09.13.23 OSBT PacketOpen Space Board of Trustees
September 13, 2023
MEETING AGENDA
(Please note that times are approximate.)
I. (6:00) Oath of Office of new Trustee and welcome
II. (6:10) Approval of the Minutes
III. (6:15) Public Comment for Items not Identified for Public Hearing
IV. (6:25) Matters from the Board
A. Comments/Questions from Trustees on Written Information memos or
public comment (10 min)
B. OSBT Retreat Update from Subcommittee (15 min)
V. (6:50) Matters from the Department
A. Marshall Mesa Trailhead Improvement Project Update (40 min)
B. Chautauqua Access Management Program Evaluation (40 min)
C. 2021-2023 Public Opinion and Visitor Experience Survey: Preliminary
Year One Data Summary (2021-2022) (40 min)
D. Director Verbal Updates (5 min)
VI. (8:55) Adjourn
Written Information
A. Fort Chambers / Poor Farm Site Management Plan Update
B. Update on Status of Prairie Dog Barrier Cost-Share Program
C. Jefferson County Colorado Front Range Trail Feasibility Study Final Report
Open Space Board of Trustees
Members:
Dave Kuntz (2019-2024)
Harmon Zuckerman (2023-2025)
Michelle Estrella (2021-2026)
Jon Carroll (2022-2027)
Brady Robinson (2023-2028)
Open Space Board of Trustees
*TENTATIVE Board Items Calendar
(Updated August 31, 2023)
September 26, 2023
OSBT Retreat
8:30 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.
October 11, 2023 November 8, 2023
Agenda and Location TBD.
Matters from the Board:
• Trustee questions on
Written Memo items or
public comment (15 min)
• OSBT Retreat Follow up
(30 min)
Action Items:
Matters from the Department:
• South Boulder Creek
Flood Mitigation Project:
60% Design update with a
focus on OSMP-related
items (120 min)
• Director Verbal Updates
(5 min)
Matters from the Board:
• Trustee questions on
Written Memo items or
public comment (15 min)
• OSBT Retreat Follow up
(20 min)
Action Items:
Matters from the Department:
• Wildland Fire Resilience
Program Update:
Community Wildfire
Protection Plan (CWPP)
and OSMP Strategic
Management
Enhancements (60 min)
• Wildlife Program Update
(45 min)
• Director Verbal Updates
(5 min)
*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 August 9, 2023
2520 55th St, Boulder, CO 80301
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
Dave Kuntz, Board Chair
Michelle Estrella, Board Vice-Chair
Jon Carroll
Brady Robinson
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Dan Burke Lauren Kilcoyne Jeff Haley Heather Swanson Brian Anacker
Melinda Markin Arial Hampel Hannah Pritchard Ryn Zimmerman Daelin Krutsinger Swenson
Paul Williams Bethany Collins Jake Cassidy Craig Braski Natasha Steinmann
Burton Stoner Sam McQueen Megan Grunewald
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM 1 – Approval of the Minutes (0:48)
Michelle Estrella moved the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) to adopt the minutes from July 12,
2023. Jon Carroll seconded. This motion passed unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM 2 – Junior Rangers/Youth Rangers Program Update and Presentation (2:43)
Lead Ranger Arian Hampel, Ranger II Melinda Markin, Volunteerism and Service Learning Senior
Program Manager Natasha Steinmann, and Junior Ranger Program Senior Coordinator Hannah Pritchard
presented this item. Youth Ranger Crew Member Ryn Zimmerman and Junior Ranger Crew Member
Daelin Krutsinger Swenson shared their experiences with the program. The Board asked how crews are
assembled, how projects are planned, how many youths are on each crew, how staff plans for working
outside in high temperatures and rain, whether boot stipends were able to be distributed prior to first day
of field work, and of what accomplishments this season the youth crew members were most proud.
AGENDA ITEM 3 – Public Participation for Items not Identified for Public Hearing (46:41)
Lynn Segal spoke about the removal of Caroline Miller as a Trustee and University of Colorado Boulder
(CU) South annexation.
AGENDA ITEM 4 – Matters from the Board (53:10)
Heather Swanson summarized the Written Information: Update on Seasonal Leash Restriction for the
Protection of Bears. The Board expressed concerns about the lack of compliance with seasonal leash
restrictions compared with the rest of the system, shared approval of the change to adjust seasonal leash
restrictions to start at trailheads, and asked about the timing of the compliance study and how it will
include trails that have been rerouted, when the data from the compliance study will be shared with the
Board, how rangers adjust patrols to support education about seasonal leash restrictions, the timing of
placing the trailhead temporary tent signage, and how the seasonal restrictions will be shared on social
media and through Boulder FIDOS.
The Board appointed Michelle Estrella and Brady Robinson to the OSBT Retreat Ad-hoc Subcommittee.
The Board discussed how they would compile ideas for the retreat through Director Dan Burke; asked for
examples of what a successful retreat would look like, shared successes of past retreats, asked to focus on
revisiting the Open Space Board of Trustees Rules of Procedure, confirmed the timing of the scheduling
for the retreat and the agenda item to follow up following the retreat, and considered adding a field trip
component to the retreat.
AGENDA ITEM 5 – Request for approval and recommendation to City Council to approve an
amendment to the OSBT- and Council-approved use of certain City of Boulder open space lands by
the City of Boulder Innovation and Technology Department to permit installation of subsurface
conduits via open trenching or boring as part of the City Council approved Community Broadband
Project, and also allow for possible placement of additional conduits to limit impacts associated
with potential future utility installation, pursuant to the disposal procedures of Article XII, Section
177, of the City of Boulder Charter. (1:26:18)
The Board declined to have this item presented as planned by Real Estate Senior Manager Bethany
Collins after confirming all details of the recommendation were provided in the memo and clarifying that
the only amendment to the previous OSBT- and Council-approved use motion was to add the use of open
trenching and placement of additional utility conduits in the future. The Board also asked the origin of the
term Trails/Roads (Troads).
Public Comment:
None.
Motion:
Jon Carroll moved the Open Space Board of Trustees to approve and recommend that City Council
approve an amendment to the OSBT- and Council-approved use of certain City of Boulder open
space lands by the City of Boulder Innovation and Technology department to permit installation of
subsurface conduits via open trenching or boring as part of the City Council approved Community
Broadband Project, and also allow for possible placement of additional conduits to limit impacts
associated with potential future utility installation, pursuant to the disposal procedures of Article
XII, Section 177, of the City of Boulder Charter. Michelle Estrella seconded. This motion passed
unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM 6 – Matters from the Department (1:38:34)
Signs and Graphics Senior Program Manager Craig Braski presented the Signs Program Overview and
Flagstaff Gateway Sign Replacement. The Board asked questions about the tribal acknowledgement of a
prior sign design, e-bike permitted versus prohibited signs and whether all e-bike signs have been placed,
whether the department avoids color coding signs, and made recommendations for the Chautauqua
gateway sign, the climbing safety signs, and incorporating humor into signs.
Director Dan Burke provided verbal updates on the Tribal Consultation that took place in July that will
yield a September written memo about the Fort Chambers/Poor Farm Site Management Plan Update,
summarized the July 31 World Ranger Day celebration, announced the temporary closure of Cottonwood
trailhead through at least the end of August, summarized the Community Wildfire Protection Plan
meeting and process which will have an agenda item in the fall for further update, the date to be
determined for a joint field trip between OSBT and Parks & Open Space Advisory Committee (POSAC)
focused on restoration, and announced a public hearing item at the City Council special meeting 6pm –
6:30pm on August 10 to appoint boards and commissions vacancies including the OSBT vacancy.
ADJOURNMENT – The meeting adjourned at 8:33 p.m.
These draft minutes were prepared by Acting Board Secretary Megan Grunewald.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Jeff Haley, Deputy Director of Trails and Facilities
Ilene Flax, Senior Landscape Architect
DATE: September 13, 2023
SUBJECT: Marshall Mesa Trailhead Improvement Project Update
________________________________________________________________________
Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) staff are currently developing renovation plans for the
Marshall Mesa trailhead located near the intersection of CO 93 and CO 170, Eldorado Springs Dr.
This trailhead serves as one of the southern gateways to the open space system and is a T3
classification which is the highest classification of trailhead serving many visitors and offering a range
of recreation experiences. Trailheads are classified by the amount of use, variety of access
opportunities and infrastructure provided. Marshall Mesa includes a variety of infrastructure and
amenities to support the designated uses and access needs. As a result of a system-wide trailhead
assessment performed recently, the trailhead was identified for renovation due to the aging
infrastructure and necessary upgrades. The recent Marshall Fire in late 2021 only increased the need
for renovation after much of the infrastructure was impacted by the fire. Several other factors have
been identified that warrant a renovation of the site and the amenities provided. The project is
currently in the design and permitting process with construction funded and anticipated to begin within
2024 and complete by 2025. In addition to necessary renovations, this project will allow OSMP to
implement many master plan goals and initiatives. This new trailhead design demonstrates the
intention identified within the master plan to allow trailheads to become not just places to access the
system, but opportunities for education and outreach, gathering for passive recreation and
demonstration of native plantings and low-impact, sustainable design.
Background
Many distinct reasons exist for the renovation and redesign need of the trailhead. Most importantly,
the trailhead was impacted by the 2021 Marshall fire, which destroyed or significantly impacted the
vault restroom, accessible trail, various infrastructure, and fencing throughout the area. The Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will provide funding for vault restroom replacement and
other amenities destroyed and staff will support the remaining costs with the recently approved 2024
CIP budget. Additionally, the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (DRMS) plan to
perform work within the area around the trailhead in 2024 to continue mitigating subsurface
conditions related to past mining activity. More information about the scope and extent of the DRMS
work will be provided when DRMS completes its desired plans for this mitigation effort; staff will
update OSBT when that information is available. It is anticipated that DRMS will be working in areas
around the trailhead that were also planned for renovation so OSMP will need to collaborate with
DRMS on timing and other matters relating to supporting OSMP infrastructure and programs.
Agenda Item 5A - Page 1
Another reason for renovation and redesign of the trailhead relates to Boulder County Transportation
recently working with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and OSMP to address
safety concerns between the park-and-ride shuttle stop on the west side of Eldorado Springs Drive
(170) and the trailhead. Newly installed fencing and crosswalk now direct vehicle and pedestrian
movements at the park-and-ride lot to provide a safer road crossing over to the OSMP trailhead.
Trailhead renovation plans will further support access from the park-and-ride, which often serves as an
overflow lot for the trailhead. The current trailhead layout was developed as part of the Marshall
Mesa-Southern Grasslands Trail Study Area Plan when it was relocated from a sensitive wetland area
to the east. The current driveway access is remnant infrastructure from a previous commercial use of
the site and that driveway is too close to the intersection of Highway 93 to support full turn
movements, requiring right in-right out access only. This safety issue will be resolved as renovation
plans move the access drive to the east to support full turn movements in and out of the trailhead while
not impacting any ecological or cultural resources within the area. This design has been informed by a
recent traffic study and engineering report supported by CDOT. Another opportunity is that the
proposed DRMS remediation work described above will likely be accessing the site at the area
proposed for the new driveway entrance and in doing so will be performing the initial excavation and
earthwork to implement the new driveway location. All these design considerations have been
reviewed and supported by OSMP staff and partner agencies, including OSMP ecological staff to
ensure that ecosystem impacts are minimized.
Finally, OSMP is working with Mountain View Fire District to include a replacement of a cistern that
historically has been located at/under the trailhead. This upgraded cistern will support fire suppression
efforts in this area, including on OSMP-managed lands. Initial plans for the cistern will locate it on
OSMP property and be accessed from Eldorado Springs Drive (170). This cistern is legacy
infrastructure from a previous commercial use on the site and was required to support the commercial
building that was on the site. Even though that structure is no longer in use, the fire district can use the
replaced cistern to have water available if needed.
Renovation Design Characteristics
Ideally, trailhead design encourages the leave no trace behaviors that set visitors up for success on the
system. Trailhead design embraces the ecotone-like transition between the built environment of the
city and the natural characteristics of the OSMP system. It is the goal of staff to have all OSMP
Trailheads model stewardship through evidence of care and maintenance; using timeless, sustainable,
and maintainable materials; and using land efficiently and intentionally. They have the power to be
welcoming places that help visitors make the transition to the system in a comfortable and intuitive
way that provides a quality and welcoming experience while fostering stewardship of the resource.
The current trailhead design also supports climate goals and current efforts to reduce greenhouse gas
(GHG)emissions. OSMP recently contracted Lotus Engineering and Sustainability to analyze the
embodied carbon (defined as the emissions generated throughout a material’s lifecycle) impacts of
various materials commonly used at the department’s trailheads and make recommendations and
suggestions for lowering the embodied carbon of the materials used at trailheads. The Marshall Mesa
Trailhead renovation is an excellent opportunity to implement their recommendations through use of
appropriate materials that minimize GHG through their lifecycle.
Agenda Item 5A - Page 2
The trailhead renovation concept plans leverage adjacent projects to include consideration of the
following elements.
Vehicles
• Vehicles will access the site through a new driveway that provides a graceful arrival sequence
to the parking area and connects the park-and-ride as well as visitors arriving by bike or
pedestrians better than the current design.
• Trailhead parking will be in one area to support intuitive wayfinding for visitors. While
vehicle capacity will remain relatively similar with the new lot, the improved layout will be
designed to reduce the stress of finding a parking spot.
• Parking area layout will support multi-modal access including shuttle bus drop off and pickup
areas. This will include a shade shelter and seating for gathering and waiting.
• Designated spaces for accessible parking, ranger parking, and equestrian parking.
• Parking spaces are deeper than typical to support bike hitch racks without impacting
circulation.
• Parking and staging for maintenance of the trailhead and trail system.
• In surveys, over 34% of visitors arrived at the trailhead by bicycle. Although many visitors
will continue their bike experience on the trails, trailhead design includes comfortable and
ample bike parking to support this multi-modal access of the system.
Trail System
• The trailhead will provide clear connections to the trail system.
• The accessible route burned in the fire will not be reconstructed as it was; it had been a short,
destination-less segment. Instead, an accessible nature loop is envisioned in the area north of
the trailhead. This location supports accessible grades, includes shaded areas that are critical
for people experiencing disabilities, and can provide a quiet, contemplative experience away
from the road and main trail network.
• A short trail connection between the CDOT park-and-ride and the trailhead will provide a safe
and compelling route.
• Safe pedestrian routes around the trailhead will support wayfinding and intuitive connections
that are separated from vehicles.
Visitor Infrastructure
• The vault restroom that burned in the Marshall fire will be replaced with the new OSMP
standard concrete vault structure. This recommended structure is an integrated building and
vault that is highly durable and resilient to fire, and moderately resilient to flooding. FEMA
will provide funding for a new structure.
• Shade is an increasingly vital safety concern in our changing climate and one of the most
desired needs according to feedback from the community and visitors. The site renovation will
include a shade shelter for gathering, waiting, and picnicking at the trailhead as a destination
or before and after a recreation activity on the trails.
Agenda Item 5A - Page 3
• Benches and seating areas will be in appropriate locations around the trailhead to support
visitor use, comfort, and engagement.
• Marshall Mesa is increasingly popular as a biking facility, with 59% of visitors reporting
biking as their primary activity. Visitor infrastructure will include a bike repair station and an
area for staging groups of bikes before heading onto the trails.
• New fencing will support and control access around the trailhead.
• The existing steel structure that exists on the site now with interpretive signs will remain and
be integrated into the new design to provide more of a “gateway” to the trail system as well as
a sheltered space for simply enjoying the views from the trailhead.
Vegetation
Trailheads staff have been developing a “climate-ready” landscape palette with plantings that are
native, fire-wise, and water-wise. Many xeriscape guidelines apply, including the right plant for the
right place to provide a variety of benefits to the trailhead area.
• Successful revegetation following any disturbance is key to project success. Reestablishment
of a functional grassland ecosystem will require vigilant efforts by staff and drainage within
the restored areas will support plantings.
• Trailhead grading will direct stormwater runoff to landscaped areas that are supported by this
additional water.
• Trees that provide shade as a critical element in our changing climate.
• Plants that exhibit a variety of adaptations to living with fire including serotinous cones,
smoke responsive germination, bark characteristics, and deep root systems.
Education and Outreach
Education and outreach at the Marshall Mesa trailhead are supported by the visitor infrastructure
described above. In addition, the level of service for this area indicates the need for guided and/or self-
guided trails and nature discovery experiences.
• As explored in CU Boulder’s Eco-healing studio project, the Marshall Mesa trailhead
resonates following the Marshall Fire. Our community is increasingly aware of the healing
qualities of spending time in nature, and this place is empowered to address and support
recovery.
• The newly designed accessible nature trail is an excellent opportunity for interactive site
interpretation that may include eco-healing; coal mining and the mitigation work; and climate
ready landscapes.
• Signage to support wayfinding and interpretation.
Schedule
• Work to date has included inventory, analysis, and site review. Research has included
materials from every workgroup in OSMP as well as transportation engineering.
• Schematic design is now underway, and a civil engineer will be contracted this fall to develop
construction documents.
• Ongoing coordination is underway with multiple entities including Boulder County
permitting, Colorado Department of Transportation, Mountain View Fire Rescue, and DRMS.
Agenda Item 5A - Page 4
• Current scheduling anticipates DRMS mitigation work later in 2024, and trailhead renovations
following that work, likely in early 2025.
Project Alignment
2005 Visitor Master Plan
Renovation of the trailhead supports access to the West Mashall Mesa Passive Recreation Area. As
described in the 2005 Visitor Master Plan, the characteristics of passive recreation areas include:
• Proximity to development.
• Higher level of visitor uses and trail density.
• More evidence of use and impacts.
• May include patches of high-quality habitat.
The goals for passive recreation areas include:
• Provide a high level of public access.
• Maintain or improve recreational and education opportunities while protecting resources.
• Accommodate high levels of visitation with appropriate management, trails, trailheads,
and services.
• Reduce conflict among visitor activities.
• Minimize undesignated trails, eliminate duplicative and ones damaging to resources.
2019 Master Plan
Renovations at the trailhead will support the following Master Plan Strategies:
Tier 1
• EHR. 3) Address the global climate crisis here and now.
• RRSE. 1) Assess and manage increasing visitation.
• CCEI. 1) Welcome diverse backgrounds and abilities.
• CCEI. 2) Enhance communication with visitors.
Tier 2
• RRSE. 4) Encourage multimodal access to trailheads.
• CCEI. 3) Connect youth to the outdoors.
Tier 3
• RRSE. 6) Support a range of passive recreation experiences.
• RRSE. 7) Build new trails as guided by past and future plans.
• RRSE. 8) Provide welcoming and inspiring visitor facilities and services.
• RRSE. 9) Develop a learning laboratory approach to recreation.
• CCEI. 5) Foster wellness through immersion in the outdoors.
• CCEI. 6) Inspire environmental literacy and new involvement in OSMP.
Agenda Item 5A - Page 5
Attachments:
Attachment A: Marshall Mesa Renovation Concept Plan – Overall
Attachment B: Marshall Mesa Renovation Concept Plan - Enlarged
Agenda Item 5A - Page 6
170170
9393
To system To system
trailstrails
Nature trail Nature trail
looploop
Trail to Trail to
park and park and
ride lotride lot
Driveway Driveway
accessaccess
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5A - Page 7
Horse trailer Horse trailer parkingparkingBike plazaBike plazaPlanted water Planted water quality islandsquality islandsVault Vault restroomrestroomAccessible and Accessible and Ranger parkingRanger parkingShuttle stop Shuttle stop and drop offand drop offShade shelter Shade shelter and picnic areaand picnic area‘Backstop’ ‘Backstop’ gatewaygatewaySystem trailsSystem trailsNature trail Nature trail looploopMaintenance Maintenance stagingstagingTrail to park Trail to park and ride lotand ride lotParkingParkingKioskKioskInteractive site Interactive site interpretationinterpretationCrosswalkCrosswalk1701709393GatheringGatheringspacespaceAttachment BAgenda Item 5A - Page 8
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Natalie Stiffler, Director of Transportation & Mobility
Cris Jones, Director of Community Vitality
Valerie Watson, Transportation Planning Manager
Chris Hagelin, Principal Planner, Transportation & Mobility
Devin Joslin, Principal Traffic Engineer, Transportation & Mobility
Samantha Bromberg, Senior Project Manager, Community Vitality
Frances Boulding, Recreation and Cultural Stewardship Senior Manager, Open Space
and Mountain Parks
DATE: September 13, 2023
SUBJECT: Chautauqua Access Management Program Evaluation
________________________________________________________________________
OSMP MASTER PLAN STRATEGIES
RRSE.1) ASSESS AND MANAGE INCREASING VISITATION.
CCEI.1) WELCOME DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS AND ABILITIES
Executive Summary:
The purpose of this memo and presentation on the Chautauqua Access Management Program (CAMP)
Evaluation is to receive feedback from the Open Space and Mountain Parks Board (OSBT) on the
program’s future. CAMP is a multi-departmental effort under the Access Management and Parking
Strategies (AMPS) program and includes staff from Community Vitality (CV), Transportation &
Mobility (T&M), and Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP), and a wide variety of partners and
stakeholders. CAMP began in 2017 to address parking, access, and livability issues at the historic park
and in the surrounding residential area. After a successful pilot in 2017, CAMP was extended to
operate until the end of 2023 under BRC 2-2-21. As part of the 2023 work plan, staff are conducting a
formal evaluation of the CAMP program and will provide recommendations to boards and council on
whether to continue the program, and if continued, identify potential changes to the program.
Based on data, questionnaire findings, and consultation with stakeholders and partners, staff
recommend that the city continue CAMP with some specific operational refinements, detailed below.
In addition to continuing the current CAMP program with a few refinements, staff also recommend
conducting additional research and analysis to assess the feasibility of moving beyond the current
CAMP “park-n-ride” model -- with free shuttles operating from remote lots -- to a model that provides
direct transit access to Chautauqua. Overall, stakeholders, nearby residents, and partners want CAMP
to continue and desire to see that the CAMP season (now currently operating on weekends and
holidays between Memorial Day and Labor Day) is expanded to more months of the year and days of
the week to continually manage parking demand. However, under the current park-n-ride model,
expansion is difficult due to the need to access Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) and University
of Colorado, Boulder (CU) parking lots. While the city can lease access to these parking lots during
the summer and on weekends, access to these parking lots is not feasible during the school year and on
weekdays. With a model based on direct transit access to Chautauqua, the city could manage parking
through pricing while providing a convenient multimodal option and potentially coordinate with
Boulder County to develop a more holistic and interconnected Trailhead Access Management Program
as part of the AMPS program.
Agenda Item 5B - Page 1
As a result, staff is recommending continuing CAMP with some modifications while initiating a
feasibility study into how the city can provide direct transit access to Chautauqua and eliminate the
need to operate a shuttle system from remote lots. Some of the potential modifications that are
possible under the current park-n-ride model include providing micromobility access to the park,
implementing performance-based pricing to better manage parking demand, allowing the sale of
commuter permits in the North Chautauqua Neighborhood Parking Permit (NPP) program for
Chautauqua employees, reinvesting parking revenue to provide additional transportation demand
management (TDM) for employees, investigating changes to the HOP to Chautauqua route, and
updating parking signage to improve clarity.
If council supports staff’s recommendation to continue CAMP, the first step will be to update the
ordinance that guides the CAMP program before the end of 2023. Next, staff will modify the CAMP
program based on council input and guidance in preparation for the 2024 CAMP season. If supported
by Council, staff will simultaneously initiate the feasibility study on moving beyond the park-n-ride
model to provide direct transit access to Chautauqua and further study the expansion of parking
management at and near the park.
Background:
The purpose of the CAMP evaluation is to:
•Evaluate the effectiveness of the CAMP program compared to the original goals and
objectives of the program – to manage parking demand and provide multimodal access for
visitors, employees, and residents, and address livability concerns.
•Develop staff recommendations based on data analysis and stakeholder input for boards
and council to consider for the future of the CAMP program.
•Inform the crafting and adoption of necessary ordinances related to Council direction.
•Inform the development of an implementation framework based on Council guidance; and
•Set a foundation for future Trail Access Management Programs and evaluation of
effectiveness.
CAMP Program Elements
On weekends and holidays between Memorial and Labor Day, CAMP features managed and paid
parking ($2.50 per hour with no time restrictions), a parking permit program for the North Chautauqua
neighborhood, free shuttle service from remote lots on CU and BVSD campuses and downtown
Boulder provided by Via Mobility, an ambassador program sponsored by the Boulder Convention and
Visitor Bureau (now Visit Boulder), and TDM programs for employers and employees. For a brief
period, subsidized ride-hailing in partnership with Lyft was also included but ended due to lack of use
and unsustainable per ride costs.
Partners
CAMP is a multi-departmental effort that includes Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP),
Community Vitality (CV), and Transportation & Mobility (T&M) staff under the AMPS program
umbrella. The success of CAMP has also depended significantly on partnerships with local
stakeholders and service providers. These stakeholders include Via Mobility, the Colorado
Chautauqua Association (CCA), Visit Boulder, the Chautauqua Dining Hall, the Colorado Music
Festival, University of Colorado (CU), the Boulder Valley School District (BVSD), residents, and
park visitors.
Evaluation Methodology
To evaluate the CAMP program, staff used a multipronged approach which included:
Agenda Item 5B - Page 2
1. Data Analysis of traffic volumes, trail visitation, parking utilization at Chautauqua and in the
surrounding neighborhood, parking enforcement costs and revenue, visitor and employee
travel behavior, shuttle ridership, and shuttle and remote lot costs.
2. Stakeholder Interviews with the Colorado Chautauqua Association, Visit Boulder, and Via
Mobility
3. Questionnaires, in English and Spanish, targeting the general public, North Chautauqua NPP
residents, Chautauqua employers and employees. Please note that the findings of these
questionnaires are not statistically representative of visitors or residents. They are intended to
capture feedback from people who want to share their opinions and can be used to
communicate general sentiments and leanings rather than representative findings.
4. Employment of the Racial Equity Instrument in consultation with city staff and Community
Connectors to improve outreach and gather feedback.
5. Development of options based on data analysis, stakeholder engagement and questionnaires.
6. Public Process with boards and council to receive feedback and finalize a staff
recommendation.
ANALYSIS:
A wide range of data has been collected for the CAMP Program by city staff and partners which
informed options analysis and the development of the staff recommendation on the future of CAMP.
Traffic Data
When comparing 2018 and 2023, traffic volumes in the Chautauqua area decreased approximately 3
percent on weekends during the CAMP season. During the weekdays, there was an approximately 15
percent decrease in traffic volumes when compared to the same years. The 15 percent decrease in
weekday traffic volumes corresponds very closely to overall citywide traffic volume trends. Overall,
85th percentile speeds are within 5 mph of the posted speed.
Shuttle Data
Under CAMP, the free Park-to-Park Shuttle operates on weekends and holidays between Memorial
and Labor Day weekends when paid parking is in effect at Chautauqua and in the North Chautauqua
NPP. The shuttle, operated by Via Mobility, runs every 15 minutes between 8am and 8pm. Visit
Boulder ambassadors are present to answer questions and help visitors use the shuttle service.
As indicated in Table 1 below, shuttle ridership was highest in the first year of the program and was
experiencing declines until the COVID pandemic occurred in 2020. Since 2020, shuttle ridership has
been increasing but still less than half of the inaugural year.
Table 1: Shuttle Ridership
Year Average Daily Ridership Total Ridership
2017 861 23,248
2018 714 22,848
2019 650 21,466
2020 119 4,181
2021 288 9,509
2022 313 10,643
YTD 2023 402 10,867
Totals 478 102,742
Agenda Item 5B - Page 3
Since the start of CAMP, costs to operate the shuttle has increased by approximately 22 percent while
the costs to rent the lots from CU and BVSD have collectively decreased by 33 percent. Table 2
below provides a breakdown of operational costs from 2017 to 2022. 2023 costs will be calculated
after the end of this CAMP season.
Table 2: Shuttle Operations Costs
Program Elements 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Via Shuttle Service $76,157 $73,661 $74,996 $83,279 $83,022 $92,942
CU Regent Lot $12,239 $9,990 $9,990 $9,990 $9,990 $9,990
BVSD New Vista Lot $17,484 $19,800 $18,600 $21,528 $20,592 $9,900
Totals $105,880 $103,451 $103,586 $114,797 $113,604 $112,832
Parking Management Data
At Chautauqua and in the NPP, parking during CAMP season costs $2.50 per hour. There is no time
limitation for parking duration although typical parking sessions last between 2 to 3 hours. Currently,
most of the parking is paid through the ParkMobile smart phone app.
Parking at the Ranger Lot and along Baseline are nearly completely full at most times on the
weekends during the CAMP season. The Chautauqua Green and McClintock lots generally
experience 60 percent utilization. OSMP data collected in 2019 and 2020 showed the Ranger Lot to
be 94 percent occupied on average, with 91 percent utilization on weekdays and 98 percent utilization
on weekends.
On average, 2,700 parking citations are issued per CAMP season and the average cost of a citations in
2022 was $39. Parking enforcement cost are approximately $400 per day on weekends, and $800 per
day for holidays. With approximately 26 weekend days and 4 holidays per CAMP season the
approximate cost of parking enforcement is $14,000.
As the table below shows, revenue from paid parking and citations has increased from $153,000 to
almost $170,000 in 2022. After subtracting the cost to enforce the parking management program, the
CAMP program revenues exceed the cost of operating the shuttle system by about $40,000.
Table 3: Total Parking Revenue
Year
Total Parking
Revenue
2018 $153,423
2019 $168,732
2020 $165,780
2021 $156,411
2022 $169,822
Totals $814,168
North Chautauqua NPP Data
To manage parking demand in the North Chautauqua neighborhood, a neighborhood parking permit
program (NPP) was established. The area of the NPP includes the blocks of 6th street to Lincoln Place
from Baseline Road to (and including) Cascade Avenue.
Within the NPP, residents can purchase parking permits for $10 which are valid for the duration of the
CAMP operating season. Under the program, residents can purchase up to two permits per household
Agenda Item 5B - Page 4
resident for their own vehicles as well as up to two parking permits for visitors, and up to two two-
week guest permits. Starting in 2022, visitor permits were sold separately for $5 each. As the table
below shows, since 2018, there has been slight decline in the purchase of both resident and visitor
permits in the NPP.
Table 4: NPP Resident and Visitor Permit Purchases
Year Resident Permits Visitor Permits
2018 123 136
2019 132 136
2020 126 138
2021 104 121
2022 114 103
During the CAMP season on weekends, mid-day parking utilization averages just over 50 percent,
while outside of the CAMP season, parking utilization averages 70 percent on the weekends. While
this demonstrates the effectiveness of the NPP in managing parking demand and increasing livability
in the neighborhood, it also explains why residents in the questionnaire generally want to see CAMP
expanded to more months out of the year.
Figure 1: Parking Utilization Averages Comparing CAMP Season to Fall and Spring
The NPP questionnaire, which was answered by 52 individuals at the time of this memo, also showed
that most residents believe that the NPP has made it easier to park on their block and increased
livability. The vast majority of respondents want CAMP to continue but would like to see it expanded
to include more months out of the year and additional days of the week. Respondents generally agreed
that expanding CAMP to run from April to October was most critical as well as expanding to include
Fridays and any day with a major event at Chautauqua. Approximately half of respondents stated they
would be willing to pay more for their NPP permits to have the program expanded. Most residents
Agenda Item 5B - Page 5
who responded to the questionnaire also would like to see the cost for visitors to park in the NPP to
increase to further manage demand, and for the city to use electric buses to reduce traffic noise.
TDM Program Data
There are 4 primary employers at Chautauqua including the Colorado Chautauqua Association, the
Chautauqua Dining Hall, the Colorado Music Festival, and the city’s OSMP staff. City employees at
Chautauqua are provided all the commute benefits provided by the city including RTD EcoPasses,
Boulder BCycle memberships, vanpool benefits, and telework options.
When CAMP was initiated, city staff worked with the other employers to develop TDM programs to
help their employees with commuting issues. With limited parking supply set aside employees, there
is not enough parking spaces to accommodate all the employees. Each employer was provided a
limited number of parking permits to distribute among their employees. Employees were provided a
variety of benefits, including parking cash-out benefits, telework options, and long-term bicycle
parking amenities. With the lack of viable transportation options like direct transit access and the
challenges of topography, carpooling became the most used alternative to driving alone.
According to the Chautauqua Employee questionnaire, less than half of the employees live in the city
of Boulder. Approximately half of the questionnaire respondents drive alone to work. Of those that
drive, most are able to park on-site with an employer provided parking pass. The rest who drive a
vehicle to work generally park for free in the surrounding neighborhood outside of the NPP
boundaries. Approximately a quarter of the employees carpool with co-workers and 1 out of 10
respondents typically walk or bike to work during the CAMP season.
Table 5: Typical Commute to Work Mode
Mode Percent
Drive alone 53%
Carpool 26%
Walk 9%
Dropped off 5%
Bike 2%
Other 5%
Both employers and employees want to see CAMP continue and shared ideas on improvements that
could be made to the program. Desired improvements include providing direct transit access to
Chautauqua, allowing for commuter parking permits in the NPP, and providing micromobility options
through Lime and BCycle. Employer representatives also shared that they would like to see the CAMP
season extended to more months of the year and days of the week.
General Public Questionnaire Findings
An English and Spanish version of the questionnaire were distributed by a variety of methods
including through the Visit Boulder Ambassadors, posters on the shuttles and at Chautauqua buildings,
and through Be Heard Boulder.
As part of the Racial Equity component, staff reached out to a variety of outdoors groups representing
different ethnic groups, such as Latino Outdoors, and to organization like the Center for People with
Disabilities to ensure their input was included. While 80 percent of respondents identified as white, 20
percent identified as other ethnicities.
Almost half the respondents reported driving to Chautauqua alone (11%) or with others (31%). Of
those who drove, the majority paid to park either on-site or in the NPP (56%), and the rest parked for
Agenda Item 5B - Page 6
free in the surrounding neighborhood outside of the NPP. Just over half of the respondents stated that
having to pay to park had not changed how often they visit the park during the CAMP season, while
40 percent said that they visit Chautauqua less often when parking is priced. Those who identify as
Black or Hispanic all reported visiting Chautauqua the same amount despite having to pay to park,
while only those that identified as Asian reporting that they visit less often during the CAMP season.
One third of respondents had reported using the Park-to-Park or HOP to Chautauqua shuttles and
highly rate the quality and frequency of the service. Most respondents want to see CAMP continue
with some improvements. The most frequently reported improvements include providing direct transit
access to Chautauqua, expansion of the CAMP season and free shuttle from April to October as well
as on Fridays and for major events, and the use of electric shuttles.
OSMP Chautauqua Visitor Data
Overview
Human Dimensions staff within OSMP reviewed available trail count, survey, and parking data from
2016 to present. Please note some of these data are preliminary and subject to change. Trail counts on
the Chautauqua trail have hovered around 1,000 average daily visits since 2016. The busiest months
are generally June through July, and busiest days are Saturday and Sunday. While available survey
data cannot be directly attributed to the shuttle, most results have been consistent over time. Some of
the variances include a higher proportion of Boulder city residents, smaller proportion of people rating
parking as difficult, and higher income levels in 2021-2023 compared to 2016. The parking lot outside
the Ranger Cottage is frequently near or at capacity, and while many people feel some level of
crowding in the area, for most it does not seem to negatively impact their experience. There is overall
support for providing shuttles to trailheads, and more mixed support for charging for parking. While
there are some trend variations over time, overall, there were not significant changes in the levels,
patterns, or composition of visitors to Chautauqua area trails that could be attributed to the shuttle.
Trail Counts
All trail counts provided below are from the main Chautauqua trail only and does not capture
visitation to surrounding areas such as the Ranger Cottage, neighboring trails, dining hall, auditorium,
or the Chautauqua Green lawn area.
A trail counter was installed on the main Chautauqua trail from June 2016 through May 2017, right
before the shuttle was implemented. For this install period, it was estimated that the trail received 956
daily visits on average. Since then, a more permanent trail counter was installed in 2019 until present.
Because a different type of trail counter and methodology was used during this time more detailed
results from 2016-2017 are excluded from the graphs below as they are less directly comparable. They
do, however, follow the same general trend. Since 2019, visitation to the main Chautauqua trail
averages 1,000 daily visits across the year and has remained stable since the 2016-2017 estimate of
956 average daily visits (Figure 2). Based on preliminary data from 2023, the visitation rates this year
is similarly in the ballpark of 1,000 daily visits.
The highest visitation is June through August, when there’s on average 1,500 daily visits (Figure 3). In
the summer months, Saturdays and Sundays receive the highest levels of use at nearly 2,000 daily
visits, followed by Fridays at around 1,500 (Figure 3). Monday through Thursday receive about 1,200
daily visits.
Agenda Item 5B - Page 7
Figure 2. Estimated average daily visits to the Chautauqua main trail 2019 through 2022.
Figure 3. Estimated average daily visits to the Chautauqua main trail by month 2019 through 2022.
Agenda Item 5B - Page 8
Figure 4. Estimated average daily visits to the Chautauqua main trail by day of week 2019 through 2022.
On-site Visitor Surveys
Two primary survey efforts have been conducted by the Human Dimensions team on OSMP trails in
the Chautauqua area recently. One was a targeted effort in the Chautauqua area conducted in July and
August of 2016 before the shuttle was implemented. The current Public Opinion and Visitor
Experience Survey (POVES) is a system-wide effort that began in September 2021 and will continue
through the end of August 2023. Preliminary data has not been fully quality controlled and presented
results could change. Although the POVES data is preliminary, it represents more recent and year-
round visitation to the Chautauqua area. The 2016 survey provides some insight into how some
aspects of visitation have remained stable over time. The number and proportion of surveys received
by season and specific location in the Chautauqua area are in Table 6 and Table 7 respectively.
All dates and times for surveys were randomly selected. Although the 2021-2023 survey was
conducted after the shuttle was implemented, only a portion happened to be collected on days that the
shuttle was active: 36 total surveys from September 6, 2021 (Labor Day) and August 5, 2023. Sample
sizes can be much lower for individual questions, and none of these respondents indicated that they
used the shuttle. For these reasons, it is not possible to directly attribute survey responses to the
shuttle. Changes in survey responses between the 2016 and current POVES 2021-2023 effort may also
be attributed to sampling, seasonality (with 2016 data only from summer months), COVID-19
impacts, or larger scale trends in visitation patterns.
Agenda Item 5B - Page 9
Table 6. Number and percent of surveys received on Chautauqua area trails by data collection year and season.
Season
2016 2021-2023
Number of
Surveys Percent
Number of
Surveys Percent
Fall 0 0% 138 42%
Spring 0 0% 107 33%
Summer 1064 100% 32 10%
Winter 0 0% 51 16%
Total 1064 100% 328 100%
Table 7. Number and percent of surveys received on Chautauqua area trails by data collection year and location.
Survey Location
2016 2021-2023
Number of
Surveys Percent
Number of
Surveys Percent
6th Street Connector 37 3% 40 12%
7th Street Connector 0 0% 13 4%
8th Street Connector 0 0% 8 2%
Baseline 72 7% 44 13%
Baseline - Gregory Connector 0 0% 6 2%
Baseline Connector 0 0% 2 1%
Bluebell Rd at Bogges Cir 0 0% 29 9%
Bluebell Road 321 30% 54 16%
Chautauqua at Chautauqua TH 473 44% 86 26%
Enchanted Mesa at Enchanted Mesa TH 124 12% 40 12%
McClintock Lower 37 3% 6 2%
Total 1064 100% 328 100%
Transportation mode to the Chautauqua area trails has been consistent over time (Figure 5). Around
three quarters of respondents arrived by vehicle (75% in 2016; 71% in 2021-2023), and around a
quarter arrived on foot by running or walking (22% in 2016; 26% in 2021-2023).
Agenda Item 5B - Page 10
Figure 5. Transportation mode of survey respondents to Chautauqua area trails by data collection year.
Those who drove were asked how easy or difficult it was to find a parking spot, and this had some
more variation over time (Table 8). Around a third (32%) of respondents said it was “Difficult” or
“Very Difficult” to find parking in 2016, compared to 17% in 2021-2023. This could be due to the
2016 survey being solely conducted in the busier summer months, although there does not appear to
be substantial seasonal variation in the ratings from 2021-2023.
Table 8. Number and percent of parking experience ratings of respondents who arrived by vehicle to Chautauqua
area trails by data collection year.
Parking Experience
2016 2021-2023
Number of
Surveys Percent
Number of
Surveys Percent
Very Easy 123 16% 54 24%
Easy 217 29% 89 39%
Neutral 171 23% 47 21%
Difficult 187 25% 30 13%
Very Difficult 49 7% 8 4%
Total 747 100% 228 100%
There was also some variation in reported primary residence of respondents over time (Figure 6).
Boulder City residents increased from 29% of respondents in 2016 to 50% in 2021-2023. Out-of-state
resident respondents decreased from 34% in 2016 to 16% in 2021-2023. Although higher out-of-state
visits might be expected in summer months, the 2021-2023 survey had 60% Boulder city residents and
just 10% out-of-state in the summer months. Some more data collection and analysis would need to be
done to help determine if this is an actual trend.
Agenda Item 5B - Page 11
Figure 6. Primary residence of survey respondents at Chautauqua area trails by data collection year.
There was also some variation in household income levels with 40% reporting making $100,000 or
more in 2016 compared to 53% in 2021-2023. In 2016 15% of respondents reported making less than
$25,000 compared to 9% in 2021-2023.
Other demographics including age, education, race and ethnicity distributions were fairly similar
between the two datasets. Average age was the same at 38 years old, with 41-39% under 30 years old
(2016 and 2021-2023, respectively), and 13% of respondents over 60 years old. Level of education
was fairly similar with 35% and 39% of respondents having a graduate or professional degree or
higher from 2016 and 2021-2023, respectively. Respondents with Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin
represented 7% of respondents in 2016 and 8% for 2021-2023. Respondents who selected white as a
race made up 88% of respondents in 2016 and 89% in 2021-2023 (respondents could select more than
one race).
Conflict rates were the same across datasets with 6% reporting conflict on the day of their visit which
is like system-wide rates. Overall satisfaction is high, with <1% of respondents providing “Fair” or
“Poor” ratings of both OSMP services (asked in 2016) and of their overall visit (asked in 2021-2023).
Displacement is low, but Chautauqua does consistently emerge as a top location people no longer
visit, primarily due to crowding, and will be worth monitoring.
Some additional questions were added to the 2021-2023 survey that were not asked in 2016 related to
crowding and potential management actions. Overall respondents in the Chautauqua area felt some
level of crowding (Figure 7), but most indicated it did not impact their ability to achieve their expected
experience (Figure 8).
Agenda Item 5B - Page 12
Figure 7. Perceptions of crowding by survey respondents at Chautauqua area trails (2021-2023).
Figure 8. Perceptions of impacts the number of visitors had on the respondent’s ability to achieve their expected
experience at Chautauqua area trails (2021-2023).
Additionally, 60% of respondents support or strongly support shuttles and just 7% opposed or strongly
opposed them (Figure 9). There were more mixed responses for charging more for parking at OSMP
trailheads with 27% support or strongly support, and 49% opposed or strongly opposed.
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
On the trail
At the trailhead/
start-of-trail
How crowded, if at all, did you feel by the number of other visitors at this location
today?
0
Not at all
1 2
Slightly
3 4
Somewhat
5 6
Moderate
7 8
Extremely
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
On the trail
At the trailhead/
start-of-trail
To what degree, if at all, did the number of other visitors impact your ability to
achieve your expected experiences today?
-4
Greatly
detracted
-3 -2
Somewhat
detracted
-1 0
No
impact
1 2
Somewhat
improved
3 4
Greatly
improved
Agenda Item 5B - Page 13
Figure 9. The extent that respondents at Chautauqua area trails support or oppose management strategies
related to shuttles and charging for parking at more OSMP trailheads (2021-2023).
Parking Data
From June 2019 through March 2020, 100 systematic counts were conducted across 25 different days
at the Chautauqua main parking lot outside of the Ranger Cottage (estimated to be 48 parking spaces).
On average, the lot was observed to be at 94% occupancy with 45 vehicles parked during the day
(Figure 10). This ranged from 91% on weekdays to 98% on weekends. The lot was observed to be
completely full 37 out of 88 observations (42%).
Figure 10. Parking lot occupancy levels for the OSMP-managed parking lot outside of the Ranger Cottage
(2019-2020).
The Future of CAMP
Based on the CAMP evaluation, staff recommend that CAMP continue after 2023 with some
anticipated changes and other possible modifications. Input from partners, stakeholders and
questionnaire respondents clearly show the overwhelming desire to continue the CAMP program.
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Charging for parking at more OSMP trailheads
Providing low or no-cost shuttles to OSMP trailheads
To what extent do you support or oppose implementing the following
management strategies intended to address increasing visitation levels?
Strongly oppose Oppose Neutral Support Strongly support
Agenda Item 5B - Page 14
Anticipated changes include the introduction of micromobility options. Staff is currently working
with Lime and B-cycle to expand operations to include Chautauqua. B-cycle has identified one
location of a docking station near the Chautauqua Dining Hall and has been given approval from a
Landmarks review. Ideally, a second B-cycle location would be located at the park or near Baseline to
provide enough docking spaces to accommodate expected demand.
As part of the plan for city-wide expansion of the Lime e-scooter program, staff is working with Lime
to identify possible locations for two designated parking areas, aka Lime Groves, at the park. The
Chautauqua grounds would be a mandatory parking and slow zone and all trails would be no go zones
as e-scooters are prohibited on OSMP trails.
Staff also anticipate the need to re-evaluate the use of the BVSD lot at New Vista High School due to
planned construction at the school. Staff is planning to evaluate changes to the HOP to Chautauqua
routes to serve additional locations in the city, such as the coming University Hill Hotel and CU
Conference Center. An update of parking signage to improve clarity of messaging is also planned for
2024.
Possible modifications include:
• The implementation of performance-based parking pricing at Chautauqua and in the North
Chautauqua NPP to be consistent with other areas of the city where parking is priced and
managed. Under the city’s Performance-based Pricing guidelines, most of the on-site parking
spaces at Chautauqua and some blocks in the NPP would see price increases of $0.50. An
analysis of per block parking utilization in the NPP would be needed to determine which
blocks would warrant an increase in parking cost.
• The establishment of a commuter permit program for the North Chautauqua NPP to provide
additional parking for employees. Staff estimates the cost of a commuter permit in the NPP
would be approximately $50 given that number of days included in the CAMP season.
• The use of parking revenue to fund additional TDM benefits to employees. Such benefits
could include providing BCycle memberships, Lime credits, a parking cash-out match from
the city to encourage multimodal travel, and additional vanpool subsidies.
Staff would appreciate feedback from the board on which potential modifications should be further
examined to assess the feasibility of adding them to the 2024 CAMP season.
Future Analysis
Feedback from stakeholders, residents, and questionnaire respondents clearly indicates a desire to
expand the CAMP season to include more months of the year and days of the week. While the
parking management component of the program can be expanded, expanding the free shuttle from
park-n-ride component is not viable since access to CU and BVSD lots outside of weekends during
summer is not viable. If the city is comfortable with charging for parking without providing a free
option through a shuttle, parking management could be expanded to include additional months or days
of the year. If the city is not comfortable with this approach, the CAMP program would need to move
beyond the park-n-ride model to expand operations while effectively managing parking demand,
increasing livability and providing viable options to access the park.
Staff recommends that the city conduct a feasibility study into providing direct transit access to
Chautauqua to allow the expansion of the CAMP season. Staff can continue to assess feasibility of
moving beyond the limitations of the current park-n-ride model under the AMPS Trailhead Access
Management program. Staff would also plan to coordinate with Boulder County to investigate the
Agenda Item 5B - Page 15
feasibility of a holistic approach that could connect destinations both within city limits and in the
county.
Action Requested of Board:
Staff is requesting OSBT feedback generally on the CAMP program as well as staff’s recommendation
to continue CAMP, potential modifications to the program, and future analysis to move beyond the
current park-n-ride model as described.
Agenda Item 5B - Page 16
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Heather Swanson, Interim Deputy Director of Resource and Stewardship
Frances Boulding, Recreation and Cultural Stewardship Senior Manager
Deonne VanderWoude, Human Dimensions Manager
Heidi Seidel, Human Dimensions Analyst
DATE: September 13, 2023
SUBJECT: 2021-2023 Public Opinion and Visitor Experience Survey: Preliminary Year One
Data Summary (2021-2022)
________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
The City of Boulder’s Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) land system fulfills multiple city
charter purposes, including the preservation and provision of outstanding natural, scenic, and
recreational qualities which are enjoyed by many local, regional, national, and international
visitors each year. Obtaining a quantitative understanding of how visitors engage with and value
OSMP lands empowers managers by providing data-driven insights that can support positive
visitor experiences while also fostering effective conservation of OSMP’s many other natural and
cultural resources. This memo provides an overview of our 2021-2023 Public Opinion and Visitor
Experience Survey (POVES), a scientifically designed and statistically generalizable survey of
visitors to OSMP lands, along with some highlighted results from the first year (2021-2022) of
data collection.
POVES Purposes
The purposes of this project are to:
•Understand the current visitor population, as well as update and trend past visitor
information,
•Describe visitors at multiple spatial scales from system-wide to spatially specific (e.g.,
specific OSMP regions, planning areas, or trailheads, as sample sizes allow),
•Relate the "who, what, why, when, and how" of the OSMP visitor population to visitation
estimate numbers, and
•Collect data that will directly support decision making for recreation management and
policy development; provision of improved services, experiences, and information
delivery to the public; and inform Master Plan implementation.
INTEGRATION AND IMPROVEMENTS
As with any field of scientific inquiry, best practices in survey research evolve as methodological
advances are made, new technology becomes available, and public survey participation rates and
preferences change. Since the completion of the last visitor survey in 2016-2017, the Human
Dimensions team has been restructuring how we administer our scientific public inquiries to
enhance statistical representativeness and generalizability, increase spatial and temporal
coverage, and improve operational efficiency (cost per response, data management, analysis, and
reporting). Two specific changes since 2016-2017 include a transition to digital iPad
administration and integration of content (questions and themes) formally included in the
Resident Survey.
Agenda Item 5C - Page 1
Over the past few years, Staff has provided information to the OSBT that describe the reasons
behind the decision to integrate the past Resident and Visitor Surveys into a single effort we are
now referring to as POVES. POVES integration was introduced in the June 2021 packet, and a
briefing, describing the rationale for survey integration, was included in the December 2022
packet. Integrating Resident and Visitor Survey content into one comprehensive on-site effort
achieves the following:
• Reduces design and implementation time and cost by having a single administration
mode,
• Reduces overall cost of formerly separate survey projects, including significantly
reducing cost per respondent,
• Reduces potential confusion and data misinterpretation caused by having statistically
incomparable results from two separate survey projects for similar items such as activity
participation or perceived conflict,
• Supports a shared understanding of visitor attributes by having one comprehensive
dataset to look to,
• Improves accuracy as on-site surveys have a much higher response rate and no need to
weight results, and
• Reduces survey fatigue for Boulder residents by eliminating a mailer survey in which
almost all (99% in 2016) respondents indicated that they actively visited OSMP lands
(and thus are also part of the POVES population).
To gather input from residents that no longer
visit or have never visited OSMP, and to
quantify any equity in access concerns, a
more effective approach may be to identify
underrepresented demographic groups from
the on-site survey, and then work to gather
perceptions and reasons for not currently
visiting via more targeted methods.
SYSTEM-WIDE APPROACH
In year one for POVES, data were collected
system-wide (Figure 1) through a digital iPad
survey of adult visitors leaving OSMP trails
between Sept. 1, 2021 and Aug. 31, 2022.
The survey spanned four seasons: fall (Sept. 1
– Nov. 30, 2021), winter (Dec. 1, 2021 – Feb.
28, 2022), spring (March 1 - May 31, 2022),
and summer (June 1 – Aug. 31, 2022). A total
of 2,450 contacts resulted in 1,771 completed
questionnaires, yielding a 72% response rate.
Year two follows the same schedule,
collecting data until Aug. 31, 2023.
RESULTS
Preliminary year one (Sept. 1, 2021 through Aug. 31, 2022) POVES highlights are included in the
2021-2023 Public Opinion and Visitor Experience Survey: Preliminary Year One Data Summary
(2021-2022) (Attachment A). These results are preliminary, and once final quality control and
coding of open-ended text responses are complete, final results may be slightly different.
Figure 1. 2021-2023 POVES data collection sites;
Boulder Falls not shown.
Agenda Item 5C - Page 2
Highlights include an overview of:
•Visitor characteristics (e.g., demographics),
•Trip characteristics (e.g., activities participated in, time spent visiting), and
•Ratings, experiences, and preferences (e.g., ratings of OSMP facilities and services,
encounters with other activity groups, information sources, participation in engagement).
NEXT STEPS
Year two findings will be integrated with year one and further interpretation, trends over time
including comparisons with past Visitor Survey results (2004-2005, 2010-2011, 2016-2017),
crosstabulations, spatially specific and seasonal highlights, coded and themed open-ended text
responses, and in-depth interpretation and discussion will be included in the final POVES report.
The final report is planned for completion in 2024 and we anticipate coming back to the board
with comprehensive results at that time.
Attachments:
Attachment A: 2021-2023 Public Opinion and Visitor Experience Survey: Preliminary
Year One Data Summary (2021-2022)
Agenda Item 5C - Page 3
2021 -2023 Public Opinion and Visitor Experience Survey
Preliminary Year One Data Summary (2021 -2022)
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5C - Page 4
2021-2023 Public Opinion and Visitor Experience Survey
Preliminary Year One Data Summary (2021-2022)
Prepared by:
Deonne VanderWoude, Human Dimensions Manager
Heidi Seidel, Human Dimensions Analyst
City of Boulder
Open Space and Mountain Parks Department
Boulder, Colorado
September 2023
Cover photograph: Survey administration and visitors. Photo By: Chelsea Schroeder
Suggested Citation:
VanderWoude, D. and Seidel, H. (2023). 2021-2023 Public Opinion and Visitor Experience Survey:
Preliminary Year One Data Summary. The City of Boulder, Department of Open Space and Mountain
Parks. Boulder, Colorado.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5C - Page 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. III
LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................................... IV
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... V
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................................... VI
DOCUMENT SCOPE AND INTENT ...........................................................................................................VII
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 GOAL AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................. 1
II. METHODS .................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 2021-2023 SURVEY INSTRUMENT .................................................................................................. 2
2.2 SAMPLING .................................................................................................................................. 2
2.3 FIELD OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 3
2.4 DATA MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 3
III. RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................... 3
3.1 RESPONSE RATE ........................................................................................................................... 3
3.2 OVERVIEW.................................................................................................................................. 3
3.3 VISITOR CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................................................. 5
3.3.1 Demographics .................................................................................................................. 5
3.3.2 Visitation frequency and years visiting .............................................................................. 7
3.4 TRIP CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................................................................. 8
3.4.1 Activities .......................................................................................................................... 8
3.4.2 Trip lengths ...................................................................................................................... 8
3.4.3 Transportation ................................................................................................................. 9
3.4.4 Group size and composition ............................................................................................. 9
3.4.5 Motivations ...................................................................................................................... 9
3.5 RATINGS, EXPERIENCES AND PREFERENCES ...................................................................................... 10
3.5.1 Services and facilities ...................................................................................................... 10
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5C - Page 6
3.5.2 Encounters and crowding ............................................................................................... 10
3.5.3 Site characteristics.......................................................................................................... 12
3.5.4 Trip satisfaction .............................................................................................................. 12
3.5.5 Areas no longer visited ................................................................................................... 13
3.5.6 Recreation during COVID-19 pandemic ........................................................................... 13
3.5.7 Nature education, information sources, feedback, engagement ..................................... 13
3.5.8 Charter purposes ............................................................................................................ 13
3.5.9 Visitor Use Management ................................................................................................ 14
IV.DISCUSSION............................................................................................................................... 17
V.REFERENCES CITED .................................................................................................................... 18
5.1 ONLINE RESOURCES .................................................................................................................... 18
APPENDIX A: RATIONAL FOR INTEGRATING VISITOR AND RESIDENT SURVEYS .................................... 19
APPENDIX B: 2021-2023 POVES SAMPLE LOCATIONS ........................................................................... 24
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Primary residence (n=1,691 respondents). ................................................................................. 5
Table 2. Race (n=1,349 respondents). Respondents could select more than one race. ............................. 6
Table 3. Sex assigned at birth (n=1,253 respondents). ............................................................................. 6
Table 4. Primary activity participated in on day of visit (n=1,762 respondents). ....................................... 8
Table 5. Primary mode of transport (n=1,769 respondents). .................................................................... 9
Table 6. Services and facilities used on day of visit (n=142 respondents; n=293 responses). Respondents
could select more than one service and facility used. ............................................................................ 10
Table 7. Visitor encounter(s) on day of visit (n=729 respondents; n=2,246 responses). Respondents could
select more than one encounter. ........................................................................................................... 11
Table 8. Importance ratings of OSMP’s charter purposes. n values vary based on response rates per
charter purpose statement. n values for the number of respondents who provided the rating are given
in parentheses. ...................................................................................................................................... 14
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5C - Page 7
Table 9. Support ratings of management strategies for addressing increasing visitation levels. n values
vary based on response rates per management strategy. n values for the number of respondents who
provided the rating are given in parentheses. ........................................................................................ 15
Table 10. Support ratings of management strategies for addressing visitor conflict. n values vary based
on response rates per management strategy. n values for the number of respondents who provided the
rating are given in parentheses. ............................................................................................................. 16
Table 11. Support ratings of management strategies for protecting plants and wildlife. n values vary
based on response rates per management strategy. n values for the number of respondents who
provided the rating are given in parentheses. ........................................................................................ 17
Table 12. Resident/Visitor Survey and POVES attributes ........................................................................ 20
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Total annual household income (n=1,558 respondents). ........................................................... 5
Figure 2. Age in years (n=1,282 respondents). ......................................................................................... 6
Figure 3. How long visiting Open Space and Mountain Parks areas (n=1,407 respondents). ..................... 7
Figure 4. Average visits per month to any Open Space and Mountain Parks area (n=1,421 respondents). 7
Figure 5. Trip duration (n=1,724 respondents). Trips under 10 minutes did not meet our threshold for
surveying. ................................................................................................................................................ 8
Figure 6. Primary motivations (n=802 respondents). ................................................................................ 9
Figure 7. Top site characteristics (n=788 respondents)........................................................................... 12
Figure 8. Trip satisfaction (n=1,652 respondents) .................................................................................. 12
Figure 9. OSMP visitation frequency from the 2016 Resident Survey Report .......................................... 21
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5C - Page 8
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This data summary is the collective work of many OSMP staff and the participation of over seventeen hundred
public participants. We’d like to thank Chelsea Schroeder, Katie Wilson, Josie Kerrigan, Jay Cooney, and Shay
Kole for collecting, organizing and reviewing data; Deonne VanderWoude and Heidi Seidel for project
management and leading analysis and report writing; John Potter for project sponsorship; Harris Kalat and Colin
Leslie for managing long-term data storage; Anna Reed and Colin Leslie for contributions to methodology,
survey design, and analysis procedures as well as leading data pre-processing; Colin Leslie for leading Survey123
development; Frances Boulding for project oversight; and numerous other internal contributors and reviewers.
Individually, and collectively, we thank you.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5C - Page 9
DOCUMENT SCOPE AND INTENT
In Scope
This document provides an overview of the 2021-2023 Public Opinion and Visitor Experience Survey (POVES)
project and year-one (September 2021-August 2022) highlights with minimal interpretation or discussion. Data
collection will continue through August 2023, with a comprehensive final report to be released in mid-2024.
Out of Scope
Year two data will be integrated with year one. Visitor Survey trends over time, including comparisons with past
Visitor Survey results, POVES crosstabulations, spatially specific and seasonal highlights, coded and themed
open-ended text responses, and in-depth interpretation and discussion will be included in the final POVES
report.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5C - Page 10
2021-2023 Public Opinion and Visitor Experience Survey
Preliminary Year One Data Summary (2021 -2022)
I.INTRODUCTION
The City of Boulder’s Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) Department protects over 46,000 acres1 of open
space land in and around the City of Boulder. The city charter’s open space purposes, as outlined in the Boulder
Revised Code (Article XII Section 176), guide the management and use of this land. These charter purposes are
reflected in OSMP’s mission “to preserve and protect the natural environment and land resources that
characterize Boulder,” and “foster appreciation and use that sustain the natural values of the land for current
and future generations." Two of these charter purposes are especially tied to this study:
•(c) "Preservation of land for passive recreational use, such as hiking, photography or nature studies, and,
if specifically designated, bicycling, horseback riding, or fishing."
•(h) "Preservation of land for its aesthetic or passive recreational value and its contribution to the quality
of life of the community."
In support of its mission and charter purposes, OSMP offers over 155 miles1 of designated trails for passive
recreation activities. Visitor surveys were identified in the Visitor Master Plan (City of Boulder, 2005) to monitor
recreation activities, public perceptions regarding OSMP management, and to measure community satisfaction
with various OSMP facilities and services. On-site visitor intercept surveys have taken place in 2004-2005, 2010-
2011, 2016-2017, and currently with the 2021-2023 Public Opinion and Visitor Experience Survey (POVES). This
document provides an overview of the 2021-2023 POVES project along with year-one (2021-2022) highlights.
Data collection will continue through August 2023, with a comprehensive final report to be released in 2024.
1.1 GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
The overall goals of the 2021-2023 POVES are to quantify various aspects of visitors to city-managed open space
and to support the department and public in making data-informed decisions. Specific objectives include gaining
an understanding of:
1.Visitor characteristics (e.g., demographics),
2.Trip characteristics (e.g., activities participated in, time spent visiting) and
3.Visitor ratings and preferences (e.g., ratings of OSMP facilities and services, encounters with other
activity groups, information sources, participation in engagement and nature education).
When possible, staff will assess trends in visitor attributes measured during previous survey efforts and evaluate
potential seasonal effects on responses. Visitor Survey trends over time, and POVES site specific and seasonal
highlights will be included in the final POVES report.
1 https://bouldercolorado.gov/government/departments/open-space-mountain-parks/about#main-content
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5C - Page 11
II.METHODS
For the first year of data collection, staff conducted an on-site, self-administered survey of visitors leaving city-
managed open space from September 1, 2021, through August 31, 2022. The survey period consisted of four
seasons: fall (September 1 through November 30, 2021), winter (December 1, 2021, through February 28, 2022),
spring (March 1 through May 31, 2022), and summer (June 1 through August 31, 2022). Year two includes the
same schedule, with data collection through August 31, 2023.
Staff administered the questionnaire to visitors aged 18 or older at randomly selected exit locations estimated
to receive a minimum of 1,000 annual visits. Visitors were intercepted at the end of their trip to support
gathering feedback regarding their experiences during that specific visit. For each visitor that agreed to
participate, the administrator provided an iPad with the questionnaire loaded and asked the visitor to complete
all digital pages. A total of 2,450 contacts were made and 1,771 visitors completed the survey from September
2021 through August 2022, with a 72% response rate. Results presented in this data summary were derived
from these reported responses.
2.1 2021-2023 SURVEY INSTRUMENT
The 2021-2023 survey instrument was developed through a review of previous visitor surveys, discussion with
staff to determine current data needs, and incorporation of content previously contained in a separate survey
effort known as the Resident Survey (Appendix A: Rational for Integrating visitor and resident surveys). Some of
the questions were repeated from the previous survey instruments, some were repeated but modified, and
others were created to inquire into current topics of interest, such as recreation habits during the COVID-19
pandemic and information sources used for planning and during trips to OSMP. Due to the content level and
number of topics included in POVES, the comprehensive question set was parsed out to two versions, each
containing two subsets (four total questionnaire variations). Each of the four variations contained the same set
of common questions and a few variation-specific topics, thus keeping the time to complete within 5-10 minutes
for any given respondent. As such, sample sizes for different topics within the four questionnaire versions will
vary.
2.2 SAMPLING
Staff used a multi-stage sampling design to randomly sample exiting visitors at 183 system-wide sample
locations meeting selection criteria (Appendix B: 2021-2023 POVES sample locations):
1.The annual visitation level was estimated by staff in 20 20 to be at least 1,000 annual visits (i.e., at least
three visits per day on average);
2.Traveling to the location did not require crossing property not managed by OSMP and/or the sample
location was not on property not managed by OSMP (unless OSMP has explicit permission to be on the
property);
3.The location was open to visitor access for most of the study period; and
4.If an undesignated trail, it was established and estimated to receive at least three visits per day.
The multi-stage sampling strategy incorporated randomly selecting locations, dates, time periods, and start
hours, by season and available daylight. Year one included 361 two-hour survey sessions across a.m., mid-day,
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5C - Page 12
and p.m. time periods, and each of the 183 locations were sampled twice. A handful of sites were dropped after
determination of not meeting sampling criteria.
2.3 FIELD OPERATIONS
Field staff intercepted visitors that appeared to be aged 18 or older as they exited the OSMP system at randomly
selected locations. For parties of one, the administrator asked the person to participate in the survey and for
parties of two or more, the administrator asked the group to select one adult person to participate. For each
exiting visitor that agreed, the administrator provided the visitor with an iPad loaded with a digital questionnaire
hosted in Survey123 and asked the visitor to complete all pages. For visitors that declined, the administrator
recorded group size, perceived activity, presence of a dog, and asked the visitor where their primary residence
was. Staff used this information to calculate a response rate (number of visitors participating in the
survey/number of visitors asked to participate in the survey) and evaluate possible under-sampling of specific
groups of visitors.
2.4 DATA MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS
Upon submitting questionnaires received during each survey session, data were automatically stored in ArcGIS
Survey123. Staff exported data into Microsoft Power Query for clean-up and pre-processing, and then imported
into the statistical software JMP for additional processing and analysis. Data will be stored long-term on OSMP’s
enterprise database server.
III.RESULTS
This data summary represents preliminary results for year one. As quality control and coding of open-ended
responses are fully completed some results will be slightly different.
3.1 RESPONSE RATE
A total of 1,771 questionnaires were completed over 361 survey sessions, with ~90 two-hour sessions conducted
per season. Not every visitor intercepted by the administrator agreed to participate. A total of 2,450 contacts
were made, equating to a 72% response rate. Of those visitors that refused:
•recorded activity types were proportionately similar to the reported activities of those that did respond,
and staff do not believe any group is under-represented; and
•recorded visitor residences were mostly similar to reported residences of those that did respond, with
City of Boulder residents slightly more likely to refuse, and therefore proportionately slightly
underrepresented.
3.2 OVERVIEW
Most survey respondents (80%) resided in Boulder County, either in the City of Boulder (57%) or outside the city
but within Boulder County (23%). A slight majority identified as male (53%), and the median respondent age was
45 years old. Most visitors were “Hiking/Walking” (53%), “Dog walking” (16%), “Biking” (14%), or “Running”
(13%) on the day they participated in the survey.
Visitors most likely came by themselves (52%) or with one other person (32%), and 17% of respondents had one
or more children (under 18) in their visitor group. One out of three visitor groups (33%) had one or more dogs
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5C - Page 13
with them. The top three primary motivations for visiting OSMP were “Physical fitness (exercise)” (32%),
“Enjoying nature” (19%), and “Being with my dog(s)” (15%). Of the respondents that used them, services and
facilities rated “Extremely Important” by the most respondents include “Trails” (84%), “Trash or recycling bins”
(73%) and “Vehicle parking” (67%). All three received high quality ratings, with 95% (trails), 91% (trash or
recycling bins), and 89% (parking) of visitors that used them reporting “Good” or “Very Good” quality.
A small minority of visitors (6%) experienced conflict with others, and most had “Somewhat” or “Very Pleasant”
encounters with other visitor groups. Most visitors did not experience crowding, with only 8% of visitors
experiencing crowding at the trailhead and 6% feeling crowded while on the trail. Top site characteristics
contributing to quality experiences were “Scenery/viewpoints”, “close by access”, and “dogs are allowed.” Eight
percent of visitor groups had experienced displacement from somewhere they used to visit on OSMP, and the
top four locations no longer visited were Chautauqua, Marshall Mesa, Sanitas, and Doudy Draw. The most
common displacement reasons given were crowding, problems with dogs, parking issues, and closures due the
recent wildfires. Location and reasons related to displacement should be interpreted with caution due to low
sample sizes.
The COVID-19 pandemic impacted 11% of respondents’ ability to visit OSMP, with top reported barriers “Trails
were too crowded”, “Fear of exposing myself to COVID-19”, and “People not social distancing.” Post-pandemic,
a future state posed to respondents during year one of data collection, most visitors (67%) reported they would
or already had returned to previous visitation habits.
Nine percent of visitors and/or a family member received nature education in the past 12 months, primarily at
the “Chautauqua ranger cottage” or from “Staff at the trailhead.” The most frequently used information sources
for trip planning were the “OSMP website”, “Google/Apple maps”, “Friends/Family”, and “Trail apps” such as All
Trails or COTREX.
Visitor feedback and engagement with OSMP during the past 12 months was low, with 6% providing feedback to
OSMP (on any topic) and 4% participating in any type of public engagement (such as an open house or Open
Space Board of Trustees meeting).
Several charter purposes were rated “Extremely or Moderately Important” by >90% of respondents.
•Preservation of land for its aesthetic value and contribution to quality of life (95%)
•Preservation of scenic areas or vistas (95%)
•Preservation of water resources in their natural or traditional state (94%)
•Preservation of fragile ecosystems (93%)
•Preservation of land for passive recreational use (93%)
•Preservation or restoration of unusual or unique natural areas (92%)
Respondents rated their level of support or opposition to a series of potential visitor use management strategies
related to addressing increasing visitation levels, addressing visitor conflict, and protection of plants and wildlife.
Strategies receiving the highest levels of support were “Requiring visitors to stay on designated trails” and
“Constructing new trails” (both 78% support) and strategies most opposed were “Hardening existing trails”
(66%) and “Requiring a permit or reservation during peak visitation times” (61%).
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5C - Page 14
Overall, trip quality was high, with 98% of visitors reporting “Excellent” or “Good” overall satisfaction.
3.3 VISITOR CHARACTERISTICS
3.3.1 Demographics
Table 1. Primary residence (n=1,691 respondents).
Primary Residence Count Percent
Boulder (Within City Limits) 969 57%
Unincorporated Boulder
County
161 10%
Other U.S. State 127 8%
Metro Denver 102 6%
Other Area in Colorado 87 5%
Louisville 65 4%
Lafayette 58 3%
Longmont 40 2%
Other City in Boulder
County
35 2%
Superior 26 2%
Other Country 21 1%
Total 1,691 100%
Figure 1. Total annual household income (n=1,558 respondents).
Respondents were asked about race and Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin as two separate questions, as in the
federal census survey.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5C - Page 15
Table 2. Race (n=1,349 respondents). Respondents could select more than one race.
Race Count Percent
White only 1,213 90%
Asian only 45 3%
Other Race* only 41 3%
2 Or More Races 39 3%
Black or African American only 6 <1%
American Indian or Alaska Native only 5 <1%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander only 0 0%
Total 1,349 100%
*Other Race- response details to be included in final report.
Seven percent of respondents identified as of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin, and the majority of these
respondents were “White” (67%) or “Other race” (21%).
Figure 2. Age in years (n=1,282 respondents).
The mean (46 years old) and median (45 years old) ages were quite close, with similar proportions in the 10-year
age categories ranging from 20 to 69.
Table 3. Sex assigned at birth (n=1,253 respondents).
Sex Count Percent
Male 666 53%
Female 578 46%
Other 7 1%
Intersex 2 <1%
Total 1,253 100%
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5C - Page 16
3.3.2 Visitation frequency and years visiting
Figure 3. How long visiting Open Space and Mountain Parks areas (n=1,407 respondents).
For respondents that had visited at least one year (n=1,077), the mean years visiting was 17 and the median was
13 years.
Figure 4. Average visits per month to any Open Space and Mountain Parks area (n=1,421 respondents).
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5C - Page 17
For respondents that had visited at least once per month (n=1,246), the mean monthly visits were 14 and the
median was 12 visits.
3.4 TRIP CHARACTERISTICS
3.4.1 Activities
Table 4. Primary activity participated in on day of visit (n=1,762 respondents).
Activity Count Percent
Hiking / Walking 933 53%
Walking Dog(s) 279 16%
Biking 238 14%
Running 225 13%
Climbing / Bouldering 42 2%
Other* 40 2%
Fishing 4 <1%
Horseback Riding 1 <1%
Total 1,762 100%
*Other- response details to be included in final report.
In addition to their chosen primary activity, respondents could select additional activities they participated in on
the day of the survey. The top three additional activities were “Hiking/walking” (44%), “Viewing scenery” (46%),
and “Viewing wildlife” (24%).
3.4.2 Trip lengths
Figure 5. Trip duration (n=1,724 respondents). Trips under 10 minutes did not meet our threshold for surveying.
The mean trip length was 87 minutes, the median length was 60 minutes, and 7 respondents reported visiting
for 6+ hours.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5C - Page 18
3.4.3 Transportation
Table 5. Primary mode of transport (n=1,769 respondents).
Transport Count Percent
Vehicle 914 52%
Walk 527 30%
Bike 212 12%
Run 106 6%
Other* 8 <1%
Bus 2 <1%
Total 1,769 100%
*Other- response details to be included in final report
Of the visitors that drove to the trailhead (52%), most parked in the “OSMP Parking lot” (53%), a “Road
shoulder” (19%), or a “Neighborhood street” (19%). Finding parking was “Very Easy” (37%) or “Easy” (41%) and
only 6% of drivers found parking “Difficult” or “Very Difficult.”
3.4.4 Group size and composition
Visitors most likely came by themselves (52%) or with one other person (32%), and 17% of respondents had one
or more children (under 18) in their visitor group. Respondent groups identified as “Just me” (54%), “Family”
(28%), “Friends” (16%), and “Organized group” (2%). One out of three visitor groups (33%) had one or more
dogs with them.
3.4.5 Motivations
Figure 6. Primary motivations (n=802 respondents).
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5C - Page 19
In addition to selecting their primary motivation for visiting OSMP, respondents were able to rate how
important each listed motivation was to them on the day of the survey. The top three motivations rated
“Extremely important” were “Physical fitness (exercise)” (52%), “Enjoying nature” (68%), and “Psychological
(mental) health” (50%).
3.5 RATINGS, EXPERIENCES AND PREFERENCES
3.5.1 Services and facilities
Table 6. Services and facilities used on day of visit (n=142 respondents; n=293 responses). Respondents could
select more than one service and facility used.
Services and Facilities Used Percent
“Yes”
Percent
“No”
Trails 71% (101) 29% (41)
Vehicle Parking 47% (67) 53% (75)
Directional (Trail) Signs 18% (26) 82% (116)
Restroom 17% (24) 83% (118)
Trailhead Information
Boards
16% (23) 84% (119)
Trash or Recycling Bins 16% (23) 84% (119)
Dog Stations 12% (17) 88% (125)
Shelters 4% (5) 96% (137)
OSMP Interactive Web Map 2% (3) 98% (139)
Picnic Tables and Grills 2% (3) 98% (139)
Bicycle Racks 1% (1) 99% (141)
Accessible Infrastructure 0% (0) 100% (142)
Horse Trailer Parking 0% (0) 100% (142)
Of the respondents that used them, services and facilities rated “Extremely Important” by the most respondents
include “Trails” (84%), “Trash or recycling bins” (73%) and “Vehicle parking” (67%). All three received high
quality ratings, with 95% (trails), 91% (trash or recycling bins), and 89% (parking) of visitors that used them
reporting “Good” or “Very Good” quality.
3.5.2 Encounters and crowding
A small minority of visitors (6%) experienced conflict with others, and most had “Somewhat” or “Very Pleasant”
encounters with other visitor groups. Most visitors did not experience crowding, with only 8% of visitors
experiencing crowding at the trailhead and 6% feeling crowded while on the trail. Twenty-two respondents (3%)
reported “No encounters” with other visitors.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5C - Page 20
Table 7. Visitor encounter(s) on day of visit (n=729 respondents; n=2,246 responses). Respondents could select
more than one encounter.
Encountered Percent
Encountered
Encounter Rating Percent
Rating
Walker(s)/Hiker(s) 86% (627) Very Pleasant 69% (423)
Somewhat Pleasant 13% (80)
Neutral 17% (103)
Conflict Minor 1% (4)
Conflict Major <1% (1)
Runner(s) 72% (526) Very Pleasant 64% (224)
Somewhat Pleasant 13% (46)
Neutral 21% (74)
Conflict Minor 2% (7)
Conflict Major <1% (1)
Visitor(s) With On-Leash Dog(s) 63% (460) Very Pleasant 69% (308)
Somewhat Pleasant 13% (58)
Neutral 16% (71)
Conflict Minor 2% (10)
Conflict Major 0% (0)
Visitor(s) With Off-Leash Dog(s) 47% (340) Very Pleasant 62% (206)
Somewhat Pleasant 14% (47)
Neutral 15% (51)
Conflict Minor 6% (19)
Conflict Major 2% (7)
Biker(s) 35% (258) Very Pleasant 58% (111)
Somewhat Pleasant 11% (21)
Neutral 25% (48)
Conflict Minor 4% (7)
Conflict Major 2% (4)
Other(s)* 3% (21) Very Pleasant 50% (10)
Somewhat Pleasant 20% (4)
Neutral 20% (4)
Conflict Minor 10% (2)
Conflict Major 0% (0)
Horseback Rider(s) 2% (14) Very Pleasant 57% (4)
Somewhat Pleasant 14% (1)
Neutral 29% (2)
Conflict Minor 0% (0)
Conflict Major 0% (0)
*Other activities- response details to be included in final report.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5C - Page 21
3.5.3 Site characteristics
Top site characteristics contributing to quality experiences were “Scenery/viewpoints”, “Close by access”, and
“Dogs are allowed.” The items contributing the least to quality experiences were “Far away access” and “Dogs
not allowed.” Respondents could also share what site characteristics contributed to their experience quality in
their own words, shown here as a word cloud:
Figure 7. Top site characteristics (n=788 respondents)
3.5.4 Trip satisfaction
At the end of the questionnaire, we asked about overall trip satisfaction for the day of their visit. Ninety-eight
percent reported their trip satisfaction as “Excellent” or “Good.”
Figure 8. Trip satisfaction (n=1,652 respondents)
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5C - Page 22
3.5.5 Areas no longer visited
Eight percent of visitor groups had experienced displacement from somewhere they used to visit on OSMP, and
the top four locations no longer visited were Chautauqua, Marshall Mesa, Sanitas, and Doudy Draw. The most
common displacement reasons given were crowding, problems with dogs, parking issues, and closures due to
recent wildfires. Location and reasons related to displacement should be interpreted with caution due to low
sample sizes.
3.5.6 Recreation during COVID-19 pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic impacted 11% of respondents’ ability to visit OSMP, with top reported barriers “Trails
were too crowded”, “Fear of exposing myself to COVID-19”, and “People not social distancing.” Post-pandemic,
a future state posed to respondents during year one of data collection, most visitors (67%) reported they would
or already had returned to previous visitation habits.
3.5.7 Nature education, information sources, feedback, engagement
Nine percent of visitors and/or a family member received nature education in the past 12 months, primarily at
the “Chautauqua ranger cottage” or from “Staff at the trailhead.” The most frequently used information sources
for trip planning were the “OSMP website”, “Google/Apple maps”, “Friends/Family”, and “Trail apps” such as All
Trails or COTREX. Visitor feedback and engagement with OSMP during the past 12 months was low, with 6%
providing feedback to OSMP (on any topic) and 4% participating in any type of public engagement (such as an
open house or Open Space Board of Trustees meeting).
3.5.8 Charter purposes
Several charter purposes were rated “Extremely or Moderately Important” by >90% of respondents.
•Preservation of land for its aesthetic value and contribution to quality of life (95%)
•Preservation of scenic areas or vistas (95%)
•Preservation of water resources in their natural or traditional state (94%)
•Preservation of fragile ecosystems (93%)
•Preservation of land for passive recreational use (93%)
•Preservation or restoration of unusual or unique natural areas (92%)
The relatively least important charter purpose was “Preservation of agricultural uses and land suitable for
agricultural production”, however this purpose was still rated “Extremely or Moderately Important” by the
majority of respondents (65%).
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5C - Page 23
Table 8. Importance ratings of OSMP’s charter purpose s. n values vary based on response rates per charter
purpose statement. n values for the number of respondents who provided the rating are given in parentheses.
Charter Purpose Percent
“Extremely
Important”
Percent
“Moderately
Important”
Percent
“Somewhat
Important”
Percent
“Slightly
Important”
Percent
“Not at All
Important”
Preservation of land for its aesthetic value
and contribution to quality of life
79% (700) 16% (139) 4% (31) 1% (11) <1% (4)
Preservation of scenic areas or vistas 77% (689) 18% (158) 4% (37) 1% (9) <1% (3)
Preservation of water resources in their
natural or traditional state
75% (650) 19% (162) 5% (45) 1% (12) <1% (3)
Preservation of fragile ecosystems 75% (615) 18% (144) 6% (46) 1% (9) <1% (3)
Preservation or restoration of unusual or
unique natural areas
71% (610) 21% (185) 6% (53) 1% (10) <1% (3)
Preservation of land for passive
recreational use
70% (544) 23% (175) 6% (49) 1% (5) <1% (3)
Utilization of land for shaping the
development of the city and limiting
sprawl
56% (416) 23% (176) 12% (93) 5% (36) 4% (28)
Utilization of land to prevent
encroachment on floodplains
54% (473) 29% (257) 13% (110) 4% (31) 1% (8)
Utilization of non-urban land for spatial
definition of urban areas
44% (367) 27% (226) 16% (135) 7% (62) 5% (43)
Preservation of agricultural uses and land
suitable for agricultural production
37% (333) 28% (250) 20% (183) 9% (84) 6% (57)
3.5.9 Visitor Use Management
Respondents rated their level of support or opposition to a series of potential visitor use management strategies
related to three aspects of open space and recreation management – addressing increasing visitation levels,
addressing visitor conflict, and protection of plants and wildlife.
For strategies intended to address increasing visitation levels, highest levels of support were given to
“Constructing new trails” (78%) and “Constructing new trailheads” (74%) and highest levels of opposition were
expressed for “Hardening existing trails” (66%) and “Requiring a permit or reservation during peak visitation
times” (61%).
For addressing visitor conflict, the most support was given to “Requiring one-way travel for cyclists on trails”
(55%) and “Requiring dogs to be on leash” (50%) as well as a no action strategy “Keeping things generally the
way they are now” (58%). Respondents most opposed implementing “Alternating days for cyclists and hikers on
trails” (46%) and “Designating existing OSMP trails as equestrian only” (46%).
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5C - Page 24
To protect plants and wildlife, greatest support was expressed for “Requiring visitors to stay on designated
trails” (78%) and “Requiring dogs to stay on designated trails” (68%) as well as the no action choice “Keeping
things generally the way they are now” (75%). Highest levels of opposition were given to “Closing areas
seasonally” (22%) and “Closing trailhead parking areas at night with vehicle gates” (19%).
Table 9. Support ratings of management strategies for addressing increasing visitation levels. n values vary
based on response rates per management strategy. n values for the number of respondents who provided the
rating are given in parentheses.
Management Strategy Percent
“Strongly
Support”
Percent
“Support”
Percent
“Neutral”
Percent
“Oppose”
Percent
“Strongly
Oppose”
Constructing new trails 36% (119) 42% (140) 15% (49) 6% (20) 2% (5)
Constructing new trailheads 32% (115) 42% (151) 18% (64) 5% (19) 3% (9)
Encouraging visitors to frequent lesser
visited areas by adding amenities
20% (73) 39% (145) 23% (86) 12% (45) 6% (21)
Providing low or no-cost shuttles 19% (66) 37% (127) 33% (112) 6% (21) 5% (18)
Adding additional parking to existing
trailheads
18% (58) 31% (102) 29% (96) 16% (52) 6% (21)
Update no-parking hours “sunset to sunrise” 16% (56) 24% (85) 33% (116) 14% (50) 12% (43)
Keeping things generally the way they are
now
15% (52) 34% (117) 44% (151) 5% (16) 2% (7)
Closing OSMP parking lots when full and
letting a car in when someone leaves
10% (32) 29% (94) 38% (122) 15% (47) 9% (29)
Requiring a permit or reservation during
peak visitation times
7% (26) 13% (44) 18% (64) 32% (112) 29% (102)
Charging for parking at more OSMP
trailheads
7% (22) 16% (53) 21% (67) 28% (91) 29% (93)
Hardening existing trails 4% (15) 7% (25) 23% (81) 35% (124) 31% (109)
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5C - Page 25
Table 10. Support ratings of management strategies for addressing visitor conflict. n values vary based on
response rates per management strategy. n values for the number of respondents who provided the rating are
given in parentheses.
Management Strategy Percent
“Strongly
Support”
Percent
“Support”
Percent
“Neutral”
Percent
“Oppose”
Percent
“Strongly
Oppose”
Requiring dogs to be on leash 27% (98) 23% (84) 25% (93) 12% (45) 12% (45)
Keeping things generally the way they are
now
23% (80) 35% (123) 37% (128) 4% (13) 1% (5)
Requiring one-way travel for cyclists on
trails
22% (81) 33% (121) 28% (104) 9% (34) 7% (27)
Designating more existing OSMP trails as
cyclist prohibited
16% (60) 21% (77) 31% (117) 20% (74) 12% (46)
Establishing specific times of day for cyclists
and hikers on trails
13% (49) 19% (72) 24% (91) 23% (87) 20% (75)
Designating existing OSMP trails as cyclist
only
12% (44) 20% (71) 26% (95) 21% (76) 21% (74)
Designating more existing OSMP trails as
dogs prohibited
12% (40) 14% (48) 29% (97) 23% (79) 22% (73)
Alternating days for cyclists and hikers on
trails
11% (41) 19% (72) 25% (93) 23% (85) 23% (85)
Designating existing OSMP trails as
equestrian only
8% (29) 13% (45) 34% (118) 23% (80) 23% (80)
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5C - Page 26
Table 11. Support ratings of management strategies for protecting plants and wildlife. n values vary based on
response rates per management strategy. n values for the number of respondents who provided the rating are
given in parentheses.
Management Strategy Percent
“Strongly
Support”
Percent
“Support”
Percent
“Neutral”
Percent
“Oppose”
Percent
“Strongly
Oppose”
Requiring visitors to stay on designated
trails
45% (168) 33% (125) 12% (45) 6% (21) 4% (15)
Requiring dogs to stay on designated trails 40% (151) 28% (103) 18% (69) 8% (29) 6% (22)
Keeping things generally the way they are
now
30% (111) 45% (166) 22% (83) 2% (7) 1% (4)
Closing trails when muddy 30% (106) 30% (106) 24% (84) 9% (33) 7% (25)
Permanently closing and restoring
undesignated trails
27% (99) 30% (112) 26% (97) 12% (46) 5% (18)
Closing trailhead parking areas at night with
vehicle gates
25% (94) 25% (95) 30% (113) 12% (44) 7% (27)
Closing areas seasonally 22% (79) 30% (107) 27% (96) 12% (43) 10% (36)
IV.DISCUSSION
The overall goals of the 2021-2023 POVES are to quantify various aspects of visitors to city-managed open space,
and to support the department and public in making data-informed decisions. Specific objectives include gaining
an understanding of:
1.Visitor characteristics (e.g., demographics),
2.Trip characteristics (e.g., activities participated in, time spent visiting) and
3.Visitor ratings and preferences (e.g., ratings of OSMP facilities and services, encounters with other
activity groups, information sources, participation in engagement and nature education).
This quantitative understanding of how visitors engage with and value OSMP lands empowers managers by
providing data-driven insights that can support positive visitor experiences while also fostering effective
conservation of OSMP’s many other natural and cultural resources. This information is also intended to be useful
for visitors, empowering visitors to express opinions while also helping them to understand the perspectives of
others.
Visitor Survey trends over time, including comparisons with past Visitor Survey results, POVES crosstabulations,
site specific and seasonal highlights, coded and themed open-ended text responses, and in-depth interpretation
and discussion will be included in the final POVES report. We expect to share the final POVES report in 2024.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5C - Page 27
V.REFERENCES CITED
5.1 ONLINE RESOURCES
https://bouldercolorado.gov/government/departments/open-space-mountain-parks/about#main-content
accessed on 9/6/2023
https://library.municode.com/co/boulder/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=THCHBOCO_ARTXIIOPSP_S176OPSPP
UENSPLA accessed on 9/6/2023
https://bouldercolorado.gov/media/2428/download?inline accessed on 9/6/2023
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5C - Page 28
APPENDIX A: RATIONAL FOR INTEGRATING VISITOR AND RESIDENT SURVEYS
OVERVIEW
The Human Dimensions team is nearing completion of the 2021-2023 Public Opinion and Visitor Experience
Survey (POVES). This survey includes some strategic enhancements to how we, as a department, have
historically collected and managed our major public surveys. This briefing explains the rationale behind the new
survey approach, the benefits it will provide, and its relation to the previous surveys we have conducted over
the years.
BACKGROUND
OSMP and its predecessors have a long history of conducting public surveys, dating back several decades. The
2005 Visitor Master Plan identified public surveys as a monitoring tool to cyclically obtain representative data on
various topics such as opinions of OSMP services and facilities, experiences with others, perceptions regarding
OSMP management, level of visitor satisfaction, and to use the survey data for informed decision making and
plan implementation.
Since 2015, design, implementation, and management of scientifically designed surveys for OSMP have fallen
under the Human Dimensions Program. Human Dimensions Program staff specialize in scientific survey design,
administration, and analysis among our various areas of expertise. Our survey research has focused on many
different domains over the years, including collecting descriptive statistics of visitor attributes, trip
characteristics, acceptability of different management strategies, conflict perceptions, and quantifying various
attitudes and beliefs about specific topics such as undesignated trail use and recreation motivations.
POVES combines content from what we previously administered as the on-site intercept Visitor Survey and the
Resident Survey, most recently household-based. While historically they have shared some attributes, such as
administration frequency and some general topics of inquiry, they also have several differences (Table 12).
Most significantly, since 2004 almost all respondents to the Resident Survey (98 to 99%) have indicated that
they visit OSMP lands with the vast majority (> 90%) reporting that they visit at least once per month. The
consistency of this pattern since 2004 led staff to conclude that the Resident Survey, as designed, had become
duplicative in terms of the population being sampled compared to the on-site Visitor Survey. Furthermore, on-
site visitor surveys are designed to capture statistically generalizable and scientifically defensible feedback from
all visitors and major sub-populations of visitors, including city and county of Boulder residents.
Another important consideration for moving the Resident Survey questions into the on-site Visitor Survey was
that the sampling methods for the Resident Survey have historically excluded sizable sub-populations of city
residents. Up through 2010 the Resident Survey was administered as a telephone survey and included sampling
from only active registered voters with listed and in service phone numbers. In 2016, the survey was switched to
a mailer survey but still excluded many residents who did not have physical addresses in the US Postal Service
database.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5C - Page 29
The on-site surveys improve upon our ability to sample from all residence sub-populations who visit OSMP lands
by significantly lengthening the data collection period and not excluding portions of city and county residents
historically not included in Resident Survey sampling (i.e., residents not registered to vote, adult city residents
living in CU managed housing, adult residents not living with the geographic boundaries of Boulder Valley
Table 12. Resident/Visitor Survey and POVES attributes
Attribute Resident Survey Visitor Survey POVES
Objective Understand public opinions
and attributes, particularly
on hot topics or potential
management strategies
typically not included in
the Visitor Survey and from
those residents that do not
or no longer visit OSMP.
Understand on-site visitor
demographics, opinions,
service ratings, trip
attributes.
Integrate objectives and
typical content of former
Resident and Visitor
Surveys into one
comprehensive survey
effort.
Target Population Adult city and county
residents within the
Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Planning
areas I/II/III
Adult visitors to OSMP
areas open for recreation
Adult visitors to OSMP
areas open for recreation
Administration
Mode
Mailer On-site intercept On-site intercept
Frequency Every 5 to 6 years Every 5 to 6 years On-going
Last Conducted 2016 2016-2017 2021-2023
Sample Duration 2 weeks 12 months 24 months, then on-going
Sample Size 584 (2016) 2,143 (2016-2017) Expected ~3,300
Response Rate 21% 65% Expected ~70%
Design and
Applicability
Generalized: not applicable
to specific contexts, places,
or time frames; general
public sentiment and
at-home perceptions
Specific: applicable to
specific contexts, places,
and time frames;
accurately represent
day-to-day on OSMP
Specific: applicable to
specific contexts, places,
and time frames;
accurately represent
day-to-day on OSMP
Weighted Results Yes (introduces unknown
error)
No No
Cost $65,000 (contractor only,
doesn’t include staff time)
$100,000 (including data
collection, analysis, and
reporting)
Expected $225,000 for
2021-2023, then ~$50,000
annually
Generalizability Generalizable to city and
county adults within BVCP
areas I/II/III
Generalizable to entire
visitor population,
including adult city and
county residents
Generalizable to entire
visitor population,
including adult city and
county residents
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5C - Page 30
Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) areas I/II/III, and residents with only a P.O. box). The Visitor Survey captures adult
visitors on OSMP coming from the city and county of Boulder, as well as from outside the county. On-site
surveys are designed such that sub-setting to specific groups, such as only city residents, is supported,
scientifically defensible, and includes statistically representative results.
On-site intercept surveys are administered to visitors at the end of their trip, just before leaving OSMP lands ,
which provides everyone an opportunity to reflect on the experiences they just had. On-site surveys are the
most accurate method to quantify desired metrics such as activity distributions and conflict rates and offer the
opportunity to hear from many more city residents than are captured in the Resident Survey.
Figure 9. OSMP visitation frequency from the 2016 Resident Survey Report
One of the Resident Survey’s secondary objectives was to foster engagement with residents that have never
visited OSMP lands or used to visit but no longer do. However, since 2004, the percent of Resident Survey
respondents who say they never visit OSMP lands has been less than two percent and, most recently (2016), less
than one percent (Figure 9). There is value of inquiring with populations who do not actively visit OSMP lands.
However, the Resident Survey is unsuccessful at eliciting responses from this portion of the city and county
population.
Historically, the Visitor and Resident Surveys have asked similar questions regarding visitation frequency,
experiences with other visitors, and activity participation, but in such a way that they are not directly
comparable. By having two different results for similar questions, confusion and misuse of data occurs when
trying to determine precisely what each respective result can or cannot be extrapolated or generalized to.
Thinking ahead, having one comprehensive dataset to look to will support transparency and consistency in
reported visitor metrics across department projects and a shared understanding of visitors and associated
attributes for anyone interested in these types of
data.
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5C - Page 31
Finally, given the low response rate, short sample duration, incomplete geographic coverage, higher cost per
response, need for weighting and associated introduction of unquantifiable error, and redundancy with some
Visitor Survey questions, we recommend no longer conducting the Resident Survey as historically designed and
implemented. To gather input from residents that no longer visit or have never visited OSMP, a more effective
approach may be to identify underrepresented demographic groups from the on-site survey, and then work to
gather perceptions via more targeted methods, including reasons for not currently visiting.
STRATEGIC ENHANCEMENT
A key enhancement of the 2021-2023 POVES is the move to an on-site digital survey platform (e.g., tablet/iPad).
A digital platform allows us much more flexibility to dynamically structure surveys for field administration,
including randomizing which survey subtopic a respondent might receive. Effectively, this allows us to inquire
into multiple areas of interest within a single survey effort, but without making the survey too long for any one
person.
A significant portion of the resources required to implement a survey project occur during the research design
and questionnaire development phases. However, once the research design is finalized, the cost to collect
additional survey responses is relatively low. Thus, by combining the initial research design and questionnaire
development work for Visitor and Resident surveys into a single survey effort, we have significantly reduced the
overall cost when compared to implementing two separate survey efforts. We reinvested these savings into
increasing the field data collection effort to capture more survey responses. A larger sample size will, in turn,
provide improved spatial coverage to support future system-wide and spatially specific planning efforts. In short,
this will allow us to collect more samples at individual locations so that we can provide reliable statistics about
specific trailheads and smaller geographic regions than we have in the past. This is important as we are often
asked to provide statistics for smaller geographic regions to support area planning and management efforts.
Lastly, by moving to a digital survey platform, we have significantly reduced the time necessary for manual
quality control of data, thus lending more time for analysis and reporting capabilities.
SUMMARY
Integrating Resident and Visitor Survey content into one comprehensive on-site effort achieves the following:
•Reduces design and implementation time and cost by having a common administration mode,
•Reduces overall cost of formerly separate survey projects,
•Reduces potential confusion and data misinterpretation caused by having two incomparable results
from two separate survey projects for similar items such as activity participation or perceived conflict,
•Supports a shared understanding of visitor attributes by having one comprehensive dataset to look to,
•Improves scientific defense as on-site surveys have a much higher response rate and no need to weight
results, and
•Reduces survey fatigue for Boulder residents by eliminating a mailer survey in which almost all (99% in
2016) of respondents indicated that they actively visited OSMP lands (and thus are also part of the
POVES survey population).
To gather input from residents that no longer visit or have never visited OSMP, and to quantify any equity in
access concerns, a more effective approach may be to identify underrepresented demographic groups from the
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5C - Page 32
on-site survey, and then work to gather perceptions and reasons for not currently visiting via more targeted
methods.
ONLINE REFERENCES
2005 Visitor Master Plan
2016 Resident Survey
2016-2017 Visitor Survey
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5C - Page 33
APPENDIX B: 2021-2023 POVES SAMPLE LOCATIONS
Attachment A
Agenda Item 5C - Page 34
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, Environmental Planner Principal
DATE: September 13, 2023
SUBJECT: Written Information: Fort Chambers / Poor Farm Site Management Plan Update
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a written update for Fort Chambers / Poor Farm planning
process (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 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 113-acre property was purchased in 2018 due to its ability to fulfill many OSMP charter purposes.
The previous OSBT update on March 8, 2023 included:
• an update on current collaboration efforts with Tribal Partners to date and
• an introduction to the online site inventory information that informs the site planning process and
provides an overview of:
• Fort Chambers, where more than 100 Boulder-area men assembled and trained before
participating in the Sand Creek Massacre on Nov. 29, 1864
• The property’s ecological and agricultural resources and how they help fulfill open space
purposes in the city charter
• Current activities occurring on the property and surrounding land use contexts
• A Queen Anne Victorian style house on the property, which is included in the National Register
of Historic Places, and historical agricultural operations on the land
• The Boulder County "poor farm" in use on the property between 1902 and 1918 where the county
maintained a farm that sought to feed, house and care for older and sick community members,
along with people experiencing physical and mental disabilities.
Information about the removal of the Fort Chambers Marker and the different types of vegetation found
on the property were recently incorporated into the site inventory.
Previous updates to the board and council are available at the following links:
OSBT Memo - March 8, 2023
OSBT Memo - Sept. 14, 2022
Written Information - Item A - Page 1
OSBT Memo - March 9, 2022
Council Memo – Feb. 22, 2022
OSBT Memo - March 10, 2021
Council Acquisition Memo - April 17, 2018
OSBT Acquisition Memo - March 14, 2018
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:
Guidance for site plan development: On July 27-28, 2023, Tribal Representatives visited Boulder
and participated in a 1½ day workshop with OSMP staff to discuss preferences for the site and the
Tribes desired long-term relationship with the property. The feedback received was positive and
consistent, with the following key highlights:
•Heal the land, heal the people: acknowledge what happened on this site and its connection to the
Sand Creek Massacre through education /interpretation and a space to support healing. Clean-up
and ecological restoration are needed and should be prioritized, with restoration efforts starting as
soon as possible to start healing the land from past land uses. There is interest in a “healing trail”
with areas for reflection and offerings.
•Future management efforts should focus on ecological restoration and education, with continued
agricultural use, opportunities for indigenous plantings and harvesting by Tribal members and
spaces for healing and reflection. Passive recreation and regional trails were not identified as
priorities for this property.
•Current agricultural uses are supported and should be continued during and after the site planning
process.
•Existing houses: There are 2 existing houses on the property, including a Queen-Anne style house
listed on the National Register of Historic Places. There was support for OSMP to manage both
houses to support agricultural operations. There was also interest in exploring options for the
larger, historic house to have an educational component. Access and other existing constraints
were discussed and understood as challenges for public access to the historic house that will be
further explored.
•Long-term connection: the Tribes are not interested in owning this property but would like to
remain involved long-term by providing meaningful input and advice to the city on
education/interpretive materials and future stewardship after the adoption of the Site Management
Plan. This property can support visits from tribal youth and other tribal members to learn, heal
and pray. The site can be a stopping point on the way to Sand Creek.
City/Tribal Nation collaboration agreement(s). City staff and Tribal Representatives continue to
use a draft (unsigned) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to guide and document the planning
process. There is agreement between the city and the Tribes that it is helpful to have flexibility and be
able to update the agreement and make revisions as we continue to learn and work together. Recent
discussions also included considerations for a future City/Tribal agreement to outline long-term
collaboration between the tribes and OSMP regarding the property after the planning process is
completed.
Written Information - Item A - Page 2
Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site Visit
OSMP staff visited the site of the Sand Creek Massacre near Eads, Colorado, on May 22, 2023. Park
Guide, Mario Medina provided an historic overview before staff toured the National Historic Site which
includes a small visitor center, overlook areas to view the landscape, a trail with exhibits that share the
site history, and a space for prayer, offerings and repatriation. The site visit was impactful and
informative.
Next Steps
In the upcoming months, OSMP staff will:
•develop a draft site concept or preferred alternative using feedback from the July workshop with
Tribal Representatives and from OSMP subject matter experts,
•host the tribal representatives in late October to review and get feedback on the draft site
concept, and
•plan for future opportunities to share the draft site concept with the board and community.
Staff will continue to collaborate with the Tribes on the development of a site plan concept and will
provide an update to the board after the draft site concept is developed and reviewed by the Tribes, likely
in Q4 2023/Q1 2024. A summary of the process and next steps are below, with a star indicating where we
are in the process.
Attachments
Attachment A: Area Map
Written Information - Item A - 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 A - Page 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Heather Swanson, Interim Deputy Director Resource and Stewardship
Victoria Poulton, Prairie Dog Ecologist
DATE: September 13, 2023
SUBJECT: Written Information: Update on Status of Prairie Dog Barrier Cost-Share Program
________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
Management of prairie dogs on open space is a complex issue involving protection and conservation of a
native keystone species (Black-tailed prairie dog) and its many associated species as well as conflicts that
arise due to the burrowing and grazing nature of prairie dogs in grasslands. On Open Space and Mountain
Parks (OSMP), conflicts exist between prairie dogs and irrigated agricultural management that are being
addressed by prairie dog removal (live relocation and lethal control) and exclusion of prairie dogs using
physical barriers. Prairie dog barriers can be relatively effective when installed in specific situations, and
with proper maintenance and upkeep. However, barriers are not always effective at preventing prairie dog
movement as a variety of landscape, topographical, and biological factors can hinder effectiveness.
Barriers can be expensive, depending on materials, and the most effective barriers (metal) can cost as
much as $60 per linear foot. Barriers also have consequences for non-prairie dog wildlife and can prevent
movement of small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles. As a result, use of barriers on OSMP has been
limited over the last 20 years and current use is focused on areas of irrigated agriculture where prairie
dogs have been removed.
As with all wildlife species, prairie dogs utilize the landscape based on habitat variability, and not in
relation to human created property lines. As a result, prairie dogs often exist on both OSMP and adjacent
private properties and other public lands. In many cases, the presence of prairie dogs is undesirable for the
private landowner due to impacts on agricultural uses of the property, concerns over disease and impacts
to landscaping, or other issues. In many cases, private landowners desire to keep their properties prairie
dog free, but face the challenge of recolonization from adjacent properties, both private and public. As a
result, many private landowners adjacent to OSMP would like to erect a prairie dog barrier along their
property line.
In the past, due to the high cost of barriers, impacts to other wildlife management, and ongoing
maintenance associated with barriers, OSMP has not erected barriers along private property lines, except
in cases where prairie dog removal has occurred on the OSMP land and the barrier is needed to keep
prairie dogs out of the area. Instead, staff have provided technical support and information to adjacent
neighbors planning to erect a barrier themselves. This support is appreciated by many neighboring land
owners, but others have requested financial assistance from OSMP.
Prairie Dog Working Group:
In 2017, the Prairie Dog Working Group (PDWG) tackled many issues related to prairie dogs on city
property including conservation, management, conflict with agriculture, and neighboring landowners. In
2018, the Prairie Dog Working Group finalized their recommendations related to prairie dog management
on city lands and those recommendations were accepted by City Council in May 2018. One of those
recommendations related to installation of barriers on Open Space to minimize conflict with prairie dogs.
The language accepted by City Council stated:
Written Information – Item B – Page 1
“Evaluate/Provide barriers on City of Boulder land adjoining high-conflict areas on neighboring private
land”
City Council asked staff to provide recommendations related to implementation of the Prairie Dog
Working Group recommendations including assessments of feasibility, ease of implementation, budget
and capacity constraints and any other issues. In May 2018, City Council accepted the Prairie Dog
Working Group Recommendations along with staff recommendations related to implementation. The
language related to barrier installation includes plans to assess a cost-share grant program for barrier
installation:
“Staff recommend that limited funds for barriers be used to address conflicts with City land uses
including agriculture and parks and that the feasibility of a grant program (funding level to be
determined) be investigated to provide a finite amount of barrier cost-sharing for private landowners
interested in erecting a barrier on their property adjacent to City properties. Funds could be granted to
those applicants where a barrier is deemed to provide a good level of improvement in the prairie dog
movement in the area, where impacts to other natural or agricultural resources is minimal, and where the
landowner is likely to be able to maintain their property largely prairie dog free with the help of a barrier.
City of Boulder properties exist in a patchwork of land ownership within Boulder County. Many of our
properties share boundaries with other land management agencies (Boulder County especially) or private
landowners. These adjacent landowners may find prairie dog occupation inconsistent with their goals for
the management of their property. These conflicts may be centered around existing uses such as
agricultural uses for hay production or livestock grazing, or other priorities like landscaping or high
vegetative cover. Still others do not desire prairie dogs on their property due to concerns for pets or
children interacting with prairie dogs and their burrows. Some neighboring properties have large prairie
dog areas; however, some are small but potentially increasing. Focusing on these smaller areas where
opportunities for resolution are highest is likely to produce the best results. The full scale of neighbor
conflict with prairie dogs is unknown. However, we have spoken with several neighbors over the last
several years who feel that prairie dogs on their property are a result of prairie dog occupation on the
adjacent open space and would like to find ways to keep prairie dogs off of their property. Offers to
collaborate with the landowners on barrier installation at their cost and explanations of the limitations
on the city’s ability to manage wildlife that move across the landscape and are not the property of the city
have not sufficed. Mitigation of this type of conflict is difficult. In the absence of plans to relocate prairie
dogs off the adjacent open space, the only feasible options are to install physical or visual barriers or
lethal control. Although a variety of barrier options exist (vegetative, various fencing materials), all
options are expensive. Barriers only serve as a deterrent, not a preventative, especially if existing burrow
structure is evident on both sides of a barrier. Sites with barriers and buffers require continual
monitoring, maintenance and passive relocation. Over the last 2 years, staff has had conversations with
neighbors of 22 OSMP properties who requested that the city do something to mitigate the conflict they
were experiencing on their property. The cost to install metal barriers (most effective option with lowest
need for ongoing maintenance) to help mitigate these conflicts would be approximately $2.2 million (11.8
miles of interface x $35/linear foot). In addition, substantial staff time would be required to design and
support barrier installation on that scale. Less expensive options could be investigated, but costs would
still likely exceed $1 million and would be less effective and require additional maintenance in the long-
term. Parks and Recreation identified seven natural areas with known or potential neighbor conflicts and
nine park areas with existing conflict not fully mitigated. Historically, P&R has offered to collaborate
with those neighbors on installation of barrier on their property, but at their cost. If these areas were to
Written Information – Item B – Page 2
have the typical barrier installed it would be approximately $673,400 for 3.64 miles of barrier for private
neighbors and an additional $246,750 for 1.34 miles of barrier within the parks system to address
remaining issues. Some of these other park area conflicts include the Boulder Reservoir dam faces where
prairie dogs are not legally allowed to be in the buffers but have expanded around existing barrier
infrastructure. In addition to being expensive, barrier fencing has visual impacts on the landscape and
potential impacts to other wildlife and plant communities. Barrier fencing is intended to be a physical
barrier to prairie dog movement across the selected boundary. This physical barrier would also block or
substantially modify movement of other wildlife. Barrier fencing might also create Attachment B4 Item 6C
- PDWG Update and Recommendations City Council Meeting Page 803 of 831 issues with weed seed
capture and invasion of disturbed areas along the barrier and modify snow movement and collection on
the landscape, resulting in changes to localized moisture regimes that might impact native plant
communities. Due to the large extent of potential conflict, and large expense of addressing any
meaningful portion of these conflicts with metal barriers, staff will explore other options. These may
include less costly mitigation options on some sites and investigating establishing a cost-sharing grant
program that could provide some funding to adjacent landowners planning to install a barrier. The level
of grant funding could be determined through departmental budget prioritization.”
STEPS TOWARD IMPLEMENTATION
As part of implementation of the Prairie Dog Working Group, additional funding and a fixed-term
position were included in the OSMP budget beginning in 2019. Staff hired a prairie dog ecologist, Tory
Poulton, who joined the city in January 2020. The Prairie Dog Working Group recommendation
implementation has proceeded as staff capacity allows and in 2022, staff began to work on the potential
cost-share grant program framework.
Staff began by drafting a general framework for the cost-sharing plan and included input from different
work groups during several rounds of revisions. In fall of 2022, staff solicited input from the City
Attorney’s Office and received valuable guidance on how to structure the plan and language so that it was
consistent with the Prairie Dog Working Group recommendations accepted by City Council and avoided
undue liability on the part of the city. The process of working with the City Attorney included review of
documents from Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) and City Council meetings, as well as
discussions about structure and desired outcome of the program and was completed recently (August
2023). Next steps will involve developing a communication plan to eligible neighbors, designing an on-
line application form that will be accessible through the OSMP web page, and working with financial
services staff to set up logistics related to funding. Staff are targeting 2024 for roll-out of an initial pilot of
the program that will be available in a specific geographical area of the OSMP system so that the scale of
the program is kept relatively small and manageable in the first year.
Program Structure:
Specifics of the program are still being determined, but generally:
The purpose of the prairie dog barrier cost-share program is to provide financial assistance to neighbors of
OSMP lands who wish to prevent prairie dog expansion onto their private land. While prairie dogs are
native wildlife and the city is not obligated to manage their movements across the landscape, the cost-
share program is intended to promote good will in the community by responding to private landowner
concerns and reducing conflict with prairie dogs on adjacent Open Space Land. Properties eligible for
cost-sharing must be private residential or agricultural properties that share a boundary with or are
directly adjacent across a road to OSMP lands that have active prairie dog colonies present. Evaluation
criteria are under development for the 2024 pilot and will include evaluation of the likely effectiveness of
the barrier, any constraints of the site- topography, landscape (e.g. surrounding lands with prairie dogs),
Written Information – Item B – Page 3
ecological (e.g. crossing a wetland), etc. These criteria will be used to score and prioritize applications for
funding.
As currently drafted, OSMP will provide funds for up to 50% of the cost to build a barrier, based on the
proposed length of barrier. There will be a cap on the amount awarded to any individual applicant.
Awarded costs will be based on OSMP estimates of the linear foot cost of chicken wire barrier.
Applicants may propose to use different barrier materials, but barrier designs must meet OSMP
specifications that address effectiveness and durability, and may not impact management activities on
OSMP lands, block other wildlife movement corridors, or collect noxious weeds. Applicants will be
responsible for any costs above what is provided by OSMP, and applicants will be responsible for all
maintenance and repair of barriers built under this program.
Staff will develop a standard application form that can be filled out online. The form will provide prompts
so that necessary information is collected from each application. Applications submitted during the open
period will be evaluated and scored based on a pre-determined list of criteria. The number of awards and
award caps will be based on the amount of funds available for the pilot of the program.
NEXT STEPS
Staff will work through the fall to finalize details of the application process, review criteria, funding and
structure for the pilot program in 2024. Details will be announced at the annual public prairie dog meeting
in early December. Applications will be accepted in 2024 and funds awarded shortly afterward. After the
2024 pilot, based on experiences of both OSMP and participating neighbors, OSMP will evaluate the
potential for an expanded program in 2025.
Written Information – Item B – Page 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Kacey French, Planning and Design Senior Manager
Marni Ratzel, Principal Planner
DATE: September 13, 2023
SUBJECT: Written Information: Jefferson County Colorado Front Range Trail Feasibility Study
Final Report
_______________________________________________________________________________
Background
This is to share the Final Report for the feasibility study conducted by Jefferson County Open Space
(JCOS) for the Colorado Front Range Trail (CFRT) in northern Jefferson County between JCOS’s
North Table Mountain Park and the Boulder County line. A Jul. 13, 2022 written information item
(page 72) and Jan. 12, 2022 written information item (page 45) provided previous updates on the
CFRT Feasibility Study.
Additionally, this memo provides information on the status of the planned Rocky Mountain Greenway
(RMG) improvements. The RMG is a concept to connect federal, state and local public lands along the
Colorado Front Range with a regional trail between the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife
Refuge and Rocky Mountain National Park.
Regional trail connections are important collaborative efforts for the City of Boulder and Open Space
and Mountain Parks (OSMP) and continue to be of community interest as they contribute to visitor
experience, trail connectivity, wellness and improve the quality of life in our community. They also
help to meet the city’s Climate Commitment goal by reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled to
reach local trails, in turn helping to preserve the ecosystems and habitats that make up OSMP. The
OSMP Master Plan guides staff participation in these collaborative projects by envisioning a
connected network of local and regional trails (outcome RRSE.E: High Quality Trail Network) and
defining a strategy that encourages multimodal access to trailheads and leverages regional trail
partnerships (strategy RRSE.4: Encourage Multi-modal Access to Trailheads and RRSE.7 Build New
Trails as Guided by Past and Future Plans).
Colorado Front Range Trail Feasibility Study Final Report
JCOS publicly released the Colorado Front Range Trail (CFRT) Feasibility Study Final Report as an
informational item on August 28, 2023. It is available at https://www.jeffco.us/1585/Plans-Projects
(then scroll down to find the report and associated information). The Final Report summarizes the
findings of the CFRT Feasibility Study including existing conditions and the evaluation of alignment
alternatives considered. It also identifies the Recommended Alignment of the CFRT between JCOS’s
North Table Mountain Park and the Jefferson/ Boulder County line. High‐level costs for design,
permitting, and construction are included for segments that are not yet funded. A map depicting the
Recommended Alignment is provided in Figure 1.
The alternatives analysis evaluated three alignments, each split into a North, Middle and South
section. The Recommended Alignment for the northern section that connects with Boulder County and
is of interest to OSMP co-locates the CFRT with the RMG trail through the Rocky Flats National
Wildlife Refuge (RFNWR) to the planned underpass at Hwy 128 into Boulder County. The OSMP
Written Information – Item C – Page 1
department and Boulder County Parks and Open Space (BCPOS) support this alignment as the
preferred alternative co-location as it creates the most minimal impacts to city open space lands, does
not create the need for additional trails, and builds upon already planned and existing improvements
related to the RMG.
Through the JCOS study area, the CFRT will have a total length of 16.4 miles of trail. Of this 16.4
miles, 5.5 miles will be new trail as part of this project, with 1.5 miles being dual trail, 3.0 miles being
paved, 0.4 miles being soft surface, and 0.5 miles being boardwalk. An unpaved typical is planned for
the RMG Trail through the RFNWR and approaches to the underpass crossing of Highway 128. This
segment of the CFRT is designed and anticipated to begin construction by the end of 2023. Additional
information is provided in the next sections of this memo.
Figure 1 CFRT Recommended Alignment
Written Information – Item C – Page 2
Rocky Mountain Greenway Improvements
An overview of the route envisioned for the RMG from the Rocky Mountain Arsenal to Rocky
Mountain National Park is detailed in Figure 2.
Staff from Jefferson County Open Space (JCOS) has built partnerships to construct the RMG through
Jefferson County. To date, approximately 27 miles of existing and newly constructed trails connect the
Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge with the Two Ponds National Wildlife Refuge and
now the RMG closely approaches the RFNWR.
RMG – Highway 128 crossing and RFNWR trail improvements
JCOS staff identified the availability of a Federal Lands Access Program Grant (FLAP) grant that was
awarded to support community access to the RFNWR. OSMP is one of five open space partners
participating in the FLAP grant project awarded by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to fund
highway/trail crossings in and out of RFNWR and Boulder County as part the RMG. In addition to
Figure 2: Overall concept of the Rocky Mountain Greenway
Written Information – Item C – Page 3
Jefferson County, the other partners are the City of Boulder, Boulder County, the City of Westminster,
and the City of Arvada. The city’s role is focused on an underpass beneath Colorado Highway 128 that
will connect with the Coalton Trail.
The FLAP grant partners entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) in May 2021 to
formalize funding, operations, and maintenance of trail connections with the RFNWR. The FLAP
grant requires a 17.21% local match, which is currently estimated at $775,000 based on updated cost
estimates determined as part of the design phase of the project. The city’s share of the match is
approximately $108,000, which is the 11% proportional share commitment outlined in the IGA.
The FLAP grant crossings are being coordinated with a separate and complementary project to design
and improve 8.1 miles of the RMG located at the RFNWR concurrently with the planned SH 128
underpass. Upon completion of these projects, the RMG will be complete from Rocky Mountain
Arsenal into Boulder County. The 100% Plan set was completed in August. The trail alignment
approaching the Hwy 128 crossing in Boulder County is contained within the Right of Way and
impacts to city open space land are not anticipated. The project will be bid to begin trail construction
and crossings this fall. Construction is anticipated to commence by the end of 2023.
RMG – Coalton Trail improvements
The Coalton Trail has been designated as the RMG route from State Highway 128 to the BCPOS
Meadowlark Trail. OSMP has shared ownership of Coalton Trail, and reciprocal Conservation
Easements are in place between the City and Boulder County to further protect these jointly owned
lands. Considering this designation, the city is working in partnership with BCPOS and the nonprofit
organization Trust for Public Land on completing maintenance and repair to the Coalton Trail to better
support its role and use in this important regional trail initiative. The planned improvements honor the
joint management agreement for the Coalton trail between OSMP and Boulder County to address
deferred maintenance, address concerning drainage challenges and prepare for future work associated
with the RMG.
Next Steps
Completion of the Feasibility Study positions JCOS to identify funding for design and construction of
the trail sections not yet built in a future phase Additional information on the construction of the Hwy
128 underpass connecting the RMG into Boulder County will be provided as a future update to Board
as information is available. Implementation of the maintenance and repair project to Coalton Trail, is
planned to begin this fall or Winter of 2024, depending on permitting and contractor availability.
Written Information – Item C – Page 4