram
by superimposing arrows on step 7. We refer to the larger adaptive management process as the
“big wheel” (i.e., circles 1-7), and the nested, smaller process as the “little wheel” (i.e., arrows
around circle 7). The big wheel represents a robust process undertaken when the situation is
warranted (see below for criteria) while the little wheel shows monitoring and adjustments made
iteratively by staff without needing to restart the larger process or conduct additional stakeholder
engagement.
Fig. 1. The adaptive management process is comprised of a “big wheel” (steps 1-7) and a “little
wheel” (arrows around step 7).
V. INTRODUCING THE GUIDELINES: ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AT OSMP
OSMP and other land management agencies are often making management decisions for how to
approach complex issues such as balancing natural resource conservation, visitor use, and other
land management challenges. As part of this decision making, full understanding or data on the
current condition, likely interaction of factors and impacts of new decisions are lacking due to
the inherent complexity of natural lands management. Faced with the need to determine how to
proceed without complete information, adaptive management provides a useful framework for
decision makers and staff. Adaptive management allows decisions to be made while using
information that is gathered during implementation to better understand the impact of
management, make small changes to implementation (little wheel described above), or trigger a
more robust review of the original decision (big wheel described above).
How adaptive management is used varies from project to project based on factors such as:
•What data is available at the time of decision/implementation?
•What level of effort is required to collect additional data during implementation?
Agenda Item 6A Page 13
•To what degree is newly collected and understood data likely to influence modifications?
•What level of difficulty exists in making changes to the original implementation?
•How likely are changes to make a difference in the factors being monitored?
At OSMP, adaptive management can take a variety of forms from informal, ongoing assessment
and changes in implementation (little wheel), to large, robust monitoring programs with initially
identified thresholds for action and options for modification to implementation when these
thresholds are reached (big wheel). In most cases, informal adaptive management is carried out
by staff, informing stakeholders or visitors as appropriate using signs, press releases, or other
means. More robust, formalized adaptive management often includes discussions with decision-
makers and the community, substantial staff effort to monitor and assess options, and more
substantial changes to management through time.
The below guidelines are intended to summarize the overall approach to both this smaller scale,
informal adaptive management and more formalized, “big wheel” adaptive management.
The underlying foundation to these guidelines is that OSMP should use adaptive management
throughout its work. The scale and formality of adaptive management will vary with the specific
project/problem being addressed, but an adaptative approach will always be considered
important. Moreover, it is essential that the right scale of adaptive management be chosen (little
wheel vs. big wheel) based on the needs and circumstances for each project.
Success of adaptive management can be bolstered if:
•The right scale of adaptive management is chosen.
•A shared understanding of appropriate thresholds for action has been established, and
identification of thresholds is possible.
•Implementation of monitoring is not overly difficult and there is sufficient funding and
capacity.
•Support exists with decision-makers and the community for modifications based on
information gathered and/or thresholds set for action.
To emphasize the importance of adaptive management in our work, and to increase the
likelihood of successful implementation, staff developed the following guidelines to be used in
project development and implementation. While staff could create a very long list of guidelines,
below we present our top 10 must-know guidelines.
The first 2 guidelines are foundational, and therefore have received a longer descriptive
treatment below than the remaining 8 guidelines.
Agenda Item 6A Page 14
VI.10 GUIDELINES FOR ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AT OSMP
AM.1 ) USE AN ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT APPROACH FOR DECISION MAKING :
Implement an adaptive management approach that monitors conditions, assesses the
effectiveness of management actions, and revises them based on new information gained from
research and experience.
Adaptive management spans from large-scale, high cost, high-visibility monitoring and adaptation of
management to day-to-day use of new data, new understanding, or changing conditions to inform the best
path forward in land management. Regardless of the scale, AM.1 informs staff that the expectation is to
use adaptable implementation while always gathering new information and understanding of the best path
forward (as opposed to doing things a certain way because it is what has always been done).
Table 1. Description of steps in formalized Adaptive Management (the “big wheel”).
Step in Adaptive Management Considerations and Details
1.Confirm approach with OSBT Project should be considered for formalized (“big
wheel”) adaptive management from initial planning
phases. Thoughts around adaptive management should
be shared as part of project scoping and designing
alternatives. See AM.2 regarding sliding scale criteria to
help evaluate the need for a formal process.
2.Existing guidance, data, trends If existing data is scarce, delayed implementation to
allow baseline data collection, use of reasonable
correlates/ data on similar issues, or
cautious/conservative approaches to management should
be considered. See also AM.9 regarding costs and proxy
data.
3.Analysis of desired conditions
and indicators*
During high controversy situations or high risk of
impact situations (see AM.2 regarding sliding scale
criteria), special care should be taken to ensure that
adequate baseline information is available and that
stakeholders are included in discussions. When possible,
thresholds for management change should be identified
before implementation.
4.Explore and evaluate alternatives Alternatives should consider the desired conditions and
indicators set in step 3. Alternatives should include a no-
action or no-change option unless there is a compelling
reason not to.
5.Update/document management
guidance
If changes are indicated by above analysis, document
updated management guidance
Agenda Item 6A Page 15
6.Pilot and Implementation Implementation should consider the alternative selected
and desired conditions or indicators/thresholds that have
been determined.
7.Monitoring and adjustments*The degree to which monitoring will be performed
should be determined by the data needs to complete the
adaptive management cycle. Monitoring should be
designed to collect information directly relevant to
desired conditions and indicators previously determined
in step 3. Cost and feasibility may inform whether direct
measurements are possible or prioritized or whether
extrapolation from other data sets will be necessary.
Risks at this step include: lack of support from
stakeholders for changes in management or decisions,
incomplete or inconclusive data, long lag time between
data collection and implementation of adjustments.
*Steps in adaptive management cycle with highest risk for disruption or failure of full adaptive
management cycle, especially in highly controversial or high impact projects.
Embracing adaptive management at the more formalized scale (“big wheel”) described above
and at the smaller (“little wheel”) scale are crucial to ensuring that OSMP remains current,
relevant and has management that is ever-responsive to changing conditions such as climate
change. Due to high levels of complexity in management of visitors, natural, and agricultural
resources, flexibility in decision making and the adherence to constantly evaluating and
responding to new information and understanding is important. Scale of adaptive management
(“big wheel” vs “little wheel”) needs to be informed by the specific issue being implemented
(see below). Decisions around adaptive management will likewise need to be appropriate for the
specific project. In some cases, including most “small wheel” projects, staff will be responsible
for all steps in the process. In other, high profile, complicated or contentious projects, OSBT, or
City Council may be involved in initial management decisions as well as adaptation based on
monitoring after implementation.
AM.2 ) USE SLIDING SCALE CRITERIA:
Evaluate the complexity, risk, stakeholder involvement, and controversy to determine the
amount of effort that should be applied to each element and step of the adaptive
manageme nt process.
The IUVCM created a framework in 2016 to provide cohesive guidance for analyzing and
managing visitor use on federally managed lands and waters. While these criteria were designed
to manage visitor use, they are directly relevant to all management decisions. The IUVCM
suggest that the use of a “sliding scale approach” will “ensure the investment of time, money,
and other resources…is commensurate with the complexity of the project and the consequences
of the decision. Issues with clearly small impacts usually require less depth and breadth of
analysis than those with impacts of greater significance.”
Agenda Item 6A Page 16
The IUVCM criteria to determine the level of analysis for an issue are:
1.Issue uncertainty: What is the level of uncertainty about the issue?
2.Impact risk: Are there considerable threats to the quality of resource conditions and
visitor experiences?
3.Stakeholder involvement: What is the level of stakeholder interest in the issue?
4.Level of controversy/potential for litigation: What is the level of controversy/potential
for litigation?
Once the sliding scale of analysis level has been determined, it is then used to determine the
amount of effort needed for each element and step in the adaptive management process. At
lower levels on the sliding scale analysis (sliders would be pushed to the left side of the arrows
on the figure above), “little wheel” adaptive management may be appropriate. At higher levels
on the sliding scale analysis (sliders would be pushed to the right side of the arrows on the figure
above), a more formal “big wheel” process may be appropriate.
It is important in using the sliding scale to capture the level of controversy and stakeholder
involvement to evaluate the risks associated with management changes resulting from adaptive
management. At high levels of controversy, adaptive management success can be bolstered by
getting buy-in from decision-makers and the public on threshold setting and resulting decisions
before any action is taken. In these situations, staff should conduct an evaluation of who, when,
and how stakeholders should be engaged, using support from the Planning and Design
workgroup, and whether high level policy changes are to be expected.
Information around issue complexity can help inform the difficulty of monitoring required. In
many cases adaptive management involving natural resource management will have a high level
of complexity due to high variability in natural systems, interaction of a variety of variables that
may or may not be able to be monitored, and inherent difficulty in monitoring many natural
resources at a level that provides certainty. As a result, in some cases, the use of specific
indicators or proxies for the specific area of focus may be necessary (see AM.9 for more
information on cost control).
Agenda Item 6A Page 17
Likewise, the impact risk may often be difficult to evaluate. In many cases, information from
studies completed elsewhere, or on similar species/communities may need to be used to inform
an understanding of the level of impact risk.
For OSMP, this sliding scale approach could be formalized using a template (see AM.8) that
would be completed before or while a decision is being evaluated or a project is being
developed.
AM.3) ADDRESS SITE-SPECIFIC PROBLEMS WHILE TRACKING CUMULATIVE
IMPACTS :
In some cases, a focus on specific location(s) or time of year is useful to address a
specific problem on the system, but s ystemwide and cumulative impacts also need to be
considered.
Because planning and decision making is nearly always performed at a site or area scale, rather
than system-wide, the cumulative impact of a variety of actions can be difficult to assess and
therefor be missed. It is important in adaptive management to design monitoring and form
decision making around a holistic view of actions across the system. Cumulative impacts should
be considered when designing an adaptive management framework for projects and monitoring
data evaluated in a way that considers this broader context.
AM.4) REDUCE LAGS BETWEEN DATA COLLEC TION AND DECISION MAKING :
Implementing results based on monitoring data in a timely way is important.
Data collection and evaluation can often be a long process (in some cases requiring years) and
competing priorities can prevent timely analysis and reporting. However, staff should strive to
collect and analyze data in a time-efficient way to ensure that long lags do not prevent the
closing of the adaptive management cycle. For example, each round of the “smaller wheel”
(implement, monitor, evaluate, adjust) for any management objective should be completed on an
ongoing basis as part of standard operations.
AM.5) INCLUDE ADAPTIVE MANAGMENT PLANNING AS PART OF PROJECT
INITIATION:
Adaptive management should be designed to fit the characteristics of each project (see
sliding scale above) at project initiation and prior to decision -making related to
management changes .
Determining the approach to adaptive management and setting necessary thresholds and
resulting actions at the beginning of a project and clearly communicating this framework during
decision making will increase the chances of successful use of adaptive management. Post hoc
Agenda Item 6A Page 18
implementation of adaptive management can lead to problems with fully implementing the
adaptive management cycle, particularly at the adjustment phase. See AM.8 regarding the use of
a template at project initiation.
AM.6 ) ESTABLISH PRE-IDENTIFIED THRESHOLDS .
Work with staff, and when appropriate and feasible , work with stakeholders to establish
pre -identified thresholds, ensuring that we close the adaptive management loop.
As discussed above, one area of risk for failure in adaptive management is at step 7 where
adjustments are made to implementation in response to monitoring data or indications of lack of
success in current management strategies. This step can be contentious or require that difficult
decisions be made to modify an approach previously endorsed and implemented.
Early in the process, staff should identify the level of contention, political context, and degree of
understanding in the public and with decision-makers of the project. This can help staff identify
the degree to which data alone may inform adaptive management or whether other issues are
likely to be involved. This early understanding can help staff design the adaptive management
approach, data gathering, and data presentation to help ensure that realistic, data-driven decision
making can be supported. When appropriate, empowering staff to efficiently adapt management
based on not meeting identified thresholds or desired conditions can lead to efficient and
effective adaptive management.
In high visibility, or contentious projects, establishing pre-identified thresholds that will trigger a
management change can be helpful in ensuring that the full cycle of adaptive management can be
realized. Identification of meaningful thresholds is informed by data on baseline conditions and
trends as well as stakeholder and staff engagement to define desired conditions. Inclusion of key
stakeholders and careful communication and documentation of thresholds and resulting
modifications to implementation are important to success. This approach may not be necessary in
less complex or contentious projects or unrealistic for projects where baseline data or existing
conditions may be unknown or uncertain or where high levels of complexity in monitoring or
interpretation make measurement of thresholds difficult or impossible.
AM.7) INCREASE STAFF UNDERSTANDING OF ADAPTIVE MANAGMENT THROUGH TRAINING:
A consistent understanding by staff of what adaptive management is and how to use it at a
variety of scales is important to success.
Staff will develop training curriculum based on the Guidelines, focused on what adaptive
management is, what scale of adaptive management is appropriate in what circumstances, and
how to successfully undertake adaptive management. These training materials can be used for
both current and new staff to ensure a consistent understanding and commitment to adaptive
management.
Agenda Item 6A Page 19
AM.8 ) CREATE A TEMPLATE FOR ADPATIVE MANAGEMENT AT OSMP:
Emphasis should be placed on planning early on in the adaptive management process, as
part of project initiation and appropriate documentation of the process for use in future
decision making.
Successful use of adaptive management is best insured by inclusion in up-front project planning and clear
communication during decision making (AM.5). In addition, careful documentation of adaptive
management details, decisions, and modifications helps ensure that future staff will benefit from prior
experiences and processes as well as allow tracking of changes in conditions over longer time periods and
in the context of cumulative effects.
Staff will develop a template to assist project managers in evaluating the best scale of adaptive
management for their project. The results of this analysis can be included in project tracking within
OSMPs work planning software. See AM1, AM2, and AM5 for more context.
AM.9 ) EVALUATE COST AND TRADEOFFS :
To ensure project feasibility and sustainability, evaluate the scale of adaptive
management in the context of budgets, workplans, and staff time.
Monitoring can range from simple, straightforward observations and measurements to long-term,
complex, and ongoing data collection. The cost and complexity of monitoring, as well as public
engagement activities, should be considered in determining the best approach to adaptive
management.
OSMP implements many projects each year and monitors a large variety of resources associated
with these projects and ongoing long-term monitoring projects. Adding new monitoring should
be carefully considered and the appropriate scale, both spatially and temporally needs to be
determined based on existing and likely future staff capacity and budgets. Long-term monitoring
has an additive impact on needs for staff and budget and these overall impacts of additional or
new monitoring need to be considered.
High costs or complexity associated with monitoring can be addressed through a variety of
strategies. Use of less complex proxies or indicators may be a more feasible, or cost-effective
approach.
Novel approaches to funding monitoring should also be evaluated. Some examples include
grants, partnerships, or user or other fees that could be used to support monitoring at a level not
currently possible within the OSMP budget.
AM.10) PRACTICE CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT:
Use a flexible approach and learning mindset to adaptive management itself.
OSMP staff should periodically review the Guidelines and revise as appropriate. Just as OSMP
and land management agency experience with adaptive management will evolve with new
advances and additional experience with the framework, guidelines around adaptive management
Agenda Item 6A Page 20
should also evolve over time. Staff will work to update guidelines as new understanding,
experience, and frameworks become available.
VII. REFERENCES
•City of Boulder. 2005. Visitor Master Plan.
•City of Boulder. 2019. OSMP Master Plan.
•City of Boulder. 2022. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
•Interagency Visitor Use Management Council. 2016. Visitor Use Management
Framework: A guide to providing sustainable outdoor recreation.
•US Department of the Interior. 2009. Adaptive Management Technical Guide.
Agenda Item 6A Page 21
Attachment B: OSBT Recommendations on Adaptive Management from
Oct. 2021.
At the Oct. 20, 2021, OSBT Retreat, Adaptive Management was on the agenda from 11:10am –
1:00pm and included staff presentations and discussions among the Board and Staff. [see video
at https://bouldercolorado.gov/government/watch-board-meetings ] These recommendations
stem from that meeting and subsequent Board discussions and input.
OSBT recommends the following practices for implementing Adaptive Management, as
advocated in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, OSMP Visitor Master Plan, and OSMP
Master Plan:
1.Adaptive Management is initiated to address a problem or issue on the OSMP system
and find answers to specific questions regarding management actions that need to be
addressed.
Specifically, to initiate Adaptive Management, the staff with the support of the board
will- develop community understanding of the problem,
- define clear goals and desired conditions,
-explicitly state objectives and desired outcomes,
- propose standards and management actions to meet the objectives,
- define monitoring and data collection frequency, and
-propose specific adjustments or remedial actions to be taken if standards and objectives
are not met
-re-evaluate adjustments in the future if desired outcomes are or not achieved
2. Adaptive management requires monitoring so that evidence can be collected to enable
learning from the implementation of management actions and inform next-step decisions.
3. User fees could be used to provide resources to do the monitoring, when cost recovery
is desirable.
4. In some cases, a focus on specific location(s) or time of year is useful to address a
specific problem on the system. Systemwide impacts also need to be considered.
5. Implementing results based on monitoring data in a timely way is important. For
example, each round of the “smaller wheel” (implement, monitor, evaluate, adjust) for
any management objective should roll out without long lags.
6. It would be helpful for staff to define a template describing adaptive management for
OSMP use. This could be developed as part of the upcoming visitor use and recreation
planning process, if not before that.
Agenda Item 6A Page 22
Attachment C: April 2022 OSBT Memo “Written Information: Update on
Adaptive Management
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Brian Anacker, Senior Policy Advisor (Science Officer)
John Potter, Deputy Director Resource and Stewardship
Mark Davison, Deputy Directory Community Connections and Partnerships
DATE: April 13, 2022
SUBJECT: Written Information: Update on Adaptive Management
___________________________________________________________________
Background
At the October 20, 2021, OSBT Retreat, Adaptive Management was on the agenda from 11:10
am – 1:00 pm and included staff presentations and discussions among the Board and Staff (see
video at https://bouldercolorado.gov/government/watch-board-meetings). Staff shared the policy
context for adaptive management at OSMP, provided definitions, presented several examples of
successful adaptive management, and listed additional case studies. Following the retreat, OSBT
created a document titled “OSBT Recommendations on Adaptive Management” (attached to this
memo) and presented the document to OSMP staff at the December 2021 OSBT meeting. The 6
OSBT recommendations for staff to consider were:
1)Adaptive Management is initiated to address a problem or issue on the OSMP system and
find answers to specific questions regarding management actions that need to be
addressed [Recommendation continues by naming 7 steps of adaptive management]
2)Adaptive management requires monitoring so that evidence can be collected to enable
learning from the implementation of management actions and inform next-step decisions.
3) User fees could be used to provide resources to do the monitoring, when cost recovery is
desirable.
4)In some cases, a focus on specific location(s) or time of year is useful to address a
specific problem on the system. Systemwide impacts also need to be considered.
5)Implementing results based on monitoring data in a timely way is important. For
example, each round of the “smaller wheel” (implement, monitor, evaluate, adjust) for
any management objective should roll out without long lags.
6)It would be helpful for staff to define a template describing adaptive management for
OSMP use. This could be developed as part of the upcoming visitor use and recreation
planning process, if not before that.
Agenda Item 6A Page 23
Staff review of existing policy on adaptive management
In Jan-Apr 2022, staff have been reviewing the six OSBT Recommendations on Adaptive
Management and cross walking them with existing policy guidance and approaches.
The policy statements in 2005 Visitor Master Plan (2005) appear to give staff a solid foundation
of guidance for adaptive management at OSMP; many of these statements are complementary
with the OSBT recommendations. We’ve selected the four most relevant policy statements here:
1)Follow an adaptive management approach that involves monitoring the results of
management programs and allows adjustments when necessary.
2)The Visitor Master Plan will be reviewed periodically by the Open Space Board of
Trustees, and updated and revised at least every five years using an adaptive management
approach and the best available information.
3)Flexible, Adaptive Management. Implement an adaptive management approach that:
monitors visitor experience, visitor infrastructure, and resource conditions, assesses the
effectiveness of management actions, and revises them based on new information gained
from research and experience.
4) A Word About Adaptive Management. Given the context of uncertainty, managing
visitor use and natural resources is often experimental. Many times the most effective
strategies must be discovered through objective monitoring and modification, an
approach called adaptive management. An adaptive and cautious approach considers
changing circumstances, creates opportunities to incorporate new information and
evaluate unanticipated activities, and minimizes the likelihood of irreversible
environmental impacts.
The OSMP Master Plan builds on this by graphically depicting the steps of the adaptive
management process (the so-called wheel, and nested smaller wheel in step 7).
Agenda Item 6A Page 24
The Master Plan also states that “planning for all charter purposes should also involve an
adaptive management process that encourages responsive, information-driven land management
practices. This type of approach is critical to meet short-term needs and still provide a long-term
vision that guides on-the-ground decisions.”
Alignment and gaps b/w the recent OSBT recommendations and existing policy and approaches
Given staff’s current crosswalk of the OSBT recommendations and the policy statements in the
VMP and MP, the initial staff findings of this crosswalk are:
1)The VMP and MP combined are very complementary to the six OSBT Recommendations
on adaptive management. Moreover, the existing guidance in these two documents has
provided staff with a solid, although imperfect, foundation for implementing adaptive
management at OSMP, as evidenced in strong service delivery, and meeting the OSMP
charter purposes. Specific evidence of successful adaptive management at OSMP was
described in the staff presentation to OSBT in October 2021.
2)Some gaps have also been identified, where we lacked guidance to match OSBT
recommendations. For example, staff have precedent from previous planning efforts, but
lack clear policy guidance on how to set the spatial scale to address site-specific problems
while tracking cumulative effects (OSBT rec 4), how to set the temporal scale to decrease
lags between data collection decisions and keep stakeholders informed (OSBT rec 5), and
staff lack a more robust tool or template for supporting staff on these or other
decisions related to adaptive management (OSBT rec 6). Moreover, existing policy
Agenda Item 6A Page 25
statements in the VMP and MP could be edited and/or sharpened to clarify intent and
align more closely with the OSBT recommendations.
3) The five-year cycle for updates to the VMP was too ambitious and may have set a tone
with the community of OSMP falling short on its commitment to adaptive management
(i.e., not closing the loop on the wheel). However, the community should rest assured
that, even though the entire plan wasn’t receiving regular 5-year updates, adaptive
management was being employed for the signature programs like the Voice and Sight
Tag Program, as described by staff at the 2021 retreat.
Next steps
From April to October, staff will continue its crosswalk described above and will continue to
evaluate existing policy guidance and implementation practice. Particular attention in the coming
months will be paid to:
1) Any procedural or management practice adjustments that will help to close the gaps that
were identified based on OSBT comments described above (e.g., setting the spatial and
temporal scale for a given project)
2)Any policy adjustments that could strengthen adaptive management at OSMP, and
when/how those would be pursued (i.e., introduced as part of a forthcoming high-level,
system-wide planning effort)
Staff will return to OSBT in October with a second touch on this work. Meanwhile, staff will
continue to use an adaptive management approach for decision making and respond to OSBT
inquires/call ups for any project they would like to know more about, given levels of uncertainty,
impact risk, stakeholder involvement, or controversy.
Agenda Item 6A Page 26
Overview (Dan)
1. Policy Context (Mark/Brian)
2. In Depth Examples (Steve/John)
3. Further Case Studies as time/interest allows (John, Mark, Steve)
ATTACHMENT D
Agenda Item 6A Page 27
DOI Adaptive
Management
Technical
Guide
(2009)
6 steps
" An adaptive approach involves exploring alternative
ways to meet management objectives, predicting the
outcomes of alternatives based on the current state
of knowledge, implementing one or more of these
alternatives,monitoring to learn about the impacts of
management actions, and then using the results to
update knowledge and adjust management actions"
ATTACHMENT D
Agenda Item 6A Page 28
•The purpose of
the Framework is to
provide cohesive guidance
for analyzing and
managing visitor use on
federally managed lands and
waters.
•IVUMC is
•Bureau of Land
Management (DOI)
•Forest Service,
•National Oceanic and
Atmospheric
Administration,
•National Park Service
(DOI)
•U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
•U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (DOI)
Visitor Use
Management
Framework
(2016)
4 steps
ATTACHMENT D
Agenda Item 6A Page 29
1. Confirm
approach with
OSBT
2. Existing
guidance, data,
trends
3. Analysis of
desired
conditions &
indicators
4. Explore and
evaluate
alternatives
5. Update
management
guidance
6. Pilots &
implementation
7. Monitoring &
adjustments
Fig. 4.2 (p231) and Fig.
See also pp 4, 71, 89, 1
OSMP
Master
Plan
Adaptive
Management
Approach
(2019)
7 steps
ATTACHMENT D
Agenda Item 6A Page 30
The city and county will employ an adaptive
management approach to resource protection and
enhancement.
•Establishing objectives
•Conducting ongoing monitoring of
resource conditions
•Assessing the effectiveness of
management actions
•Revising management actions based
on new information from research
•Learning from experience what
works and what does not
Boulder Valley
Comprehensive
Plan
(2021)
Section 3.02
Adaptive
Management
Approach
5 steps
ATTACHMENT D
Agenda Item 6A Page 31
•Scalability/scope of the AM approach
•Uncertainty
•Stakeholder engagement
•Spatial scale
•Cost
Adaptive
Management
at OSMP
1. Confirm
approach with
OSBT
2. Existing
guidance, data,
trends
3. Analysis of
desired
conditions &
indicators
4. Explore and
evaluate
alternatives
5. Update
management
guidance
6. Pilots &
implementation
7. Monitoring &
adjustments
ATTACHMENT D
Agenda Item 6A Page 32
1. Confirm
approach with
OSBT
2. Existing
guidance, data,
trends
3. Analysis of
desired
conditions &
indicators
4. Explore and
evaluate
alternatives
5. Update
management
guidance
6. Pilots &
implementation
7. Monitoring &
adjustments
1.-Visitor Master Plan (1st cycle);
-Council direction and 2013-14 Program Evaluation (2nd cycle)
2.Visitor surveys, community surveys, program monitoring
3.VMP, 2013-14 program evaluation & program monitoring
reports
4.VMP & 2015 program enhancements
5.VMP implementation and Council adoption of 2015
enhancements (including code changes)
6.V&S Program installment and then implementation of the 6
areas of program enhancements
7.1st monitoring cycle (2006-10), 2nd cycle (2014-18)
•monitoring results, goals, objectives, proposed
standards
8.Re-evaluate with board and council
•(Trigger is a plan update or comprehensive program
evaluation)
Voice and Sight Tag Program ATTACHMENT D
Agenda Item 6A Page 33
1. Confirm
approach with
OSBT
2. Existing
guidance, data,
trends
3. Analysis of
desired
conditions &
indicators
4. Explore and
evaluate
alternatives
5. Update
management
guidance
6. Pilots &
implementation
7. Monitoring &
adjustments
Tall Oatgrass Management
1.Grassland and Forest Plan Guidance
2.Rapid Assessment Mapping
3.Tall Oatgrass Ecological Impact Study
4.Tall Oatgrass Ecological Impact Study
5.Tall Oatgrass Implementation Approach –
Reduce Spread
6.2014-2022 Operations
7.Ongoing Operations
8.Re-evaluate in Mid-late-20s
•(Trigger is a Plan Update)
•(Monitoring is Rapid Assessment Mapping)
ATTACHMENT D
Agenda Item 6A Page 34
1. Confirm
approach with
OSBT
2. Existing
guidance, data,
trends
3. Analysis of
desired
conditions &
indicators
4. Explore and
evaluate
alternatives
5. Update
management
guidance
6. Pilots &
implementation
7. Monitoring &
adjustments
1.Grassland Plan Guidance
2.Prairie Dog Mapping and Tenant
Feedback
3.Expedited Review –Reduce Problem
4.Expedited Review
5.Preferred Alternative
6.2021-2022 Operations
7.Ongoing Operations
8.Re-evaluate with OSBT and Council in
24/25
•(Trigger is a Time Horizon)
•(Monitoring is Prairie Dog Mapping)
Prairie Dog Preferred Alternative ATTACHMENT D
Agenda Item 6A Page 35
1. Confirm
approach with
OSBT
2. Existing
guidance, data,
trends
3. Analysis of
desired
conditions &
indicators
4. Explore and
evaluate
alternatives
5. Update
management
guidance
6. Pilots &
implementation
7. Monitoring &
adjustments
1.West TSA Plan
2.Trail condition monitoring, trail staff assessments,
CRMs and TSA plan guidance
3.TSA Plan, Trail Management Objectives (TMOs) and
condition assessments
4.TSA Plan and trail design planning
5.TSA and trail design planning
6.Implement trail design plan
7.Trail condition monitoring and trail staff assessments
Trail Management –Red Rocks Trail Project ATTACHMENT D
Agenda Item 6A Page 36
1. Confirm
approach with
OSBT
2. Existing
guidance, data,
trends
3. Analysis of
desired
conditions &
indicators
4. Explore and
evaluate
alternatives
5. Update
management
guidance
6. Pilots &
implementation
7. Monitoring &
adjustments
Cliff Nesting Raptor Closures
1.Visitor Master Plan Guidance
2.Raptor Monitoring –Compliance
3.Visitor Master Plan
4.Visitor Master Plan
5.Visitor Master Plan
6.2006-2022 Operations
7.Ongoing Operations
8.Re-evaluate with OSBT and Council in Rec
Mgt Plan Update
•(Trigger is a Plan Update)
•(Monitoring is Nest Occupancy and
Compliance)
ATTACHMENT D
Agenda Item 6A Page 37
1. Confirm
approach with
OSBT
2. Existing
guidance, data,
trends
3. Analysis of
desired
conditions &
indicators
4. Explore and
evaluate
alternatives
5. Update
management
guidance
6. Pilots &
implementation
7. Monitoring &
adjustments
1.OSMP MP and City Ordnance,
2.Ranger Observations, Enforcement information,
Issues Identified
3.Reduce undesirable behavior, enforce
regulations, retain existing activities within
regulations
4.Adjust parking hours, refine hours to meet all
user needs, introduce parking permit approach
for allowed activities
5.Update Ordnance
6.Pilot in field for 2022
7.Develop monitoring plan for 2022continuation
Evaluate with community stakeholders and
update OSBT. After evaluation decision, if yes,
adjust as needed and operationalize
Flagstaff Night Parking Regulations ATTACHMENT D
Agenda Item 6A Page 38
1. Confirm
approach with
OSBT
2. Existing
guidance, data,
trends
3. Analysis of
desired
conditions &
indicators
4. Explore and
evaluate
alternatives
5. Update
management
guidance
6. Pilots &
implementation
7. Monitoring &
adjustments
New Zealand Mudsnail Control
1.Grassland Plan Guidance
2.New Zealand Mudsnail Mapping
3.NZMS Management Review
4.NZMS Management Review
5.NZMS Operations Approach –Reduce
Spread
6.2021-2022 Operations
7.Ongoing Operations
8.Re-evaluate with OSBT and Council if
Control Ineffective
•(Trigger is Additional Spread)
•(Monitoring is NZMS Mapping)
ATTACHMENT D
Agenda Item 6A Page 39
1. Confirm
approach with
OSBT
2. Existing
guidance, data,
trends
3. Analysis of
desired
conditions &
indicators
4. Explore and
evaluate
alternatives
5. Update
management
guidance
6. Pilots &
implementation
7. Monitoring &
adjustments
•Resident Survey: Assessed public support of many
management actions and programs (all are now
implemented
•Permit Program (commercial, special use, and off-
trail)
•Tag Program
•Trailhead Leash
•Parking Fees
•Seasonal Wildlife Closures
•Muddy Trail Closures
•Undesignated Trail Closures
•On-trail Regulations
•CAMP
•HVAC: Covid response
•One-way travel
•Mask & social distance
•Permits/reservations
•No parking signage
•Eldorado shuttle
•Trailhead classifications
•Amenity provision
•Ranger schedules
More Examples ATTACHMENT D
Agenda Item 6A Page 40
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Phillip Yates, Senior Communications Program Manager
Katie Knapp, Principal Planner, Open Space and Mountain Parks
DATE: March 8, 2023
SUBJECT: Tribal Nation Consultation and Engagement Update
________________________________________________________________________
The purpose of this document is to provide the Open Space Board of Trustees the memo (Attachment A)
that will be provided to City Council for their March 9, 2023 study session. The attached memo will
provide Boulder City Council an overview of ongoing city consultation and engagement with federally
recognized American Indian Tribal Nations, including several ongoing city-Tribal Nation projects and an
upcoming consultation on Wednesday, March 15, and Thursday, March 16.
Attachments:
•Attachment A – March 9, 2023 City Council Study Session Memo on Tribal Nation
Consultation and Engagement
Agenda Item 6B Page 1
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager
Pam Davis, Assistant City Manager
Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Phillip Yates, Senior Communications Program Manager
Katie Knapp, Principal Planner, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Aimee Kane, Equity Officer
DATE: March 9, 2023
SUBJECT: Tribal Nation Consultation and Engagement
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this document is to provide the Boulder City Council an overview of ongoing
city consultation and engagement with federally recognized American Indian Tribal Nations,
including several ongoing city-Tribal Nation projects and an upcoming consultation on
Wednesday, March 15, and Thursday, March 16. For quick reference, please review page
numbers below for specific memo sections:
•Ongoing Consultation and Engagement with Tribal Nations, Page 2
•Tribal Sovereignty, Page 4
•City Tribal Consultation and Engagement Practices, Page 5
•Policies and Plans that Help Guide Consultations, Page 7
•Existing City-Tribal Nation Memorandums of Understanding, Page 8
•Proposed City-Tribal Nation Memorandum of Understanding, Page 9
•Recent City of Boulder Consultations, Page 10
•2023 Consultation, Page 11
•Completed City-Tribal Nation Projects, Page 12
The City of Boulder acknowledges the city is on the ancestral homelands and unceded territory
of Indigenous Peoples who have traversed, lived in and stewarded lands in the Boulder Valley
since time immemorial. Those Indigenous Nations include the: Di De’I (Apache), Hinono’eiteen
(Arapaho), Tsistsistas (Cheyenne), Nʉmʉnʉʉ (Comanche), Kiowa, Čariks i Čariks (Pawnee),
Sosonih (Shoshone), Oc'eti S'akowin (Sioux) and Núuchiu (Ute).
The city recognizes that Indigenous knowledge, oral histories, and languages – handed down
through generations over thousands of years – have shaped profound cultural and spiritual
connections with Boulder-area lands and ecosystems and that those connections are sustained
and celebrated to this day. City staff look forward to ongoing consultations and engagement with
Tribal Nations to build and sustain long-term relationships and discuss future collaborative
opportunities.
Agenda Item 6B Page 2
ATTACHMENT A
ONGOING CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT WITH TRIBAL NATIONS
The city’s ongoing work and partnership with Tribal Nations is led by the City Manager’s
Office. An interdisciplinary team of staff members meets monthly to help plan and discuss
upcoming consultations and engagement with Tribal Nations. Staff from the City Manager’s
Office, Open Space and Mountain Parks, Communications and Engagement, the City Attorney’s
Office, Housing and Human Services and the city’s Racial Equity Team participate in those
meetings. City staff are thankful for guidance from Tribal Representatives and assistance from
the Keystone Policy Center and Living Heritage Anthropology in planning and hosting
consultations.
Currently, city staff are working on several consultation and engagement projects with Tribal
Representatives:
•March 15-March 16, 2023 Consultation. The consultation is currently focused on
continuing development of an updated Memorandum of Understanding (see below) as
newly elected leaders of Tribal Governments – along with newly appointed
Representatives – may need updates on this ongoing work. The consultation also will
provide Tribal Representatives site visits to city-managed open space land of interest to
continue building relationships with Tribal Representatives and help guide future
conversations with Tribal Nations.
Staff anticipate that the opening of the consultation will be recorded to help inform
community members of ongoing city work with Tribal Nations. Staff also will ask Tribal
Representatives to provide a joint statement for the community at the end of the
consultation.
•Proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The proposed MOU consolidates
past City-Tribal Nation MOUs and includes several additions and updates. It seeks to set
a foundation for future City-Tribal Nation collaboration, and ongoing consultation and
discussions regarding city-managed open space land. Council will likely be asked to
consider a staff recommendation regarding executing the MOU later in 2023. More
information about the proposed MOU is on page 8 of this memo.
•The Fort Chambers – Poor Farm Property Management Plan. City staff appreciate
listening and learning from Arapaho and Cheyenne Representatives who have been
providing input for a management plan for the land, which has a direct community
connection to the Sand Creek Massacre. We look forward to continuing to listen and
learn from the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, the Northern Arapaho Tribe, and the
Northern Cheyenne Tribe as part of ongoing efforts to guide the future of the Fort
Chambers – Poor Farm property and reinterpret a highly inaccurate and problematic
marker on the property.
In early March, the city anticipates releasing an inventory report intended to inform the
development of a site management plan for the property in alignment with city open
space purposes and guidance from the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, the Northern
Arapaho Tribe and the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. Please visit the project webpage to
learn more.
•Tribal Nation Ethnographic-Education Report. City of Boulder staff recognizes that
interpretation and educational information describing its history is dominated by
American-European perspectives and fails to adequately include Indigenous perspectives.
Agenda Item 6B Page 3
ATTACHMENT A
The planned report will be informed by in-person interviews with Tribal Representatives,
and the project team is inviting American Indian Tribal Nations to share stories they want
to tell and help communicate their enduring cultural, spiritual and historical connections
to the Boulder Valley. The report will help the city and Tribal Nations develop education
and interpretation materials that provide accurate, truthful Indigenous Peoples’ stories –
both past and present. The report is also intended to help city staff learn more about
special areas or types of places of importance to Tribal Nations and help guide future
conversations with Tribal Nations. City staff have received permission from Tribal
Representatives to release a final report, after approval by Tribal Representatives, in early
2026.
•Education/Interpretative Signs on Open Space. Open Space and Mountain Parks and
city Communication and Engagement staff are receiving guidance on how to address
dated Indigenous-related education/interpretative signs on the city’s Open Space and
Mountain Parks system. Recently, city staff received guidance to remove signs in The
Peoples’ Crossing area and a sign along Boulder Creek just south of The Peoples’
Crossing given its location near a remaining Settler’s Park inscription (see below). Tribal
Representatives suggested their removal given their age, content inaccuracies and the
exclusion of Indigenous cultural and spiritual perspectives in their creation. The city
anticipates that the ethnographic report and ongoing discussions with Tribal
Representatives regarding signs will help city staff build a broader education and
interpretative approach across city open space.
•Settler's Park Inscription. The City of Boulder renamed Settlers’ Park to The Peoples’
Crossing in 2021 to help fulfill the city’s Indigenous Peoples Day Resolution. While The
Peoples’ Crossing name is now reflected on OSMP signs and throughout city trail and
trailhead webpages, online maps and trail apps, a Settler’s Park inscription on a concrete
underpass tunnel structure that connects Eben G. Fine Park and The Peoples’ Crossing
area remains. Recently, city staff received guidance from Tribal Representatives to
remove the Settler’s Park inscription and replace it with The Peoples’ Crossing name.
City staff have begun initial efforts to replace the inscription, which will require approval
from the Colorado Department of Transportation.
•2024 Private and Public Events. Tribal Representatives have provided
recommendations for how the city can support events that recognize Tribal Nations’
enduring connections to the Boulder area and celebrate the recent renaming of Settler’s
Park in west Boulder to The Peoples’ Crossing. These events are tentatively planned to
occur before, after or during a March 2024 consultation. The city anticipates providing
updates about these events in fall 2023.
•Potential Renaming. As part of ongoing staff learning from Tribal Representatives, staff
is receiving feedback that may lead to proposals to rename select open space trails and
trailheads to continue fulfilling the Indigenous Peoples Resolution and provide more
opportunities for open space visitors to learn Indigenous perspectives and histories.
•Cultural Resource Management. City of Boulder staff, from time to time, discuss
sensitive cultural resource topics with Tribal Representatives. Staff do not publicly
disclose the nature of those conversations to protect cultural resources that may be on
city-managed lands, help support Tribal Nations’ desires in long-term cultural resource
protection, honor existing agreements the city has with Tribal Nations and fulfill
Agenda Item 6B Page 4
ATTACHMENT A
agreements with the State of Colorado.
The City of Boulder’s Human Relations Commission and Office of Arts and Culture also support
community programs and events as part of Indigenous Peoples Day celebrations. In 2016, the
Human Relations Commission and community members drafted the Indigenous Peoples Day
Resolution (Resolution No. 1190), which was presented at the Aug. 2, 2016, Boulder City
Council meeting and adopted by the City of Boulder.” It declared the second Monday of October
of each year to be Indigenous Peoples Day. It also directed staff to receive guidance from Tribal
Nations to rename Settler’s Park and begin long-term work to recognize and celebrate
Indigenous Peoples in public places and programming. City staff thank Tribal Representatives
for participating in 2022 Boulder Indigenous Peoples Day events.
While the City of Boulder has a framework for consultation with federally recognized American
Indian Tribal Nations, city staff also recognize the importance of collaborating with local
Indigenous communities and organizations in the Boulder area. Current Tribal consultation does
not preclude the city from conducting similar collaboration processes with local Indigenous
communities and organizations, and staff recognizes the need to work with regional partners to
establish broader, community-wide Indigenous collaboration practices.
TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY
Sovereignty for Native peoples has existed since time immemorial, pre-dating the U.S.
Constitution.1 Federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Nations are
sovereign governments and their special relationship with the United States is recognized under
the Constitution of the United States, treaties, statutes, Executive Orders and court decisions. The
special legal status of Tribal Governments requires that official relations with federal agencies
must be conducted on a government-to-government basis.
City staff recognize the importance of respecting and honoring Tribal sovereignty and self-
determination and conduct ongoing government-to-government consultations with Tribal
Representatives appointed by federally recognized Tribal Nations that have consulted with the
city since the late 1990s, share Memorandums of Understanding with the city and have historic
connections to the Boulder Valley. The city invites Tribal Representatives from the following
Tribal Nations to ongoing consultations:
•Apache Tribe of Oklahoma
•Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes
•Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
•Comanche Nation of Oklahoma
•Eastern Shoshone Tribe
•Jicarilla Apache Nation
•Kiowa Tribe
•Northern Arapaho Tribe
•Northern Cheyenne Tribe
•Oglala Sioux Tribe
•Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma
•Rosebud Sioux Tribe
•Southern Ute Indian Tribe
•Standing Rock Sioux Tribe
•Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
•Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah &
Ouray Reservation
The city’s current consultation framework with Tribal Nations is based on:
1 Hanschu, Chantalle. State-Tribal Consultation Guide: An Introduction for Colorado State Agencies to Conducting
Formal Consultations with Federally Recognized American Indian Tribes. (Denver, CO, 2014), 5,
https://bit.ly/state-tribal-consultation-guide
Agenda Item 6B Page 5
ATTACHMENT A
•Tribal Sovereignty and the importance of conducting government-to-government
consultations.
•Guidance and desires provided by Tribal Representatives during past and ongoing
consultations.
•Existing Memorandums of Understandings with Tribal Nations, which were developed in
the late 1990s and early 2000s.
•Federal and State of Colorado consultation best practices and guidelines.
CITY CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT PRACTICES
City staff recognize we are still learning how to conduct meaningful consultation and
engagement with Tribal Nations. We currently follow these broad strategies in our ongoing
collaboration with Tribal Nations:
•Respect Tribal Sovereignty. The City of Boulder recognizes and respects Tribal
Sovereignty, which has existed for Indigenous Peoples since time immemorial, pre-dating
the U.S. Constitution. Tribal Sovereignty is also codified in the U.S. Constitution,
Supreme Court cases, and other Federal laws, regulations, and policies. We appreciate the
opportunity to listen and learn from Representatives designated by elected leaders of
Tribal Nations that have consulted with the city in the past, share agreements with the
city and have historic connections to Colorado.
•Build and sustain long-term relationships with Tribal Nations. City staff appreciate
the opportunity to receive their guidance on land stewardship, cultural resource
preservation, Indigenous ceremonial needs, and Indigenous education and interpretation
on city-managed land and look forward to discussing future collaborative opportunities.
When planning consultations and meetings, staff recognize the value of hosting in-person
consultations and conducting site visits to help staff build relationships with Tribal
Representatives.
•Learn Tribal Nations’ future consultation priorities. City staff plan to engage Tribal
Representatives in ongoing conversations to identify types of projects that may affect
Tribal interests, learn types of places and areas that hold cultural and spiritual
significance for Tribal Nations, and understand what types of future collaboration may be
most meaningful for Tribal Nations.
•Strive for meaningful outcomes. Consultations provide Tribal Nations and the city the
opportunity to co-design and implement projects that can set a foundation for future
collaborative opportunities, such as understanding Tribal Nations’ desired, long-term
relationship with city-managed public land.
•Understand the importance of collaborating with local Indigenous communities and
organizations in the Boulder area. Current Tribal consultation efforts require
significant staff time and resources. However, it does not preclude the city from
conducting similar collaboration processes with local Indigenous communities and
organizations, and staff recognizes the need to work with regional partners to establish
broader, community-wide Indigenous collaboration practices.
Agenda Item 6B Page 6
ATTACHMENT A
•Recognize Tribal Representatives are busy consulting a wide range of projects
across the country. Ongoing projects with Tribal Nations can take time to plan, initiate
and implement. City staff seek to understand and consider ceremonies, Tribal elections,
and fieldwork seasons when scheduling consultation and engagement conversations.
•Fulfill commitments in existing Memorandums of Understanding, plans and
policies. City staff recognize the importance of honoring city-Tribal Nation
Memorandums of Understanding, discussions at past consultations and numerous plans
and policies, including the Indigenous Peoples Day Resolution, the city staff land
acknowledgment, the Racial Equity Plan, the Open Space and Mountain Parks Master
Plan and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
•Recognize change takes time: Budgets, staffing, workplans, current city policies and
local, state and federal laws may pose difficulties in instituting new efforts, projects and
policies.
•Protect sensitive information. Staff remind community members that respecting and
protecting sensitive Indigenous Traditional Knowledge is critical to ongoing consultation
with Tribal Nations. As a standard practice, city staff do not provide information
regarding the location of sensitive Indigenous cultural resources. When conducting
consultations and projects with Tribal Nations, we seek to ask Tribal Representatives'
position on the confidentiality of information prior to documenting information or taking
possession of materials Tribal Nations may consider sensitive. We also recognize that
sensitive data may need to be withheld from the city in order to protect culturally
sensitive information.
•Improve consultation practices and share institutional knowledge among staff. Staff
seek to incorporate lessons learned and guidance from Tribal Representatives and
consultants to improve our engagement and consultation practices and build long-term
institutional knowledge of consultation practices across the city. We encourage city staff
to read about federal tribal consultation practices – such as the Biden Administration’s
work to develop uniform standards for tribal consultation – and to take online training
programs to learn more about federal tribal consultation practices.
Currently, city consultation and engagement conversations with Tribal Nations occur through:
•Annual Consultations. Since 2019, the city has invited Tribal Representatives to an
annual consultation in either March or April. While those consultations are intended to be
in-person events, COVID-19 has forced the city to host several online consultations with
Tribal Representatives. Consultations are generally organized to address and make
progress on topics raised at previous city-Tribal Nation consultations and meetings. The
city also provides updates about current city-Tribal Nation work, recognizing newly
elected Tribal Government leaders may appoint new Representatives to attend
consultations. As a standard practice, the city invites Tribal Representatives to provide
feedback on proposed consultation items and to suggest topics that could be added to
consultation agendas.
Agenda Item 6B Page 7
ATTACHMENT A
•Working Group Meetings. The city invites designated Tribal Representatives to
participate in working group meetings to collaborate on ongoing projects with the city.
These meetings have been instrumental in helping the city to receive guidance for its
planned ethnographic-education report.
•Consultation for Specific City-Tribal Nation Projects. The city may also conduct
separate project consultations with specific Tribal Nations. For example, the city is
seeking the guidance of the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, the Northern Arapaho Tribe
and the Northern Cheyenne Tribe for the long-term management of the OSMP-managed
Fort Chambers Poor Farm property, which has a direct, local connection to the Sand
Creek Massacre.
•Delegated Federal Consultation. There may be limited situations where the city may
conduct tribal consultations on behalf of a federal agency. The city is seeking additional
clarity on consultation requirements for projects with federal involvement.
As common with government-to-government consultations, annual City-Tribal consultations are
typically closed sessions in order to facilitate conversations among city staff, Tribal
Representatives and elected and appointed community leaders. Those conversations may include
sensitive topics.
POLICIES AND PLANS THAT HELP GUIDE CONSULTATIONS
City consultation practices and collaborative work with American Indian Tribal Nations are also
guided by:
•Four agreements the city shares with Tribal Nations. These agreements, which focus on
city open space, were initially developed in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
•Government-to-government consultations with Tribal Nations and statements developed
at the end of the consultations (2019, 2021, March 2022, September 2022).
•The city’s 2016 Indigenous Peoples Day Resolution. In 2016, the Human Relations
Commission and community members developed the Indigenous Peoples Day Resolution
(Resolution No. 1190), which was presented at the Aug. 2, 2016, City Council meeting
and adopted by the Council. The resolution led to the recent renaming of Settler’s Park to
The Peoples’ Crossing and also directs the city to “correct omissions of the Native
American presence in public places, resources and cultural programming.” In addition,
the resolution directs city staff to implement “accurate curricula relevant to the traditions,
history and current issues of Indigenous People inclusive of and as part of our shared
history.”
•The city’s Racial Equity Plan. The plan seeks to normalize and operationalize the
understanding of institutional and structural racism among people who work for or
represent the city, including city staff, City Council, Boards and Commissions, and
ongoing program volunteers.
•A city staff land acknowledgment based on the city’s Indigenous Peoples Day Resolution
and further developed with guidance and input from American Indian Tribal Nations and
the Boulder community.
Agenda Item 6B Page 8
ATTACHMENT A
•The Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) Master Plan, which directs the department
to “support citywide efforts to work in partnership with federally recognized American
Indian Tribal Nations and other city departments through formal government-to-
government Consultations to help support American Indian Tribes and Indigenous
Peoples’ connections to their ancestral homelands.”
•The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, which states that the city follows a
government-to-government consultation process with Tribal Nations. The plan also
recognizes that meaningful engagement with Tribal Nations needs to also happen at a
regional level.
•Federal (Clinton, G.W. Bush, Obama, and Biden), state of Colorado and federal Tribal
consultation guidelines and manuals.
EXISTING CITY-TRIBAL NATION MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING
Consultations initially began because of issues related to the construction of a National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) building in the 1990s. These conversations resulted in a
1998 Memorandum of Agreement between the federal government and Tribal Nations.
That agreement, among other things, protected part of the property from development and
allowed members of federally recognized Tribal Nations to conduct ceremonies at the site. The
city also assumed responsibility for overseeing a conservation easement designed to protect the
undeveloped portions of the NIST property.
After 1998, the city continued to consult with Tribal Nations independently. Those consultations
led to four current MOUs the city shares with Tribal Nations:
•1999 Memorandum of Understanding-A. The City and American Indian Tribal Nations
agreed to create a spiritual, moral and policy partnership to protect the land south of
Boulder.
•1999 Memorandum of Understanding-B. The City and Tribal Nations agreed to obtain
approval for a city-administered utility easement for an area in south Boulder and to
provide for a tribal monitor during then-proposed, ground-disturbing work. The city also
agreed to provide reasonable fire protection services for permitted tribal cultural use of a
protected area during fire bans.
•2002 Memorandum of Understanding. The 2002 MOU provides the critical foundation
for the proposed MOU, which has been discussed at city consultations in 2019, 2021 and
2022. The 2002 MOU outlined several city-Tribal Nation agreements regarding cultural
resource consultations, Tribal Nation notification of funerary objects and human remains
and ceremonial access requiring temporary structures and/or fire.
•Amendment to 2002 MOU: The city and Tribal Nations agreed to update the procedures
related to ceremonies involving fire and temporary structures – such as tipis and sweat
lodges – on Valmont Butte east of Boulder.
Agenda Item 6B Page 9
ATTACHMENT A
PROPOSED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH TRIBAL NATIONS
A proposed, updated city-Tribal Nation MOU is being developed that seeks to set a foundation
for future collaboration with Tribal Nations and help ensure ongoing city-Tribal Nation
consultation and input primarily regarding Open Space and Mountain Parks land.
The proposed MOU. which seeks to consolidate and supersede past agreements with Tribal
Nations and focuses on city open space, is based on conversations at city-Tribal Nation
consultations in 2019, 2021 and 2022, and city-Tribal Nation working group meetings in 2019.
The proposed MOU, which is nearing agreement among the parties, acknowledges that:
•Tribal Nations have had a historic presence on city lands, including on city Open Space
and Mountain Parks land – since time immemorial.
•The city has benefited and continues to benefit directly from the colonization of
Indigenous lands and from removal policies that violated human rights.
•Indigenous knowledge, oral histories, and languages handed down through generations
over thousands of years have shaped profound cultural and spiritual connections with
Boulder-area lands and ecosystems and that those connections are sustained and
celebrated to this day.
•Tribal Representatives have a unique capacity to gather information and convey advice
concerning land management, cultural resources management, ceremonial needs and
Indigenous education and interpretation.
•The city seeks to continue a partnership with Tribal Nations to ensure ongoing
consultation and collaborative discussions regarding city-owned open space land and help
protect any cultural resources that may exist on city open space land.
As part of the proposed MOU, the city and Tribal Nations agree to:
•Work together to uphold and support open space purposes in the city charter.
•Provide other federally recognized Tribal Nations not party to the MOU an opportunity to
join the MOU and participate in ongoing consultations to provide guidance regarding
land management, cultural resource preservation, ceremonial access, and Indigenous
education and interpretation.
•Commit the city to continuing ongoing consultation and supporting Tribal Nation input
regarding city-owned open space land.
•Invite Tribal Nations to participate in ongoing consultation and guidance on cultural
resources on city open space land to avoid significant impacts, and identify areas where
projects and activities may require Tribal notification.
•Require the city to notify Tribal Nations of inadvertent exposure or disturbance of Native
American human remains, objects of cultural significance or patrimony, or funerary
objects.
•Continue an approval process for Tribal Nation ceremonial access as outlined in 2002
and 2004 City-Tribal Nation agreements that require fire and temporary structures.
Agenda Item 6B Page 10
ATTACHMENT A
•Require the city to explore the possibility of a dedicated, permanent site on city land for
sacred ceremonies.
•Identify city land that can be used for the limited harvesting of plants for personal use by
Tribal Members, such as medicinal and ceremonial practices, utilizing a process that will
be the subject of a future consultation.
•Commit the city and Tribal Nations to collaborate on education and interpretation
materials that provide accurate, truthful Indigenous Peoples’ stories, both past and
present, through educational and interpretative materials.
•Provide Tribal Nations and the city opportunities to review the MOU and propose new
amendments.
RECENT CITY OF BOULDER TRIBAL CONSULTATIONS
While the city held regular consultations in the late 1990s and early 2000s, consultations
between the city and Tribal Nations paused in the mid-2000s. The city’s adoption of
the Indigenous Peoples Day Resolution in 2016, which directed the city to receive input from
Tribal Nations to rename Settler’s Park, and staff’s desire to re-establish relationships with Tribal
Nations led the city to host a consultation with American Indian Tribes in Boulder in March
2019.
The city recognizes the benefits the consultation process has in deepening relationships with
Tribal Nations and understands it needs to sustain ongoing consultations and build staff
institutional knowledge of consultation practices in the future.
Since 2019, the city has held several consultations with federally recognized American Indian
Tribal Nations. All of the consultations have included conversations regarding past
Memorandum of Understandings (MOUs) and the desire to develop and execute an updated
MOU.
•March 16-17, 2019 Consultation: The consultation ended with the city and Tribal
Representatives determining that current agreements, initially adopted in the late 1990s
and early 2000s, needed to be updated. There was also agreement that a working group
should be established to draft agreement updates that would be discussed at a March 2020
Consultation meeting. The March 2020 Consultation, unfortunately, was postponed
because of COVID-19. Read the final statement from the consultation.
•2019 Working Group Meetings: The city hosted several meetings with Tribal
Representatives between May and August 2019 to discuss and suggest changes to the
four agreements the city shares with American Indian Tribal Nations. Discussions during
those working meetings helped shape the proposed, updated Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU).
•Feb. 18, 2021: City staff held an informal conference call with Tribal Representatives to
hear their preference for formal government-to-government consultations with the city
during 2021. During the meeting, city staff and Tribal Nations agreed to conduct
an online consultation in April 2021 to discuss an updated MOU, a final renaming
recommendation for Settler’s Park and a proposed land acknowledgment.
Agenda Item 6B Page 11
ATTACHMENT A
•April 7, 2021: Tribal Representatives discussed city-tribal agreements and renamed
Settler’s Park in west Boulder to The Peoples’ Crossing. Staff and Tribal Representatives
also agreed to establish a city-Tribal Nation working group to help develop education and
interpretation materials, and Tribal Representatives provided guidance on a draft land
acknowledgment. Read final statement from the consultation.
•March 2022: City staff and Tribal Representatives continued discussions regarding the
proposed city-Tribal Nation MOU. Read the final statement from the consultation.
•September 2022: City staff and Tribal Representatives again continued discussing the
proposed updated MOU, which consolidates past agreements and includes several
additions and updates. The city also invited guidance on events to recognize Tribal
Nations’ enduring connections to the Boulder area and celebrate the recent renaming of
Settler’s Park in west Boulder to The Peoples’ Crossing area. Staff also provided updates
on a planned ethnographic report that will be developed with Tribal Nations. Read the
final statement from the consultation.
2023 CITY TRIBAL CONSULATION
The March 15-16 consultation is currently focused on the proposed updated MOU and providing
Tribal Representative site visits to city-managed open space land to help provide a foundation for
future conversations and projects with Tribal Nations. Staff anticipate recording the opening of
the consultation to provide the community updates about ongoing work with Tribal Nations;
however, most of the consultation will be closed to the public as conversations may include
sensitive topics, such as the location of Native American cultural resources.
The city recognizes the public interest in citywide consultations with American Indian Tribes,
and staff will seek permission from Tribal Representatives to develop a joint city-tribal statement
at the end of the consultation. The city has proposed the following main items for the 2023
consultation:
•Visiting City Open Space and Mountain Parks-managed locations. Based on
guidance city staff received at the 2019 consultation, staff plan to conduct several field
trips to open space areas of interest. Staff planned to conduct site visits during the March
2020 consultation, which was unfortunately canceled because of COVID-19. Staff are
planning these site visits to help provide a foundation for future consultations and
conversations with Tribal Representatives, such as in-person interviews for a planned
ethnographic-education report the city is planning in partnership with Tribal Nations. The
site visits also will help staff learn how we can best work with Tribal Representatives to
protect cultural resources on lands that have importance to Tribal Nations.
•Providing updates on city-Tribal Nation projects. Staff will provide current
information on projects the city is conducting with Tribal Nations. Those include the
proposed updated Memorandum of Understanding, the Fort Chambers – Poor Farm
project, the planned ethnographic-education report, ongoing education and interpretative
collaboration with Tribal Nations, and 2024 private and public events.
Agenda Item 6B Page 12
ATTACHMENT A
COMPLETED CITY-TRIBAL NATION PROJECTS
The City of Boulder has completed two projects with the support and guidance of Tribal
Representatives:
•Renaming of Settlers’ Park to The Peoples’ Crossing. In 2021, Representatives from
American Indian Tribal Nations collaborated with the city to develop the new name to
help fulfill the Indigenous Peoples Day Resolution. The Peoples’ Crossing name honors
the area as a crossroads for Indigenous Peoples who have traversed and lived in the
mountains and plains of the Boulder area since time immemorial. “The People” or “Our
People” is how many American Indian Tribal Nations refer to themselves in their native
languages. The usage of “Peoples” is also meant to be inclusive of all people who have
lived in the Boulder area.
Trailhead and trail signs in the area reflect The Peoples’ Crossing name. The name is
reflected on OSMP signs in the area and throughout city trail and trailhead webpages.
The name also appears on Google Maps, Apple Maps and other trail apps. City staff met
in early February with Tribal Representatives regarding how to address a remaining
Settlers’ Park inscription and received guidance to remove the “Settler’ Park” inscription
and replace it with “The Peoples’ Crossing.”
•Staff land acknowledgment. City staff sought the guidance of American Indian Tribal
Nations and the Boulder community to develop a city staff land acknowledgment. The
acknowledgment encourages the city and its staff to reckon honestly with the legacy of
American-European colonization of Indigenous lands and a history of removal policies
that violated human rights and broke government treaties. It also seeks to inspire
community education and help initiate community-wide work to help support Indigenous
Nations and Indigenous communities and organizations in the Boulder area.
Read the full land acknowledgment online. Staff recognize the acknowledgment may
change over the years as city staff and the Boulder community continue to learn about
and address the intergenerational trauma caused by the violent colonization of Indigenous
lands.
Agenda Item 6B Page 13
ATTACHMENT A
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Lauren Kilcoyne, Deputy Director of Central Services
Samantha McQueen, Business Services Senior Manager
DATE: March 8, 2023
SUBJECT: Written Information: Update on revenues from codified special activities, permits, and
fees
________________________________________________________________________
Executive Summary
The purpose of this update is to provide the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) with information on
program revenues for those Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) programs that are reflected as
“Leases, Rents and Royalties,” “Licenses, Permits & Fines,” and “Parking Revenue” on the department
Fund Financial. This information was first provided to the OSBT in October of 2021, when the OSBT
requested a ten-year lookback on program revenues and expenses. At that time, 2021 revenues had not
been finalized. This written information item will provide updated information around revenues from
2021 and 2022. An update on the Habitat Conservation Area Off-Trail Permit Program is also included in
this memo.
Programs will be referred to as codified special activities, permits, and fees in this update. This update
will also provide information on program expenses and cost recovery. The following programs make up
codified special activities, permits, and fees in the department:
• Voice and Sight Tag Program
• Parking Charges
• Special Activity Permits
• Facility Rentals
Background
OSMP staff provided an update on revenues from codified special activities, permits, and fees at an
October 2021 business meeting. The 2021 update provided a look back at ten years of revenues from
these programs. At the OSBT retreat in 2022, the OSBT requested an update around program revenues
and expenses from 2021 and 2022. This information is provided as part of the March 2023 business
meeting to align with yearend accounting cycles. Revenues from 2022 continue to be posted, processed,
and audited during the first quarter of 2023. It is possible that additional 2022 revenue may be posted
after the sharing of this written information. To remain consistent with the structure of the October 2021
packet, this memo will also provide a ten-year revenue lookback, with information on 2013-2022
revenues. Moving forward, OSMP staff commit to sharing a comprehensive list of revenues as part of
annual budget planning process.
Voice and Sight Tag Program
The Voice and Sight Tag (Tag) Program was updated in 2014 (changes effective in 2015) via Ordinance
7967 with a unanimous motion from City Council to adopt six department-recommended program
enhancements. The Tag Program, first implemented with a “Green Tag” in 2006, underwent a
comprehensive review in 2012-13 when City Council identified it as one of several over-arching issues
related to sustaining the overall health of OSMP natural resources. The six recommended program
adjustments that were adopted by Council in 2014 via Ordinance 7967 required:
Written Information - Item A - Page 1
1. all participants provide proof of current rabies vaccination for all dogs to be registered in
the program,
2. all City of Boulder residents to purchase a City of Boulder dog license,
3. all participants to attend an education session every five years,
4. increased fines for violations,
5. annual program renewal for participants with a graduated fee schedule based on
residency, and
6. targeted education and outreach strategies.
Ordinance 7967 established the Tag Program as a cost recovery program. By establishing a graduated fee
schedule based on residency, the ordinance did impact annual revenue collections, and program revenues
in 2015 increased over 2014 levels by roughly 112% to $164,602. During the 2016 budget development
process in 2015, previous OSMP finance staff indicated that they anticipated program revenues to be
around $227,000 annually within the established fee structure. However, annual revenues since 2015 have
never reached that target, nor have they ever reached 2015 revenue numbers. Revenue collections from
Voice in Sight in 2020 were 31% lower than revenues collected in 2015, but annual revenue collections
have fluctuated significantly.
It is worth noting that from a program administration perspective, 2015 represents the first year that the
department had the ability to track annual sales. Before 2015, community members were required to
purchase the tags one time and were not required to renew annually. Notably, 2015 is also when the city
deployed its new financial system, which radically improved the ability of the department to track
revenues and expenses related to the program. In response to the OSBT request for a ten-year program
revenue history, that information has been provided below. However, revenues from 2013-2014 have
been pulled from the previous financial system, which did not have strong functionality around program-
specific tracking, and the city records retention policy requires that detailed revenue backup be kept for
only three years. Therefore, there is a lower level of confidence in numbers from 2013-2014. OSMP
Business Services staff worked extensively with the Finance Department to access archived data from the
previous financial system and to review and compile journal level revenue detail to provide revenue
numbers for 2013-2014. The combination of programmatic changes and financial system changes that
occurred in 2015 allow confidence in numbers from 2015 to present.
Revenues
Tag Program revenues have fluctuated over the last several years. As previously shared with OSBT, the
launch of a new software to manage Voice and Sight Tag sales and training led to decreased revenues in
2019. Both community members and staff had trouble working with the vendor to migrate information
and fulfill orders during go-live. OSBT was updated on the issues with Docupet go-live as well as the
2020 improvements to the system in September and December 2020 business meeting packets. Remedied
issues are reflected in the return to normal revenues in 2020 and 2021. Revenues for 2022 are still under
review consistent with the yearend accounting process, and staff anticipates that final 2022 program
revenues will be consistent with previous years. During Docupet contract renewal in the fourth quarter of
2022, OSMP agreed to slight increases in software fees which will have a minor impact on program
revenue. Voice and Sight Tag renewal season begins in late 2022 for 2023 tags. We are anticipating a
normal year for Voice and Sight Tag sales in 2023 and expect to see around the same number of renewals
as previous years.
The department has used Docupet as the software for Voice and Sight Tag sales and training for five
years. Consistent with our technology approach, OSMP has resourced staff time in the 2023 work plan to
review use of the software and any alternative platforms to ensure the best possible product is selected for
use by the department and community.
Written Information - Item A - Page 2
Table 1: 2013-2022 Voice and Sight Tag Program Revenues
Year
Voice and Sight Tag Program
Revenues
Percent
Change
2013 $42,590 N/A
2014 $77,791 82.65%
2015 $164,602 111.60%
2016 $110,156 -33.08%
2017 $121,288 10.11%
2018 $110,188 -9.15%
2019 $81,124 -26.38%
2020 $113,761 40.23%
2021 $115,243 1.30%
2022 $84,304 -26.85%
Expenses
The Tag Program is recovering administrative and management costs within the existing fee structure.
Expenses in 2022 are less than the costs presented to OSBT in previous years, as go-live costs and other
significant technology costs were not needed for the program. Revenues collected by the Tag Program are
expended by the program. In years when revenues exceed expenses, net revenues remain dedicated to the
program and are used to offset losses in other years. This approach to financial management has ensured
that the department has funds available to adequately manage the day-to-day operations of the program,
and to make needed periodic enhancements. For example, revenues have been utilized to configure,
deploy, and maintain software systems to ensure community members can purchase Voice and Sight tags
both online and in person.
Table 2: 2022 Voice and Sight Tag Program Revenue and Expenses*
*Expenses do not include staff time after tag is issued, including enforcement, compliance, and trailhead
maintenance costs
Parking Charges
Visitors with vehicles that are not registered in Boulder County must purchase either a daily or annual
parking permit in certain areas and trailheads. OSMP parking charges are codified. Additional to deciding
to codify the fees, OSBT and Council have made previous motions in 2012 outlining locations where
parking fees should be charged. Fees are collected from visitors on Flagstaff Mountain, in Gregory
Canyon, and at Doudy Draw, Flatirons Vista, Greenbelt Plateau, Marshall Mesa, South Boulder Creek
West, and South Mesa Trailheads.
Written Information - Item A - Page 3
Revenues
Parking revenues in 2020 were significantly lower than previous years. In March 2020, the department
made the decision to suspend parking fees for several months during early COVID-19 response. This
decision was made to allow Rangers to repurpose the time it takes to collect parking fees towards an
increase in patrol and emergency response as visitation levels increased during the early months of the
pandemic. It also minimized risk to Business Services staff in gathering as a group to process cash.
Revenues increased after fee collection resumed in 2021 and 2022. The increase reflected a return to pre-
COVID levels of growth. OSMP expects to maintain this growth in the coming years. The 2013-2022
parking fee revenues are as follows:
Table 3: 2013-2022 Parking Fee Revenues
Year
Parking Fee Revenue
*Note: CAMP fees not included
Percent
Change
2013 $128,659 N/A
2014 $146,967 14.23%
2015 $151,967 3.40%
2016 $198,397 30.55%
2017 $227,430 14.63%
2018 $240,606 5.79%
2019 $262,803 9.23%
2020 $184,707 -29.72%
2021 $297,291 60.95%
2022 $299,866 0.87%
Expenses
The Parking Fee Program is recovering administrative and management costs within the existing fee
structure. Net revenue generated by the program becomes part of the Open Space Fund Balance. Fund
balance is then allocated in next year’s budget to support core maintenance and other land management
activities.
Over the next several years, fund balance will be allocated to support permitting for mobile hotspots to
expand internet access at trailheads. Internet access allows for deployment of the ParkMobile parking
application, which is a platform community members can use to pay by phone for parking permits. The
goals of the hotspot/ParkMobile project are to increase compliance among visitors who do not carry cash,
to encourage online pay to reduce staff time spent on cash processing, and to improve consistency with
parking practices across the city by utilizing the same mobile platform and same vendor. Revenues and
expenses in 2022 are as follows:
Written Information - Item A - Page 4
Table 4: 2022 Parking Fee Revenue and Expenses*
*Expenses do not include staff time after parking permit is issued, including enforcement, compliance, and trailhead
maintenance costs
Special Activity Permits
As shared in previous revenue updates, the term “Special Activity Permits” is not widely utilized by
OSMP, but rather is a citywide tracking code that captures similar programs across departments to
understand community engagement with these programs. In OSMP, the revenue object for “Special
Activity Permits” generally refers to Commercial Use Permits and Special Use Permits, with some
revenue accounting for the Wood Lot program.
Revenues
Revenues for Special Activity Permits increased in 2021 and 2022 over 2020 levels. In 2020, a decision
was made to close the permit program from March through July due to COVID-19. The closure was
meant to minimize safety risks and ensure businesses were meeting state and local guidelines for group
size limits. As a result, program revenues decreased in 2020. Revenues increased in 2021 and 2022 as the
permit programs fully reopened. The department saw many of the permitted activities from the 2020
closure rescheduled to 2021 and 2022 dates, leading to increased revenues. OSMP staff worked with
permit holders to process permits for activities during this period. The 2013-2022 revenues for the permit
programs are as follows:
Table 5: 2013-2022 Special Activity Permit Revenues
Year
Special Activity Permit
Revenue
Percent
Change
2013 $14,095 N/A
2014 $21,110 49.77%
2015 $21,870 3.60%
2016 $26,030 19.02%
2017 $30,330 16.52%
2018 $33,600 10.78%
2019 $33,105 -1.47%
2020 $29,903 -9.67%
2021 $53,382 78.52%
2022 $53,638 0.48%
Written Information - Item A - Page 5
Expenses
Special Activity Permits are recovering administrative and management costs within the existing fee
structure. Significant improvements have been made in recent years to the Commercial and Special Use
Permit Programs that allow for this cost recovery. In 2017, OSMP and other city departments launched a
new permitting system called Energov. The system was configured to meet department Commercial and
Special Use Permit goals of improving efficiency, reducing program cost and staff time, improving
customer service through reduced time to issue permits, minimizing system impacts through education
around Leave-No-Trace principles, and enhancing reporting capabilities. Overall, the move from paper
forms to Energov reduced the administrative staff time to manage the program from 60-hours per week to
20-hours per week. Revenues and expenses in 2022 are as follows (Wood Lot revenues and expenses
captured under “Special Activity Charges” are excluded):
Table 6: 2022 Special Activity Permit Revenue and Expenses*
*Expenses do not include staff time after permits are issued, including enforcement and compliance costs
Facility Rentals
OSMP allows for reservation of shelters and facilities to accommodate group gatherings that also foster
appreciation and use that sustain the natural values of the land for current and future generations. Fees for
facility rentals are not codified but are set by the department.
Visitors have the ability to book facilities beyond the current year, so revenues are often collected in one
year for events in a future year. For example, a visitor can access the facility rental platform in November
2021 and pay to rent a facility for a date in March 2022. Payment for that rental will be reflected on the
Open Space Fund Financial as 2021 revenue.
Revenues
Revenues in 2020 were significantly impacted by COVID-19. OSMP adjusted group size limits to adhere
to state and local guidelines throughout pandemic response, and many community members opted to
either cancel or reschedule their group gatherings for future years. Revenues increased in 2021 when the
program fully reopened, and that level of collection was maintained in 2022. Like the scenario that led to
an increase in revenues for Special Activity Permits, the department saw many of the events from the
2020 closure rescheduled to 2021 and 2022 dates. Additional growth beyond pre-COVID levels can also
be attributed to increased interest in use of outdoor shelters and facilities for activities. The 2013-2022
revenues for the programs are as follows:
Written Information - Item A - Page 6
Table 7: 2013-2022 Facility Rental Revenues
Year
Facility Rental
Revenue
Percent
Change
2013 $52,250 N/A
2014 $49,415 -5.43%
2015 $50,613 2.42%
2016 $62,238 22.97%
2017 $62,238 0.00%
2018 $54,171 -12.96%
2019 $96,686 78.48%
2020 $38,890 -59.78%
2021 $141,657 264.25%
2022 $118,337 -16.46%
Expenses
The Facility Rental Program is recovering administrative and management costs within the existing fee
structure. Net revenue generated by the program becomes part of the Open Space Fund Balance. As
shared in previous updates to OSBT, cost recovery in this program can also be attributed to technology
improvements. In 2018, OSMP migrated the Facility Rental program to a software called FareHarbor.
Under the previous application, only one community member could use the reservation system at a time,
while other community members were kept in an online waiting room. This resulted in a high volume of
calls to the front desk requesting manual reservation of facilities to avoid long wait times to access the
system. The new system reduced staff time and improved efficiency in the Facility Rental Program.
Revenues and expenses in 2022 are as follows:
Table 8: 2022 Facility Rental Revenue and Expenses*
*Expenses do not include staff time after permits are issued, including enforcement and compliance costs
Habitat Conservation Area Off-Trail Permit Program
The Habitat Conservation Area (HCA) Off-Trail Permit Program provides a free auto-issued permit to
staff and the public to travel off designated trails in HCAs. While the program does not generate revenue
for the department, information on permits issued are included in this update. This permit program was
developed in response to findings in the 2005 Visitor Master Plan. The goal of establishing HCAs is to
minimize impacts on large areas of habitat and naturally functioning ecosystems. To support this goal, the
HCA Off-Trail Permit Program seeks to manage access and promote low-impact activities in these
established areas. This is only one tool to manage off-trail activities in the department. Rangers monitor
access to HCAs as part of regular patrol work, Education & Outreach staff educate the public on use of
trails and off-trail permissions, and Recreation & Cultural Stewardship staff monitor visitor activity.
Written Information - Item A - Page 7
HCA Off-Trail Permits are most frequently requested by and issued to OSMP staff. Revenues are not
collected for the free permit. Expenses are also minimal for the department, as the auto-issued permits
require variable levels of monitoring from staff from year to year. The number of HCA Off-Trail Permits
issued from 2013-2023 is as follows:
Table 9: Habitat Conservation Area Off-Trail Permits
Year
HCA Off-Trail
Permits Issued
Staff or Visitors
Included in Permits
2013 189 976
2014 290 1394
2015 206 902
2016 185 820
2017 222 1047
2018 180 790
2019 108 475
2020 347 1291
2021 344 1258
2022 304 997
City Attorney’s Office Determination Regarding Fees vs Taxes and TABOR
As shared in the October 2021 update, the City Attorney’s Office (CAO) has provided guidance on city
process for updating fees. Like staff, CAO recommends that OSMP undertake a holistic public planning
process to update program fees, regardless of whether they are codified in the B.R.C. The opinion of the
CAO is that the public has an “expectation that the city will engage in a thorough process of community
engagement before increasing fees paid by community members for the use of city facilities and
programs”.
CAO stated that increasing fees beyond cost recovery would be an issue under the Taxpayers Bill of
Rights (TABOR). TABOR mandates that taxes be approved by voters in an election. Fees do not require
approval from voters. Colorado court decisions describe the difference between a tax and a fee, and the
standards that courts use to differentiate between them. Revenue generation for the department beyond
cost recovery may be considered a tax, which requires voter approval. In Attachment A, CAO provides
additional information and describes the difference between taxes and fees.
When any department considers updating fees, CAO advises departments to undertake a fee study to
determine the cost of a program so that fees are in line with program costs. Per CAO, these fee studies can
be done by the department or by an outside, paid consultant. CAO encourages OSMP to utilize a planning
process to ensure adequate research, public engagement, and sign-off on key changes from City Council
and the City Manager. If it is not possible to utilize a planning process, CAO recommends the department
complete a holistic fee study.
Next Steps
Staff recommends that adjustments to fee programs be considered as part of a holistic fee and cost
recovery study. The 2023 work plan includes a project to develop a scope of work and cost estimates to
hire a consultant to project manage a comprehensive study. The project will likely take place in the third
quarter of 2023. OSMP staff will update OSBT as the project progresses.
Attachments
• Attachment A: City Attorney’s Office Memorandum on Fees vs Tax and TABOR
Written Information - Item A - Page 8
MEMORANDUM
To: Sandra Llanes
From: Todd Conklin and Ava Cusack
RE: Taxes vs. Fees
Date: June 3, 2021
The Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) mandates that taxes be approved by voters in an
election. Fees, however, do not require approval from voters. Colorado case law describes the
difference between a tax and a fee, and the standards that courts use to differentiate between
them.
Courts define a tax as a charge that is intended to raise revenues to cover the general
costs of government. Barber v. Ritter, 196 P.3d 238, 248–49 (Colo. 2008). A fee is defined as a
charge that is not intended to raise revenues to cover the general costs of government, but one
that is imposed for the purpose of covering the cost of a specific governmental program. Id.
Courts determine whether a financial charge is a fee or a tax by looking to the dominant purpose
of the financial charge at the time the enactment calling for its collection was passed. Id.
Courts will use several factors to determine the dominant purpose of the financial levy.
Tabor Found. v. Colorado Bridge Enter., 2014 COA 106, ¶ 22, 353 P.3d 896, 901. Firstly,
Courts will review the language of the statute that enabled the financial charge. Id. If the
language of statute states that the primary purpose of the charge is to fund a specific service, then
the charge is a fee. Id. If the language of the statute describes that the primary purpose of the
charge is to raise revenue for general government spending, then the charge is a tax. Id.
Next, courts then look to the primary purpose for which the money is raised, but they do
not look to the manner for which the money is spent. Id. At this stage, courts will ascertain
whether the charge functions to fund a specific program or to generally fund the government. Id.
Finally, courts will determine whether the primary purpose of the charge is to cover the cost of a
service provided to those who must pay the charge. Id.
For example, the Colorado Supreme Court found that the City of Aspen’s charge on non-
reusable grocery bags was not a tax. Colo. Union of Taxpayers Found. v. City of Aspen, 2018 CO
36, 418 P.3d 506, 509. Since the primary purpose of the charge was not to raise revenue but to
“defray the reasonable direct and indirect costs of administering the city’s specific regulatory,
waste-reduction scheme” and recoup the costs of recycling the bags that shoppers were still
permitted to use, it was found to be a fee and not a tax. Id.
Additionally, if a charge is to be a fee, the amount charged must reasonably be related to
the required cost of the service, but a mathematically exact match between the fee amount and
cost is not required, and courts reasonably respect the discretion of the legislature in assessing
the appropriate amount. Tabor Found. at 901. Finally, if a fee indirectly or incidentally raises
revenue, it does not automatically convert from a fee to a tax. Id.
ATTACHMENT A
Written Information - Item A - Page 9
In conclusion, if the principal purpose of a charge is to raise revenue for general
governmental use, then it is a tax. Colo. Union of Taxpayers Found. at 509. If the charge is
imposed as part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme and its purpose is to cover reasonable
direct and indirect costs of providing a service or regulating an activity, the charge is a fee and
not subject to voter approval under TABOR. Id.
ATTACHMENT A
Written Information - Item A - Page 10
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
Jeff Haley, Deputy Director, Trails and Facilities
DATE: March 8, 2023
SUBJECT: Written Information: Boulder Open Space Conservancy (BOSC) 2022 Annual Report
________________________________________________________________________
The City of Boulder encourages city departments to explore public-private partnerships to
attain the goals of enhancing community building and program sustainability and developing
programs and projects contributing to the health and wellbeing of a broader segment of the
community. Additionally, the department master plan outlines many outcomes and strategies
for Financial Sustainability within the department that staff have prioritized since 2019 to
support operations, programs, projects and acquisition. One of the key opportunities has been
the partnership between the city and the Boulder Open Space Conservancy (BOSC).
Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) and BOSC have partnered since 2017 and have
operated under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) since 2019. BOSC is an official
501(c)(3) non-profit organization that seeks to leverage public resources with contributions
from private philanthropy to protect, enhance, and enjoy Boulder’s legacy of OSMP for
current and future generations.
As agreed upon in the MOU, on an annual basis, and ideally at or before the March OSBT
business meeting, BOSC will present their annual update, including yearly financials, either in
person, or through a written update or email. See Attachments A and B for more
information.
Attachments:
• Attachment A: 2022 BOSC Annual Report
• Attachment B: 2022 BOSC Financial Report
Written Information - Item B - Page 1
Boulder Open Space Conservancy
2022 ANNUAL REPORT
On behalf of the Boulder Open Space Conservancy, we are proud of
our accomplishments in 2022 and we are looking ahead to greater
successes in 2023. BOSC’s fundraising program increased significantly by hosting several
donor cultivation events, creating online, email, and print communications and appeals,
acquiring corporate sponsorship partners, completing another successful Colorado Gives Day
coupled with a robust year end fundraising campaign and generous $5,000 and $25,000
matching gifts. We are currently planning our community events for this year and we invite
you to join us.
BOSC is still quite lean, with one half-time paid staff member and five volunteer Trustees
currently. However, we continue to strengthen our community of supporters, grow our
network of sponsors and volunteers, and work on expanding our Board as we implement a
new Strategic Plan under an updated mission that has an overarching theme of climate
resilience.
BOSC Mission Statement – Revised May 2022
Boulder Open Space Conservancy is a non-profit organization that partners with City of
Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks to promote and enhance the ecological resilience of
our public lands to climate change through sponsorship of conservation projects and
community education, for the benefit of all current and future generations of Boulder citizens
and visitors.
Our highlight of accomplishments from last year, was the “Sanitas
Helicopter Day” in October 2022. Funds BOSC raised in 2021 were
put to action via OSMP trail crews and a leased helicopter. During
the course of about four hours or so, 85 FIBC’s of stone were
transported to the Mount Sanitas Trail to be staged for restoration
work at a later date, saving OSMP staff and volunteers thousands of
hours of work.
We are grateful and proud to partner with Open Space Board of
Trustees and the City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks
department to encourage active stewardship from our community
and giving back to the lands that we all love.
Sincerely,
Diane Murphy, Board Chair
Alyson Duffey, Director of Development
ATTACHMENT A
Written Information - Item B - Page 2
BOSC 2022 Financial Report
The Boulder Open Space Conservancy (BOSC) is pleased and proud to announce that BOSC
has raised $48,000 for OSMP in 2022.
While this is considerably more than the 2021 donations of $34,000, a 41% increase, it also
represents a wider scope of giving; 2021 was Mt. Sanitas only, but 2022 has designated
funds for Mt. Sanitas, Junior Rangers, the Volunteer Program and OSMP’s Education
Department as follows:
· Mt. Sanitas $41,945
· Junior Rangers $ 4,555 (Maddy Lignell Memorial Fund)
· Volunteer Program $ 1,000
· Education Dept. $ 500
· Total $48,000
The above amounts were donated by over 200 individuals and businesses showing that
BOSC’s penetration is growing in its reach and brand.
Building on this, BOSC aspires to even more success in 2023 and more support of the
private/public partnership we enjoy with OSMP!
Sincerely,
Bob Koenig, BOSC Treasurer
ATTACHMENT B
Written Information - Item B - Page 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Kacey French, Planning and Design Senior Manager
Katie Knapp, Principal Planner
DATE: March 8, 2023
SUBJECT: Written Information: Fort Chambers / Poor Farm Site Management Plan Update
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a written update for the development of a Fort Chambers /
Poor Farm (FCPF) property Management Plan (Fort Chambers / Poor Farm Management Plan | City of
Boulder (bouldercolorado.gov)).
Context
The Fort Chambers / Poor Farm property is located west of North 63rd Street and south of Jay Road (an area
map is included as Attachment A). The property is important to Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP)
and the community due to its history and association with the Sand Creek Massacre and the land’s
significant ecological and agricultural resources.
City staff are working on a government-to-government basis with the three Sovereign Tribal
Nations affected by the Sand Creek Massacre (the Cheyenne and Arapaho, the Northern Arapaho and the
Northern Cheyenne) to receive and incorporate their meaningful input into the development of a
management plan for the property. The Site Management Plan will be used to guide ongoing land
management and uses associated with the property.
Background
The 110-acre property was purchased in 2018 due to its ability to fulfill many OSMP Charter purposes. The
previous Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) update included:
• A meeting summary from discussions with Arapaho and Cheyenne Tribal Leaders and
Representatives
• Preliminary site inventory information
Previous updates to the board and council are available at the following links:
03.14.18 OSBT Packet (bouldercolorado.gov)
03.10.21 OSBT Packet (bouldercolorado.gov)
02.22.22 Council Memo (bouldercolorado.gov)
09.14.22 OSBT Packet (bouldercolorado.gov)
Site Management Plan Update
Government to Government Tribal Partnership
The city is continuing government-to-government discussions with the federally recognized American
Indian Tribes affected by the Sand Creek Massacre: the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, the
Northern Arapahoe Tribe, and the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. It is recognized that this management plan will
take time since Tribal Representatives and Tribal Nations consult with many federal, state, and local
agencies across the county. Current work includes:
Written Information - Item C - Page 1
• City/Tribal Nation collaboration agreement. City staff and Tribal Representatives are working on
a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that outlines the process, roles and responsibilities for
this Site Management Plan collaboration. A draft MOU has been prepared and is currently being
reviewed by Tribal Representatives.
• Inventory / sharing information. Staff conducted extensive research and compiled historic
information for the Inventory Report. Tribal Representatives reviewed draft report information prior
to inclusion in the Inventory Report.
• The Sand Creek Massacre Exhibition: OSMP staff and Tribal Representatives attended the Nov.
19, 2022, opening of History Colorado’s Sand Creek Massacre Exhibition in Denver, CO. This
exhibit shares histories from Arapaho and Cheyenne descendants of the massacre’s survivors and
was created in partnership with the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribe, the Northern Arapaho Tribe and
the Northern Cheyenne Tribe.
Inventory and Assessment
Staff have compiled inventory work to inform the site planning process and will be releasing an Inventory
Report in the upcoming days. It will soon be highlighted on the project webpage.
This site has a deep history and many significant resources. To reach a broad spectrum of stakeholders and
interested community members, the Inventory Report was created with Arc-Experience, an interactive
platform that is accessible on different types of devices (i.e.: computers, phones, tablets). This is a new
platform, intended to build a shared understanding of the sites values by providing information in an
accessible, easy to understand, and visually appealing way.
Staff encourages the OSBT to look through the inventory report to learn more about the site, and view the
maps, pictures and information included. For context, resources are also provided to understand the broader
history and the ties to the Sand Creek Massacre, which is sacred to the Cheyenne and Arapaho people. We
are committed to working with our Tribal partners to learn how to share information about their history and
the massacre. The inventory report provides information specific to Fort Chambers and it is intentional that
the full story of the Sand Creek Massacre is not included. There are many resources provided to learn more,
including the new Sand Creek Massacre Exhibition at History Colorado in Denver.
This inventory report will feed into the next phase of the project, where site opportunities are identified, and
different site alternatives are developed and assessed. The site planning process includes the following
phases:
Written Information - Item C - Page 2
Next Steps
In the upcoming months, OSMP staff will:
• work with the Tribal Representatives to receive their feedback and finalize the MOU that outlines
continued collaboration on this site planning effort.
• begin developing site management plan alternatives for tribal input. Tribal Representatives
expressed their preference to comment and provide feedback on staff-developed management plan
concepts.
• provide updates to the project webpage as appropriate.
Staff will continue to collaborate with the tribes on the development and evaluation of site plan alternatives.
It is anticipated that staff will provide an update to the board on the site plan alternative process later in
2023.
Attachments
Attachment A: Area Map
Written Information - Item C - Page 3
!i
!i
!i
!i
!i
!(A
!(A !(A
!(A
!i
James
DR
Cottonwood
at Jay Rd
Sawhill
Access
North
Sawhill
Access
Northeast
Sawhill
Access East
Sawhill PondsFORT CHAMBERS / POOR FARM - AREA MAP
!i OSMP Trailhead with Parking
!(A OSMP Access Point - parking on public roads
!i Other Boulder Area Trailheads
OSMP Hiking Trail
OSMP Multi-Use Trail
Other Boulder Area Trails
OSMP Easement
OSMP Ownership
Boulder County Open Space 0 1,000500FtN
Walden PondsFort Chambers
Poor Farm
Twin Lakes
Valmont Butte
Boulder Creek
Boulder Airport
Boulder CreekJay Rd.
Andrus Rd.
Valmont Rd.75th St.63rd St.61st St.Heatherwood Trail
LOBO Trail
LOBO Trail
Diagonal HwyATTACHMENT A
Written Information - Item C - Page 4